A History of Negotiation Among Governments and Troops Advocating Constitutional Change, Governments and Terrorist Groups

Published: 2021-09-02 19:10:11
essay essay

Category: Strategy

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

This unit will address a history of negotiation among governments and troops advocating constitunal change, governments and terrorist groups. The model is presented which shows that costs involved with various aspects in interactions between governments and these actors. Exploring the model will show how much supremecy type influences cost, and negotiation is a lowest cost option, how having a non-negotiation policy is counter to economic prudence. The decision behind a non-negotiation policy stems from an erroneous mindset regarding negotiation and its equivalency to giving in or even rewarding activists who embrace terrorisist stratagem. Negotiation neither acquiescence nor approval instead, negotiation provides solutions to a problem in which both sides can potentially emerge ahead of where they started.
However, a key ability to negotiate starts before a potential destruction incident occurs, thus we must consider this model begins as well. This game starts when one would-be radical troop is still an concern / activist group desiring constitunal change. While this may seem to be a unique way thinking about current position, a model suggests people become powerbroker and become passionate about an issue wanted addressed. Sociologist Austin Turk makes this case by saying that political radicals start with conventional political activism and frustration , impatience leads process in radicalization moving towards distructivenes.However, rather negotiate, governments generally respond to the use of terror tactics in kind. Such counter-terror methods do not always succeed & can eventually lead entire constitution into a bad situation where all this started. In Cuba, “Batistas’ refusal to negotiate in depth with opposition groups created a good deal dissidence. 11 This dissidence included terrorism actions such as assassinations guerilla attacks against Batista regime. Rather than wait until terrorist is used, negotiation should be explored with valid way to deal with any activist group. By engaging in negotiation, activists are given an avenue to express their ideas and potentially have any issues resolved without having to resort to terror methods.
Negotiation can also be used to stop slaying. In 1988, hijacking in Kuwait Airlines Flight 422 ended with both sides better off had negotiations not taken place. Such situation extensive diplomacy occurred with hijackers over increasingly small issues.”20 While our government of Kuwait rejected demands of the terrorists and ask to let off the shoots and declare guilty to bloodshed, Common authorities of Cyprus / Algeria negotiated victim release by providing basic needs such as permission to land, fuel, food, and media access. Simultaneously, the authorities appealed about Islamic ideals of mercy. Despite that fact that terrorists did not achieve its goals, all and hostages were released and the hijackers were allowed a leave from Algeria. Additionally, prolonged and embarrassing failure to achieve any of their announced goals no doubt contributed to a subsequent reduction in terrorist hijackings.”22 Without the negotiations, many people would have died, terrorists might have been released, and hijackings would have continued or even increased. Negotiating with them only invites the criticism that governments are being legally inconsistent, thereby undermining the rule of law.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read