My comment on Arms Acquisitions and Effects on Outcomes in Civil War Negotiations in Asia and the pacific. The intricate dealings that take place and the circumstances surrounding them deserve much more than this greatly detailed report can give. However, working with the information given in this report. I’m able to come this conclusion. Although, through the course of history, civil wars are negotiated were a rare occurrence. Only 29 percent are done in such a way. Per this report it is clearly acknowledged this part of the world has a high occurrence of conflict as 60 ended due to military victory. (pg 2). Anywhere there is a shortage of resources there is no doubt there will conflict as well as competition. However in this case, when these two circumstances present themselves anarchy ensues. It’s comes in the form of Major, Small, and Illicit Arms Purchases. When a government legitimately agrees to purchases weaponry from or for a state, whether to stop the country from going in certain direction politically it isn’t necessarily because they want war but they want to be able to defend themselves from a perceived threat. Either from their neighbor or a distant enemy. Moreover the importance of small light arms and the detriment of major arms existing not mention the threat of proliferation throughout creates the need or the fear that perception that armament is necessary. Arms acquisitions in this regard stall if not eliminate talks altogether. The stronger holds the power in negotiations, though this can be used by the other side which in negotiations they might stay away so not be intimated into doing what isn’t in the best interest. This could cause them to hard bargain, in the grand scheme of civil war negations, the game of mines bigger and tough of war will only Asia and pacific in a state of destruction and endless violence, until they can agree that they are worth saving themselves instead of perusing conflict unnecessarily and at their own risk. You must build understanding and consideration through legimate comprehension of the ways negiotiations work. You must think of different approaches to the stages pertenent to the various stages of negotiations as well as, non negiotion and what might causes talks to break down in the first place. Furthermore,if talks go on too long a third party may be needed. This will bring a fresh perspective, and possibly a positive conclusion favorable for all involved.
Devvora Olalere PS 2810 0/25/09 Arms Acquisitions and Effects on Outcomes in Civil War Negotiations in Asia and Pacific
This paper was very informative. The deliberation of arm acquisition as a major reason for increased possibility of civil war was very interesting. I wondered how it is possible to count and know the number of arms a nation or even a group of people owns, as long as these arms have “come to their hands” underneath the shelter of black market. Even though, these data are not completely available, it is being proved by the paper’s tables and calculations that the more arms (small arms, large arms or illicit arms) a group owns, the more likely will not want to negotiate or the negotiations will fail. In a different sense, if we think of two children that like to fight; it is more likely for the bigger (more built) child to not be scared to fight and want to prove its superiority to the younger or as we would day to be a bully. Interestingly, it is discussed in the paper that democratic governments are more likely to resolve the conflict via negotiation than the authoritarian counterparts. This though, has not been true always for all situations and all nations. For example, if we think of the conflict between Russia and Georgia during the last Olympic Games; there were not any signs of negotiations before Russia decided to use her weapons and establish her power and strength once again. Overall, in my opinion the research paper is successful as it is easier to read (comparing to the Afghan Insurgency ) due to the fact that each section is clear. Hypothesis, Results and Conclusions are in an order and even if someone does not have enough knowledge in arms acquisition, he/she will be able to learn more and understand the importance of weapons in disturbing peace.
I thought the paper was very informative. The part that really stood out was the findings that 56 civil wars in Asia-Pacific region were observed and of these cases, over half (50%) experienced no talks at any year and another 18% which was 10 cases, negotiated cases failed to reach any agreement. I also agree that most civil wars are not settled through negotiation.
Table 4 was very informative and interesting to read because it showed the failed and succesful negotiations between outcomes and arm flows.
Overall, the paper was interesting to read and was very well researched.
My comment on Arms Acquisitions and Effects on Outcomes in Civil War Negotiations in Asia and the pacific. The intricate dealings that take place and the circumstances surrounding them deserve much more than this greatly detailed report can give. However, working with the information given in this report. I’m able to come this conclusion. Although, through the course of history, civil wars are negotiated were a rare occurrence. Only 29 percent are done in such a way. Per this report it is clearly acknowledged this part of the world has a high occurrence of conflict as 60 ended due to military victory. (pg 2). Anywhere there is a shortage of resources there is no doubt there will conflict as well as competition. However in this case, when these two circumstances present themselves anarchy ensues. It’s comes in the form of Major, Small, and Illicit Arms Purchases. When a government legitimately agrees to purchases weaponry from or for a state, whether to stop the country from going in certain direction politically it isn’t necessarily because they want war but they want to be able to defend themselves from a perceived threat. Either from their neighbor or a distant enemy. Moreover the importance of small light arms and the detriment of major arms existing not mention the threat of proliferation throughout creates the need or the fear that perception that armament is necessary. Arms acquisitions in this regard stall if not eliminate talks altogether. The stronger holds the power in negotiations, though this can be used by the other side which in negotiations they might stay away so not be intimated into doing what isn’t in the best interest. This could cause them to hard bargain, in the grand scheme of civil war negations, the game of mines bigger and tough of war will only Asia and pacific in a state of destruction and endless violence, until they can agree that they are worth saving themselves instead of perusing conflict unnecessarily and at their own risk. You must build understanding and consideration through legimate comprehension of the ways negiotiations work. You must think of different approaches to the stages pertenent to the various stages of negotiations as well as, non negiotion and what might causes talks to break down in the first place. Furthermore,if talks go on too long a third party may be needed. This will bring a fresh perspective, and possibly a positive conclusion favorable for all involved.
ReplyDeleteJonas Holt
PS2810
Devvora Olalere
ReplyDeletePS 2810
0/25/09
Arms Acquisitions and Effects on Outcomes in Civil War Negotiations in Asia and Pacific
This paper was very informative. The deliberation of arm acquisition as a major reason for increased possibility of civil war was very interesting.
I wondered how it is possible to count and know the number of arms a nation or even a group of people owns, as long as these arms have “come to their hands” underneath the shelter of black market. Even though, these data are not completely available, it is being proved by the paper’s tables and calculations that the more arms (small arms, large arms or illicit arms) a group owns, the more likely will not want to negotiate or the negotiations will fail. In a different sense, if we think of two children that like to fight; it is more likely for the bigger (more built) child to not be scared to fight and want to prove its superiority to the younger or as we would day to be a bully.
Interestingly, it is discussed in the paper that democratic governments are more likely to resolve the conflict via negotiation than the authoritarian counterparts. This though, has not been true always for all situations and all nations. For example, if we think of the conflict between Russia and Georgia during the last Olympic Games; there were not any signs of negotiations before Russia decided to use her weapons and establish her power and strength once again.
Overall, in my opinion the research paper is successful as it is easier to read (comparing to the Afghan Insurgency ) due to the fact that each section is clear. Hypothesis, Results and Conclusions are in an order and even if someone does not have enough knowledge in arms acquisition, he/she will be able to learn more and understand the importance of weapons in disturbing peace.
I thought the paper was very informative. The part that really stood out was the findings that 56 civil wars in Asia-Pacific region were observed and of these cases, over half (50%) experienced no talks at any year and another 18% which was 10 cases, negotiated cases failed to reach any agreement. I also agree that most civil wars are not settled through negotiation.
ReplyDeleteTable 4 was very informative and interesting to read because it showed the failed and succesful negotiations between outcomes and arm flows.
Overall, the paper was interesting to read and was very well researched.