Conflict Resolution

Against a backdrop of an ever increasing number of internal conflicts and the crash of conventional means of conflict resolution to attain a resilient peace in divided societies, this paper presents a two-track approach to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. One track is represented by peacemaking, defined as endeavors at finding a resolution to the issues in conflict at the political leadership level. The other track, peacebuilding, refers to contact proposals at the grassroots level targeting at the enhancement of intergroup relations. After a conversation of role of grassroots peacebuilding in a peace process some groundwork findings on the bond between peacemaking and peacebuilding in two divided societies, Palestine and Israel, will be discussed.

1. ISSUE. Provide the USEUCOM Commander an overview of Azerbaijan’s approach to the situation in the Caucasus Region.

Following the death of Stalin in March 1953 and the ascension of Nikita Khrushchev to power, the Soviet government began its efforts to move past the Stalin era, in which fear and repression characterized domestic politics and distrust and aggression did the same for Soviet foreign relations. Part of these efforts included Khrushchev’s emphasis of the principle of ‘peaceful coexistence.’ To fully understand this idea, one must examine what exactly Khrushchev meant when he advanced the concept in 1956. In addition, analyzing how the principle integrated itself into Soviet policy and how it functioned in practice lends one the opportunity to view how successful the Soviet government was in adhering to its framework when dealing with countries of opposing

There has been tons of contentions and conflicts in the second largest country in europe and while the news presents us all these ideas about what going there, the truth, as it always is, is much more complex. The recent turmoil in the Ukraine has brought up a lot of issues remembered in the cold war. Russia Annexing the crimean peninsula from the Ukraine scaring western powers, specifically the United States, into the old policy of Soviet containment and using any means to put negatives towards the “eastern block” preventing the spread of its influence. Although the United States and it NATO/European Union current policy’s towards the eastern block have attempted to contain this strong autocratic style of

Disregarding such vaudeville minutes, Holbrooke achieves high in his examination of war and his desires for peace. His bits of knowledge on contemporary occasions, extended by correlations with fizzled endeavors of the past, fill in as calming indications of the potential for disaster when ambassadors miss the point. With Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, two of the most exceedingly terrible war criminals, still free to move around at will, and still agitated in spite of Holbrooke's reestablished endeavors, it is too soon to state whether we have seen a conclusion to one war or the prelude to another. However, insofar as discretion keeps on being, as Will Rogers once characterized it, it is pleasant to have somebody like Holbrooke around who

A meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat about issues occurring in the Middle East, possible solutions & conflicts, and the creation of the Camp David Accords resulted in a peace treaty. This peace treaty has put an end to the war between Israel and Egypt, promised the withdrawal of Egyptian land, as well as an open conversations about future relations between the two countries. “As we discussed these and other emotional issues, I soon realized that Begin and Sadat were personally incompatible. The sometimes petty, sometime heated arguments that arose between them when we were all in the same room convinced me it would be better if each of them spoke to me as the mediator instead of directly to the other.” Although it seemed difficult to come to a conclusion in the process, the Camp David Accords showed as a success in view of the fact that it created peace between the United States and the Middle East. “Looking back on all of the issues or events that took place, including the Camp David Accords, there is a continuity that is both discouraging and also offers some modicum of hope.” It created hope for those who were worried about the Middle East of even Jimmy Carter himself. We understand the political pitfalls involved, but the situation is getting into an extreme state, and I’m concerned that Sadat might precipitate a conflict in October, as he has

West versus East, the age-old battle of capitalism in opposition to communism, was the underlying factor of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, many former Russian controlled territories created their own countries and governments mirroring that of Russia’s. As the years passed, these countries are now finding themselves pulled between their historical Russian ties and European opportunities. This split had caused a lot of uproar in these countries on their future alliance, and has been the one of the lasting areas of conflict between the Russia and Europe. One conflict in particular, the Russo-Georgian War, rocked global politics for the five days that it lasted and demonstrated that these conflicts are

Often, there is conflict amongst states that escalates, eventually, into war. With these wars, comes death and immense devastation; devastation that takes form in many ways. The worst of them are the human rights violations that occur, leaving behind a pain that is often rarely treated or addressed. Through the approach, transitional justice, victims of these horrible crimes against humanity have a system that allows them to seek some form of justice. Focus on the Bosnian genocide will allow for one to see how a specific case of transitional justice was played out and the cons, along with pros, of the actions every actor took that either prolonged or stiffened the progression of peace and justice in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and

Summary: A closed think-tank meeting held JUL17 in German, has identified the Western Balkans as the next crisis area as Turkey and Russia continue to promote instability within the region. The group identified three areas, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia, as potential targets of Russian and Turkish supported annexation by Serbia and Albania. Despite Turkey’s suspicions of Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is cooperating more closely with President Vladimir Putin and is now seen by many NATO members as becoming a NINO (NATO in Name Only) power.

It is also important to note that if the two sides are fighting over an issue that is indivisible, there may not be any chance for a peaceful resolution. In these situations, bargaining may be almost impossible and war may be inevitable. Many issues that actors tend to negotiate over are complex and difficult to divide equally (Fearon, 1995). In these cases, bargaining is not much help since one side is bound to lose while the other gains. Actors may behave rationally and come to some sort of agreement, but this is not always the case.

Russian Aggression is referenced over 6 times in the National Security Strategy (NSS) dated in February 2015 with similar references being made in the excerpt from Reagan Administration (March 1987) Soviet Military Power (SMP). Two documents with almost 28 years’ time difference show the continued importance that aggression by a Russian element still play in today’s environment. More importantly the method of how such aggression continues towards those states who are struggling to maintain a functioning government. Important similarities to take into account for both time periods are these conflicts are focused around failing states in areas such as the Middle East. These types of geopolitical locations continue to be the outlet where the conflicting ideals from the United States

The Ukraine crisis has emerged from a domestic conflict and developed into an international issue because of the Russian federation intervention. The evolution of the Ukrainian crisis demonstrated the inability of the international community to handle it in a timely manner and prevent conflict escalation and ultimate stalemate. Although Ukrainian separatists seek to follow the Crimean strategy, many Western countries are strongly opposing to the Russian annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts due to concerns of aggressive geostrategic objectives. U.S. and the European Union are still struggling to implement coordination and cooperation tactics to deal with the conflict. In addition, Russia’s position also contributed to the complexity of the situation because of its hasty decisions as the conflict evolved.

The civil war that continues to rage in Syria for the past five years has been one of both great loss and great interest. Several key actors from around the world such as the United States, Russia, Turkey, the Syrian government, Syrian rebels or National Coalition, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all have a great amount at stake based on the outcome of the war. Thus, the difficulties of negotiating peace are almost impossible to overcome, which causes great powers like that of the U.S. and Russia to use their resources in order to obtain their desired outcome. In this essay, I will be outlining the key actors, which side they are on, and what is at stake for each of them within this civil war, as well as examining how this turmoil has “[created] a haven for the Islamic State to move in.” Now let us identify the key actors who have a stake in this civil war.

This essay will focus on how theorists of peace and conflict have analysed the conflict in recent history. Especially, the peace process after the first Palestinian intifada and the 1993 Oslo-agreements will be analysed. In addition, this essay will shed light on the involvement of the United States in the

Since the independence of Armenia, the political and militant conflicts of Artsakh has been a struggle to the Armenians in Armenia, Artsakh, and diaspora. Before taking any kind of position or action, it is important for me to state that Artsakh is an Armenian Land, with a majority of Armenian population living on it. In fact, Artsakh was given to Azeri by a mistake of the Soviet Union, and historically the majority of the population has been Armenian. From that perspective, it is important to provide a full safety and security for our brothers and sisters in Artsakh, with different kind of political solutions without conceding any of their right of land ownership and personal/familial protection. On the other hand, it is crucial for the Armenian government not to take any step back geographically. Artsakh was baptized with the blood of our honorary soldiers in the Armenian Army and other revolutionary heroes. it is impossible to betray their spilled blood and legacy that draw the freedom of the Armenian population living there. It is extremely crucial not to forget the sacrifices of Shahen Meghrian, Mher Choulhajian, Adam Sahakyan, Robert Abajyan, and others. Therefore, Artsakhtsis need peace, security, protection and their land in order to keep enriching our Armenian community with scientist, writers, artists, religious, and military