Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

December 2, 2008 |  2 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Research  

Christian  Mölling

Think Tank Analysis: Comprehensive Approaches to International Crisis Management

Christian Mölling: International organizations aim to overcome inefficiencies in complex crisis management by adopting “comprehensive approaches”. However, the implementation is affected by diverging security cultures and the particular interests of the member states.

International crisis management has undergone a significant transformation in recent years. Its expansion in terms of tasks and timelines and the increasing number of actors involved have made effective coordination of activities and instruments an urgent priority. As a result the idea of a Comprehensive Approach has been adopted by many states and international organizations. However recent efforts to implement it have shown mixed results.

 
  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Member deleted

January 11, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I am a bit worried about a trend at the beginning of year 2009 - a trend I hope will not dominate the rest of the year. The phenomena in my mind is the new tradition of non-negotiation. Crisis management and solving conflicts will be much more harder if local stakeholders are unable even to talk each other.

Few examples from last weeks:

* Israel does not negotiate with Hamas so war and human catastrophe will continue before some outsiders are broking s.c. temporary ceasefire or truce while sustainable solution would need long and deep negotiations between local partners.
* U.S. and Iran are discussing in UN and direct talks we must wait until new President takes his office in White House. Let's hope that situation does not escalate before that. If real talks had been implemented earlier some today's problems in Middle East could be now smaller or non-existing.
* Separatist government in Kosovo province does not want talk with Belgrade authorities about technical details of UN six-point plan from November 2008 before Belgrade recognizes Kosovo; Belgrade will talk with Pristina's separatist government only when they act under UNMIK (administration of Kosovo international protectorate) umbrella. So many practical problems will not be solved.
* Russia and Ukraine and EU knew problems with gas deliveries years ago, last October was clear that after New Year deliveries maybe stop - no constructive talks even Xmas-week. When homes in Europe started frozen there seemed to be no hurry to negotiate. When finally EU broke the deal to accept EU monitors to check if Ukraina is stealing gas from pipes or not the last delay was waiting if Ukraina will sign the agreement. Big mess again when leaders are not willing to discuss in due course.

It is amazing how on the modern time of information society the authorities are not discussing common problems. Everywhere else the information flow is huge, on-time debate over today's conflicts is going on around the globe. Some forums are of course for those who in principle are thinking same way over issues but also real unlimited and open forums are available. Internet is full of ideas, arguments, real-time situation information, proposals and solutions. It is sad that when we have all real-time information and modern communication means those who can decide do not bother to have simple old fashion or modern discussions with their colleagues.

More my views one may find from my BalkanBlog - http://arirusila.wordpress.com
 
Donald  Stadler

January 11, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Israel does not negotiate with Hamas"

Hamas doesn't negociate with Israel. Hamas' most basic goal is to eliminate Israel entirely. This is not confined to rhetoric. Hamas viewed an open border as an invitation to make war with suicide bombers rather than to do commerce with it's richer neighbor; therefore Israel built walls and much commerce and many suicide bombers were prevented.

Hamas views checkpoints as portals to introduce suicide bombers through; therefore the checkpoints were closed by Israel. Hamas wishes to 'negociate' with Israel to open the checkpoints and tear down the walls, but refuses to make concessions to Israel to make this possible. What Hamas seems to want are not 'negociations', which imply that Hamas gets some of what it wishes and Israel gets something substantial as well. Hamas wants unilateral concessions - something for nothing. And if it cannot get unilateral demands it will target Israeli civilians for terror attacks with missiles shot schools and hospitals.

Unfortunately for Hamas I think most of this weary world is onto their negociating (or rather non-negociating) tactics, and there has not been a major outcry against Israel this time. Perhaps because Hamas resumed the missile attacks December 17th and Israel paused for a time before responding. We don't like what Israel is doing in Gaza, but we also know that Hamas started it and that it was only a matter of time before the Hamas missileers 'got lucky' and destroyed a school full of children in Israel. Or something else equally satisfying to those favoring genocide....
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Jean-Paul  Gagnon
Jean-Paul Gagnon
Member since
May 16, 2011

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?