1) Decide what to do.
Discuss and debate the attached scenario in order to determine how to approach the problem and what action to take in order to achieve the task. All of the scenarios can be looked at from different perspectives and the decisions you make will result in consequences. Remember to back up your arguments with evidence.
Basically, there are two things that are making the situation difficult: 1) there are wounded people who need to be transported to a medical facility as soon as possible and 2) the number of wounded people is increasing by the day. Nonetheless, there are also four things that can be of help: 1) there are two vehicles that can be used, 2) there are 12 UN representatives (aid and peacekeepers), 3) UN representatives have contact to the UN aid agencies outside the enclave and critically, 4) shelling has stopped because of the mere presence of these representatives as they are not the target. The task at hand is difficult specifically because the peace mission is coupled with humanitarian aid (Delupis, 2000, p. 381).
Further, there are various options for the UN representatives. For one, they can divide themselves into three or four components to deal first with the local people. They can first conduct a dialogue with the mayor and make him understand the necessity of a passage for the wounded people. The mayor can aid in discussing with the local men and women why people — men, women and children — need to be given medical attention to in fastest time possible. Bowles (2004) noted that the apparent role of the UN representative is to protect the civilians (p. 90). As they are basically held hostage, UN representatives can negotiate to them to leave at least nine UN representative in there.
If they cannot allow for such an agreement, they can at least arrange for other UN aid agencies around the vicinity to penetrate the enclave, providing them with supplies especially food and water and medicines. They can argue that the supplies will have to be for everyone in that enclave particularly for the wounded. However, this may be problematic because the opposing force may not necessarily permit for such an action even if the force within the enclave would already permit such. This brings us to the second option. Greenberg et al (2000) pointed out that the position of the opposing forces has merit same with the position of the UN representatives given that all humanitarian missions operate under the principle of consent where the UN representatives need to secure consent from whoever held the territory to permit convoys to pass through the needy civilians (p. 52).
UN peacekeepers can ask for the mayor’s and people’s permit to have a dialogue with the surrounding forces so that they can obtain passage for the wounded people to be transported. This may be possible considering that the opposing forces are not necessarily targeting the UN representatives. The representatives, nevertheless, can also dialogue for a ceasefire especially when the transportation of the wounded people is still ongoing, to which they may or may not approve of. This was argued because the two vehicles can not necessarily transport all the wounded all at the same time. This also brings us to another option which is to transport all the wounded with the permission of the mayor and the militia men and women to another enclave.
As they cannot be transported to the nearer enclave although this enclave is better armed, they have to be moved to the larger enclave but the wounded have to endure the long walk which could be suicide since they are already wounded. Dilemma for the UN representatives is that they have to leave the vehicles in the enclave since vehicles are not permitted to that larger enclave. If the UN representatives are going to choose this, they have to ensure first that the wounded are given first aid and that food and water that can survive them for six hours are obtained. Rural communities could be equipped with foods like fruits and herbal medicines.
Whether which of the option the UN representatives will choose, the primary goal is to dialogue and discuss with the forces. Nevertheless, there should be also an ongoing dialoguing and discussion with the aid agencies and command centers so that they will know their location and their current situations. There is a need that the UN shall appear neutral in light of dialoguing and talking with the opposing parties and the concern are the civilians especially the wounded (Fawcett and Newcombe, 1995, p. 49).
2) Present a summary
Prepare a summary of your discussion from part 1, describing the actions you took and the decisions you made, and the reasons why. The summary can contain references if required. You will be rewarded for a well argued but concise summary on how you tackled the scenario.
There are three options provided: negotiate with the immediate force particularly for passage, negotiate with other forces surrounding the enclave and penetrate the larger enclave, with peace talks and coordination with the aid agencies along the way. UN representatives are challenged with the key responsibility to protect. The dilemma for humanitarian aid-givers is to provide protection under conditions of conflict (Russell 2002). Based on the situation, interventionism was multi-faceted. International aid found financial and logistical complexities penetrating the region especially in those areas where militia settled though the UN representatives had already a formed peacekeeping committee (Nadler, 2003).
Peacekeeping missions of the UN representatives are challenged since there is a need for overcoming conflict-related emotions such as feelings of humiliation, deprivation, powerlessness and victimization and also guilt and distrust specifically coming from the local people (Nadler, 2003). Further, the main role of this mediator is to control the conflict, provide temporary solutions and act as the ‘bridge’ between the conflicting parties. Reconciliation considers the quality of conflicting parties’ interactions, credible assessments of the conflict reasons, facilitation of dialogues, truth commissions and provision of expert decision-making. Barriers removal includes socio-emotional and distrust exclusion (Nadler, 2003).
On the other end of the spectrum, the net result of the war is evident on the widespread suffering of the civilian population includes significant loss in number of deaths including children due to air and/or ground attacks against urban areas; mass flights to neighboring countries; shortage in supply of food, water and health care services; forced evacuation of local and international aid staffs; and breakdown in communications, logistics, internal systems and borders. Logistics, in particular, is evident on the failure of the UN aid agencies to penetrate the enclave, leading to the hostage of the UN aids and peacekeepers in that enclave.
There are three issues that the UN representatives are engaged in to assist in settling the situation. Prior to interventions, UN representatives evaluate the situation and decide on the process of the intervention proper. The primary activities involve creating and establishing communication in order to invite parties to participate and then negotiate the purpose, structures and guidelines of mediation with the parties (Mayer, 2002). Immediate parties are the mayor and the immediate force in conflict with the outside forces.
During the mediation process, mediators are expected to ensure that both parties are heard, key issues and the needs that drive those issued are addressed, create an atmosphere of safety, manage emotions and communication and deal with unproductive power dynamics (Mayer, 2002). Nevertheless, the UN representatives are not really in a position to negotiate what they really want since they are held hostage.
Further, mediators are also expected to encourage incremental and reciprocal risk-taking, facilitate effective negotiation process and deal with impasse. The problem-solving phase involves the encouragement of creativity, the development and discussion of options both parties, the articulation of presented choices and solidification of potential agreements, the discussion of implementation and the drafting of agreements made (Mayer, 2002). For the UN representatives, the most difficult part would be inviting conflicting parties to participate.
References
Bowles, N. R. (2004). The diplomacy of hope: the United Nations since the Cold War. I. B. Tauris.
Delupis, I. D. (2000). The law of war. Cambridge University Press.
Fawcett, E. & Newcombe, H. (1995). United Nations reform: looking ahead after fifty years. Dundurn Press Ltd.
Greenberg, M. C., Barton, J. H. & McGuinness, M. E. (2000). Words over war: mediation and arbitration to prevent deadly conflict. Rowman & Littlefield.
Nadler, A. (2003). “Reconciliation” – The Process of Overcoming Conflict-Related Emotions: Dealing with Humiliation, Victimization, Guilt and Distrust. Tel Aviv University.
Russell, S. S. (2002). Civilians: Risks and Challenges Worldwide.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment