Table of Contents
Reading One Summary: Rebel at the Gates
The above reading is built upon conflict management and how civil war results into diplomacy alongside how those locations transform over time. Additionally, it is clear that locations and movements of civil warfare’s offer information to both government and insurgents that impacts their preparedness to engross in arbitration and conciliation. Thus, by recognizing how civil battles influences the will of battling sides to take part in diplomacy, it is also of significant to recognize other opportunities for effective conflict management far than waiting for the battle to escalate. Hence, the aforesaid indicate that warfare locations, conflict rapidity and diffusion each impact the manifestations consequently promoting peace arbitrations between the conflicting parties.
Reading Two Summary: Until the Bitter End
Battlefield surrender can be transmittable as a result of a collective action issue within Military association. Consequently, victory in warfare requires that soldiers battle as a solid unit rather than fleeing from their opponents. However, individual’s choices to battle are hinged on whether soldiers expect their colleagues to do the same. As an outcome, surrender diffuses across wars since soldiers take indications from what previous or alternative soldiers had adopted when they were in a parallel situation. Hence, the above depicts that where no current example exists, it is much unlikely for surrenders to take place.
Reading Three Summary: The Diplomatic Response to Military Activity
It is plain that combat influences diplomacy indirectly. Combat only does that via the dominant variable of aggressive perceptions, understandings and anticipations. For the above, peace arbitrations and conciliations therefore take place through simple and forthright responses to military occurrences. As a fact, negotiation choices are founded less on military operations than on the anticipated future operations. since the above mentioned prospects are perceived as bargainers of diplomacy. Hence, successful military activities often do attain political objectives. Nonetheless, they are not the sole and most critical prospects that influence peace dialogues in a given state.
We can do it today.
Reading Four Summary: Learning from the Battlefield
The drivers to a battle occurrence and ending of constant wars can be explained by the bargaining war model. In the model, the informational standpoint argues that battles occur when two battling parties differ regarding the likely magnitude of battling. On the other hand, it indicates that a war ends when occurrences within the battle brings expectations about the effects of further battling. Essentially, settlement in battles are more likely to happen when more information has been disclosed. Summing up, it is evident that a battle occurs not because of the planning’s of leaders but because politicians fail to resolve their dissimilarities peacefully.
In the above readings, the authors have attempted outlining the relationship between battles, leadership and peace mediations. However, there exists weaknesses in the readings since the authors does not quite point out how leadership, battle operations and location influences peace diplomacy, surrender diffusion and arbitration between states. Subsequently, to address the aforementioned, it is of core value that the authors ought to have emphasized on the use of a third party military that is neutral and could be utilized when illustrating the role warfare plays in peace mediation. This is for instance in the case of United Sates army’s neutrality during the ongoing Russian and Japan battle. Majorly, in the cases of warfare between diverse nations, a third party or international organ whose leaders hold close ties to the conflicting nations play a great role in peace arbitration either during or after a war’s aftermath (Nish, 2013, p. 293). Moreover, more compelling evidence indicates that providing a more detailed information regarding the war aftermaths to leaders and soldiers in battling states and the surrendering facet more likely pioneered by the nation’s leaders indicates how the aforesaid play diplomacy role. This owes to the fact that decisions to terminate a war are facilitated by diverse leaders with close ties to one another that clearly establishes a strong relationship between leadership turnover and termination of war hence their advocating for peace.
- Nish, I. 2012. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: The Diplomacy of Two Island Empires 1984-1907. London: Bloomsbury Academic.