The practice of international leaders meeting together in one specified location to discuss a pertinent issue has been the normal manner of conducting diplomacy in the world since time immemorial (Narlikar, 16). In these meeting, representatives of different countries contribute to the discussion of the issue at hand while communicating the specific interests of their country. This process entails a meeting of peers that come together to communicate the personal concerns of their country in relation to the issue at hand. In these meetings, grievances are dealt with, countries arrange alliances towards working together, sometimes wars are proclaimed if agreements cannot be attained, and there is also the enforcement of peace settlements. This paper is going to look at one such summit dealing with the issue of terrorism in the world today. I am the representative of an Islamic state who is in the summit to represent the president of my country with an aim of achieving peaceful co-existence between my country and all other countries in the world. The paper will employ essential negotiation skills in relation to diplomacy with an aim of achieving a win-win outcome at the end of the summit.
The Anti-Terrorism Summit
The anti-terrorism summit was convened to address the terrorism issue that has been prevalent in the word today. Terrorism is a world issue that affects every state and the threat of an attack is just as likely in any country as it is in the country that I represent. The reason for the summit was to address the issue of terrorism and come up with better ways of fostering good relationships between the countries involved. Being from an Islamic state, terrorism affects my country deeply as the world has a pre-conceived notion that most acts of terrorism are carried out by radicals from Islamic states. Not to say this is false but the same way other states re fighting to deal with the issue of terrorism is the same way my country is plagued by the same issue. We are just as vulnerable to attacks as the next country and the fact that the attack is closer home makes it even harder to mitigate the issue. My country just like all the countries represented in the summit has to deal with terrorism, which affects the economy the most and jeopardizes growth, development, and sustainability.
The Summit Discussion
Terrorism as an issue affecting the whole world is described using various terms and ideologies. However, the underlying description is an implication that it is entails crimes committed against humanity using unlawful force, violence or threat of violence in a bid to instill fear or coerce governments into submission with an aim of achieving political, ideological or religious goals and objectives. Jonsson (212) notes that in this sense, terrorists are criminals as they are involved in unlawful actions that employ violence to attain a selfish end. Most of the time, the victims of terrorism acts are innocent civilians who are used as a pawn by terrorists who use them as targets in their bid to intimidate and threaten governments.
As various representatives talked about terrorism and what can be done to reduce and eliminate terrorism in the world, the issue of sanctions came up. This is an issue that my government takes special interest in as the last summit that was held in this respect instituted trade and travel sanctions on Islamic states and my state was affected. In this summit, I am supposed to give the position of my country in regard to the sanctions instituted that have negatively affected the tourism sector of the country, trade and consequent the economy. We have to reach an agreement with all represented countries to lift these sanctions and allow my country to trade freely and accept visitors. This is because we are all on the same side of fighting terrorism. Imposing sanctions on Islamic states communicates that we are on the other side of the issue, a position that is false and hurts the image of our country.
The discussions in the summit tackled various aspects of terrorism. Different countries talked about terrorism and the interests of their countries in regard to the issue. The issue that started the discussion was cyber-terrorism as a consequent of information revolutions and the impact it has on terrorism. The countries concerned with this aspect of terrorism looked at the use of the internet and the cyberspace for instance social media platforms to initiate and advance political ideologies and to also advance terrorism attacks.
The second issue that was discussed looked at the instability that plagues most Islamic states in what is termed the Arab Spring. Some thought that the political instability owing to the widespread revolution witnessed in the region was a good change that showed the region was advancing and acts of terrorism would diminish.
Then the discussion on which my country was most interested in was the instituted sanctions against Islamic states. Some argued that the sanctions should stay in place as they protect the interest of their countries, others argued against the sanctions and some were neutral on the issue. The negotiations proceeded and the aim was to reach an agreement on how the sanctions would be lifted while still communicating the need to put a stop to terrorism. In my contribution, I laid down the fundamental position of my country as a representative with an aim of having a win-win situation.
My Argument in the Negotiation Process
The war on terrorism has been fought on many angles and fronts. It has been tackled from a diplomatic angle, intelligence, military and economic fronts. The war has been progressive as terrorism is not a one-off action. Every day the world witnesses terrorism attacks that affect innocent civilians and the health of a country (Woolcock and Bayne). In this respect, it is an issue that should be given the weight it has been accorded if not more. However, my country is more interested on the sanctions that have been placed on our country in relation to fighting global terrorism
What has set the war on terrorism apart from other global security issues that have come and gone is the insistence on using economic sanctions. There are countries that hold the belief that economic tools will be a vital aspect in winning this war against terrorism. My country understands the desperate need f the world to stop terrorism using any method possible and respect such thoughts. However, in the history of sanctions a related to wars and conflicts that have ever been a global issue, there have been very few instances where a proper resolve was achieved through the implementation of sanctions. Few policy goals have been achieved in history by employing this as a strategy. However, what the sanctions achieve is to delineate a country and frustrate its economic standing in the world. The best that such sanctions can achieve is act in a supporting role capacity to the other measures that have been taken in fighting terrorism in the world.
We as a country understand that such sanctions may totally dissuade terrorists from carrying out their criminal activities but they may cause the nations involved to reconsider their stance on the support they offer terrorist. It is our understanding that the world looks at Islamic states as harboring terrorists which is not far from the truth as most terrorists are associated with these states. However, it is also important to consider the position that those particular countries have taken in regard to terrorism. My country for instance has always been very clear about the position we hold when it comes to terrorism. We have instituted policies aimed at doing away with terrorism and discouraging radical groups. In this respect, imposing sanctions on the whole region and consequently affecting my country is a violation of what we believe in. The sanctions make us look like outsiders in the war against terrorism yet we are on the forefront of fighting this global security issue. It is the wish of my country that the sanctions imposed on our country be lifted to enable peaceful co-existence and economic progress.
Being a country that has openly declared war against terrorism, the sanctions have hurt the economy of the country especially in relation to trade; exports and imports. This will soon have a crippling effect to the economy of a country if not remedied. The effect of such magnitude will trickle down to citizens who have nothing to do with terror groups and radicals that are also causing the country trouble.
The sanctions also undermine the authority of the government in the war against terrorism as it makes the government look weak and unprotected (Thackrah, 218). We believe that the sanctions might communicate to terrorists the vulnerability of the government which may bring forth numerous political issues that may spiral out of control. Our country needs these terror groups to know that the government has allies in their fight against terrorism. Lifting these sanctions strengthens the position of our government and makes it easy for us to fight terrorism from the front line.
Sanctions, as mentioned will eventually have a crippling effect on the country. A country in economic crisis is a good breeding ground for further extremism. In this respects, the sanctions are going to be eventually counterproductive in the war against terrorism. It may actually give rise to more extremism than thwart it. In this sense, we are developing a bigger problem in an attempt to deal with an even bigger problem.
My country also holds the belief that by imposing these sanctions, states affected may come together in an alliance aimed at frustrating the war on terrorism. It is a known fact that some countries affected by the sanctions imposed have not declared their position in regard to the war against terrorism. Instituting such sanctions could be the push they need to lean on whatever side they feel advances their interests. My country therefore believes that lifting these sanctions helps the global war on terrorism on a larger scale than an insistence on their stay.
As the discussions, progressed, different countries debated the lift of the sanctions with others joining in the negotiation process advanced by the country I was representing. The negotiations towards lifting the sanctions imposed on countries in the region with my country being one of the affected was aimed at reaching an amicable solution that would advance the war on terrorism rather than undermining efforts geared towards fighting terrorism. As the discussions came to a close, an agreement was arrived at that supported the lifting of the sanctions but on specific countries in the region and leaving some countries affected. I believe this was a win-win outcome since imposing blanket sanctions was seen to be affecting the war on terrorism but also lifting the entire ban would undermine the efforts towards fighting terrorism. In this respect, my country achieved a lift on bans and sanctions and the other countries in support of the sanction got the sanctions on countries that had not declared their stance in relation to the war against terrorism.
Factors That Contributed To Reaching the Agreement
According to Berridge (330), the process of effective negotiation in relation to diplomacy is geared towards helping to resolve situations where parties have conflicting needs. The purpose of a win-win negotiation is to come to a solution that is acceptable to both sides. This essentially leaves both parties with a feeling that they have won at the end of the session. In this respect, the other representative countries that were in support of sanctions still got what they wanted as sanctions were partially lifted. On the other hand, my country also got what it wanted as the agreement to have partial lifting of the sanctions m...
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: