scholarly journals ETHIOPIA: TRUMP’S SECURITIZATION ‘SPEECH ACT’ ON THE GRAND ETHIOPIAN RENAISSANCE DAM (GERD). A RISK ON THE ETHIOPIA-EGYPT WATER DIPLOMACY

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 66-82
Author(s):  
Nigusu Adem YIMER ◽  
Turgut SUBASI
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Blow Up ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Blue Nile ◽  
Copenhagen School ◽  
Water Diplomacy

The involvement of the United States in the negotiation process of the GERD was taken as a good step forward to end the belligerent water diplomacy between Egypt and Ethiopia. However, America’s peace proposal which is named ‘the Trump deal’ ends up further complicating the two countries water diplomacy. Trump’s securitization ‘speech act’ calling Egypt to ‘blow up’ Ethiopia’s dam further escalated the risk of water war between the two states. Eventually, the Trump lead negotiation eroded the perception that the United States would generate a good proposal to halt the belligerency of the Ethio-Egypt relations. This article is intended to chart a new insight on the following questions: given the unpleasant water diplomacy between Egypt and Ethiopia how ‘the Trump deal’ and securitization ‘speech act’ further complicated the matter? Why President Trump worked in securitizing the construction of the GERD on the Blue Nile? And how does the nature of securitization and counter-securitization activities worked in the water diplomacy between Egypt and Ethiopia? In the process of analysis the Copenhagen School (CS) concept of securitization is employed. Keywords: Egypt, Ethiopia, Nile, Dam, Trump, Securitization.

Securitization of the Troubled Afghan Peace Process and the Role of Pakistan

2021 ◽  
pp. 85-97
Author(s):  
Lubna Sunawar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Peace Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Sustainable Peace ◽  
Copenhagen School ◽  
Securitization Theory ◽  
Fundamental Shift

Following the 9/11 attacks, the national security policies — notably of the Western nations — have taken a fundamental shift towards viewing vulnerable and unstable states, such as Afghanistan, as security threats. The strategic interference of the United States and its allies, for state-building in Afghanistan, not only failed in achieving its intended outcomes but also brought untold suffering and severe repercussions to the Afghan people. The major powers involved in the post-9/11 war against terror in Afghanistan — particularly the United States — had to bear heavy costs in terms of capital, materials, and lives. Being a neighbor of Afghanistan and a responsible state committed to peace in the region, Pakistan has made genuine and consistent efforts to promote a peace process that is Afghan-owned and Afghan-led, in order to bring sustainable peace and stability to Afghanistan. Using the post 9/11 U.S. mission as an example, this article analyzes how the securitization of development has affected the peace process in Afghanistan. The securitization theory of the Copenhagen School is used as a basis to explain the dynamics of the peace process (led by the United States) with the Taliban.

scholarly journals POLITIK SEKURITISASI KONTRA-TERORISME GLOBAL AUSTRALIA PASCA 9/11 HINGGA TERPILIHNYA KEMBALI PERDANA MENTERI HOWARD

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-180
Author(s):  
Rahmat Ansari
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eradication Campaign ◽  
Military Support ◽  
Dominant Actor

Abstact Prime Minister Howard as a dominant actor in Australia’s securitization process of counterterrorism post 9/11. The securitization then resulting activation of Article IV of ANZUS alliance treaty. This study utilizes securitization framework through speech act conducted by Prime Minister Howard. It argues that speech act carried out by Prime Minister Howard in some occasions by speech in Australian Embassy in The United States, at the cabinet meetings, and parliament hearings. As the result, the process of securitization obtained a legitimacy for extraordinary measures in form of military support on global terrorisme eradication campaign. This study using kualtitative methods with data limits since 9/11 and Prime Minister Howard reelection in 2001. Keywords: Securitization, Terrorism, ANZUS, Afghanistan Invasion. Abstrak Perdana Menteri Howard sebagai aktor dominan dalam proses sekuritisasi kontra-terorisme Australia pasca 9/11. Sekuritisasi tersebut kemudian menghasilkan aktifasi Pasal IV perjanjian aliansi ANZUS. Kajian ini menggunakan kerangka sekurtisasi melalui speech act yang dilakukan oleh Perdana Menteri Howard. Kajian ini berpendapat bahwa proses sekuritisasi melalui speech act yang dilakukan dalam beberapa kesempatan pidatonya di Kedutaan Australia di Amerika Serikat, pada rapat kabinet khusus dan pada debat bersama parlemen. Pada akhirnya berhasil memperoleh legitimasi untuk dilakukannya tindakan luar biasa atau extraordinary measures dalam bentuk dukungan militer pada invasi Afghanistan untuk pemberantasan jaringan terorisme global. Kajian dibahas menggunakan metode kualitatif yang membatasi data sejak 9/11 hingga terpilihnya kembali Perdana Menteri Howard pada pemilu 2001. Kata Kunci: Sekuritisasi, Terorisme, ANZUS, Invasi Afghanistan.

scholarly journals EMAIL VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE NEGOTIATIONS: PERSPECTIVES OF SALES AND CUSTOMER SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaysh Nazzal Alshammri
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Customer Service ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Service Employees ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Face Negotiation ◽  
Cultural Negotiation

This research aims to identify the differences between email negotiation and face-to-face negotiation with respect to negotiation process, negotiation flexibility, face-saving, level of collaboration, and appropriateness for cross-cultural negotiation. The survey questionnaire was distributed to the sales and customer service employees in many business organizations located in different regions of the United States of America. Data from 519 respondents (including both males and females) were analyzed using the one-sample t-test, two sample t-test, and Pearson Correlation. The findings reveal that the characteristics of face-to-face negotiation assist in smoothing the negotiation process more than that of email negotiation. Participants also tend to cooperate more in face-to-face negotiation than in email negotiation. However, participants prefer using email negotiation because they find it more flexible. They also feel that a face-threatening act is less likely to occur in an email negotiation than in a face-to-face negotiation. The findings also show that email negotiation could be more appropriate than face-to-face negotiation for the purpose of cross-cultural negotiation. This is because communicating via email minimizes the influence of culture on the negotiation process. Age and gender do not have any influence on the perspectives of participants regarding email negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation. The findings have significant implications for both business and dispute resolution. They contrast the differences between face-to-face negotiation and email negotiation and identify the situations in which each of these types could be most appropriate.

Changing the Mindset

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Verdini Trejo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Working Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Hydrocarbon Reservoir ◽  
Building Trust ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Two Sides

Explains how the United States and Mexico negotiators were able to shift their approaches, taking a series of steps outside the typical inter-agency and diplomatic protocols. Building Trust by Sharing Information demonstrates the innovative data sharing ways the two sides relied on to exchange sensitive information, without giving up confidential components, which in turn empowered the two countries to get their energy, technical and political experts on the same page. Analyzing Precedents to Define a Roadmap illustrates how Mexico prepared for the negotiation process by evaluating international examples of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoir agreements, which allowed them to devise a set of alternatives for consideration. Switching From an Adversarial to a Mutual Gains Approach presents the genesis of the innovative suggestion by the lead U.S. negotiator to set up binational working group sessions, discarding the typical draft-counter-draft strategy that pervades and drags down so many diplomatic negotiations.

scholarly journals NAFTA Is Renegotiated and Signed by the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-159 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dairy Products ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Rules Of Origin ◽  
The North ◽  
United States Mexico

A twenty-four-year-old agreement was reborn on October 1, 2018, when President Trump announced that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had been successfully renegotiated. The deal came after an arduous, year-long negotiation process that almost left Canada behind. As one indicator of its contentiousness, the deal lacks an agreed-upon name, but the United States is referring to it as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). It keeps some key NAFTA provisions mostly the same, including with respect to state-to-state dispute resolution, but eliminates, modifies, and adds other provisions. Among the changes: investor-state dispute settlement has been eliminated as between the United States and Canada; rules of origin for automobiles and rules for U.S. dairy products have been modified; and new provisions address labor protections, intellectual property rights, rights for indigenous persons, rules for trade negotiations with non-market countries, and the agreement's termination. The agreement was formally signed by the leaders of all three countries on November 30, 3018. It must be approved through the domestic ratification procedures of the three countries before it enters into force.

scholarly journals Intellectual property and access to medicines: mapping public attitudes toward pharmaceuticals during the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiation process

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna S. Y. Wong ◽  
Clarke B. Cole ◽  
Jillian C. Kohler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Access To Medicines ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Trade Negotiation ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
United States Mexico

Abstract Background Transparency and accountability are essential components at all stages of the trade negotiation process. This study evaluates the extent to which these principles were upheld in the United States’ public consultation process during the negotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with respect to public comments about the pharmaceutical sector and access to medicines. Results The public consultation process occurred before the start of official negotiations and was overseen by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). It included both written comments and oral testimony about US trade negotiation objectives. Of the written comments that specifically discussed issues relating to pharmaceuticals, the majority were submitted by private individuals, members of the pharmaceutical industry, and civil society organizations. Nearly all comments submitted by non-industry groups indicated that access to medicines was a priority issue in the renegotiated agreement, with specific reference to price affordability. By contrast, more than 50% of submissions received from members or affiliates of the pharmaceutical industry advocated for strengthened pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, greater regulatory data protections, or both. This study reveals mixed outcomes with respect to the level of transparency achieved in the US trade negotiation process. Though input from the public at-large was actively solicited, the extent to which these comments were considered in the content of the final agreement is unclear. A preliminary comparison of the analyzed comments with the USTR’s final negotiating objectives and the final text of the USMCA shows that several provisions that were advanced exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately adopted in the final agreement were opposed by the majority of non-industry stakeholders. Conclusions Negotiators could increase public transparency when choosing to advance one competing trade objective over another by actively providing the public with clear rationales for their negotiation positions, as well as details on how public comments are taken into account to form these rationales. Without greater clarity on these aspects, the public consultation process risks appearing to serve as a cursory government mechanism, lacking in accountability and undermining public trust in both the trade negotiation process and its outcomes.

PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PALESTINIAN STATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT (AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN APPROACHES)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 63-70
Author(s):  
MAHMOUD AHMAD RABAYA FUAD ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Community ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Palestinian Authority ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
The Creation

The urgency of the issue is determined by the disregard of the international community, especially the United States and its allies, of the will of the Palestinian people to create their own state. The article is devoted to the problem of creating a sovereign Palestinian state. Palestine currently remains a hostage of intermediary States, especially the United States, which does not allow direct negotiations with Israel on the return of the occupied territories, the solution of the refugee issue, the regulation of the status of Jerusalem, and other problems. The Palestinian authority does not have state sovereignty as an integral state entity. The author, after analyzing various projects on the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, comes to a disappointing conclusion that it is impossible to achieve the goal of creating a Palestinian state through the assistance of the international community, primarily the United States and the European Union. Due to the current circumstances, it is not possible to hold direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. As a conclusion, it is noted that the us monopoly influence on the negotiation process is not productive. To solve this problem, we need a wider range of intermediaries, including international organizations, global and regional actors. Success is possible if the leadership of Israel is inclined to compromise, agreement is reached in Israeli society on the creation of a Palestinian state, and internal contradictions are overcome in the Palestinian society, first of all, the intra-elite split, which further pushes the prospect of the creation of a state of Palestine. The work is based on General scientific research methods and works of Russian and foreign researchers. Empirical data are taken from open sources.

Bilateral Diplomacy: Rethinking the Jamaica-US Shiprider Agreement

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzette Haughton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Complex Interdependence ◽  
Interdependence Theory

AbstractThe Shiprider Agreement — an important aspect of Jamaica-US bilateral diplomacy — represents the strength of diplomatic engagements that have been used to address the cross-border drug-trafficking problem. To substantiate this claim, this article examines the Jamaica-US Shiprider Agreement on three criteria.First, examining some examples of counter-drug cooperation before the Shiprider Agreement demonstrates that the fundamental basis for the Agreement is premised on a positive Jamaica-US relationship. This relationship, along with the stipulated obligations enshrined in the 1988 Vienna Convention, impelled the United States' proposal of the Shiprider Agreement. Second, the article uses complex interdependence theory to test the negotiation process and the outcome of the Agreement. Findings demonstrate that complex interdependence mainly confirms explanations of the foreign policy outcomes and diplomatic conduct displayed in the Jamaica-US Shiprider case. Finally, the article assesses the breakdown in the negotiation process and the initial implementation phase of the Agreement, arguing that this breakdown must be seen in context given the Agreement's successful ratification and its non-controversial continuation. The article concludes that despite the instances of breakdown, the birth and provision of the judicious Jamaica-US Shiprider Agreement owed much to the success of diplomacy.

Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malvina Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Blow Up ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cruise Ship ◽  
Maritime Safety ◽  
Rescue Mission ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Port Said ◽  
High Seas

On October 7, 1985, the Achille Lauro, an Italian-flag cruise ship, was seized while sailing from Alexandria to Port Said. The hijackers, members of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), had boarded the ship in Genoa, posing as tourists. They held the ship’s crew and passengers hostage, and threatened to kill the passengers unless Israel released 50 Palestinian prisoners. They also threatened to blow up the ship if a rescue mission was attempted. When their demands had not been met by the following afternoon, the hijackers shot Leon Klinghoffer, a Jew of U.S. nationality who was partly paralyzed and in a wheelchair, and threw his body and wheelchair overboard. The United States characterized the seizure as piracy, a position that has been supported by some commentators and opposed by others.

scholarly journals START-3 Treaty prolongation: views of the U.S. political elites and experts

2020 ◽  
pp. 192-211
Author(s):  
M. Solyanova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The U.S

The article focuses on the domestic U.S. discussion on prolongation of the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), and on this agreement’s compatibility with the U.S. national interests. The debate involves experts in nuclear weapons and non-proliferation, the American political elite, and the Congress. The author compares expert views on the feasibility of the U.S. administration’s idea to involve China in the negotiation process on a new agreement. The article considers the key factors that, according to the U.S. experts, may be in favor of extending the New START Treaty by the United States. The practice of applying legislative mechanisms by the Congress to exert pressure on the U.S. administration for extending of the START agreement is also analyzed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document