Each question should be answered in 1.75 to 2 pages
Thus, your Final Essay should include 5 questions answered in essay form for a total of 8.75 PGS MIN or 10 PGS MAX
Answered content WILL NOT INCLUDE title page, heading, notes (foot or endnotes), or bibliography
In other words, I will only count those pages with essay CONTENT toward your final essay page count
You may use other sources BUT PLEASE cite correctly using Chicago style/Turabian or APA formatting.
FINAL ESSAY Qs
1) What made the Cuban Missile Crisis more of a success than the Paris Peace conference? Explain in full detail the unorthodox methods of communication between Kennedy and Khrushchev versus that of the Paris Peace Conference. Find the differences over the nature of negotiations in terms of time, principal figures, issues, and method of negotiation between these TWO negotiating events. Which factors or conditions seem to have been detrimental to a ‘perceived’ successful resolution in Paris AND why? Which mode of negotiation do you believe can be more successful today? What would you have done differently at the Paris Peace Conference (Please justify/support your answer via methods/theories/informed opinion). Does this prove that international negotiation may be more successful between countries than among several? Why or Why not [Defend your answer]?
2) Based on the conflicts in South Africa and Northern Ireland, elaborate on the following. Which resolution was the most successful AND why? Each resolution seems to have involved multilateral negotiations. Explain which organizations, personalities, and/or external influences (other countries, IGOs/NGOs) were involved and how they played a role in BOTH cases. Which of these institutions or individuals played a more significant role in resolving the conflict AND why? Explain what underlying societal issues can re-ignite the conflict today and why? If the conflict(s) were to re-emerge today in these countries, how should the negotiation process be conducted and why (incorporate whether or not you would follow the previous conflict resolution strategies or find new ones [i.e., methods, types of negotiation)]?
3) With respect to Benjamin Franklin’s diplomatic actions in France (during America’s Revolutionary War), the Louisiana Purchase, and the Congress of Vienna, for EACH event, which country or countries did not see a ‘positive’ end to the negotiations and why? Which saw more positive results AND why? What actually persuaded the French to agree with U.S. in the first two situations and why? How influential were the main personalities in EACH negotiation and why? At times, the negotiators would diverge from instructions given to them from their superiors. Why would this seem the proper thing to do? Why would it not be the correct manner of negotiation? What made EACH of these negotiated settlements ‘successful’ and why? Based on your informed opinion (supported by conclusive arguments), decide which one of these negotiating events would YOU place yourself in and why? Why not in the others? Would it be possible TODAY to seek settlements over territory such as in the case of the Louisiana Purchase or at Vienna? Why or why not?
4) Compare the levels of communication of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Reykjavik Summit, and Franklin, Deane and Lee at the French Court. Describe what each American negotiating ‘team’ used in terms of negotiation strategy. Describe what negotiation strategy the Soviets (in both cases) and French used. Explain in detail what elements, conditions, and how (personal) attributes influenced and/or played a key part in EACH negotiating process FOR BOTH SIDES. Each event was considered a ’crisis’ by at least one side. What difference would it have made if there were no immediate crisis and WHY? Finally, did EACH negotiation result in a win-win or win-lose for both sides and WHY? For EACH event, which side or country was most affected in the long-term and WHY?
5) Among principal negotiators studied — [US REVOLUTION] Franklin-led delegation, de Talleyrand; [LOUISIANA PURCHASE] Barbé-Marbois, Monroe & Livingston; [VIENNA CONGRESS] British FM Castlereagh, Austrian Prince Metternich, de Talleyrand; [PARIS CONFERENCE] French PM Clemenceau, US Pres. Wilson, British PM Lloyd George; [CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS] Kennedy, Khrushchev; [REYKJAVIK SUMMIT] Reagan, Gorbachev — which team/individual INITIALLY had the ‘most promising’ plan & which had the ‘least promising’ plan toward resolution and WHY? Which two negotiators (or diplomatic teams) were the most successful and WHY? Which two were the least successful and WHY? Include personal attributes, external pressures, or other events.
* Which THREE of the SIX negotiating events above has most affected the modern international system and WHY? Which TWO of the six has had the least influence in international politics today and WHY? Finally did any of these events use an alternative approach to resolving the conflict? If so, which one(s) AND can this approach be replicated today? WHY or WHY not? If not, could it have improved any of the outcomes? WHY or WHY not?
*NOTE: These are 2 different questions—The first asks about the initial plans, the second about the outcome(s).