PRINT YOUR NAME HERE: ________________________________________
Answer the question in the space provided (as best you can; use the back page if necessary). Each question is worth 20 points.
two ways in which the US’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates
good crisis management as Lauren, Craig & George (LCG) explain crisis
obviously this is an open-ended question and for the most part, all they have to go on is lecture and any part of the CMC tapes that they listened to. I had in mind, but this is not the only possible set of answers: 1) the US controlled the tempo or pace of military moves by ensuring that the blockade did not tighten too; 2) political and military moves were coordinated by the US very well – the blockade was designed to signal US resolve w/o forcing the Soviets to fight 3) the US maintained strong civilian control through the Ex-Com; 4) the US sought to avoid steps that would lead the SU to pre-empt
the difference between negotiating and bargaining according to LCG.
- bargaining is a contest in which each side tries to maximize its gains at the expense of the other side (zero-sum)
- negotiating refers to formal procedures and steps for collaborative problem solving; some sense of common interest is at stake
the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis reflect a negotiation or a bargain?
Explain why or why not.
There is no right or wrong answer; what matters is how well they illustrate the answer: Case for negotiation: US & USSR seek to avoid escalation to nuclear war, and so US makes commitments to not invade Cuba and (secretly) to remove Jupiters from Turkey; Soviets remove their ballistic missiles from Cuba. Each side gains something. Case for bargain: there is really formal procedure, and each side is linking victory in one issue to victory in another. The Soviets give up their missiles in Cuba and the US gives up overthrowing Castro via invasion; the US gives up the Jupiters, but the deal is secret.
role did “skilled negotiators” play in the Congress of Vienna, the CSCE, and
the US-DRPK (North Korea) talks?
LCG place a high value on the negotiator’s skills. Metternich and Castlereagh along with other ‘gifted’ diplomats make the CoV a success; at the CSCE, professional diplomats chair the 35 working committees (the US finally sends ambassadorial ranked delegates). In the NK-US case, Kang and Gallucci crated an agreement amid great hostility, LCG argue
how the CSCE and the US-DPRK talks represent a negotiation rather than a bargain.
In CSCE, formal procedures were set up to divide the various ‘baskets’ of issues and each side gained something – borders for the SU; legitimacy of the EE communist states; human rights rules for NATO/ West Europe, and détente progress for neutral Eur. states. A common, broad idea of security was established to incorporate the various countries interests. In the US-DPRK talks, the idea is that the US and North Korea both seek security: the US by getting NK to abandon its nuclear weapons program and NK by getting the US to normalize relations with NK and pledge not to use force to overthrow it. In both cases, the negotiators seek to create common interests, often through issue-linkage, to ensure that both sides ‘win’.