- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Maja Stojanovska joined Debatewise
- + I Eat Ur Cat voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Jolischats3.14159265358979 edited the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Emma Simbouras voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + I Eat Ur Cat edited the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + I Eat Ur Cat voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Jolischats3.14159265358979 edited a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + I Eat Ur Cat voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Urikipiecreks joined Debatewise
- + Ognen Jakasanovski edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
BLAMING OTHERS DOES NOT HELP NEGOTIATIONS
There is a tendancy for everyone to blame other parties, either obliquely or directly. Proposals such as the Danish text create outrage that is often played out in the media. Blame is also pinned on those who are not meeting their Kyoto targets. China for example is blaming the US, EU and Japan for setting targets for emissions cuts that are not ambitious enough. Blame, blame, blame... should they not be spending their time negotiating more and blaming each other less?
Blaming others does not help negotiations
Yes, because... Blaming other parties can lead to diplomatic incidents
Publicly blaming others is playing to the gallery and is meant for public consumption rather than to offend the party who is being blamed. However if it does offend then it can have repercussions either on diplomatic relations generally or on these individual negotiations. A country who has been offended is far less likely to be willing to make a deal, or else will demand more to make up for the offence.
These blame games very rarely offend anyone, all partys know that it is part of the process of public negotiations.
Vote on this point: Blaming other parties can lead to diplomatic incidents
See history of changes to this point
Blaming others does not help negotiations
No, because... Can change behaviour
Blaming can also make them more stubbon and determined to defend their position, it offends the negotiators and reduces the chance that they will be willing to make concessions to get past the problem.
Blaming people can be useful in changing behaviour. Blaming someone can make them realise that what they are doing or have done is wrong and encourages them to change their view or in this case be more ambitious with targets. Or if they already know that their position is considered by many to be wrong going public can create a rapid u turn.
Vote on this point: Can change behaviour
See history of changes to this point
Blaming others does not help negotiations
No, because... Simply for the media so makes no difference
Blame is more than just for the media. It is a way for people to hold their own or foreign governments to hold them to account and put pressure on them to introduce regulations to introduce rules and incentives to reduce emissions for example. It is also for individuals and groups to identify obstacles to making progress on countering climate change.
Blame is simply for the media who are always after a story, if there was no blame going around the only possible stories would be about process, that tends to be considered very boring. So to keep the media's attention the countries involved have to brief the press and give the press things that they will consider interesting. This generally means pinning the blame on someone.
Vote on this point: Simply for the media so makes no difference
See history of changes to this point
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. Blaming other parties can lead to diplomatic incidents
Publicly blaming others is playing to the gallery and is meant for public consumption rather than to offend the party who is being blamed. However if it does offend then it can have repercussions either on diplomatic relations generally or on these individual negotiations. A country who has been offended is far less likely to be willing to make a deal, or else will demand more to make up for the offence.
These blame games very rarely offend anyone, all partys know that it is part of the process of public negotiations.
yes i agree this blame is a diplomatic front put up to shield each nation's strategies, to hint at signals, to present a believable good makeup to the media & the public and to hide the most crucial under table contrivances. but this does not exclude the need for democratic peaceful public expression of their thoughts on the issue nor does it exclude their role in changing the course of events. what matters is that the final solution must be an agreement for the betterment, which neednot necessarily be equal, of all the parties, especially the public, specifically the future generation, in the longterm.
Point 1. Can change behaviour
Blaming people can be useful in changing behaviour. Blaming someone can make them realise that what they are doing or have done is wrong and encourages them to change their view or in this case be more ambitious with targets. Or if they already know that their position is considered by many to be wrong going public can create a rapid u turn.
Blaming can also make them more stubbon and determined to defend their position, it offends the negotiators and reduces the chance that they will be willing to make concessions to get past the problem.
Point 2. Simply for the media so makes no difference
Blame is simply for the media who are always after a story, if there was no blame going around the only possible stories would be about process, that tends to be considered very boring. So to keep the media's attention the countries involved have to brief the press and give the press things that they will consider interesting. This generally means pinning the blame on someone.
Risking international relationships for sake of 'interest' in the media is dangerous. In international conferences, such as the Copenhagen, the relationships are vital in reaching a solution for greater good. This is because most countries participate, not only for the global society's well-being, but more for their own goods. When the conference or the media is seen as a threat to a country's reputation or image, the country may see more harms than benefits of participating in a conference, and be reluctant to participate next time.
Blame is more than just for the media. It is a way for people to hold their own or foreign governments to hold them to account and put pressure on them to introduce regulations to introduce rules and incentives to reduce emissions for example. It is also for individuals and groups to identify obstacles to making progress on countering climate change.