Multilateral Diplomacy: The Preferred Path?

Multilateral Diplomacy: The Preferred Path? When states are confronted with diplomatic challenges or in the conduct of their foreign policy, international actors make use of several types of foreign policy strategy: multilateral, bilateral and unilateral. For the purpose of this essay, this paper will focus only on multilateral and bilateral diplomacy. Multilateral and bilateral diplomacy are sometimes seen as twines from the same destiny, for example the European Union constitutes an emerging diplomatic order in which multilateralism and bilateralism are intertwined and bilateralism, whilst constituting a significant component of this multilateral order, is at the same time being re-situated within it and policy areas re-located from predominantly bilateral to the multilateral framework or a mixed bi-multilateral set of processes (Keukeleire,2000: 4-5 cited in Batora and Hocking, 2008:14). The rise of multilateral diplomacy can be traced back to the nineteenth century when the concert of Europe sat around the table together a t the congress of Vienna. Yet this diplomacy, developed in its full form in the twentieth century with the creation of the League of Nations in the aftermath of the First World War and with the United Nations, embodiment of multilateral diplomacy, born after the Second World War (Moore, 2012:1). Today, the UN has a worldwide membership and the global landscape is peppered with economic and regional institutions that are multilateral in nature, such as World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the G20 (Moore, 2012:1). For the purpose of this essay, this paper, first and foremost seeks to define the terms bilateral and multilateral diplomacy respectively. The paper will examine whether multilateral diplomacy is the preferred path for larger states. It will then proceed to examine if bilateral diplomacy still have a role to play. Multilateralism will be discussed from a realist and neoliberals perspective. The paper will also look at bilateral diplomacy in a multilateral context using North Korea as an example. This paper will finally draw a conclusion, by arguing that both multilateral and bilateral diplomacy have various roles to play, multilateral diplomacy is the preferred path for larger states. DEFINITION OF BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY On one hand bilateral diplomacy is characterised by a-sometimes asymmetric-focus on the goal of two actors. It usually means the consensual handling of bilateral relations between two sovereign states. Equal sovereign states are the central actors in the relationship, and any conduct of the relationship needs consensual will from both sides (Klein, Reiners, Zhimin, Junbo, and Slosarcik, 2010:6-20). On the other hand, multilateral diplomacy is defined as a situation where three or more actors are engaged in voluntary and (more or less) institutionalised co-operation governed by norms and principles, with rules that apply (more or less) equally to all (Klein, Reiners, Zhimin, Junbo, and Slosarcik, 2010:7). Furthermore, multilateral diplomacy is viewed as a process linked with norms and ideals about greater international justice, legal equality (or at least non-discrimination) and legitimacy. It is not solely about the number of participating states (Johnson, 2009:56). Moreover, it is defined as the management of international relations among three or more states through diplomatic or representatives without the services of a specialised secretariat (Diplomats, 2009:1). According to Moore, multilateral diplomacy is academically defined as diplomacy conducted via conferences attended by three or more states on the basis of generalised rules of conduct, while a UN envoy has defined it in simpler terms, depicting the diplomatic form as a bunch of countries pushing their own barrows but in the one room (Moore, 2012:1). For the purpose of this essay, this paper defines multilateral diplomacy as a collective, cooperative action by states when necessary in concert with non- state actors-to deal with common challenges and problems when these are best managed collectively at the internal level. In other words, it is the negotiations and discussions which allow these collective and cooperative actions between states and non-states (Cockburn, 2012:1). IS MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY THE PREFERRED PATH FOR LARGER STATES The growing importance of multilateral diplomacy is a phenomenon of the 21st century, partly because the 21st century has thrown up problems which are universal in nature such as human rights, the international control of disease, the international flow of capital and information, humanitarian assistance, labour rights, trade, natural environmental issues with transnational fall-out and environmental issues of an international nature (Cockburn, 2012:1). The above mentioned problems supersede national sovereignty and this have required some form other and above bilateral diplomacy in order to address them (Cockburn, 2012:1). However, a mounting backlash against globalisation is mingling with widespread loss of faith in the multilateral system- with the conspicuous gap between expectations and outcomes in Copenhagen being merely the latest example. This matters a great deal, because if publics believe that cooperation doesnt work, governments will have greater difficulty marshalling the political will or financial resources to carry out multilateral solutions (Jones, 2010:4). Critiques of multilateral diplomacy argued that multilateral agreements will have to target ambiguous and sometimes elusive common denomination of the many national interests involved and this tends to the lowest common denominator of all the countries involved as a result of the need to reach a political consensus among the participants (Reich, 2009:13).The negotiation and drafting process is usually decided by the large and powerful countries, whereas the small countries have almost no ability to influence the outcome of multilater al negotiation (Reich, 2009:13). Again in a multilateral agreement, it is extremely difficult to reach the necessary consensus in order to conclude such an agreement and therefore in many cases it remains a desirable, but unattainable goal (Reich, 2009:17). Additionally, the US, Russia and China all fail to recognise the international criminal court, thus this drastically reducing its power. Also the most published fight against global warming appears to have been brought to a halt by the failure of the major powers to sign up to the Kyoto protocol (Cockburn, 2012:4). Cockburn again argued that multitude of multilateral treaties concerning weapons of war have ended up very little of what they promised because of major powers refusing to sign them. These are black marks against the name multilateral diplomacy and there are cases where rather than recognising a common good and making concessions on all sides, national interest have triumphed (Cockburn, 2012:4). Although achieving broadly multilateral efforts admittedly has its own set of obstacles and pitfalls, but it also has benefits that are inherently is not possible for any nation, even the United States to, achieve when it acts without others or even with a select few (Jentleson, 2003-4:9). For the purpose of this essay, this paper argues that multilateral diplomacy is the preferred path for larger states. The global war against terrorism has only proven the importance of multilateral cooperation. Much of the successes that have been achieved thus far in the war on terrorism has been through broad multilateral cooperation on a number of lower-profile fronts such as intelligence sharing, border security, economic sanctions and law enforcement (Jentleson,2003-4:9; Rademaker, 2006:1). Multilateral diplomacy, has a comparative advantage, by which different nations, relevant international institutions, and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) all bring to bear their complementary expertise based on their own historical experience, traditional relationships, and policy emphasis (Jentleson, 2003-4:9). The redistribution of power on a global scale pushed by the emergence of new centres of power and the urgency of global challenges (the financial crisis, climate change, maritime security, to name a few) highlights the need for a multilateral diplomacy that deliver global public goods and contain emerging rivalries (Policy brief, 2011:2). As stated by Jones, the 9/11 attacks on the United States intensified multilateral cooperation both through formal and informal institutions, to tackle a range of transnational threats (Jones, 2012:2). Furthermore, there are a category of circumstances which may require only multilateral action through multilateral diplomacy. One example of such is the fight against international money laundry. This fight cannot be handle by a single state due to its nature. However, it has been successfully carried out by a multilateral strategy aimed a t all countries with no exceptions. It is done through a multilateral body named the Financial Action Tax Force (FATF) (Reich, 2009:22) Moreover, multilateral agreements, through multilateral diplomacy offer of course the advantage of lower transaction costs in one central negotiation and drafting process that results in the binding of all the parties to mutual obligation to one another (Reich, 2009:25). And other reason to prefer multilateral action is in circumstances where bilateral action will give unique advantages to the stronger party to the negotiation, and lead to suboptimal outcomes either from a distributive justice or efficiency perspective. In such situations multilateral negotiations that allow weaker countries-such as developing and least developed countries- the possibility to coordinate their positions and bargain collectively with the stronger countries may lead to better results (Reich, 2009:26). This paper argues that in an increasingly interdependent and globalised world, multilateral diplomacy is of value more so ever before in its history. The UN, if reformed accordingly, will continue to be used as a viable multilateral channel to counter fresh global challenges which confront not just a few states but all states (Moore, 2012:1). To further demonstrate how important multilateral diplomacy is to larger states, in his 2010 national security strategy, President Obama acknowledged the fact that the US had been successful after the second world war by pursuing their interest within multilateral forums such as the United Nations and not outside of them( Moore, 2012:2). The global financial crisis of 2008 and the European Unions sovereign debt crisis have demonstrated just how interdependent the economies of the western world are and this crisis has created an age of austerity in which multilateralism is needed ever than before (Moore, 2012:2). With the United States now working multilaterally through the UN and with the onset of a multipolar world, it appears that multilateral diplomacy will continue to be relevant in the 21st century, with the United Nations as the foremost institution for international cooperation. This position has restored UN credibility and revitalised multilateral diplomacy (Moore, 2012:3). The increasingly global nature of the threats that the world faces and the interdependency that is present amongst states shows that multilateral diplomacy remains and will continue to remain, relevant in the 21st century (Moore, 2012:3).The Libya campaign and the efforts to counter Irans nuclear threat are perfect examples of multilateral diplomacy being used effectively in a post 9/11 world. By taking all of these factors into account, it is therefore logical to concur with G.R. Berridge that multilateral diplomacy is here to stay (Moore, 2012:3). DOES BILATERAL DIPLOMACY STILL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY The past few years have witnessed an outburst of bilateral diplomacy and treaties signed in the field of international law, in general, and in international trade in particular (Reich, 2009:1). Even the United States of America a former champion of multilateralism, which only in 1985 signed its first bilateral free trade agreement (with Israel), has been in a signing spree of such bilateral agreements, with the count now standing on no less than 37 countries with which the US has signed or is in the process of negotiating an (FTA) (Reich, 2009:1). Accordingly, in the field of international investment protection, the attempt by the OECD to create a multilateral investment agreement (MAI) failed in 1998, instead around 2009 we had some 2,750 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), with the number constantly on the rise (Reich, 2009:2). In certain instances, bilateral relations, including the formation of free trade zones, were described as a supplement to the multilateral negotiations on the liberalisation of the trade and the programme explicitly referred to trade relations with the US, Canada and Korea (Czech Republic, 2009:28). Bilateral arrangements also free states from multilateral rules and the demands of diffuse reciprocity; it allows states to obtain benefits from their relationships with weaker states (Klein, Reiners, Zhimin, Junbo and Slosarcik, 2010:22). Furthermore, bilateral-policies enacted by two parties are relatively easy. Simple negotiations reveal what each party wants and does not want. They can quickly resolve differences and move ahead with policy (Jones, 2011:1). Despite all the benefits associated with bilateral diplomacy, this paper still argues that multilateral diplomacy is the preferred path for larger states. As the world becomes smaller through advances in technology and communications, and the more independent the world becomes, the further multilateral diplomacy will develop as a vehicle for international cooperation on major global issues. Regional diplomacy is beginning to develop further with the creation, in the last decades of organisations such as the African Union, the continued enlargement and integration of the European Union after 9/11, and established organisations such as NATO and the Arab League remaining prevalent (Moore, 2012:2). MULTILATERALISM, REALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM Both realist and neoliberals make the assumption that states can be treated as unitary, rational actors pursuing their interests in an anarchic international system (Johnson, 2006:57). For the realist, the international system is portrayed as a brutal arena where states look for opportunities to take advantage of each other, and therefore have little reason to trust each other. Daily life is essentially a struggle for power, where each state strives not only to be the most powerful actor in the system, but also to ensure that no other state achieves that lofty position (Mearsheimer, 1995:9). However, realisms anarchy problematique is outdated, and multilateralism needs to address the more substantive-global problematique of trans-border human security challenges, such as poverty, pollution, climate change, terrorism, drugs, crime and violence- not just state security but human security (Johnson, 2006:57) Realists frame the world in terms of sovereign states competing to maximise their power and individual security. Multilateralism is viewed as a kind of mechanism through which states that rely on self-help can cooperate on the basis of temporarily shared interest (Johnson, 2006:58). Furthermore, the realists consider that the practices, processes and outcomes of multilateralism essentially reflect the participating states power and interest which may shift overtime. By contrast, neoliberals see the institution itself playing a role in embedding norms and practices that integrate themselves in further multilateral practice and institutions, in the neoliberal view, even if the realist are correct in believing that anarchy constrains the willingness to cooperate, states nevertheless can work together and can do so especially with the assistance of institutions (Johnson, 2006:59). MULTILATERALISM VERSUS BILATERALISM: THE CASE OF NORTH KOREA When assessing negotiation approaches for global problems such as nuclear proliferation, it is convenient to assume the liberalist stance of multilateral diplomacy. The commonly cited indispensible element of any negotiation would be to involve all the parties with interests (Diplomats, 2009:1).There are other reasons why multilateral diplomacy such as the six-party talks seems to make sense. Instruments of diplomacy such as economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure are thought to be weaker unless applied multilaterally and there is also the likelihood that a number of bilateral negotiations, where there are conflicting goals, can derail an ongoing multilateral diplomatic effort (Diplomats, 2009:1-2). For the purpose of this essay, this paper suggests that it is better to think multilateral and act bilateral. The bilateral discussions must pre-empt any multilateral talks especially when the North Korean leaderships shows interest to talk. This could be in a series of bilateral meetings (Park, 2005:75-91). A combination of bilateral and multilateral negotiation strategies is the essence of progress in North Korea. The focus however should be on bilateral negotiations that pre-empt framework that suggest Thinking multilaterally and acting bilaterally. This reduces the impact of perceived weaknesses of bilateral approaches such as less effective sanctions and conflicting goals and methods. As long as the overriding multilateral framework has transparency and is cloaked by efficient reporting, no issues of isolation, belligerence or lack of consensus would arise (Diplomat, 2009:3-4). CONCLUSION Having critically examined, whether multilateral diplomacy is the preferred path for larger states, and whether bilateral diplomacy still have a role to play, looked at multilateralism from a realist and neoliberals perspective, and made a thorough examination of the two diplomatic approaches, this paper arrives at a conclusion. The position of this paper remains that in as much as bilateral diplomacy has a role to play, multilateral diplomacy remains the most effective diplomatic strategy in confronting current global threats.

Study the short stories of both Raymond Carver and John Cheever

It is my intention within this essay to study the short stories of both Raymond Carver and John Cheever, in doing so I propose to address the theme of masculinity which runs throughout both of the author's stories. I shall do this by considering, among other things, such subjects as Post Modernism, Dirty Realism and social climate and how these are applied to the texts Boxes and Elephant, by Carver and The Season of Divorce by Cheever. The background in which both Carver and Cheever write, is very significant to the way in which both writer's male characters are emasculated within the stories. Carver was writing in the decade of the eighties, and as such Reaganite economics had much to do with the way in which the men lost their grip on the hunter gatherer stereotype which had preceded. The traditional role of the male shifted from heavy industrial work to more emasculated work, such as secretarial/office roles, and domestic captivity therefore diminishing their agency. On top of this many men became jobless due to redundancies concerned with this shift from a blue-collar society to a white-collar society, and so this domestic captivity was enhanced. It is such men who Carver writes about in his short stories. The men who have slipped out of this â€Å"traditional male breadwinning world† Cheever again, writes men relevant to the political climate in which he both lived and set his stories in. In the post war era of the fifties, the male role had begun to become redundant, as during the war women were compelled to do work which had been traditionally thought of as male, and as such the myth that women were not equipped to cope with such jobs, was dispelled. Therefore in the post war when all of the men came back from war, there was a new air of female liberation, which they had not had to deal with previously. Given this fact men became emasculated by the new found power of the female. We can see this treatment of masculinity within Raymond Carvers short story Boxes. The narrator, who unsurprisingly is never named within the story is captive within a suburban world of women and sears catalogues, in which he seems a spectator to his own life. This can be seen through the style of the narrative, in which there seems to be a collapse of male agency. Throughout the story the narrator, seems to be completely inexpressive of his feelings: â€Å"I don't know why, but it's then I recall the affectionate name my dad used sometimes†¦ (p. 25) The use of the statement â€Å"I don't know† permeates the text, and shows the narrators lack of voice compared with the expressiveness of the women who seems to surround his life. Contrary to a narrator's role, he seems to say or think very little, and it is in fact his girlfriend, Jill who has all of the active verbs in the story: â€Å"†¦ â€Å"this is what we want†, she says. â€Å"This is more like what I had in mind. Look at this, will you† but I don't look. I don't care five cents for curtains. â€Å"what is it you see out there, honey? † Jill says. â€Å"Tell me. (p. 25) This is one of the rare occasions when the narrator expresses how he feels about the situation, but he expresses it only to the reader, and again within the story itself he has no voice. Jill's use of the word â€Å"we† expresses her dominance over the narrators character, as it shows that she makes his decisions for him and that he is not his own person but has inescapably become part of a couple, from which he can no longer be distinguished, and as it is Jill who is in the driving seat, the narrator seems to have lost his identity altogether. It should also be noted that the way in which Jill addresses the narrator seems more befitting a pet or a dog than it does someone of equal stature and respect. We can see however through this that she does not regard him as of an equal stature to herself within the relationship, or even his life as a whole. Throughout the story the narrator has no contact with anyone of the same gender at all, except those who he sees through his window. It is significant that the men, whom he watches from a distance, always stand in stark contrast to himself. I. e. he is on the inside confined by a â€Å"five roomed cottage of his very own† (Boyd), and the real men are on the outside where they are free of the constraints of domestication. Also they are always doing something masculine, whereas when he is watching them he is always doing something feminine or is feminised in some way, for example a man changes the oil in his car while he, attempts to do something masculine by finding a roach and trying to smoke it while drinking a ginger ale. This scene is highly feminised in that he tries to do something masculine but falls short, because he simply has lost the ability to be male. So where a man would smoke a roach and drink a beer, he only attempts to smoke and drinks a ginger ale instead. The theme of feminisation permeates this novel and there are many other ways in which the narrator is disempowered, which I shall not go into. The image of suburbia however, is significant to this disempowerment as the surroundings represent, among other things the bland depredation of the characters lives. It also represents a highly feminised culture. One in which the sears catalogue is the coffee table equivalent of the bible, it is second nature to be house proud and for miles around there is no refuge from the reminder of the life, in which the characters of Carver's stories live. Within another of Carver's stories Elephant, we can see masculinity and the role of the male portrayed from the point of view of a man desperately trying to hold on to the shred of power which he has, rather than succumb to powerlessness as the narrator of Boxes did. The main theme of Elephant is that of the breadwinner, however within the story this role is taken for granted, as all of his family emasculate the narrator by taking advantage of every male role that he could be classed under, as husband, father, brother, and son. Each of his family guilt trips him into giving them money except his ex wife, who doesn't need to, because it is the law that she gets his money. â€Å"That's four people, right? Not counting my brother, who wasn't a regular yet. I was going crazy with it. I worried night and day. I couldn't sleep over it. I was paying out nearly as much as I was bringing in. You don't have to be a genius, or know anything about economics to understand that this state of affairs couldn't keep on. I had to get a loan to keep up my end of things. That was another monthly payment† (p. 80) We can see from this that the narrator refuses to let his grasp of the role of breadwinner go easily, even although he does not have the ability to sustain such a role. It is the fact that the narrator is trying so hard to maintain some sort of control, that his family are taking for granted, and conversely it is this â€Å"control† which is emasculating him. The brother, plays a very important role within the story, and as such I believe that this is why Carver chose to make him stand out from the rest of his family, as more obnoxious and more amoral than the rest of the narrator's family, the reason being twofold. Of all of the narrator's family the brother is the only male to whom he is not obliged to help, and therefore the narrator grudges him more than the others. He has been emasculated by all of the women in the story, and his children, however his brother seems more than anyone to have picked up on this and be jumping on the bandwagon, and this creates a tension as the narrator feels that as a male adult he should also be a breadwinner. More importantly, however is the fact that his brother epitomises the failure of the traditional male position in life, which he fears more than anything, and as such he resents being confronted with his worst fear. Within this story, we are not given so strong a representation of suburbia, as we are within Boxes, however what we are given is a post modern minimalist image of the narrators life, in which there is very little reference to his surroundings at all. When we are given a glimpse of his surroundings however, it is a very sparse image: â€Å"I didn't bother to lock the door. I remembered what had happened to my daughter but decided I didn't have anything worth stealing anyway†¦ I had a TV but I was sick of watching TV. They'd be doing me a favour if they broke in and took it off my hands† (p. 8). The strength and impact of the story lies in the fact that there is very little to say about the narrators own life. It is empty and devoid of meaning so in order to have some use in life he feels the need to continue on his breadwinning path to destruction. The narrator lives in an emotional suburbia. Through this use of Dirty Realism to create an image of a life so futile and empty that it is barely worth living it at all. But the characters do, and it is because of this futility that many of them attach importance to minor things, such as the type of curtains they want to put up. As I have said earlier, like Carver, Cheever also portrays a portrait of the suburban American man as defeated and emasculated, and we can see this well within his short story The Season of Divorce. Within this short story traditional American masculinity, and the freedom to be a sexual predator, is displaced by the role of the husband and father and commitments to family life. The first two words in the story are â€Å"my wife† and this sets a trend for the rest of the story, in which the narrator is first and foremost part of the family unit, and secondly, if at all, a man. The main plot of the story, is about the way in which the narrator deals with another man attempting to usurp his position as husband, however the way in which Cheever has portrayed these events, creates a reversal of roles, as the man who tries to usurp his position is not put across as very predatory, and it is the narrators wife who is in the position of power. She is flattered by the attention and allows the situation to escalate. It seems that Ethel is in the male gendered role and both her husband and her suitor portray the female reaction to such occurrences: â€Å"At nine o'clock the doorbell rang†¦ e seemed distraught and exhilarated when he appeared†¦ ‘I know that you don't like me here, I respect your feelings†¦ I respect your home, I respect your marriage, I respect your children†¦ I've come here to tell you that I love your wife'†¦ ‘get out' I said. ‘you've got to listen to me'†¦ ‘I know that there are problems with custody and property and things like that to be settled'†¦ ‘get out of her, get the hell out of here' He started for the door. There was a potted geranium on the mantelpiece, and I threw this across the room at him, hitting him in the small of the back†¦ (p. 190) We can see from this passage that the reactions of both of the men, Trencher coming to talk rationally to him, and the narrator screaming and throwing a potted plant at Trencher, are both instinctively female reactions to such a situation. I believe that it is through the suburban surroundings in which they have been immersed that they have come to lose sight of what it is to be male and as such have become homogenised to the femininity of a suburban life, in which all that really exists is a home life. In conclusion, it seems that each of the central male characters within these stories, all seems to have the same fleeting moment of epiphany, in which they realise the futility of their life, but then they forget what it meant and continue on with their lives, convincing themselves that they are happy. In a typically post modern manner both authors seem to draw heavy reference from their own lives and I believe that it is because of this that both Cheever and Carver seem to be protesting against this feminisation and downfall of the traditional American male. Carver however, I believe is much more negative about the downfall of the male role, as he always ends his stories with the feeling that there is no hope: â€Å"what is there to tell?†¦ they leave the light burning. Then they remember, and it goes out. † (p. 26) Whereas Cheever in the end always reverts to a blissful ignorance on the part of the male character, and everyone lives happily ever after†¦ or do they?

Literature review Essay

A reasonable risk assessment of sex offenders, when combined with good parole supervision and a community-based treatment program aimed at relapse prevention, effectively reduces recidivism. This was the finding of a study conducted by Wilson, Stewart, Stirpe, Barrett, and Cripps in Canada. Published in 2000, the study covered 107 sex offenders who were released to the custody of the Central Ontario District during a period of eight years starting in 1990. According to the authors, their study outlined the general principles laid down by Motiuk, Belcourt, and Bonta in 1995, namely: careful and continuous evaluation of offender risk which ensures that highly dangerous offenders were not allowed to return to the community by sentencing them to life in prison; focusing on criminal behavior when conducting intervention programs with the help of qualified psychologists; effective monitoring of the returning offenders’ activities in the community by employing only competent parole personnel trained in the principles of relapse prevention; and an honest exchange of information among the relatives of sex offenders, the parole personnel, and the treatment staff in order to achieve the right mix of treatment intervention and parole supervision. Wilson et al (2000) found that the strategy resulted to a low 3. 7% recidivism compared to the 5. 4% cited by the study of Motiuk and Brown, and the 6.3% recidivism rate which came out of the study conducted by Barbaree, Seto, and Maric. Both studies were completed in 1996 (Wilson, Stewart, Stirpe, Barrett, and Cripps, 2000). In West Virginia, Gordon and Weldon (2003). Examined the effect of educational programs on recidivism. Studying the records of inmates who attended the General Educational Development (GED) and the Vocational training programs conducted from 1999-2000 at Huttonsville Correctional Center, they found that a recidivism rate of 8. 75% was recorded for those who completed the vocational training program. Inmates who went through both the vocational training program and the GED, on the other hand, reported a lower 6. 71% recidivism rate. Both figures were way below the recidivism rate of 26% which was observed on inmates who did not participate in either educational program. These results were comparative to the findings of a study made by Mace in 1978 of 320 inmates who were discharged from correctional institutions in West Virginia in 1973. Out of the 320, 76 were rearrested after four years, 21 (or 6. 56%) of whom were products of educational programs behind bars while 55 (or 17. 19%) did not attend any educational program while being incarcerated (Gordon and Weldon, 2003). Meanwhile, two cost-effective programs were the subject of an article authored by Harvey Shrum in 2004. Published in the Journal of Correctional Education, the article discussed two additional practices called logotherapy and intensive journal which, according to him, were better at reducing â€Å"future criminality† of both offenders and potential offenders than punishment and surveillance-based programs. Logotherapy, which means â€Å"health through meaning,† was developed by Dr. Viktor Frankl as an effective substitute to the 12-step program of rehabilitation for drug and alcohol abusers generally accepted by most parole boards. The program aims to provide inmates with a â€Å"purpose and direction in life. † Introduced forty years ago to inmates of a California Rehabilitation Center, program participants reported a recidivism rate of 5. 5%. When it was re-introduced to nineteen inmates of Folsom State Prison in 1998, the three participants who were released on parole reported a zero percent recidivism by year 2004. Intensive journal, on the other hand, was first introduced at Folsom State Prison in 1992. Created by Dr. Ira Progoff, it is a â€Å"method of self-development† that makes use of writing exercises. Inmates were made to write about their experiences, relationships with their families, their jobs and health, and the meaning that they give to their lives in a journal. These journals were reviewed and feedbacks were provided. By 2002, ten years after the program was introduced, no participant was ever rearrested (Shrum, 2004). The debate on the value of using recidivism to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of correctional programs continues and, in fact, polarized justice scholars. A dissenting opinion was voiced by Thomas in 2005 when he said that prison facilities and programs have no influence over the behavior of inmates once they return to their communities. He argued that communities are influenced by certain social, cultural, and economic factors which are beyond the control of prison facilities. Policymakers and academics, however, refuse to budge. They insist that there is no other, better measure than the rate of recidivism. According to these academics and policymakers, effective rehabilitation measures should be able to provide inmates with coping mechanisms necessary for them to deal with the â€Å"economic, social, and cultural stresses of post-release life. † In the same vein, they argue that effective deterrence programs should produce inmates who should have learned enough lessons during incarceration to dissuade them from returning to a life of crime. In both cases, they maintain that low recidivism should be the direct result. Although inclined towards the use of recidivism, Maxwell, in an article entitled: â€Å"Rethinking the Broad Sweep of Recidivism: A Task for Evaluators,† suggested that academics should not stop looking for less familiar methods of approaching the problem while policymakers should maintain an open mind so that like policy questions could be considered more objectively (Maxwell, 2005). References Gordon, H. R. D., and Weldon, B. (2003). The Impact of Career and Technical Education Programs on Adult Offenders: Learning Behind Bars. Journal of Correctional Education, 54, 4, 200-209. Maxwell, S. R. (2005). RETHINKING THE BROAD SWEEP OF RECIDIVISM: A TASK FOR EVALUATORS. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 3, 519-526. Shrum, H. (2004). No Longer Theory: Correctional Practices That Work. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 3, 225-235. Wilson, R. J. , Stewart, L. , Stirpe, T. , Barrett, M. , and Cripps, J. E. (2000). Community-based sex offender management: Combining parole supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 2, 177-188.

War and Modernism Poems During the Earky 1900s Essay

During the tumultuous early 1900s, many poems were written on the horrors both heard of and encountered first hand. Some poets, like William Butler Yeats, wrote about the horrors of rebellion they encountered; others, like Wilfred Owen, were part of the dreadful World War I and were urged by their memories to start writing (â€Å"Wilfred Owen†). Both were part of the modernist movement, of which Yeats is often regarded as one of the founders. Modernism was a movement that outstretched literature and poetry, yet provided a new amount of freedom for war poets, as it allowed them to express themselves in the modernist fashion of free forms and room for criticism on the modern world (Matterson). William Butler Yeats’ â€Å"The Second Coming†, is an†¦show more content†¦While the poem does rhyme, it was freely written in the way the poet felt was most fitting. Secondly, this poem is fitting for the Modernist movement because it expresses what millions of peop le might have felt after the soldiers started shooting each other and all hell broke loose: it was the end of the world as they knew it. The part about the â€Å"millions of people† is important for this point, because Modernists like Yeats desired to move away from the personal towards the intellectual or collective. The poem criticizes the war by using cryptic images that are clear enough to convey their true meaning: Yeats was shocked at what had happened to his world. While Ireland was no part of the World War, the violent Easter Rising took place in 1916, when Ireland tried to break free from the British domination (â€Å"The 1916 Easter Rising†). Yeats, a Dubliner, was there to experience it himself. Wilfred Owen’s â€Å"Dulce et Decorum est†, on the other hand, did not paint a very poetic picture of the war; instead, it illustrates in a gruesome and to-the-point manner how horrible it was, while still fitting in with the Modernist movement. This po em tells in harsh words the story of young soldiers like Owen himself, who were stuck in the trenches when they were attacked with poison gas. One of them was not as lucky as the others and could not save himself in time. Nothing is left to the imagination in this poem. The image of the dying young man, choking at