It has been commonly argued that, in achieving political compromise, a rational argument is more effective than a threat to disrupt order. Politics has often been called “the art of communication.”
Politics entail all parties reaching the common ground of idea to begin with, that is, there should be a prior form of shared understanding. This can lead to the possibility of mutual benefit. It is a rational agreement that can convince the validity of interests of compromise. In the international system of politics, threats of violence is dangerous, both to the involved parties and to the neighboring nations, because most of the time the fallible warship will likely occur.
A rational negotiation will carry the best chance of long term stability and mutual guarantee of interest. In the European Economic Community, France and Germany, who were the rivalries of World War I and II, have subtle extent of tension involved in the national trades. However, in order to make the best of EEC, there should share the common interest for economic development, such as lowering the trade barriers and tariffs. To achieve the higher standard and long term of economic cooperation, individual advantage is the last thing that matters; that is, if one of the parties who seeks for own profit, its trust will be lost and will be isolated from the system. Therefore, the threat to disrupt the relationship of alliances will likely to be counterproductive in the political compromise.
住戶編號:313077
檢舉原因
心情: 
