Arms, Mines, and Use of Explosive Force Research Paper

Arms, Mines, and Use of Explosive Force - Research Paper Example The working structure shown by Rutherford of how NGOs advanced their cause included two sections into which the agenda setting components could be divided. The first takes a keen view of level-one agenda setting called â€Å"cognitive agenda setting,† and the second takes another keen view of level-two agenda setting, called â€Å"norm agenda setting†. The first section investigates how NGOs placed the landmine issue on the agenda of the government and the public. The second investigates the influence of the particular elements of the landmine issue on the agendas of the public and the government (Rutherford 78). Another reason why Rutherford’s explanation is more compelling is that he shows the three important components of agenda setting that were addressed by NGOs in both sections, as they advanced their cause leading to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty. These are framing, schema, and priming. Framing means the selection of elements within a particular issue . These elements are used in the promotion of a particular problem definition, evaluation in moral terms, and treatment recommendation for the item viewed. The core of the second level of setting agendas is the transference of the salience of attributes. Schema on the other hand is a concept linked closely to framing, but takes a deeper view on how people organize their thinking. Priming is the process of activation of schemas. It assumes that features of a stimulus or frequency activates cognitive structures that were previously learned and has an influence on ambiguous stimulus interpretations. These three important components of agenda setting were then addressed in both sections. In addressing framing in section one, the landmines were listed as a new issue and in the process, get people to think about landmines as a humanitarian issue. In section two, the horrible effects and disproportionate consequences of landmines were exposed. In addressing schema in section one, outrageou s landmine statistics were listed, and in section two, leadership games to control the landmine issue were revealed. In addition, in addressing priming in section one, landmine victim stories were told, most of them sad. In section two, incoherent arguments among anti-ban states were brought up. This is more convincing (Rutherford 78). Hubert on the other hand chooses to focus more on the proceedings of conferences that were held prior to the signing of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban treaty. This, in my view, is not very convincing, as it does little to show how the NGOs and other organizations influenced the debates and proceedings at those conferences. For example, at The Conference on Disarmament, he explains of how supporters of the CD approach were opposed by the supporters of the Ottawa Process. He does not go further to explain how the CD process was reached at and who exactly came up with the process (Hubert 19). The third reason why Rutherford advanced a more compelling argume nt is that, apart from coming up with a structure of how NGOs advanced their cause leading to the Anti-Personnel Landmine Treaty, he went ahead to explain the structure comprehensively. Hubert had no comprehensive structure in the first place and therefore, his explanations were not very catchy. Rutherford explained his structure well by stating the three agenda-setting components in the two levels. In stating the agenda-setting c