John and Susan Collin Marks: Finding Common Ground, Weak Approach for Presidents?
The following is a piece published in the Chicago Tribune and written by SFCG President John Marks and Vice President Susan Collin Marks
Common Ground Means Lasting Solutions, Not Weakness
by John Marks & Susan Collin Marks
November 2, 2009
WASHINGTON
President Obama is currently being attacked by friend and foe alike for his willingness to seek common ground on issues ranging from health care to North Korea.
“The common ground is not always the high ground,” writes Leon Wieseltier in the New Republic. “It informs the other side that what you most desire is the deal that you will never acknowledge the finality of the difference, and never be satisfied with the integrity of opposition. There is a reason that ‘uncompromising’ is a term of approbation.”
 |
| President Barack Obama and President Dimitry Medvedev |
This statement reflects a profound misunderstanding of what it means to search for common ground. It implies that a president who does not lock himself into a pre-set, principled position is somehow showing weakness and will invariably settle for the lowest common denominator. However, being open to a wide range of opinion, as President Obama clearly is, does not mean a president will compromise core values. Rather, openness is essential to finding the highest common denominator, which can be defined as a workable solution that satisfies the needs and desires of a wide range of constituencies and interests.
George W. Bush was roundly criticized for taking the opposite approach, which his opponents described as uncompromising. He is famously remembered for saying, “You’re either with us or against us.”
So which approach do Americans really want from a president?
The answer is probably both, depending on the circumstances.
There are clearly times when a president needs to take an unyielding, unambiguous stand, as when Franklin Roosevelt declared that World War II would only end by the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, that solution was feasible because the Allies had overwhelming power to enforce it. As President Obama can testify now when he is trying to pass health-care reform or negotiate with North Korea, he lacks the ability to impose his will.
There is a broad spectrum of leadership styles. At one end is the authoritarian figure who rules by fiat. At the other end are those who allow the views of others to define their actions. In the middle, there are leaders who seek out a broad range of opinions as a key part of the decision-making process. President Bush was clearly more of a “decider,” while Barack Obama is inclined toward the middle way.
 |
| President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev shake hands after signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty |
In this respect, President Obama follows in the footsteps of both conservative and liberal presidents. Take Ronald Reagan. He never gave up his essential belief that communism was an evil system. Still, he negotiated a series of arms control agreements with the Soviets, which contained important compromises and which Mikhail Gorbachev and he both saw as being in the best interest of the two countries. Or consider Lyndon Johnson. He was a strong advocate of civil rights for all Americans and, at the same time, a master dealmaker. He guided groundbreaking legislation through Congress, both by insisting on a set of general principles and by making compromises in forming bipartisan coalitions. These presidents and most other successful ones found higher ground that served the best interests of the country.
There is no doubt that the best way to find common ground solutions is to listen carefully to those with different beliefs, to be inclusive, and to draw out the best from the various positions. In our individual lives, most Americans know this and reject absolutism. Indeed, most of us hold within ourselves both liberal and conservative attitudes, which we usually find ways to bridge. When we adhere to a single position, no matter how principled, and are
Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights leaders meet with President Johnson in the oval office
closed to alternatives, our lives tend not to work very well. Successful relationships are almost always based on finding common ground, to the mutual benefit of the parties.
Why then should it be difficult for Americans to accept a president who acts in the same way in leading the country?
While it is not easy for many pundits and politicians to accept, Americans seem to want a president who is willing to make compromises for the common good. Indeed, most of us yearn for a leader who can actually solve our national problems and that usually requires finding common ground.
ABOUT THE WRITERS
John Marks is founder and president of Search for Common Ground, an international conflict resolution organisation. Susan Collin Marks is senior vice president of Search for Common Ground and author of Watching the Wind: Conflict Resolution during South Africa’s Transition to Democracy.
Read original article here
Photos courtesy of Common Ground News Service
SFCG Latest Projects on Racial Healing
By Danielle Barav
Tension and conflict surrounding race have permeated American culture for centuries. Most recently, conflict arose in response to a judge’s refusal to marry an interracial couple. The couple sued Louisiana Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell after he denied them a marriage license.
The conflict surrounding this controversy stemmed from the belief that Bardwell’s actions were prejudiced; as it recalls the same racist sentiment that spurred U.S. laws forbidding interracial marriages some decades ago.
But, Bardwell explained in a CBS interview that he had seen “countless” examples of children of interracial couples rejected by family members and didn’t want to see it happen again. Watch the video here.
While conflict persists, there has also been racial healing in recent years. A prime example is the widely publicized reconciliation between Common Ground Awardees Elwin Wilson and Rep. John Lewis, in which Wilson apologized for his racially motivated attack against Lewis back in 1961. Their reconciliation is a testament to the progress of America on issues of race, but to what extent has such progress taken place?
I believe such progress is very limited. To date, the U.S. has failed to engage in an open and comprehensive discussion on issues of race within the mainstream. Many people often avoid the topic.
As an organization dedicated to solving conflict through dialogue, Search For Common Ground, convened a Racial Healing Working Group during July of this year. The event was hosted by SFCG’s Leadership Wisdom Initiative along with the Faith and Politics Institute.
I was fortunate to observe this working group—a three-day convocation in Airlie, VA of more than 35 experts in the field of racial reconciliation. Though participants were of different ages, professional, geographic and ethnic backgrounds and supported unique approaches to racial reconciliation, all were unified around a common goal: brainstorm and begin mapping a process that would answer the question, “What would it take to heal the wounds of racism in the US?”
All participants exhibited the dedication and creativity necessary to achieve this goal. Some expressed concerns that the language of “healing” and “reconciliation” did not correctly address the divide between Blacks and Whites in the U.S. But no matter where they may fall on the issue, all agreed on the devastating factors (institutional, social, and personal) that perpetuate discrimination in our society.
During the discussions several questions were raised, including: How does the way U.S. history is taught influence our understanding of current social conditions? What does it mean that the prison-industrial complex is the one of the largest sources of revenue for many states, and a majority of the inmates are people of color? How does one prevent the scars from the emotional, social, and physical trauma of being kidnapped and enslaved from being passed down generation after generation?
Answering such questions can be overwhelming, but despite the challenge of the task, being surrounded by people dedicated to this field was immensely inspiring.
Through my interactions with the work group, I gained a deeper understanding of structural racism and the challenge of dismantling it. Only so much can be gleaned from research and reading stories; for me, I was much more impacted by listening to people talk face to face (and heart to heart) about the many injustices, personal and social traumas, and missed opportunities that result from racial inequality.
After much talking, the group formulated their ideas into actionable, next steps on healing U.S. wounds of racism. Search For Common Ground recorded participants’ suggestions, which are now being used to shape The One America Project (more information below).
The experiences shared by participants inspired me to see what is possible when individuals collaborate with an open mind. It also deepened my awareness of the importance of personal reflection to deconstruct and understand the lenses through which we process our lives and the effects our actions, words and thoughts have on others—at both local and global levels.
The One America Project will serve as an umbrella for racial healing nationwide. We believe that the One America Project will expand and deepen America’s capacity for compassion, understanding, collaboration, cooperation, and transformation.
Although Americans have elected our first African-American President, we remain deeply divided on issues of race. In recent political debates, thinly veiled attacks reveal America’s ongoing struggle with race as a central challenge in our ability to come together. Even so, we believe that the Politics of Hope will overcome the Politics of Fear.
The One America Project will connect and support racial healing practitioners through trainings, gatherings, and three types of media networks:
A. Capacity Building & Leadership Development: This component will expand the reach of existing racial healing efforts by offering Training of Trainers (TOTs) to existing and emerging catalysts of racial healing.
B. National Gatherings: This component will convene action-oriented gatherings. These gatherings will strengthen existing racial healing efforts, inspire new efforts, reinforce alliances and coalitions among racial healing practitioners and leaders, support emerging leaders in the field, and develop action plans for implementation taking the work in the field deeper and wider nationally.
C. New & Traditional Media: This component will catalyze constructive dialogues, highlight existing efforts, plug local organizations and their constituencies into our national online network, and expand our Common Ground News Service to publish powerful stories of racial healing.
For further information about how you might support the One America Project, please contact Jana Carter at jcarter@sfcg.org
By Jana Carter
The New York Times recently published an op-ed by David Brooks which explained how choosing narratives (a system of beliefs that helps us understand the world and motivates our actions within it) can enlarge or shrink our circle of concern. And, in the case of the latter, this may lead to violent conflict.
This is because, when an individual chooses a narrative of hatred, for instance, their concern for humanity is limited and as such, they are often motivated to commit violent acts against those individuals for which they have the least concern.
Brooks wrote:
“Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged. That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.”
In light of such a narrative and the recent violence at Fort Hood, Brooks’ article sparks several questions for the field of peacebuilding:
Can peacebuilders help radicals choose another narrative in order to prevent the violence of suicide bombing?
Could peacebuilding and conflict resolution efforts have prevented the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood?
We invite you to share your comments, thoughts and questions.
CG News Article “Open Religious Discourse Can Prevent a Future Fort Hood”
New York Times Op-ed “The Rush to Therapy”
A Struggle for Common Ground: US Debates Rights of the Child
By Adrienne DiCerbo
Nearly everyone agrees that children should be protected and nurtured and it is this common belief which spurred the United Nations to create the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) back in 1989.
But, to date, the United States is one of only two UN member nations (the other being Somalia) that have not ratified the CRC. This raises the question: What common ground must be reached in order for U.S. debate on the Convention to be put to rest?
The convention protects children’s (persons under 18) rights such as the right to a name, education and to express his/her own values. In addition, it calls for nations to ensure a child’s protection against abduction, slavery and sexual exploitation.
Nations that ratify the CRC must comply with its standards; they are required to report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and are periodically evaluated on their progress of implementing the CRC in their country.
The U.S. helped draft the CRC, signing it in 1995 and even ratified two separate protocols addressing children in armed conflict and sexually exploited children but its own ratification is still under debate. The debate is nearly two decades old—with those for and against ratification struggling to reach an agreement.
Media frenzy surrounding the debate had long eased until recently when Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, during a visit to the Harlem Children’s Zone mentioned current White House talks over the CRC. According to Rice, Obama administration officials are discussing “when and how it may be possible to join [the Convention].”
Such attention, coupled with the upcoming 20th anniversary of the adoption of the CRC by the UN General Assembly, makes it likely that the issue of U.S. ratification will be of heightened interest in the coming months. Groups opposed to the ratification point to concerns about national sovereignty. Opponents such as the Home School Legal Defense Association argue the CRC would usurp parents’ rights, namely the right to educate their children as they see fit.
Though signatories have not reported issues regarding parents’ rights as a result of ratifying the CRC, U.S. opponents argue that America should only ratify the convention once a parental rights amendment is added.
On the other hand, supporters of ratification believe that the move would ensure the necessary protection of children and signify U.S. solidarity in a global movement of concern for the wellbeing of children.
President Obama persistently stresses the value of collaboration and it remains to be seen how his administration will help opponents and supporters of the CRC to reconcile the 20 year old debate and find common ground.
Milwaukee to Morocco: Innovative Projects Decrease School Violence
SFCG and U.S. schools use common, creative tools to address youth
By Sarah Schwarz
Zachary was excited about joining the Cub Scouts. In his school lunch bag, the 6-year-old proudly packed a new multi-purpose camping utensil which could be used as a fork, knife or spoon. Zachary’s enthusiasm was short-lived, however, as he was promptly suspended for possession of a “weapon” and recommended for reform school.
The controversy surrounding Zachary and the Delaware school’s zero-tolerance policy was detailed in a recent New York Times article. In school districts across the U.S., such policies take a strict black and white approach to school violence, often disregarding circumstance and intent in favor of swift punishment. During the 2006-2007 school year, approximately 10,000 students were suspended in Baltimore while in Milwaukee, 40 percent of ninth graders were suspended at least once.
Critics of zero-tolerance policies argue that this approach may cause students more harm than good as suspended or expelled kids are pushed out of a safe environment and onto the street, where their behavior may only worsen.
School violence has decreased in recent years, but education experts say little credit should be given to zero-tolerance policies. Instead, they point to programs such as peer mediation and student support groups as the primary cause of the decline.
Ukraine: Youth mediators have fun at training
SFCG’s Children & Youth staff can attest to the power of such programs; in Morocco and Ukraine peer mediation projects have been highly successful at curbing school violence and transforming conflict in local communities.
Search staff recognized the desperate need for a new approach to quelling violence in Ukraine, where a majority of youth committed a misdemeanor crime before entering secondary school. The Ukrainian Centre for Common Ground (UCCG), SFCG’s local arm, has trained more than 600 students as peer mediators and educated more than 150 school psychologists.
Program trainers report overwhelmingly positive results: peer mediators are restoring calm in schools where there was once a constant police force and overall violence in Ukrainian schools is declining. Even more, the program has allowed students to envision new career opportunities as they become facilitators of among their peers.
In Morocco, a nearly two-year long project trained youth mediators and taught entrepreneurial skills, covering topics from negotiation and facilitation to human rights, education and advocacy. Read a previous blog about the mediation centers here.
Case studies, group exercises and role-playing were used to build the youth trainees’ skills and self-esteem, all with the ultimate goal of creating autonomous and enthusiastic mediators able to constructively tackle conflicts in their own neighborhoods.
Morocco: Youth rally outside of training center
The program has been successful and the proof is in the participants. A Moroccan youth mediator said it best, “Before, it seemed that power and authority were the best mechanism for resolving disputes. […] With mediation, youths have the capacity and tools to resolve conflict without the ‘old people.’ It’s not owned by anyone – anyone can practice it.”
Learn more about SFCG Children and Youth programs: http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/children/whatwedo.html
Download the latest Children and Youth newsletter featuring Morocco and Ukraine intiatives
Read the NY Times article “It’s a Fork, It’s a Spoon, It’s a…Weapon?”
How Armed Conflict Impacts Children: 10 Year Review
By Juontel White
The Washington Network on Children in Armed Conflict (WNCAC) is a community of NGOs, scholars, practitioners and government agencies dedicated to improving the protection of children affected by armed conflict. Initiated in 2004 by SFCG and USAID’s Displaced Children and Orphans Fund, the network convenes at bi-monthly meetings, each highlighting a relevant issue through a panel discussion.
The most recent meeting, hosted at John Hopkins School of International Studies in late October, was a discussion on the Machel Study 10-Year Strategic Review.
In 1996 Graça Machel, an international women’s and children’s rights advocate, was appointed by the U.N. to chair a study on how armed conflict impacts children. The results were devastating, Machel discovered the myriad of harmful effects armed conflict has on children. Her report included several recommendations which served as the basis for creating UN resolutions to protect children affected by armed conflict.
More than a decade has elapsed since the Machel Study was introduced and the 10 year Strategic Review is an analysis of the progress of and challenges faced by practitioners in the protection of children in armed conflict since that time.
The WNCAC meeting on the Review included panelists Bo Vikor Nylund, UNICEF Senior Advisor for Child Protection in Emergencies, Stephane Pichette UNICEF program manager and Tonderai Chikuhwa, special assistant to the UN Office for Children and Armed Conflict.
Chikuhwa began the discussion by explaining that that armed conflict in general has experienced notable changes during the last decade. In particular, the primary victims of armed conflict are now the most vulnerable citizens of society (women, elderly and children). And, children are now both victims and weapons of war.
He continued saying the Strategic Review addresses four key areas: ending impunity, care and protection of children, knowledge of state building capacities, and preventing conflict and building peace.
A key point in the Review is the paradigm shift in addressing children’s rights. Children’s rights is no longer addressed as only a human rights issue, but is now of concern to the international security council—in accordance with Machel’s recommendation.
This has been a crucial change, says Chikuhwa, because for children in armed conflict humanitarian responses must be paired with military/security force in order for protection efforts to be effective.
This change is groundbreaking because children’s rights is the first human rights issue to be placed on the Security Council’s agenda.
“This is because there exists a resounding moral consensus surrounding children’s issues,” says Chikuhwa. This consensus makes it easier for the international community to find common ground and join forces in support of the protection of children.
In addition, the shift has forced the Security Council to alter its mode of operation. Traditionally it was a reactive institution, responding to security breaches in specific countries as they happen, but now “the council is having to deal preemptively with situations if it is to evenly deal with children,” said Chikuhwa.
Humanitarian groups have also implemented preemptive measures. UNICEF’s Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM) is an example of this. As of October 2009, 15 countries have local MRM task forces dedicated to monitoring for behaviors that could lead to grave violations. These countries are the most notorious for violations against children and include; Columbia, Sudan, Myanmar and Uganda.
As manager of MRM task force in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pichette is responsible for helping ensure the release of children from child soldiering.
“It is our job to work ourselves out of a job,” he jokes. The audience laughs but the irony is that it could happen; as it did for many of his colleagues involved with the Treaty to Ban the use of Landmines. The team had met their goals of banning landmines throughout the world and their positions were no longer relevant.
As of now, grave violations—which includes the killing and maiming, sexual exploitation, and recruitment and use of children in armed conflict—are still occurring against children and Pichette still has job security. He owes his job, in part, to the 1996 Machel Study which confirmed the relevance of and even helped create several of the panelists’ positions.
Prior to the Machel Study, there weren’t any international standards addressing children in armed conflict. According to the Strategic Review, the more than 10 UN resolutions formed in response to the report have been powerful in protecting the rights of children in armed conflict during the past decade.
In particular, Chikuhwa notes that since the adoption of UN resolution 1612 back in 2005, approximately 13,000 children have been released from recruitment and use in armed conflict. This is an early estimation and more details will be announced by the UN in coming months.
Overall, the Strategic Review is a positive assessment of the years since the Machel study, but there is still much work to be done. For instance, in regards to child soldiering, Nylund and Pichette remarked that though thousands of children have been released, there are some states in which practitioners are left asking themselves: what do we do next.
Negotiating the release of the children is a tedious process but the next step is developing a plan to reintegrate them into society—in a timely and efficient manner so the children are not tempted to return to soldiering.
Because of the success thus far in the protection of children in armed conflict, particularly in regards to its incorporation into the security council, children’s rights has now become a key UN actor, setting an example for other groups such as women’s rights and disabled rights. This was a highlight of the Review and is a motivator for members of the WNCAC to keep working hard.
