WOODROW WILSON CENTER: POST-CONFLICT FACILIATION IN BURUNDI
At a recent event in Washington, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted an in depth discussion about the Burundi Leadership Training Project with Alain Pekar Lempereur, Professor at ESSEC Business School in Paris and Elizabeth McClintock, Managing Partner with CMPartners, two senior trainers involved with this project since its inception. Steve McDonald moderated this event. Click here to find the power point presentation given during the event and here for the video of this event.
CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: EUROPEAN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Last month, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a paper by Muriel Asseburg, who argued that the EU must pursue greater political engagement on three tracks: the Palestinian Territories, Syria and Lebanon, in order to be an effective player in the Middle East peace process.
Key conclusions:
1. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations must be in the EU’s main priority in the region. The EU should support Palestinian efforts to reach a new power-sharing agreement and send clear signals that it is ready to cooperate with a Palestinian consensus government backed by all factions, including Hamas.
2. Efforts should concentrate on re-opening Gaza’s border crossings to allow for humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a sustained economic upturn.
3. The EU should move towards ratification of its Association Agreement with Syria and encourage Israeli–Syrian talks, but recognize that U.S. security guarantees are essential for moving the talks forward.
4. The EU should not push for direct negotiations on the Israeli–Lebanon track. Rather, it should work on Syrian–Lebanese relations and push for an early exchange of ambassadors between Damascus and Beirut, for border demarcation, and cooperation on border control.
Question to the Blogosphere: Do you think it is possible for Europeans and the Obama administration to work together to assume the roles of players in the Middle East again? What do you think are the advantages to having the EU as a mediator over the United States? Where do you see the situation progressing between the Israelis and Palestinians in the next 8 years? Why does Asseburg argue that there should not be direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon? Do you think this is wise?
THE ROANOKE TIMES: COMMON GROUND REACHED IN ROANOKE COUNTY’S SUBDIVISION STRIFE
In an example of a search for common ground on the local level, homeowners and development companies were finally able to find agreement over construction woes in the Wolf Creek subdivision. Developers have agreed to deposit more than $40,000 with the county to help pay for amenities that were never constructed or created, while landowners have agreed to forgo some amenities and take over responsibility for others through their homeowners associations.
Question to the Blogosphere: How do you think these two opposing sides were able to come to an agreement? Do you think exhaustion with the whole argument caused them to find a solution, or were there commonalities between the two positions that allowed them to reach a solution? Do you think the negotiation process would have gone faster if one side was more accomodating?
AMERICAN MEDICAL NEWS: WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT TAKES FIRST STEP IN HEALTH CARE REFORM DISCUSSION
President Obama invited more than 100 people involved with health care to a meeting to search for common ground. Among these people, representatives of physicians, health plans, hospitals, patients, businesses, medical researchers, drug companies, the elderly and many others appear to agree on at least one thing: The nation’s health system should work better. The goal is to enact a comprehensive health system reform measure this year.
Question to the Blogosphere: What reforms do you think are necessary for a new health care system? What kind of health care would you like to have in the future? Do you think these divergent actors will be able to reach consensus on a comprehensive health system reform this year?
ACROSS THE AISLE: SOMETIMES IT IS BETTER TO TALK THAN TO FIGHT
On the blog Across the Aisle, Brian Vogt analyzes the outrage surrounding Obama’s new approach to reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban. For example, David Rothkopf is against this behavior. Vogt argues that it would be a mistake if, today, we also viewed all the Taliban the same way.
My conclusion is that in some situations, perhaps discussion with reconcilable Taliban elements make sense. Mullah Omar – no. But, perhaps the low level foot soldiers that are the face of the Taliban for so many people, or perhaps those that are commanding them one level up. However, it is equally important that such discussions are followed up with true governance reform. In addition, talking from a position of strength (ie troop increase) is critical. Right now, the smart Taliban negotiator sees little reason to throw his lot in with NATO or with the Afghan government. From his point of view, at some point, NATO will be gone and unless stable government institutions are created, a betting man would probably wager on the Taliban to be the only authority left in the long run. We need to have the muscle today and the long term commitment to the region and to building its governance institutions that alters this calculation. Unfortunately, the track record of the United States in the region does not position us well to make this argument convincingly.
It’s important that we don’t see this as the cure-all long-term solution for the challenge we face. However, if conducted in the right way, it might contribute to divisions within the Taliban and allow the breathing room for effective government institutions to take hold.
Question to the Blogosphere: Last week, our blog post on this topic struck a nerve with visiters. Should this article change some people’s minds about whether they think we should talk to moderate elements of the Taliban?
