THE NEW YORK TIMES: IRAQ NEGOTIATES WITH FRENCH, A SWIPE AT U.S.?
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq signaled a desire to gradually diminish American power over Iraqi politics and increase ties to other Western powers, during a visit on Tuesday by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. The visit came at a time when the French are jockeying for oil deals in Iraq and served as an way for Maliki to show that Iraq was not entirely dependent on the U.S.
Question to the Blogosphere: Do you think that Iraq’s new relationship with France will have a significant impact on their relations with the U.S.? Are some efforts to find common ground plagued by ulterior motives, such as trying to distance oneself from another country? What do Iraq and France have in common? What can France provide for Iraq and what benefits can Iraq give to France?
BUSINESSWEEK: CAN THE G-20 FIND COMMON GROUND ON BANKING CRISIS?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this weekend will urge the finance ministers of 20 of the world’s largest economies to mount a combined attack of robust fiscal stimulus against the global banking crisis. His European counterparts seem likely to respond by advocating early reform of international financial regulations. But neither initiative is likely to succeed, at least not soon. The divide between the U.S. and many European members means the leaders of the G-20 will probably be forced to settle for nothing more than a declaration of shared goals. G-20 leaders appear largely to agree on the severity of the crisis, and that all of them need to pull together. But neither the U.S. nor Europe—in particular Germany—seems prepared, nor perhaps able, to budge much from solutions tailored to its own, domestic problems. Geithner could boost the chances for successful negotiations by offering a lot up front, for example by offering more money to the IMF.
Question to the Blogosphere: Is the U.S. doing all it can to mitigate the global financial crisis? Should domestic problems be resolved before global issues are tackled or are these domestic problems doomed to continue unless the root causes of the financial crisis, which could be global, are dealt with? Should the U.S. take the lead on these negotiations or should a country who has not been as affected by the crisis and therefore may be more neutral take the lead?
This week Nathan Brown brainstormed possibilities for successful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and what the Obama administration should do. He laments that the new administration has not shifted the course of the dialogue concerning Hamas and the negotiations in the Middle East.
The argument against “engaging Hamas” completely misses the point. The important question is not whether the United States enters into formal discussions with the Islamist group, but what the United States says and does when other countries attempt to speak with Hamas. On this point, even the Bush administration itself quietly shifted last year when it endorsed Egyptian mediation between Fatah and Hamas.
Brown argues that the goals of renewed US involvement should be to encourage a Palestinian political system capable of making decisions, even if that includes Hamas. The second goal should be to convince the two sides that they need to make hard choices in order to have lasting peace–which means that Israel should not build settlements if they argue for a two-state solution and that Hamas should not engage in violence if they want to be part of diplomatic efforts.
Question to the Blogosphere: In your opinion, is a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more or less possible today than it has been in the past? Do you agree with Nathan Brown that the Obama administration has not changed policy towards the peace process since the end of the Bush administration? Should the US support negotiations between Israel and Hamas even if we do not talk to them ourselves? What do you think of the long-standing taboo on negotiating with a terrorist organization?
CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: A NEED FOR LONG TERM STABILITY IN HOMELAND SECURITY
Rashad Bukhari of Search for Common Ground was mentioned in an article produced by the Center for American Progress this week. His ordeal was described by the president of Search for Common Ground, John Marks, a few weeks ago in the Washington Post and discussed here.
In a drastic shift from U.S. policies regarding the Taliban in the past, President Obama has announced that he is open to talking to the more moderate elements of the Taliban. Part of the success in Iraq has been attributed to reaching out to the Sunni militant groups there and there may be some use for this tactic in the war-torn country of Afghanistan. Some people argue that Obama’s negative opinion of the way the war in Afghanistan is going will prevent others from joining the Americans in their fight against terrorists in the area. Others argue that the situation between the United States and the Taliban is not ripe for negotiations. During his campaign, Obama emphasized his willingness to negotiate and meet with America’s enemies.
Question to the Blogosphere: Do you think Obama should engage moderate elements of the Taliban? Do you think the war in Afghanistan is not being won by the US? What are the advantages and disadvantages of engaging “terrorist” elements? When has the United States engaged with their opponents like this in the past? Has it worked?
THE NEW YORK TIMES: MANNY RAMIREZ SIGNS A CONTRACT–AFTER SEARCHING FOR COMMON GROUND
Manny Ramirez, the infamous Boston Red Sox veteran, has had a harder time than he thought finding someone who is willing to pay what he thinks he is worth in baseball. In the desperate economy, the only offer Manny would accept came from the Dodgers. there was a meeting a few days ago to make sure that Manny was okay with the contract. Manny wanted a lot of money and the Dodgers wanted more of the bump in ticket sales that they saw last season when Manny played for them. The only way Manny could get what he wanted financially out of playing baseball was to go with a team who really needed him that much to even be considered to win the pennant. Their common ground was to increase their cash flow. It may be that they both got their way.
Question to the Blogosphere: Is this how sports contracts are usually constructed? In this failing economy, do you think that contract negotiations will be more evenly matched–with the teams now having leverage constraining the grossly-overpaid baseball players’ demands? Can the economy increase the bargaining space between parties to contract negotiations? The economy served as leverage to Manny in the summer while oil prices and costs of living were high and leverage to the Dodgers this winter when no one else could afford the moody mitt-wearer–which other issues switch sides like this?
