Robert Fersh, former director of SFCG USA and co-director of the US Muslim engagement project wrote a great article on civility for the Baltimore Sun last week. Disagree, but engage emphasized the idea that thoughtful, respectful and conflicting points of view often produce creative solutions in challenging situations; suggesting that for civility to really break out in America, people must first be willing to talk to one another. Common ground is rare on issues like gun control and abortion. However, by creating new understandings, cooperation can unfold which the article illustrates through two SFCG initiatives:
There is ample precedent for such work. In the 1990s, Search for Common Ground organized the Network for Life and Choice at a time of deep division over abortion. There had been killings at abortion clinics. It was understood there would be no agreement on the fundamental issue of abortion. Yet, people with sharply differing views found they could work together on teenage pregnancy prevention, foster care and adoption. In the process, temperatures cooled. People understood that their “adversaries” could be people of decency and compassion whose life experiences led them to honest disagreement on this highly charged issue.
The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice aims to transform the dynamics of the abortion conflict, not settle or resolve the core conflict. The idea is to promote a level of trust between adversaries so that they can gain a deeper understanding of the conflict and motivations and coexist peacefully. This network also locate common ground where parties can act together when it serves their mutual interests on such issues as preventing teen pregnancy.
These processes are most successful when participants have strong, informed opinions and can make a difference if they reach agreement. This was the case in the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, where 34 diverse American leaders joined in an influential consensus report in 2008 to show a way forward for the United States in its relations with Muslim majority countries. The group included a former Clinton administration secretary of state, former Republican members of Congress, high-ranking former officials of the George W. Bush administration, 11 Muslim-American leaders, a former director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, clergy of differing faiths, and others. Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, said: “This report provides clear-headed ideas and analysis that the American public and bipartisan leaders can get behind in working to improve U.S.-Muslim relations. The process by which the group reached consensus is a good model for dialogue for the tough issues our country faces.”
The U.S.-Muslim Engagement project works to build consensus on a comprehensive approach to improving U.S.-Muslim relations. The group addresses tensions, misunderstandings, distrust and hostilities. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project has produced a new strategy that better meets the long-term national security interests of the U.S., by addressing the sources of tension between the U.S. and Muslims in key countries and regions. In 2008, the group released a report and launched an intensive education campaign to influence the views and actions of the Obama Administration, Congress, opinion leaders, think tanks, interest groups and the public at large.
Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, said: “This report provides clear-headed ideas and analysis that the American public and bipartisan leaders can get behind in working to improve U.S.-Muslim relations. The process by which the group reached consensus is a good model for dialogue for the tough issues our country faces.”
What other issues would you work on with “adversaries” to serve your mutual interests?
SFCG partner Lisa Schirch, Director of 3D Security Initiative, has an interesting article in the Huffington Post on the recently released CPRF 3D Report that was created a joint project of Search for Common Ground, 3D Security and a consortium of think tanks and universities.
To some, a 3D approach means orienting all elements of national power around short-term political and security goals, defined by a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes US national interests. On the ground in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Colombia, this means orienting development and diplomatic efforts toward counterinsurgency military efforts. As a result, USAID dollars get spent in nations and communities where insurgency is growing rather than where development is most needed or possible. In this view, the Department of Defense “pushes a plough at the tip of a spear.”
Many civil society groups shudder at the concept of a 3D or whole-of-government approach: for them, it has come to mean navigating a quagmire of hijacked NGOs and development dollars to fight the war on terror. They point to ever-increasing violence against humanitarian aid workers and shrinking humanitarian space, along with the increasingly blurry lines between civil society, political and military personnel and goals.
NGOs rightly resist being used as implementers in someone else’s foreign policy strategy–especially when the strategy has little to do with principled poverty reduction and sustainable peace and development.
Thankfully, this is not the only model of a comprehensive approach to foreign policy. Ideally, a 3D approach to foreign policy means a more balanced budgeting of resources among development, diplomacy and defense; while bringing all elements of national power to issues of civilian protection and the broader human security of people and communities.
Read the rest of her article here.
Be sure to check out the CPRF Final Report. It’s a wonderful resource for a multi-lateral approach to security, development and peacbuilding.
What does a 3D approach mean to you?

Pro-democracy supporters react to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak outside the Egyptian Embassy in London (AP / Sang Tan)
Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak has stepped down after 30 years in power, transferring power to the military.
The recently appointed V.P., Omar Suleiman announced the president’s resignation saying:
“In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate, citizens, during these very difficult circumstances Egypt is going through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down from the office of president of the republic and has charged the high council of the armed forces to administer the affairs of the country. May God help everybody.”
The reaction of the crowd in Tahrir square has been joyous with people shouting things like “The people have brought down the regime,” and “Hold your head up, you’re Egyptian!”
Al Jazeera has an excellent live-feed of the reaction in Egypt and further afield.
So now the question is, what’s next for Egypt?
He also calls for any transition “to fully respect human rights, and to ensure genuine and inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders.”
Hopefully the unity, optimism and determination shown by the protesters continues as Egypt embarks on a new chapter.
Hamro Team (“Our Team”) is set to broadcast in Nepal soon, but the theme song and accompanying music video were released recently at a large even in Kathmandu. In the presence of media representatives, director Bhusan Dahal along with composer Kali Prasad Banskota and singers Astha B and Nima Rumba launched the video and screened a teaser for the show.
The 13-episode show will center around a female soccer player who chooses to coach an all-male team rather than take an opportunity to move the U.S. Her team is made up of young men from all around the country. The show aims to address and create awareness about good governance, leadership and unity.
“It forces the characters in the stories to question the leadership of the politicians, and to voice their opinions on what kinds of leadership they want,” says Abinash Bikram Shah, the lead writer of the series. “But this was not possible without understanding and accepting the views of people of various background in Nepal.”
Watch the music video below, but beware, it’s very catchy:
The Team uses the metaphor of a soccer team to tackle themes of unity and cooperation in the various countries where it’s broadcast. Learn more about the series here or fan Hamro Team on Facebook.
The CPRF Final Report: A 3D Approach to Foreign Policy has just been released. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum (CPRF) is a project of Search for Common Ground, 3D Security and a consortium of Washington think tanks and universities.
The forums meets monthly and engages in discussions like:
- The Role of the Military in Peacekeeping
- Conflict Resolution & Negotiation in Latin America: Opportunities & Obstacles
- Renegotiating an Effective Non-Proliferation Regime
- Inclusion in Peace Processes: Who Should Have a Seat at the Table?
- Children in Armed Conflict
- Isolation vs. Engagement: When Diplomats Do Their Job.
- Toward a Bi-Partisan Foreign Policy: What Can Religious Leaders Contribute
- Investing in Peace: Taking Conflict Resolution and Development to Scale
This collection of reports is from a year-long special series of CPRF forums concerning development, defense and diplomacy (the 3D’s).
Do development funds and diplomacy bend hearts and minds toward political leaders abroad, giving the U.S. short-term access to natural resources or protecting geopolitical interests related to global power dynamics? Or are development and diplomacy fundamentally about building a shared vision of freedom, participatory governance, and human rights? Does civil society have a role in security sector oversight, or are civil society groups simply implementers of a government-defined foreign policy?
The final report maps a variety of answers to questions like these, across the political spectrum.
Read it here.
Go to our website for more information or to register for upcoming forums!



