Search

Begin New Search Topic Negotiation Political Geography United States of America

11. Naming Terror: Impact of Proscription on Negotiations with Non-State Armed Groups

Author:
Flavia Eichmann
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Woodrow Wilson School Journal of Public and International Affairs
Institution:
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Abstract:
This article explores what impact terrorist blacklists have on negotiated solutions to armed conflicts involving listed non-state armed groups. Even though conflicts that involve non-state armed groups do not usually end through these groups’ military defeat, governments around the globe tend to adopt hard-security approaches with regard to inner-state conflicts. Especially when groups resort to terrorist tactics, governments tend to be reluctant to engage peacefully with these actors and instead commonly rely on terrorist blacklists in order to delegitimize and restrict groups’ activities. While these blacklists are effective in criminalizing the operations of these groups, they can also severely impede peaceful dialogue and thus negatively impact the resolution of conflicts. Especially the work of NGOs and third-party peace practitioners is greatly constrained by criminalizing any form of interaction with listed groups. Additionally, in the absence of a universal definition of what constitutes a terrorist group, lists vary from country to country and the criteria for groups and individuals to get listed are often extremely vague. Furthermore, most lists fail to re-evaluate the proscribed groups on a regular basis and delisting procedures lack transparency. This article finds that blacklists severely disincentivize peaceful engagement with non-state armed groups and thus calls for a revision of contemporary proscription regimes in order to shift the focus of counterterrorism approaches towards viewing peaceful dialogue as a first option and not a last resort.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Terrorism, Non State Actors, Violent Extremism, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

12. Taking Stock of the Taliban’s Perspectives on Peace

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
What’s new? On 29 February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement meant to prompt peace talks between the militant group and the Afghan government. Many issues have delayed those talks, including widespread concerns about the Taliban’s willingness to compromise in a political settlement ending the war. Why does it matter? The U.S.-Taliban deal opened a fragile window of opportunity to settle the world’s deadliest conflict. But for talks among Afghans to progress, the Taliban will need to move beyond vague governing principles and put forth concrete negotiating positions on reconciliation, power sharing and governance. What should be done? The Taliban should swiftly determine clear negotiating positions and be prepared to debate – and eventually reach compromises – on these as intra-Afghan talks unfold. The U.S. and other donors should leverage prospects of post-transition assistance as encouragement, while the Afghan government and civil society should engage the group and its ideas.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Non State Actors, Taliban, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, and United States of America

13. A New U.S. Strategy for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Author:
Ilan Goldenberg, Michael Koplow, and Tamara Coffman Wittes
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
Today’s realities demand that the United States change its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its current focus is on high-profile diplomatic initiatives that aim for a permanent agreement in which the United States is the central mediator. Instead, the United States must focus on taking tangible steps, both on the ground and diplomatically, that will improve the freedom, prosperity, and security of all people living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, while also cultivating the conditions for a future two-state agreement negotiated between the parties.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Israel, Palestine, and United States of America

14. The Forgotten Peace at Twenty-Five: How to Protect and Strengthen Israel-Jordan Ties

Author:
Ghaith al-Omari and Ben Fishman
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the peace treaty, both parties and the United States have strategic interests in upholding and reinforcing the relationship. The optimism that characterized the signing of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty a quarter-century ago has long since dissipated. Today, the peace rests on a strong security foundation but lacks popular support, particularly on the Jordanian side. Nevertheless, there remain important opportunities for strengthening Israel-Jordan relations and preserving that pillar of America’s steadily eroding security architecture in the Middle East. It is critical for Washington to prioritize Jordan on its agenda. This includes urging the still-to-be-formed Israeli government to take responsible action on two fronts: keeping Amman’s interests in mind when formulating policy toward the West Bank, and implementing long-delayed initiatives that would help Jordan’s struggling economy.
Topic:
Security, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, Jordan, and United States of America

15. U.S. Policy Priorities for Afghanistan: A Conversation with U.S. Representative Mike Waltz

Author:
Michael Waltz and Marvin G. Weinbaum
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
The Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted U.S. Representative (FL) Michael Waltz to address U.S. policy priorities for Afghanistan. In conversation with Dr. Marvin Weinbaum, director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies at MEI, Rep. Waltz will discuss the many complicated challenges facing Afghanistan, key regional challenges to consider, and policy prescriptions given the fallout of the deal with the Taliban.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Taliban, Conflict, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, North America, and United States of America

16. Who Needs a Deal-Maker? Russia’s Mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Author:
Luiza Khlebnikova
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI)
Abstract:
The world has been focusing almost exclusively on the events in Syria and Russia’s role in them, ignoring a perennial core regional issue – the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2019, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip kept protesting and calling upon Israel to end the blockade of their territory and to lift restrictions on the movement of people and goods. The current US policy under the Donald Trump administration, as many prominent American and Russian experts - including Daniel Kurtzer and Vitaly Naumkin - point out, undermines the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. The hopes of the Palestinian people for their own state keep waning. Mostly, it is a result of the White House’s unilateral moves: the cut of US bilateral assistance programs to Palestinians, as well as contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the overturn of the US position on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are no longer considered illegal. “The deal of the century” promised by Donald Trump since 2016, has not been revealed in its entirety yet, however, its chances of success are extremely low.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, Negotiation, and Mediation
Political Geography:
Russia, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America

17. Steadying the New Status Quo in Syria’s North East

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
A tumultuous month in north-eastern Syria has left a tense standoff among the regime, Turkey and the YPG, mediated by Russia and, to some degree, still the U.S. All parties should respect the ceasefire as the regime and YPG negotiate more stable long-term arrangements. What’s new? The U.S. withdrawal announcement and subsequent Turkish incursion in north-eastern Syria shattered an awkward but fairly stable stalemate that had persisted for several years. A Russian-brokered ceasefire and partial reversal of the U.S. withdrawal have restored the impasse, but in far more fragile form. Why does it matter? The ceasefire leaves the biggest question unanswered: who will govern and police the north east? As the Syrian regime, Turkey and the People’s Protection Units (YPG) all stake potentially irreconcilable claims, and the U.S. stays put at the area’s oil fields, the emerging dispensation is highly volatile. What should be done? All sides should respect the ceasefire. The U.S. should protect its Kurdish and Arab partners in the Syrian Democratic Forces and prioritise stability in the north east in discussions with Russia and Turkey. The YPG should reassess its exclusive reliance on U.S. protection and pursue mutually beneficial arrangements with Damascus.
Topic:
Syrian War, Negotiation, Crisis Management, and YPG
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

18. President Trump’s Strategy in Afghanistan: The Way Forward to Normalcy

Author:
Muhammad Nasrullah Mirza and Yasir Malik
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Over the years, the Taliban have overwhelmingly grown in influence and their stature is being well recognized; exerting more pressure on Washington’s future orientation in Afghanistan. Amidst the backdrop of transitions taking place in Afghanistan’s political landscape, the foreseeable future has, ostensibly, rekindled the prospects of peace. Although peace process is gradually moving further, yet both sides are reluctant to compromise on each others’ terms. Since the assumption of power, President Trump’s approach to Afghanistan has been oscillating in consulting varying options to bring the Taliban to their terms rather to indulge, in true spirits, in a widely acknowledged political framework for peace. These chosen policy actions posit more challenges and less opportunities for peace in war-ridden Afghanistan. The emergent scenario requires a comprehensive, well-crafted and compromising structure to be devised, featured with inclusiveness of all stakes and issues involved in this prolonged conflict. Evaluating and analyzing President Trump’s strategic policy toward Afghanistan, this paper aims to explore the manifesting failures and grey areas of Trump’s Afghan strategy and also attempts to provide strategic foresight while considering the framework of endgame in Afghanistan.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Taliban, Trump, Negotiation, and Exit Strategy
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, Central Asia, Asia, North America, and United States of America

19. Peace Talks on Afghanistan. A Last Opportunity for Peace? / Conversaciones de paz sobre Afganis-tán ¿Una última oportunidad para la paz?

Author:
Javier Ruiz Arévalo
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
When it has been more than 17 years since the fall of the Taliban regime, the Afghan conflict is far from being over. The country continues to experience a kind of resilient civil war in which neither the legitimate government of Kabul, supported by a large part of the international community, nor the Taliban have managed to impose themselves in a clear and lasting manner. To date, it seems that none of the contenders considers it feasible that the conflict will end with a military victory. This reality has ended up addressing all the direct actors (the government of Kabul, the US and the Taliban) and the indirect actors (NATO, Russia, Pakistan, Iran...) to seek a negotiated end. The task is not easy given the difficulty to find an acceptable definition for everyone on the Afghanistan that should arise from the agreement. Reconciling the Islamic Republic that some advocate, with the Democratic State designed by the current Constitution is not an easy task. Perhaps for this reason, more than a decade of talks has not been enough to illuminate a peace agreement acceptable to all. At first, one might think that nothing has changed and that the talks currently undegoing are hopelessly doomed to failure, as they face the same problem as all previous attempts: the impossibility of reconciling the interests of the Afghan government, the Taliban and the US and its allies. However, it seems that the ongoing talks have been addressed by the US and the Taliban with a different spirit. The fatigue after so many years of conflict and the evidence, eventually assumed, of the impossibility of a military victory seems to have made a dent in both, making them see that there are only two possible options: accept an imperfect agreement or be doomed to an endless war.
Topic:
Taliban, Political stability, Conflict, Negotiation, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

20. Tensions in U.S.-Korea Economic Relations

Author:
Troy Stangarone
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Journal of Korean Studies
Institution:
International Council on Korean Studies
Abstract:
Following a relatively successful period for U.S.-South Korea economic relations under the Bush and Obama administrations, Washington and Seoul have entered a new period of economic tension in the Trump administration. Unlike prior U.S. presidents, who placed a priority on negotiating fair rules in the United States’ economic relationships, President Trump has prioritized outcomes. As a result, one of his administration’s earliest moves was to renegotiate the KORUS Free Trade Agreement. While the results of the renegotiation were modest, they may help to expand the sale of American automobiles in the Republic of Korea in the long-run. The largest outcome of the negotiations may be to protect the Ford Motor Company from South Korean competition in the U.S. market as the company transitions to sales focused on light trucks. While the renegotiation has eased tensions for the moment, the prospect of economic engagement with North Korea, the Trump administration’s continued use of national security to erect trade barriers, and the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles could result in growing tensions in the relationship.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Negotiation, Free Trade, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America