Governing in a post-conflict society social fit
Abstract : The growing interconnectedness of nations through globalization, and the threat of international terrorism as a destabilizing force, has increased the international community's concern for stable governance in the developing world. In an era of globalization, with near instantaneous information flow, and a global court of international opinion, the options for governing a society in a post-conflict environment are limited. History is filled with rebellions, insurgencies, coups, invasions, and occupations that result in regime change or some sort of post-conflict intervention by the international community. In each case, prior to conflict there was an established order, or form of governance. After conflict, a new order or form of governance has to emerge. In these societies, a preconflict political and social order was disrupted, and a new post-conflict political and social order established. Ideally, the crafting of a new political and social order into effective governance requires the acceptance of the governed. As the United States remains committed to assisting nations with establishing governance and fostering stability, policy makers should consider the social acceptance of a post-conflict government by the people.
Bosnia: Overview of Current Issues
This report provides an overview of prominent current issues in Bosnia that may be of interest to Members of the 110th Congress.
Analysis: The Agenda 2007 Proposals: Evolution or Revolution?
On 10 February 2004 the Commission published its proposal for the financial perspective 2007-2013. A week later it adopted the third report on economic and social cohesion. These two documents form the basis of the so-called ‘Agenda 2007 reforms’. They will be the greatest challenge for the enlarged EU after the intergovernmental conference, since they will determine the financial basis for EU policy-making until the middle of the next decade. The Agenda 2007 proposals certainly hint at courageous reforms, because they place a previously unheard-of emphasis on performance and quality. Under the proposals, structural operations should generate value for money, and the funds should focus on projects which generate added value at a European level. Overall the Commission’s proposals point in the right direction, because they balance, on the one hand, solidarity for the new Member States and weak regions in the old Member States with, on the other hand, investments in future tasks. Moreover, they constitute a paradigm shift. For the first time, the Common Agricultural Policy will not be the dominant expenditure category. Now it is up to the Member States to examine the proposals politically and find a compromise between sometimes very divergent interests. It is to be hoped that, during the debate over expenditure limits and division of funds, national interests do not outweigh European interests.