Latest news with #conflictResolution
CTV News
3 days ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Official fired during Trump's first term appointed president of embattled U.S. Institute of Peace
The U.S. Institute of Peace building is pictured, May 19, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File) A senior State Department official who was fired as a speechwriter during President Donald Trump 's first term and has a history of incendiary statements has been appointed to lead the embattled U.S. Institute of Peace. The move to install Darren Beattie as the institute's new acting president is seen as the latest step in the administration's efforts to dismantle the embattled organization, which was founded as an independent, non-profit think tank. It is funded by Congress to promote peace and prevent and end conflicts across the globe. The battle is currently being played out in court. Beattie, who currently serves as the under secretary for public diplomacy at the State Department and will continue on in that role, was fired during Trump's first term after CNN reported that he had spoken at a 2016 conference attended by white nationalists. He defended the speech he delivered as containing nothing objectionable. A former academic who taught at Duke University, Beattie also founded a right-wing website that shared conspiracies about the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and has a long history of posting inflammatory statements on social media. 'Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work,' he wrote on October 2024. 'Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men.' A State Department official confirmed Beattie's appointment by the USIP board of directors, which currently includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. '(W)e look forward to seeing him advance President Trump's America First agenda in this new role,' they said. The USPI has been embroiled in turmoil since Trump moved to dismantle it shortly after taking office as part of his broader effort to shrink the size of the federal government and eliminate independent agencies. Trump issued an executive order in February that targeted the organization and three other agencies for closure. The first attempt by the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly under the command of tech billionaire Elon Musk, to take over its headquarters led to a dramatic standoff. Members of Musk's group returned days later with the FBI and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police to help them gain entry. The administration fired most of the institute's board, followed by the mass firing of nearly all of its 300 employees in what they called 'the Friday night massacre.' The institute and many of its board members sued the Trump administration in March, seeking to prevent their removal and to prevent DOGE from taking over the institute's operations. DOGE transferred administrative oversight of the organization's headquarters and assets to the General Services Administration that weekend. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell overturned those actions in May, concluding that Trump was outside his authority in firing the board and its acting president and that, therefore, all subsequent actions were also moot. Her ruling allowed the institute to regain control of its headquarters in a rare victory for the agencies and organizations that have been caught up in the Trump administration's downsizing. The employees were rehired, although many did not return to work because of the complexity of restarting operations. They received termination orders — for the second time, however, — after an appeals court stayed Howell's order. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the U.S. Institute of Peace's request for a hearing of the full court to lift the stay of a three-judge panel in June. That stay led to the organization turning its headquarters back over to the Trump Administration. In a statement, George Foote, former counsel for the institute, said Beattie's appointment 'flies in the face of the values at the core of USIP's work and America's commitment to working respectfully with international partners' and also called it 'illegal under Judge Howell's May 19 decision.' 'We are committed to defending that decision against the government's appeal. We are confident that we will succeed on the merits of our case, and we look forward to USIP resuming its essential work in Washington, D.C. and in conflict zones around the world,' he said. By Gary Fields And Jill Colvin.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- General
- Yahoo
13 Things You Should Never Say In An Argument
When you're in the heat of an argument, it's pretty easy to let things slip that you might later regret. While you might want to win, saying the wrong thing can damage relationships and make a resolution that much harder. It's all about keeping things productive and not letting words get the better of you. So, here are 13 things you should probably steer clear of saying during a spat. Trust me, it could save you a lot of grief. 1. "You Never..." When you say "you never" during an argument, it instantly puts the other person on the defensive. This kind of phrase is a blanket statement that dismisses any positive actions they might have taken in the past. According to Dr. John Gottman, a renowned relationship expert, such statements can create an adversarial environment, making resolution more difficult. It narrows the scope of the conversation to only negative things, which doesn't really help anyone. Instead, focus on specific behavior and how it affects you. On top of that, these words can be incredibly inaccurate because let's be honest, no one ever does anything. Chances are, the person you're arguing with has done something right or helpful at some point. The term "you never" can quickly lead to a spiral of hurt feelings and misunderstandings. It shuts down communication and makes the other person feel undervalued. Instead, try to be more specific about what exactly is bothering you. 2. "You're Just Like Your Parent." Bringing family into the argument is a surefire way to derail any productive conversation. It's tempting to make comparisons when you're feeling frustrated, but this tactic can lead to a whole host of issues. No one wants to be compared to their parents, especially if the comparison is negative. It feels like a personal attack, and it might even bring up unresolved issues unrelated to the current argument. Keep the focus on the issues at hand rather than dragging family dynamics into it. Moreover, making such comparisons often misses the point entirely. It diverts the conversation from what you were initially discussing to something more personal and hurtful. While it might feel like a valid point at the moment, think about how it might make the other person feel. For a more constructive conversation, focus on specific actions rather than general characterizations. This keeps emotions in check and the discussion on track. 3. "Calm Down." Telling someone to "calm down" almost always has the opposite effect. It's a dismissive statement that minimizes the other person's feelings, which can escalate the situation further. Dr. Gail Gross, a human behavior expert, suggests that it's crucial to acknowledge emotions rather than dismiss them. Saying "calm down" conveys that you don't take the other person's feelings seriously, making them feel misunderstood or belittled. A better approach is to acknowledge their emotions and suggest discussing things when both parties are ready. Furthermore, when emotions run high, it's essential to allow space for them to be expressed. Trying to quash those feelings with a simple "calm down" is not only ineffective but also unkind. It can make the other person feel isolated and unwilling to communicate openly. Instead, express your understanding of their feelings and suggest a break if needed. This can often be more effective in restoring a sense of calm than the words "calm down" ever could. 4. "I Don't Care." Saying "I don't care" is an instant conversation stopper. It communicates complete disengagement and devalues the other person's opinion or feelings. While it might seem like a quick way to end an argument, it actually creates more issues in the long run. It signals that you are not interested in resolving the situation or understanding the other person's perspective. This phrase essentially pulls the plug on any potential for constructive dialogue. In addition to shutting down communication, it can also deeply hurt the other person involved. They might feel that their concerns or emotions are not important to you, which can lead to resentment and further conflict. Instead of saying "I don't care," try to articulate what specifically is not resonating with you and why. This opens the door for discussion and helps you both find common ground. By doing so, the chances of a compassionate resolution increase. 5. "It's Your Fault." Blame is a powerful tool, but it's not one that fosters productive conversation. When you say "it's your fault," it shifts the focus from resolving the issue to assigning blame, which rarely solves anything. According to Dr. Brené Brown, a research professor and author known for her work on vulnerability and empathy, blame is simply the discharging of discomfort and pain. It's a knee-jerk reaction that might make you feel better momentarily, but doesn't move the conversation forward. Instead, try to focus on the issue at hand and explore how you both contributed to it. Blaming can result in the other person feeling attacked and invalidated, which will often lead to a defensive reaction. This kind of dialogue is a roadblock to any form of meaningful resolution. A more constructive approach involves taking ownership of your own feelings and actions while encouraging the other person to do the same. This opens up space for a more balanced and honest conversation. It helps both of you address the core issues instead of just pointing fingers. 6. "You're Overreacting." Telling someone they're overreacting is basically another way of telling them their feelings are invalid. It belittles their emotions and can make them feel they're not allowed to express what they're experiencing. This can lead to frustration and a breakdown in communication, making it harder to find a resolution. Instead, try to understand why they are feeling the way they are. Listen actively and ask questions to get to the root of the issue rather than dismissing it outright. When you label someone as overreacting, it can create a defensive stance. The other person might feel compelled to prove the validity of their emotions, which can further derail the conversation. This turns the dialogue into a debate about feelings rather than focusing on resolving the issue. A better approach is to validate their feelings and express your own perception of the situation. By doing so, both parties can work towards understanding each other better and finding common ground. 7. "I'm Done." Saying "I'm done" is like slamming the door shut on dialogue. It indicates that you are no longer willing to engage, which can be incredibly frustrating for the other person involved. Dr. Sue Johnson, a clinical psychologist and developer of Emotionally Focused Therapy, emphasizes the importance of staying engaged even during difficult conversations. When you declare that you're done, you essentially refuse to give the relationship the attention it needs to resolve the issue. Instead, consider taking a pause to gather your thoughts and then revisit the conversation when both parties are ready. This phrase can also lead to feelings of abandonment and unresolved conflicts. It signals a lack of willingness to work on the issue, which can be damaging to any relationship. Instead of walking away, express your need for a break to cool down, but make it clear that you're committed to resolving the issue later. This can keep both parties engaged and invested in finding a solution. It also shows that you're willing to work through disagreements rather than just quitting. 8. "I'm Sorry, But..." An apology followed by a "but" is not really an apology at all. It negates whatever came before it and indicates that you're not truly taking responsibility for your actions. Instead of focusing on making amends, it shifts attention back to the other person as the one at fault. This can lead to frustration and prolong the argument rather than resolving it. A genuine apology should stand on its own without qualifiers or justifications. When you tack on a "but," it can make the other person feel like their feelings are being dismissed. It suggests that while you might be sorry, you still believe you're in the right, which isn't helpful for resolving conflicts. If you truly want to apologize, focus on understanding how your actions affected the other person and acknowledge their feelings. This can go a long way in mending the rift and restoring trust. An apology without a "but" shows maturity and willingness to take responsibility. 9. "You Always..." Similar to "you never," saying "you always" is another blanket statement that oversimplifies complex behaviors. It paints the other person in a negative light, suggesting they are incapable of change or improvement. This kind of language can put them on the defensive and make it difficult to focus on resolving the issue at hand. Instead of making sweeping generalizations, focus on specific instances and how they affected you. This opens up the conversation for constructive dialogue rather than escalating it. Using "you always" is often an exaggeration and not entirely true. People rarely, if ever, exhibit the same behavior all the time. Such statements can make the other person feel mischaracterized and misunderstood. This can lead to a lack of willingness to engage in further conversation, as it feels like an attack on their character. By concentrating on specific behaviors and expressing how they impact you, both parties can work towards understanding and resolution. 10. "Whatever." Saying "whatever" during an argument is like throwing in the towel without actually resolving anything. It communicates indifference and dismisses the other person's feelings or opinions. While it might seem like a quick fix to end the conflict, it only leaves issues unresolved and feelings hurt. By saying "whatever," you signal that you're not interested in finding a solution, which can create more problems down the line. Instead, try to stay engaged and focus on finding a resolution. This phrase can also frustrate the other person and make them feel their concerns are unimportant. It can lead to further conflict and a breakdown in communication, making it harder to resolve the issue. Instead of saying "whatever," take a step back and express your need to pause the discussion if you're feeling overwhelmed. This shows that while you might need a break, you're still committed to resolving the issue. Doing so can foster a more constructive dialogue and help both parties work towards a resolution. 11. "You're Too Sensitive." Accusing someone of being too sensitive is another way of invalidating their feelings. It implies that their emotional response is unwarranted, which can be deeply hurtful. Everyone has different emotional thresholds, and dismissing someone's feelings based on your own standards is not constructive. Instead, try to approach the situation with empathy and understanding. Ask questions to better understand their feelings rather than dismissing them outright. This tactic can also escalate the conflict, as the person might feel the need to defend their emotions. It shifts the focus away from the issue at hand and turns it into a debate about emotional validity. This can make it difficult to resolve the argument and find common ground. A better approach is to express your own feelings and perceptions while acknowledging theirs. This can create a more balanced conversation and help both parties work towards understanding each other. 12. "This Is Why We Shouldn't Be Together." Dropping the "breakup bomb" in an argument can be incredibly damaging. It's a drastic statement that shifts the focus from the issue at hand to the very foundation of the relationship. Even if you're feeling frustrated, suggesting a breakup as a way to win an argument is not constructive. It can create feelings of insecurity and distrust, making it harder to resolve the conflict. Instead, focus on the specific issue and how you both can work on it together. Such statements can also be hard to take back once they're out in the open. They plant seeds of doubt and fear, even if you didn't truly mean them. This can lead to a lack of trust and hesitation to engage in future conversations. Instead of making statements that can deeply hurt the other person, focus on finding solutions to the issues you're facing. This shows commitment to the relationship and a willingness to work through difficulties together. 13. "I'm Done Talking About This." Saying "I'm done talking about this" shuts down any opportunity for further dialogue or resolution. It indicates that you're unwilling to engage, which can leave the other person feeling frustrated and unheard. While it might seem like an easy way to end an argument, it only leaves issues unresolved. Instead of cutting off the conversation, express your need to take a break if you're feeling overwhelmed. This communicates that while you might need time, you're still committed to resolving the issue. Additionally, this phrase can make the other person feel like their concerns are not important to you. It can lead to a breakdown in communication and make it harder to address the issue at hand. Instead of saying you're done, try to express your willingness to revisit the conversation at a later time. This shows that you're open to finding a resolution and value the relationship. By doing so, you create a more constructive environment for dialogue and resolution. Solve the daily Crossword
The National
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Jailed PKK leader Ocalan speaks on camera for first time in 25 years
The jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) has made his first appearance on camera in more than two decades, as he reiterated a call for the group to lay down its weapons and move towards non-violent politics. The PKK and its 'national liberation war strategy have come to an end,' Abdullah Ocalan said in a video message dated June 19, 2025 and released on Wednesday. 'I believe in the power of politics and social peace, not weapons, and I call on you to realise this principle,' Ocalan told his PKK members in the seven-minute address. Ocalan, whose group is designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the US and the European Union, has been held in a remote prison on Imrali Island in the Sea of Marmara, south of Istanbul, since being captured by Turkish security forces in 1999. The last time he appeared on camera was during his trial and in the latest video he is seen with white hair and a fuller figure. Ocalan founded the PKK in the 1970s and the group waged an armed insurgency against the Turkish state for decades, in an attempt to secure greater rights for the country's Kurdish minority. About one fifth of Turkey's population is ethnically Kurdish. The conflict has killed more than 40,000 people on both sides and the PKK became Ankara's number one security priority. Ocalan first called on PKK members to disarm and dissolve the group in February, in a move that opened the pathway to end one of the Middle East's most intractable conflicts. At the time, his message was read out by members of Turkey's main pro-Kurdish political party, the People's Democracy and Equality Party (DEM). The call came after a prolonged process initiated by an ally of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the ultranationalist politician Devlet Bahceli, to offer greater freedom for Ocalan in exchange for the PKK's dissolution. In May the PKK agreed to dissolve and this week said it will begin the process of disarming by destroying some of its weapons in a ceremony in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Many PKK members live in mountainous areas of Kurdish-majority parts of northern Iraq. Kurdish politicians in Turkey, who distinguish themselves from the PKK, are pushing for Ankara to move faster in what they describe as a democratisation process aimed at securing peace. The central government has framed the process as aiming to achieve a 'terror-free Turkey' after more than four decades of conflict with the militant group. Ocalan appears surrounded by members of a study group composed of other prisoners in the video. DEM party officials have previously confirmed he has been allowed to meet a small number of other prisoners in the months since the opening with Turkish authorities began. It was not known who filmed the footage or how permission for its release was granted. DEM officials have met Ocalan in jail several times in recent months and on Monday they met Mr Erdogan for the second time in four months. As part of the process, Kurdish politicians in Turkey are broadly calling for better prison conditions for Ocalan and the formation of a parliamentary commission to solidify the opening with the PKK in Turkish law. That could lead to amendments to the country's anti-terrorism laws to determine the fate of current PKK members and enable their return to Turkey without legal repercussions. They also want greater rights to use the Kurdish language and an end to curbs on Kurdish political activity. The PKK has framed its initial disarming this week as a way of pushing for firmer action from the Turkish state on these issues. In the video, Ocalan warned against tit-for-tat demands and called on his members to lay down their weapons. 'The voluntary laying down of arms as a general part of the process and the work of the comprehensive commission to be established in the Turkish parliament, authorised by law, are important,' Ocalan said. 'It is imperative to show care and sensitivity in taking steps without falling into the vicious logic, you/me first.' The Turkish government has not spoken in great depth about the PKK dissolution process, but senior officials have generally voiced support for its continuation. "There is, and cannot be, any step in the terror-free Turkey efforts that would tarnish the memory of our martyrs or hurt their spirits," Mr Erdogan said on Wednesday in remarks to MPs from his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). He previously said the process 'will gain momentum once the terrorist organisation begins to implement its decision to lay down arms". Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin travelled to the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Tuesday, where the process of the PKK's dissolution and disarmament was the main agenda item in his meetings with senior Iraqi officials, Turkish state broadcaster TRT reported. While most of the PKK members in Iraq live in areas under control of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, the Turkey-Iraq border security forces are under federal control, and Ankara appears keen to have central buy-in for the process.
South China Morning Post
03-07-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Veteran Chinese diplomat warns Trump's policies risk ‘shared destruction'
The Trump administration's national security mindset could push humanity towards more conflicts and even 'shared destruction', the head of the Communist Party's diplomatic arm has warned. Advertisement Liu Jianchao , who leads the International Department of the party's Central Committee, pitched China's vision of international relations – a rejection of the ethos reflected in American foreign policy language – as a viable path to lasting global peace on Thursday. The veteran Chinese diplomat rejected statements made by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Shangri-La Dialogue in May. At the annual security forum in Singapore, the Pentagon chief repeatedly stressed that Washington 'is committed to achieving peace through strength' under US President Donald Trump. 'That rhetoric is a new embodiment of hegemonic thinking,' Liu said in a speech during the World Peace Forum in Beijing. 'What [Hegseth] truly seeks is force, not dialogue. What he stirs up is confrontation and conflict, not peace and harmony,' he added at the event co-organised by Tsinghua University and the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs. Advertisement
Al Arabiya
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Hamas says studying new ceasefire offers
Hamas says it is studying new ceasefire offers which it has received from the mediators, adding in a statement that it seeks an agreement that will end the Gaza war and achieves Israeli army pullout from the strip.
