All--

There was an article on the NY Times first page today (Sun, 8/18/13) about the US's failed efforts to have a good effect on the turmoil in Egypt.  THIS POST TAKES NO POSITION on what any Egyptians are doing, nor on what US policy should be about events in Egypt.  The Times article is here (sign-in may be required; free with subscription or if you have had few views so far this month):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-by-us-f...

You may recall that Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham went to Egypt to try to intervene in the aftermath of the military having removed the democratically elected President.  Before traveling, they had taken the position that the military's removal of Pres. Morsi, an "Islamist" member of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a coup.  One of the US's efforts to play a positive role was the Senators trying to negotiate with the military and the government installed by the military.

Sen. Graham told an interviewer about his effort to defuse the situation: "You could tell people were itching for a fight,...  The prime minister was a disaster. He kept preaching to me: 'You can't negotiate with these people. They've got to get out of the streets and respect the rule of law.' I said: 'Mr. Prime Minister, it's pretty hard for you to lecture anyone on the rule of law. How many votes did you get? Oh, yeah, you didn't have an election. "  Let's suppose that, improbably, that's literally what Sen. Graham said to the new PM.

One.  If Sen. Graham had learned mediation skills, how else might he have phrased that?

Two.  If he had spoken more the way a mediator might have, would it likely have helped Sen. Graham reach his own goals?

Three.  Let's recognize this.  The US, and the Senators, are not neutral in this dispute.  They have preferred outcomes and access to powers that, if used and if not used, might affect outcomes, or at least try to or tend to affect outcomes.  The public would say the US was a "mediator" in these efforts, in the sense that the US inserted itself into the "middle" of the disputes.  Do we agree the US is a mediator?  If not, should we do anything to educate the press, public and thought leaders -- and certainly the participants themselves -- that what goes on in these situations may be with noble intent and sometimes it's even successful, but it's a form of ADR different from mediation?

Four.  Is it reasonable to expect a US Senator to act like a mediator?  It used to be that one important skill to become and to act like a legislator is to compromise and to get people to "common ground" for the overall good. Arguably, those instincts are no longer useful to candidates or officials, and in some places they now seem to be downright dangerous for continued
public service.  When considering and voting on a bill or debating policy, is it better, or even acceptable, if a legislator is "neutral"?

Five.  That said, would it be a good idea if legislatures used mediators and other ADR professionals to assist debate and to facilitate the making of policy decisions?

Six.  Would it be a good idea for diplomats to be or to use mediators?

Seven.  What else strikes you?

    --Chuck

Charles M. Newman
Attorney | Mediator | Arbitrator
500 Fifth Avenue
Suite 1610
New York, New York 10110
Tel: (212) 332-3321
Fax: (212) 685-7135
cnewman@newmanlawmediation.com