Category: Rebecca Asch
The day after Mosul
It is almost certain that ISIS’s Iraqi capital, Mosul, will fall to Iraqi and Kurdish forces within the next year. However, the question remains as to how the city will rebuild itself. For that, we can look to the experience of Kirkuk, another major Iraqi city that was secured by Kurdish forces in 2014.
On Monday, the Kirkuki governor Najmaldin Karim spoke at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He was interviewed by Michael Knights, a Lafer fellow at the Washington Institute.
Karim explained that despite the Kurdish control of the city, Kirkuk is in a precarious position. Since the Mosul operation began last month, ISIS militants have begun attacking Kirkuk, leading to 13 deaths and 200 injuries. It is difficult for Kirkuki officials to detect ISIS militants because they disguise themselves as civilians and internally displace people (IDPs). Additionally, some of the suburbs around Kirkuk are still controlled by ISIS. These represent a major threat to Kirkuk. The governor expressed disappointment that the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga decided to address the problem in Mosul before the problems around Kirkuk.
The problems that created Al Qaeda in Iraq—ISIS’s predecessor—still exist. The discord between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias as well as Kurds and Arabs still causes problems in Iraq. If these divisions are not addressed, ISIS or another radical group will take root in Iraq even after the Mosul operation ends. Karim noted that Mosul is especially tricky due to its internal ethnic divisions and the large number of ISIS supporters in the city. It will also be very difficult to return IDPs to the city, since much of it will be destroyed in the fighting.
Karim focused on how Kirkuk has been handling its population of IDPs. The majority are Sunnis from Mosul. Some are from towns that have already been liberated from ISIS, but due to destruction they have not been able to return. The city has received no financial assistance from Baghdad to help care for and resettle the IDPs. In fact, the city is fully supported by the KRG, which has not been able to give Kirkuk what it should. Karim sees the issue of IDPs as central to the rebuilding of Iraq. If the IDPs cannot return home and lead happy, productive lives, Iraq will remain in chaos, even after ISIS has left the country.
Karim was asked if he were the governor of Mosul, what would be his priorities for the day after liberation? He answered that he would be vigilant not to prioritize certain areas over others. If the governor of Mosul chooses to rebuild Shia areas before Sunni areas, the Sunni population of Mosul would rise up in protest and cause instability. Rebuilding should be prioritized based on the number of people.
The KRG representative to the United States, Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman asked Karim if perhaps Kirkuk is subtly trying to pursue an agenda of Arabization by accepting a large number of Sunni Arab IDPs. Karim admitted that from an outsider’s perspective it might look as though this is Kirkuk’s agenda, especially given Arabization efforts in Kirkuk in the past. However, he said, Kirkuk is desperately trying to return the IDPs to their homes. They are stuck in Kirkuk for the time being, for better or for worse.
Karim said that he hopes President-elect Trump will focus more on stabilizing Iraq rather than defeating ISIS. Kurds are worried that once ISIS is defeated they will lose US support and will not be able to pursue their goal of independence. However, Karim remains hopeful that KRG president Barzani will be able to negotiate greater Kurdish autonomy with Iraqi president Al-Abadi in the aftermath of the Mosul operation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s Middle East: no one really knows
Tuesday night’s election result was shocking for many. Though Clinton’s policy in the Middle East seemed predictable, President-elect Trump’s Middle East policy is a mystery.
To begin to unpack this mystery, the Washington Institute for New East policy convened a panel this morning of Middle East scholars and international journalists to discuss what they expect to see from a President Trump. The panel featured Dennis Ross, a fellow at the Washington Institute, Norman Ornstein, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and the editor-in-chief of the Al-Arab News Channel, David Horovitz, founding editor of the Times of Israel, and Jumana Ghunaimat, editor-in-chief of the Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad.
Khashoggi said Saudis were caught off guard by the election, as they were expecting a Clinton presidency. Due to Hillary Clinton’s long track record, they felt they knew what to expect and were ready for what was to come. Saudis are worried about Trump’s support for Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), though they are encouraged by his hard stance on Iran. They are also worried that Trump’s closeness with Putin and softening towards Assad will result in a Syria that is unfriendly to Saudi Arabia.
On Jordan, Ghunaimat said relations between the US and Jordan will likely stay the same. Jordan is a relatively stable and important ally in the region, and nothing Trump has said or done so far indicates that relationship will be in jeopardy.
Horovitz said most Israelis believed that Trump would be best for Israel, but they nevertheless wanted Clinton to win the election. Though they perceived Trump as having more empathy for Israel than Clinton and likely to take Israel’s concerns seriously, Clinton has a long pro-Israel track record. They know they could depend on Clinton to look after Israeli interests whereas Trump is more of a wild card. Israelis are still hopeful that their relationship with President Trump will be better than their relationship with Obama.
Ornstein focused more on the effect that President Trump would have domestically and the factors that led to his election. He blamed the inaccuracy of the polls on the “Bradley effect”—that is, many people were embarrassed to report that they were voting for Trump. The complaints of the white working class are valid and were unaddressed by Washington. This in combination with Clinton’s unpopularity among Democrats led to his election. Ornstein forsees Trump depending on others to make vital decisions, so whom he appoints will be decisive.
Dennis Ross said we know that Trump wants to get rid of ISIS and to improve our relationship with Russia. But defeating ISIS requires the trust of Sunni militias. This trust cannot be cemented in the face of a Putin-Assad-Trump friendship it would guarantee Shiite strength. Trump needs to approach his relationship with Putin—and, by extension, Assad—very carefully and be sure to enforce consequences when necessary. Aside from this, Ross encouraged humility in the face of Trump’s presidency—we cannot presume to know what he will choose to do, since there is simply not enough information available.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, November 7 – 11
- Elections in Hard Times: Building Stronger Democracies in the 21st Century | Monday, November 7 | 10:00am – 11:00am | Woodrow Wilson Center | Click HERE to Register Why are ‘free and fair’ elections so often followed by democratic backsliding?Elections in Hard Times answers this critical question, showing why even clean elections fail to advance democracy when held amidst challenging structural conditions. It develops a new theory of why elections fail in countries with little democratic history or fiscal resources, and a history of violent conflict. Discussing a new report by Thomas Edward Flores, Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution and Political Science, George Mason University and Co-Author, Elections in Hard Times and Irfan Nooruddin, Director, Georgetown University’s India Initiative, former Wilson Center Fellow and Co-Author, Elections in Hard Times. Moderated by William J. Pomeranz, Deputy Director, Kennan Institute, Wilson Center
- Enhancing the US-Georgia Security Partnership: The Way Forward | Monday, November 7 | 10:30am – 11:30am | Heritage Foundation | Click HERE to register Located in the South Caucasus, Georgia sits at a crucial geographical and cultural crossroads and has proven to be strategically important for military and economic reasons for centuries. Today, Georgia’s strategic location is also important to the United States. In 2008 Georgia was promised eventual membership at the NATO summit in Bucharest. Since then few countries in the Euro-Atlantic region express as much enthusiasm for NATO as Georgia – even though it is not yet inside NATO. After the Russian invasion in 2008 and the subsequent Russian occupation of 20 percent of Georgia’s territory, Georgia has transformed its military and has contributed thousands of troops to overseas military operations – all in the hopes of speeding up its application to join NATO. What is Georgia’s prospect of joining the Alliance? How will the new Georgian government and the next U.S. president handle the issue of NATO membership? Join us as we address these issues and more. Featuring Brigadier General (Ret.) Peter Zwack, Senior Russia-Eurasia Fellow, Institute of National Security Studies, National Defense University, Richard Weitz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute, Stephen Blank, PhD., Senior Fellow for Russia, American Foreign Policy Council, Luke Coffey, Director, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
- Is Islamic Law Compatible with Human Rights? | Monday, November 7 | 12:30pm | Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register The international media frequently features stories of Arab states and non-state actors committing human rights violations allegedly in the name of Islam. The application and understanding of Islamic jurisprudence is varied and controversial, whether such readings of the faith result in institutionalized state laws or actions committed by non-state actors, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) or al-Qaeda.The Atlantic Council’s Islamic Law and Human Rights initiative, a project of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, explores human rights violations by Arab states and non-state actors committed in the name of Islam. This event will present the initiative and feature a discussion on where gender relations and freedom of speech stand in the context of sharia in the region. Featuring Hauwa Ibrahim, Sharia and Human Rights Scholar, Harvard Divinity School and Dr. Moataz El Fegiery,Protection Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, Front Line Defenders and moderated by Ms. Geneive Abdo, Author of The New Sectarianism: The Arab Uprisings and the Shi’a-Sunni Divide, Atlantic Council
- Stopping North Korea Inc. | Monday, November 7 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Brookings Institute | Click HERE to Register North Korea’s continuous provocations have raised important questions about the efficacy of international sanctions: Do sanctions intended to reduce or halt weapons of mass destruction procurement work, and if not, why? What, if any, unintended consequences—positive or negative—do sanctions against North Korea (DPRK) generate? What can be done to improve the effectiveness of these and other sanctions? In their recent report, Jim Walsh and John Park address these specific questions with a primary objective to document North Korea’s practices, partners, and pathways in order to better understand how the DPRK has innovated in the face of international sanctions. On November 7, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings will host John Park and Jim Walsh as they present key findings from their three-year MacArthur Foundation-funded study of what they call “North Korea, Inc.,” the system of regime-operated state trading companies that the DPRK employs to procure both licit and illicit goods. Jonathan Pollack, interim SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, will provide remarks after their presentation, followed by a Q&A moderated by Richard Bush, director of the Center for East Asia Policy Studies.
- Balancing a New Relationship with Iran: Security and Insecurity in the Wake of a Nuclear Deal | Thursday, November 10 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Stimson Center | Click HERE to Register
Following the 2015 nuclear deal involving Iran, there was widespread optimism that Iran would develop into a peaceful and constructive member of the international system. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a significant development, as it brings the nuclear issue under international scrutiny and control. At the same time, actions from Iran, both historically and more recently, continue to contribute to instability in the Middle East.While Iran has maintained its commitments under the nuclear deal, leaders in Iran continue to espouse a foreign policy that confronts U.S. friends and allies and supports both governments and militant organizations that challenge U.S. interests and disrupt peace and security in the region. At the same time, the U.S. and Iran have found a common enemy in Iraq, with Secretary of State John Kerry recently conceding that Iran has been “in certain ways helpful” in the fight against ISIL-Daesh, and Iran has begun to forge new relationships in the international economy.Undoubtedly engagement with Iran is necessary for bringing peace and security to the Middle East region. This engagement needs to involve key states in the region and incorporate their views and perspectives regarding Iran’s potential for both contributing to security and fomenting insecurity in the region.
Featuring Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, Jr., Chairman, Stimson Center, Richard Burchill (Moderator), Director of Research & Engagement, TRENDS, Laicie Heeley, Fellow, Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense, Stimson Center, David Albright, President and Founder, Institute for Science and International Security, Mark Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, IISS-Americas with opening remarks by Ahmed Al Hamli, President and Founder, TRENDS, Brian Finlay, President and CEO, Stimson Center
- AEI Election Watch: What Happened and What’s Next | Thursday, November 10 | 12:30pm – 2:00pm | American Enterprise Institute | Click HERE to Register On November 10, AEI’s Election Watch team will look at what the voters said on Election Day, how and why they voted the way they did, and what is ahead for the new administration and Congress. In addition, these seasoned analysts will discuss what the election means for the parties, their supporters, and the permanent campaign. They will examine how conservatives and liberals interpret the results and reflect on what Campaign 2016 tells us about the future of presidential politics.Less than 48 hours after the results are in, join Washington’s most experienced team of election experts as they discuss what happened and what’s next. Featuring Michael Barone, AEI, John Fortier, Bipartisan Policy Center, Henry Olsen, Ethics & Public Policy Center, Norman J. Ornstein, AEI and moderated by Karlyn Bowman, AEI
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Nukes in the next administration
Yesterday, the Brookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative held an event discussing how the next presidential administration should approach nuclear arms control and deterrence. Brookings scholar Michael O’Hanlon interviewed fellow Brookings scholar Steven Pifer on his recent report about this topic.
Although there are many nuclear states that we need to keep an eye on, Pifer explained,the primary concern for the next administration should be Russia due to their large arsenal and our quickly deteriorating relationship. Russia has also expressed a desire to modernize their arsenal, and the US needs to keep a close eye on that. Given that Russia and the United States have more warheads than any other country, if the two great nuclear powers reach a strong reduction agreement, it will serve as an example for the rest of the world. Additionally, the New START treaty will expire in 2021—the next administration needs to take a long, hard look at the existing treaty and decide whether they want to renew it or renegotiate the terms.
In many respects, conventional weapons have become almost as deadly as traditional nuclear warheads; perhaps conventional arms reduction should be considered as well. Pifer recommended that while the US should maintain the existing defense triad of submarine launched domestic missiles, ICBMs and bombers, the next president should consider reducing their numbers. Maintaining all these warheads is very expensive. The US doesn’t really need 700 deployed missiles—they could get by on 550 and save. In fact, nuclear parity with Russia is not a strategic concern but rather a political one. Having as many or more warheads than Russia reassures US allies that the United States is capable of defending them and gives the US a better position at the negotiating table.
The US has pledged to use its warheads if the homeland or one of its allies is attacked with nuclear weapons, but foreign allies are nervous that Washington will only use its nuclear capabilities if attacked at home. Indeed, Pifer said, no president would be willing to risk Chicago for a small city in South Korea. Current US policy also gives room for US enemies to attack the homeland with conventional weapons without fear of nuclear reciprocation. Pifer believes that despite these issues, the policy contributes to nuclear deterrence and can be strengthened by improving communication with allies that depend on the US for nuclear security.
Pifer advises that the US should push hard for other nuclear states to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. The US has no need for further testing at the moment, since it conducted so many nuclear tests in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, the US conducted more tests than the rest of the world combined. As a result of these extensive tests, US knowledge about nuclear weapons far surpasses the rest of the world. Therefore, by encouraging others to sign the treaty, the US keeps the knowledge it gained from its own nuclear tests while ensuring that the rest of the world never catches up.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 31-November 4
- Nuclear Arms Control Choices for the Next Administration | Monday, October 31 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
Nuclear arms control has been a feature on the U.S.-Soviet/Russian agenda for nearly five decades. While discussions between Washington and Moscow currently are at a standstill, the limitations, transparency, and predictability provided by agreements such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty are more important than ever in times of tense bilateral relations. The next U.S. president and her or his administration will face a number of choices about nuclear weapons, nuclear policy, and arms control.On October 31, theBrookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative will host a discussion on nuclear arms control choices for the next administration. The panel will feature Brookings scholars Michael O’Hanlon and Steve Pifer. Following the discussion, the speakers will take questions from the audience.
- Enhancing the US-Georgia Security Partnership | Monday, October 31 | 12:30pm – 2:00pm | Elliott School of International Affairs | Click HERE to Register
For several decades, Georgia has been one of the most important economic and security partners of the United States. The US is the largest bilateral aid donor to Georgia, having provided several billion dollars since 1991. This support has always enjoyed bipartisan backing. Since 2009, Georgia and the United States have had a Strategic Partnership through which both parties pledge to further Georgia’s democratization, economic development, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Georgia is the highest per capita contributor to the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan. Despite Washington’s efforts, however, Georgia has not yet received membership in NATO and finds itself in a challenging neighborhood. The next U.S. presidential administration will need to move decisively to strengthen this critical partnership.Richard Weitz is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. His current research includes regional security developments relating to Europe, Eurasia, and East Asia as well as U.S. foreign and defense policies. Dr. Weitz is also an Expert at Wikistrat and a non-resident Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
- Iran, Israel and the United States: What to Expect Next? | Monday, October 31 | 1:30pm – 2:30pm | Woodrow Wilson Center | Click HERE to Register Is the JCPOA—now one-year-old—a vehicle for reducing Israel-Iranian tensions in the medium term? How will the outcomes of the impending U.S. and Iranian presidential elections affect both Iran and Israel’s security perceptions? Join us for a discussion with a panel of experts on what foreign policy adjustments we can expect from Iran, Israel, and the United States vis à vis each other in 2017 and beyond. Featuring Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, David Menashri, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University and Senior Research Fellow, Alliance Center for Iranian Studies and the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University (TAU) and Henri J. Barkey, Director, Middle East Program
- How Should the Next President Counter Violent Extremism | Tuesday, November 1 | 8:15am – 9:15am | Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
The next U.S. president will come into office in an era of dramatic disruptions around the globe. Violent extremism is spreading, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Adding to the friction, tensions over immigration, trade agreements, and globalization are giving rise to nationalist political movements across the Western world. While the next president will have to grapple with immediate questions of military and national security strategy, he or she will also have to set in motion a long-term strategy to counter the threat of violent extremism at its root cause.On November 1, veteran journalist Indira Lakshmanan of the Boston Globe will conduct a live podcast taping with two Brookings experts as they examine how America’s role in the world will change as the new administration takes office next year. As part of the Brookings-wide Election 2016 and America’s Future project, this event is the fourth in a series of live recordings distributed by the Brookings Podcast Network. Brookings Senior Fellow and Vice President of Governance Studies Darrell West recently published the book “Megachange,” focused on the proliferation of major, unexpected changes around the globe, and will talk about violent extremism as a social and political phenomenon. Brookings Visiting FellowRobert McKenzie is an expert in U.S-Islamic relations, and recently published a policy brief on how the next president can fight violent extremism in America.We hope you can join us for a lively conversation in which each expert will deliver a concrete course of action for the next president, and will be pressed by the moderator on alternate perspectives on the issue and the realistic obstacles the next administration will face.
- ISIS: The Day After Defeat | Wednesday, November 2 | 12:00pm | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register
Iraqi and Kurdish forces are closing in on Mosul, a major Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) stronghold in Iraq. Taking the city would seriously degrade ISIS territorial control in northern Iraq and force the organization to fall back into Syria. Meanwhile, ISIS is also experiencing rapid territorial loss in Syria to the Syrian Kurds, who recently captured Manbij, and to elements of the Free Syrian Army, which recently took Dabiq with Turkish support. In addition, there has been talk about an offensive on Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de-facto capital city in Syria.With the territorial defeat of ISIS apparently approaching, one key question stands out: What will become of ISIS after military defeat? The panelists will discuss the current developments in the war against ISIS and the tactics the group may adopt after it is ousted from Mosul and challenged in Raqqa.Hassan Hassan is a resident fellow at TIMEP focusing on Syria and Iraq and the co-author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. Before joining ISW, Jessica Lewis McFate served as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Howard J. Shatz is a senior economist at the RAND Corporation and director of RAND-Initiated Research where he specializes in international economics. He is the co-author of Foundations of the Islamic State: Management, Money, and Terror in Iraq, 2005-2010. Aaron Stein is a resident senior fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, where he focuses on US-Turkey relations, Turkish foreign policy, the Syrian conflict, nonproliferation, and the Iranian nuclear program. He is the author of the Atlantic Council report, Islamic State Networks in Turkey.
- A View of the US Election from Iraq | Friday, November 4 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Click HERE to Register With the U.S. election less than 10 days away and a new presidential administration less than 90 days away, what changes can be expected for U.S. policy in Iraq? A centerpiece of current U.S. policy in Iraq is the ongoing fight against the Islamic State. The conflict reached a new stage earlier this month as coalition forces launched the offensive to retake Mosul and began planning the Raqqa Offensive. Beyond the current operation, how should the incoming administration approach the region’s challenges as internal and external powers exploit the sectarian rift in the northern Middle East? What strategy should the next president pursue to dismantle ISIS and, more importantly, prevent its resurgence?Hudson Institute will host a discussion on the implications of the election for U.S.-Iraq policy, including the critical operation in Mosul. On November 4, former Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Feisal Istrabadi will join Hudson fellows Michael Doran and Michael Pregent for a timely discussion of this important partnership and what lies ahead for U.S.-Iraq relations and the ongoing fight against ISIS.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hopes for a Kingdom reformed
The National Council on US-Arab Relations held its annual conference this Wednesday and Thursday in Washington DC. The conference focused primarily on the changing dynamics between the US and its Gulf allies, particularly Saudi Arabia.
A morning panel on Thursday titled “Strategic Dynamics in Perspective: Looking Closer at Saudi Arabia Vision 2030” picked apart the implications of Saudi Arabia’s planned redesign. The panel featured Ambassador James Smith, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Seema Khan, former Chief Strategy Officer and Senior Advisor for the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority, Julie Monaco, Global Head of Public Sector Group, Corporate and Investment Banking, Institutional Clients Group and Citi, and Newton Howard, Professor of Computational Neuroscience and Neurosurgery, University of Oxford and Director of the Synthetic Intelligence Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Saudi Vision 2030 is a blueprint for moving Saudi Arabia away from total reliance on oil sales. By 2030, Saudi Arabia plans to attract more foreign investment, diversify its economy away from hydrocarbon exports, develop essential service sectors such as health, education and tourism, and to develop the private sector. The result will hopefully be a more sustainable and successful Saudi Arabia in the face of declining oil prices.
Smith opened the panel by identifying four things to be optimistic about when looking at Saudi Vision 2030 and four things to be concerned about. His four points of optimism were:
- The program builds on over 10 years of investment and commits 26% of the national budget.
- It was planned entirely by young Saudis, who have the biggest stake in the country’s future.
- Saudi Vision 2030 has garnered commitment from the highest levels of government and everyone is holding each other accountable.
- Putting Prince Salman in charge of the project, who is barely 30 years old, emphasizes the importance of young, educated Saudis to the country’s progress.
The concerns were these:
- There is a cultural aversion to risk and failure in Saudi Arabia, which means that innovation isn’t highly valued and new technologies are often brought in from the outside.
- There is also an aversion to letting small, new businesses take root in Saudi Arabia since they have a higher propensity for failure compared to well established international businesses.
- There is a lack of viable policy changes that would attract investment into the country.
- There is no regional organization charged with making the Gulf competitive in the global economy—it is organizations like these that have led to the growth in East Asia.
Khan said that by pursuing Saudi Vision 2030 Saudi Arabia is finally making itself fully accessible to the world. This is incredibly important because the Kingdom is widely misunderstood. One of the key features of Saudi Vision is that is ensures better communication between Saudi Arabia and its allies. This could potentially lead to more effective goal sharing and coordination in the region. Aside from greater accessibility, the plan will result in Saudi Arabia boasting a more innovation-based economy rather than one based solely on investment.
Monaco expressed great optimism for the project, due to the practicality of the plan and the abundance of political will behind it. One potential cause for concern is that Saudi Arabia may not be able to divert enough funding to the project over the next 14 years. They will need to increase taxes, cut budgets, and increase domestic bond insurance in order to ensure long-term funding. They need to maintain a good credit profile as well if they wish to enter foreign debt markets. The Kingdom needs to commit to good governance to ensure that the project is successful.
Howard emphasized that Saudi Vision needs to managed effectively from the top. He said that the government needs to focus on innovation and make good use of the infrastructure that they already have. The government also needs to start working on looking past the beliefs and ethnicities of their personnel and instead focus on their qualifications—doing so will bring Saudi Arabia into the modern age.
For somewhat less sanguine views of Vision 2030 and its implementation prospects, see the last two speakers at this recent Middle East Institute/Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Studies event:
RSS - Posts
