Tag: Egypt
Peace Picks April 8-12
1. From war to peace: the Balkans, Middle East and Ukraine| Wednesday, April 10, 2019 | 12:30am- 2:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a book talk with MEI Scholar Daniel Serwer, the director of John Hopkins SAIS’s conflict management and American foreign policy programs and the author ofFrom War to Peace: the Balkans, the Middle East and Ukraine.
In his book, Serwer explores how lessons learned from peacebuilding initiatives in the Balkans in the 1990s can be applied to conflicts in the Middle East. Serwer draws comparisons between the sectarian, ethnic, and religious divides of the Balkans in the 1990s and similar tensions in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He also explores the impact of policies such as conflict prevention, engagement of neighbors, the establishment of safe zones, partition, decentralization, and power sharing arrangements, and how they can be effectively utilized, or not, in the Middle East.
Speakers
Daniel Serwer, , author
Scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim, discussant
Senior fellow and director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues program, MEI
Paul Salem, moderator, President, MEI
2. Youth: the missing peace | Tursday, April 11, 2019 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | United States Institute for Peacr | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here|
Join USIP and the Global Coalition on Youth, Peace and Security for an interactive, intergenerational conversation with the study’s lead author, Graeme Simpson, as well as youth and peacebuilding experts and young peacebuilders from around the world.
The event will look at the two-year evidence gathering process—which engaged more than 4,000 young people around the world and has been heralded as “possibly the most participatory process ever undertaken by the U.N.”—to draw out key lessons and recommendations regarding what works in the field of youth, peace and security, and what prevents youth’s meaningful inclusion in peace and security efforts. The conversation will also look forward, with an eye toward sustaining UNSCR 2250’s momentum and cementing our commitment to the role of youth people in preventing conflict and contributing to sustainable peace.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, welcoming remarks,
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aubrey Cox, Program Officer, Youth, U.S. Institute of Peace
Giannina Raffo, Youth Peace Leader, Venezuela
Graeme Simpson, Lead Author of the Progress Study and Director, Interpeace USA
Noella Richard, moderator, Youth Team Leader, United Nations Development Program
Saji Prelis, closing remarks
Director of Children & Youth Programs, Search for Common Ground
3. Will Sisi be Egypt president for life | Monday, April 8, 2019 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace| 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
The Egyptian parliament is in the process of finalizing amendments to the 2014 constitution that would allow President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to stay in office for twenty years, increase military control of politics, and end judicial independence. U.S. President Donald Trump has invited Sisi to Washington for a visit prior to a public referendum on the proposed amendments.
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project on Middle East Democracy for a discussion of the ramifications of the amendments and Sisi’s visit for the future of Egypt, the U.S.-Egypt relationship, and for regional peace.
Speakers:
MOATAZ EL FEGIERY, general coordinator for the Egyptian Human Rights Forum.
MAI EL-SADANY, legal and judicial director for the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.
MICHELE DUNNE, Director and senior fellow of the Carnegie Middle East Program.
SUSAN B. GLASSER, staff writer at the New Yorker.
4. The Taiwan Relations Act at Forty and U.S.-Taiwan Relations| Tuesday, April 9, 2019 | 8:30 am – 5:00pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Taiwan Relations Act, enacted by the United States Congress in April 1979, authorized continued “commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan” in the wake of the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China. By authorizing the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and other provisions, the TRA created a framework for relations between the U.S. and Taiwan which has enabled their partnership and friendship to thrive in the absence of diplomatic relations.
In observance of the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, this daylong public conference will feature analysis of the creation and implementation of the TRA, and how it continues to guide U.S.-Taiwan relations and interaction among Taiwan, China, and the United States.
This conference is co-hosted by CSIS, the Brookings Institution, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
8:35am Opening Remarks
John Hamre (President and CEO, CSIS)
8:45am Welcome Speech
Stanley Kao (Representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States) (Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
8:55am Speaker Introduction
Richard Armitage (President, Armitage International and CSIS Trustee)
9:00am VTC Speech and Q&A
Her Excellency President Tsai Ing-wen of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Q&A Moderator: Michael Green (Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS / Director of Asian Studies, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service)
9:45am Coffee Break
10:00am Panel One: Looking Back on U.S.-Taiwan Relations Since 1979
Moderator: Richard Bush (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 1: The TRA and the U.S. One-China Policy
Stephen Young (Former Director, American Institute in Taiwan)
Panelist 2: Cross-Strait Relations and U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Steven Goldstein (Associate, Harvard Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies)
Panelist 3: The Evolution of the U.S.-Taiwan Security Partnership
Shirley Kan (Former Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Congressional Research Service)
11:15am Coffee Break
11:30am Speech and Q&A
Legislator Bi-khim Hsiao (Legislative Yuan)
(Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
12:15pm Keynote Remarks
Representative Gerald Connolly (D-Virginia)
(Introduced by Richard Bush)
1:00pm Lunch
1:30pm Panel Two: Taiwan’s Strategic Environment Today
Moderator: Bonnie Glaser (Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project, CSIS)
Panelist 1: Taiwan’s Changing Security Environment
Michael Chase (Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation)
Panelist 2: How Taiwan Should Ensure Economic Competitiveness
Eric Altbach (Senior Vice President, Albright Stonebridge Group)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Options Regarding China
Susan Thornton (Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
Panelist 4: U.S.-Taiwan Economic Ties
Da-nien Daniel Liu (Director of the Regional Development Study Center, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research)
2:45pm Panel Three: The Next Forty Years
Moderator: Abraham Denmark (Director of the Asia Program, Wilson Center)
Panelist 1: The TRA’s Continuing Relevance to U.S. Policy
Robert Sutter (Professor of Practice of International Affairs, George Washington University)
Panelist 2: China’s Strategies Toward Taiwan and Taiwan/U.S. Responses
Ryan Hass (David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Future Sources of Strength and Weakness
Jacques deLisle (Professor of Law & Political Science, University of Pennsylvania)
4:00pm Coffee Break
4:15pm Speech and Q&A
W. Patrick Murphy (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
(Introduced by Abraham Denmark)
5:00pm Conference End
5. China’s Influence Activities: Implications for the US-Taiwan Relationship| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 4:00pm-5:15| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Taiwan Assurance Act, which reaffirms the US commitment to Taiwan forty years after the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act. As China exerts increasing pressure against Taiwan’s position in the region, Taiwan’s leaders have sought greater support from the United States. Given US interests in the Indo-Pacific, what diplomatic, economic, and security steps should the United States take to signal support for Taiwan as a democratic partner in the region? What opportunities and challenges do the United States and Taiwan face moving forward? Where do US-Taiwan relations fit into the broader strategic picture?
KEYNOTE REMARKS BY
H.E. Bi-khim Hsiao, Legislator, Legislative Yuan, Taiwan
FEATURING
Mr. Ian Easton, Research Fellow Project 2049 Institute
Mr. Michael Mazza, Visiting Fellow, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
6. SSANSE Project: Symposium on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 8:45 am – 12:15pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
For both Russia and China, foreign political interference activities are a useful and cost-effective method of foreign policy. In Russia it is theorized as “smart power”, while China still uses the Soviet-era term “united front work”. The activities of Russia and China go well beyond accepted norms of public diplomacy and are having a corrupting and corrosive effect on many societies. This half-day symposium focuses on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States. The world is seeing a return of both “might is right” politics and spheres of influence. As history has shown, the weakness of small states in a time of rising security threats can undermine the security of larger powers. The Symposium examines case studies of some representative small NATO states experiencing Russia and China’s political interference activities, the patterns of interference to look for, and discusses what is to be done.
Speakers:
Neringa Bladaitė, University of Vilnius
Anne-Marie Brady, Wilson Center/University of Canterbury
Donald J. Jensen, Center for European Policy Analysis
Ryan Knight, Georgetown University
Martin Hála, Charles University
Margarita Šešelgytė, University of Vilnius
Khamza Sharifzoda, Georgetown University
Mark Stokes, 2049 Project
Alan Tidwell, Georgetown University
Baldur Thorhallson, University of Iceland
Moderator: Abe Denmark, Asia Program, Wilson Center
AGENDA:
8:45am – Panel One
Donald J. Jensen: Assessing Contemporary Russian Interference Activities
Anne-Marie Brady: Magic Weapons? An Overview of CCP Interference Activities
Mark Stokes: Huawei and One Thousand Talents: China’s military links and technology transfer activities
Ryan Knight: Russia’s use of the Orthodox Church in Small NATO states
Alan Tidwell: Active Measures: Lessons Learned from the Past
10:10am – Morning tea
10:30am – Panel Two
Martin Hála: The CCP’s Magic Weapons at work in the Czech Republic
Khamza Sharifzoda: Armenia’s Struggle: Escaping the Kremlin
Baldur Thorhallson: Iceland’s engagements with Russia and China
Neringa Bladaite: Russia’s Political Interference Activities in Latvia
Margarita Šešelgytė: Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities and Lithuania
The Small States and the New Security Environment (SSANSE) Project is funded by NATO-SPS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks 1-5
1. What´s Next for the Rohingya?| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 3:00 am – 4:30pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
In August 2017, security forces in Burma’s Rakhine state staged a harsh and extended crackdown on the Rohingya—a deeply marginalized and persecuted Muslim minority community. Thousands are estimated to have died, while more than half a million fled to neighboring Bangladesh. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres described the tragedy as ethnic cleansing. At this event, Dr. Nehginpao Kipgen, a top expert on Burma, will discuss developments involving the Rohingya since the 2017 crackdown, including key recent events, and what might be in store next for the troubled community. Does the political will exist in Burma to improve conditions for the Rohingya and to address the underlying issues that fuel their persecution? What will become of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh? Dr. Kipgen will address these questions and more.
Speakers
Nehginpao Kipgen, Associate Professor and Executive Director at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Michael C. Davis, Fellow Professor of Law and International Affairs, Jindal Global University, Delhi, India
2. Ukraine’s Presidential Election| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 12:00pm| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
The March 2019 presidential election is a pivotal event in Ukraine’s history. Outside attempts to influence the elections have been documented, particularly by the Kremlin, which has employed a full-range of hybrid tactics in Ukraine in an effort to destabilize the country.
Recognizing the high stakes, the Atlantic Council, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, and the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity have established the Ukrainian Election Task Force. Working with other Ukrainian institutions and analysts–StopFake, Razumkov Centre, and Detector Media–the Task Force is a rapid-response team with the ability to monitor, evaluate, and disclose the full range of foreign subversive activities in Ukraine and to propose suitable responses.
Agenda
Panel One Discussion:
Dr. Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
Ms. Nataliya Bugayova, Director of Development and Research Fellow, Russia Team
Institute for the Study of War
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Moderated by:
Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor for Ukraine Alert, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Panel Two Discussion:
Mr. David J. Kramer, Senior Fellow Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy,
Ms. Laura Galante, Cyber Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Jakub Kalenský, Disinformation Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Oleksiy Melnyk, Kinetic Lead; Co-Director, Foreign Relations and International Security Programs
Moderated by:
Ms. Geysha Gonzalez, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
3. Reform, Challenges and Adaptation: Egypt’s Evolving Economic Outlook| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00pm- 10:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel discussion on the future of Egypt’s economy. While Egypt’s recent economic reforms have made good inroads into improving the macroeconomic outlook, the pace of global development means that Egyptian businesses must work twice as hard to keep pace, and even harder if they want to pull ahead of the pack. Egypt’s state economy is huge, particularly in comparison with that of other emerging markets, but new reforms may give the private sector the opportunity to become Egypt’s growth engine.
Speakers
Sarah El-Battouty, Chairman and founder, ECOnsult
Girgis Abd El-Shahid, Managing partner, Shahid Law Firm
Tarek Tawfik, Chairman, Cairo Poultry Group; President, American Chamber of Commerce
Dalia Wahba, Chairman, CID Consulting
Mirette F. Mabrouk, moderator, Senior fellow and director of the Egypt program, MEI
4. Redefining U.S. national security: interlinkages with American society and foreign policy| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00am- 19:00pm| Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
President Donald Trump won the 2016 election largely by carrying Rust Belt states and doing especially well with a demographic skeptical of America’s role in the world regarding trade, investment, diplomacy, alliances, and immigration policy. His election has had consequences for U.S. foreign policy, from reducing foreign aid and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, to imposing highly restrictive immigration policies and questioning numerous alliances.
Yet, U.S. foreign policy remains in flux as President Trump’s approach evolves, with the 2018 midterm elections demonstrating that many voters are not satisfied with the direction of the country. This situation provides a rich backdrop for debate, now and in the run-up to the 2020 political season, about how to best advance America’s interests at home and abroad.
Introduction
9:00 AM- 9:05 AM
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director – Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Discussion
9:05 AM – 9:30 AM
DISCUSSANT
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director, Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Jenkinsbd
Arsalan Suleman, Chair – America Indivisible
Panel I
US voting and US foreign policy: Regional focus
9:35 AM – 10:45 AM
MODERATOR
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow – The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
Panelists
Jeannine Scott, Board President – Constituency for Africa
Sylvia Mishra, India-US Fellow in Public Interest Technology – New America
Asha Castleberry, Adjunct Professor – George Washington University
Jung H. Pak, SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, Senior Fellow – Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Laura Kupe, Counsel – Committee on Homeland Security, US House of Representatives
Emily Mendrala, Executive Director – Center for Democracy in the Americas
Panel II
US voting and new national security issues
10:45 AM – 11:55 AM
MODERATOR
Liza Arias, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow – Center for Strategic & International Studies
PANELISTs
Uzra Zeya, President and CEO – Alliance for Peacebuilding
Daniel Lucey, Senior Scholar – O’Neill Institute, Georgetown University
Sean Shank, Vice President – BNY Mellon
Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Member – Third Way Cyber Enforcement Initiative Advisory Board
Dr. Muhammad Fraser-Rahim, Executive Director – North America for Quilliam International
Closing
11:55 AM – 12:00 PM
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow -Director of Research, The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
5. The Future of Statecraft | Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 9:00 am – 4:45pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host another conference as part of the Future Strategy Forum, an initiative to connect scholars who research national security with its leading practitioners.
The 2019 focus is “The Future of Statecraft” and will examine the future of great power cooperation, international institutions, and economic statecraft. The conference will feature a keynote conversation with former National Security Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice.
Conference Schedule
8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Registration and Breakfast
9:00 AM – 9:15 AM Welcome Remarks
Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair
Dr. Francis J. Gavin, Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and Director Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Sara Plana and Ms. Rachel Tecott , PhD Candidates, Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9:15 AM – 10:45 AM Panel 1: “Great Power Cooperation”
Ms. Lindsey Ford, Director of Political-Security Affairs, Richard Holbrooke Fellow, and
Deputy Director of the Washington D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute
Dr. Angela Stent, Director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Distinguished Resident Fellow in African Studies, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University
Dr. Irene Wu, Former Fellow, Wilson Center and Georgetown University
Ms. Meg Guliford (Moderator), PhD Candidate, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
10:45 AM – 11:00 AM Coffee Break
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Panel 2: “International Institutions”
Dr. Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Ms. Heather Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program, CSIS
Ms. Naima Green, PhD Candidate, Harvard University
Dr. Kristina Spohr, Helmut Schmidt Distinguished Professor, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Dr. Mischa Thompson (Moderator), Director of Global Partnership, Policy, and Innovaiton, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
12:30 PM – 1:45 PM Lunch and Talk
1:45 PM – 3:15 PM Panel 3: “Economic Statecraft”
Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy Economics and Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Dr. Sarah Sewall, Speyer Family Foundation Distinguished Scholar, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Camille Stewart, Esq., Cybersecurity Policy Fellow, New America
Ms. Tori K. Whiting, Jay Van Andel Trade Economist, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Radha Iyengar Plumb (Moderator), Adjunct Economist, RAND Corporation
3:15 PM – 3:30 PM Coffee Break
3:30 PM – 4:45 PM Keynote Discussion with Ambassador Susan Rice
Ambassador Susan Rice, Former National Security Advisor and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Dr. Kathleen Hicks (Moderator), Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
4:45 PM – 5:30 PM Closing Reception
6. State capture: how Conservatives Claimed Power and How to Restore Balance| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 12:30pm- 2:00pm| New America| 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, D.C. 20005| Register Here |
Over the past forty years, conservatives have mastered the art of pursuing policy change at the state level, while similar liberal efforts have floundered. Today, conservatives fully control 26 state legislatures and governorships — one of the largest advantages either party has had since the New Deal.
What did the party do right? How have conservatives learned from their mistakes over the years? And why have liberals struggled to build similar cross-state organizing clout?
In State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States — and the Nation, Alex Hertel-Fernandez provides the first in-depth and accessible history of the rise of cross-state conservative lobbying groups, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the State Policy Network, and Americans for Prosperity, documenting both their victories and their missteps over time. In his book, Hertel-Fernandez also spells out the specific policy consequences of conservative cross-state organizing, including its effects on labor market standards, unions, and the Affordable Care Act. The book also tracks liberal efforts to counter-balance the right and why they have frequently failed to match conservative scale and clout.
Presenters
Alex Hertel-Fernandez, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Columbia SIPA
Lydia Bean, Fellow, Political Reform Program at New America
Mark Schmitt, Director, Political Reform Program at New America
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Doha impressions
I’ve been slow to write my impressions of Doha, where I spent four days last week after four days in Riyadh the week before (my impressions there are reported here). It’s fitting though that I should publish on Qatar the very day that its soccer team won the Asian Cup, defeating Japan 3-1 after triumphing in the semifinal 4-nil over arch-nemesis United Arab Emirates (in addition to beating Saudi Arabia).
The Qataris are riding high, at least in their own estimation and not only on the soccer field. They have more than survived what they term the blockade by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt imposed in June 2017. After an initial panic that emptied grocery stores, cut off family and other personal ties with compatriots, and caused a sharp fall in central bank reserves, the Doha government triggered a successful emergency response planned since the 2014 flare-up of their frictions with the Saudis and Emiratis.
The costs have been high, but the plan stabilized the situation and enabled Qatar to take advantage of its natural gas-derived wealth to make alternative arrangements and also begin to stimulate domestic production to replace imports. People recount the story of flying in 3000 cows for milk production with smiles on their faces. Saudi food supplies, which dominated the market before the “blockade,” are no longer missed.
Relations with Iran and Turkey have improved. Turkey is often credited as having prevented a Saudi invasion early in the Gulf crisis by deploying 3000 troops. The massive US air base at Al Udeid is seldom mentioned, but Qataris clearly treasure their close relations with Washington. Outreach around the world to other countries has grown. Qataris regard the Gulf crisis as a “blessing in disguise,” a phrase heard repeatedly. It compelled Qatar to diversify and strengthen its ties around the world.
The result is pride and allegiance, including (from my limited contact) among the 90% of the population that is expats. Qataris and foreign experts think the government has done well and that the country’s star is rising. Portraits of the Emir, once ubiquitous, are still much in evidence, despite government instructions to remove them. World Cup 2022 preparations are said to be going well. Criticism of labor conditions on the many construction projects has declined, as accidents have proven much less common than some had predicted. The $6-7 billion of direct World Cup spending is only a drop in the bucket, as the government is building another $200 billion or so in new infrastructure. That’s on top of already lavish spending over the last two decades.
The ideological underpinnings are not, of course, democratic. Qatar is an autocracy that does not permit political organizations of any sort. But a lot of people we talked with are convinced that the traditional system of tribal consultations enables the top to hear from the bottom and the bottom to register its discontents. There is talk of elections this year or next for a newly empowered Shura Council, which now issues legislation on behalf of the Emir. But there are also concerns that elections will give the largest tribes dominance that the current system does not permit, thus reducing the diversity of voices and narrowing the political base of the monarchy.
Why did tiny, non-democratic Qatar support the Arab Spring and in particular the Muslim Brotherhood? The most common answer is that Doha supported the political forces it thought Egyptians, Syrians, Yemenis, Tunisians, Libyans, and others wanted. It has dialed back on that support and blocked private financing of radical groups, monitored by the US Treasury.
Doha claims to be a strong supporter of economic and military integration through the Gulf Cooperation Council, whose work has been disrupted. But Qataris want to conduct an independent foreign policy, not one dictated by Saudi Arabia or least of all by the UAE, which is believed to still resent Qatar’s choice to remain independent and not join the other sheikhdoms. Bahrain is the paradigm for what the Qataris do not want: a country forced to follow in the Kingdom’s footsteps wherever it goes.
What about Al Jazeera, the TV news channels that spare only Qatar and not its Gulf neighbors from criticism? Qatar’s neighbors view Al Jazeera Arabic in particular as promoting rebellion and extremism. At least some Qataris are willing to contemplate modifications in editorial policy, but all assume Al Jazeera is not going away, as the Saudis and Emiratis would like. Though said to be privately owned, it is under the government’s thumb and can be reined in when and if need be.
At times in Doha and Riyadh, I felt I was in a hall of mirrors: both claim leadership in modernizing the Arab world, both see the Gulf conflict as a struggle over what one Saudi termed “seniority” in the region and many Qataris termed Saudi/Emirati “hegemony.” In both Saudi Arabia and Qatar these days conservatism is bad, diversity is welcome, dialogue and consultation are promoted, and freedom to organize political activity is restricted. These are absolute monarchies with the deep pockets required to buy their way into the 21st century.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Riyadh impressions
I spent four days in Saudi Arabia last week, which is wholly insufficient to do anything but scratch the surface. But I’m not without those superficial impressions. The SAIS study trip was focused on the GCC conflict, but I won’t comment in detail on that today. Caveat emptor: I am not agreeing with the Saudi perspectives, only trying to render them faithfully.
Here are my more general impressions:
- Saudis in government and government-influenced institutions (which are the only ones I visited) sincerely support the domestic reforms the Crown Prince has undertaken and believe they will lead to profound and badly needed changes in opening up and modernizing the society.
- The Saudi elite is not prepared to question the Crown Prince on anything, including his foreign policy moves like the rift with Qatar and the war in Yemen. They emphasize forcefully the justice of the grievances against Qatar and humanitarian assistance provided to Yemen. They of course see Iran as a serious threat throughout the region.
- While appreciating the ample support of the Trump Administration and good citizen-to-citizen feelings (due mainly to the many Saudis who study in the US), Saudis have doubts about the Administration’s reliability that were not much alleviated by Secretary of State Pompeo’s visit last week. Many people in Riyadh view American withdrawal from the region as highly likely if not inevitable.
The inclination in Riyadh to accept top/down decisions on reform is palpable and often attributed to tribal attitudes: consultation and discussion are welcomed, but in the end it is the sheikh’s responsibility to decide and everyone else’s to obey. Constraints on executive power by an independent judiciary or other regulatory bodies, separation of powers, or a press free of government pressure are ideas that have little resonance.
Saudi Arabia’s justice system is viewed as fair, though many are aware that it is subject to scathing international criticism. The Saudi teenager who escaped to Thailand and has found refuge in Canada is viewed as someone who failed to take advantage of existing human rights mechanisms in the Kingdom. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is viewed as a matter for the courts, which will decide whether the accused are guilty in open hearings with adequate defense attorneys. The women activists who protested the driving ban stand accused, it is said, of other crimes having to do with passing information to foreign governments or accepting foreign assistance (no one seems clear about which). Protection for foreign workers, all hired under contracts approved by their own governments, has been enhanced.
There are discontents. The conservative religious establishment comes in for frequent criticism (again, by people associated with the government). The Muslim Brotherhood looms menacingly. Fear of youth radicalization is palpable. Anxiety about terrorism and disorder, both in the Kingdom and in the region, is high. Sectarianism is bad. The government is sponsoring active efforts to counter extremism and promote dialogue among Saudis of different stripes.
There are good things as well. Pluralism, even if more apparent in ancient ruins we visited in Al Ula than in Riyadh, is good. Islam and Sharia law are good, when properly understood. The solidarity of the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt in the Gulf conflict is good, as is the Gulf Cooperation Council, especially its military cooperation (which still includes Qatar, Saudis claim). Moderation, often defined as allowing everyone to modernize at their own pace, is good. Israel might be okay, but only if it does right by the Palestinians and accepts the Arab Peace Plan.
But above all, stability is good and worth sacrificing for. The nearby examples of Syria and Yemen are glaring. Even the one success of the Arab spring, Tunisia, is tottering. It is critical to counter the big de-stabilizing factor–Iran–and to avoid any new sources of Middle East strife. That Crown Prince is the key to stability as well as reform in the Kingdom and merits, the Saudis I talked with think, the wholehearted support he is getting, the internationals be damned.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pompeo pontificates
Secretary of State Pompeo took the occasion of his speech in Cairo today to assert what few in the Middle East believe: that the US is a force for good in the region. Offering little evidence for this assertion that would be convincing to anyone but Middle Eastern autocrats, he instead focused on criticizing the Obama Administration.
He criticized it for failing to respond adequately to Sunni extremism, to the Iranian crackdown on the Green Revolution, and to Bashar al Assad. He also praised President Trump for destroying the Islamic State (ignoring completely Obama’s role in that fight) and for bombing Syria when it used chemical weapons (to little effect). The message was clear: American foreign policy is going to be unfailingly partisan. No more non-partisanship at the water’s edge. That’s for sissies.
Iran, Pompeo suggested while vaunting his evangelical credentials, is evil. He reviewed the full array of US efforts to counter Tehran, ignoring US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and its negative implications for relations with Europe and its impact on America’s credibility in future nonproliferation efforts. He ignored the lack of progress in getting Tehran to renegotiate the agreement, which is what he has been pleading for.
While acknowledging President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria and underlining that Middle Eastern partners will need to do more, Pompeo reiterated America’s maximal demands without considering the means available. The US won’t provide assistance to Syria until Iran withdraws and a political transition is irreversible. He also challenged Hizbollah and Iranian dominance of Lebanon, promised to work for peace in Yemen, and pledged an agreement on Israel and Palestine.
As Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass put it,
.
@SecPompeo articulated ambitious goals-to expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, to reduce Hizballah’s missile arsenal, to help build an Iraq free of Iranian influence-while backing reduced US presence in the Middle East. No policy can succeed with ends and means so divorced.
In concluding, Pompeo claimed that the US had never been an oppressor or empire-builder. That betrayed a serious lack of education on American history, especially in the Western Hemisphere, and insensitivity to how Washington is viewed in the Middle East, where US interventions are often viewed as imperial. Pompeo pledged allegiance to all the autocrats of the region except Iran’s and ignored even the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. How should Middle Easterners who want more open societies and freedom of expression feel about that?
RSS - Posts
