Tag: Egypt
Arab spring needs economic reform
Economic factors cannot entirely explain the Arab Spring, though they certainly played an important role. Whether positive change ultimately prevails will depend on the economic policies advanced by leaders emerging from revolutions and their counterparts in still stable Arab states.
Yesterday at Carnegie, a panel of economists and political scientists, including Marina Ottaway from Carnegie, Caroline Freund of the World Bank, Masood Ahmed from the IMF, and Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Robert Hormats, discussed these issues while Uri Dadush moderated.
There is general agreement that economic conditions did not trigger recent upheaval in the Arab world on their own. On par with other developing countries, macroeconomic indicators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, did not by themselves augur revolution, Hormats points out. Due mainly to what Freund characterizes as regional and international economic segregation, these countries weathered the global recession far better than developed Western states. Of course, as Ahmed reminds us, if economic indicators are disaggregated, this idyll gives way to a gloomier picture of high youth unemployment rates, rampant corruption, and highly stratified inequality. But this problem is as much political as it is economic or demographic, a balance that is visible in the broader contours of the recent revolutions.
Where economic conditions become far more crucial is in the future trajectory of the Arab Spring. Most of the panelists agree that regional instability will keep growth rates and other indicators down for the near future. Oil importing states such as Egypt and Tunisia traditionally received billions in private investment, but large capital outflows are starving these countries of cash. For Ottaway, wariness over accepting loans from international institutions such as the IMF, as was the case in Egypt, only exacerbates this shortage. Freund insists that the World Bank is prepared to help, but isn’t sure that the money will be spent wisely or, as in Libya, is even necessary. Now that countries have exhausted their own resources, as well as loans from GCC neighbors, Ahmed predicts that governments will turn increasingly to the World Bank, IMF, and international markets. Unfortunately, as Hormats interjects, the tragic coincidence of the Arab spring with the European debt crisis and budget cuts in the U.S. may prevent an Arab recovery from resembling that of Eastern Europe after 1989.
However, there are important steps that governments, both inside and outside the region, can take to ensure long-run growth. In line with previous recovery programs, Hormats emphasizes the need to differentiate between stabilization and structural reform. Stabilization of fiscal conditions must come first, and international institutions will have to provide significant financing. Equally important will be shifting subsidies away from energy, which tend to be inefficient and overly concentrated on the middle and upper classes, toward food and other basic necessities. This will help reduce budget deficits to more sustainable levels.
In terms of structural reforms, facilitating intra-regional trade must be a centerpiece. Not only will trade allow countries to exploit comparative advantages, Ahmed points out, but it will also provide the basis for economies of scale that enable new global trade opportunities. Similarly, Fruend adds, attraction to large markets will bring investment from the West and Asia. In light of the failed attempts to create a free trade bloc, Ottaway is skeptical that regional politics will allow for such integration, but she nonetheless supports the plan in theory.
Investing in entrepreneurship will also be crucial. Too often, states favored large corporations run by well-connected individuals over SMEs more representative of the middle class. This was partly a failure of education systems, which did not equip graduates with the skills they needed to be competitive in the modern labor market. But it was also a matter of priorities, both on behalf of regional governments and assistance donors. Governments must abandon the theory that corruption is a source of power and align themselves with the movement towards transparency and accountability. And donors must ensure their funds are directed towards the same purposes.
Structural economic reform will be particularly difficult in the Arab world, since it will require governments to embrace an ideology that helped catalyze revolution in the first place. Mobilizing the private sector will be crucial to future growth, but privatization, especially in Egypt, is precisely what led to corruption and inequality. Freund is nervous that privatization and the private sector have become pejorative terms, and that this will make socialist economic policies politically expedient. Leaders will thus have to convince citizens, as Ahmed argues, that the implementation of economic liberalization, and not the process per se, caused the economic conditions protesters so forcefully rejected.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s “peace picks”
Very busy calendar the first part of the week. Remember there may be registration and RSVP requirements not cited here. Best to check on the respective web pages.
1. The EU-brokered Negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia: Challenges and Prospects, Woodrow Wilson Center, November 7, 12-1 pm
Nearly three and a half years after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, the EU is bringing both sides back to the negotiation table. This meeting will address: why Serbian and Kosovar governments are negotiating now?; what is the nature, format and context of these negotiations, and what are the goals that the EU hopes to achieve?
Jovan Teokarevic, associate professor of political science at the University of Belgrade will compare the current negotiations with those that had been unsuccessfully brokered by the UN and describe the strategies; and tactics used by both sides; and the role of international actors – the EU, the US, NATO, EULEX–in this process. A number of possible outcomes will be presented and discussed, including the types of negotiations that might be developed in the future. Most importantly, Teokarevic will address the need for a sustainable solution for the Serbian enclave in northern Kosovo, which would be part of a general reconciliation between Serbians and Kosovar Albanians.
2. Economic Development in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Absence of Government and Its Consequences, SAIS, Bernstein-Offit 500, November 7, 2-4 pm
We hope you will be able to join us for this timely and informative discussion. Please RSVP to ktimlin@csis.org.
Dr. Mart Laar,
Minister of Defense, Estonia
Mr. William J. Lynn III
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Panel Presentations by:
Dr. Martin Libicki,
Senior Management Scientist, RAND Corporation
Col. Ilmar Tamm,
Director, Collective Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch,
President, Asymmetric Cyber Operations, LLC
Ms. Michele Markoff,
Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, U.S. Department of State
Dr. Stephen Flanagan,
Henry A. Kissinger Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Frank Kramer,
Member of the Board, the Atlantic Council
Closing Remarks:
Dr. James Miller,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
Eric Schmitt
Terrorism Correspondent, The New York Times
and
Thom Shanker
Pentagon Correspondent, The New York Times
Introductory Remarks by
H. Andrew Schwartz
Senior Vice President, CSIS External Relations
Moderated by
Thomas M. Sanderson
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, CSIS Transnational Threats Project
Tuesday, November 8, 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
1800 K Street, NW, CSIS B1 Conference Center
A reception will begin at 5:00 p.m. with light refreshments and snacks. The event will begin at 5:30 p.m. Books will be available for purchase. RSVP required for admission.
While the death of Muammar Gaddafi and the virtual collapse of his regime forces have freed Libyans from more than four decades of tyranny, it has also complicated the security situation for their neighbors in the Maghreb and Sahel. Fighters loyal to the deposed dictator have taken refuge abroad and, as cross-border attacks they have carried out from Algeria show, still pose a threat, not only to the new government in Tripoli, but to regional stability. Moreover, there is the question of the impact that the arrival of mercenaries and others who fought for Gaddafi as well as copious quantities of arms will have in a region already beset by various armed movements from Taureg tribesmen to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to the Nigerian group Boko Haram to the Polisario Front separatists as well as penetrated by narco-traffickers and other criminals.
Panel Discussion with
Geoffrey D. Porter
President
North Africa Risk Consulting, Inc.
Fadel Lamen
President
American Libyan Council
Roger Peña
Senior Legislative Assistant for Defense and Foreign Affairs
Office of Senator Kay Hagan
Edward M. Gabriel
Former US Ambassador to Morocco
Moderated by
J. Peter Pham
Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center
Atlantic Council
| DATE: | Wednesday, November 9, 2011 |
| TIME: | 2:00 PM – 4:30 PM |
| LOCATION: | Atlantic Council 1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 |
RSVP with your name and affiliation to ksmith@acus.org.
Religion has been a source of conflict throughout human history, but religion can also be a tremendous force for peacebuilding.
9. Religion and Peacemaking: Reflections on Current Challenges and Future Prospects, USIP, November 9, 9 am-1 pm
For ten years, USIP’s Religion and Peacemaking program has helped lead an evolution of the field. There has been a demonstrated interest in engaging religious leaders in efforts to advance conflict management and peacebuilding. Religious peacebuilding is now integrated into U.S. government policies.
To mark the program’s anniversary, USIP will host a workshop to reflect on what the wider field of religious peacebuilding has achieved and how best to move forward over the next decade. On November 9, a panel of practitioners, policymakers and academics will address the challenges and opportunities of religious peacebuilding and how outside actors, including the U.S. government, can support such opportunities.
Speakers:
- Richard Solomon, Introductory comments
U.S. Institute of Peace - Joshua Dubois
White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
- Suzan Johnson Cook
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom - Scott Appleby
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies - Rabbi Michael Melchior
Mosaica Center for Inter-Religious Cooperation - Jackie Ogega
Religions for Peace
- Qamar-ul Huda
U.S. Institute of Peace
- Mohammed Abu-Nimer
American University
- David Smock, Moderator
U.S. Institute of Peace
Fall 2011 Rumsfeld Fellows Samiullah Mahdi (Afghanistan); Ramid Namazov (Azerbaijan); Khatuna Mshvidobadze (Georgia); Uluk Kydyrbaev (Kyrgystan); Bayasgalan Naranzul (Mongolia); Kakhorjon Aminov (Tajikistan); Jamshed Rahmonberdiev (Tajikistan); Dadebay Kazakov (Turkmenistan); Hikmat Abdurahmanov (Uzbekistan), and Frederick Starr (moderator), CACI chairman, will discuss this topic. A reception will precede the forum at 5 p.m. For more information and to RSVP, contact saiscaciforums@jhu.edu or 202.663.7721.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Game changer
Politics and Policy in the New Middle East: that’s what they are calling the Middle East Institute 2011 Annual Conference at the Grand Hyatt, 1000 H Street:
Wednesday, Nov. 16th
6:00pm: Kickoff Banquet: Keynote by Bill Burns, DepSecState; awardees Lakhdar Brahimi and Esraa Abdel Fattah
Thursday, Nov. 17th
Conference
8:45 – 9:00am: Opening Remarks: Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, President MEI
9:00-10:30am: After the Arab Spring: Assessing US Policy In the Middle East
10:45am-12:15pm: The Road Ahead for Emerging Arab Democracies
12:30-2:10pm: Keynote Luncheon: Samih al-Abed and Yossi Beilin
2:15-3:45pm: Shifting Regional Power Dynamics in an Era of Change
4:00-5:30pm: Economic and Development Strategies for a Middle East in Transition
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
There are worse fates
The annual EU Forum, a confab sponsored by the Paris-based European Union Institute for Strategic Studies and SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, convened Thursday and Friday in Washington to focus American and European luminaries on the thing we all call the Arab Spring, even though we know it started last winter, varies from country to country and may not have results as upbeat as the appellation implies. Almost entirely missing from the day and a half conference were Arab voices. This was an opportunity for the “the West” to put its heads together, not for the revolutionaries or the oppressive regimes to offer their narrative.
They were nevertheless much present in the minds of the participants, who leaned towards enthusiasm for the values of the protesters, as well as their energy and determination, while worrying about the impact on Western interests. The three big areas of worry arise from
- the Islamists: what do they really mean by sharia law? will they really play fair in democracy?
- increased Arab support for the Palestinians: will it make the Israel/Palestine equation even more difficult to solve?
- sectarianism (will it lead to civil wars and possible spillover to other countries, especially in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen?
Underlying all was a sense that the West has precious few resources with which to respond effectively to the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, to the continuing repression in Syria and Yemen, or to the reforms in Jordan and Morocco, never mind the still solid autocratic regimes in the Gulf or the fragmented polity in Palestine. No one seemed to feel Western credibility or influence was strong, especially in light of the long-standing support (and arms) both Europe and the U.S. had given to Arab autocracies in the past (and continue to provide to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others even now). And everyone was aware that the Chinese, Turks, Brazilians, Indians and other emerging powers will play increasing roles in the Middle East, offering contracts and aid on terms far less complex and burdensome than those of the West.
The Europeans nevertheless came with a strong sense that the Middle East is their “southern neighborhood” and they need to up their game in response to changes that will affect their interests directly, whether through immigration, economic interdependence, oil and gas supplies, contracts, investment and myriad other ties. Precisely what they are going to do about it was not clear, and there was a strong sense that European policy on the Arab Spring has been re-nationalized. The British and French in particular are carving out their own distinct approaches, taking advantage of their forward role in the NATO military action against Qaddafi, while other countries are lagging and the EU itself is still contemplating the interior walls of the Berlaymont.
The Americans would like to focus more on Asia, not only Afghanistan/Pakistan but also China and North Korea as threats to national security. It was clear to all that Europe would not share this Asian interest to the same degree, but yesterday’s talk of Chinese financing to back the euro might change a few minds on that score. The problem for the Americans is that the Asian challenge requires a very different set of policy instruments from the Arab Spring, which apart from Egypt and Yemen Washington might rather leave primarily to the Europeans (no one of course says this quite so bluntly, but if you follow the money that is what they mean). Everyone expects, though, that NATO will remain somehow important and in the end the only real military instrument capable of effective power projection available to the Europeans.
There were lots of other points made. Trade and investment are far more important than aid. We need to be talking not only with secular women but also with Islamist women. Liberal economic reform, associated in Egypt and other countries with the old regimes, is in trouble, at least for the moment. Civil society in the Arab Spring countries needs Western support, but it should not be done through governmental channels but rather by nongovernmental organizations like the American National Endowment for Democracy (and the talked about European Endowment for Democracy). Western conditionality should focus on transparency and accountability rather than specific policy prescriptions.
I could go on, but I trust the sponsors will be doing a far better job of writing up in due course, and tweets are available from EUISS for those really interested. Bottom line: the West is fading even as its values spread. There are worse fates.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
With thanks to former student Jeff Jorve (who suggested it), I’ve decided to try to highlight a few Washington, DC events each week as interesting to those who follow peace and war issues. I’ll welcome volunteers to write any of these up for peacefare.net Just let me know (daniel@serwer.org) if you are intending to do a writeup, so that I can avoid duplicates.
Warning: some of these events require invitations, membership and/or RSVPs. I don’t arrange those. I advise checking with the host organization before going. I’ve included links to their web sites when I could figure out how to do it.
Here are this week’s peace picks:
1. The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict: Perspectives from the Ground, Carnegie Endowment, October 3, 9:15-10:45
Carnegie Endowment’s Russia and Eurasia Program event with Archil Gegeshidze, senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS), and Lira Kozaeva, director of the Association of South Ossetian Women for Democracy and Human Rights, South Ossetia. Susan Allen Nan, assistant professor at the Institute for Conflict Alalysis and Resolution (ICAR), George Mason University, serves as discussant. Carnegie senior associate Thomas de Waal moderates.
2. Egypt After Mubarak, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, October 3, 12-2
Of all the momentous developments in the Middle East this year, none was more riveting than the sight of Egyptian “people power” forcing Hosni Mubarak from the presidential palace. But since those heady days, Egypt has entered a period of uncertainty as military leaders and newly unchained civilian parties alike wrestle with the responsibilities of democratic rule and the enormous problems facing the country.
Abdel Monem Said Aly is president of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo and a senior fellow at Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East Studies. His most recent publications include The Paradox of the Egyptian Revolution (PDF).
David Schenker, the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, is author of Egypt’s Enduring Challenges: Shaping the Post-Mubarak Environment.
3. Share the Water, Build the Peace, World Affairs Council at Lindner Commons, GWU, October 3, 6:30-8:30 pm
The extraordinary Gidon Bromberg of Friends of the Earth Middle East followed by a panel.
4. The Impact of Sanctions on Iran, the U.S., and the Global Economy, Rayburn HOB, October 4, 9-10:30 a.m. 2237
Speakers: Robert Pape – Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago Lucian (Lou) Pugliaresi – President of the Energy Policy Research Foundation Bijan Khajehpour – Iranian Political and Economic Analyst and Chairman of Atieh Group Moderator: Barbara Slavin – Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation
5. Why Al Qaeda Is Winning: The War We’re Fighting, and The War We Think We’re Fighting, Barnes and Noble, 555 12th St NW, October 4, 6:30 pm
Carnegie’s Nathan J. Brown will present his new paper on al-Azhar, Egypt’s leading religious institution, and analyze Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Georgetown University’s Jonathan AC Brown will discuss his recent research conducted in Egypt on debates over Islam’s role in society, with a focus on Sufi and Salafi groups. The Brookings Institution’s Khaled Elgindy will discuss politics and Islam. Carnegie’s Marina Ottaway will moderate.
8. What Next?: the Palestinian U.N. Bid, Israel and Options for the U.S., U.S. Institute of Peace (also webcast), October 7, 9:30 am
On September 23, President Mahmoud Abbas submitted an application to the U.N. Secretary-General for Palestine’s admission as a full state member of the United Nations. The United States, which sought to prevent this step, has threatened a veto in the Security Council, and there have been calls for a suspension of U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority over the matter, currently worth more than $500 million per year.
The Middle East Quartet has proposed a re-launch of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with the goal of achieving a final agreement by the end of 2012.
However, the two sides continue to adhere to opposing views on even the conditions for returning to the table. What is needed to move the peace process forward? Is the diplomatic track in sync with the Palestinian state-building effort? What are the options for U.S. policy?
The United States Institute of Peace is pleased to host the below panel of discussants to explore these questions.
- Elliott Abrams, Discussant
Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations - Dr. Ziad Asali, Discussant
President, American Task Force on Palestine - Neil Kritz, Discussant
Senior Scholar in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Congressman Robert Wexler, Discussant
President, S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace - David Sanger, Moderator
Writer-in-Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace
9. Taking Stock of Iran’s Nuclear Program: What Does it Mean, and What are the Implications? Linder Family Commons, rm 602, Elliott School (1957 E Street NW), October 7, 9:30-11 am.
David Albright, Founder and President, Institute for Science and International Security
David Albright, a physicist, is founder and president of the non-profit, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. He directs the project work of ISIS, heads its fundraising efforts, and chairs its board of directors. In addition, he regularly publishes and conducts scientific research. He has written numerous assessments on secret nuclear weapons programs throughout the world. Albright has published assessments in numerous technical and policy journals, including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Science, Scientific American, Science and Global Security, Washington Quarterly, and Arms Control Today. Research reports by Albright have been published by the Environmental Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. and Princeton University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies.
RSVP at: http://bit.ly/odf93s
Sponsored by the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies and the Nuclear Policy Talks
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Diplomatic observers for Syria
I’d like to revive an idea that I put forward more than a month ago: diplomatic observers for Syria.
I think we are in for the long haul in Syria. Bashar al Assad shows no signs of giving up. The international sanctions will pinch with time, but Iran is doing its best to counter them. While Bashar’s support has frayed in Damascus and Aleppo, that is only around the edges. The protesters are under a lot of pressure and have been unable to do what the Libyans did so successfully: put together a proto-government that could project a constitutional framework and roadmap to elections.
Military intervention is simply not in the cards. The Arab League isn’t asking for it. Russia has so far blocked all serious propositions in the UN Security Council. Moscow’s naval base at Latakia guarantees this will continue. I imagine Putin admires Bashar’s spunk and isn’t going to worry about what is done to the demonstrators. Turkey may stiffen its position a bit, but Ankara hasn’t yet done anything that really pinches hard.
If the protest movement in Syria is going to survive, it needs some help. We’ve been through this before. In some of the darkest days of the Kosovar rebellion against Serbia in 1998, the international community provided a Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission that reported on who was doing what to whom. It was too little too late and did not avoid war, but it was that mission that confirmed mass atrocities and helped to rouse the international community to its military intervention.
I don’t expect in Syria that there will be a military intervention, even if an observer mission were to confirm mass atrocities. The Russians won’t sign on to it, and I doubt the Americans and Europeans have the stomach to do it without Security Council authorization, which is what they eventually did in Kosovo.
But an international observer mission would likely reduce the ferocity of Bashar’s assault on Syria’s citizens and give us a far better window on what is happening than we have at present. Ambassador Ford’s visits to the protesters have clearly been a boost. Multiply that 1000 times in quantity (hard to match Ford in quality) and you’ve got something that might make a difference.
Would Bashar agree to it? At some point, he is going to be feeling the international pressure enough to make concessions. It is unlikely he will make any serious political reforms, since those would put his hold on power at risk. If he thinks that agreeing to international observers might eventually help him to relieve international pressures, he might do it.
In any event, I don’t see a downside to proposing it. The protesters have been literally crying for international protection. Civilian observers are not what they have in mind–some of them would like military intervention. But if the Arab League were to press the case and recruit the observers, the time may come when Bashar will yield to the proposition. If he doesn’t, all the worse for him: it suggests he has a great deal to hide.
I fear that if we fail to get something like this in place, the Syrian protest movement may fail, as the Iranian one did. That would be a big defeat for democratic forces in the Middle East, which are having a hard time elsewhere even if Libya and Tunisia seem to be proceeding more or less in the right direction.
In Yemen, the return of President Saleh to Sanaa has upped the ante and increased the violence. In Egypt, it is no longer clear–if ever it was–that the country will end up with a significantly more democratic system than the one Hosni Mubarak reigned over for decades. A Bashar victory in Syria would encourage reactionary forces elsewhere and help Iran to survive the Arab spring with its main client state still firmly attached. We haven’t got a lot of cards left to play on Syria: proposing international observers is a half measure that might be worth a try.
PS, October 26: The Syrian National Council is now calling for international monitors.
PPS, Octoer 28: Human Rights Watch likes the idea too.
RSS - Posts
