BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for International and Regional Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0400
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20141025T220000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20151108T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20151109T120000
DTSTAMP:20260407T113615
CREATED:20151112T101042Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T095010Z
UID:10001286-1446973200-1447070400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Youth in the Middle East Working Group Meeting II
DESCRIPTION:On November 8–9\, 2015\, the Center of International and Regional Studies (CIRS)\, in collaboration with Silatech\, hosted the second working group meeting as part of their research project on “Youth in the Middle East.” Eight distinguished scholars were invited to provide critical feedback and remarks on the draft papers\, submitted as part of this project\, which covered a wide range of issues faced by youth in the Middle East both domestically and in diaspora. This included themes such as employment\, education\, religion\, political views\, gender\, fatherhood\, economic inclusion\, and social cohesion. \n \n \nFor decades\, most of the scholarship on youth has been concerned with issues such as human capital\, problems and challenges faced by youth\, and their contribution to the growth of their respective countries. These concerns have spiked\, insofar as the Middle East is concerned\, after the wave of uprisings that hit the region in 2011. Numerous social scientists have been addressing youth issues in the transition period post Arab Uprisings; yet\, there are still areas that need further in-depth analysis and critical examination. In collaboration with Silatech\, CIRS launched the “Youth in the Middle East” project in 2014. \n \n \nThe second working group meeting focused on dynamics and challenges faced by youth in the Middle East. Its aim was to identify gaps in the available literature\, suggest areas for further scholarly investigations\, and recommend policies to decision-making circles. \n \n \nThe first paper\, presented by Samar Farah\, examines “The State of Education in the MENA Region and its Implications for Youth.” This paper sheds light on the education system in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa by exploring data presented in international assessments in recent years. Farah focuses on three levels of analysis—school\, teacher\, and student levels—in order to better understand the challenges facing the education systems\, and their implications on youth living in the region. \n \n \nMichael Robbins’s paper examines “Youth\, Religion\, and Democracy after the Arab Uprisings.” Robbins compares the experiences of youth in Egypt and Tunisia—two countries that experienced dramatic changes after the Arab uprisings—by investigating public opinion data gathered by the Arab Barometer Research Project. Robbins addresses the process of political learning among youths\, specifically in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia. \n \n \nJennifer Olmsted’s paper focuses on “Gender Priorities and the Arab Uprisings.” Olmsted examines gender equality in the transition period after the Arab Uprisings\, explores the various transitions that both males and females generally experience\, and focuses on various health outcomes as well as questions about political voice. In doing so\, Olmsted examines a number of social and economic indicators in order to address broader questions about control of assets and access to services\, equal access to schooling\, trends of marriage and household formation\, and gendered patterns emerging in labor markets. \n \n \nNatasha Ridge\, Soohyun Jeon\, Soha Shami\, and Ann-Christine Niepelt\, presented a paper on “Conceptualizing the Role and Impact of Fathers in the Arab World.” Using data from a pilot study on Arab fathers collected in the United Arab Emirates\, the authors explore the role and impact of Arab fathers retrospectively\, as reported by adult children\, on involvement and self-esteem. They also examine gender\, socioeconomic status\, and nationality in order to study the influence of father involvement on the experiences of males and females in the Arab world.  \n \n \nEdward Sayre presented paper titled “Youth Economic Inclusion in the Wake of the Arab Uprisings.” This paper examines the influence of the educational levels of individuals and their parents on their ability to secure employment after leaving school. Using both non-parametric (Kaplan Meier) and parametric approaches\, this paper assesses the different roles family background plays in the case of women compared to men. It also addresses the issue of inequality of opportunity and its impact on educational achievement and attainment\, as well as labor market outcomes. Sayre relies on the 2013 “School to Work Transition Survey” by the International Labor Organization to estimate the determinants of the length of time to find work after leaving school for young Palestinians\, specifically those aged between 15 and 29 years old. \n \n \nAnother paper was presented by Samer Kherfi titled “National Employment Policies in the Gulf: Achievements and Challenges.” This paper links the salient features of the GCC labor market to various governmental efforts aimed at nationalizing employment\, particularly in the private sector. It also provides an assessment to decades-old policies to boost employment via the direct imposition of minimum quotas for nationals at the firm\, industry\, and occupation levels. In addition\, the paper examines the recent price-based nationalization measures as well as other active labor market interventions.    \n \n \nThe Working Group’s last paper was presented by Sherine El-Taraboulsi and is titled “Navigating British-ness: British-Libyan youth\, the Arab unrest and debates on immigration in the United Kingdom”. This paper investigates the discourse on immigration in the United Kingdom\, and its implications on the sense of belonging of British-Libyan youth\, especially at a time of social and political upheaval in the Arab world. In exploring this issue\, El-Taraboulsi unpacks topics related to faith\, ethnicity and citizenship of Libyan youth in diaspora. \n \n \nThe second working group meeting was concluded by Mehran Kamrava\, the Director of the Center of International and Regional Studies\, and Paul Dyre\, Senior Consultant at Silatech. As part of a collaborative effort between the two institutions and through facilitating original contributions to the topic by experts\, the Working Group moved the study of youth in the contemporary Middle East further along. CIRS and Silatech expect to publish the products of this research initiative in the near future. \n \n \nIt is worth mentioning that this working group is part of the Center of International and Regional Studies Research and Scholarship’s initiatives that aim to fill in existing research gaps\, and contribute towards furthering knowledge.  Each of these initiatives involves some of the most prominent scholars of the Middle East\, North Africa\, and the Gulf region who address prevailing issues related to the security\, economic stability\, and political realm of the region. \n \n \n  \n \n \n\nClick here to view Meeting Agenda\nClick here to view Participants Biographies\nRead more about this research initiative \n\n \n  \n \n \nParticipants and Discussants: \n \n \n\nZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nTom Chidiac\, Silatech\nBrian Chung\, Al Qasimi Foundation\nPaul Dyer\, Silatech\nSherine El Taraboulsi\, Overseas Development Institute in London\nSamar Farah\, Columbia University\nIslam Hassan\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nSoohyun Jeon\, Al Qasimi Foundation\nNader Kabbani\, Silatech\nMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nSamer Kherfi\, American University of Sharjah\nSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nEdward Sayre\, University of Southern Mississippi\nElizabeth Wanucha\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Islam Hassan\, Research Analyst at CIRS
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/youth-middle-east-working-group-meeting-ii/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/events_114936_45181_1495706405-1-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20151109T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20151109T200000
DTSTAMP:20260407T113616
CREATED:20151029T072751Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T095004Z
UID:10001285-1447092000-1447099200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Afghanistan: War Without End?
DESCRIPTION:Anatol Lieven\, Professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue titled\, “Afghanistan: War Without End?” on November 9\, 2015. Lieven recounted his experiences as a journalist reporting from Afghanistan in the 1980s\, and visiting the country for research in recent years\, and offered comparisons between the effects of Soviet military withdrawal in 1989 and the withdrawal of most US troops today. The main difference between the two time periods in Afghan history is that the local government created by the United States is arguably weaker than the one the Soviets left behind\, and this is exemplified by the fact that Afghanistan continued as a communist state even after the fall of the USSR. A similarity between the two time periods is continued “overwhelming dependence of the Afghan state on outside help…Around 90 percent of the Afghan state budget and 100 percent of the security budget depends on outside financial aid\,” Lieven said. \n \n \nPresident Obama pledged the complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by the end of his time in office\, but there are three major reasons for why this still has not been accomplished. The first obstacle is the rise of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. The establishment of a local branch made up of Afghan and foreign fighters spells further drastic consequences for the US if it ever evacuated the country. The second is the revolt of the Islamic State in Iraq following the US military withdrawal from there\, and the near collapse of the Iraqi state. Lieven argued that “the US cannot afford another collapse of a client regime\, or an Islamist militant force taking over another large area in the Muslim World.” The third reason for why the US cannot withdraw from the country comes in the form of the Taliban’s resurgent strength and its temporary seizure of Kunduz in September 2015\, highlighting the group’s tenacity\, and their willingness to fill the impending power vacuum should the US withdraw its military support. \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n \n \nAlso disastrous for the future of Afghanistan would be withdrawal of European and US economic aid. Lieven explained that much\, if not most\, of the international aid money directed towards Afghanistan has been pilfered or squandered\, leading Western governments and media to decry the high levels of corruption within Afghanistan\, and to call for a halt in future funding. However\, Lieven proposed an alternative reading of the situation. He argued that much of the money “redirected” within Afghanistan and by the Afghan government\, can be considered a crucial form of state patronage. While this redistribution is illegal—insofar as legality has any meaning in Afghanistan today—it works towards the concentration of wealth and power in Kabul as opposed to its decentralization into the hands of regional warlords\, and can be viewed as a better option than depending on profits generated through the enduring heroin industry. The heroin trade is profitable for individual actors\, and results in the decentralization of power across groups of actors\, including members of the government operating in a non-official capacity\, and\, of course\, the Taliban. In this sense\, where the West perceives corrupt practices regarding international aid\, the Afghan government perceives a consolidation of the central government’s position\, and thereby\, a strengthening of the state. \n \n \nAdding further complexity to the state of Afghan affairs\, Lieven pointed out that much of the current aid money bestowed upon Afghanistan has\, in fact\, been pilfered and redistributed\, albeit “legally\,” by the very Western organizations hired to help in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Highlighting a further hypocrisy\, he said that the strategy of buying the support of local warlords was the very one devised by the US government upon invading Afghanistan in 2001. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Lieven gave some insights into the future of Afghanistan\, positing that neither the Afghan regime\, nor the Taliban opposition are united any longer. Indeed there is a sort of competition between them as to which disintegrates faster. \n \n \nThe Taliban used to be a formidably united force under the charismatic leadership of Mullah Omar\, but since the belated acknowledgment of his death this summer\, the movement has split\, with large sections refusing to accept the legitimacy of his official successor\, Mullah Akhtar Mohammed Mansur\, leader of the Taliban Political Committee based in Pakistan. The fact that this dissident faction includes some leading Taliban field commanders makes it a dangerous opponent to Mansur. Meanwhile\, other Taliban radicals have left the movement altogether to join the Islamic State (IS)\, which has set up a branch in eastern Afghanistan. IS has attracted supporters from members of the Pakistani Taliban and international militants from the former USSR\, who have been driven across the border into Afghanistan by the successful offensives of the Pakistani army earlier this year. \n \n \nThis ought to give the Afghan government a major opportunity to push the Taliban back\, but unfortunately it seems as if the Taliban on the ground—like the Mujahidin of the 1980s before them—are still capable of uniting to fight the Afghan National Army. However\, it does not seem likely that they can ever conquer most of the non-Pashtun areas of the country\, since even if the USA does withdraw completely\, India\, Russia\, and Iran will support their allies within Afghanistan. \n \n \nMoreover\, the government is itself deeply split and indeed almost paralyzed between the competing authorities of the president\, Ashraf Ghani\, and the “chief executive\,” Abdullah Abdullah. Analysts warned at the time against the power-sharing deal cobbled together by the USA to end last year’s political crisis over the disputed presidential election results. They said that it could not possibly work—and it hasn’t. So bad has the political situation become that there is strong support for the idea of calling a new national assembly and bringing back former President Hamid Karzai—something that would be disastrous for Western public support. \n \n \nAmongst other things\, the split in Kabul makes it extremely difficult\, or even impossible\, for the government to make a peace offer to the Taliban that would appeal to the pragmatists who support Mullah Mansur\, and might draw them into an alliance against the Islamic State. \n \n \nAs a final word\, Lieven noted that the nature of the Afghan state\, as created by the United States\, can only function as an extension of US hegemony. The current Afghanistan cannot exist autonomously\, and will certainly collapse if the US security scaffolding is removed. “As things stand\,” he said\, “the most likely future seems to be one of long-term messy warfare between multiple actors\,” controlling different parts of the country.  \n \n Anatol Lieven is a professor in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service based in Doha\, Qatar. He is a visiting professor in the War Studies Department of King’s College London and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington DC. His latest book\, Pakistan: A Hard Country was published in 2011. From 1986 to 1998\, Lieven worked as a British journalist in South Asia and the former Soviet Union\, and is author of several books on Russia and its neighbors. From 2000 to 2007 he worked at think tanks in Washington DC. A new edition of his book America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism was published in 2012.   Article by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/afghanistan-war-without-end/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/10/zo9a9243-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR