Mehran Kamrava on the United States and Iran
2007-09-10 08:00 - 18:00 (Europe/Moscow)
On September 10, 2007, Dr. Mehran Kamrava, head of the Center for International and Regional Studies housed at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service in Qatar, spoke to an overflow crowd at the Diplomatic Club in Doha. He prefaced his talk, entitled “The United States and Iran: A Dangerous but Contained Conflict,” by noting the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the region. Compelled each morning to check whether or not war had broken out the night before, Dr. Kamrava described the current state of affairs between the United States and Iran as decidedly grim. Irreconcilable differences in foreign policy and strategic objectives appear to be propelling the two countries towards open conflict.

Painting in broad historical strokes, Dr. Kamrava outlined the guiding principles or “logics” animating American foreign policy in the Middle East, including ready access to oil, the security of the state of Israel, and the containment of threats to American interests. Iran’s own strategic ambition of being a regional superpower whose security is guaranteed by proxies operating inside of Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Tehran’s insistence on a continued nuclear program, set the stage for an intractable conflict of interests between the US and Iran.

Dr. Kamrava interlaced his analysis with a consideration of the role of leadership and personalities. He described the current American and Iranian administrations as populated by leaders whose rigid adherence to ideological precepts exacerbate an already heated situation. Dr. Kamrava noted that what was once an American foreign policy premised on a realpolitik, balance-of-power approach to the region has been replaced by what the Project for a New American Century described as a “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity,” exemplified by the neo-conservative doctrine of “forward defense.” The ideals of “freedom” and “human dignity” emanating from Washington were not just slogans but the perorations of a “presidency of believers.” These ideologues found their counterparts on the Iranian side. Dr. Kamrava went so far as to describe Ahmadinejad as the “Iranian Bush.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Kamrava cautioned against reading too much into the positions of American and Iranian political leaders. Domestic pressures remain an unknown and crucial factor going forward, as both governments face growing discontent and division amongst popular as well as elite elements. In the short term, Dr. Kamrava prognosticated that uncertainty will likely continue to hang over the region. Nonetheless, he argued that certain breaks and mechanisms exist which he deemed “logics,” that could prevent the current impasse from erupting into war.

Dr. Kamrava closed by offering three possible future scenarios, the first being the continuation of an untenable status quo in which unresolved tensions and hostility between Iran and the U.S. spill over into -the second scenario,- open conflict. Dr. Kamrava emphasized that such a war would be a catastrophe for both sides. A glimmer of hope lies in the narrow path of reconciliation that runs between the first two scenarios. Returning to his earlier theme, Dr. Kamrava advocated conditional engagement through the “Baghdad track” as a way for the US and Iran to reconcile their differences.

Summary prepared by Shervin Malekzadeh. Shervin is a Teaching Assistant at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar.

Gary Wasserman on the 2008 US Presidential Elections
2007-10-05 08:00 - 18:00
On October 5th 2007, CIRS hosted a luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel in Doha in which Dr. Gary Wasserman discussed the 2008 presidential elections in the United States. Wasserman, who is professor of Government at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar, spoke before a small audience of Doha-based diplomats and business leaders. The event was moderated by CIRS-Director Mehran Kamrava.

To start, Dr. Wasserman asserted that the next presidential election will depend on the moderate and swing votes and not so much on the traditional core Republican or Democratic bases. He explained that in the last election, the Bush campaign was able to secure core Republican votes through issues like terrorism and social conservatism, and by ignoring those issues appealing to moderate voters.

The next election is likely to focus on what may be called “moments.” According to Wasserman, these are brief, key phrases and sound-bites that are fed to the public by the media, the opposition or the candidates themselves, to create for the voters an idea of the candidate’s political agenda or personality. In other words, “moments” dispense of the need for a member of the public to understand an entire political doctrine from start to finish. Wasserman reminded his audience that the general public has daily concerns other than those pertaining to politics. Therefore, it is in need of these “briefs” in order to be able to keep abreast of the political situation and to understand each candidate’s general narrative, without having to follow too closely every move in the long electoral process.

Wasserman also noted that because today’s media-driven climate is “politically correct,” the public does not tolerate outright criticism of women and racial and ethnic minorities. There are, instead, particular “code-words” that are used by campaigners in order to compress an entire history of stereotypes into a single word or phrase without being directly confrontational and offensive. For example, Republicans discuss Hillary Clinton as a woman in order to reinforce traditional stereotypes of weakness and ineffective policy. Another example was the constant use of the word “crime” during Giuliani’s “zero tolerance” policy to stand in for the word “black,” so that the governing discourse would avoid being blatantly racist but would still have the desired effect. The group also discussed the attempt by Republican candidate Mitt Romney to frighten voters away from Barack Obama, when Romney confused Obama’s name with “Osama” on a live television broadcast.

Also important to consider, according to Wasserman, is the changing nature of demographics, especially in terms of minority voters, and the dramatic effects this has on traditional political stances. These minority voters are being paid attention to and are now being canvassed in a way unseen before in political history. Wasserman discussed the significant rise of the under-30 youth vote and how this meant that traditional politics will have to find new and inventive ways to accommodate this growing constituency. Not only are “minorities” now seen as important voters, but they are also regarded as an amalgam of differences and not as the block categories they were in the past. New media technologies such as the internet and micro-targeting capabilities now have increased the ability to distinguish populations into a variety of fragmented constituencies based on a great deal of defining factors, be they age-related, educational, economic, racial, or occupational.

Wasserman said he would like to see a shift in politics towards a discussion of the larger, more important questions about the role of the United States in the world in broader, more encompassing terms, instead of the current trend towards targeting specific populations and the use of advertising techniques. One such crucial issue is the question of climate change and the stance regarding energy consumption and expenditure. Wasserman was optimistic about future policies regarding the environment and was confident that the public is positioning itself ahead of its politicians. He pointed out the positive changes that certain state and local governments in the United States have made with regards to legislation in favor of energy-efficiency, of which building codes and environmentally-friendly mass transportation systems are prime examples.

As for predictions on the election’s outcome, Wasserman warned against reading too much into Senator Clinton’s front-runner status among the Democrats, especially if she fails to rein in high expectations of her campaign’s successes in the primary season. Nevertheless, barring major surprises and slippages by the Clinton campaign, according to Wasserman, all indications point to the Senator’s emergence as the Democratic candidate and, most probably, the next occupant of the White House.

Summary prepared by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS staff member.

America's Role in the World
2007-10-23 08:00 - 18:00
On October 23, 2007, the Center for International and Regional Studies and the Institute for the Study of Democracy hosted a private seminar of the working group members and prominent scholars and observers of US foreign policy from across the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and East Asia.

Beginning in the Fall of 2006, Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (ISD) undertook a major scholarly initiative to examine the role and nature of American foreign policy in the coming years – The America’s Role in the World Working Group. More specifically, the ISD has sought to identify the geopolitical challenges that a new administration—Democrat or Republican—could face beginning in 2009, and also to define the central foreign policy choices and responses that are likely to be available. The goal is not to offer specific policy prescriptions but to provide the candidates with a comprehensive agenda of issues that could require attention and on which they should be forming views and taking positions. A working group comprised of approximately fifty-five experts on American foreign policy has been assembled to discuss and deliberate the topic.

The following day, on October 24, 2007, in addition to a group of invited scholars, the working group participants delivered their findings in a public conference on the topic of America and the Middle East after the Bush Presidency: the View from the Outside.

The following are the participants that took part in the working group:

Farid Abboud, Ambassador of Lebanon to Tunisia
Gilles Andreani, Conseiller Maitre, Cour de Comptes
Habib Ben Yahia, Secretary General, Arab Maghreb Union
Chan Heng Chee, Ambassador of Singapore to the United States
Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict
Chester A. Crocker, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy – Georgetown University
Álvaro de Soto, Former UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process
Jeremy Greenstock, Director of the Ditchley Foundation
Han Sung-Joo, President of Korea University
Mehran Kamrava, Director, Center for International and Regional Studies
Zyad Limam, CEO, AM International, France
Osman Faruk Logoglu, President, Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies
Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, President, Qatar University
Thomas R. Pickering, Chairman of the Board, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy
Ahmed Rashid, Journalist, Pakistan
James Reardon-Anderson, Dean, School of Foreign Service in Qatar
James Seevers, Professor, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy – Georgetown University
Amira Sonbol, Professor, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar
Casimir A. Yost, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy – Georgetown University
Vahan Zanoyan, PFC Energy International

America and the Middle East after the Bush Presidency: the View from the Outside
2007-10-24 08:00 - 18:00
On October 24, 2007, in conjunction with Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Democracy, CIRS hosted a conference involving key members of the America’s Role in the World Working Group — including Co-Chairs Thomas Pickering (former US Ambassador to the UN) and Chester Crocker (former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs).

A day earlier, on October, 23, 2007, CIRS and ISD hosted a private seminar of the working group members and prominent scholars and observers of US foreign policy from across the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and East Asia.

Beginning in the Fall of 2006, Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (ISD) undertook a major scholarly initiative to examine the role and nature of American foreign policy in the coming years – The America’s Role in the World Working Group. More specifically, the ISD has sought to identify the geopolitical challenges that a new administration—Democrat or Republican—could face beginning in 2009, and also to define the central foreign policy choices and responses that are likely to be available. The goal is not to offer specific policy prescriptions but to provide the candidates with a comprehensive agenda of issues that could require attention and on which they should be forming views and taking positions. A working group comprised of approximately fifty-five experts on American foreign policy has been assembled to discuss and deliberate the topic.

The following are the participants and their presentations for the October 24th conference:

Keynote Speech: Thomas Pickering, Chairman of the Board, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (ISD), Georgetown University.

Panel I: The United States and the Middle East after the Bush Presidency

Chair: Jim Seevers, Georgetown University

Casimir Yost, Georgetown University America and the World after the Bush Presidency Chan Heng Chee, Singapore Ambassador to the United States America and Its Allies after the Bush Presidency Jeremy Greenstock, Director of the Ditchley Foundation America and the Middle East in the Post-Iraq Invasion Era Chester Crocker, Georgetown University American Foreign Policy-Making During & After the Bush Presidency

Panel II: America’s Role in the Middle East

Chair: Mehran Kamrava, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar

Jaafar Abbas, Al Jazeera English Al Jazeera and US Foreign Policy: An Insider’s View Mehran Kamrava, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar Eldad Pardo, Hebrew University US-Israeli Relations: The View from Jerusalem Steven Wright, Qatar University The United States and the Gulf: The View from the Gulf Thomas Pickering, Chairman of the Board, ISD, Georgetown University Keynote Speech

Amira Sonbol on Cairo Women of the Darb
2007-10-30 08:00 - 18:00
On October 30, 2007, CIRS hosted its inaugural Monthly Dialogue Series event with a presentation by Professor Amira Sonbol. Professor Sonbol discussed her research on Cairo women’s lives with an audience of over fifty guests, who ranged from Education City students and faculty to ambassadors and other diplomats posted in Doha.

In her portrayal of Cairo women of the darb —small alley or quarter in Arabic—Sonbol stressed that we must stop viewing women as an object of oppression in the Islamic world. On the contrary, women have been a vibrant part of life in Cairo for centuries—only recently did modern state formation begin to exclude women from professions such as medicine, manual labor, and factories. “Women worked every job you can imagine,” Sonbol said. “They had to work, at least in the darb.”

To prove this thesis, Sonbol has spent years analyzing records in Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Turkey, and the Gulf.

“Text is the product of a living society, not a dead society,” Sonbol claimed.

Using fatawa (judgments made by Islamic scholars) and court records, Sonbol demonstrated women’s active participation in society and, for instance, the ease with which they could obtain a divorce in Egyptian courts. She has also seen considerable proof of the maneuverability of women within the social hierarchy of the time, evidenced by the wealth of prenuptial agreements where women made very specific demands of their husbands. If these agreements were violated, the woman could easily secure a divorce in court.

Sonbol then traced the changes in laws since the British takeover and the arrival of the “modern age.” The many public setbacks that women faced during this period disprove the commonly-held belief in progress—that as time advances, human society necessarily improves. The centralization of the state in the modern era actually relegated women to the private sphere.

“Women are now blocked from jobs they could do before,” Sonbol noted. Additionally, at the beginning of the 19th century women held 40 percent of the property in Egypt, whereas by the end they held only ten percent, she claimed.

In 1827, Muhammad Ali Pasha opened a hospital in Cairo and many women were specialized doctors. It was not until the 1893 British takeover of Egyptian schools that women were excluded from this profession. Only now are women regaining some of the ground they lost in the beginning of the modern age.

One of the results of British rule was the 1920s’ passage of “personal status law”, which illegalized women seeking divorce and women holding property. While many outsiders claim that women’s disadvantages stem from Islam, a deconstruction of the personal status law demontrates that these laws were the real culprit. Only in the modern age did women come to be viewed as dependents of their husbands, and not as individuals, in the legal system.

Sonbol relayed how she first became interested in women’s history as she researched the clergy of Al-Azhar. As she worked in the Egyptian archives, she discovered many documents demonstrating women’s active role in history. She began to realize that the image she held of women in the past was the wrong one.

Currently, Sonbol is working with students to collect a history of women in the Gulf. While it initially appeared that this would imply the construction of a history from scratch, Sonbol has found that the scholarly study of the question of “women” needed to be reframed. Looking for women’s history was a narrow, modern approach. Instead, the group is using a wider variety of sources and has found rich material, especially in Oman.

Summary prepared by Kathryn King. Kathryn is a CIRS staff member.

Ambassador Stephen Day The Evolution of British Diplomacy since the End of the First World War
2007-11-11 08:00 - 18:00
On November 8, 2007, CIRS hosted a lecture by Stephen Day, British career diplomat and former Ambassador of the United Kingdom to Tunisia and Qatar. Day delivered a lecture on “The Evolution of British Diplomacy since the End of the First World War,” focusing on the underlying dynamics that continue to characterize the basis of British policy globally and in relation to the Middle East.

Day has devoted much of his career to service in and study of the Middle East, and, in his current capacity as the Director of Claremont Associates, he continues to be actively involved in consulting and giving strategic advice on political and economic issues related to the region.

Environmental Degradation and Conservation: Challenges and Prospects
2007-11-12 08:00 - 18:00
Experts from Education City and around the world came together on Monday, 12 November 2007, to discuss the environmental consequences of Qatar’s rapid industrialization. Panelists from each of the branch campuses at Education City took part in the discussion. The event was sponsored by the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) and the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar (SFS-Qatar).

Timothy Beach, Director of Georgetown University’s Center for the Environment, described how the earth’s climate tends to follow short cycles of warm weather followed by longer eras of cold weather. According to Beach, these cycles explain the desertion of the Mayan people, as well as settlement of people along the Nile river valley. Beach credited An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s award-winning film on climate change, on raising the public’s awareness of the problem. However, Beach pointed out that Gore’s film uses low-probability/high-impact actions to drive people to action.

Patrick Linke discussed water resource issues in Qatar. As a chemical engineer at Texas A&M University in Qatar, Linke has been studying the use of seawater and desalinated water to fulfill the needs of the rapid industrialization.

Deborah Lange of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh described the leadership role the University is taking in creating and promoting sustainable business practices. In addition to promoting environmentally-friendly operations at the University, CMU also integrates environmental awareness throughout the undergraduate and graduate programs. For these reasons, Carnegie Mellon was listed by the Sierra Club as one of the top 10 organizations that are committed to environmental action. The Sierra Club is on of the oldest grassroots environmental organizations with more than 1.3 million members in America.

Peter Martin, a professor of communication design from Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar explained the unique relationship between environmental problems and cultural problems. In describing the development of modern culture, Martin explained that humanity sees itself are more and more detached from the environment. As we become more comfortable with artificial environments we begin to trivialize time, place and history. Only by reversing this cultural degradation can we build sustainable business practices that will reverse the environmental degradation.

Renee Richer, a biology professor from Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, discussed the challenges of conservation as a result of Qatar’s rapid industrialization. She explained the uniqueness of Qatar’s environment, with its extreme temperatures, low rainfall, and high water salinity. Unfortunately, Qatar’s small size and recent growth have meant that an accurate tally of the diversity of species in the country is not available. The rapid growth means that animal habitats are being destroyed, as well as resources being exploited. The rising population in Qatar is one example. “The fish catch has nearly doubled from 2001 until 2005 from 79,000 tons of fish to 140,000 tons. That is a huge increase in resource usage,” Richer said. Richer did credit the Qatari government’s biodiversity action plan as a step forward to building sustainable environment here in Qatar.

As a continuation of the CIRS’ panel presentation on the environment, Renee Richer published a review paper in March 2008, titled “Conservation in Qatar: Impacts of Increasing Industrialization.”

Article by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS staff member.

Patrick Laude on the Ambassadors of Inner Islam
2007-11-28 08:00 - 18:00
On November 28, 2007, forty invited guests gathered in the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar Library to listen to Professor Patrick Laude speak about “The Ambassadors of Inner Islam and the Encounter of Religions.”This lecture was part of CIRS’s on-going Monthly Dialogue Series. Laude is Professor of French, a Sorbonne graduate and author of nine books, including Pray Without Ceasing: The Way of the Invocation in World Religion, 2006, Divine Play, Sacred Laughter and Spiritual Understanding, 2005, Singing the Way: Insights in Poetry and Spiritual Transformation, 2005, Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998): Life and Teachings, 2004, Massignon intérieur, 2001, and Approches du quiétisme, 1992.

Professor Laude explained the main tenets of his current research which focuses on the contributions of three eminent European Islamic Studies scholars to Islamic studies and inter-religious studies. Louis Massignon (1883-1962), Henry Corbin (1903-1978) and Frithjof Schuon (1907-1998) set themselves apart from Orientalist research and the abstract detachment that was a prerequisite for scientific objectivity by demonstrating the forgotten but fertile connection between faith and scholarship. Laude explained that the spiritual realm that these scholars were interested in is one that cannot be reduced to the prevalent social or political concerns.

Laude gave a brief account of his own relationship with the subject, explaining what makes these particular scholars worthy of being named Ambassadors of Islam, and explaining what lessons could be learned in relation to the co-existence of religions. All three scholars, although studying the same topic, came from different intellectual paradigms ranging from the Christian and mystical to the phenomenological and the perennialist.

The title “Ambassadors of Islam”, Laude explained, is meant to give the sense that these scholars introduced the West to Islamic ideas found in the realm of a broader spiritual and philosophical understanding. In fact, Massignon was a Catholic scholar and priest who devoted his life to the study of Islam and Arabic, as he believed this language to be the language of transcendence. He was able to partake in a spirituality that extended beyond strict religious boundaries while being grounded in the Christian mysteries of faith. Corbin was steeped in German philosophy and Protestant theology, and became the prominent European expert in Shiite theosophy, while Schuon has been recognized as the foremost expositor of the perennial philosophy based upon the principle of the “transcendent unity of religions.”

Further to being representatives of Islam in the West, these thinkers represented a marginalized and forgotten aspect of Islam; they revived its spiritual and intellectual heritage. These scholars had a profound influence on some sectors of the Islamic intelligentsia especially in South East Asia.

Laude explained how these three Ambassadors of Islam emphasized the importance of a spiritual “congeniality” with or “sympathy” toward the object of religious studies, a re-evaluation of the centrality of the poetic and the imaginal in approaching spiritual traditions, and above all the commonality and transcendence of a universal horizon of spirituality beyond the formal differences that separate religions. As such, they saw Sufism as an embodiment of the spiritual fulfillment of Islam from a law into a spiritual way of being open to other faiths.

All three scholars’ legacy is some measure of recognition in a spiritual and metaphysical unity of all the great religions; an essential commonality that is in no way contradictory with the formal, theological and ritual diversity that characterizes the religious world. Therefore, one lesson that can be learned from these thinkers is not only the recognition of others’ religions but also the understanding of the metaphysical and anthropological necessity of the multiplicity of spiritual traditions. The unity of religions espoused, to varying degrees, by these scholars, in a way that is more implicit and Christ-centered in Massignon, more hermeneutic in Corbin’s works, and fully articulated in Schuon and the perennialist school, is not found in the literal sense of religions but resides in the encompassing and inclusive nature of the spiritual and the philosophical understanding of the religious phenomenon.

Summary prepared by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS staff member.

Sherene Seikaly on Palestinian Businessmen and the British Colonial State
2007-12-10 18:00
As part of the Monthly Dialogue Series, Dr. Sherene Seikaly, the 2007-2008 Qatar Postdoctoral Fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in Washington, DC, gave a lecture titled “A Public Good? Palestinian Businessmen and the British Colonial State 1939-1948.” On December 10, 2007, Seikaly spoke to a local audience in Doha, where she defended the view that Palestine had a vibrant and diverse economic culture during the British mandate.

Seikaly claimed that when discussing pre-1948 Palestine, one is influenced by a meta-narrative of impending catastrophe and the failure to achieve a Palestinian state. Thus, she said, the dynamics of social transformation and the vast economic growth in Arab Palestine are often overlooked.

Seikaly’s research aims to contradict the commonly held notions that pre-1948 Palestine was a flatly divided society between corrupt, feuding elites and poor, ignorant masses. Instead, Seikaly assured, Palestine under the British mandate was experiencing rapid economic growth and the development of capitalism as a means of citizenship and of nationalism.

Seikaly stated that contrary to popular belief, Palestinian businessmen conceived of post-colonial Palestine as a state where Jews and Palestinian Arabs could co-exist as equitable citizens, both contributing to the market. From 1939 to 1944, under British mobilization for the war effort, Palestinian exports doubled and the money supply grew sevenfold. While intense rationing and a newly developed income tax hampered many Palestinians’ daily lives, Palestinian entrepreneurs remained actively involved in the economy, petitioning the Brits with concerns and participating in local chambers of commerce. In fact, there were many instances of joint Jewish and Palestinian Arab Chambers of Commerce, including in Haifa until 1921 and Jerusalem until 1936. Even after 1936 the Jerusalem Chamber of Commerce remained diverse in its composition, including Christians, Muslims, Armenians and many other minorities. Seikaly encouraged the audience to avoid thinking in generalizations about either Palestinian Arabs or Jews.

Seikaly lectured earlier in the day to students and faculty at Qatar University. She received her Ph.D. from New York University in 2007 in the fields of History, and Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies. She is also the co-editor of the Arab Studies Journal.

Summary prepared by Kathryn King. Kathryn is a CIRS staff member.

Global Development, Organizations, and Faith in the Muslim World
2007-12-17 08:00 - 18:00
On December 17, 2007, the Working Group symposium on Global Development, Organizations, and Faith in the Muslim World was held at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. The symposium, geared toward practitioners across the Muslim world, was a working group consultation event co-sponsored by CIRS and the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, and the Henry R. Luce Foundation. The symposium focused on institutions; relationships among public, private, and religiously inspired actors; financing issues; and other issues such as children, education, health, and gender. The event ended with a Distinguished Lecture by Hany El Banna and Azhari Gasim Ahmed. El Banna is co-founder and president of Islamic Relief Worldwide and Ahmed is Senior Economist at the Islamic Development Bank.

Participants of the Working Group included Mehran Kamrava, Director of CIRS; Salman Shaikh, Director for Policy and Research at the Office of Her Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned; Hady Amr, Director of Brookings, Qatar; and Omnia Nour, Director of Reach Out to Asia, among other distinguished international guests.

The Working Group symposium is part of an ongoing joint Luce/School of Foreign Service multi-year research project focusing on institutions inspired by and linked to faith. Kamrava, Director of CIRS, said that the symposium’s program “will be fully integrated into the Georgetown University curriculum and the students will benefit greatly from engaging directly with the research results and actively participating in the creation of a database concerning faith-related organizations, both governmental and non-governmental.” According to Kamrava, the initiative is testimony to the commitment by Georgetown University and CIRS to encourage in-depth scholarship and to also provide a forum for dialogue and exchange of ideas.

The research takes place over three years; the first of which focused on the United States and concluded with a conference debating issues of faith-inspired institutions. The current year is the second stage of the investigation, which focuses on the Muslim world and the role of global Muslim-inspired institutions such as Islamic Relief, the Red Crescent Society, and the Aga Khan Network. Further phases will focus on European faith-inspired institutions in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

The project will be completed in 2009 and the results will be published as a book.

For more information, view the Working Group’s symposium summary prepared by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.

Hany El Banna and Azhari Gasim Ahmed
2007-12-17 08:00 - 18:00
As part of a Working Group Symposium on Global Development, Organizations, and Faith in the Muslim World, on December 17, 2007, CIRS hosted a Distinguished Lecture by Hany El Banna, co-founder and president of Islamic Relief Worldwide, and Azhari Gasim Ahmed, Senior Economist, Islamic Development Bank.

Earlier in the day, the Working Group symposium was held at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. The symposium focused on institutions; relationships among public, private, and religiously inspired actors; financing issues; and other issues such as children, education, health, and gender.

Andrew Natsios on "The Sudan in Crisis and the International Response"
2008-01-24 08:00 - 18:00
On January 24, 2008, CIRS sponsored a Distinguished Lecture by Andrew Natsios, Professor on the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University and former U.S. Special Envoy to Darfur. The lecture was titled “The Sudan in Crisis and the International Response” and took place at the Al Sharq Village Hotel. It was attended by fifty invited guests who were treated to dinner and insight into one of the world’s most prominent crises. Earlier in the day, Natsios also spoke on the Sudan in a keynote address to some 350 high school students gathered at the Opening Ceremony of the CIRS-sponsored annual Model United Nations conference.

Commenting on the ongoing crisis in the Sudan, Natsios detailed the complex tensions that have fueled violent conflicts in the Darfur region, building on his firsthand knowledge of the Sudan and its political actors. Beside the tense relations that exist between Sudanese of Arab and African descent, Natsios’ discussion touched upon a series of lesser-known issues, such as the strained relations between the central government and the Janjaweed (tribal militias).

Natsios highlighted the real danger regarding the collapse of central authority in Africa’s largest country should the country return to war between the North and the South which nearly happened in October and November 2007. The ethnic cleansing of Darfur represents only one aspect of a much larger crisis that could lead to the disintegration of the Sudan, with even more tragic political and humanitarian consequences for the whole of eastern Africa. Unless the international community realizes the gravity of the situation and the fragility of central authority in Khartoum, and enjoins all of the political actors involved to alter their current course of action, the country is likely to break up under the pressure of various centrifugal forces.

Natsios argued that the central government in Khartoum has managed to alienate several previously non-political Sudanese social groups. It has, among other things, failed to honor all the articles of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005, which was intended to put an end to the long civil conflict between the predominantly Muslim North and the oil-rich Christian South. As a result, the most serious conflict in recent Sudanese history—with casualties ten times those of the Darfur crisis—remains a partially unresolved issue that continues to threaten the stability of the entire country. With high levels of discontent and resentment among the population and a high proportion of government officials who are unwilling to defuse the situation peacefully for fear of a coup or of standing trial for war crimes, the Sudan is becoming increasingly unstable and should the North and South return to war, might well disintegrate as a state.

To bring the current crises to an end and avoid future degradation, Natsios argued that the international community must first and foremost encourage the parties to enforce the Comprehensive Peace Agreement it originally supported, and must normalize political relations with the Sudanese government. Because the International Criminal Court is a sword of Damocles hanging over Sudanese officials, it has become an impediment to conflict resolution. For this reason, Natsios recommended that the international community forgo the right to bring suspected war criminals to justice in exchange for peace and stability. The Sudanese government, for its part, would have to share oil revenues equitably, restrain the hardliners within its own ranks, and give greater regional autonomy to Darfur. These measures, combined with free, fair and open elections, present the only viable options for saving Sudan from fragmenting into its various provinces and bringing the Darfur crisis to an end.

Summary prepared by Henri Lauziere. Henri is a Teaching Assistant at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar.

Gary Wasserman on the role of Lobbying Groups in American Foreign Policy
2008-02-11 08:00 - 18:00
On February 11, 2008, students and guests of CIRS were treated to a lecture by Gary Wasserman, Professor of Government at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. Wasserman’s lecture, part of the CIRS Monthly Dialogue Series, discussed the question “Democracy and American Foreign Policy: Do Interest Groups Help or Hinder?”

Wasserman argued that allowing interest groups to lobby helps open up the highly centralized U.S. foreign policy process, which is dominated by the executive branch. Wasserman called this executive hegemony “presidentialism.” Presidentialism can be illustrated by many experiences under the Bush administration, Wasserman said. He cited examples of presidential language modeled on rhetoric of the armed forces, and of the increase in classified documents under the Bush administration.

Wasserman claimed that the use of classified documents limits the involvement of outsiders in the political process, and reduces political debate and executive accountability. Moreover, these classified documents are used selectively as a means to an end, as in the case of the buildup of argumentation for the Iraq War, Wasserman said. Serving as another example of presidentialism are governmental sanctions against dissident voices, such as the case of two American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists who have recently been prosecuted for having obtained classified information.

According to Wasserman, the post-9/11 climate has added strength to the tendency of presidentialism; however, over the past few years and with new presidential elections coming up, this trend is beginning to be undermined by others, like globalization. Through globalization, new and different influence groups have risen, and this broadening of the political sphere has made American foreign policy slightly more pragmatic.

Wasserman then anticipated an expected audience question, stemming from the widespread negative image of interest groups and lobbyists: Is greater public involvement in foreign policy desirable? Here, Wasserman referred to Alexis De Tocqueville, who, in the mid-nineteenth century, pointed to the uneasy relationship in the United States between foreign policy and democracy.

Traditionally, these two entities are seen as antagonistic towards each other. Wasserman commented, however, that foreign policy often results from bureaucratic compromises, and that foreign policy is portrayed as more coherent than it actually is. Discussing the people factor, he referred to the work of Benjamin Page, who portrays the public as just as coherent, and stresses that it should not be excluded from the political decision-making process. Page then provides suggestions for the problem at the core of this matter, i.e., how to make democracy work with foreign policy.

Currently in U.S. society, the problem of the “people factor” has led to increasing prominence of experts in all fields. Since in foreign policy, lobbyists are the experts, lobbyists can in fact open up the foreign policy process, and lessen presidentialism, Wasserman claimed.

Wasserman argued against the traditional negative stereotype that surround lobbyists. Adding nuance to their traditional image, he alerted his audience to the potentialities of lobbyists as contributors to foreign policy-making in the democratic state, rather than selfish takers in that process.

Summary prepared by Katrien Vanpee. Katrien is a PhD-candidate at Georgetown University, and works at the Embassy of Belgium in Doha.

John Esposito on What a Billion Muslims Really Think
2008-02-17 08:00 - 18:00
World-renowned scholar and prolific author John L. Esposito spoke to an audience of nearly 400 guests on February 17, 2008 at the Diplomatic Club in Doha. In his remarks, the Georgetown University Professor of Religion and International Affairs covered the findings of his latest book, Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think.

As the Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Esposito emphasized that throughout his career he has been repeatedly asked the same questions regarding Islam: Is Islam compatible with democracy? What is the relationship between Islam and modernity? And, what about Islam is particularly violent? According to Esposito, such questions affirm this clear clash of perceptions between the West and the Muslim World. The problem, he said, is that extremists and terrorism have too often been amplified in the media, consequently overshadowing the hopes, fears, resentments, and realities of a billion Muslims globally. Rather than lend credence to an extreme minority, Esposito, along with the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, decided to compile data and give voice to a silenced majority—which will enable the public to get beyond ideologies and ignorance.

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think is based on six years of research and more than 50,000 interviews representing 1.3 billion Muslims who reside in more than 35 nations with predominant or sizable Muslim populations. Representing more than 90 percent of the world’s Muslim community, this poll is the most comprehensive and revealing study of its kind.

Esposito focused his talk on the main findings of the survey as they relate to the clash of perceptions, double standards of US foreign policy, and the need to promote democratization and economic development in the Muslim world. Before delving into policy grievances, Esposito highlighted the perception problem as a glaring difference between what Muslims admire about the West, and what Westerners admire about the Muslim world. The majority of Muslims interviewed stated an admiration for Western ideals of democracy, rule of law, political participation, accountability, economic growth, and technology. However, despite the increased awareness of Islam and Muslims in the West in the post 9/11 era, 57% of Western respondents said they admired nothing or couldn’t think of anything they admired about the Muslim world. Here, the clash of perceptions becomes evident, where the war against terrorism translates into a war against Islam.

Esposito maintained that this is a fragile delineation, because many Muslims view the war against terror as an excuse to redraw the map of the Muslim world. With the persistent denigration of Islam and Muslims, many Muslims are seriously concerned that the West in general and America in particular operate with a double standard when it comes to the Middle East and the larger Muslim world. When we look into the consequences of 9/11, Esposito argued, the reality is that many countries in the Muslim world have become more authoritarian; thereby thwarting movements towards democratization. Thus, this stands in contradiction to the US administration’s push for democracy in the region. Esposito argued that the US democracy promotion policy was “not an export of self-determination but the export of a particular brand of democracy.” Furthermore, not only do Muslims want greater democratization within their countries, but “young Muslims want jobs, not jihad.” Hence, not only are Muslims frustrated with their domestic policies as well as with US foreign policy, but more poignantly, they are also disappointed about the lack of opportunity and economic mobility in their own countries.

Esposito recommended that the way forward for the West and the US is to emphasize soft power rather than military power. When speaking about America’s role in the Muslim world, he recommended that the United States must use the carrot and stick approach. More specifically, the US and the West have to honestly promote freedom, civil society, and human rights in countries that they offer aid and support to. These countries have an important role to play in flexing their muscles in order to address governments that marginalize their people.

According to the Gallup research, both the West and the Muslim world care about the future, but each thinks that the other side doesn’t. Both agree that there needs to be greater interaction, exchange and education. Respect and partnership should be central to Western and Muslim foreign policies. It is more about policy than principles. At a time when sensationalist headlines often eclipse and undermine mutual understanding between Western and Muslim communities, it is essential to engage in meaningful dialogue and discourse.

Esposito told his audience, “I see light at the very end of the tunnel. It is going to take years for us to get out of where we are.”

Summary prepared by Aalaa Abuzaakouk. Aalaa serves as a Student Affairs Officer at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar.

Global Media Between Dialogue and War: When Enemies Boost the Ratings
2008-02-26 08:00 - 18:00
On Tuesday February 26, 2008, CIRS hosted a one-day conference with the Italian organization Reset – Dialogues on Civilizations at Weill Cornell Lecture Hall 2.

This symposium featured an intensive set of discussions in which experts from the fields of media, journalism, international relations, and film studies came together to deliberate the consequences of using the international media as a weapon of war. The symposium was attended by students, journalists, scholars, Doha-based ambassadors, and other members of the public.

The audience and guests were welcomed by Mehran Kamrava, Director of CIRS, and Nina Zu Fürstenberg, Director of Reset. Guests were then were given a brief introduction by His Excellency Giuseppe Buccino Grimaldi, the Ambassador of Italy to Qatar, who praised the efforts of Georgetown University, Qatar Foundation, and Al Jazeera in their vision and value of progressive thinking, open dialogue and education.

Some of the speakers taking part in the symposium included Giuliano Amato, the Italian Minister of Interior, and Otto Schilly, Member of the German Parliament. Other speakers—including noted political figures, film-makers, academics, and practitioners—deliberated on several important issues pertaining to the relationship between media and war, as well as the state of the interaction between, broadly-defined, Arab and Western media.

Also discussed was the balancing act that many media conglomerates play between local demands and preferences on the one hand and international and multi-cultural trends on the other. This has resulted in a proliferation of multi-language media broadcasts. In the context of the post-9/11 global environment, broadcasts in Arabic have assumed particular significance as more media outfits are eager for a wider audience share n the Arab world. Other issues of contemporary relevance—immigration, terrorism, cultural diffusion—have also combined to heighten interest in the role of global media.

The audience also observed two documentary films and was able to address questions to the directors who presented their works. The first film was entitled “Who to Believe?” and was shown by the Iranian film-maker Hossein Dehbashi and his assistant Mateo Farzaneh. This was an edited version of a longer, seven-hour documentary commenting on the war in Iraq and how it has become a subject of polarization by its coverage in Western and Arab media.

The second documentary was a proposal introduced by Carlo Sartori, the CEO of NewCo Rai International, the Italian media organization, to launch an Arabic language channel from an Italian perspective. The hope is to ease some of the strained relations between the Arab world and the West by emphasizing cross-cultural communication.

The symposium concluded on the note that listening is as much a solution to war as speaking is, and that two-way communication is the simplest yet hardest-to-achieve model of communication.

Event Program

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome

Mehran Kamrava, Director, Center for International and Regional StudiesH.E. Giuseppe Buccino Grimaldi, Ambassador of Italy in QatarNina Zu Fürstenberg, Director of Reset – Dialogue on Civilizations, Italy

9:30 – 11:30 am Panel I

Media as Weapons? Crossed views between East and WestThis panel analyzed how television and other media shape the mutual (in)comprehensions between different cultures and faiths, from mass-media and satellite television to the spread of blogging, and from vertical to horizontal communication. Panelists included:Giancarlo Bosetti, Reset Magazine, ItalyDaniela Conte, IMT Lucca, ItalyAshraf Galal, Qatar UniversityThomas Gorguissian, Qatar UniversityIbrahim Helal, Al Jazeera InternationalSteven Livingston, George Washington UniversityPaolo Mancini, University of Perugia, ItalyLawrence Pintak, American University of CairoMohamed Zayani, American University of Sharjah

12:00 – 1:30 pm Films and Discussion

Religious Television and International NewsThe Iranian film-maker Hossein Dehbashi and his assistant Mateo M. Farzaneh presented their latest documentary, and the Italian television producer Carlo Sartori presented the project of an innovative channel to be broadcast in the Mediterranean region.

1:30 – 3:00 pm Lunch Break

3:00 – 5:00 pm Panel II

How Politics Can Deal with the Media War

Presenters

Giuliano Amato, Italian Minister of InteriorGiancarlo Bosetti, Reset Magazine, ItalyMehran Kamrava, Director, Center for International and Regional StudiesOtto Schily, Member of the German Parliament

Summary prepared by Suzi Mirgani, a CIRS staff member.

Elzbieta Gozdziak on Child Trafficking into the United States
2008-03-03 08:00 - 18:00
Elzbieta M. Gozdziak, a prominent scholar of migration issues at the Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) at Georgetown University was invited by CIRS to visit the SFS-Qatar campus.

Gozdziak’s visit aimed to forge research relationships and future collaborations with SFS-Qatar professors working on migration issues. During her time in Doha, she was also a guest speaker at the CIRS Monthly Dialogue Series. Gozdziak is the Director of Research at ISIM and editor of International Migration, a peer reviewed, scholarly journal devoted to research and policy analysis of contemporary issues affecting international migration.

The Monthly Dialogue took place on March 2, 2008 at the SFS-Qatar library. Gozdziak’s lecture was entitled “Victims No Longer: Challenges, Dilemmas, and Opportunities in Studying Trafficked Children” and focused on issues of child trafficking and abuse. Gozdziak outlined the parameters of a comprehensive research project which examines the situations of trafficked children. The study examines the trauma experienced by many children who are lured away from their families and homes, often under false pretenses and with the promise of travel to better environs. The study also analyzes the challenges that service providers face in assisting the children, and assesses prospects for rehabilitation and integration of the children into society. During the lecture, Gozdziak presented key findings from the study and discussed the methodological and conceptual challenges involved in research with trafficked children.

Gozdziak emphasized the need for in-depth academic research concerning the trafficking of children because, she said, “there is much general writing on the subject but little that yields sufficient results that aid in explaining or easing the situation.” Solutions towards rehabilitation and prevention can only happen if governmental policy-making is informed by in-depth and concerned research. Gozdziak told the gathered audience of the difficulties of conducting research on such sensitive and clandestine affairs as the trafficking of children and gaining access to them. She reported that the originally intended year-long study, lengthened to become a two-year endeavor, as the researchers were faced with a variety of challenges concerning approvals, permissions, and grants that needed to be secured before the research project could begin. Thus the dynamics at work are difficult for any research on the subject to fully comprehend and analyze the situation.

Because of the illegality of trafficking, the children can usually only be addressed after they have been freed from their ordeals. Therefore, the research revolves around the rehabilitation process of the children. In these rehabilitation centers the children are considered to be “victims” and so there is even greater challenge in trying to gain permission to study such “vulnerable” populations. Gozdziak insisted, however, that in order to treat trafficked children as beings beyond that of victims, they must not be considered helpless. Instead, they must be allowed and encouraged to have their own sense of self-identity and their own agency.

Self-identity is an important component of rehabilitation as every child’s trafficking situation is different. It is true that some children are neglected and abused in the worst possible ways. At the same time, however, there are many others who do not consider themselves to be victims and were merely fulfilling a cultural and familial obligation, often by working at young ages to support their families. This is why critical and informed research into the subject is important, as not all children should be considered to be in the same predicament. The research should aid in distinguishing each child’s individual needs.

The process of rehabilitation from this point of view should be one that focuses on the children’s sense of empowerment and treats them through cultural relativity as individuals rather than relying on a standardized and homogeneous, and Westernized, ideal of what it means to be child.

Summary prepared by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS staff member.

Ed Husain on the Jihadist Movement
2008-03-04 12:00 - 13:00
On March 4, 2008, Ed Husain visited SFS-Q to meet with Georgetown University students and to engage with them in an informal group discussion. Husain was in Qatar as a guest on the Doha Debates show which had filmed a day earlier the debate entitled “This House Believes that Muslims are Failing to Combat Extremism” in which he was for the motion. He is the deputy director of The Quilliam Foundation, which is a Muslim organization against extremism and author of The Islamist: Why I joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left, published by Penguin in 2007.

Husain discussed his book which describes his descent into, and then subsequent break from, radical Islam. He engaged with the students and answered their questions regarding his experiences as a former British Jihadist who managed to disengage from extremism.

CIRS Hosts Conference on "Innovation in Islam"
2008-04-05 08:00 - 2008-04-06 18:00
On April 5–6, 2008, the Center for International and Regional Studies hosted the “Innovation in Islam” Conference.

Innovation in Islam explored topics such as the idea and reality of innovation in Islam; development of knowledge in early Islam; development and change in the Islamic legal system; the arts and artistic innovation in Islam; science and scientific innovation in Islam; jurisprudential innovation in Islam; and politics and political innovation in Islam.

In addition to posting the proceedings of the conference on its website, CIRS plans on compiling, editing, and publishing some of the key papers of the conference in the form of an edited volume titled Innovation in Islam: Traditions and Contributions (University of California Press, 2011).

Keynote Speaker:

The keynote address for the conference was delivered by the acclaimed poet Adonis. A pioneer in modern Arabic poetry, Ali Ahmad Said Esber has written more than twenty books in Arabic.

Participants:

The conference brought together some of the most prominent scholars on Islamic thought, culture and history. They included Amira Sonbol, Hassan Hanafi, John Voll, Mehran Kamrava, Mohammed Arkoun, Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, Nelly Hanna, Omaima Abou Bakr, Patrick Laude, Peter Gran, Sherman Jackson, Sumaiya A. Hamdani, Tariq Ramadan, Walter Denny, Zakaryya Abdel-Hady, and Ziba Mir-Hosseini.

Schedule:

Panel I – Innovation In Islam: Concept and Reality

Chair: James Reardon-Anderson

Development of Knowledge in Early Islam – Nasr Hamid Abu-ZaydHistory from Below; Dictionary from Below – Nelly Hanna

Panel II – Islamic Institutions: Traditions and Contributions

Chair: Patrick Meadows

The Fatimid Legacy: Policy and Precedent for Minority-Majority Coexistence in Islam – Sumaiya A. HamdaniThe Changing Family in Islam – Amira SonbolThe Mosque Yesterday and Today – Zakaryya Abdel-Hady ​

Panel III – Islam and the Intellectual Process

Chair: Ibrahim Oweiss

New Directions in Islamic Thought – Hassan HanafiIslam and the Intellectual Process: Deconstructing Episteme(s) – Mohammed ArkounKnowledge and Hermeneutics in Islam Today – Tariq Ramadan

Panel IV – Literary and Artistic Innovation

Chair: Patricia O’Connor

Innovation and Tradition in Islamic Art – Walter DennySufi Poetry: Innovation and Tradition – Patrick LaudeHistory and Biography – Jawid Mojaddedi ​

Panel V – Theology and Politics of Fiqh

Chair: Edmund Ghareeb

Shi’a Fiqh at the Gates of Historic Change – Mehran KamravaFiqh and Moral Disagreement in : Challenging the Justice of the Criminal Justice System – Ziba Mir-Hosseini Interpreting Women’s Biographies in Medieval Islamic Writings – Omaima Abou-Bakr ​

Panel VI – Islam and Modernity

Chair: Joshua Mitchell

Liberal/Progressive, Modern and Modernized Islam: Muslims and the American State – Sherman JacksonModern Movements in Islam – John VollThe Reception of Islamic Roots of Capitalism – Peter Gran

Documentary Film - Promises
2008-04-13 12:00 - 2008-04-14 00:30
As part of its ongoing outreach efforts, the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) hosted B.Z. Goldberg and Justine Shapiro, creators of the multiple award-winning documentary film Promises, and invited them to take part in public screenings of the film. Promises is a documentary film that follows the stories of seven children from opposite sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The film was a nominee in the category of “Best Feature Documentary” at the 74th Annual Academy Awards.Goldberg and Shapiro were invited to come to the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar campus, where they were welcomed by CIRS staff and where they conducted an informal workshop with SFS-Qatar students and faculty.On April 14th, 2008, CIRS organized two different screenings of Promises in one day in order to accommodate public demand and interest in the documentary. The first screening at the auditorium in the College of the North Atlantic-Qatar (CNA-Q) was the matinee and aimed at local Qatari and international high-school students, who attended the screening accompanied by their chaperones. The matinee was attended by 150 students from the American School of Doha and from Amna Bint Wahab School for Girls. The evening event, also held at the CNA-Q auditorium, was dedicated to the members of the general public and began with a reception for the attendees before the screening of the film. Both Goldberg and Shapiro were in attendance and took the stage after the screening of the film, in order to answer audience questions.

Victoria Pedrick on Myths of Desecration in Nature
2008-04-22 08:00 - 18:00
Victoria Pedrick, Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Classics at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar (SFS-Qatar), wrapped up CIRS events for the academic year 2007-2008, with a lecture entitled “A Hunger for Trees: Myths of Desecration in Nature.” The lecture was addressed to an intimate audience of 40 people made up of students, Qatar Foundation faculty and personnel, locally-based ambassadors, and interested members of the general public. The talk was the sixth in the Monthly Dialogue Series, an academic and outreach effort sponsored by CIRS where faculty discuss their latest work and research interests.

Pedrick began her talk by recounting a variety of anecdotes about how the tree figures in ancient mythology and how, through these stories, it can be read as a symbol of a wider understanding of nature and human attitudes regarding their natural environment. As such, Pedrick’s lecture came with a warning regarding current ecological disasters. She cautioned that environmental degradation largely stems from how humans determine their role in the world as the center around which all other elements oscillate.

Pedrick explained that ancient Greek and Roman myths, although fictional, “offer us a window onto the ancient sensibilities and imagination of nature.” Beneath their fantastical elements, these ancient myths reveal the truth of how ancient peoples reacted towards their natural environments and how they affirmed their debt to it. She explained that by comparing these ancient stories to modern ones, we can clearly see our relative deterioration in values regarding the natural environment and how we have downgraded nature to little more than a resource that is in servitude of human endeavor and subject to the will and mercy of our voracious needs. Today’s insatiable human appetite and “hunger for trees” overrides any of nature’s delicate requirements as natural resources are exploited with impunity and humans rarely, if ever, give back in the form of sustainability and reciprocity. Today’s ecological destruction is paralleled by the myth of Erysichthon and the curse of the insatiable hunger cast on him by the goddess Demeter in return for his brazen cutting down of a sacred tree.

Roman and Greek myths offer glimpses into human relationships with nature and with trees in particular. Pedrick explained that “yet despite – or perhaps because of – its ubiquity in ancient life, the tree holds an enigmatic place in ancient thought.” Trees are the epitome of what we understand nature to be; a complex cycle that is at once annual and fleeting and yet lasting far longer than the average human life. Trees’ growth cycles from seed, to sapling, to splendid creations are in tune with seasonal cycles and if left to grow naturally in good conditions, can grow virtually eternally. Trees’ life cycles of leaf-growth, full foliage and leaf-fall are in harmony with the cycles of the seasons as these natural elements work in conjunction and in support of each other in a reciprocal manner.

In ancient Roman and Greek mythologies, trees were valued and revered because they were crucial to the survival of ancient civilizations, and also because they were the source of all kinds of benefits and comforts. Trees provided wood for a great many things but most significantly, they were needed as vital elements to sustain the lives and lifestyles of the ancient heroes. A variety of ancient myths tell of the great heroes who depended on wood to build their chariots and mighty ships. These were the vessels that carried them on the glorious journeys that secured the retelling of their stories and hence their immortality and their being eternally etched in lore. Trees also provided the wood with which to take these heroes on journeys of another kind: they were used to build the funeral pyres that carried them across into the afterlife. As such, the humble tree was seen as noble, and its simple offering of its own body as a mournful loss and a sacrifice respected by all who cut down trees. Many of the myths record that often, paradoxical prayers of thanks and prayers for forgiveness were said just before a tree was cut down in acknowledgment of the complexity of the relationship between humans and nature. Trees were simultaneously needed as a resource and yet at times needed to be cleared to make way for grazing and farming areas and all the practices that rendered humans civilized. Today, however, a tree’s use is measured by its exchange-value and has become an object of epistemological violence as it is forced to become a partisan to modern humans’ perception of nature as little more than a profitable resource.

The complexity underlying ancient stories is academic proof that humans and nature were in a delicate relationship of reciprocity. It is thus through these ancient Greek and Roman myths that modern humans can take valuable lessons and see that our progress has, in many cases, led to poverty. Our development has been dwarfed by ancient humans’ advancement in the stewardship of nature and of its bounty.

Summary prepared by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS staff member.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on the Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
2008-06-17 08:00 - 18:00
On June 17, 2008, The Center for International and Regional Studies hosted a lecture by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as part of its Distinguished Lecture Series. The lecture, attended by a capacity audience of nearly 500, was based on Mearsheimer and Walt’s recent book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Mearsheimer and Walt stressed the importance of studying the role of the Israeli lobby in U.S. foreign policymaking with some sensitivity since the subject often gives rise to strong passions among most Americans. Walt made it clear that the views expressed in the book challenged the politics of the Israel lobby and their resultant policies, but not the validity or place of lobbying in U.S. politics itself. Walt outlined the special role that interest groups play in U.S. politics, demonstrating that the Israel lobby was one of the most influential forces in American politics, shaping American policy toward Israel often to the detriment of the United States. He questioned the wisdom of the special relationship that exists between the U.S. and Israel, viewing it as both inimical to American strategic and international interests around the world.

Mearsheimer further elaborated on the Israel lobby’s effects on U.S. foreign policy. He argued that the lobby’s effectiveness in pursuing an Israel-centered agenda is the reason why the U.S. favors Israeli policies over Palestinian protests. Moreover, Mearsheimer maintained, the efforts of the Israel lobby not only undermined American interests, they also harmed the interests of Israel itself and ran counter to the wishes of a number of high profile Israeli political figures and influential currents of thought. Mearsheimer concluded that, at least in the near future, there was little reason for optimism regarding a change in the entrenched nature of the relationship between the Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy.

Summary prepared by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS staff member.

International Relations of the Gulf Working Group I
2008-06-18 08:00 - 2008-06-19 18:00
On June 18 and 19, 2008, CIRS hosted a working group to discuss various aspects of the “International Relations of the Gulf.” This initial round of talks consisted of preliminary thoughts on chosen topics and brainstorming sessions to critically assess the project’s focus, parameters of analysis, and main thesis.

A second working group meeting took place in January 2009. The papers have been collected as an edited volume titled The International Politics of the Persian Gulf (Syracuse University Press, 2011). The International Relations of the Gulf research initiative explores critical issues in the Gulf region such as security strategies and foreign policy implications of political reforms in the Gulf region, questions of sovereignty and borders, American policy, and the foreign and security policies of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other regional actors.

Below are the working group participants and their specialized topics:

Seminar Program

Britain and the Gulf Shaikhdoms 1820-1971: The Politics of Protection – James Onley, University of Exeter
Foreign Policy Perspectives of the Persian Gulf States – Fred Lawson, Mills College
American Policy toward the Persian Gulf: Strategies, Effectiveness, and Consequences – Mohammed Ayoob, Michigan State University
The Iraqi Factor: Regional Consequences of Internal Turmoil – Daniel Byman, Georgetown University
GCC Collective Security Efforts – Joseph Kostiner, Tel Aviv University
Sovereignty and Boundaries in the Gulf States: Settling the Peripheries – J.E. Peterson, University of Arizona
Conceptualizing EU-Gulf Relations: Trends and Realities – Gerd Nonneman, University of Exeter
Iran’s Regional Foreign and Security Policies in the Persian Gulf – Mehran Kamrava, Georgetown University in Qatar
Saudi Arabia’s Regional Security Policy – Gregory Gause, University of Vermont
Qatar’s Foreign Policy: Autonomy and Security – Steven Wright, Qatar University
China, India and the Gulf – Converging Interests? – N. Janardhan, Gulf-Asia News, UAE
Political Reform and Foreign Policy in the Gulf Monarchies – Katja Niethammer, Georgetown University in Qatar​

Rami Khouri on Challenges Facing the Next US Administration
2008-08-24 08:00 - 18:00
CIRS kicked off its Distinguished Lecture Series for the 2008-2009 academic year with a lecture by Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Khouri’s talk, held at the Doha Diplomatic Club on August 24, 2008, was attended by an audience of 350 people.

Khouri’s lecture was titled, “America, the Middle East, and the Gulf: An Arab View of Challenges Facing the Next U.S. Administration,” in which he emphasized that the Middle East is currently undergoing a period of momentous change within itself and in its relationship with the West. This, he said, was a pivotal moment in history as executive decisions being made in the current political climate are likely to have both short-term and long-lasting consequences. Past failures, he noted, could have been avoided had there been better political leadership in the region. According to Khouri, contrary to popular belief, the fall of communism in the 1990s had more significant effects on the Middle East than did the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The conclusion of the Cold War presented one such opportunity for the Middle East, when the region saw a revival of political movements, a newfound dynamism, and emergence of new players. Sadly, he said, the historic opportunities thus presented to the Middle East were lost. Khouri named five immediate and short-term changes looming on the horizon with profound consequences for the Middle East. They include: 1. The election of a new president in the United States; 2. The likelihood of the United States and coalition troops withdrawing from Iraq and its consequences; 3. A possible resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue; 4. Movement on the Arab-Israeli conflict; and, 5. Global energy shifts resulting in increasingly significant roles played by Russia and China. Along with these short-term changes, Khouri named the five major crises that are affecting the region and that need to be addressed urgently by the region’s political leaders. These crises are the lack of a stable and secure statehood; the uncertain nature of the relationship between citizens and the state; the lack of availability of basic human needs services and socioeconomic development; the crisis of individual and national identities; and the relationship crisis between the Arab world and the rest of the world.Khouri concluded by summing up the issues that are of the greatest concern to Arabs. The need for accountable governments is perhaps the most widely sought-after goal, as is the yearning for protection of civil rights and security. For now, Khouri argued, there is neither the bold leadership nor the permissive international environment needed to tackle the Middle East’s many problems.

Article prepared by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.

Rami Khouri Bio

Rami George Khouri, 59, a Palestinian-Jordanian and US citizen whose family resides in Beirut, Amman and Nazareth, is editor-at-large, and former executive editor, of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. He is a book author and writes an internationally syndicated weekly column.

He is a nonresident senior fellow at the Dubai Initiative-Belfer Center/JFK School of Government at Harvard University, and a lecturer at the University of Chicago and Northeastern University in the USA. In the 2001-02 academic year he was a Nieman Journalism Fellow at Harvard University, and has also had fellowships at Stanford, Syracuse, and Mt Holyoke universities. In 1976-2001 he lived in Amman, Jordan, where he was editor in chief of the Jordan Times newspaper, hosted television and radio shows on current affairs and ancient history and archaeology, was general manager of Al Kutba, Publishers, and wrote for leading international publications, including the Financial Times, the Boston Globe and the Washington Post.

He often comments on Mideast issues in the international media, including the BBC and U.S. National Public Radio, and lectures frequently at conferences and universities throughout the world. He is a member of the Leadership Council of the Harvard Divinity School, a member of the board of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University and the Jordan National Museum, and a member of the international advisory council of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In 2002 he was named a member of the Brookings Institution Task Force on US Relations with the Islamic World. He also served for many years as the chief umpire for Little League baseball in Jordan.

He has BA and MSc degrees respectively in political science and mass communications from Syracuse University (USA), is married to Ellen Kettaneh, and has two grown sons.

Renee Richer on Environment and Industry in Qatar
2008-09-15 08:00 - 18:00
“Beauty and the Beast: Environment and Industry in Qatar”

CIRS kicked off its Monthly Dialogue Series on September 15, 2008, with a lecture by Renee Richer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Biology at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar. Richer’s presentation included a photograph slide-show of diverse life-forms that are rarely seen but are nevertheless indigenous to the desert environment and to Qatar. She pointed out that the desert is mistakenly perceived to be devoid of life-forms, but there is a fantastic array of biodiversity in both the marine and terrestrial environments beyond the boundaries of urban areas.

Richer’s lecture focused on putting into context an assumption that is often taken for granted, namely that strict environmental rules automatically work in reducing environmental damage. Richer questioned this hypothesis by giving evidence from primary research she had conducted on the state of environmental protection in Qatar.

Although Qatar recently adopted strict laws regarding the allowable amount of toxic particulate matter in air or water, she stressed that environmental protection can only be achieved if all surrounding countries adhered to the same standards. If Qatar imposes strict air and water regulations and its neighboring countries do not, then its environmental objectives cannot be met. Richer suggested that environmental pollution is a regional problem and not one that can be adequately addressed within the borders of just one country. Gulf countries should attempt to standardize their laws and work in tandem toward their enforcement.

In order to assess the state of environmental protection in industrial areas, Richer focused on Ras Laffan and Messaid, which have a concentration of large industrial plants and are, therefore, subject to greater levels of environmental degradation.

Pearl Oyster Case-Study

One of the case-studies Richer spoke of described the environmental degradation resulting from the impact of industrial cooling water on the surrounding marine environment, especially on the pearl oyster. In order to understand the problem, Richer explained, we must understand the industrial systems that are causing the localized environmental damage. Large industrial plants use huge amounts of energy and electricity, and the machinery used in their production require vast amounts of seawater as a cooling mechanism. Pearl oysters inhabiting these areas become entrapped in the iron filters and their build-up can reduce the industrial plant’s efficiency. In order to rid the filters of the marine life-form accumulation, the industry then pours tons of chlorine into the water. This not only rids the cooling system of pearl oysters, but also results in eradicating many marine organisms in the surrounding areas. At one point in Qatar’s history, the pearl oyster was the cornerstone of the economy, but now that energy plants have replaced them as the primary form of economic activity, the pearl oyster’s existence has become of peripheral importance.

Some organizations are beginning to attempt to adhere to the philosophy of environmental conservation by trying to find a medium between healthy productivity and a healthy environment. One industrial complex in Ras Laffan has solicited research into pearl oysters and has come up with a biologically-based solution to reducing the damage caused by the chlorination of cooling water. The results of the research suggested the use of “pulse chlorination,” which only releases chlorine into the water at set intervals, thereby reducing the harm done to the larger marine environment.

The alternative to chlorination of cooling water is for an industrial plant to perform a “shut-down” where the entire complex is disabled for maintenance purposes. This alternative has its own environmental consequences as the industrial plant must then go through a “start-up” phase, where there is a colossal surge of energy and electricity released into the atmosphere in the form of oxidants and harmful particulate matter.

Richer suggested that because a high level of particulate matter is already naturally present in a desert atmosphere, one interesting area of research would be to try to ascertain how much of Qatar’s atmospheric pollutants are industrially-produced. This would be useful in measuring the level of industrial emissions and seeing how much it deviates from the suggested levels. Some organizations have begun to undertake such studies, but corporations are notoriously guarded about their discoveries and do not share information with the public or with each other.

Richer argued that many organizations were applying environmental laws to their production facilities because they realize that it is actually a savvy business move and, therefore, it would reduce allegations of mismanagement and lawsuits in the long run.

Richer concluded on a positive note by saying that although Qatar is developing at an accelerated pace, because of its small population it is not too difficult to have community involvement in the direction that industrial projects take regarding the environment. She also noted that Qatar recently elevated the Supreme Council for the Environment to a ministerial level, which was a positive step in Qatar’s progress towards valuing the environment and halting its degradation.

Summary by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.

The American Presidential Elections: Democratic and Republican Perspectives
2008-10-12 08:00 - 18:00
In order to gauge local public opinion regarding the United States Presidential elections and to bring the nuances of the American debate to the Gulf region, CIRS hosted its own Democratic vs. Republican debate on October 12, 2008 at the Diplomatic Club in Doha. On the Republican side was James Patti, Director of Strategic Planning & Analysis for the Division of Biology & Medicine at Brown University and early supporter of Senator John McCain’s campaign for the Republican nomination. On behalf of the Democrats was Gary Wasserman, Visiting Professor of Government at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. The debate, which was attended by a record audience of interested members of the local community, was moderated by David Foster, seasoned journalist and correspondent at the Al Jazeera English television network.

Click here to download an MP3 of the debate

Foster asked both representatives to deliver a five minute introductory summary of the primary issues in order to define the most pertinent concerns of the evening’s debate. Gary Wasserman argued that the United States’ Presidential debate had become side-tracked by the public focus on celebrity politics and personality examinations and this has caused a tremendous amount of confusion among the electorate. The choice between both nominees should, in fact, be a simple and straightforward decision between each party’s policies and programs over the next four years. He argued that the Republican Party treated the American people with little respect by constantly reiterating statements and slogans that were untrue, hoping “that they would swallow it.” This, he said, was in keeping with the Bush administration’s tactic of bullishly repeating a statement ad nausea in order to convince the public of its sincerity. Wasserman concluded his opening statement by saying that “if we want change, it needs to be more than a campaign slogan; we need Barack Obama.”

In his introductory remarks, James Patti argued that the public should remember that the Republican Party is not, and should not, be defined by the Bush administration. The Republican Party, he argued, is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan and it is the party of free trade and courageous public policies. He noted that whoever becomes elected as President of the United States needs the strong will to fill a number of criteria in order to reassert America’s role in the world. Senator McCain, he said, despite the negative rhetoric and opinion polls will make an excellent leader.

After both debaters had defined their political positions, David Foster asked each a series of pointed questions regarding the state of the United States economy and its foreign policy and what hope there was for the Middle East if both Republican and Democratic campaign strategies insisted on the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with Israel. Wasserman answered by saying that despite all their fundamental differences, both the pro-Israel and anti-Israel lobbies were in agreement on one issue and that is the belief in the strong influence of the Israel lobby and its ability to affect foreign policy. Wasserman noted that foreign policy decisions depend on a number of considerations and variables and do not simply follow a formula of befriending Israel at all costs.

Jim Patti argued, in relation to the question of foreign policy and Iraq, that Senator Obama was extremely irresponsible towards the American people by giving a definite timeframe for troop withdrawal regardless of the ensuing consequences. He admitted that “Brand America” was extremely damaged at the moment, but this was not irreparable, as the American system allowed for renewal and reconstruction. Patti emphasized that what is needed is greater oversight, stronger reforms and a clearer vision.

Audience members were invited to ask questions of both men, which produced a lively discussion. Some of the questions focused on initiating a conversation debating Arab views of America and what it means to be an Arab American in the current climate of home security and racial profiling.

Both speakers were asked to give concluding statements to wrap up the debate. Patti ended by saying that he had great respect for Barack Obama but because of the Senator’s inexperience, he should not be elected in 2008 but instead, should use the next four years to gather some valuable insight into the Presidency and run in the 2012 election. Wasserman warned that the Presidential candidates should not avoid concentrating on the important overarching issues by resorting to the tabloid tactics of mud-slinging and personality discredits in order to achieve their objectives.

Participant Biographies:

James W. Patti is the Director of Strategic Planning & Analysis for the Division of Biology & Medicine at Brown University. Prior to joining Brown in 2006, he served as the founding Chief Financial Officer of Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar.A native of Massachusetts, Patti is a lifelong Republican with a keen interest in international affairs, economic development and education policy. He was an early supporter of Senator John McCain’s campaign for the Republican nomination, organizing grassroots activists and helping secure a McCain primary victory in Rhode Island. In 2008, he represented the State of Rhode Island as a McCain delegate to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Dr. Wasserman is a Visiting Professor of Government at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. He has been a Visiting Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies teaching graduate students about American government, media, and political parties in Nanjing, China. As a Fulbright Scholar, he studied at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Nairobi University, and Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. His book, The Basics of American Politics was published by Longman and is currently in its 13th edition. He has taught at Columbia, Medgar Evers College CUNY, and George Mason universities.As a Senior Vice President of the public affairs firm Bozell Sawyer Miller, Dr. Wasserman organized and shaped state and local campaigns, a role he had also filled while a partner in a grassroots Washington firm. His public service includes: National Issues Coordinator for a presidential campaign; legislative assistant in the House of Representatives, and Special Assistant for Evaluation to the Administrator of USAID. At present he advises the U.S. Agency for International Development, has spoken in several countries under the U.S. Speakers Program and created Banyan Advisors, a non-profit lobbying firm for the poor.

David Foster has over 34 years of experience as a journalist, covering stories in more than 50 countries. He came to Al Jazeera English from Sky News, the UK-based satellite news channel, where for almost ten years he was a studio news presenter and business correspondent.
Summary by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.

American Public Diplomacy after the Bush Administration
2008-10-19 08:00 - 18:00
CIRS hosted a luncheon discussion on October 19, 2008, featuring Cynthia Schneider, Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, nonresident Fellow at the Brookings institution, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands. Professor Schneider discussed ways in which the next U.S. administration should use culture as part of its diplomatic efforts. The lunch was attended by a number of locally-based ambassadors, policy-makers, and educational experts from Qatar Foundation and the Brookings Institution.

Schneider began her talk by quoting author Fareed Zakaria, saying that “America remains the universal nation, a country that people across the world believe should speak for universal values”. This, she said, summed up the current situation in which the U.S. has seriously squandered its world-wide reputation as a country that stands for universal values. The U.S. does however, have the potential to fix its image abroad through the healing and generative aspects of its art and culture.

Throughout her career as both an art historian and a diplomat, Schneider said that she attempted to successfully combine public diplomacy with cross-cultural understanding. Her aim, she said, was to promote U.S. culture as a major component of foreign policy; not in the sense of “selling” U.S. culture to the rest of the world, but by offering it as a friendly gesture in order to enhance “mutual understanding and respect” with other nations. Schneider reported that one of the most striking results of John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed’s Gallup poll research was that the issue of “lack of respect and understanding on the part of the U.S.” rated higher on the agenda in the Arab world than the Israel/Palestine conflict or the war in Iraq. This shows how important it is for the next U.S. administration to conduct culturally sensitive diplomatic missions that try to understand the realities of the Arab world in order to not misrepresent the problems it faces in these regions.

In order to fully integrate cultural promotion with foreign policy, Schneider quoted the basic principles of public diplomacy, which are to communicate some aspect of U.S. values such as diversity, opportunity, or freedom of expression; to cater to the needs of other countries and to recognize that the same formula does not work for everyone; and to enter into a long-term relationship with other countries. She explained that “military power has limited value and can’t solve all, or many, problems” and that we have witnessed the damage that the excessive use of force has done. This is why it is necessary for the next U.S. administration to find alternative means of engaging with the rest of the world. Listening, she said, was an integral part of reciprocal public diplomacy and one that, in its simplicity, generates a great deal of respect for the other.

The media, both commercial and state-owned, is a powerful tool for promoting values internationally and should be used to enhance positive cross-cultural relationships. Popular culture is an important means of promoting values, history and heritage. Specifically, more positive representations of Arabs in U.S. media and entertainment programs can go a long way to bettering relationships between the U.S. and the Arab world.

In conclusion, Schneider made three recommendations to the next U.S. administration that would significantly improve its diplomatic efforts in the Arab world. These included aligning values and actions; engaging and not instructing; and taking other nation’s cultures as seriously as they do.

Article by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.

Commemoration of Mahmoud Darwish
2008-10-22 08:00 - 18:00
In honor of the memory of Palestinian Poet Mahmoud Darwish, CIRS hosted a literary evening to recall his life and his legacy. His Excellency, the Palestinian Ambassador to Qatar, Munir Ghannam, and Georgetown University Professor, Amira El Zein, were invited to share their thoughts on different aspects of the poet’s life and work. Ambassador Ghannam recounted Darwish’s biography from birth to death and El Zein, professor of Arabic, engaged with his art, speaking of the powerful metaphorical nature of his poetry. Drawn by the culturally binding subject of poetry, the audience was an eclectic mix of students, faculty, embassy staff, and poetry-lovers. The audience was treated to rare insights into Darwish’s life as both speakers relayed anecdotes about meeting the poet, conversing with him, and relaying what he meant to them as a personal friend.As an introduction to his talk, Ambassador Ghannam began by lamenting the loss of not only a great poet, but of “the voice of Palestinian resistance.” He recounted to the audience several episodes in the life of Mahmoud Darwish: how he was born in a land called Palestine that is no longer in existence; how he and his family were driven away from their homes by Israeli occupiers; how he was arrested on numerous occasions because of his inflammatory writings; how he went into exile to Russia, France, the United States, and Egypt; and how he returned and became actively involved in the politics of Palestine. Ambassador Ghannam spoke of the social, political, and economic struggles of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how the realities and hardships of Darwish’s life figured prominently in his work as he translated his personal experience into poetry.

Ambassador Ghannam gave a bi-lingual recitation of some of the verses of Darwish’s famous poem “Identity Card,” which is believed to have defined Palestinian identity through language and, which became a symbol of Palestinian resistance. Over the years, Darwish gained a reputation as a leading voice of protest and became known as the national poet of Palestine. He even lent his words to the Palestinian cause by penning a famous speech delivered by Yasser Arafat at the United Nations and by wording the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. Darwish’s work, Ambassador Ghannam concluded, has been translated into many languages and several of his poems have crossed artistic disciplines and have been set to music by Marcel Khalife, making them popular to a wider audience.

Georgetown University Professor Amira El Zein concentrated on the metaphorical nature of Darwish’s work. In most of his poems, El Zein said, Darwish acknowledged the native American use of the “name” and the metaphor of home to give identity to, and keep alive, a home long gone. She argued that everything exists in language and so to keep the idea of home alive in language is to also keep the idea of returning to that home alive. El Zein quoted Darwish as saying “because I couldn’t find my home in the land, I found it in history.”

Language, El Zein said, does not mirror the world, but rather, Darwish created Palestine through poetry and that is why his use of language is such a powerful socio-political tool. The foundation of Israel not only appropriates the land, but perhaps more importantly, the histories, mythologies, and identities of the Palestinian people. All these elements of existential strife are interwoven through the poetic devices of Darwish’s work. El Zein concluded by telling the audience that she is in the process of translating a book of interviews with Darwish, which she had hoped to share with him.

Article by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.

James Reardon-Anderson on Rainfall and the American Civil War
2008-11-03 08:00 - 18:00
On November 3, 2008, James Reardon-Anderson, Dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar, gave a lecture at CIRS’s Monthly Dialogue Series on the connection between “Rainfall and the American Civil War.” Dean Reardon-Anderson explained to the invited audience that the lecture was inspired by a class he regularly teaches entitled “Map of the Modern World,” which is a graduation requirement for all students.

Dean Reardon-Anderson began his lecture by suggesting that one way of understanding human behavior is by examining the fundamental natural forces – earth tectonics and atmospheric physics – that shape the stage on which history has been and is being performed. This lecture, which focuses on the geography of North America and the implications for the outbreak of the American Civil War, is a case study of that phenomenon.

Tectonic forces have produced a North American continent with high mountain ranges in the west and a broad flat plain in the middle, and lodged the center of this continent, which is home to the United States, between 30 and 50 degrees north latitude. Atmospheric forces produce extremely dry conditions at 30 degrees north, the locus of the American Southwest, and prevailing westerly winds across the rest of the country, which cause heavy precipitation over the western mountains, dry conditions on the central plains, and again wet conditions in the east.

The mix of weather conditions and the nature of the physical geography in the southeastern United States meant that the land was arable and conducive to the cultivation of cash crops, especially tobacco, sugar cane, and cotton. Because of the richness of the soil and the bounty of the harvest, these lands were geared towards mass-scale farming, which also meant that hundreds of people were needed to maintain the operations. This manual labor came in the form of slaves from Africa and elsewhere, shipped over to the Americas in order to toil in the fields and produce the crop. The northern areas, by comparison, had little need for such large-scale import of slave-labor, as the temperate weather meant that farming was in the form of small-scale food-crop agriculture. Due to the progressive urbanization and industrialization of the northeast, businesses were largely run by European immigrants and their extended families. In these areas, maintaining slaves during the long winters was, on the contrary, an expensive rather than a cost-effective enterprise.

As more and more communities of people moved west across North America, the territories that applied to join as new states in the United States, grew from 13 in 1789 to 34 in 1861. Until 1850, these states were roughly divided between those in the southern areas and those in the north, and so too between the states that maintained slavery as an important economic enterprise, and those with little or no need for it to sustain their economies.

By the late 1850s, the southern states, whose economy relied on the growth and export of cotton, had exhausted the geographic regions that supported cotton plantations and could not viably expand beyond the areas to which they were confined. As the westward expansion of the North continued and the number of “free” states increased, the South found itself in an increasingly disadvantaged position. This ultimately resulted in the South’s attempt to secede from the union, and the Civil War ensued.

Ultimately, Dean Reardon-Anderson concluded, the levels of rainfall and other similar climatic factors played significant roles in precipitating the American Civil War.

Article by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.

Compromising Democracy: The Lebanese Example
2008-11-19 08:00 - 18:00
The Center for International and Regional Studies at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar hosted a luncheon talk for the visiting Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, on November 19, 2008.

Berri has been the speaker of Lebanon’s parliament since 1992. He is effectively one of three heads of state with the prime minister and president. Berri, an advocate of the March 8 Alliance in Lebanon, is also the head of the Shi’a Muslim AMAL Movement.

Berri began by extending gratitude to H.H the Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and H.E. the foreign and prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani, for Qatar’s key mediatory role between rival Lebanese political factions, which ultimately led to the resolution of Lebanon’s political deadlock earlier this year via the Doha Agreement 2008. Berri confirmed the successful implementation of the accord, pointing to the election of a president, the approval of the constitution by all parliamentary members and the formation of a national unity government.

He also extended gratitude to the State of Qatar for its help with the reconstruction of Lebanon following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, in areas ranging from “healthcare to homes to houses of worship.” Berri also invited further assistance to clear the 2.4 million cluster bombs that remain scattered throughout Southern Lebanon.

Berri’s address provided a theoretical overview of the basis and key characteristics of a “congruent democracy” as distinct from other forms of democracy, as well as a practical account of its realisation in Lebanon.

Congruent democracy, he explained, emanates and develops in situations of weak national unification and a divided, heterogeneous population. In particular, he stated that the most important characteristic of a congruent democracy is the element of ruling through a large coalition such as a national unity government.

In talking about Lebanon’s experience, Berri confirmed the country’s early adoption of this system of governance since May 23, 1926, with the establishment of its first constitution. He highlighted the constitutional provisions which are central to the concept of congruent democracy, namely, ensuring that all sects are equally represented in the cabinet and among public services functions, and that freedom of religion is absolute (Articles 95 and 9 of the Lebanese Constitution respectively).

Citing its independence in 1943 and a host of domestic, regional and international influences that led to constitutional amendments of 1990, Berri reinforced the fact that Lebanon’s democracy are not static.

A number of key changes were highlighted under the rubric of Lebanon’s evolving congruent democracy. The Chamber of Deputies’ Muslim to Christian seat distribution ratio was changed from 5:6 to an equal 6:6, to accommodate for a growing Muslim majority. He also discussed Article 69 of the amended constitution which deems the government as resigned if more than 1/3 of the members withdraw. Other points discussed include the veto right extended to the Council of Ministers to create a system of unanimous decision-making and a revision in the balance of executive power extended to the prime minister and president.

On the question of whether or not congruent democracy proved to be a successful political system for Lebanon, Berri confirmed its positive outcome.

“Lebanon is unlike any other country in the world, in the light of its steadfast commitment and continuous recourse to dialogue meetings held both locally and internationally,” he said. He pointed to talks held in Lausanne, Saint-Cloud, Taif and Doha, as key examples of the operations of a congruent democracy.

Berri explained that the congruence culture, while evolving to better reflect the socio-political changes of its time, “has always been rooted in the minds of the Lebanese nationals.” As distinct from an inevitably unsuccessful export product, he stressed the importance of a “home-made and national democracy which must be consistent with the nature and hopes of its people.”

Berri concluded that his country’s culture of congruence, regardless of its results, constitutes the “security and safety valve of Lebanon’s political system.” As such, the lacking ingredient in Lebanon is not the recognition of congruent democracy per se, but the need to observe and respect the principle.

During the concluding Q&A session, Berri recalled the great show of national unity during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, drawing upon examples of supported internal migration and united Lebanese resistance. Berri also highlighted nationalist ideologies, refusing the claim of a Lebanese “positive-neutral” political approach and endorsing Lebanon’s Arab identity and commitment to the Palestinian crisis. Finally, in countering the claim that the TAIF Agreement of 1989 runs parallel to a congruent democratic Lebanon, Berri ended by retracing Lebanon’s history from the days of Fakhreddine, who celebrated the unique demographics of the country where reconciliation and harmony should prevail.

Jo Ann Moran Cruz & Haifaa Khalafallah on Religion and Legitimization of Political Rule
2008-12-03 08:00 - 18:00
Georgetown University professors Jo Ann Moran Cruz and Haifaa Khalafallah gave the December 3, 2008, Monthly Dialogue lecture entitled “Religion and Legitimization of Political Rule in the Islamic and Christian Worlds: Preliminary Findings.” The presentation was part of a larger study entitled Religion and the State in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, in which both professors conducted research into coinciding Islamic and Christian historical experiences by juxtaposing a variety of primary sources.

Moran Cruz began the lecture by debating the prevailing current discourse on the “Clash of Civilizations.” She noted that the task of their study was to get beyond modern and ahistorical ideas, an example of which is “secular humanism,” which, she said, “is a problem in western scholarship. It is a term that does not stand up to scrutiny.” Moran also suggested that prevailing ideas on the role that religious hegemony has played in the West understate its influence on representative institutions. Khalafallah, in turn, argued that the bulk of historical evidence shows that the current narratives for the study of Islam blur and do not clarify our understanding of its historical experiences. She emphasized the importance of the memory of Medina and the role of consultative rule and legal methodologies in Islam.

Moran Cruz and Khalafallah further argued that both religions, although different from one another, shared a common historical concern with notions of “legitimacy.” Legitimacy, in this historical sense, is an “established, recognized, and accepted framework (legal, cultural, moral, social, procedural) that is paramount for the survival of political authority.” Both Muslim and Christian histories have been concerned with legitimacy and this concern has shaped social and legal infrastructures. Both Moran Cruz and Khalafallah took turns at explaining particular convergences between Muslim and Christian historical discourses and noted similarities between the two religions and how they informed the means of governance around the Mediterranean in each religious tradition.

Beginning with an examination of their formative years and foundational texts, the speakers noted that in both religions, there are scriptural indications, even if implicit, regarding what makes good governance. For example, Khalafallah noted that in the Qur’an, there are instructions to “respect persons in authority…a general endorsement of the notion of collective decision-making, including an explicit directive to consult,” as well as an emphasis on notions of “egalitarianism and equality.”

In their formative years, there was the Pauline model of governance in the Christian context and the Medina model in the Muslim one, both of which are marked by persuasion, connections, negotiated settlement of disputes, as well as extreme fluidity. Using religion to legitimate political authority, the professors argued, became high on the agenda after the triumph of authoritarian states that were, for the most part, illegitimate. Moran Cruz noted that, subsequently, in the struggle for legitimacy, “both cultures have struck varying balances between theocratic and civil governments and between religious and political authorities.” The narratives in both religious traditions are similar with regard to these dynamics, although differing in other fundamental ways.

In conclusion, both Moran Cruz and Khalafallah argued for situating current narratives on Islam and Christianity and their relations to each other in their historical contexts in order to better understand their common experiences and differences vis-à-vis political authority as well as to be able to locate their current ones, rather than focusing on “otherness.”

Article by Suzi Mirgani, CIRS Publications Coordinator.
