BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for International and Regional Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0400
TZNAME:MSD
DTSTART:20100327T230000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0400
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20101030T230000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0400
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20110326T230000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20121008T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20121008T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T103645Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132243Z
UID:10000845-1349683200-1349719200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Sir Tim Lankester on Britain's Foreign Aid
DESCRIPTION:Sir Tim Lankester\, Chairman of the Council of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical ‎Medicine and Advisor on South East Asia to the consulting firm Oxford Analytica\, delivered a ‎CIRS Focused Discussion on “The Politics and Economics of Britain’s Foreign Aid” on October ‎‎8\, 2012. The talk was based on his recent book\,The Politics and Economics of Britain’s Foreign ‎Aid: The Pergau Dam Affair (Routledge\, 2012)\, which he described as “a case study of what can ‎go wrong when you do development assistance badly.”‎ \n \n \nGiving a background of the history of British foreign aid\, Lankester said that the program was ‎initiated in the 1960s and was driven by the British government’s belief that it had a moral ‎obligation to its former colonies as well as practical political interests in those countries. In the ‎‎1980s\, Lankester was the Permanent Secretary of the Overseas Development Administration – ‎the ministry responsible for development aid. During his time in the ministry\, “one of the most ‎controversial projects ever funded by British aid” was taking place. This was the establishment of ‎the Pergau Dam and power-generating project on the Malay-Thai border\, which “was the largest ‎funding in the history of British aid\,” Lankester recalled.‎ \n \n \nThe controversial Pergau Dam project was the result of a private agreement between some key ‎members of the Malay and British governments and was based on Britain providing Malaysia ‎with 200 million pounds worth of civil aid in return for sales of 1 billion pounds of defense ‎equipment. Lankester recalled that an agreement based on the offer of British aid in return for ‎arms sales was both unprecedented and against British policy and was thus divisive from the ‎start. To make matters worse\, once the agreement was signed between the two governments\, the ‎powerful contractors and companies assigned to building the project increased their estimates ‎and the total cost for the project almost doubled. ‎ \n \n \nDespite the increasing costs\, and against the advice of British government officials and ‎economists\, the project went ahead with the support of Mrs. Thatcher and a host of others with ‎special interests. Since both the prime ministers of Malaysia and Britain had backed the project\, ‎the other government departments buckled under the pressure and did not offer sufficient ‎opposition to their leaders. Lankester described the situation as being one that suffered from ‎conflicting policy agendas and the “excessive mixing of politics\, business\, and conflicts of ‎interest.” ‎ \n \n \nIn his capacity as Permanent Secretary\, Lankester was tasked with evaluating whether or not the ‎money for the project was being properly and lawfully spent. Although the legal assessment at ‎the time showed that the project was lawful\, the spend for the project was based on taxpayers ‎money and was so inefficient and uneconomic that Lankester felt obliged to formally ‎disassociate himself and the civil service from it. “This\,” he said “is a story of politics and special ‎interests trumping sound development and sound economics.” Had there been more ‎transparency\, it may have been possible for parliament\, the media\, and other interest groups to ‎formally oppose the project that ultimately damaged British-Malay relations at the time. ‎ \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Lankester said that he was curious to know whether the very same project would ‎have been viable today. His ex-post assessment\, in light of increased gas prices over the years\, ‎was that the project would still be an uneconomic one by today’s calculations. As a final thought\, ‎he advised that the Pergau Dam case study provides valuable lessons for governments\, and his ‎advice was that “it is better to be transparent than obscure\,” “don’t say one thing and do ‎another\,” “when things go wrong\, don’t cover up\,” and\, lastly\, “if you make one mistake\, don’t ‎compound it by making another.”‎ \n \n \nSir Tim Lankester is a member of the joint advisory board of the Georgetown University School ‎of Foreign in Qatar. He was UK Executive Director on the boards of the IMF and World Bank\, ‎and later Permanent Secretary of the Overseas Development Administration. He was Director of ‎the School of Oriental and African Studies\, London University\, and from 2001 to 2009 ‎President of Corpus Christi College\, Oxford. He has published articles and book reviews on aid ‎and development. ‎  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Editor and Manager for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/sir-tim-lankester-britains-foreign-aid/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21956_19916_1414681666-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120923T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120923T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T092425Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104748Z
UID:10000931-1348423200-1348423200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Frederic Wehrey on Libya's Aftermath and Syria's Future
DESCRIPTION:Frederic Wehrey\, senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace\, gave the first CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture of the 2012-2013 academic year on September 17\, 2012. The talk titled\, “Analogies at War: Libya’s Aftermath and Syria’s Future\,” examined the different approaches that the international community has taken towards the Libyan and Syrian conflicts through the language used to frame the debate. The lessons learned from Libya are often given as examples of how to deal with Syria\, regardless of the key differences that exist between the two countries. \n \n \nBefore the actualization of any type of mediation effort\, Wehrey explained\, analogies and linguistic interpretations of a conflict are employed by administrations and governments to either support or reject intervention. Following the theories of analogy presented by author Yuen Foong Khong in his seminal book Analogies at War: Korea\, Munich\, Dien Bien Phu\, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965 (Princeton University Press\, 1992)\, Wehrey argued that “not only are analogies used to justify policies\, but they actually form part of the psychological and cognitive process that policymakers go through when they embark on decisions.” As such\, analogies and the lessons of history figure prominently in foreign policymaking. The US decision to intervene in Libya was itself based on the lessons learned from past conflicts: “the analogy was that Benghazi was not going to be another Srebrenica\,” Wehrey argued. Many decision-makers at the White House would have had direct experience of the failures of the international community to prevent the atrocities that took place in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s. This would have prompted current policymakers to use past analogies to justify and build international support for an air campaign over Libya. \n \n \nAssessing the overall impact of the NATO intervention in Libya\, Wehrey recounted that it was a decisive turning point. The international community took multilateral action through consensus and so the intervention in Libya is being held up as a new model for foreign engagement\, even being called “the Obama Doctrine\,” he said. Moreover\, in an era of increasing austerity in the US defense budget following the costly Iraq and Afghanistan wars\, “certainly in the US\, there is a mystique of airpower because it doesn’t put people at risk and it is relatively low-cost\,” when used with precision. “This intervention\, which did not cost a single US life\, which was successful in toppling a dictator\, and which used airpower and very minimal use of ground advisors\, is very attractive\,” Wehrey said. \n \n \nThis “Libya model” is now being used as an analogy in discussions on how the international community and the United States should approach the conflict situation in Syria. It is important to point out\, Wehrey said\, that there are a number of limitations in applying this model to the situation in Syria. Unlike the international community’s consensus towards the use of NATO airpower in Libya\, there is no such agreement for a coalition operation in Syria. Further\, in geographic terms\, Syria has no extended coastline from which to guide operations and has high density urban areas making airstrikes a hazard to civilian populations. “The lack of a contiguous rebel-held zone in Syria is impeding our ability to deliver aid\, and the lack of an extended coastline that permitted NATO intervention and permitted the rebel logistics to move weapons around and the role of strategic geography is different\,” he argued. As such\, the Libyan model is not generalizable and cannot be applied to Syria. “We have to take all of these differences into account and be very wary of the misuse of analogies\, however appealing they are\,” Wehrey explained. \n \n \nDespite the recent attacks on the US ambassador in Benghazi\, Wehrey said that he remains guardedly optimistic about Libya. The country still faces endemic instability as “the people are still digging out of the legacy of forty-two years of brutal Orwellian tyranny that pitted different elements of the society against one another\,” he explained. What we are seeing now are “the micro convulsions of a revolution. These are conflicts that are playing out between tribes and between towns\, and they are really a testament of how Qaddafi ruled. Despite patronage towards certain tribes\, he marginalized others.” Libya has no institutions and\, in many ways\, this is a blessing as it allows the public to have some say in how these institutions get built from the very beginning. “It is important to remember that the legacy of Libya is still being written\,” Wehrey concluded. \n \n \nFrederic Wehrey’s research focuses on political reform and security issues in the Gulf states\, Libya\, and U.S. policy in the Middle East more broadly. Prior to joining Carnegie\, he was a senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation where in 2008\, he led a RAND strategic advisory team to Baghdad\, Iraq\, focusing on post-surge challenges in support of Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I). A graduate of Occidental College\, he received an M.A. in Near Eastern studies from Princeton University and a Ph.D. in International Relations from St. Antony’s College\, University of Oxford.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/frederic-wehrey-libyas-aftermath-and-syrias-future/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/fredericwehreymonthlydialogueseptember172012web_0-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120915T110000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120916T210000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141002T105517Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230806T071422Z
UID:10000803-1347706800-1347829200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:The Evolving Ruling Bargain In The Middle East Working Group II
DESCRIPTION:On September 15–16\, 2012\, the Center for International and Regional Studies kicked off the 2012–2013 academic year with a two-day working group meeting to discuss “The Evolving Ruling Bargain in the Middle East.” The members of the working group were invited to Doha for a second time to conclude the research initiative and to discuss their individual paper submissions on the topic. The first working group meeting took place on February 19–20\, 2012. \n \n \nThe working group members\, comprised of international and regional scholars of the Middle East\, discussed the current period of “transition” in various Arab countries. Although social and economic grievances have been simmering in countries of the Middle East for decades\, mass protests\, rapidly sparked by individual acts of protest in Tunisia and Egypt\, took place at moments where the old ruling bargain was suddenly viewed as unacceptable to a newly emboldened public. Thousands took to the streets in defiance of authorities to demand a new bargain with the state or to do away with that government altogether. The participants discussed histories of political regimes and other forms of social engineering to see how one state differs from another and how these changes may affect the future of these countries. \n \n \nBefore delving into the individual areas of inquiry\, the participants questioned the terminology used to address issues related to the Arab uprisings. They analyzed the language employed in the discourse and marked the parameters of the debate on how to conceptualize the recent events in the Middle East. They discussed whether the events could be considered as “revolutions” leading to radical transformations of society\, community\, and political structure\, or whether these upheavals would more properly be called “uprisings” or “rebellions” that have ousted an old regime by replacing it with a new one. Further\, they questioned whether the social\, economic\, and political arrangements that existed in these countries can be termed “social contracts\,” as this term implies involving at least two parties that negotiate to achieve mutually acceptable or agreed-upon arrangements. \n \n \nOften\, ruling bargains are based on formally codified laws\, while others are unspoken assumptions that have evolved over time. In many cases\, formal opposition and political parties in the Middle East represent the semblance of democratic processes without gaining any actual power. The participants argued that these parties do not challenge regime stability\, but\, in fact\, strengthen the regime’s position at a symbolic level. The state presents itself as the provider of the national interests in return for political acquiescence. Yet\, the participants said\, despite this arrangement loaded in favor of the state\, the government and opposition parties are in a constant state of negotiation – a push and pull attempt to redefine the boundaries of power\, albeit in a controlled and limited way. \n \n \nThe scholars noted that the demands for a new ruling bargain were caused by a number of factors. The general public in many Middle East countries suffered similar economic and social grievances in relation to unemployment\, corruption\, inequality\, and crony-capitalism. Additionally\, there is a unique youth factor\, where a growing population bulge exists for many Middle East and GCC countries. Within this segment of society are many young\, educated\, unemployed\, and increasingly frustrated people whose aspirations\, economic opportunities\, and political liberties have been curtailed. Many of these young people have access to communication technologies in order to voice their frustrations on both national and international levels. Despite regime restrictions placed on the internet at the height of social unrest in Egypt\, for example\, social media played a pivotal role in circumventing state control and leading to unauthorized mobilization of the masses. \n \n \nOther topics discussed include the rise of Islamic parties\, especially the Muslim Brotherhood\, and the polarization of societies along Islamist-secular lines; the emerging forms of relationship between state institutions like the military and police with different forms of civil society; the new forms of codifying the ruling bargain through recently formed laws\, constitutions\, and judiciary processes; as well as individual case studies related to the similarities and differences between Egypt\, Tunisia\, Libya\, Yemen\, Syria\, and Bahrain\, among others. \n \n \nFinally\, the participants argued that it was too early to draw conclusions regarding the outcome of any of these uprisings and how recent upheavals will shape future social or political relations in the Middle East. With the fall of old regimes\, many past restrictions have been lifted and new forms of electoral processes and vehicles of political expression will need to be placed effectively within existing state structures. At the conclusion of the CIRS initiative\, the chapters will be collected into an edited volume to be published in the coming year. \n \n \n  \n \n \n\nClick here for the working group’s agenda\nClick here for the participants’ biographies\nRead more about this research initiative\n\n \nParticipants and Discussants:\n \nZiad Abu-Rish\, University of California-Los AngelesAbdullah Al-Arian\, Wayne State UniversitySaïd Amir Arjomand\, Stony Brook Institute for Global StudiesZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJason Brownlee\, University of Texas-AustinJohn T. Crist\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMarie Duboc\, American University in CairoMark Farha\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJohn Foran\, University of California\, Santa BarbaraBassam Haddad\, George Mason UniversityShadi Hamid\, Brookings Doha CenterManata Hashemi\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarNader Hashemi\, University of DenverThomas Juneau\, Department of National Defence\, Government of CanadaMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarBahgat Korany\, American University in CairoRussell E. Lucas\, Michigan State UniversityQuinn Mecham\, Middlebury CollegeSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarGerd Nonneman\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarDwaa Osman\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarNadia Talpur\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarNadine Sika\, American University in CairoDirk Vandewalle\, Dartmouth CollegeFred Wehrey\, Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceFlora Whitney\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMohamed Zayani\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/the-evolving-ruling-bargain-in-the-middle-east-working-group-ii/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_18436_12966_1412247317-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120516T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120516T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T093227Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132431Z
UID:10000932-1337155200-1337191200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Lawrence Potter on the Rise and Fall of Port Cities in the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:Lawrence G. Potter\, a 2011-2012 CIRS Visiting Scholar and Adjunct Associate Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture on “The Rise and Fall of Port Cities in the Gulf” on May 16\, 2012. Potter’s lecture was designed to explain the economic\, political\, and ecological reasons why port cities in the Gulf came to prominence or declined over the centuries. As a conceptual introduction to the lecture\, he argued that a distinction should be made between a port and a harbor. “A harbor\,” Potter said\, “is a physical concept\, a shelter for ships;” whereas “a port is an economic concept\, a center of exchange.” \n \n \nLittoral settlements on the Gulf were born of maritime cultures based on pearling\, fishing\, and trade\, allowing tribes to travel freely across waterways in search of ideal locations to pursue their livelihoods. The strength of these commercial and familial connections along the coast meant that “some tribes had settlements on both sides of the Gulf\, most famously the Qawasim based in Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah who temporarily governed Bandar Langeh\,” Potter said. \n \n \nThe migratory and transitory nature of sea-faring cultures meant that “the Gulf was oriented outward\, toward the Indian Ocean\, rather than inward toward the Middle East\, and was part of a cosmopolitan world of mixed race\, religion\, and ethnicity\,” as well as language\, Potter said. Because of these maritime ties\, port cities have always maintained a degree of economic and cultural independence from their inland counterparts. Importantly\, these cultures defied the limited borders of nation-states where “settlements along the Persian coast often had closer relations with those on the Arab side than those in the interior\, due to ease of communication\,” he explained. Multicultural connections\, whether based on family ties or trading relationships\, often shielded port communities from the sectarian strife that afflicted many other parts of the Middle East. This cosmopolitan history of Gulf ports is starkly different from that of the more settled inland cities of Isfahan\, Shiraz\, Tabriz\, and Herat on the Iranian plateau. Historically\, these were populated urban areas that had an established culture and that cultivated centuries of art and literature particular to a single geographical area. \n \n \n“One striking fact about port cities in the Gulf is that many have had only a temporary period of fluorescence\,” Potter said. In medieval times\, the most important ports were to be found on the northern Persian shore of the Gulf\, but in the 19th and 20th centuries\, the ports on the southern Arab shore rose to prominence. Since ports are principally economic areas\, their primary purpose is to facilitate regional and economic trade. If an environmental or political factor was to obstruct these trade routes in any way\, “theKhalijis could easily move if dissatisfied. In a region where boats and not land constituted capital\, it was easy to sail away and reestablish themselves elsewhere\,” he argued. \n \n \nThe often harsh environment in the Gulf and lack of water and wood played key roles in the migration of populations from one port to establish another. Other reasons for abandoning a port include its physical destruction due to the harbor silting up. “In medieval times this happened to old Hormuz. In the 20th century\, this happened to Sharjah\, severely damaging its trade and giving the advantage to Dubai.” In order to overcome these environmental challenges and the lack of water and wood\, some settlements imported fresh water and wood from nearby areas. Even though littoral settlements were maritime societies\, the wood to build ships and dhows had to be imported from India and East Africa. Potter explained how such ecological challenges can have profound effects on the forming of a nation’s security apparatus by arguing that “the lack of wood was undoubtedly one reason why Iran did not have a navy until the twentieth century.” \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Potter highlighted the continued trajectory regarding the importance of port cities in the Gulf. “Today\, the Khalijis have overcome the challenges of climate and lack of water\, and continue to excel as the businessmen that they always were. The port cities are multinational\, as they always were. The modern shopping malls of Doha and Dubai are just a modern version of what the great emporiums of Hormuz and Muscat must have looked like\,” he said. \n \n \nLawrence G. Potter has taught at Columbia University since 1996. A graduate of Tufts College\, he received an M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies\, University of London\, and a Ph.D. in History from Columbia. He taught in Iran for four years before the revolution. From 1984 to 1992 he was Senior Editor at the Foreign Policy Association. He specializes in the history of Iran and the Gulf and U.S. policy toward the Middle East.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/lawrence-potter-rise-and-fall-port-cities-gulf/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21831_16661_1414679228-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120515T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120516T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140924T170808Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132446Z
UID:10000903-1337068800-1337191200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Sectarian Politics in the Gulf - Working Group II
DESCRIPTION:On May 15–16\, 2012\, CIRS held a second working group meeting to conclude its research initiative on “Sectarian Politics in the Gulf.” Scholars and experts on the topic were invited to return to Doha for a second time to share their chapter submissions and to solicit feedback from members of the working group. CIRS will gather the complete chapters into a monograph under the title\, Sectarian Politics in the Gulf. The first working group meeting took place on October 9–10\, 2011. \n \n \nThe working group members began the meeting by discussing their different disciplinary definitions of what the terms “sectarian” and “sectarianism” might mean. In the literature on the topic\, it has been notoriously difficult to come to agreement on a single workable definition of the terms involved. The CIRS project does not aim to reduce the term “sectarian” to a single definition\, but to reveal the diversity at the heart of the subject and to open the debate up to its complexities. Although the term “sectarian” has strong—often negative—religious connotations\, it is not based simply on religious difference\, but implies a multifaceted mix of communal identifiers ranging from ethnic and tribal distinctions to political and philosophical beliefs and orientations. Regardless of the many theoretical and epistemological assumptions making up the discourse\, the participants agreed that the heterogeneity of the subject was one that merited further nuanced study\, especially in the context of the Arab uprisings. The participants emphasized the conditional nature of sectarian issues and examined why ethnic and religious differences come to the fore in some Gulf societies and not in others. \n \n \nTopics discussed during the meeting include explorations of Baluch communities in the various Gulf states; Sunni-Shi’a communities in Iraq\, Bahrain\, Saudi Arabia\, and Iran; identity and politics as they relate to language\, religion\, ethnicity\, national-minority status\, and tribal affiliation; the historically cosmopolitan mix of ethnicities in Oman; among other studies into the history of sectarian communities in the Gulf states. \n \n \nMost countries in the Middle East are heterogeneous societies that were created as a result of the design of colonial empires and their subsequent dissolution. Littoral settlements on the Gulf were born of maritime cultures based on pearling\, fishing\, and trade\, allowing tribes to travel freely across waterways\, intermingle with other cultures\, and defy the limited and arbitrary borders of modern nation-states. As a result of independence\, newly formed Gulf nations had to contend with the breakdown of the political order of the past\, and many different ethnic\, tribal\, and religious groups clamored for political control\, thereby unleashing sectarian struggles that may have been dormant\, suppressed\, or non-existent in the past. The dominant group that rose to power had to engage in the formation of a new identity for the nation—often one that was based on glorifying the regime’s own particular sectarian or tribal history at the expense of others. These new articulations of a largely unrecorded past had to be cultivated in these new Middle Eastern states in order to create a new sense of nationalism as well as to bolster political legitimacy for the ruling elite. Ruling groups created an official narrative of the state’s formation\, which did not always reflect the reality of diversity and heterogeneity on the ground. \n \n \nThe participants agreed that the historical reference to cultural and tribal purity is a symptom of modernity\, as nations attempt to rebuild cultural identities after years of colonial struggle. In these states\, newly formed citizens were the first generation to grow up with a national\, rather than a regional identity—a process that was not without friction to notions of identity. In this sense\, many national heritage and renovation projects are state-sponsored and are in service to the idea of the patriotic\, rather than loyalty to a certain communal sect. Today\, the media plays simultaneous key roles in both upholding national unity and enhancing sectarian divisions. The Al Jazeera network in particular has given voice to the fragmented regional discourse with many taboo topics on sectarian issues being openly discussed. \n \n \nThe more contentious issues surrounding sectarian politics in the Gulf states\, the participants agreed\, are primarily shaped by shares in the rentier economy and the resulting political status of privileged groups over others. Mass protests in Bahrain\, for example\, were largely a product of socio-economic frustrations that ran along sectarian lines. The participants argued that it was important to examine how ruling regimes choose to either engage these sectarian elements or subdue them depending on how much extra wealth and benefits that the state is willing to share. \n \n \nIn the new political order of Iraq\, the ascendance of Iraq’s Shi‘i has worried many Sunni governments who question the loyalty of the Shi’a communities in their states. This has been especially prominent in Bahrain\, with Saudi Arabia having to intervene in order to militarily control the uprisings. The participants argued that these recent events have shown how sectarian struggles in one Gulf state has direct implications in another. A sectarian issue\, therefore\, cannot be thought of as indigenous to any one Gulf state\, but as something that affects all of these countries and their identity formations. \n \n \nIn the wake of the Arab Spring\, analyzing the varied sectarian communities in the Gulf is especially relevant to understand long silent and marginalized groups who have found a space to voice their discontents as a result of successful public uprisings elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. The CIRS initiative is designed to not only study the different social groups who feel marginalized\, but to also highlight those that have existed peacefully and who perceive themselves to be an inherent part of the social fabric of Gulf states. \n \n \n  \n \n \n\nClick here for the working group’s agenda\nRead more about this research initiative \n\n \nParticipants and Discussants:\n \nZahra Babar\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarLois Beck\, Washington University in St. LouisKristin Smith Diwan\, American UniversityMichael Driessen\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarRenaud Fabbri\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMark Farha\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJustin Gengler\, Qatar UniversityFanar Haddad\, University of LondonMehran Kamrava\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJackie Kerr\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMari Luomi\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJohn Peterson\, University of ArizonaLawrence Potter\, Columbia UniversityNadia Talpur\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMarc Valeri\, University of Exeter \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/sectarian-politics-gulf-working-group-ii/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_16611_11186_1411578488-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120424T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120424T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T093437Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104847Z
UID:10000933-1335254400-1335290400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Michael Driessen on the Role of Religion in Modern Democracies
DESCRIPTION:Michael Driessen\, a 2011-2012 Postdoctoral Fellow at CIRS and Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at John Cabot University\, gave a CIRS Monthly Dialogue Lecture on “Religion-State Institutions and Patterns of Democracy: Religious Revivals and Secular Politics in Catholic and Muslim Societies” on April 24\, 2012. The lecture was geared towards analyzing the relationship between religion and state politics in modern contemporary democracies and explored the question: “What does religiously friendly democratization look like?” in both Muslim and Catholic societies. Driessen explored the idea of religiously-friendly democracies and religiously-friendly democratization processes that occur in different political\, social\, and cultural contexts. \n \n \nDriessen began the lecture by recalling the beginnings of the 2011 Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa and the prospects of increasing democracy in the region promised by these popular uprisings. This situation\, however\, was complicated by the election of Islamist-oriented political parties across the region. Driessen argued that “some of the dynamics that are seen to unfold in places like Egypt and Tunisia today are not so unique to Islam or so unique to Muslim-majority countries.” \n \n \nHistorically\, opposition to democratic ideas and institutions by Catholic and Muslim political movements shared similar intuitions about the ideal role of religious authority in society. In contemporary scholarship on religion and politics\, Driessen said\, it is important to ask: “What kind of religion-state arrangements are actually possible in democracies?” One form of governance that does not adhere to strict religious or secular ideals and that does not treat these two seemingly opposing ideologies as mutually exclusive is the middle-ground of a religiously-friendly democracy. This combination of religion and democratic politics is capable of transforming the parameters of the struggle between religious and secular worldviews by relaxing the boundaries between religion and state. Religiously-friendly democracies define a situation where “neither religious actors nor the state can have power to coerce individual religious beliefs or individual religious identities in a democracy\,” and where “unelected religious authorities cannot overturn or veto decisions made by elected political representatives\,” he said. \n \n \nReligiously-friendly democratization can be characterized by two interacting dynamics: increased political secularization in overtly religious societies on the one hand and religious-revival in overtly secular societies on the other. In some situations\, “religious parties will often reach out to less religious and non-religious parties to reach out to a wider electorate in order to establish alliances with non-religious parties and\, in doing so\, they de-emphasize some of the most exclusive religious aspects of their ideology\,” Driessen argued. This does not necessarily mean that the importance of religion fades\, but that there is a platform of negotiation between the role of religion and other everyday concerns regarding economic goods and political beliefs. In this sense\, “democracy empowers individuals; it allows for religious competition to take place and makes non-religious choices available and possible for individuals.” On the other hand\, democracies can also promote and symbolically identify with religious symbols\, values\, and ideas by synchronizing national and holidays to national holidays and providing religious education in schools. Through these measures\, “states socialize citizens into a national religious identity and in doing so push forward and help regenerate the connection between religion and the state\,” he said. \n \n \nConcluding the lecture\, Driessen argued that religiously-friendly democracy helps to break the vicious cycle of religion and politics and “creates a different set of patterns for religious identities and the future of religious politics in dare I say\, post-secular societies.” \n \n \nMichael Driessen holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Notre Dame. He is finishing a book manuscript on “Religiously Friendly Democratization Processes” in the Mediterranean region that analyzes how religion-state arrangements help frame questions of religious and political identity in Muslim and Catholic societies.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/michael-driessen-role-religion-modern-democracies/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21836_16666_1414679320-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120422T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120423T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140924T172536Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104851Z
UID:10000905-1335081600-1335204000@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Food Security And Food Sovereignty In The Middle East Working Group II
DESCRIPTION:On April 22–23\, 2012\, CIRS concluded its “Food Security and Food Sovereignty in the Middle East” research initiative with a two-day working group meeting. Sixteen scholars and experts participating in the initiative were invited back to Doha for a second time to share their findings with working group members and to critique each other’s paper submissions. Among the participants were nine of the CIRS Research Grant recipients who gave updates on the progress of their research projects. The first working group meeting took place in November 2011. \n\nThe strength of this CIRS research initiative is in its multi-disciplinary approach to the questions of food security and food sovereignty in the Middle East. The participants include economists\, anthropologists\, historians\, and experts in agriculture and nutrition. The diverse range of expertise enables the project to bridge the epistemological divide between the qualitative and quantitative methodologies of social science. Current food security issues and corresponding world events are shifting from a largely economics-dominated model where the debate centered on macro-level issues of international development to one where sociopolitical factors are becoming increasingly active in how food is conceived\, valued\, and distributed as a human right rather than a market force. The individual papers cover a large portion of the Middle East\, with case studies into the characteristics of food security projects of Qatar\, Lebanon\, Jordan\, the Palestinian territories\, Yemen\, Egypt\, and Iran\, as well as studies into GCC foreign land investments in Cambodia and Ethiopia. \n\nThe United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines food security as a condition of people having daily\, unrestricted access to sufficient and nutritious food that enables them to live healthy lives. The global food crisis of 2008\, therefore\, was a defining moment for issues of food and the lack of access to it and steered countries’ attention towards aiming for “food security” and “food sovereignty” in the face of future crises. Importantly\, the recent Arab Spring protests and political unrest across the Middle East region were partly triggered by rising food prices. Critics point out that such crises are as a direct result of global liberalization policies that allowed for multinational corporations to dominate food production and distribution value chains\, making food a commercial commodity and making resistance to such international regimes much more difficult. As a result of current market dominated food systems\, a central dilemma is whether it is more important to have a renewed promotion of a domestic production food security strategy\, or to promote non-agricultural exports and use the resulting foreign exchange to import food stuffs. \n\nIn order to understand all the complex dynamics at work in the global shift in how food is perceived\, valued\, and commoditized\, the CIRS research initiative offers insight into many of these issues. The participants engaged in a historical analysis of food regimes and the major systems that have allocated food resources through different economic\, political\, and market models. Different means of production since the nineteenth century\, including increased industrialization and mechanization of farming and transportation in the early half of the twentieth century had varying effects on Middle Eastern countries’ relationship with food. Food production and distribution took on an international aspect where products gown in one place were exported to another as part of a globalized network of worldwide colonial projects. \n\nOver the decades\, countries began growing cash crops that had a comparative market advantage and so food took on a different meaning as something subject to market pressure rather than a means of human sustenance. Increased incomes and rapid population growth led to changing patterns of food consumption and demand for ever diverse types of food\, which in turn placed further ecological constraints on land and water. A concomitant lifestyle shift from “traditional” diets based on the consumption of local market produce to “modern” diets based on meat\, sugar\, and processed foods purchased in supermarkets has had adverse effects on health with increased levels of malnutrition in the Middle East. Further to its market value\, food was used as a political weapon of coercion and a tool of foreign policy\, where dominant countries would either encourage or discourage the distribution of surplus food as reward or punishment. \n\nBecause Middle East countries import a large percentage of their food requirements\, recent volatile hikes in global food prices have had severe adverse effects. At the macroeconomic level\, this has contributed to inflation and trade deficits\, and at the microeconomic household level\, increased prices have contributed to increased poverty and food insecurity. Many countries have responded to the global food crisis of 2008 with decisions to increase domestic production of food. Other solutions include investment in highly controversial “foreign land acquisitions\,” to grow food abroad. This may be at the expense of local populations in the host country who may become displaced and further impoverished by often unregulated and unscrupulous land deals. \n\nIn conclusion\, the participants argued that the recent uprisings in the Middle East and the role of popular resistance to oppressive political and economic regimes may become an important factor of food security scholarship. It is not just the state that is characterizing policy in the Middle East\, but on the level of the individual and the household\, people are actively becoming involved in the issues that affect them. The scholars agreed that for the past few decades\, research into the question of food security had been the domain of international economic and trade bodies that took a narrow and market-driven approach to analyzing food in relation to human existence. The CIRS project is an attempt to engage with a new paradigmatic shift in the field by suggesting that research into food security should incorporate the individual level of analysis as well as macroeconomic and political factors. This cross-disciplinary CIRS-sponsored book adds value to the literature on food security in its response to this changing orthodoxy. After final revisions based on peer comments and suggestions\, CIRS gathered the complete chapter submissions into an edited volume that has been published by a university press. \n\nClick here for the working group’s agendaRead more about the research initiative\n\nParticipants and Discussants:\n\nAmin Al-Hakimi\, Yemeni Association for Sustainable Agriculture; University of Sana’aZahra Babar\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarRaymond Bush\, University of LeedsJohn T. Crist\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarTahra Elobeid\, Qatar UniversityMehran Kamrava\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMari Luomi\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMartha Mundy\, London School of EconomicsHabibollah Salami\, University of TehranNadia Talpur\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarFlora Whitney\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarEckart Woertz\, Princeton University  \n\nCIRS Grant Recipients:\n\nElisa Cavatorta\, University of LondonJad Chaaban\, American University of BeirutHala Ghattas\, American University of BeirutShadi Hamadeh\, American University of BeirutJane Harrigan\, SOAS\, University of LondonKarin Seyfert\, American University of Beirut/SOAS\, University of LondonBen Shepherd\, University of SydneySalwa Tohmé Tawk\, American University of BeirutMary Ann Tétreault\, Trinity UniversityDeborah L. Wheeler\, United States Naval Academy    \n\nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/food-security-and-food-sovereignty-middle-east-working-group-ii/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Studies,Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_16621_11196_1411579536-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120326T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120326T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T104422Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104856Z
UID:10000847-1332748800-1332784800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:A New Canadian-American Relationship
DESCRIPTION:David Dyment\, senior research associate at the Center on North American Politics and Society at Carleton University in Ottawa\, gave a CIRS Focused Discussion on March 26\, 2012\, titled “A New Canadian-American Relationship. The lecture summarized the main arguments in his book\, Doing the Continental: A New Canadian-American Relationship (Dundurn\, 2010). Dyment explained that the title of his book harked back to a song and dance routine that was popular in the 1930s called “Doing the Continental.” This\, he said\, was an apt metaphor for Canada’s relationship with the United States as he viewed this as a “rehabilitation project” that requires both sides to dance in time with each other by learning the necessary steps to conduct a smooth and mature partnership. “Part of what this book is about is our dance with the United States […] and so the twelve steps of ‘Doing the Continental’ are both a ‘rehabilitation program’ for someone who is perhaps recovering from an addiction – the twelve steps to recovery – and also steps that would be involved in a dance\,” he explained. \n \n \nDyment argued that Canada has to deal with two major issues on a daily basis: managing its internal differences between mainly French-speaking Quebec and the English-speaking rest of the country\, as well as managing its relationship with its neighbor\, the United States. Acknowledging the many different nationalities represented in the audience\, Dyment gave a basic overview of why Canada’s relationship with the United States is so important\, including the 5\,000 km border that runs between the two countries\, the strong influence of US culture and media on Canadian daily life\, the long-standing energy and trade relations between the two countries\, and the increase in joint Canadian-US intelligence and security efforts post 9/11. \n \n \nWith a population of 30 million in Canada compared to 300 million in the United States\, there are real fears on the ground of Canada being subsumed under North America. This\, he said\, is a relationship that must be managed carefully. “To this day\, when people think about how to engage the United States and Canada\, they come at it from two perspectives […] the left nationalist perspective – these are parties who are not comfortable with the American political culture – and the right continentalist perspective that favors close political and trade relations with the United States\,” he said. This highly polarized\, ideological debate between the left and the right means that Canadians normally fall into one or other category. In the interests if conducting research for the book\, however\, Dyment said that he was able to debunk some of the popular political myths that are perpetuated daily on both sides of the ideological divide. “Through empirical social science\,” he was able to clearly see the pros and cons of both perspectives as he tested the merits of the contending schools of thought. “I realized this was a great opportunity to see the relationship differently so that we wouldn’t further our contending national competing ideologies\, but\, rather\, step back and ask how […] can we best advance Canada’s national interest?” he said. \n \n \nCanada\, Dyment explained\, is “the largest exporter of energy to the United States by far – more than Saudi Arabia.” Instead of concentrating on some Canadians’ sense of vulnerability and fear of the US\, it is important to recognize the many positive contributions towards the United States. The provision of 40% of the US imports of natural gas makes Canada more of a “moose” than a “mouse\,” he said. “We are faced with a force of nature in North America with this huge American partner that we have to be wary of – which is what the left nationalists would say – but which we can also benefit from so long as we tame that force in our national interest.” \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Dyment argued that for a new Canadian-American relationship to be forged\, Canada must acknowledge its unique contribution as the basis for Canada’s engagement in the world. It is important to ask “What can we do that the Americans can’t do?” and offer a particular set of skills and comparative advantage. This will make Canada stronger internationally as well as give it more clout with the United States. Through this new appreciation of Canada’s value\, “we can go into the world making a unique contribution and be more helpful and more influential with our American allies\,” he said. \n \n \nA past director of Canada’s Parliamentary Internship Program\, David Dyment has served as a senior policy adviser in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade\, and on the immediate staff of the Governor General of Canada (the Queen’s vice-regal representative). As a commentator in the media\, he has been published in Canada’s leading newspaper\, The Globe and Mail and other publications\, and heard on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation\, the BBC\, and in French on Radio-Canada. He received his doctorate from the Université de Montréal.   \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor of CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/new-canadian-american-relationship/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21961_19921_1414681734-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120226T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120226T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T105508Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104904Z
UID:10000849-1330243200-1330279200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Shahla Haeri on Women and Political Leadership in Muslim Societies
DESCRIPTION:Shahla Haeri\, a cultural anthropologist and a 2011-2012 CIRS Visiting Scholar\, gave a Focused Discussion titled\, “From Bilqis to Benazir: Women and Political Leadership in Muslim Societies” on February 26\, 2012. Haeri’s current research interests revolve around examining Muslim women in positions of power\, both past and present. \n \n \nHaeri began her talk by critiquing western media accounts of the Arab Spring that pondered the motivations compelling Muslim women to suddenly become active in politics. She pointed out that there was nothing sudden or unprecedented about Muslim women’s participation in the political domain as evidenced by the long and rich history of women in leadership roles. Haeri recounted the Judeo-Islamic story of the Queen of Sheba\, also known as Bilqis\, as one that is prominent in the Qur’an and favorably portrays the queen as a wise\, intelligent\, and caring ruler. The story of the Queen of Sheba shows that “the Queen’s gender is immaterial to her leadership and governance\, and gender politics plays no role in this Qur’anic story.” The story\, however\, has seldom played an important role in modern Muslim feminist discourse. “Given that this story permeates popular cultures and is explicitly specified in the Qur’an\, what has prevented Muslim women from appropriating the Queen’s model of leadership and actively participating in the political life of their societies?” Haeri mused. \n \n \nThe answer to this question\, she said\, can be found in the dynamics of an alleged hadith\, or prophetic saying\, and its patriarchal resonance in Muslim societies. The Prophet is reported to have said “those who entrust their affairs to women will never know prosperity.” In order to reconcile these two opposing narratives\, Haeri proposed juxtaposing the Qur’anic story that supports women’s political leadership with that of its reported condemnation in the hadith in order to determine the patriarchal and political machinations at work in undermining women in leadership roles. \n \n \nAs examples of Muslim women in power\, Haeri offered Raziya Sultan\, ruler of the medieval Mamluk dynasty in India; Benazir Bhutto\, the late Prime Minister of Pakistan who was democratically elected as leader of a highly conservative Muslim nation; and Ayesha\, the Prophet’s wife\, who led the “Battle of the Camel” against the reigning Caliph Ali. By examining the many historical examples of Muslim women in positions of power\, Haeri highlighted the religious ambivalence regarding Muslim women leaders rather than a categorical condemnation. Predominant patriarchal opposition\, she argued\, happens within a socio-political sphere\, rather than emanating primarily from the scripture. \n \n \nAll these women\, although hailing from different cultural traditions and historical periods\, shared a distinguished genealogical pedigree and had support from their powerful fathers or husbands. As Haeri explained\, “the patriarch’s support bestows power and prestige on the daughter\, facilitates her presence in the public domain\, and legitimates her political authority and activities\,” thus working to silence her detractors. Here lies what she has called “paradox of patriarchy.” While “history provides ample examples of fatal rivalries between the imperial fathers and coveting sons\, little is said on the political implications of the relationships between a patriarch and his daughter\, whom he may indeed favor over his sons who are in a structural position to dislodge the patriarch from his position of authority.” \n \n \nHaeri ended her discussion by noting that popular views against women in leadership were/are often emanating from patriarchal and political discourse\, and not necessarily from religious or scriptural dictates. “Aware of the hierarchy of the sources of authority in Islam – that between the Qur’anic revelations supporting women’s leadership and the alleged Prophetic hadith opposing it – religious authorities bide their time until an opportune moment arises to challenge the authority of a queen\, a sultan\, or a prime minister.” \n \n \nShahla Haeri is an Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology and the former director of Women’s Studies Program (2001-2010) at Boston University. Trained as a Cultural Anthropologist with specific focus on law and religion\, Haeri has conducted ethnographic research in Iran\, Pakistan\, and India. Her ongoing intellectual and academic interests converge on the evolving yet contentious relationship between religion/law\, gender\, and the state in the Muslim world in general\, and in Iran in particular. She is the author of Law of Desire: Temporary Marriage\, Mut’a\, in Iran (1989\, 2006 4th pt. Arabic Tr.13th printing 2010)\, and No Shame for the Sun: Lives of Professional Pakistani women (2002/2004). \n \n \nShe is the recipient of the 2011-2012 Visiting Fellowship at Georgetown University’s Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) at Doha\, Qatar. She has been awarded several grants and postdoctoral fellowships\, including Henderson Senior Research Fellowships in the Humanities at Boston University (2008-2009)\, Women’s Studies in Religion Studies at Harvard Divinity School (Colorado Scholar; 2005-2006)\, Fulbright (1999-2000\, 2002-2003)\, St. Anthony’s College\, Oxford University (1996)\, American Institute of Pakistan Studies\, (1991-1992)\, Social Science Research Council (1987-1988)\, Pembroke Center for Teaching and Research on Women\, Brown University (1986-1987)\, and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies\, Harvard University (1985-1986). \n \n \nDr. Haeri has produced a short video documentary (46 min.) entitled\, Mrs. President: Women and Political Leadership in Iran\, focusing on six women presidential contenders in Iran in 2001. This documentary is distributed by Films for Humanities and Sciences (www.films.com).  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/shahla-haeri-women-and-political-leadership-muslim-societies/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22141_19926_1414920433-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120226T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120226T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T110335Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132537Z
UID:10000851-1330243200-1330279200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Ambassador Larocco on the Gulf Looking East
DESCRIPTION:On February 26\, 2012\, CIRS hosted a Focused Discussion with Ambassador James Larocco Distinguished Professor and Director of the Near East South Asia Center at the National Defense University in Washington\, DC. The talk titled\, “The Gulf Looking East: Afghanistan\, Pakistan\, India\, and Iran\,” was supported by the United States embassy in Qatar. Citing full academic freedom\, Larocco gave his take on the Gulf’s relationship with its neighbors “from Marrakesh to Bangladesh.” He explained to the audience how representing a research center afforded him freedom from the official US diplomatic stance\, and that he was able to have frank conversations with Pakistani and Iranian authorities. \n \n \nThe Ambassador recounted his experiences as a diplomat in the Middle East. His interest in the region began in the 1970s and he has been a regular resident in the region for many years. Most recently\, Larocco described his role as that of an educator\, rather than an emissary of the US government. Describing\, the Near East South Asia Center\, he said that it is an institution that “was deliberately created to try to bring people together from this region to have serious dialogue\, to create communities of influence\, to eliminate misunderstandings\, and to – as much as possible – open minds.” There are currently over 3\,000 of the center’s alumni in leadership positions all over the world\, he said. In fact\, the alumni are so prevalent in politics\, that they constituted members of both the government as well as the opposition in a recent political dispute in the Maldives. \n \n \nThe current nexus of power in the Middle East\, the Ambassador said\, includes Turkey\, Saudi Arabia\, Iran\, and Israel – all of which exert tremendous amounts of hard and soft power\, and will continue to do so. Pakistan and Afghanistan\, Larocco said\, are in extremely difficult situations for which he did not see an immediate solution – although he suggested that Qatar’s diplomatic and economic efforts could play a leading role in the future of Pakistan. \n \n \nMoving further east\, the Ambassador said that he did not see China as a military threat\, but as a country that has grown powerful through commerce. China’s expansion “is strictly based on its mercantilist policy of securing economic interest because China has to produce 20 million jobs every year.” Much of the US government’s efforts in South Asia\, Larocco said\, have been established in order to contain the growing influence of China\, although this has never been acknowledged as official US policy. In the next few years\, people will notice that US policy\, as well as naval and military presence\, will shift towards South Asia\, he said. \n \n \nLarocco concluded by saying that “the Middle East\, for the most part in the United States\, is a problem to be worked with and to be endured\, whereas South Asia and the Asia Pacific region are considered the future for the policy of the United States”. In addition\, because of its strategic geographic location\, roughly 50% of all world trade passes through the Indian Ocean\, and so this also increases the challenges that will be faced in relation to maritime security. Because the local institutions and infrastructure are inadequately equipped to deal with the myriad future challenges\, including the increased threat of maritime piracy\, the Ambassador explained that “the Indian Ocean is going to be the focus of either conflict or cooperation.” \n \n \nRetired ambassador James Larocco joined the NESA Center as a distinguished professor in August 2009\, after serving more than 35 years as a diplomat. During the past 15 years\, he held key leadership assignments related to the Near East region\, including Director General of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO)\, 2004-2009; Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East\, 2001-2004; U.S. Ambassador to the State of Kuwait\, 1997-2001 and Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge D’Affaires in Tel Aviv\, 1993-1996. His earlier postings included assignments as Deputy Director of Afghanistan\, Pakistan and Bangladesh Affairs at the State Department in Washington and key positions in American embassies in Egypt\, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He left the Foreign Service with the personal rank of Career Minister\, which equates in U.S. military terms to Lieutenant General. During his career\, Ambassador Larocco received numerous awards\, including the Distinguished Service Award that was personally presented to him by then Secretary of State Colin Powell.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/ambassador-larocco-gulf-looking-east/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22136_19931_1414920361-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120221T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120221T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T093701Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132555Z
UID:10000934-1329811200-1329847200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Ahmad Sa'di on Population Management and Political Control
DESCRIPTION:On February 21\, 2012\, Ahmad H. Sa’di\, Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of Negev\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue on the topic “Population Management and Political Control: Israel’s Policies towards the Palestinians in the First Two Decades\, 1948-1968.” Sa’di based his lecture on the results of investigations into historical and archival Israeli documents regarding the management of the Palestinian population. \n \n \nIsraeli authorities and academics claim that Israel never conducted any form of systematic control of Palestinian populations. Yet\, the documents that Sa’di analyzed rebuke this claim and list detailed descriptions of the extreme measures taken in order for Israeli authorities to control and reduce the size of the Palestinian population during the early years of establishing the Israeli state. These “archival documents could shed light and help clarify premises of policies\, world views\, dogmas\, and what social scientists call discourses\,” he said. \n \n \nSa’di recounted that Israel was established in 1948 through the occupation of 77.8% of historical Palestine. In November 1948\, Israel conducted a census aimed at presenting a legal position to deny Palestinian refugees the right of return at the end of the war. “This census founded the political basis for a hierarchical order of citizenship rights and entitlements. Jewish settlers who arrived before 1948 were placed at the top\, while Palestinian ‘present absentees’ were relegated to the bottom\,” he explained. \n \n \nSa’di argued that Israeli state policies focused on three issues that would comprise the basis of the state’s future strategy regarding population surveillance and control and involved strategies toward decreasing the size of the Palestinian population; rearranging its spatial distribution; and subjecting it to a tight regime of control and surveillance. Beside overt and coercive transfers and ghettoization\, other means of control included “insurmountable legal and practical hurdles in order to prevent the establishment of an organized political body to voice the opinions and concerns of the minority\,” as well as encouraging Arab students to study abroad and establishing Arabic-language media networks that espoused Israeli ideology. \n \n \nFurther\, more nuanced\, measures involved the introduction of family planning and the initiation of measures for the liberation of women – particularly the raising of their educational standards. Israeli policymakers reached the conclusion that an increase in a woman’s education causes a decline in her fertility. \n \n \nSa’di concluded the lecture by pointing to the necessity of conducting independent archival investigation that questions the dominant discourse relayed by Israel. He argued that not only do these documents show what guided Israeli thinking in the early years of establishing the state\, but also the relevance of Israeli regulations to current realities on the ground. “These tactics carry the fingerprints of Israeli diplomacy and aimed to absolve the Israeli State of liability for the actions of its agents\,” Sa’di explained. He cautioned that it is always important to point to the discrepancy between representation and reality. This\, he said\, “should not be overlooked nor underestimated\, particularly since Israel has always endeavored to present the image of a democratic\, enlightened\, and moral state.” \n \n \nAhmad Sa’di received a Ph.D. degree in sociology from the University of Manchester in 1991\, followed by two years of service for a Palestinian NGO. Sa’di has published over 38 articles\, in English\, Arabic\, Hebrew\, German and Japanese\, and most recently co-edited a book of Palestinian memoirs entitled Nakba: Palestine\, 1948 and the Claims of Memory. His areas of interest include political sociology\, the sociology of developing nations\, social movements and political mobilization\, and the discourse and methods of political control and surveillance used by Israel to control Palestinian citizens.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor of CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/ahmad-sadi-population-management-and-political-control/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21841_16671_1414679392-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120219T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120220T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140924T163655Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104941Z
UID:10000901-1329638400-1329760800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:The Evolving Ruling Bargain in the Middle East Working Group I
DESCRIPTION:On February 19–20\, 2012\, CIRS held a two-day working group meeting on the topic “The Evolving Ruling Bargain in the Middle East.” Several scholars and experts on the Middle East were invited to CIRS at Georgetown University’s Qatar (GU-Q) campus to take part in the discussions. At the conclusion of the research initiative\, the working group participants will contribute chapters towards a book on the subject. \n \n \nAs a preliminary consideration before commencing presentations and discussions\, the participants questioned the terms of the debate and offered different analyses of what “ruling bargain” might mean in different contexts and how this term differs from the notion of a “social contract.” There was consensus that every state-society relationship is bound by an unwritten and informal hegemonic understanding in the form of a social pact between the ruler and the ruled whether authoritarian or otherwise. In many countries of the Arab world\, this general understanding between state and public has been less of a “bargain” and more of a top-down “imposition” of governance. However\, the participants acknowledged that whether in authoritarian or democratic countries\, the terms of a social contract are in a state of constant flux and are negotiated on a daily basis whether peacefully or through violent means of resistance and uprisings. \n \n \nThe participants identified the necessary methodological threads that bring together the various issues as well as the general theoretical tropes that will run throughout the project. A central theme that emerged is the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state in the Middle East and how this has been renegotiated through citizen action. For the first time in modern Arab history\, there have been demands for an alignment between the individual; the communal group whether gender-based\, religious\, ethnic\, or tribal; civil society organizations; and government agencies. The participants argued that it was always important to discuss the Arab Spring at the level of the individual and how Mohamed Bouazizi’s spontaneous act of self-immolation resonated with millions of people across the region who shared similar grievances. \n \n \nAlthough there have always been formal opposition parties in many Middle East states in one form or another\, these functioned as part of the status quo and served as mechanisms of legitimation of the authoritarian state. The public protests that constitute the Arab Spring are a means by which publics in Egypt\, Libya\, and Tunis\, as well as in other countries voice their dissatisfaction with the status quo. These protests are unprecedented and reveal the existence of a whole generation of people who demand change and who are\, in effect\, the informal opposition. People have carved out a platform within which they are active agents of change who are able to negotiate questions of power\, identity\, jurisprudence\, and accountability. Media networks such as Al Jazeera\, informal social media platforms\, and human communication networks more generally acted as catalysts for transmitting ideas that have had far-reaching consequences and have inspired people all over the world to forge vibrant and creative political cultures of resistance. \n \n \nOther issues that were discussed during the meeting include the effect of the Arab Spring on the rise of Islamist parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood; the effect of foreign influence on social unrest; the active participation of women in the political arena; questions of constitutional reform; future international relations and foreign policies; and the emergence of new political parties and discourses that have long been absent in many Middle Eastern countries. In addition\, the scholars analyzed specific case-studies related to the situations in Syria\, Libya\, Egypt\, Bahrain\, Iran\, Yemen\, and Tunis. Although each country has its own set of complex political dynamics dictating possible outcomes\, the participants also discussed the reasons why people in Morocco and Algeria did not join in public protests. \n \n \nTowards the conclusion of the working group meeting the participants cautioned about using the word “revolution” to describe the uprisings in the Middle East. Even though they agreed that tremendous changes have taken place\, they questioned whether it was possible to completely eradicate ingrained patronage networks and whether these post-authoritarian regimes would actually transition to democracies. A cloud of uncertainty still lingers over the fate of all these countries and so\, during these unpredictable times\, it is important to ask “what happens next?” \n \n \n  \n \n \n\nClick here for the working group’s agenda\nRead more about the research initiative\n\n \nParticipants and Discussants:\n \nAbdullah Al-Arian\, Wayne State UniversityHatoon Al-Fassi\, Qatar University; King Saud UniversityMazhar Al-Zo’by\, Qatar UniversitySaïd Amir Arjomand\, The Stony Brook Institute for Global StudiesZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJohn T. Crist\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMichael Driessen\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMarie Duboc\, American University in CairoJohn Foran\, International Institute for Climate Action Theory; University of California\, Santa BarbaraShahla Haeri\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarShadi Hamid\, Brookings Doha CenterNader Hashemi\, Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of DenverThomas Juneau\, Department of National Defence\, Government of CanadaMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJackie Kerr\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarRami George Khouri\, Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of BeirutBahgat Korany\, American University in CairoFred H. Lawson\, Mills CollegeMiriam Lowi\,The College of New JerseyMari Luomi\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarQuinn Mecham\, Middlebury CollegeSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarGerd Nonneman\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJames C. Olsen\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarAhmad H. Sa’di\, Ben-Gurion UniversityDirk Vandewalle\, Dartmouth College  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/evolving-ruling-bargain-middle-east-working-group-i/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_16596_11171_1411576615-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120213T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120213T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140915T055404Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104957Z
UID:10000890-1329120000-1329156000@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Peter Bergen Lectures on the Remaking of the Middle East
DESCRIPTION:On February 13\, 2012\, Peter Bergen delivered the 2011-2012 CIRS Faculty Distinguished Lecture titled\, “The Awakening: How Revolutionaries\, Barack Obama\, and Ordinary Muslims are Remaking the Middle East.” In addition to being CNN’s security analyst\, Bergen is a Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation and an adjunct lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Bergen was introduced to the audience by Will Cha\, Student Government President at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. \n \n \nBergen discussed five different\, but interrelated topics\, which he listed as “Al Qaeda\, terrorism\, Afghanistan/Pakistan\, the Arab Spring\, and the influence of President Obama on some of these issues.” On the topics of Al Qaeda and terrorism\, Bergen explained how he was one of the few Westerners to have met the world’s most-wanted man\, Osama bin Laden\, face to face in 1997 in Eastern Afghanistan. During that interview\, Bin Laden declared war on the United States because of its support for Israel\, sanctions against Iraq\, as well as other foreign policy critiques. Bin Laden described the United States as weak and scarred from all of its past failed wars and pullouts from Vietnam\, Beirut\, and Mogadishu. This analysis of a weak United States\, Bergen said\, was an important insight into why 9/11 happened because it showed that Bin Laden thought that he could pressure the United States into similarly pulling out of the Middle East. It turned out\, however\, that “9/11 was a major strategic error for Al Qaeda because\, first of all Al Qaeda – which of course means ‘the base in Arabic’ – lost their base in Afghanistan\,” he said. So\, instead of the United States being pressurized to exit the Middle East\, the reverse happened\, and now\, as a result\, the United States has increased its presence on the ground in several different countries of the Arab world. Bergen continued by saying that “the 9/11 attacks were a strategic failure not only because they didn’t achieve the goal that Bin Laden wanted\, but also because they led eventually to the defeat of Al Qaeda\, and\, in fact\, to the death recently of Bin Laden himself.” \n \n \n“Al Qaeda was losing the war of ideas in the Muslim world\,” Bergen argued\, not because the United States and the West were winning\, but because Al Qaeda was losing any support it ever had through its detrimental demands and actions. “Al Qaeda and groups like it position themselves as the defenders of true Islam\, but Muslims began to notice that many of Al Qaeda’s victims were\, in fact\, Muslims\,” in Iraq\, Indonesia\, Jordan\, and elsewhere in the world. This turned past supporters and sympathizers into outspoken opponents and enemies of Al Qaeda. Because “Bin Laden never proposed a positive vision of the Middle East\,” in terms of economic\, infrastructural\, or developmental policies\, he had nothing to offer Muslims but destruction\, which is not an impressive prospect of future governance\, Bergen explained. “The idea of an Al Qaeda hospital or an Al Qaeda school is an oxymoron\,” he said. \n \n \nThe Arab Spring was an interesting backdrop for understanding exactly how weak and out of touch Al Qaeda was with Arab societies across the Muslim world\, Bergen argued. The fall of Arab regimes signaled some of the most significant events in the region in decades\, and\, yet\, Bin Laden was silent on these issues\, despite his penchant for commenting on important world events over the years. Thousands of people marched through cities in Egypt\, Tunis\, and Libya\, and yet none voiced any affiliations with Al Qaeda’s anti-Western ideologies. “Bin Laden’s foot soldiers and his ideas were notably absent in the events of the Arab Spring.” \n \n \nDescribing what he thought the future governance of the Middle East will look like\, Bergen said that “the monarchies in the Middle East\, for a variety of reasons\, are going to be able to weather the Arab Spring fairly well.” This is because monarchies have the benefit of being able to transform themselves from absolute to constitutional\, unlike dictatorships\, which are by definition absolute. \n \n \nElsewhere in the surrounding region\, although there is a rapidly increasing population and only 2% economic growth in Pakistan\, there are still some emerging positives such as a strong independent media\, judiciary\, and civil society groups. Similarly\, in Afghanistan\, there have been some positive developments\, especially in terms of schooling\, a decrease in infant mortality\, an increase in GDP\, better infrastructure\, and a general consensus on the ground that the country is heading in the right direction. A future problem that will surface\, however\, will be the withdrawal of United States financial support and the subsequent economic crisis\, Bergen warned. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Bergen noted that President Obama’s popularity in the Middle East has been in a steady state of decline\, stemming from\, among other things\, “the Obama Administration’s lack of real effort on the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations.” Many people thought of Obama as the “anti-war president\,” but he surprised everyone by actually being very tough on national security and has engaged the United States in a variety of covert and actual wars all over the world. \n \n \nFor more than 15 years\, Peter Bergen has traveled extensively throughout Afghanistan\, Pakistan\, Egypt\, Saudi Arabia\, and more recently Iraq\, to report on national security and the Al Qaeda network. His work can be found in many prestigious publications including the New York Times\, Washington Post\, Vanity Fair\, the Wall Street Journal\, and the International Herald Tribune. \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/peter-bergen-lectures-remaking-middle-east/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_15666_9111_1411059165-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120123T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120123T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T094028Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105003Z
UID:10000935-1327305600-1327341600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Anthony Appiah Lectures on Ideas of Cosmopolitanism
DESCRIPTION:On January 23\, Kwame Anthony Appiah\, Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University\, delivered the first CIRS Monthly Dialogueof 2012 titled\, “Being a Citizen of the World Today.” Appiah’s lecture was centered on the question of global citizenship and how historical intellectual theories of “cosmopolitanism” have a bearing on how people live their lives in the contemporary world. Appiah pointed out that the etymology of the word “cosmopolitan” is derived from the Greek “kosmos” meaning “world” and “polites” meaning “citizen\,” and so “cosmopolitanism” literally means a “citizen of the world.” Taking the audience on a journey back to ancient Greece\, Appiah relayed how current understandings of cosmopolitanism are inherited from ancient Greek political philosophy. \n \n \nAppiah recounted that Diogenes\, a philosopher and founder of the Cynic movement\, was the first known European to ever look beyond the borders of the ancient Greek Empire to claim that he was a citizen of the world. Appiah explained that this statement made by Diogenes is a metaphor for tolerance of otherness and does not necessarily mean that Diogenes favored a single world government\, which is precisely what Alexander the Great was attempting to do at that time through his project of world conquest and domination. People can think of themselves as fellow citizens and can care about the fate of their fellow human beings even if they are not members of a single political community. “Cosmopolitanism believes that every human being matters and that we have a shared obligation for one another\,” he said. \n \n \nDiogenes’ idea of cosmopolitanism entered Western philosophical traditions through the Stoics and has survived to this day through Christian and Islamic traditions that emphasize a spiritual affinity between all human beings. Similarly\, the intellectual core of European enlightenment was based on the idea of global concern for humanity\, without advocating a centralized world government. With the rise of Westphalian ideology\, the idea of the nation state was consolidated through common cultural and linguistic affiliations between the people of a single geographical area. Although calls for national unity and homogeneity are always strong\, Appiah noted that they are not all encompassing and there will always be diverse groups of people living in a single country. “Different communities are entitled to live according to different standards because human beings can flourish in many different kinds of society and because there are so many values worth living by\,” Appiah said. \n \n \nBecause cultural diversity is a condition of the world\, “conversation across identities\, religions\, races\, ethnicities\, and nationalities is worthwhile\, because through conversation\, you learn from other people with different\, perhaps even incompatible\, ideas from your own\,” Appiah argued. As such\, today’s globalization has made the ancient ideal of cosmopolitanism even more relevant; an individual can reach millions of international others through communications technologies and global media and economic systems. \n \n \nAs a final thought\, Appiah explained that cosmopolitanism is an empowering concept and one that forms the basis of mutual respect for oneself and for others. He concluded that “if people were to manage their own lives\, which is what they are responsible for\, then they need the powers to do so. And the closer the powers are to people\, and to small communities of people\, the greater the control they can have over the shaping of their lives.” \n \n \nKwame Anthony Appiah joined the Princeton faculty in 2002 as Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor of Philosophy and the University Center for Human Values. His current interests range over African and African-American intellectual history and literary studies\, ethics and philosophy of mind and language; and he has also taught regularly about African traditional religions. Professor Appiah was educated at Clare College\, Cambridge University\, in England\, where he took both B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in the philosophy department.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/anthony-appiah-lectures-ideas-cosmopolitanism/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21846_16676_1414679467-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111212T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111212T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T112341Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105011Z
UID:10000936-1323676800-1323712800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Walter Denny on New Ways of Looking at Islamic Art
DESCRIPTION:Walter B. Denny\, Professor of Art History at the University of Massachusetts Amherst\, gave a CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture on “Innovation in the Visual Arts of Islam: New Ways of Looking at Islamic Art” on December 12\, 2011. The lecture was a follow-up to a previous one Denny gave for CIRS at the “Innovation in Islam” conference that took place back in 2008. Subsequently\, Denny contributed to the CIRS edited volume on Innovation in Islam: Traditions and Contributions\, which was edited by Mehran Kamrava and published in 2011 by the University of California Press. \n \n \nContextualizing the concept of “innovation\,” Denny described the ways in which it is understood in relation to art. He argued that innovation does not relate solely to the contemporary\, but is\, paradoxically\, a historical feature of creative endeavors in all artistic categories. “One of the things that has always fascinated me about the history of Islamic art is the way that the past is constantly used as an inspiration for the present\, and of course for the future\,” he said. As an example\, Denny said that the Mamluk style has been continually revived in the history of Egyptian architecture\, as has the Ottoman style been reproduced in Turkey and elsewhere in the former Ottoman Empire. Innovation in art history is always based on something that came before\, and “there is no such thing as total innovation. Innovation is always\, to one extent or another\, incremental\,” he explained. \n \n \nIn much of the Islamic art that Denny examined\, patterns and forms are not newly designed\, but are borrowings from previous times\, locales\, and traditions that were either forcibly learned or subtly transferred as cultures came into contact with one another across the centuries. The geometric designs that have come to define art-works of the Islamic world are in fact derived from previous Roman traditions\, Denny argued. This is not to say\, however\, that these works should not be considered innovative. Each iteration of a previous form is creating something new\, and yet\, it is something that must acknowledge its debt to a past formulation. Denny gave an example of how themes or motifs have been transferred from one culture to another to produce entirely new meanings. In ancient China\, for example\, the dragon was used as a powerful symbol of the cosmos\, but when used in Ottoman artworks\, it lost this meaning entirely and was instead used to symbolize a fearsome creature. \n \n \nDynastic patronages in Ottoman and Persian art ensured that certain styles were used in order to set their works apart from others\, or\, as Denny explained\, the use of particular motifs is in fact\, a traditional form of “branding.” These are innovations that are created specifically for works of art to stand out in the marketplace\, and to signal the uniqueness of one culture or another. “The Ottoman Empire\, consciously\, as a matter of state policy\, adopted certain forms in its art\,” he said. \n \n \nNot only is innovation a feature of art itself\, but\, Denny argued\, it is also an aspect of how art is viewed and how we conceive of our relationship with artworks. Denny\, Senior Consultant in the Department of Islamic Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York\, described how displays at museums are constantly updated over the years in order to give the viewer a better sense of the work. The ever new and sophisticated ways in which art is being displayed\, lighted\, and categorized\, all move toward the development of a new type of relationship between the work of art and the viewer. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Denny said that the artist is constantly in a state of transmutation between the past and present\, even at times being accused of plagiarism when his or her work too closely resembles another’s. Yet\, Denny argued\, much of what we consider to be works of art are in fact created by emulating what has come before. After surveying several innovations in the history of Islamic art\, he concluded that “we are beginning to look at Islamic art as we should have looked at it all along – as a phenomenon; art that reflects the totality of the human experience\, from the human psyche\, to human belief\, to patronage systems.” \n \n \nWalter B. Denny joined the faculty of the University of Massachusetts Amherst Art History Program in 1970. His primary field of teaching and research is the art and architecture of the Islamic world\, in particular the artistic traditions of the Ottoman Turks\, Islamic carpets and textiles\, and issues of economics and patronage in Islamic art. In addition to curatorships at the Harvard University (1970-2000) and Smith College (2000-2005) art museums\, in September of 2002 he was named Charles Grant Ellis Research Associate in Oriental Carpets at The Textile Museum\, Washington\, DC. He pursued graduate study at Istanbul Technical University and Harvard University\, receiving his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/walter-denny-new-ways-looking-islamic-art/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21851_16686_1414679550-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111121T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111121T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140915T055703Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105051Z
UID:10000892-1321862400-1321898400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Fouad Ajami Lectures on the Arab Spring
DESCRIPTION:On November 21\, 2011\, CIRS hosted Fouad Ajami\, a Senior Fellow of The Hoover Institution at Stanford University and co-chairman of Hoover’s Working Group on Islamism and the International Order\, to discuss the recent Arab Spring in the Middle East. The event which was sponsored by Georgetown’s Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) took place at the university’s campus\, and drew a large number of members from the Doha community. \n \n \nThe lecture\, titled “Tracking the Arab Spring: The Best Day After a Bad Emperor is the First\,” explored how the “Arab Awakening” started in Tunisia\, went on to Egypt\, then to many other countries\, including Syria and Libya. Ajami described how the Arab Spring started with Mohamed Bouazizi\, a Tunisian street vendor\, whose act became the catalyst for the Tunisian revolution that led to the stepping down of their former president and the spreading of riots to different countries in the Arab world. \n \n \n“Arabs\, for several decades walked by the wall and did nothing against these tyrannical regimes\, but now they are eager to take their freedom and full rights… Luckily\, now they decided not to heed and react to these regimes\,” said Ajami while addressing the audience. \n \n \nAccording to Ajami\, who is a frequent contributor on Middle Eastern issues and contemporary international history for The New York Times\, Foreign Affairs\, The New Republic\, The Wall Street Journal\, among many other journals and periodicals. \n \n \n“I am all in with the Arab Spring\, I believed in it and still do; however\, I am really worried about Egypt… If the Arab awakening did not succeed in Egypt\, it will definitely affect the political\, social\, and economic situations in the other Arab countries… The economic freedom is linked to the political one; there is no political freedom in the absence of economic freedom\,” he explained. Ajami believes that there will be a time when Arabs will chant in support of a great leader. \n \n \nThe event concluded with a question and answer session which generated a great deal of participation from the audience\, whose members posed a range of questions for the speaker. \n \n \nGeorgetown University’s CIRS hosts a variety of regional and international experts through its Distinguished Lecture Series. Former speakers include prominent Middle East news correspondent Robert Fisk and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Thomas L. Friedman. These lectures are designed to raise awareness of regionally-relevant international issues. \n \n \nGeorgetown’s Center for International and Regional Studies in Qatar is a premier research institute devoted to the academic study of regional and international issues. CIRS sponsors a number of forums throughout the year facilitating dialogue and an exchange of ideas on a broad range of issues with the aim to engage and enrich the university students and community. \n \n \nFrom 1980 to June 2011\, he was the Majid Khadduri professor and Director of Middle East Studies at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He began his academic career after receiving his PhD in political science from the University of Washington in 1973. He is the author of The Arab Predicament\, The Vanished Imam\, Beirut: City of Regrets\, and The Dream Palace of the Arabs\, The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans\, the Arabs and the Iraqis in Iraq and other works. 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/fouad-ajami-lectures-arab-spring/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_15671_9116_1411059223-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111114T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111114T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T112921Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105058Z
UID:10000938-1321257600-1321293600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Arab Food\, Water\, and the Big Gulf Land-Grab that Wasn't
DESCRIPTION:On November 14\, 2011\, Eckart Woertz\, Visiting Fellow at Princeton University\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture titled\, “Arab Food\, Water\, and the Big Gulf Land-Grab that Wasn’t.” Woertz placed the question of food security within a historical and cultural context. Food\, he said\, has historically been a highly politicized commodity and has been subject to political maneuvering regardless of the actual resources of food available. He argued that “with rising import needs\, the GCC faces increasing problems\,” and so food security is important for the political legitimacy of any government in its ability to satisfy social needs now and in the future. \n\nHistoric experience shows that countries have always been dependent on imports of one kind or another and are\, as such\, always susceptible to any fluctuation in energy or food supplies. This relationship of interdependence where countries find themselves vulnerable within the global matrix is capitalized upon by regional and international power politics. \n\nThe availability of food is considered a basic human right that all governments must provide their populaces. In the rentier arrangement of Gulf countries\, the ruling elite are particularly susceptible to criticism and social unrest if social welfare is not maintained. The food price hikes and export restrictions by food exporters like Russia\, India\, and Vietnam caused wide-spread panic in 2008 all around the world. This prompted Middle East countries\, and Gulf states in particular\, to become increasingly aware of their vulnerabilities in relation to issues of food security. In order to address the growing problem\, several Gulf states have invested in various agricultural enterprises\, both domestically and abroad. \n\nMany of the domestic food security projects are not environmentally or economically rational endeavors. For example\, Woertz explained how Saudi Arabia\, despite water shortages and harsh desert conditions\, became a wheat grower and exporter in the 1990s\, placing heavy demands on already strained water supplies. Currently\, Saudi has one of the largest dairy farms in the world and imports large amounts of sheep. In order to properly sustain this livestock industry\, Saudi has become one of the largest importers of barley. \n\nOn the international level\, many GCC governments have announced foreign land acquisitions\, known to critics as “land-grabs\,” mainly in nearby Sudan\, but also in countries as far away as Brazil and Australia. The bulk of these land acquisitions usually take place in the poorer third world countries and so many question whether human and land rights are respected and whether international laws are being properly enforced. In the 1980s\, Gulf countries wanted to develop farmlands in Sudan to serve as a “Bread Basket” to feed populations back home\, but this scheme was terminated due to various problems\, among them corrupt governance during the Nimeiri regime. \n\nThe discourse of food security is prone to high levels of fear-mongering. Woertz recounted the health problems that exist in the Gulf and that are caused by bad dietary habits. He explained that high levels of obesity and diabetes are generally a sign that “Gulf countries are food secure. If there’s a problem\, it’s with too much food\, not too little\,” he said. \n\nEckart Woertz was former Director of Economic Studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai and held senior positions in financial services companies in Germany and the UAE. He is currently finishing a book about Middle East food security and has published widely on financial markets and economic development in the Gulf and is a well-known commentator for international media outlets. He holds a PhD in economics from Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg.  \n\nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/arab-food-water-and-big-gulf-land-grab-wasnt/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Environmental Studies,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21861_16691_1414679817-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111113T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111114T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140924T171837Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105103Z
UID:10000904-1321171200-1321293600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Food Security and Food Sovereignty in the Middle East Working Group I
DESCRIPTION:On November 13–14\, 2011\, CIRS held a two-day working group meeting\, to discuss issues related to its research initiative on “Food Security and Food Sovereignty in the Middle East.” The working group consisted of experts in the field who deliberated the historical\, economic\, and political aspects of the discourse as well as specific case studies of some Middle East countries. Also taking part in the meeting were some of the CIRS Research Grant recipients who updated the other working group members on their ongoing research projects and shared some of their preliminary findings. \n\nDue to the unfavorable natural conditions in many Middle Eastern and Gulf countries\, these states have never been fully self-sufficient in terms of food and have always had a strong dependence on imported food stuffs. This relationship of dependence on others for a basic human right\, make issues of food and food security highly politicized areas. Historically\, food and access to food have played pivotal roles in the social contract between governments and their populations and have had major effects on the domestic politics of Arab countries. Especially since the food price hikes of 2008\, governments have mandated special strategies and policies to address issues of inflation and simultaneous public unrest. The participants explained how the rise in food prices in the Middle East were a direct trigger for the Arab uprisings and the toppling of entrenched governments. Availability of food is thus a way for governments to gain political legitimacy and not just an issue of healthcare or social welfare. \n\nIn the Gulf region\, the ruling bargain based on rentier arrangements means that GCC governments must ensure the current and future stability of food supplies and so have invested in several long-term food security plans\, both locally and internationally. The participants explained that there was no comprehensive GCC-wide strategy regarding food security\, even though there are similarities in their approaches. Currently\, rather than addressing the root causes of food price hikes\, there is a tendency to treat the symptoms of the problem in the GCC by issuing policies that suppress food prices in order to stabilize the market. \n\nOne of the most controversial and highly publicized areas of food security initiatives is the strategy of foreign “land acquisitions.” Although many of these schemes are highly successful in terms of yield\, these initiatives are problematic for a variety of political and ethical reasons. Land acquisitions in poor third world countries are not always subject to consensual international laws. It is often the case that laws ensuring land and property rights are weak and not properly enforced\, thus paving the way for corrupt practices and forced takeovers of local farms. \n\nOn the global level\, climate change and environmental issues should be studied as an important part of the research. From a sociological perspective\, changes in life-style and habits have increased demand for increasingly diverse types of food\, and this in turn has added to increased environmental and economic strains. To the extent that Middle East and GCC countries will continue to be dependent on imports of particular foods\, there is considerable scope for regional cooperation. The participants advised these countries to invest in regional or international food storages\, whether actual or virtual. The Gulf states need to develop stronger relationships with foreign partners like the World Trade Organization to increase capacity-building measures\, rather than rely on the idea of self-sufficiency\, which\, the participants argued\, is ultimately unsustainable. \n\nThe participants cautioned that governments’ sudden interest in food security as an area of investment should be viewed critically. Historically\, countries have always been subject to fears over future food reserves\, making the idea of “food self-sufficiency” a fallacy. Storing food during times of war is part of the world’s collective memory and governments should not give in to the fear mongering inherent in the discourse of food security. Oftentimes\, the fear over the availability of current or projected food supplies is used as a pretext to achieve alternative political agendas. Calls for greater domestic food production in the Middle East and the GCC are not rational programs given the limited budgets and/or resources.  \n\nClick here for the working group’s agendaClick here for the participants’ biographiesRead more about the research initiative \n\nCIRS Grant Recipients:\n\nElisa Cavatorta\, University of LondonShadi Hamadeh\, American University of BeirutJane Harrigan\, SOAS\, University of LondonKarin Seyfert\, American University of BeirutBen Shepherd\, University of SydneySalwa Tohmé Tawk\, American University of BeirutMary Ann Tétreault\, Trinity UniversityDeborah L. Wheeler\, United States Naval Academy \n\nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/food-security-and-food-sovereignty-middle-east-working-group-i/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Studies,Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_16616_11191_1411579117-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111102T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111102T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T113143Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085321Z
UID:10000853-1320220800-1320256800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:The Kofi Annan Legacy for Africa
DESCRIPTION:Gwen Mikell\, Professor of Anthropology and Foreign Service at Georgetown University\, gave a CIRS Focused Discussion on the subject of “The Kofi Annan Legacy for Africa” on November 2\, 2011. She noted that the lecture grew out of a project that she began in 2006\, where she was invited to write about Kofi Annan’s African initiatives over his two terms in office as Secretary General of the United Nations. With support from Georgetown University and the Carnegie Corporation\, Mikell’s goal was to investigate\, from an anthropological perspective\, the impacts Annan’s initiatives had in Africa. \n \n \nMikell outlined the extent of her research on Annan’s initiatives in four areas: African human rights\, peacekeeping\, development and growth\, and governance. She stated that her research was centered on much more than just an investigation into Kofi Annan\, as she “wanted the research to reflect people’s perceptions and interpretations – the meanings they derived from his leadership. I wanted the research to show how Kofi Annan’s African initiatives were shaped; what their dynamics were; how the international community and African countries had interacted with each other to carry out these initiatives; and\, finally\, the unique perspectives of different constituencies about his legacy.” This\, she explained\, was research that differed markedly from the existing biographical works written about Annan’s personal or professional life. \n \n \nKofi Annan\, Mikell argued\, was responsible for a major turnaround in perception regarding African affairs at the United Nations as well as on the international stage. She explained that various historical events\, including the shadow of the Cold War\, had “left Western countries relatively unconcerned about political instability and human rights issues in Africa.” Although Mikell acknowledged that African countries have long been victim to Western exploitation through selective development and investment\, she asserted that “Kofi Annan’s advocacy had put Africans on the international ‘hot seat’ and demanded that they also be responsible national and global leaders and citizens.” Mikell’s research indicated that “universal\, Western values such as human rights and democracy were at the core of much of what he did and\, therefore\, the African initiatives.” These ideals\, however\, caused a rift in perception between Western UN officials and their African counterparts. Many African heads of state perceived of Annan as a spokesman for\, and a product of\, the West and so actively supported Boutros Boutros-Ghali to become Secretary General for a second term against Annan’s bid. \n \n \nSome of the highlights that emerged from the research Mikell conducted included a picture of the UN as a highly fractured institution that entrenched existing group rivalries. As such\, to make drastic changes within the UN\, Annan was committed to perusing institutional reform. Although these reforms were not always popular\, his actions in this area gained him respect from competing groups within the United Nations. Annan outsourced programs in order to give them greater visibility and to avoid giving any one group within the UN the power to dictate policy direction in this regard. During this time\, Mikell explained\, Annan “was being very productive and creative in things like the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS\, tuberculosis\, malaria\, and other diseases.” His policies thus resulted in the turn towards strengthening social justice\, anti-poverty rights\, and grass-roots initiatives. Further\, in light of certain failures on the part of the United Nations\, especially in Rwanda\, Mikell examined how Annan “put in place institutions that were extremely important for bringing to justice genocidaires\, or military officers\, or state officials. He was instrumental in allowing the ICC and the human rights council to classify rape as a tool of war.” \n \n \nAs a final thought\, Mikell stated that “Annan’s initiatives were intended to interject elements of equality and socioeconomic justice into the democratizing processes underway within Africa.” Despite these efforts\, many of the African leaders thought that the moral authority of the United States during Obama’s administration would have far greater benefits for Africa than was the case. As for Annan\, Mikell said\, he has exclaimed that being out of office has afforded him more the ability to get things done\, and has freed him from the impediments of competing groups. \n \n \nGwendolyn Mikell was the Director of the African Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown (1996-2007); and Senior Fellow in African Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations from 2000-2003. Her research and writing have been focused on political and economic transitions in Africa\, and on gender and peace building during African transitions.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/kofi-annan-legacy-africa/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22131_19941_1414920283-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111010T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111010T190000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T113749Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105113Z
UID:10000940-1318269600-1318273200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Mari Luomi Lectures on Unsustainability in Qatar and the GCC
DESCRIPTION:Mari Luomi\, one of the 2011-2012 CIRS Postdoctoral Fellows\, gave the inaugural CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture of the Fall 2011 semester. She lectured on the topic of “Natural Resources and Environmental Unsustainability in Qatar and the GCC” to an audience of academics\, students\, ambassadors\, and interested members of the general public. \n \n \nLuomi introduced the topic by noting that her research was geared towards suggesting a new conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between sustainability\, political economy\, and development in the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). She defined the term “sustainability\,” as “the use of natural resources in a way that allows for welfare for humans and the environment\, presently and in the future.” \n \n \nOutlining the main argument\, Luomi said that “the Gulf monarchies’ dependence on fossil fuels\, on fossil fuel revenues\, and on social contracts based on these revenues produces unsustainability.” Major issues such as\, economic growth\, population increase\, and pressures to diversify the economy in the region\, all add tremendous pressure on economic\, social\, and environmental sustainability. In the GCC states in particular\, the rentier set-up and the need to preserve the social contract between government and citizens is a unique factor leading to long-term unsustainability. She explained that “if we step back and look at the broader challenges that the GCC states are currently facing to the ‘business-as-usual’ ways of conducting their development\,” it would be counter-productive to continue with the current model. “We must not forget\,” Luomi said\, “that we are living in a harsh\, but\, at the same time\, very fragile environment.” \n \n \nIndicators of unsustainability include greenhouse gas emissions\, of which “the GCC produces 2.5% of global carbon emissions.” In Qatar\, “we are looking at a society and economy that has the highest per capita emissions in the world\,” Luomi said. A second indicator of unsustainability is the idea of an “ecological footprint\,” which measures human consumption in relation to the Earth’s resources\, with “the Qatari footprint representing six times the biological capacity of the world – so we are living six times over the world’s current capacity here on average\,” she explained. In an attempt to tackle these high energy consumption and carbon emission rates\, the Qatari government has made efforts to address the problem by viewing “environmental development” as one of the main pillars that form the Qatar National Vision 2030 plan. \n \n \nLuomi concluded the lecture with suggestions regarding how the GCC states could encourage their societies to be more sustainable: “What we need for things to move onward is political will and determination.” She argued that it was necessary to have open debates on the environmental impacts of current natural resource consumption patterns as well as a well-grounded infrastructure for transmitting the message of sustainability through educational campaigns\, recycling initiatives\, and the encouragement of public transport\, among other practical enterprises. \n \n \nLuomi summed up the lecture by highlighting the simultaneous privilege and responsibility we have as residents and citizens of Qatar. Currently\, there is an “illusion of plenty” that is incompatible with a sustainable future. She said\, “here\, economically\, we have the possibility to continue consuming business-as-usual\, but the moral question is\, if we can\, should we?”  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator. \n \n \nMari Luomi is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the CIRS for the academic year 2011-2012. She holds a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from Durham University. She has previously worked in various positions for the Middle East Project and the Programme in the International Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/mari-luomi-lectures-unsustainability-qatar-and-gcc/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Environmental Studies,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21866_16696_1414679911-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111009T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20111010T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140924T165353Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085451Z
UID:10000902-1318147200-1318269600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Sectarian Politics in the Gulf Working Group I
DESCRIPTION:On October 9–10\, 2011\, CIRS convened the first of its “Sectarian Politics in the Gulf” Working Group meetings. Participating in the research initiative were several experts on the issue of sectarian politics in the Middle East region in general and the Gulf in specific. This first gathering took the form of a brain-storming session\, where the participants debated the importance of overall thematic issues pertaining to the project. One of the main objectives for the meeting was to identify gaps in the literature. Although sectarian issues are not new to this region\, exclusive and detailed academic studies are still lacking and need to be addressed. Often\, there are individual studies written on individual countries\, but an overall comprehensive look at sectarianism in the Gulf is glaringly lacking. For many people in the Gulf region\, sectarianism is still a taboo subject and so has not been addressed with the necessary academic rigor. At the conclusion of the research initiative\, each participant will write a paper on their particular field of expertise. CIRS will gather these individual papers and prepare them for publication. \n \n \nOne important issue that was raised was contestation regarding the term “sectarianism” and whether or not this should be qualified and broadened to include “identity politics\,” as ethnicities and tribal linkages are often bound up together. Although each of these has a different set of variables\, they are difficult to separate along clear lines. Traditionally\, sectarianism has had negative connotations in its ability to segregate people along religious lines. To unpack the term\, it is necessary to submit to the idea that any form of identity\, whether sectarian or otherwise\, is always fluid\, negotiated\, and changes from one area to another and one historical period to another. \n \n \nThe participants agreed that it was important to point to how sectarianism can be politically manipulated and how governments or others have had a direct hand in quelling or inciting sectarian strife at particular historical periods. Sectarianism therefore\, plays a crucial role in the politics\, economy\, and social infrastructures of most\, if not all\, countries in the Gulf. As such\, some of the speakers argued for the need to locate sectarianism – as we understand it today – in its historical context to question whether it is a modern phenomenon that has its roots in colonial exploitation of regional differences or a feature much more ancient. Such segregation based on sectarian identification has had lasting effects\, especially in the Gulf region\, on rentier politics regarding how a state’s wealth is distributed and to which sectors of society. \n \n \nThe obvious sectarian struggles in the region play out between the Shia and Sunni communities as they vie for political power. However\, the participants argued that it was important not to view these as homogenous entities\, but to point to their internal differences. Further to examining the more prominent sectarian divisions\, the participants argued for the need to highlight some of the less visible sectarian struggles that have been taking place for many years and that go undetected by the larger power players. For example\, there are very few studies on the socio-politics of minority groups such as Sunni and Jewish communities in Iran. \n \n \nOther issues\, such as how sectarianism can be a transnational as well as international concern were clearly demonstrated with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the political turmoil that ensued affecting domestic\, regional\, and international relationships. Currently\, in the wake of the Arab Spring\, with rise of new media and social networking\, the idea of a more globalized world has been created\, but it is also one where people are more aware of their differences. In Bahrain\, for example\, sectarian struggle has become top of the agenda of political discourse in the Gulf as other countries with the same sectarian divisions attempt to pacify or coerce the subversive elements in their societies. \n \n \nThese are just some of the issues that the participants addressed over the two-day meeting and which they will narrow down over the course of their next visits to CIRS and the Georgetown University in Qatar campus. \n \n \n  \n \n \n\nClick here for the working group’s agenda\nClick here for the participants’ biographies\nRead more about the research initiative \n\n \n  \n \n \nParticipants in the “Sectarian Politics in the Gulf” research initiative are:\n \nRogaia Abusharaf – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMohammad Akbar – American University of KuwaitAbdulaziz Al Fahad – Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaMohammed Al Ghanim – Georgetown UniversitySultan Al Hashmi – Sultan Qaboos UniversityGhanim Al Najjar – Kuwait UniversityZahra Babar\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarLois Beck – Washington University in St. LouisJohn T. Crist – CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarKristin Smith Diwan – American UniversityMichael Driessen – CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarKhaled Fattah – Lund UniversityFanar Haddad – University of LondonMehran Kamrava – CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarLaurence Louer – CERI\, FranceMari Luomi – CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarRoel Meijer – Radboud University\, The NetherlandsSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarGwenn Okruhlik – Trinity UniversityLawrence Potter – Columbia UniversityGuido Steinberg – German Institute for International and Security Affairs  \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/sectarian-politics-gulf-working-group-i/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_16606_11181_1411577633-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110914T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110914T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T121215Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105148Z
UID:10000856-1315987200-1316023200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:The Role of Universities in National Awakenings
DESCRIPTION:CIRS hosted a Focused Discussion by Mohammad-Javad Zarif\, Vice President for International Relations at Iran’s Islamic Azad University\, on September 14\, 2011. Zarif spoke to a small gathering of ambassadors and embassy staff about “The Role of Universities in National Awakenings.” He argued that the recent uprisings can be attributed\, in part\, to the increased level of education among the youth in the region and to their growing political awareness\, leading to further social demands. In order to deal with these new developments and patterns of frustrated behavior towards leadership\, it is necessary to question old political paradigms and come up with new ways of dealing with public pressures. Zarif argued that the idea of globalization can no longer be challenged; we live in an interconnected world where one country’s actions will affect another’s – whether within the same region or across the globe. \n \n \nZarif has had a long and illustrious career in the Iranian diplomatic corp. From 2002 to 2007\, Zarif served as the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic to the United Nations\, and from 1992 to 2002 he was Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/role-universities-national-awakenings/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22126_19946_1414920211-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110913T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110913T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T121817Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105155Z
UID:10000857-1315900800-1315936800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Libya and the International Community: The Way Forward
DESCRIPTION:CIRS began its 2011-2012 lecture series with a Focused Discussion on “Libya and the International Community: The Way Forward” given by the Director of Brookings Doha Center\, Salman Shaikh\, on September 13\, 2011. During the lecture\, Shaikh outlined some significant ways in which the Libyan uprising differs from others in the region and the lessons that can be learned from the success the rebel movement has had in gaining international support. “One very important lesson that we did learn – very different from Iraq – was the importance of moving with international legality. That is why I place such emphasis on UN resolutions – something we didn’t work through satisfactorily in the Iraq case\,” he commented. \n \n \nThe Libyan revolution\, which began in February 2011\, followed on from other uprisings in the Arab world. Shaikh argued that “Tunisia and Egypt\, in particular\, acted as a catalyst for unprecedented courage being exhibited by Libyans themselves in throwing off the despotic rule of Muammar Qaddafi for 41 years.” What sets this particular revolution apart from neighboring ones\, however\, is that it had the backing of the international community through United Nations resolution 1970\, which refers Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court and resolution 1973\, which sanctioned a “no-fly zone” over Libyan air space. The United States was instrumental in setting up the no-fly zone and\, yet\, he explained\, the US government has been successful at maintaining some distance from any active engagement in the fighting so as not to be seen supporting yet another war in the Arab world. \n \n \nShaikh argued that the GCC states and the Arab League paved the way for other nations to join the coalition against Qaddafi and galvanized the opposition. Such support for the fall of the regime\, he said\, countered the hesitancy exhibited by Russia and China to get involved in council action. The GCC and the Arab League called for the international community to support the rebels and oppose Qaddafi. Other actors who have a direct stake and play a significant role in the changes currently taking place in Libya include NATO\, the United Nations\, and the African Union. Yet\, Shaikh pointed out\, it is not only countries and governments that support the ousting of Qaddafi and give legitimacy to the rebel movement\, as the majority of civilians in the region also gave their backing. Importantly\, he said\, whether through the media or on the ground\, “we didn’t see a single significant protest in the Arab world against the military intervention in Libya. Very different again to what we saw regarding the Iraq case.” \n \n \nConcluding with some thoughts on what needs to be done for a smooth transition of leadership in Libya\, Shaikh described the roles that need to be filled and the actions that need to be taken in the near future. “I suspect that there is no real appetite from NATO member states to have real ‘boots on the ground\,’” he said. However\, Shaikh continued\, Libyans will need assistance in other areas\, such as technical assistance in terms of policing and demobilization of fighters. It will also need support in constitution and electoral reformation as well as ensuring the socioeconomic welfare of the people. \n \n \nAn area that needs much attention during the transition is in terms of reconciliation. “It is interesting to note\,” Shaikh said\, “that Libya is a fairly homogenous society in terms of its ethnic and sectarian make-up\, but\, of course\, it is a tribal society.” Thus\, there needs to be real inclusivity and representation in decision-making regarding any changes made at a governmental level. He argued that “putting in a timetable for speedy elections or for a quick constitution-making process is not a panacea. This requires a much larger process of national dialogue and reconciliation.” \n \n \nSalman Shaikh is the Director of the Brookings Doha Center and a Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington\, DC. Shaikh has held numerous posts of significance both in the international system and the Middle East. In particular\, he worked with the United Nations for nearly a decade\, primarily on Middle East policy\, as the special assistant of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and as political adviser to the UN Secretary General’s Personal Representative for Lebanon during the 2006 war. He also served as the Director for Policy and Research in the Office of Her Highness\, Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned\, the Consort of the Emir of Qatar.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/libya-and-international-community-way-forward/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22116_19951_1414920154-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110522T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110522T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20140915T060010Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105203Z
UID:10000894-1306051200-1306087200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Rashid Khalidi on the Arab Revolutions of 2011
DESCRIPTION:On May 22\, 2011\, Rashid Khalidi\, Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University\, delivered the final CIRS Distinguished Lecture of the academic year on the topic “The Arab Revolutions of 2011.” Khalidi noted that not enough time has passed to be able to truly analyze the impact and consequences of the Arab Spring\, and so he offered some preliminary observations regarding the uprisings. He argued that “this juncture may be unprecedented in modern Arab history. Suddenly\, despotic regimes that were entrenched for over forty years are vulnerable.” In a short period of time\, some key regimes crumbled after having clung to power for so long and as a result of the challenging efforts of ordinary people. Khalidi said that “This is a moment\, when we are suddenly facing the prospect of entirely new possibilities in the Arab world.It comes after decades\, when nothing seemed to change in this region.” \n \n \nSeveral factors distinguish these uprisings from previous Arab revolutions\, including the peaceful nature of the movements and the protestors’ insistence on abstaining from violence\, Khalidi argued. Although the publics of Tunis and Egypt came out in force to air their displeasure with the status quo\, they rejected the use of violence. For the first time in recent years\, Western media carried images of peace-loving\, middle class\, and charismatic Arabs\, instead of the usual portrayal of Middle East publics as violent Islamic fundamentalists. “This is thus a supremely important moment\, not only in the Arab World\, but for how Arabs are perceived […] in the West – a people that has been systematically maligned in the Western media for decades are for the first time being shown in a realistic and positive light\,” he said. \n \n \nThe Arab uprisings stemmed from the public’s frustration not only with despotic Arab regimes\, but also with injustices made global through corporate privatization of public resources at the expense of social welfare. “What we have been seeing across the Arab World are not just revolutions for democracy\, for freedom\, for dignity\, and for the rule of law\, they have also been revolutions against the neo-liberal world order and the free-trade market fundamentalism dogma underpinning it\,” Khalidi maintained. Any new government formed after the ousting of the old regime must attempt to fulfill the economic and social needs of their populaces whilst resisting pressure from the West to engage in the very economic globalization practices that led to the revolutions in the first instance. \n \n \nKhalidi pointed out that many of these Arab countries are still unstable and that nothing has been concretely decided about their future political paths. He argued that the task ahead will be daunting for the new leaders of these societies as they will have to envision new social and political forms. “Building a workable\, functioning\, democratic system will be much\, much\, harder than overthrowing Mubarak or Ben Ali\,” Khalidi argued. Any new system must avoid the pitfalls of the old regime and needs to target the old centers of power and corruption which have not altogether disappeared. This\, he said\, is a scenario that is not unique to these Arab countries as “we know a lot about entrenched powerful interests dominating a democratic political system from the American experience. This is a problem every democratic polity suffers from.” \n \n \nIn sum\, Khalidi explained that “we must never forget that this is the Middle East\, which because of its energy resources and its unique strategic position is the most coveted region of the world and\, in consequence\, the region of the world most penetrated by foreign interests.” \n \n \nKhalidi is editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies and was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993. He is author of many books\, includingSowing Crisis: American Dominance and the Cold War in the Middle East (2009); The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (2006); and was the co-editor of Palestine and the Gulf (1982) and The Origins of Arab Nationalism (1991). \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Publications Coordinator 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/rashid-khalidi-arab-revolutions-2011/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_15676_9121_1411059288-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110428T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110428T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T122107Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085530Z
UID:10000859-1303977600-1304013600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Arab Spring: European Insights
DESCRIPTION:On April 28\, 2011\, CIRS hosted Teodor Baconschi\, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania\, who gave European insights into the recent and ongoing Arab uprisings taking place in the Middle East. Attending the lecture were Qatar-based ambassadors and embassy staff\, representatives from both regional and international think-tanks and research institutes\, as well as Georgetown University faculty.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/arab-spring-european-insights/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_20841_19956_1414326067-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110419T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110419T200000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T122505Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105258Z
UID:10000861-1303236000-1303243200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Part 2: Imam Yahya Hendi's Journey with Islam
DESCRIPTION:Imam Yahya Hendi delivered a two-part CIRS Focused Discussion series taking the audience on “A Journey with Islam in the 21st Century.” The lectures were co-sponsored and hosted by the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha. Hendi’s second lecture took place on April 19\, 2011\, and highlighted “Women and Gender in the Islamic Religious Texts and Culture.” He argued that the Qur’an clearly states the respected place that women occupy within Islam and argued that many current instances of sexism are as a result of misinterpreting religious text for particular instances of social and political control. Hendi explained that gender relations in the Arab world and beyond are often the result of particular cultural settings rather than scriptural interpretations. Finally\, he said that one gender can only be understood in relation to the other and so it is important for each to always speak of women in Islam in relation to men. \n \n \nThe first lecture took place on April 18\, 2011\, and focused on “The Paradigms of Islamic Ethics\, Human Rights and Social Justice.” \n \n \nImam Hendi is the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University\, the first American University to hire a full-time Muslim chaplain. Imam Hendi is also the Muslim Chaplain at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda\, MD. He has written numerous publications on many topics\, including women in Islam\, women and gender relations in Islam\, the second coming of the Messiah\, Islam and biomedical ethics and religion and Islam in the United States.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/part-2-imam-yahya-hendis-journey-islam/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22111_19961_1414920059-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110418T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110418T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T123057Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105303Z
UID:10000977-1303113600-1303149600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Part 1: Imam Yahya Hendi's Journey with Islam
DESCRIPTION:Imam Yahya Hendi delivered a two-part CIRS Focused Discussionseries taking the audience on “A Journey with Islam in the 21st Century.” The lectures were co-sponsored and hosted by the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha. The first lecture took place on April 18\, 2011\, and focused on “The Paradigms of Islamic Ethics\, Human Rights\, and Social Justice\,” where Hendi examined the religious roots of social justice in the Qur’an. \n \n \nHe argued that since Islam’s main goal is to bring about peace and social justice to the world\, there is a prominent theme that calls for the welfare of all within society with a particular focus on the poor and vulnerable. Hendi said that themes of benevolence and social democracy are often forgotten or even belittled by Muslims who have interpreted the text to suit their own political agendas. “I challenge Muslims\, asking them to produce\, what I call\, a new agenda of how they speak about Islam and how they understand Islam in a way that preserves the authenticity of the text and the authenticity of the essence of faith and yet allow themselves to question and ask tough questions\,” he said. \n \n \nAlthough the past should be respected\, contemporary socio-political challenges and the needs of the moment should be respected as well in order to deal with these new realities. Muslims\, Hendi said\, need to be honest in the critique of the negative aspects of their communities\, rather than fear backlash. Historically\, communal knowledge\, public practice\, and debating known as “’urf” was considered to be a valuable source of Islamic ethics that was consensual and agreed upon by members of the public or Umma. However\, more recently\, Islamic ethicists and scholars have tried to exclude social contributions to Islamic knowledge by claiming sole authority in such matters. “We need to have ethical teachings that are realistic\, that deal with reality\, and that actually can be practiced\,” in order for ethics to be an attainable and manageable concept that is performed by all. Indeed\, the Imam said\, “Islamic ethics honors the concept of ‘wajib’ and tells us about our responsibilities – both personal and public.” \n \n \nImam Hendi is the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University\, the first American University to hire a full-time Muslim chaplain. Imam Hendi is also the Muslim Chaplain at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda\, MD. He has written numerous publications on many topics\, including women in Islam\, women and gender relations in Islam\, the second coming of the Messiah\, Islam and biomedical ethics and religion and Islam in the United States. \n \n \nRead about Part 2 of the Imam’s lecture series.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/part-1-imam-yahya-hendis-journey-islam/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22106_19966_1414919985-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110410T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110410T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T124338Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085617Z
UID:10000979-1302422400-1302458400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Aly Verjee on Current Events in Côte d'Ivoire\, Djibouti\, and Sudan
DESCRIPTION:On April 10\, 2011\, CIRS and the African Student Club at Georgetown University in Qatar hosted a Focused Discussion with Aly Verjee\, Senior Researcher at the Rift Valley Institute and a specialist on the contemporary politics of Africa. The lecture was on “Current Events in Côte d’Ivoire\, Djibouti\, and Sudan.” These were countries in which Verjee spent significant amounts of time conducting research and working as an elections observer. \n \n \nVerjee began by describing current events in the Sudan and the possible outcomes of the recent referendum which was voted in favor of splitting the country into two. He argued that “One of the most interesting and important things about the referendum in Sudan was\, of course\, that it was accepted by both sides.” Despite the positives\, Verjee said\, the peace agreement privileges the ruling parties of both sides at the expense of the people. The referendum had very serious authoritarian undertones where the extremely high percentage of voter turnout was not necessarily due to an organically-formed civic mobilization movement\, but\, rather\, because the ruling party went house to house to ensure all registered voters cast ballots. However\, Verjee said\, despite the exhilaration produced by radical social and political change to the country\, it is important to not to lose sight of the unimplemented social and political rights of the people. Currently in Sudan\, “We have this very unusual circumstance that the vote\, which was largely democratic and which will herald the newest country in Africa\, actually also means that we will have\, from July when Southern Sudan becomes an independent country\, two one-party states. That is a very unorthodox outcome of a democratic process\,” Verjee argued. \n \n \nEver since the referendum took place\, the international media has focused on describing what the “new” Sudan might look like. Since the north-south issue has become so prominent a topic\, it is important not to forget the other areas of struggle such as Darfur and Kordofan\, which have multi-ethnic and multi-religious populations that do not necessarily identify with the ruling Arab Muslim elite. The communities in these areas would like their rights respected and to enter into self-governance just as the south did. \n \n \nThe second country Verjee examined was “Djibouti\, which is a stable country in a very unstable neighborhood.” The country is located in a geographically strategic area on the Bab el-Mandeb; the coastal gateway between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea\, which is one of the busiest shipping channels in the world. Verjee said that “Djibouti itself is not important in terms of international trade\, but is very important in the international trade of East Africa.” This is because “85 million Ethiopians depend on all their imports coming through the port of Djibouti” since Ethiopians can no longer rely on Eritrea as a seaport because of deteriorating relations after Eritrea’s secession from Ethiopia. Further\, he noted\, although Djibouti is at the heart of international anti-piracy and anti-terror operations and “the host of the only U.S. military base in the whole of Africa\,” its strategic location is simultaneously important as a channel for illegal migration from Africa into Arabia and Europe. \n \n \nMoving on to Côte d’Ivoire\, Verjee said that most people in the world should have an interest in what happens there\, not least because it “is the most important country in the world in determining the price of chocolate\,” as it is a main producer and exporter of cocoa beans. However\, despite the country’s relative wealth\, civil war has plagued the country for most of the last decade\, leading to large numbers of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Currently\, the country is again divided by the controversy surrounding the last round of presidential elections\, where both Laurent Gbabgo and Alassane Ouattara claim that they are the true winners. “The elections that were held last year were supposed to end the crisis\, but in fact\, they have only deepened it\,” he explained. \n \n \nAs a final thought\, Verjee linked the three countries by drawing parallels between them\, including the ways in which the media has shaped public perception and response to events in these places. Secondly\, all three countries are linked by a history of disappointing interpretations of democratic elections. Thirdly\, “in all three of these countries\, there are strategic considerations” and each becomes prioritized internationally based on the richness of its resources or geographic location. Lastly\, Verjee said\, “In all three of these examples\, we can see the prominence and centrality of individuals over systems.” \n \n \nAly Verjee is author of the recently published Race Against Time: the Countdown to the Referenda in Southern Sudan and Abyei. From 2006-2008\, Verjee helped manage the logistics of the repatriation of Sudanese refugees from Kenya\, Uganda\, DR Congo and the Central African Republic. From 2008–2010\, he helped lead the first ever international election observation mission in Sudan for The Carter Center. In addition\, Verjee also has worked on various assignments in Afghanistan\, Botswana\, China\, Cote d’Ivoire\, DR Congo\, Ghana\, Kenya\, Mozambique\, Senegal\, Somaliland and South Africa. 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/aly-verjee-current-events-c%c3%b4te-divoire-djibouti-and-sudan/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22101_19971_1414919924-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110406T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110406T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141023T114613Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085637Z
UID:10000942-1302076800-1302112800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Brendan Hill on Sin and Civil Society
DESCRIPTION:Brendan Hill\, Associate Dean of Student Affairs at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture on “Sin and Civil Society: Modernity and Moral Regulation in 18th Century England” on April 6\, 2011. Attending the lecture were students\, faculty and staff\, locally-based ambassadors\, and other members of the Qatar community. \n \n \nTrained as a legal historian\, Hill said that he did not set out to study morality and sin during his research\, but soon became engrossed in the subject of eighteenth century criminalization of behavior and began to study the subject more seriously. Hill’s research focuses on the jurisdictional shifts and the movement away from ecclesiastical courts into secular courts and how this new form of legal\, rather than religious\, control and fashioning of behavior had different effects on society. He pointed to the paradox at the crux of his research which is that the eighteenth century is widely believed to be a time of enlightenment and growing secularization and\, yet\, Hill said during this time there was a growing number of prosecutions for moral offences largely documented by puritans in a movement called the Society for the Reformation of Manners. \n \n \nAlthough there is no common definition of puritanism\, Hill argued\, there is a general consensus among historians that puritans believed that society should be ordered according to an ethical code that is derived from scripture. According to Calvin’s doctrine “the church instructs and the state enforces.” The reason why the fashioning of civil society was so important to puritans\, Hill said\, was because they believed that one person’s guilt was something that was burdened by all individuals in society. “If guilt and judgment are collective\, then the crimes of even a few of us are going to visit God’s wrath upon the whole society. So\, if the notion of sin becomes collectivized\, then the notion of punishment also becomes collectivized\,” Hill explained. \n \n \nHill highlighted the three main contributions that his research makes to the study of legal and church history. The first contribution is to further the understanding of the process of secularization that occurred in England in the eighteenth century and\, by so doing\, problematize the idea that enlightenment Europe was a complete move away from religion into the realm of reason. “Historians and political scientists tend to nowadays take it for granted that English society – and essentially European society – is a secular society” that worked toward the presumed replacement of religious imagination with reason and the separation of church and state. Hill argued that “my research is pointing toward less of a ‘secularization’ of the European imagination and more toward a ‘sacralization’ of civil society. Rather than becoming secular in the eighteenth century\, England was in the process of conflating the secular and the sacred.” \n \n \nThe second contribution his research makes\, Hill said\, was highlighting the fact that puritans and puritanism didn’t really die out in the manner that the restoration literature suggests. Historians usually portray puritans as comical figures that no longer had a voice in the body politic during the eighteenth century. Hill\, however\, suggested that puritan movements actually found a more effective way of channeling their efforts to reform society through “the colonization of civil society” and infiltrating the emerging secular state as officially elected members of parliament. \n \n \nA third contribution to the literature\, Hill said\, is to question the notion of positive progress. He argued that “there is an idea that civil society brings progress and that civil society eradicates old forms\, and that civil society pushes the way through tradition and moves toward modernity.” But\, he said\, the complexities of civil society mean that a new formation of that society can never be fully divorced from the former ideology. Any supposedly liberal society will certainly have strong elements of conservatism in the mix. Hill said that he examines how “civil society in the eighteenth century was not only responsible for the creation of tolerance and the separation of church and state\, but was also responsible for the sacralization of secular society.” \n \n \nHill concluded by outlining the reasons for the decline of official puritanim in England. He argued that the puritans became so prevalent a force in the ordering of civil society that the truly secular elements of the state\, including the monarchs\, became increasingly worried. Regardless of the decline of puritanism per se\, puritans were in fact responsible for the creation of the police state and its monitoring of society as one of the hallmarks of modernity. “In a very strange way\,” Hill said\, “the Society for the Reformation of Manners created the modern state\,” but their influence on current behavioral codes has been forgotten. Over the years\, people have become increasingly ignorant of the puritanical basis of current laws\, including those pertaining to prostitution and blasphemy. \n \n \nBrendan Hill earned his B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Hawaii at Manoa and his Ph.D. in European History from Georgetown University. He specializes in church and legal history\, and his research focuses specifically on the criminalization of sin and the creation of a godly society at the dawn of the modern era in England. In addition to teaching survey courses on the history of Europe\, England and Ireland\, he teaches smaller seminars on the cultural roots of ethnic conflict and on the evolving relationship between the secular and the sacred in modern Europe.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/brendan-hill-sin-and-civil-society/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Race & Society
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/cirs_17_small-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110322T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20110322T180000
DTSTAMP:20260404T203948
CREATED:20141026T130050Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105324Z
UID:10000981-1300780800-1300816800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:New Geo-Political Realities of the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:Khaled Almaeena\, Editor-in-Chief of Arab News\, was invited to give a CIRS Focused Discussion on the topic of “New Geo-Political Realities of the Gulf” on March 22\, 2011. Almaeena explained the relationship between the Gulf states and America and how each conducts its foreign policies. “The main thrust of the Gulf’s American relations\,” he said\, “is based on Saudi-American relations\, which are now like a dysfunctional marriage” insofar as the two countries get along\, but still do not see eye to eye when it comes to certain issues\, such as the situation in Palestine. \n\nRecalling the history of “Saudi-American relations” specifically\, Almaeena explained that this alliance “initially started on an economic footing with the advent of the oil industry\,” and then grew into a relationship based on military and security issues over the decades. By and large\, this relationship was stable up until the events of September 11\, 2001\, after which the nature of the relationship was radically altered\, both on the political and social fronts. Almaeen argued that “the media played a role that swayed people totally against Saudi Arabia” and created a division between America the Muslim world. In fact\, he said\, the situation was so bad that\, as editor of Arab News\, his office received a multitude of hate-mail from readers in the west accusing Saudi Arabia of involvement in the atrocities. \n\nOut of all of the Gulf states\, Saudi Arabia has one of the closest relationships with the United States. Although this relationship has meant that Saudi Arabia enjoys a strong regional and international political standing\, for the very same reason\, it reason it has suffered ridicule from other countries in the Arab world that see this relationship as a negative progression and a conflict of interest. Regardless\, the Saudis understand that the main concern is to have and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with as many countries as possible. This\, however\, is not always possible\, as Almaeena argued\, “We [Saudi Arabia] were being goaded by the United States to take a very negative and even a hostile stance against Iran.” \n\nIn conclusion\, Almaeena said that change in Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States is inevitable. “For the Saudis and for the Gulf states\, to go ahead with American policy dictates is detrimental\,” he said. Although the relationship has been a rocky one in recent years\, Almaeena did not give up hope on a future based on transparency and mutual respect. He explained that “an Arab-American rapprochement would be a great boon and benefit for the world.” This is especially important given the seismic political changes currently taking place all over the Middle East. The power of public and civil movements\, he said\, is teaching regional and international governments to reassess their foreign policies by first of all looking inwards and realizing the aspirations of their people. \n\nKhaled Almaeena has held a broad range of positions in Saudi Media including CEO of a Public Relations firm\, Saudi Television news anchor\, talk show host\, radio announcer and journalist. As the Editor-in-Chief of Arab News\, the largest English-language newspaper in the Middle East\, Almaeena steered the paper through the Gulf Crisis and pioneered bringing newspapers back to a liberated Kuwait.  \n\nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/new-geo-political-realities-gulf/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Environmental Studies,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_22096_19976_1414919858-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR