BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
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:20090328T230000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0400
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20091024T230000
END:STANDARD
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:20100503T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20100503T180000
DTSTAMP:20260411T123707
CREATED:20141023T152625Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T103001Z
UID:10000828-1272873600-1272909600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Herbert Howe on Dilemmas of Humanitarian Military Intervention in Africa
DESCRIPTION:Herb Howe\, Visiting Associate Professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar and expert in African military conflicts\, presented his lecture\, “Boots on the Ground\, Eyes on the Sky: Dilemmas of Military Humanitarian Intervention in Africa” on May 3\, 2010 in the final CIRS Monthly Dialogue of the 2009-2010 academic year. In addition to his two decades teaching at Georgetown University\, Dr. Howe spent time as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nigeria and worked for both the U.S. government and as a consultant for NGO’s. He is the author of a book on African militaries entitled Ambiguous Order: Military Forces in African States. \n \n \nFocusing on the tangled moral and political implications of armed peacekeeping efforts from a largely American perspective\, Howe enumerated the complicating factors that must be considered when launching a humanitarian mission\, including the forces of public opinion and concerns for the preservation of national sovereignty. “Boots on the ground” versus “eyes on the sky” served throughout the talk as a metaphor for the change in the prevailing ideology of peacekeeping on the continent. The former refers to an on-the-ground troops and equipment approach to assistance seen in the American efforts in Somalia in the 1990s and in various UN peacekeeping missions in Africa such as MONUC in the Democratic Republic of Congo\, while the latter reflects the shift towards the training of African soldiers and sharing of satellite and intelligence capabilities in lieu of the deployment of troops to troubled regions.  \n \n \nHowe pointed to the issue of sovereignty as the foremost challenge in an international intervention of any kind\, calling it one of the most fundamental principles of the modern nation-state. \n \n \n“It is a Pandora’s Box if you start messing around with sovereignty\,” he said\, observing that once nations or organizations interfere in the domestic activities of states\, complicated questions of the rights of governments versus responsibility to humanity arise. The violation of national sovereignty by Western powers is an especially touchy issue in Africa\, where bloody battles for independence remain fresh in many minds. In situations of humanitarian intervention\, outside action is justified by the idea that\, according to Howe\, “If you don’t act responsibly\, we have the right to come in against your will and change the situation and help the people.” \n \n \nThe idea of a humanitarian intervention for the sake of national interest was also explored\, with Howe posing the question of whether or not the spread of certain values was reason enough for an intervention.“Should this be part of our national interest\,” he asked\, “to safeguard these values not just for Americans and Canadians but for people around the world? Are they universal rights that people have?” \n \n \nHowe also delved into the impact of domestic politics on international humanitarian interventions\, pointing to the impact of negative American public opinion during the war in Vietnam and Somalia\, and raised the controversial idea of allowing a war to run its own course\, theorizing “war will kill a lot of people\, but once that war finishes you may have a better\, more durable\, peace than if you try to intervene. Intervention gives people a chance to reload\, it may prolong the suffering\, and the post-conflict situation will be more problematic.” \n \n \nTo close his talk\, Howe offered scenarios on what future military humanitarian interventions in Africa might look like\, focusing largely on the development of an African Standby Force\, consisting of soldiers from nations around the continent but aided by Western countries. Already\, he pointed out\, the United States has trained around 70\,000 African soldiers and is offering intelligence and technological support. Because African countries have more at stake in conflicts in their own region\, Howe said\, there is a greater chance that their interventions will be more successful that Western-led attempts: “We’re giving them the specialized skills and they’re contributing what we don’t have—political will and commitment.” \n \n \nDespite the promise that such cooperative military humanitarian interventions hold\, Howe surmised that dilemmas would continue to arise\, largely centered around the troubling question of whether or not Western governments would be able to ensure the responsible use of their military technology.  \n \n \n“Once you transfer that technology you may lose control over how it is used\,” Howe said. “Is this helping the solution or leading to greater problems? \n \n \nProfessor Howe became interested in the topic of Africa when he served with the U.S. Peace Corps in Nigeria during the Biafra war. He subsequently freelanced in southern Africa during the liberation wars for the Philadelphia Inquirer and then taught “African Militaries” at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service for twenty years. Author of “Ambiguous Order: Military Forces in African States\,” he holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University.  \n \n \nArticle by Clare Malone. Malone is a Student Affairs Officer at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/herbert-howe-dilemmas-humanitarian-military-intervention-africa/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21916_17761_1414681108-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20100513T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20100513T180000
DTSTAMP:20260411T123707
CREATED:20141026T134239Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T110007Z
UID:10000995-1273737600-1273773600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Fred Lawson Lectures on Alternative Explanations for U.S. Policy in the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:On May 13\, 2010\, Fred Lawson\, Professor of Government at Mills College and the 2009-2010 CIRS Senior Fellow\, gave a CIRSFocused Discussion on the topic of “Alternative Explanations for U.S. Policy in the Gulf” to a group of Qatar-based diplomats\, embassy staff\, and Georgetown University in Qatar faculty. The lunch talk was held at the Four Seasons hotel in Doha. \n \n \nLawson’s lecture delivered an academic overview of American foreign policy toward the Gulf region. He noted that while diplomats and politicians around the world “are busy carrying out the practice of diplomacy and the practice of international relations\, there is a whole army of scholars sitting at colleges and universities in the United States trying to understand what is going on and trying to explain international relations.” \n \n \nLawson stated that “American foreign policy toward the Gulf has changed dramatically over the last three decades.” From the 1940s to the 1980s\, the American presence\, especially its military presence\, in the region remained minimal and unobtrusive\, but during the 1990s\, this situation was spectacularly altered and the American military presence became a major feature of many Gulf states. The U.S. presence was not only larger\, but also more overt\, and culminated in large-scale military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. \n \n \nAmerican scholars\, Lawson said\, have tried to explain this dramatic shift by proposing three different theses. The first of these\, and the most widely accepted\, is that “the United States is trying hard to solve problems of security in a world that has no overarching authority structure\,” and so acts in its own self interest. This explanation is often called a “realist perspective\,” and assumes that most\, if not all\, aspects of U.S. foreign policy represent a response to changes in the strategic circumstances in which the country finds itself due to changes in world affairs. From this perspective\, in order to understand American policy toward the Gulf\, there needs to be an analysis of international events that have led to a larger U.S. military presence in the region. Lawson said that a common explanation is that “during the 1990s\, both Iraq and Iran had the capability to disrupt oil supplies to the international market\,” thereby threatening U.S. interests and prompting greater military engagement in the region. But\, he cautioned\, there are far more compelling reasons for the activation of regional U.S. military engagement\, including the strategic rivalry between the United States on one hand and the People’s Republic of China\, India and Japan for influence in Central Eurasia and the steady weakening of U.S. dominance in the international economy. \n \n \nThe second explanation for U.S. policy emphasizes the United States’s unique ideological and historical characteristics\, or “strategic culture.” This explanation\, Lawson said\, assumes that “the U.S. respects the principles of limited and representative government\, values the individual liberties of citizens\, and believes that the market offers the best way to organize the economy.” Therefore\, policy toward the Gulf is fundamentally shaped by these concerns. During the 1980s and 1990s\, both Iran’s and Iraq’s authoritarian governing structures represented forms of rule that were directly antithetical to the United States’s liberal principles and values. As a result\, Lawson argued\, “the United States conceives of itself as having an obligation to bring the advantages of limited government and market economies to others.” \n \n \nThe third\, and final\, outlook characterizes America as an empire that is interested in expanding territorial control and cultural influence around the world. This is a different notion of “empire” from the traditional one\, Lawson said\, in that\, in the Gulf as in other areas of the world\, “the U.S. is invited to take responsibility” in order to establish regional orderliness. The decentralized global U.S. military presence reflects the peculiar command structure of the American armed forces\, which consists of a “network of regional commands around the world\,” he said. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Lawson argued that these three explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive\, but that different aspects of American foreign policy can be linked to each of these lines of argument.   \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/fred-lawson-lectures-alternative-explanations-us-policy-gulf/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_20856_20031_1414330959-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20100523T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20100524T180000
DTSTAMP:20260411T123707
CREATED:20140924T224037Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T110000Z
UID:10000913-1274601600-1274724000@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:The Nuclear Question in the Middle East Working Group I
DESCRIPTION:On May 23–24\, 2010\, a two-day working group meeting in Doha\, Qatar took place\, CIRS invited a group of scholars to discuss the “Nuclear Question in the Middle East.” The presentations took several different approaches ranging from theoretical deliberations\, to practical implications\, to historical narratives. During the course of the meeting\, the scholars noted that it was important to define the terms in use\, including the difference between nuclear exploration\, nuclear acquisition\, and nuclear energy options\, as there are fundamental differences between these various programs. Although alluding to the constant overshadowing threat of a weapons program\, civilian nuclear energy programs do not directly imply such a drastic development. \n\nAfter giving situational and historical analysis\, the scholars analyzed past\, current\, and future concerns regarding countries that have\, or seek to acquire\, nuclear capabilities. The participants talked about macro decision-making in relation to securitization across borders\, and also analyzed how the individual characteristics of a state’s leader can influence a country’s abstinence from\, or embracing of\, a nuclear weapons program. As such\, they relayed a direct correlation between domestic politics and the decision to go nuclear. In relation to regional politics\, GCC states face a nuclear opponent in Iran and so may acquire nuclear capabilities as a direct response to this threat. Apart from the issue of securitization\, the GCC states\, although rich in hydrocarbons\, have presented a strong case for why there is need for nuclear energy infrastructures as a means of engaging the global economy. The petrochemical industry in the Gulf is an intensively high-energy one that needs sources other than hydrocarbon\, and these countries have the capacity and capital costs for making this happen \n\nAmong other issues discussed during the meeting were matters related to global security\, regional mistrust\, the prestige of gaining nuclear capabilities\, and the role of NGOs and civil society groups in pressuring governments to abstain from nuclear energy initiatives. The scholars compared the domestic politics and the international relations for nuclear weapons acquisition. The participants also questioned the extent to which a single government can control such long-term and multi-institutional projects over decades. \n\nThe format of CIRS working group research initiatives is to convene two or three working group meetings a year to complete a variety of research projects. The first meeting is an introductory and brainstorming session where the scholars discuss the parameters of the initiative\, offer themes and areas of research\, and deliberate original questions and problems. The scholars then take the shared information and begin writing draft research papers\, which are circulated among the group prior to the second meeting. At a subsequent meeting\, scholars critique each other’s papers and offer possible alternatives for research. Towards the conclusion of the project\, the papers are refined and then collected into an edited volume titled The Nuclear Question in the Middle East (Columbia University Press/Hurst\, 2012). \n\nClick here for the working group’s agendaClick here for the participants’ biographies Read more about this research initiative\n\nParticipants and Discussants: \n\nZahra Babar\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarKai-Henrik Barth\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarKayhan Barzegar\, Center for Middle East Strategic Studies; Islamic Azad University; Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International AffairsAlvin Chew\, Gulf Research CenterAvner Cohen\, Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsJohn T. Crist\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMehran Kamrava\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMustafa Kibaroğlu\, Bilkent UniversityThomas W. Lippman\, Council on Foreign Relations and Middle East InstituteGiacomo Luciani\, Gulf Research Center FoundationMari Luomi\, Finnish Institute of International AffairsSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarMaria Rost Rublee\, University of AucklandEtel Solingen\, University of California\, Irvine\n\nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/nuclear-question-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_16646_11216_1411598437-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR