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: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:20101201T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20101201T180000
DTSTAMP:20260410T230319
CREATED:20141023T151251Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085904Z
UID:10000824-1291190400-1291226400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Foreign Policy and Regime Survival in Jordan
DESCRIPTION:Debra Shushan\, the 2010-2011 CIRS Post Doctoral Fellow\, delivered the December Monthly Dialogue on the topic\, “Jordan in the Gulf Wars: Foreign Policy and Regime Survival\,” where she illustrated key differences between Jordan’s foreign policy initiatives in the first and second Gulf Wars which\, respectively\, occurred in 1990-91 and from 2003 onward. Shushan noted that “the question that motivates this research is: How do non-democratic states make foreign policy?” Given the dearth of theorizing by political scientists on this question and the opacity of foreign policy-making in autocratic regimes\, shedding light on the ways in which a country such as Jordan conducts its foreign policy is crucial in expanding the reach of international relations theories.  \n \n \nAs Shushan indicated\, Jordan took very different foreign policy positions regarding the two Gulf Wars. During Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990\, the United States was moving beyond the Cold War era and becoming the world’s sole superpower. Led by President George H. W. Bush\, the U.S. spearheaded an international coalition against Iraq and put pressure on other countries\, particularly in the Arab world\, to contribute troops and materiel. Jordan abstained from joining. However\, with regard to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003\, Jordan adopted a very different policy and became “an important tacit coalition partner of the United States” by supporting the war effort\, most crucially through allowing military bases in eastern Jordan to be used in staging operations in Iraq.  \n \nDebra shushan monthly dialogue dec 1\, 2010 slides  from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar  \nIn order to explain the drastic change that occurred between the Gulf Wars\, Shushan stressed the importance of understanding the regime survival strategies employed by Jordan’s leadership. She maintained that “whether we are in democratic regimes or non-democracies\, leaders care first and foremost about retaining power.” To this effect\, regime survival depends on identifying and retaining the support of a group of key backers – what Shushan calls “a winning coalition” – which includes financial\, social\, and military elites\, sometimes with the aid of foreign supporters. She argued that “a winning coalition can be more or less populist depending on the extent to which it incorporates support from the mass public.” In both Gulf Wars\, Arab governments were faced with the choice of whether or not to back the U.S.-led coalition. Supporting the United States brought the prospects of economic rewards from the U.S. and its Gulf Arab allies\, while adopting a neutral or pro-Iraq stance promised domestic support from publics attracted by Saddam Hussein’s populist\, anti-imperialist\, and pro-Palestinian rhetoric. \n \n \nBased on interviews she conducted with Jordanian leaders who were close to King Hussein during the first Gulf War\, Shushan contends that “because of the extreme strength of public opinion and the dramatic amount of support within the mass public for Saddam Hussein\, if the Jordanian regime had in fact sided with the U.S.-led coalition\, there was a genuine fear that the regime could be overthrown.” However\, in the second Gulf War\, economic considerations played a more prominent role in Jordanian foreign policy. In the years leading up to 2003\, Jordan’s economic dependence had shifted from Iraq to the United States\, with dramatic increases in U.S. aid to Jordan after Amman signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 and substantial growth in Jordanian exports to the U.S. following the implementation of the Jordan-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 2001. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Shushan argued that it was important to understand that not all non-democratic states act in the same way and that further research is necessary to elaborate ways in which varying domestic arrangements shape foreign policy initiatives. Also\, she indicated that interesting questions remain regarding how public opinion affects foreign policy in non-democratic contexts. For example\, how do autocratic regimes go about gauging the content and intensity of public attitudes? Shushan looks forward to pursuing these questions in her future work. \n \n \nDebra Shushan comes to CIRS from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg\, Virginia\, where she is an Assistant Professor of Government and member of the faculties of International Relations and Middle East Studies. She is working on a book manuscript that examines Egyptian\, Jordanian\, and Syrian foreign policies in the Gulf Wars through the lens of regime survival.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/foreign-policy-and-regime-survival-jordan/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21886_16731_1414680783-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20101211T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20101212T180000
DTSTAMP:20260410T230319
CREATED:20140925T043010Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T105615Z
UID:10000802-1292054400-1292176800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Political Economy of the Gulf Working Group II
DESCRIPTION:On December 11–12\, 2010\, CIRS concluded the second session of its “Political Economy of the Gulf” research initiative with a two-day working group meeting that took place at Georgetown University in Qatar. Several experts on the political economy of the Gulf were invited back to Doha to present their chapter submissions and to discuss their original research during the two-day meeting. In the coming months\, CIRS will gather the chapters in order to submit them for publication as an edited volume titled\, The Political Economy of the Persian Gulf (Oxford University Press/Hurst\, 2012). \n \n \nThe meeting was divided into several sections\, including discussion on the demographic aspects of the GCC; the GCC monetary union; the “Dubai Model” of economic diversification; attempts at establishing knowledge-based economies in the GCC; the effects of rentierism on state autonomy; sovereign wealth funds; and Islamic banking models across the GCC. \n \n \nThe working group members discussed all of these issues within the overarching framework of rentierism and the relationships of mutual interdependence that become established between states and societies. Mutually beneficial rentier arrangements have guided the means in which the GCC countries have formed their oil-based economies and labor relations. \n \n \nThe working group participants examined the fact that over the past few years\, the GCC states have become increasingly powerful actors on the global scene\, and have become important markets for foreign investment. In order to adapt to changes within the global order\, the concept of knowledge-based economies has become integral to the GCC states’ ambitious economic diversification attempts. In each GCC state\, huge budgets have been allocated to programs that concentrate on issues of education\, scientific research\, increased flow of information\, and investment in human capital. \n \n \nThe transition from oil-based economies to knowledge-based has had different levels of success in the various GCC states. The failure of the “Dubai Model” of economic development has meant that Dubai’s financial strategies\, which were once seen as leading examples of economic progress in the region\, are now being organized along more cautious and less ambitious investment plans. The GCC states’ various diversification plans\, whether successful or not\, have signaled official acknowledgment of the necessity of investing in a future of well-educated and qualified workforces that are able to compete in internationally. \n \n \nMuch of the budgets allocated to these diversification projects are funded by the GCC states’ sovereign wealth funds (SWF)\, which also came under examination by the working group members. Sovereign wealth funds are often constituted of staggering amounts of money that are used to sponsor large-scale projects in the interest of a country’s long-term development. \n \n \nThe participants discussed further financial considerations regarding “Islamic banking\,” which was reported to be more developed in the Gulf region than anywhere else in the world. The participants examined Islamic banking methods across the various GCC states and compared them with those operating across Iran. \n \n \nMembers of the working group also looked at the political and economic possibilities of the GCC states forming a monetary union and how moving away from the U.S. dollar peg may or may not result in global imbalances in the value of the dollar. The participants concluded that many of the economic and political efforts currently underway in the GCC fall under a larger plan to establish the Gulf states as leading international powers. The GCC states have attempted to enhance their political stability both regionally and internationally and to increase their international bargaining power. \n \n \n\nRead more about this research initiative\n\n \n  \n \n \nParticipants and Discussants: \n \n \nAlexis Antoniades\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarZahra Babar\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarJohn T. Crist\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarChristopher Davidson\, Durham UniversityNada Eissa\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarSteffen Hertog\, London School of EconomicsMehran Kamrava\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarFred Lawson\, Mills CollegeSuzi Mirgani\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarDjavad Salehi-Isfahani\, Virginia Tech UniversityJean-François Seznec\, Georgetown UniversityNadia Talpur\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in QatarKristian Coates Ulrichsen\, London School of EconomicsRodney Wilson\, Durham UniversityMohamed Zayani\, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/political-economy-gulf-working-group-ii/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Race & Society,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/09/events_124686_11231_1493112856-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20101213T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20101213T180000
DTSTAMP:20260410T230319
CREATED:20141022T132742Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210902T085846Z
UID:10000915-1292227200-1292263200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Zalmay Khalilzad on America and the Middle East: Future Challenges and Opportunities
DESCRIPTION:Zalmay Khalilzad was invited to deliver a CIRS Distinguished Lecture on the topic\, “America and the Middle East: Future Challenges and Opportunities” on December 13\, 2010\, in Doha\, Qatar. Khalilzad served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations (2007-2009)\, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (2005-2007)\, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005). \n \n \nThe Ambassador spoke about the relationship between the United States and the Middle East within two different contexts. The first\, he said\, “is the framework of thinking about the Middle East after 9/11\, which was a decisive moment in American history in terms of its approach to this part of the world” and the second is the “transition to a new approach\, which I think is in formation.” The word “transition\,” he said\, “implies continuity and change” of current policies as the United States adjusts to shifts in the global order. \n \n \nKhalilzad defined the broader Middle East as stretching from Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west and argued that in order to understand the relationship between the United States and the Middle East\, it was first necessary to begin with observations regarding the impact of the events of September 11\, 2001. Although the Ambassador pointed out that America is a heterogeneous country that is made up of a multitude of ideologies and schools of thought\, he noted that “9/11 had a big impact on American thinking – on official American thinking.” \n \n \nOne significant change\, Khalilzad argued\, was that “9/11 made the United States think of this broad region geopolitically\,” and as having real and lasting impacts on national and international security. The challenges of this region\, he said\, have the ability to reverberate around the world. In today’s integrated world\, regional problems have great consequences for the entire international community. “In the post 9/11 environment\,” Khalilzad said\, “working towards a region that would be more at peace with itself and with the world became a strong tendency orientation in the U.S. foreign policy debate discussion and doctrines.” \n \n \nIt was within this framework that Khalilzad said the United States ventured into Iraq. “I believe Iraq\, although it still remains in a difficult transition\, is in an improved situation than it was at times in its recent past.” This is because the United States worked to “encourage a process of democratization and a belief that democratization through elections and support of civil society organizations was going to lead to a decrease in the unhappiness of the people” which produces extremism\, he argued. \n \n \nOther issues that impact the stability of the Middle East region’s development\, the Ambassador said\, is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the problems in Afghanistan that transpired to be far more complex than the United States originally thought; and the lingering threat of Iran. \n \n \nTaking all of these regional conflicts into account\, Khalilzad spoke of how the United States has modified its approach to the Middle East. He argued that the Iraqi challenge is currently less than it was in the past\, but the challenge of Iran and Afghanistan are becoming increasingly prominent. The challenge of terrorism and extremism has lessened in some areas\, but\, he warned\, has spread and became stronger in other parts of the world. Other than these issues\, East Asia has become an area of increasing geopolitical importance with the rise of China and India\, and the challenges imposed by North Korea. The Ambassador said that “as a result of the shifts in the geopolitical issues in the world\, there is going to be a greater focus on the issues of East Asia both in terms of diplomacy and in terms of military strategy for the longer term to adjust to the balance of power changes that are taking place.” \n \n \nLooking to which issues will become important in the future\, Khalilzad argued that “although political challenges remain\, it is the future of the economy – particularly the US economy – that has gained in relative importance.” He continued by saying that “the U.S. position in the world ultimately rests on its economic and military power\, and its military power cannot be sustained without its economic power being such to be able to afford the kind of capabilities that its global role so far has required.” \n \n \nConcluding the lecture\, the Ambassador said that these political and economic problems will necessarily result in adjustments in future U.S. policy. These adjustments will include “a greater emphasis on stability in order not to produce more demands on resources and effort on the part of the United States\,” he said.  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, CIRS Publications Coordinator
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/zalmay-khalilzad-america-and-middle-east-future-challenges-and-opportunities/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_20396_16546_1413984462-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR