BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.15.15//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for International and Regional Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0400
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20110326T230000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120915T110000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120916T210000
DTSTAMP:20260411T143011
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:20120923T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20120923T180000
DTSTAMP:20260411T143011
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
END:VCALENDAR