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:+0400
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20141025T220000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130205T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130205T180000
DTSTAMP:20260413T024647
CREATED:20141023T091029Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T132026Z
UID:10000817-1360051200-1360087200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Richard Schofield on Britain Territorializing when Decolonizing the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:Richard Schofield\, an expert on the study of historical territorial disputes\, delivered a CIRS ‎Monthly Dialogue lecture on “Territorializing when Decolonizing: Britain Tries to Square its ‎Circles in the Gulf\, 1968-1971” on February 5\, 2013. Schofield\, who is Convenor of the Master’s ‎programme in Geopolitics\, Territory\, and Security at King’s College in London\, examined the ‎period of the late 1960s and early 1970s when Britain announced its plans to leave the Gulf and ‎end the regional Pax Britannica. During this time\, there were several territorial issues and ongoing ‎disputes that Britain needed to confront before its departure. “In the late 1960s\, Britain was ‎faced with a whole set of territorial issues between protected states\, and between protected ‎states and their neighbors\,” Schofield said.‎ \n \n \nBy examining recently released British foreign office documents\, Schofield highlighted a set of ‎disputes that were ongoing in the 1960s\, including northern Gulf worries that continued on from ‎the 1930s posed by Kuwait and its boundary dispute with Iraq\, and\, in particular\, the intersection ‎of boundaries and territorial claims between Abu Dhabi\, Saudi Arabia\, and Qatar in relation to ‎the access corridor of Khor Al-Udaid.‎ \n \n \nBefore its departure\, Britain actively encouraged Gulf states into increased cooperation with each ‎other and attempted to contribute towards a future grouping of Arab states on the western side ‎of the Gulf in what was termed “Gulfery.” In order to achieve some movement on these ‎territorial issues\, the United States proposed solving several disputes simultaneously as a package ‎of disputes. This included proposing to the Shah that Iran drop its claim to Bahrain\, that Britain ‎help Iran gain ownership of islands in the lower Gulf\, and that a maritime boundary agreement be ‎signed between Saudi Arabia and Iran allowing oil companies in to develop the area. “One of the ‎things that was really troubling the States around this time was the failure of Saudi Arabia and ‎Iran to finalize a boundary agreement so that they could open up the hydrocarbon reserves of the ‎northern Gulf\,” Schofield explained. Towards the end of the 1960s\, however\, these deals rapidly ‎unraveled and became unfeasible.‎ \n \n \nOne particular case-study that Schofield examined was the “bizarre” boundary agreement signed ‎between Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi in 1974. The only way to make sense of this agreement\, ‎according to Schofield\, is to delve into the complex history of the dispute. “The agreement of ’74 ‎was bizarre […] for the way in which it dealt with both offshore and onshore boundary ‎definitions” because even though most of the territory lay within the Abu Dhabi boundary\, the ‎agreement read that all hydrocarbons in the area would be considered as belonging to Saudi ‎Arabia. Similarly\, the offshore agreement read that Saudi Arabia could mount military ‎installations on some of the islands said to belong to Abu Dhabi. ‎ \n \n \nAdding to the complexity of the agreement\, the onshore boundaries and the offshore boundaries ‎were negotiated at different times and with different results. Schofield said that “it was an ‎unusual and messy situation – you don’t see it replicated anywhere else.” In a time when Britain ‎was taking less responsibility for protected states’ foreign relations\, many of these territorial ‎agreements were being signed without the consent of Britain. “We move to a rather nonsensical ‎position where the southern Qatari land boundary was seen as a Saudi concern\, yet its ‎southeastern maritime limits a British one\,” Schofield said. ‎ \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Schofield argued that territorial boundaries in the Gulf were traditionally drawn ‎up according to “cultural and historical” agreements. Historically\, Gulf states exercised control ‎over non-linear nodes of land as opposed to large swathes of continuous areas. Thus\, Gulf states ‎do not always respect modern boundaries and may view them as political\, divisive\, and an ‎ongoing source of contestation. Modern political economic concerns and requirements for the ‎legal division of hydrocarbons according to clearly demarcated borders are thus incommensurable ‎with traditional Gulf claims to land and resources.‎ \n \n \nRichard Schofield is widely recognized as a leading academic authority on the international ‎boundaries of Arabia and its surrounding region. He has written extensively on territorial aspects ‎of Arabia and the Persian Gulf region\, and has acted as adviser on territorial disputes to the ‎governments of Barbados\, Bahrain\, Jordan\, Yemen\, as well as to the Negotiations Support Unit ‎of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Ramallah. ‎ \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/richard-schofield-britain-territorializing-when-decolonizing-gulf/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21801_16636_1414678687-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130213T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130213T180000
DTSTAMP:20260413T024647
CREATED:20141026T103222Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T125740Z
UID:10000843-1360742400-1360778400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Ambassador Munir Ghannam Lectures on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
DESCRIPTION:H.E. Munir Ghannam\, Ambassador of Palestine in Qatar\, delivered a Focused Discussion lecture ‎on February 13\, 2013\, on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Ambassador introduced ‎the lecture by noting that “the Palestinian-Israeli conflict\, which is part of the Arab-Israeli ‎conflict\,” has a long and turbulent history that has been ongoing for over a century. Giving some ‎historical background to the conflict\, the Ambassador recounted that “the whole story started at ‎the beginning of twentieth century when Palestine was put under the British mandate in 1922\, ‎which then started a process of allowing hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to ‎immigrate from several countries all over the world\, but mainly from Europe\,” because of the ‎atrocities that the Jews had been subjected to in general\, and during the world wars in particular.‎ \n \n \nOver the course of the twentieth century\, what was once known as Palestine was completely ‎altered. Through a series of concerted Israeli political and military efforts\, Palestine was annexed\, ‎occupied\, and transformed into an illegitimate entity. Much of the land was renamed as Israel. ‎‎“At the beginning of the twentieth century\,” Ambassador Ghannam explained\, “the population ‎of Palestine was 89 percent Arabs – I mean\, Arabs who are Muslims and Christians – and 11 ‎percent were Jews also living in Palestine and considered Palestinian.” By 1947\, the ratios were ‎radically changed causing much friction and a series of conflicts\, which spilled into neighboring ‎countries\, and ignited an ongoing armed Palestinian resistance campaign. Currently\, the Israelis ‎have introduced such dramatic shifts in the demography and geography of the area that they ‎have in effect changed the reality on the ground. ‎ \n \n \nAfter several rounds of failed negotiations over the years\, the Palestinians found that there was ‎no way to reach an agreement with the Israelis to establish a viable contiguous Palestinian state in ‎the West Bank because of Israel’s constant absorption\, confiscation\, and annexation of land in ‎the West Bank and Gaza. “Whenever we reach an agreement\, we find new realities on the ‎ground that don’t allow us to establish a state\, and that is why a couple of years ago\, we stopped ‎negotiations with the Israelis and we started trying to seek a solution at the United Nations and ‎the Security Council when we managed to have the status of an observer state\,” he said. ‎ \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Ambassador Ghannam said that this new situation gives hope to the Palestinians ‎that a fresh round of negotiations can now take place with the support of the international ‎community to give the “two-state solution” international legitimacy and to eventually lead to a ‎sovereign and unoccupied Palestinian state. ‎  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor of CIRS Publications.
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/ambassador-munir-ghannam-lectures-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Distingushed Lectures,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/10/events_21946_19911_1414681589-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130219T080000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20130219T180000
DTSTAMP:20260413T024647
CREATED:20141026T102209Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T104458Z
UID:10000975-1361260800-1361296800@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Maha Al-Hendawi Lectures on Inclusive Education in the Gulf
DESCRIPTION:Maha Al-Hendawi\, the inaugural CIRS Qatar University Fellow for 2012-2013 and Assistant ‎Professor of Special Education in the College of Education at Qatar ‎University\, delivered a ‎CIRSFocused Discussion on “Policy Borrowing in Education: the Example of Inclusive ‎Education in the Gulf” on February 19\, 2013. Al-Hendawi began the lecture by noting that her ‎interest in the topic came from her own experience as a graduate from a US university who ‎returned to Qatar thinking that she would implement some of the policies and procedures she had ‎learnt and experience whilst studying abroad. ‎ \n \n \nAl-Hendawi explained that she was initially enthusiastic about introducing certain US-based ‎policies upon her return to Qatar. However\, the reality on the ground proved otherwise\, and she ‎began experiencing a fundamental problem with “policy borrowing.” Al-Hendawi’s direct ‎involvement with local schools\, as well as with the Supreme Education Council\, gave her greater ‎insight into the specific challenges of the local educational environment that policy borrowing ‎might not be able to solve\, and that may even lead to a whole set of new and unforeseen ‎challenges. Al-Hendawi noticed that certain policies were not as successful in Qatar as they were ‎in the United States. She is currently working on investigating why these challenges exist and ‎what she could do to help formulate future policy directions. Al-Hendawi said\, “I basically chose ‎one of the most important policies in Special Education\, if not the most important policy in ‎Special Education\, that is\, ‘inclusive education\,” as a case study\, which followed the research ‎path set by renowned scholars in the field. ‎ \n \n \nThe general definition of “inclusive education” is when students with disabilities are included ‎within the general education system and given access to a general education curriculum. There ‎are many different approaches to inclusive education worldwide\, where some models advise that ‎students with only mild disabilities can be included. UNESCO\, however\, advocates for “full ‎inclusion” and an open school system where any student with disabilities\, no matter the degree\, is ‎able to access the general school system. This lack of consensus on what constitutes “inclusive ‎education” presents a number of challenges. For example\, the Qatari school system adopted both ‎modified inclusion and full inclusion at different times and with different results. ‎ \n \n \n‎“The main reasons for borrowing policy\, or borrowing the policy of inclusive education\, are ‎globalization and international pressure\,” Al-Hendawi said. It is important to put policy ‎borrowing in its proper context. “Here in the Gulf\, when the policy of inclusive education came\, ‎it came with education reform\,” and a reorganization of the entire school system and curriculum. ‎Al-Hendawi argued that “timing is really important because it actually came post-9/11\,” when the ‎West began questioning the Arab educational system in general and became directly involved in ‎its overhaul. This was a highly contentious issue that was debated in local media outlets all over ‎the Gulf.‎ \n \n \n‎“When the policy of inclusion started in the West\, it came out of the human rights movements\, ‎and it came out of the ideology of social justice\, equity\, equality\, so it was actually a bottom-top ‎type of decision” that grew organically out of public demands. In the Gulf states\, however\, these ‎policy decisions are being imposed from the top-down. In this regard\, even though the policies are ‎commendable and show results in their countries of origin\, they have not had enough time to ‎filter through the social structures of Gulf countries.‎ \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Al-Hendawi warned that policy borrowing is a problem when it is implemented as ‎a “quick fix” to address an immediate issue. This is further exacerbated when policies do not take ‎into account the specific social\, cultural\, and political environments that may not always be ‎compatible with the implementation and aims of the policy. In short\, careful and constructive ‎policy borrowing must be implemented in a way that takes into account local contexts in order ‎for it to become internalized by the adoptive country. ‎ \n \n \nMaha Al-Hendawi received her Ph.D. in Special Education and Disability Leadership from ‎Virginia ‎Commonwealth University. Her research interests include educational policies and ‎reform initiatives in ‎the region; academic interventions for children and youth with special needs ‎and those who are at-risk; and quality ‎preparation and training programs for educators. She has ‎published in the area of special education and has been a guest speaker in various events ‎and ‎activities.‎ \n \n \nIn order to enhance local research productivity and build upon its established ‎collegial ‎relationship with Qatar University\, CIRS launched an annual fellowship to be ‎awarded ‎to a member of Qatar University’s faculty. Maha Al-Hendawi was selected as the 2012-2013 ‎CIRS QU fellow. The fellowship will support Al-Hendawi in pursuing original research projects\, ‎with the aim of publishing ‎research outcomes. ‎  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/maha-al-hendawi-lectures-inclusive-education-gulf/
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_21941_19906_1414681409-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR