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:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20150101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160113T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160113T170000
DTSTAMP:20260406T000259
CREATED:20160114T094855Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T110106Z
UID:10001290-1452675600-1452704400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:CIRS Hosts "Iran-GCC Dialogue"
DESCRIPTION:On January 13\, 2016\, the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS)\, Georgetown University in Qatar’s flagship research institution\, recently hosted a roundtable on Iran-GCC Dialogue. \n \n \nThe day-long meeting brought together distinguished scholars and academics from Iran and neighboring countries to explore historical\, religious\, cultural\, social\, and political ties between Iran and the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. \n \n \nThe CIRS-led Iran-GCC dialogue included as many as twenty renowned scholars from Iran\, Qatar\, Oman\, Kuwait\, and a number of other Arab countries\, with proceedings conducted in both Arabic and English. Presentation titles included “Common Historical Roots of Iran and the GCC\,” “Iranian and Arab Cultural Relations\,” “Cultural Commonalities of Iranian and Arab Women and Families\,” “The Role of Religion and Culture in the Development of Relations\,” and “The Role of Common Art and Literature between Iran and the GCC.” \n \n \nSpeaking on the role of academics in better informing regional leaders\, Director of CIRS\, Dr. Mehran Kamrava\, said that “at a time of increasing tensions in the region\, exploring areas of mutual interest and commonality between Iran and the GCC is of fundamental importance. There are numerous areas of overlap and common bonds between Iran and the states of the GCC. It is our hope that scholarly analysis and dialogue will enable policymakers to make better and more informed decisions.” \n \n \nKamrava added that “The work of CIRS “involves conducting globally recognized research on a broad range of important topics in the areas of international relations\, political economy\, and domestic politics of the Gulf. We routinely take the lead on identifying emerging socio-economic issues\, and so we are particularly well placed to initiate and bring together the leading scholars who participated in this roundtable. Not only do we seek to create mutually beneficial links between various educational institutions\, we also focus on providing further insights into current events by adding to the general body of knowledge about the region.” \n \n \nA follow-up to the recent CIRS Iran-GCC dialogue is likely to be held in Tehran in a few months involving a greater number of regional academics and scholars. \n \n \nIn addition to sponsoring events such as the recent Iran-GCC dialogue\, CIRS engages in in-depth research throughout the academic year\, publishing their results in Occasional Papers\, Summary Reports\, and numerous books. Through its various publications\, CIRS provides in-depth examination of ideas and issues of contemporary academic and political significance. \n \n \n\nSee the meeting agenda\nRead participant biographies	 \nSee Media Coverage of the event:	\n\nGulf Times\nQatar Tribune\nQatar is booming\nDoha News\nAMEinfo\n\n\n\n \nParticipants and Discussants: \n \n \n\nSalah Al Fadhli\, Information Systems Specialist\nAli Al Hail\, International Fulbright Visiting Scholar and consultant to Qatar Media Corporation\nNayef Nahar Al Shamari\, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Qatar University\nFatima Alsmadi\, Al Jazeera Center for Studies\nAbdullah Baabood\, Gulf Studies Program – Qatar University\nSultan Barakat\, Brooking Institution’s Doha Center\nMousa Bidaj\, Shiraz magazine\nYoussef Choueiri\, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies\nSalah Eddin Elzein\, Al Jazeera Center for Studies\nMasoud Fekri\, Razi University\nIbrahim Fraihat\, Brookings Institution’s Doha Center\nIslam Hassan\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nMohammad Masjed Jamei\, Former Iranian Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco\nMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nBatoul Meshkinfam\, Alzahra University\nMohamad Ali Mohtadi\, Journalist and Researcher of Middle East Affairs\nMahdi Khaleghi Rad\, Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Qatar\nSamer Shehata\, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies and the University of Oklahoma\nLuciano Zaccara\, Gulf Studies Program – Qatar University\nMahjoob Zweiri\, Qatar University
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/cirs-hosts-iran-gcc-dialogue/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/01/events_116711_45206_1496042653-1-scaled.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160117T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160118T170000
DTSTAMP:20260406T000259
CREATED:20230503T174451Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230503T174526Z
UID:10001262-1453021200-1453136400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Inside the Arab State: Re-Envisioning the Arab State Working Group I
DESCRIPTION:On January 17–18\, 2016\, the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) convened the first Working Group under its new research initiative\, “The New Arab State: Actors\, Institutions\, and Processes.” The working group brought together scholars and experts representing a variety of disciplines including political geography\, sociology\, history\, and political science. The purpose of the meeting was to identify central research questions on the evolving role of the Arab states in the aftermath of the 2011 uprisings. Over the course of two days\, participants discussed a variety of topics ranging from the definition\, conception\, and evolution of the Arab state\, the state’s functions and institutions\, as well as key topics such as state sovereignty\, legitimacy\, capacity\, state-society relations\, political engagement\, and civil-military relations across the Arab world. \n\nThe Working Group began with a discussion of the conception and definition of the “Arab state.” The 2011 revolts as well as the subsequent disintegration of several Arab states have reinvigorated scholarly interest in the most fundamental questions around statehood in the Middle East. Since 2011\, several states in the region have experienced social and political turmoil (Egypt and Lebanon) while others have rapidly disintegrated into “failed” or “failing” states (Iraq\, Syria\, Yemen and Libya). During the working group\, participants debated the validity of the very classification of the “Arab state\,” and highlighted the need for further exploring what constitutes a state as being Arab. There is a general assumption that an Arab state is where the majority of the population identifies as being Arab and speaking Arabic. \n\nAt the same time\, there is something more nuanced when theorizing the validity of the Arab state as a distinct sub-category that needs to move beyond ethno-linguistic conceptions and boundaries. The participants also discussed the issue of legitimacy within the Arab state\, and suggested that determining or measuring state legitimacy is also not always clearly defined by scholars of the Middle East. There was discussion over whether it is the state itself that provided legitimacy through its domestic arena\, through its society and citizenry\, or was it a result of the confirmation of legitimacy provided by the international community and the international order. Participants stressed the role of foreign powers when discussing the Arab state\, given the pivotal role played by external actors during processes of state formation in the Middle East in the last century\, and because so many outside powers still continue to exert their influence. \n\nAt the current juncture\, with increasing conflict and war\, the political map of the region may potentially be redrawn in ways yet unknown. Boundaries established by the colonial powers have remained remarkably durable since the evolution of the post-colonial arrangements in the Middle East. Notwithstanding this\, enthusiastic cartographers and Middle East experts have often taken to producing imaginative re-drawings of the Middle East\, seeking to illustrate how the region could look if “properly” demarcated based on history\, ethnicity\, and linguistic affiliation. Yet these highly creative versions of the territorial construction of the Middle East may not appear so far-fetched or fantastical in the current context. With the rise of ISIS and its incursion onto the territory of two fragile Arab states\, understanding the durability of borders and territory\, as well as their meaning to the citizens\, has once again become important. Working Group participants considered the reconfiguration of borders within the Arab world and the politics around sovereignty and space. \n\nAdditionally\, the post-2011 environment has exposed the fundamental weakness of institutions within the Arab. The failure of the states to deliver essential public services and good to their citizens has been compounded by limitations on political freedom expression\, inadequate economic security\, and corrupt and inept state institutions. As a consequence\, extremist movements like ISIS have stepped into the picture with promises of providing order\, stability\, peace\, and security to the people. Members of the Working Group noted that most Islamic oppositional forces arrayed against regimes do not want to abolish the state system; instead\, they are seeking to either control the state or present an alternative\, Islamic model of political rule. \n\nFollowing the 2011 uprisings\, the Arab world has been plagued by a widening gulf between state and society\, and rapid state deformation in countries such as in Yemen\, Libya\, Iraq\, and Syria. The 2011 protests differed from the earlier ones: whereas the earlier protests had been a demand for the repair of the regimes\, the 2011 uprisings grew out of a conviction among the middle classes that the social contract had been broken by the state. Even the states which experienced very modest levels of protests\, such as Qatar\, felt threatened due to the fear of the contagion effect. The Working Group examined “Arab political thought” to the topic of the Arab Spring\, examining whether Arab intellectuals were organically tied to the political action on the streets or were aloof in relation to what was happening. The 2011 protests represented populous movements that sought to resist Arab authoritarianism by demanding justice\, democracy\, equality\, and rights for all citizens. Contemporary Arab political thought addresses these issues and calls for a new social pact between state and society. However\, the social movements gradually fizzled out despite their intensity\, and the possibility of a reoccurrence is yet to be determined. \n\nThe participants debated over the presence or absence of a viable political “center” in the Arab region. Michael Hudson\, one of the participants at the Working Group\, sees the political center as something between extremist Islamic movements on the one hand and authoritarian states on the other. While some scholars believed that there has never been a political center in the Arab world\, others argued that it was shrinking rapidly due to authoritarianism and the outlawing of political parties. They considered the reasons that in the immediate aftermath of 2011 uprisings\, an Arab center not materialize out of something that offered more than the two extremes. Moreover\, the participants explored the transformations that are taking place in the political economy of the Arab state and repeated economic shocks since the 2011 uprisings. Citizens in different kinds of Arab rentier states have responded in their own ways to cracks in prevailing ruling bargains. For example\, citizens in the Gulf states have looked to the state to protect their economic interests in difficult times\, whereas in weak states such as Algeria and Iran\, they blame the state for their failures. However\, given the currently changing nature of the rentier states\, it is difficult to say whether the citizens will continue to look to the state for protection. \n\nHistorically\, Arab states have had a troubled relationship with citizenship\, and minority groups especially\, who by and large have not been considered as equal citizens. The Arab states have therefore devised citizenship policies that give ruling states the power to decide who will be included in or excluded from the state. The Gulf states have frequently used the act of withdrawing citizenship for political purposes and have recently aligned their citizenship policies with anti-terror laws—a phenomenon leading to statelessness and not unique to this region as illustrated by the anti-terror laws in Canada and Australia. Added to this is the refugee problem in the Middle East region: a significantly large number of people have either been displaced or have become stateless due to political turmoil or the disintegration of central authority in Iraq\, Syria\, and Yemen. Since there is not much scholarship on citizenship in this region\, the group agreed that the topic should be further explored as part of a broader re-envisioning the Arab state. \n\nAnother topic of discussion revolved around the evolving nature of civil-military relations in the region. Generally\, armies are designed to provide national defense. Yet the purpose of the Middle Eastern armies is unclear. In the rentier states\, armies are normally financed by oil revenues\, with major foreign powers providing military assistance to the state. Moreover\, some political systems in the Arab world have dual militaries—ideologically armed forces alongside professional security forces—that provide a visible manifestation of the powers of the state or the ruling elite. Many of these security forces had to be called in order to quell the 2011 uprisings. However\, the character of the military involvement varied from state to state. In Tunisia the police was much stronger than the military\, whereas in Egypt the army continued to play an important role because of its long history of intimate involvement in politics. \n\nParticipants also compared current transnational Islamist movements to the Pan-Arabist movements of the 1960s and the 1970s\, both of which challenge the conception\, functions\, and legitimacy of the Arab states. As these states continue to face threats to their sovereignty and legitimacy\, they have tried to consolidate their powers and security by forming state-based alliances with outside patrons. \n\nWhile the participants in the Working Group addressed a multitude of topics ranging from the conception\, functions\, and institutions of the Arab state to the basic challenges to its legitimacy and sovereignty after the 2011 uprisings\, they all acknowledged that there are gaps in the existing literature where more research is required. Hence\, the Working Group concluded by identifying areas of research where further analysis is needed. These included the conception and terminology surrounding the very notion of the Arab state\, the position and application of political boundaries\, ideologies and discourses of the state\, engagement between state and the citizens\, and the perseverance or change of prevailing ruling bargains particularly in the aftermath of the 2011 uprisings.  \n\n  \n\n\nSee the meeting agenda\n\n\n\nRead participant biographies\n\n\n\nRead more about this research initiative\n\n\nParticipants and Discussants: \n\n\nFateh Azzam\, American University of Beirut\n\n\n\nZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n\n\nMichaelle Browers\, Wake Forest University\n\n\n\nJuan Cole\, University of Michigan\n\n\n\nStephanie Cronin\, University of Oxford\n\n\n\nAhmad Dallal\, American University of Beirut\n\n\n\nAlasdair Drysdalem\, University of New Hampshire\n\n\n\nIslam Hassan\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n\n\nSteven Heydemann\, Smith College\n\n\n\nMichael C. Hudson\, Georgetown University\n\n\n\nMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n\n\nRami G. Khouri\, American University of Beirut\n\n\n\nBeverley Milton-Edwards\, Queen’s University\n\n\n\nSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n\n\nAdham Saouli\, University of St. Andrews\n\n\n\nElizabeth Wanucha\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n\nArticle by Umber Latafat (SFS ’16)\, Research Intern at CIRS
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/inside-arab-state-re-envisioning-arab-state-working-group-i/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/01/events_117051_45231_1496047493-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160119T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160119T190000
DTSTAMP:20260406T000259
CREATED:20160110T132936Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T094553Z
UID:10001289-1453226400-1453230000@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:The U.S.–Saudi Arabia Relationship: ‘Special’ or Broken?
DESCRIPTION:Michael C. Hudson\, the Seif Ghobash Professor of International Relations and Arab Studies\, Emeritus\, at Georgetown University\, delivered the first CIRS Monthly Dialogue of the Spring 2016 semester on “The U.S.–Saudi Arabia Relationship: ‘Special’ or Broken?” on January 19\, 2016. A long-term scholar of the Middle East\, Hudson argued that the Middle East region is in an extremely turbulent condition\, necessitating the reexamination of traditional alliances. He paid particular attention to the state of the US-Saudi relationship\, which was once described as “special” and which is now under considerable strain. \n \n \nHighlighting some key moments in the history of the US-Saudi relationship\, Hudson noted that it was established after World War I\, when companies backed by the US government began formalizing business ties and facilitating the establishment of the Saudi oil industry during the 1930s. Subsequently\, “a modus vivendi was established that allowed this engine of modernization to function without really interfacing with\, or let alone disturbing\, the traditional political culture of the Kingdom\,” he argued. In order for this businesses relationship to continue flourishing\, the Americans remained uncharacteristically uncritical of the domestic politics of Saudi Arabia. This arrangement suited both parties\, as each could get along with its business interests despite having many antithetical notions regarding each other’s cultures\, religions\, and politics. In this regard\, Hudson argued that “the relationship\, although special\, was not deeply rooted in American politics\, in the American mind\, or within the American public. The relationship depended upon a rather narrow spectrum of interests\, expertise\, and influence\,” and was established on a strategic basis between political and business elites. \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \nIn order to further secure these shared US-Saudi economic interests\, the alliance was eventually expanded to other related political engagements and foreign policy alignments over the decades. During the Cold War\, Saudi Arabia proved to be a strategic ally in securing US interests\, and guarding against communist advances into the region. The importance of Saudi Arabia was further amplified after the Iranian revolution of 1979\, and the collapse of the US’s alliance with the Shah. \n \n \nIn light of current turbulent political developments in the Middle East\, the accepted historical basis of the US-Saudi relationship has come under questioning\, and is in an increasing state of flux. Regional security concerns regarding the rise of sectarian tensions\, the machinations of the Islamic State\, and the easing of sanctions on Iran\, have all worked towards straining the US-Saudi relationship\, and are further magnified by domestic Saudi woes in the form of falling oil prices\, a weakening economy\, rising unemployment\, a young population riddled with unrest\, and a new royal regime taking an increasingly combative stance in the region. \n \n \nHudson mused on how these issues are likely to affect the future of US policy in the Middle East. Since the dangers posed by the Islamic State have become so central to regional and international political discourse\, Hudson noted that it is unlikely that the US security umbrella in the Middle East will see any drastic change\, and that the United States will continue to see Saudi Arabia as a key ally in its attempts at regional influence. While the solid historical and material interests\, business connections\, and security contracts between the United States and Saudi Arabia remain largely intact\, “there is a rising chorus of hostile analysis and hostile criticism of Saudi Arabia in important political circles in the United States\,” that argue in favor of taking a more lenient stand towards Iran\, and reversing the balance of regional power. Today\, “much of that debate is focused on foreign policy in the Middle East despite President Obama’s wish that he could pivot away from the Middle East and work on Asia instead.” However\, Hudson concluded\, current policies regarding the special US-Saudi relationship may indeed be altered depending on the results of the upcoming US presidential elections. \n \n \nMichael C. Hudson is a former Director of Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS)\, and from 2010 to 2014 he was the first Director of the Middle East Institute and Professor of Political Science at the National University of Singapore. He was the Kuwait Foundation Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Belfer Center’s Middle East Initiative in spring 2015. Hudson has held Guggenheim\, Ford\, and Fulbright fellowships and is a past president of the Middle East Studies Association. His publications include The Precarious Republic: Political Modernization in Lebanon; The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators; Arab Politics: The Search for Legitimacy; The Palestinians: New Directions; and Middle East Dilemma: The Politics and Economics of Arab Integration (editor and contributor). His most recent books are: Gulf Politics and Economics in a Changing World and The Arab Uprisings: Catalysts\, Dynamics\, and Trajectories. \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/us-saudi-arabia-relationship-special-or-broken/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/01/michaelhudson-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR