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:+0300 TZNAME:MSK DTSTART:20150101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160202T180000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160202T200000 DTSTAMP:20260408T205702 CREATED:20160222T080126Z LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T105819Z UID:10001065-1454436000-1454443200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu SUMMARY:The Negotiating Process and Recent Developments in Cyprus DESCRIPTION:H.E. Emine Çolak\, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Northern Cyprus\, delivered a CIRS Focused Discussion on February 2\, 2016\, titled “The Negotiating Process and Recent Developments in Cyprus.” The talk shed light on the promising political developments in Cyprus between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot people. \n \n \nAfter decades of prolonged negotiations\, H.E. Çolak said\, the impasse on the island was expected to be relieved in 2004 with the United Nations (UN) Comprehensive Settlement Plan. However\, it received 65 percent approval from the Turkish Cypriot people and was rejected by 76 percent of the Greek Cypriot people. Since then\, there has been some progress\, resulting in a Joint Declaration on February 11\, 2014\, which would enable the two sides to endorse their objectives for the formation of a bi-zonal\, bi-communal federation based on political equality\, and headed by a single sovereignty stemming equally from the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. \n \n \nThe negotiations resumed more auspiciously following the election of His Excellency Mr. Mustafa Akıncı as the new Turkish Cypriot President. With the presence of the UN Special Adviser\, Espen Barth Eid\, on May 15\, 2015\, the two leaders\, Akıncı and Anastasiades\, expressed their interest and strong commitment to proceed towards a comprehensive settlement in a constructive fashion. Included in these agreements is the desire by the two parties to work on confidence building measures to ameliorate the living standards of the two communities. Discussing the outcome of this new process\, H.E. Çolak summarized the five confidence building measures pursued by the two sides as “the opening of more crossing points between the two sides; interconnecting electricity grids; mobile telephone interoperability; prevention of radio frequency interferences; and establishing a committee on gender equality.” After substantive negotiations revealed that convergences on legislative and judicial affairs are consistent with the political equality of the two peoples\, negotiations after November 2015 entered a more intensified stage with property at the center of the discussions. Agreeing on the categories of property\, the parties decided to pursue the issues of territory\, security\, and guarantees at the end of the process.    \n \n \nMaintaining its commitment to the result-oriented principles of the 2014 Joint Declaration\, the Turkish Cypriot side is optimistic about the prospects of reaching an agreement within months\, not years. In the context of achieving that goal\, H.E. Çolak also stressed the role of the EU\, Greece\, and the international community in supporting and defending the negotiations in order to ensure productive engagement from both sides of the island. She also added that it was necessary for the Turkish Cypriot side to be heard on all international platforms to further facilitate the process. \n \n \nThe reality of the situation\, however\, reveals the subjection of the Turkish Cypriot people to restrictions that have denied them basic human rights. From representation in international mediums to trade and tourism\, the constraints imposed on Northern Cyprus for over five decades have proved to be a hindrance to the country’s cultural\, academic\, and sporting relations with the rest of the world. On this note\, H.E. Çolak referenced UN Security Council reports in which both the then Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan\, and the Secretary-General Mr. Ban Ki-moon\, urged the international community to collaborate bilaterally to eradicate the restraints that isolate and obstruct the progress of the Turkish Cypriots. In addition to the support expressed by the UN\, she reflected on the declaration of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) “to fully cooperate with and put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people by calling upon the Member States to strengthen effective solidarity with the Muslim Turkish people of Cyprus and to help the Turkish Cypriots to overcome the inhuman isolations imposed upon them by increasing and expanding relations in all fields.”  \n \n \nIn conclusion\, H.E. Çolak condemned the unwarranted state of isolation that continues to preclude the Turkish Cypriot people from exercising their basic human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This\, she said\, is a blatant violation of the UN Charter and had no justification. She concluded her speech by reiterating the resolutions and declarations of the UN and OIC and acknowledging the positive impact that the lifting of the isolation would have on settlement efforts. URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/negotiating-process-and-recent-developments-cyprus/ CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/02/zo9a9782-1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160203T123000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160203T133000 DTSTAMP:20260408T205702 CREATED:20160211T073326Z LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T105758Z UID:10001291-1454502600-1454506200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu SUMMARY:The Pedagogic State: Translation and the Cultural Revolution in the Early Republican Turkey DESCRIPTION:Firat Oruc\, Assistant Professor of English and Humanities at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar and the 2015-2016 CIRS-SFSQ Faculty Fellow\, delivered a CIRS Focused Discussion on “The Pedagogic State: Translation and the Cultural Revolution in the Early Republican Turkey” on February 3\, 2016. The lecture drew on central themes from Oruc’s current book project examining the cultural and ideological transformations forged during the early decades of the Turkish Republic\, with particular emphasis on importation and translation of classics in world literature. \n \n \nWith the forming of the new Turkish Republic\, a new Turkish identity was crafted on the principles of nationalism\, modernity\, and secularism. “In order to create a new society and country out of the now gone Ottoman Empire\, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and his comrades envisioned ‘a total revolution’ in all aspects possible\,” and especially in language reform\, replacing Arabic script with Latin script. For the reformers\, “translation from European languages would enable Turkish to ‘free’ itself from the historical ‘yoke’ of Arabic and Persian words\, idioms and expressions.” \n \n \nIn answer to questions such as: “Why would a state need world literature?” and “What was this ‘foreign element’ doing in the midst of the Turkish cultural revolution?” Oruc explained that the Kemalist state saw reading as means of cultivating “civilized” citizens with a crusade against “ignorance” based on reason and knowledge. The European humanist canon was taken as the philosophical basis for the republican reforms that would lead to a “Turkish renaissance.”  This “cultural engineering” and the creation of a new national canon relied on a campaign of translation in which the state was the central actor. “Thus\, an organized\, and government administered operation of translation contributed to the state regulation of the language\,” Oruc argued. However\, this celebration of a cultural revolution was not supported by a corresponding implementation of a social revolution\, and many in Turkish society remained illiterate and impoverished\, and incapable of partaking in the grand visions presented by the elite. \n \n \nIn conclusion\, Oruc pondered the question of the complex tensions and contradictions involved in the formation of world literature in non-western societies such as Turkey. He argued that\, even though the study of world literature purports to be a global humanist project\, the grand narratives of the discipline have been largely shaped by specific European histories and ideologies. In order to problematize the power relations enacted through the world literature discourse\, Oruc proposed engaging with the perspective of other nodes in the global network. “The state has so far never been discussed as an actor in the field of world literature. Whereas\, in the Turkish case\, the state is right at the center\,” where world literature was coopted as an ideological apparatus.  \n \n \nFirat Oruc received his Ph.D. in Literature from Duke University in 2010. His teaching specialties include contemporary global literature\, 20th century Anglophone writing\, literatures of the Middle East\, and world cinema. Before joining SFS-Q\, he taught in the Comparative Literary Studies program at Northwestern University (2011-2013) and the departments of English and Comparative Literature at the University of California\, Los Angeles (2010-2011). His scholarly interests center on the intersections of cultural globalization and transnationalism\, postcolonial studies\, world literature theory\, and translation studies. His recent work has appeared in literary criticism journals such as English Language Notes\, Criticism and Postcolonial Text. His current book project is a comparative study of world literature and institutions of translation in Turkey\, Egypt\, and Iran. \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Manager and Editor for CIRS Publications URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/pedagogic-state-translation-and-cultural-revolution-early-republican-turkey/ CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Race & Society ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/02/zo9a9860-1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160207T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160207T150000 DTSTAMP:20260408T205702 CREATED:20160211T131035Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T094535Z UID:10001292-1454835600-1454857200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu SUMMARY:Art and Cultural Production in the GCC Working Group II DESCRIPTION:On February 7\, 2016\, the Center for International and Regional Studies held its second working group meeting on “Art and Cultural Production in the GCC.” Project participants\, as well as other scholars\, engaged in critical group discussions\, and provided feedback to the authors on draft chapters. The chapters written under this project address a variety of subjects\, including amongst other topics: utopian ideals and art museums in the Arabian Peninsula; public art in Gulf cities; aesthetics\, artistic production\, and censorship in the GCC; art as modernity and “soft power”; and art and discourses of culture and “authenticity” in the UAE. \n \n \nOver the course of three decades\, economies of the Arab states of the Gulf have been experiencing immense growth. This has influenced the political significance of these states on the international and regional levels\, and the social fabric of these states\, due to the influx of expats from all around the world\, on the domestic level. The pace of changes in the social fabric of these states has influenced the development of artistic and cultural institutions. The limited existing scholarship tends to focus on the rapidly growing museum culture and the acquisition of foreign art as indicative of several Gulf states’ use of oil revenue. This project builds on available literature by contributing towards furthering knowledge on the prevailing issues around art and cultural production in the Gulf. The contributed chapters explore the process of art acquisition and certain GCC governments’ investment in museums and artworks\, and investigate the effects of art importation and assimilation on citizens’ perceptions of identity and self. \n \n \nThe working group commenced with Karen Exell’s chapter on “Utopian Ideals\, Unknowable Futures\, and the Art Museum in the Arabian Peninsula.” In her chapter\, Exell explores the idea of the utopian in relation to art museums and the contemporary moment in the Arabian Peninsula. The transference of global art museums—constructed according to dominant western art historical principles and museological practices—to the Arabian Peninsula has brought with it the rhetoric of post-Enlightenment humanist idealism. The ability of these museums to instrumentalize international peace and understanding\, as well as offering solace on an individual level through solitary communion with works of art\, results in a transcendental experience. This experience is desirable in a secular society\, but perhaps unnecessary and even problematic in an Islamic one. The chapter addresses the differing ideologies at play\, and concludes by evaluating some of the futures posited for global art museums in the Arabian Peninsula. \n \n \nThe second chapter was presented by Nadia Mounajjed on “Public Art in Gulf Cities.” Mounajjed claims that although “public art” refers to artworks\, either permanent or temporary\, commissioned for sites with open public access\, in the Gulf it is only discussed in the context of architectural production and urban design. This steers her investigation on the nature of the public and the public realm in the Arab cities of the Gulf.  She explores the specific “parameters of publicity” and the potential of public art to act as a force for social discussion\, place making and collective memory.  In her chapter\, Mounajjed raises a series of questions around: what counts as public art\, and what does not? What does “public” mean? Who is public art intended for? Who funds public art? And how is public art tied to notions of place\, identity\, and social diversity? \n \n \nIn the third presented chapter titled: “Of ‘Gray Lists’ and Whitewash: The Aesthetics and Artistic Strategies of Complicity and Circumvention in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries\,” Nancy Demerdash examines the GCC’s “areas of gray” in artistic censorship. She claims that the processes by which works receive endorsement and acceptance\, or scrutiny and rejection\, by a combination of private sponsors\, patrons\, or the public\, presents a complex fabric of actors beyond the state apparatus\, extending to institutions and organizations. In addition\, Demerdash examines suppression and artists’ complicity or subversion\, and analyzes the outlets through which aesthetic alternatives arise. She also illuminates a more nuanced perspective of artistic freedom and aesthetic choices with respect to the cultural spaces\, institutions\, and biennials of the GCC. Throughout her chapter\, Demerdash raises a series of questions: in what ways do we define artistic freedom generally within the GCC? How do artists of the Gulf engage with customs of religion and everyday politics of the region? In what ways do such artists wittingly self-censor\, effectively depoliticizing their practice? How does the intended viewership of an artist inform his or her production? If art of the Arab world\, in recent years following the so-called Arab Spring\, has become increasingly situated or defined as “activist\,” “political\,” or “revolutionary\,” where is the place of these types of art forms in the Arab states of the Gulf? What shape does this engagement with unstable or transgressive content take? And what are the aesthetics of art forms that cannot be openly dissident or subversive? \n \n \nLesley Gray presented the fourth chapter on “Contemporary Art as Modernity: Art and Global Identity in Azerbaijan and the Gulf.” Using textual and media discourse analysis for both academic and popular media\, Gray examines the factors that were instrumental in the rise of contemporary art as part of a strategy of international engagement\, and contextualizes this information with the opinions of those who work in the art scene in Baku. Moreover\, within the context of other similar geographies in the Arabian Peninsula who share Azerbaijan’s energy wealth\, Azerbaijani modernity is one that has incorporated elements of Western-style economic progress propelled by oil wealth without the accompanying personal\, social\, and political freedoms and rights. Specifically\, this chapter asks how can we define Azerbaijani modernity\, and under what conditions has it arisen? How has the media shaped the image of Azerbaijan to an international audience? How has contemporary art developed in the post-Soviet era and how does it express Azerbaijan’s modern identity to the international art community? What does the contemporary art scene look like from the ground up and who is their public? And how does Azerbaijan\, and specifically Baku\, compare to other similar cities like Abu Dhabi\, Doha\, and Dubai? \n \n \nIn the final chapter on “Authentic Culture in the UAE\,” Elizabeth Derderian argues that the “museum boom” in the Gulf region raises questions of authenticity and cultural appropriation. Focusing largely on the United Arab Emirates (UAE)\, this chapter explores the concept of authenticity and how its deployment affects exclusion in particular ways. Derderian examines the ways in which authenticity claims create the need for experts and serve as forms of knowledge production that rely on and reproduce different structures and dynamics of power. In addition\, Derderian parses cultural exchange from cultural appropriation\, focusing on hierarchies of power and exclusion. \n \n \nMehran Kamrava\, the Director of the Center for International and Regional Studies\, concluded the working group meeting by highlighting the participants’ contributions to scholarship through their papers\, which will be published in a forthcoming special issue of an academic journal. \n \n \n\nSee the meeting agenda\nRead participant biographies\nRead more about this research initiative \n\n \nParticipants and Discussants: \n \n \n\nHaya Al Noaimi\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nNancy Demerdash\, DePaul University\nElizabeth (Beth) Derderian\, Northwestern University\nKaren Exell\, University College London in Qatar\nLesley Gray\, University College London in Qatar\nIslam Hassan\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nSuzi Mirgani\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\nNadia Mounajjed\, Abu Dhabi University\nElizabeth Wanucha\, CIRS – Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar\n\n \nArticle by Islam Hassan\, Research Analyst at CIRS URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/art-and-cultural-production-gcc-working-group-ii/ CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Race & Society,Regional Studies ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/02/events_117221_45216_1496044850-1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160223T180000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160223T190000 DTSTAMP:20260408T205702 CREATED:20160216T102758Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T094507Z UID:10001063-1456250400-1456254000@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu SUMMARY:Museums and Modernity in the Arabian Peninsula DESCRIPTION:Karen Exell\, Honorary Senior Research Associate at UCL Qatar\, and a consultant at Qatar Museums\, delivered a CIRS Monthly Dialogue lecture\, titled “Museums and Modernity in the Arabian Peninsula\,” on Tuesday February 23\, 2016. Highlighting some key arguments from her forthcoming book Modernity and the Museum in the Arabian Peninsula (Routledge\, 2016)\, Exell recounted that when she first arrived to Qatar with the task of setting up an institution to cultivate professional museological practices\, the general consensus was that no such practices existed in the local context\, and that Qatar was a “tabula rasa” in need of such imported knowledge and services. However\, after spending time in the country and researching the local museological landscape\, she argued that a very different picture emerged. \n \n \nExell explained that there are two simultaneous and oppositional discourses of cultural production currently being articulated in the region. These are presented as oppositional in terms of both style and content: modern art is seen as a product of Western art history\, while traditional cultural practices draw on the oral histories and traditional practices of the region. These binary cultural productions are also presented as providing contrasted cultural experiences: one evokes an internationally-recognized art world\, while the other invites a dialogic and immersive interaction with traditional regional productions. In order to examine how these discourses have been put into practice\, Exell compared the Museum of Islamic Art in Qatar with the Saif Marzooq Al-Shamlan and Bait Al Outhman museums in Kuwait. \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n“The Museum of Islamic Art draws extensively on the Western paradigm of museological expertise\,” she said\, and is a prestige project that attempts to create a new global cultural center within Qatar. Such “engagement with Western-style museums was and is a strategic choice by the ruling families and elite actors\,” and has been geared towards realizing a multitude of agendas over the years. Following independence\, museological practices aided in nation-building\, creation of consistent historical narratives\, and legitimizing the status of the region’s ruling families. In the contemporary period\, they are “a means of branding nations and gaining symbolic global power through accessing cultural capital\,” she noted. \n \n \nThe Saif Marzooq Al-Shamlan and Bait Al Outhman museums in Kuwait\, meanwhile\, represent centers for the protection of local histories and traditional knowledge. Since these cultural forms are “rich in the kind of heritage that orthodox Western heritage models struggle to accommodate: intangible\, performative\, and embodied\,” they are hard to promote or export. Simply put\, they do not fit within the Western museological paradigm. However\, Exell argued\, while these local museological practices are deemed of little international value\, they are of extreme importance in supporting and creating national identities and narratives. \n \n \nIt is by examining the rhetoric surrounding these supposedly contrasting cultural spheres that one can begin to understand how the two discourses actually play towards specific and strategic regional agendas\, she said. As the Gulf states attempt to exploit the immense wealth created through hydrocarbon industries\, these nations must also answer to how they are protecting against the encroachment of rapid regional transformations. Even as certain elements of modernity are being celebrated\, there is a simultaneous call to strengthen local heritage as defense against what is perceived to be an onslaught and effacement of local histories anc cultures. This balancing act between the old and the new is exemplified in the two types of cultural engagements practiced in the region. \n \n \nUltimately\, Exell argued\, “the rhetoric of fusing the traditional and the modern represents the region’s approach to modernity…an agenda of retaining cultural identity in balance with aspects of a more secular modernity\, while the rhetoric of engagement with global art and ideas of the universal is a method of discursively bridging cultures—bridging the East and the West and bringing people together—is repeatedly emphasized by actors investing in and producing the global art projects.”  \n \n \nv:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} 0 0 1 211 1209 10 2 1418 14.0 Normal 0 false false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Georgia; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} \n \n \nKaren Exell directed the MA in Museum and Gallery Practice at UCL Qatar from 2011-2015\, after teaching museums studies and holding curatorial positions in university museums in the UK for several years. She is currently involved in two QNRF-funded research projects\, as a PI on project researching museum pedagogy in Qatar and the region\, and as LPI on project exploring the concept of national identity in relation to the planned new National Museum of Qatar. Her recent publications include the co-edited volumes\, Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula: Debates\, Discourses and Practices (Ashgate\, 2014)\, and Museums in Arabia: Transnational Practices and Regional Processes (Ashgate\, 2016).  \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Suzi Mirgani\, Managing Editor for CIRS Publications. URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/museums-and-modernity-arabian-peninsula/ CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Race & Society,Regional Studies ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/02/163a8137-1.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160224T123000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20160224T133000 DTSTAMP:20260408T205702 CREATED:20160301T140347Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T094451Z UID:10001067-1456317000-1456320600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu SUMMARY:What the U.S. Presidential Election Means for the Middle East DESCRIPTION:On February 24\, 2016\, John Hudak\, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director at the Center for Effective Public Management Governance Studies–Brookings Institution\, delivered a CIRS Focused Discussion titled “What the U.S. Presidential Election Means for the Middle East.” Hudak\, an expert on U.S. elections and campaigns\, stated that it is difficult to gauge the positions and policies of the U.S. presidential candidates on the Middle East region since they are often vague and variable\, especially during the primaries.  Compared to previous election cycles\, however\, the 2016 elections are unique due to the rise of foreign policy as a critical issue for both parties’ candidates. Hudak also discussed the foreign policy credentials of the Republicans and the Democrats\, and explored which party has generally seen itself as the bastion of U.S. foreign policy goals. \n \n \nThe first part of Hudak’s talk focused on describing the convoluted nature of the U.S. presidential elections. Before running for the general election\, presidential candidates have to participate in a competitive primary campaign to become the party’s standard-bearer. During the primaries\, candidates compete with each other for delegates who represent the constituents of the states. As the results of different states emerge\, starting with Iowa and New Hampshire\, it becomes a little clearer to see who is better positioned to become the party’s representative. However\, the 2016 race has still not been decided since some candidates can surge while others sink. “If we take a step back one year and look at what our expectations were about this race\, they are entirely turned on their head\,” said Hudak\, “the realities of the election this year are very different than what expectations were in February of 2015.” By the end of July 2016\, the winning candidates will be announced at the parties’ national conventions and will begin the rapid race for the general election. \n \n \nAfter familiarizing the audience with the intricacies of the election process\, Hudak shifted the discussion to the factors behind the increased prominence of U.S. foreign policy in the 2016 elections. Hudak attributed this shift to two main points: the topical interest in the Middle East’s crises—particularly the conflict in Syria and the rise of Islamic States—and the fact that both parties view foreign policy as the winning issue in this general election. “There are a lot of serious conflicts in the world where either the U.S. is involved\, or there is an expectation for American leadership\,” said Hudak\, “either to help ameliorate the challenges\, or to fix the problem.” The level of interest in foreign policy usually increases when such situations arise; the most recent example was the 2004 election when John Kerry and the incumbent president\, George W. Bush\, fought a contested election that hinged on the decision to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan. In contrast\, the elections of 2008 and 2012 focused on domestic policy and the economy\, particularly after the 2008 recession. \n \n \nIn most election years\, “the Republicans\, in terms of polling\, are typically much more trusted in terms of dealing with policy issues than Democrats are\,” said Hudak. Democrats\, on the other hand\, focus more on the “bread and butter” issues that concern domestic affairs\, such as the economy\, jobs\, and issues of social justice and equality. In 2016\, however\, both parties approach foreign policy as their winning issue\, and both parties have candidates with strong stances. Hillary Clinton believes she is well versed and experienced with the major foreign policy issues from her time as Secretary of State\, and this makes her unique among Democrats. She also sees it as a benefit for her candidacy because she is a woman\, and foreign policy is commonly seen as the purview of men. “In that sense\,” Hudak reasons\, “she sees it as a transformational thing\, both for herself\, gender\, and her party […] that is the thinking within the campaign.” While Clinton has not focused as much on foreign policy as she would have liked\, she will likely prop up her foreign policy credentials again in the general election. In contrast\, the Republicans pride themselves on their traditional focus on foreign policy\, and their campaigns have especially focused on pointing out the disastrous aftereffects of Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. \n \n \nFinally\, Hudak concluded by discussing potential areas of foreign policy interest for the next president such as Syria\, Israel\, and Iran. After taking the presidential oath on January 20\, 2017\, Syria will be priority for whoever is elected. Hudak stated that either the new president will dramatically change course from Obama’s policies or mildly alter them\, depending on whether a Republican or a Democrat emerges victorious. Regardless\, Americans can be sure that there will be a change in policy\, and foreign policy will remain one of the most vital issues in the first 100-200 days in office. Other important foreign policy issues on the president’s mind will be alleviating the U.S.’s strained relationship with Israel—one area both Democrats and Republicans agree on—and working out the next steps for the nuclear deal with Iran. \n \n \nJohn Hudak is Senior Fellow and Deputy Director at the Center for Effective Public Management Governance Studies\, Brookings Institution in Washington\, D.C. His research examines questions of presidential power in the contexts of administration\, personnel\, and public policy. Additionally\, he focuses on campaigns and elections\, bureaucratic process and legislative-executive interaction. You can access his complete bio\, click here. \n \n \nArticle by Salman Ahad Khan\, Senior Publications Intern at CIRS URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/what-us-presidential-election-means-middle-east/ CATEGORIES:American Studies,Dialogue Series,Regional Studies ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/03/johnhudaklighter-1.jpg END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR