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:20170101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180310T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180310T170000
DTSTAMP:20260406T231129
CREATED:20180328T125635Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T094439Z
UID:10001362-1520672400-1520701200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Informal Politics in the Middle East Working Group I
DESCRIPTION:On March 10\, 2018\, the Center for International and Regional Studies held its first working group under its research initiative on “Informal Politics in the Middle East.” During the working group\, a number of scholars were convened to discuss various questions on a number of related topics: tribes and the Yemeni state\, women and non-governmental organization (NGOs) in Iran\, the role of the Diwaniyya in Kuwait\, the informal politics around access to natural resources\, and spaces for activism and inclusion in the Middle East. \n\nCharles Schmitz started the working group discussions with his session on “Social Organization or Political Actor: Tribe and State in Yemen.” Schmitz argued that there has been no agreement in the literature on what “tribe” constitutes given the ostensible differences in the structures of and roles played by tribes. For instance in Yemen\, there are major differences between tribes based on where they are geographically located. In his discussion\, Schmitz focused on the northern tribes who play a major role in relation to the state. He argued that Yemeni tribes are unique as they have always been settled unlike tribes elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula. This contributed to the establishment of tribes in Yemen as small sovereignties. Such sovereignties are usually strong when the state is weak\, and are weak when the state is strong. However\, although the tribe was originally merely a social order for which the Sheikh had collective responsibility and mediated and arbitrated between its members after the Republican Revolution sheikhs became influential in the political realm of the state. Since then\, the state used tribes as administrative circles and often distributed “tribal subsidies” to the Sheikhs to take care of their communities’ needs.  \n\nShahla Haeri shifted the discussion to “Women and NGO Participation in Iran”. In her session\, Haeri discussed the issue of citizenship and women in Iran\, the history of NGOs\, and women who established NGOs in Iran. Finally\, Haeri listed a number of understudied topics related to her discussion. With regards to the issue of citizenship\, she claimed that the relationship between state and society\, and particularly women\, in Iran has been inconstant. In the wake of the Islamic Revolution\, the state supported women education. This contributed to women’s perception of their autonomy. Hence\, the state tried to control and restrict their agency fearing challenges to the principles the Islamic Republic was founded on. Such principles\, which are embedded in Iranian legal structures\, place women somewhere between a subject and a full citizen. That is to say that while both men and women have the capacity to execution\, women’s capacity to obligations always remains restricted. With regards to NGOs\, Haeri drew a distinction between NGOs and GNGOs (NGOs that are sponsored by the government). It was only when Khatami came to power that the state in Iran approved the bylaws of the Charter of NGOs. Yet\, there seems to be significant mistrust between the state and NGOs that results in the state supporting and funding GNGOs while neglecting real NGOs. Haeri listed a number of cases of women who started NGOs in Iran\, such as Touran Mirhadi\, and initiatives by women such as schools for Afghan immigrants in Tehran\, and the Thursday Bazaar for women\, on which the film Braving the Wave was made. Finally\, Haeri suggested conducting research on issues around informal women organizations\, known as dorehs\, and women as entrepreneurs who create jobs and help women thrive in these NGOs. \n\nClemens Chay shifted the discussion to Kuwait in his session on “Social and Political Influence of the Diwaniyya”. Chay argued that most of the literature discusses the role of the diwaniyya during elections in Kuwait disregarding the social and diplomatic aspects of the diwaniyya. Historically\, the diwaniyyas were located on the shore of the Persian Gulf\, and were used by big merchant families in Kuwait to observe the sea state. However\, the social role of tribal diwaniyyas has significantly changed. Now\, the diwaniyya has extended inland. Almost every house has an attached diwaniyya. The purpose of the diwaniyya has also metamorphosed as it has become a space for collective belonging\, sharing ideas\, and expressing issues and concerns. Recently\, there has been a proliferation of “youth diwaniyyas” that are ostensibly distinctive from traditional diwaniyyas. These new youth diwaniyyas are less strict on diwaniyya etiquette\, and serve as a space for young Kuwaitis and their invitees to spend their spare time. However\, tribal diwaniyyas remain central to Kuwaitis lives. This is for the role they play in bringing members of the tribe together\, discussing political issues\, hosting diplomats and ambassadors\, and serving as a medium of communication between the state and the tribe. Towards the end of his discussion\, Chay raised a number of questions\, among which: Is Kuwaiti exceptionalism related to the establishment of the parliament\, or is it a social space that is continuously evolving? What role does the diwaniyya play for the opposition when the parliament is dissolved? And to what extent is social media replacing the diwaniyya? \n\nNejm Bennessaiah focused his session on “Informal Politics and Access to Natural Resources in the Middle East”. In his presentation\, Bennessaiah focused on three main issues related to the access to natural resources in the Middle East: voluntary association\, infrastructures\, and local customary regulations. With regards to voluntary association\, he claimed that rural population makes up about 41 percent of the Middle East’s population\, and in countries such as Egypt and Syria these numbers can go up to 50 percent. Such high percentages add pressure on access to resources and markets. At the same time\, the Middle East has been witnessing a significant constriction insofar as participation in natural resources decision-making processes is concerned. However as maintaining such constraints have become difficult for states in the Middle East given their limited institutional capacities\, voluntary associations were allowed in many countries across the region. In Morocco\, for example\, associations were allowed in 1998 after the food riots as long as they do not have political agendas. However\, some associations\, such as the Farmers Association\, have succeeded in putting pressure on elected officials to meet their demands. This increase in associations’ strength and influence led to their thriving. In Morocco\, the number of associations has mushroomed from around 73\,000 associations in 2008 to about 93\,000 associations in 2018. With regards to infrastructure\, Bennessaiah claimed that a new field in anthropology has been building on political ecology. In light of this\, there seems to be limited research on the impact of desalination\, particularly in the UAE\, on the development of knowledge\, and how new infrastructure projects serve as sites for political engagement by local communities. Moreover\, to what extent does informal politics play a role in influencing policy-makers in determining which areas receive better maintenance and higher pressure insofar as water distribution is concerned? Finally\, Bennessaiah highlighted the role of local customary regulations that are based on local consultation and verbal agreements on land uses. He argued that local sanctions and customary law remain understudied in the Middle East. \n\nDeen Sharp concluded the working group discussions with his session on “Informality and the City: Spaces for Activism and Inclusion in the Middle East”. During the Arab uprisings of 2011\, public squares have shown to be vital sites of mass political activism. However as much as the urban landscape of many of the region’s old cities facilitated political action\, relatively newly developed cities seemed to be designed in ways that foreclose certain types of politics. In light of this\, Sharp discussed the role of multinational and international construction corporations in the political life in the Middle East. Despite the fact that that the corporation is not in any of the constitutions in the Middle East or viewed as a formal political actor\, Sharp argued that the corporation could be considered to be one of the most powerful political entities in the region. The joint-stock corporation is increasingly becoming a key institution in the Middle East and integral to shaping contemporary urban life in the region. Since the 1990s\, there has been a significant expansion in corporate power particularly within the urban context in the Middle East. Today\, if you look at the skyline of downtowns throughout the region\, in particular in the Gulf cities like Dubai and Doha\, but also in Cairo and Casablanca\, the joint-stock corporation has transformed the urban landscape. The joint-stock corporate city makes itself present by the proliferation of its urban mega-projects\, including skyscrapers\, downtown developments and gated communities; retail malls and artificial islands; airports and ports; and highways. Such projects are not only being executed in urban cities\, but have expanded to urbanize rural areas that have acted also as sites for protests during the Arab uprisings. Corporations\, such as Emaar and Damac\, are now household names. Stock markets have also recently opened in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia\, and significantly expanded in Egypt and Iraq. In sum\, Sharp argued that the corporation is more than a mere business and is a key component of contemporary political life in the Middle East. \n\n \n\nTo read the working group agenda click here.To read the participants’ biographies click here.Read more about this research initiative. \n\nParticipants and Discussants: \n\nZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University in QatarNejm Benessaiah\, Georgetown UniversityClemens Chay\, Durham University\, UKKristin Smith Diwan\, Arab Gulf States Institute\, Washington\, DCShahla Haeri\, Boston UniversityIslam Hassan\, CIRS – Georgetown University in QatarMehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University in QatarDavid Ottaway\, Wilson Center\, Washington\, DCMarina Ottaway\, Wilson Center\, Washington\, DCCharles Schmitz\, Towson University\, BaltimoreDeen Sharp\, Terreform\, Center for Advanced Urban Research & CUNY Graduate CenterElizabeth Wanucha\, CIRS – Georgetown University in Qatar\n\n \n\nArticle by Islam Hassan\, Research Analyst at CIRS
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/informal-politics-middle-east-working-group-i/
CATEGORIES:Focused Discussions,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/events_126846_49721_1548935511-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180319T124500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180319T134500
DTSTAMP:20260406T231129
CREATED:20180417T130542Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T094428Z
UID:10001364-1521463500-1521467100@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Refusing the Uniform: Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Women's Activism in Denmark\, 1967–1997
DESCRIPTION:The Center for International and Regional Studies invited GU-Q student Emma Mogensen (class of 2018) to present her senior thesis\, “Refusing the Uniform: Immigrant and Ethnic Minority Women’s Activism in Denmark\, 1967–1997\,” at a public talk on March 19\, 2018\, in which Mogensen shed light on an often-overlooked period of activism in Danish history. This event formally inaugurated the CIRS Undergraduate Research Advancement (CURA) initiative. \n \n \nIn the thirty-year period from 1967 to 1997\, there was a dramatic increase in immigrant and ethnic minority women’s activism in Denmark. Frustrated with their social standing and economic situations\, immigrant women from various minority ethnic backgrounds began to rally together to oppose the discrimination they experienced. Mogensen’s study on immigrant and ethnic minority women’s activism in Denmark analyzed content from publications by immigrant women’s organizations from the late 1960s to the 2000s. Mogensen began her talk with a news story from 1975\, which depicted two Pakistani women in Denmark who were denied unemployment benefits because they had refused job offers. The women argued that these were not actual refusals\, however\, because the Danish hotels had offered them positions that had mandatory uniform rules requiring women to wear short skirts\, which went against the womens’ particular social norms. \n \n \nThe Female Workers’ Union (FWU) might have been expected to support these women in their case because they were members of the organization. But the union failed to address the “inherently gendered discriminatory policies of hotels that required women to wear revealing uniforms\,” and instead chastised the women for their refusal of the jobs and the uniforms. In an article in The Foreign Workers’ Magazine\, the union hinted at larger tensions between the union and immigrant women. A union spokeswoman generalized the women’s refusal as “allegedly emblematic of problematic attitudes of immigrant women\,” further nothing that “if we accept the foreigners’ excuses we discriminate against the Danes. We wish to treat everyone the same.” These comments were remarkable because the Danish women’s movement and the FWU had been actively advocating for wage equality and universal access to childcare for decades prior to this case. \n \n \n“Immigrant and ethnic minority women have challenged Danish feminist organizations\, trade unions\, and politicians between 1967 and 1997 through their commitment to combating intersecting forms of discrimination.” \n \n \n“The Female Workers’ Union’s criticism implied its inability to see the Pakistani women as facing similar systemic challenges as Danish women\,” Mogensen said\, adding that its criticism conveyed a “maternalist” attitude. This revealed the FWU’s exclusionary treatment of immigrant women\, despite their commitment to strengthening women’s solidarity. This position was further supported by the Pakistani community’s accusation that the union had intentionally set up the women to have their benefits revoked since they had arranged the jobs. Although the resolution of the event is unknown\, Mogensen said this case was representative of tensions between both immigrants and Danish unions\, and immigrant women and Danish women’s organizations. \n \n \nMogensen’s central argument was that “immigrant and ethnic minority women have challenged Danish feminist organizations\, trade unions\, and politicians between 1967 and 1997 through their commitment to combating intersecting forms of discrimination.” They pushed for more complex understandings of how various forms of discrimination functioned simultaneously in Danish society based on gender\, race\, class\, etc. Immigrant women activists forged international networks with immigrant women and feminist organizations\, understanding how oppressive systems like sexism were not territorially limited. \n \n \nMogensen explained that immigrant women experienced double discrimination on the basis of both race and ethnicity. She shared a quote from a 1989 Danish-immigrant women’s magazine: “We are doubly oppressed—as women and as black.” Today\, the term “intersectionality” is used to describe this phenomenon—a term that was practically unheard of in Denmark in the 1980s\, especially when it came to questions of race and ethnicity. \n \n \nDenmark had received immigrants for centuries\, but the late 1960s marked a turning point in Danish immigration history through the Guest Worker Program. Like many other Western European nations\, Denmark experienced an economic upturn following WWII\, leading employers to bring in foreign workers to meet growing labor needs. In 1973\, the Danish economy entered a severe recession with increasing unemployment due to the global oil crisis. This pushed the Danish parliament to restrict the flow of migrants\, and later that year they enacted a law ending all labor immigration. \n \n \nFearing that migrant workers would leave Denmark to return to their families\, employers lobbied to open up legal avenues for workers to bring their spouses and children to Denmark. Their efforts succeeded in 1974 when the parliament passed a new family reunification law. Through this new law and Denmark’s subsequent acceptance of refugees\, many female immigrant activists arrived in Denmark. The early period of immigrant women’s mobilization efforts was marked by discrimination at the hands of Danish trade unions and women’s organizations. These women’s activism was generally spontaneous and ad hoc\, and centered on individual ethnic or linguistic groups. Through their opposition to such discrimination\, these early activists exposed contradictory and hypocritical policies theoretically dedicated to supporting female immigrant workers\, as seen with the FWU. \n \n \nIn the late 1980s\, immigrant women in Denmark expanded their efforts to create more permanent multi-ethnic organizations. Rather than operating on an ad hoc basis\, they developed institutional roots\, which allowed them to more comprehensively address immigrant women’s issues\, according to Morgensen. While earlier activists had discussed the multidimensional sources of discrimination\, starting in the late 1980s\, immigrant women explicitly placed intersectionality at the center of their mission. Through these organizations\, immigrant feminists also forged links with existing international feminist movements. \n \n \nThe first such organization in Denmark was Soldue\, which was founded in 1988 by a diverse group of immigrant women\, and the focus was on shared experiences rather than nationalities. Soldue focused on intersectionality and criticized the discrimination immigrant women faced at the hands of Danish authorities and Danish women’s organizations. Many women used the organization’s magazine to discuss gender discrimination in their own communities. From the beginning\, they recognized that racism and sexism were intertwined. From 1993\, their efforts began to impact Danish legislation\, and started leveraging influence by collaborating with Danish women’s groups and the government on policy issues. \n \n \nOne of the main objects of Soldue’s advocacy was the Three-Year Rule\, introduced in the 1983 Aliens Law. Soldue was highly critical of how the law tied foreign women’s legal status in Denmark to their spouses. It argued that the law rendered immigrant women especially vulnerable to domestic abuse\, since leaving an abusive partner before the end of three years could result in their deportation. According to Soldue\, domestic abuse was common everywhere\, and thus the law needed to protect immigrant women as it did Danish women. In 1993\, Soldue was appointed to a special commission on immigrant women’s legal status in Denmark set up by the Ministry of Interior. The parliament eventually incorporated the commission’s recommendations into law by amending the Aliens Law in 1996. Not satisfied with parliament’s limited concessions\, Soldue activists continued to argue against the Three-Year Rule even after the amendment\, Mogensen found. \n \n \nSoldue simultaneously increased their local and global influence\, increasing their outreach and international networks. A new generation of Danish-born children of immigrants was becoming politically active. They had never immigrated\, but they had experienced various forms of discrimination. Although they built on the efforts of their predecessors\, they developed their own strategies based on their position as Danish-born minorities. “Their increasing political activity was especially marked by debates over citizenship\,” Mogensen said. \n \n \nImmigrant and ethnic minority women actively confronted the multilayered forms of discrimination they experienced in Danish society. Through their activism\, they argued for the need to understand how various forms of discrimination intersected. They engaged with international feminist and activist movements and paved the way for a new generation of ethnic minority women’s activism. The activists who took a principled stand in 1975 for their right to reject a mandatory revealing uniform\, “paved the way for a new generation of ethnic minority women’s activism in Denmark from the 1990s onwards\,” Mogensen said. \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Khansa Maria\, CIRS Student Assistant \n \n \n \nEmma Mogensen is a fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in International History at Georgetown University in Qatar. Originally from Denmark\, she has lived in Qatar since 2009. She works as a Research Assistant at the Center for International and Regional Studies at GU-Q\, where she has conducted research on labor migration and citizenship in GCC countries\, among other topics concerning international migration. Her research interests revolve around migration and transnational activist networks\, as well as global understandings of citizenship and feminism. \n \n \n 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/refusing-uniform-immigrant-and-ethnic-minority-womens-activism-denmark-1967-1997/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Race & Society
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/04/events_126976_49603_1538045603-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180321T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180321T200000
DTSTAMP:20260406T231129
CREATED:20180312T082536Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T094416Z
UID:10001359-1521655200-1521662400@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:CIRS Book Launch: Contemporary Politics in the Middle East
DESCRIPTION:“There is always a sense of timeliness about the politics of the Middle East\,” and a pressing sense of the issues\, according to Beverley Milton-Edwards\, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. “It doesn’t matter what day of the week it is\, what time of year it is—the Middle East is always in the headlines.” Milton-Edwards is a professor of politics at Queen’s University in Belfast\, and a security theme leader at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace\, Security and Justice. She has lived in the Middle East for thirty years as a researcher\, and was at CIRS on March 21\, 2018\, to launch the fourth edition of her book\, Contemporary Politics in the Middle East.   \n \n \nMilton-Edwards focuses her research on security sector governance in the Middle East and the challenges of political Islam. The author said she found the need to publish a fourth edition of her book because the Middle East is such a dynamic region\, internally and externally. The book covers issues ranging from colonialism\, political economy\, conflict and lack of peace\, nationalism\, women\, ethnicity\, and minorities. She said her ambition in writing the book was modest and that it is meant to provide understandings for people new to the study of the region. \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \nMilton-Edwards discussed the entirety of the volume\, as well as what the book meant to her personally\, noting: “I have been in the region for some of the most pivotal political moments in recent times\, being caught up in events where leaders have been assassinated\, where regimes have crumbled\, populations have revolted\, and peace on occasion may have looked possible. And because of these field experiences\, I was also afforded the opportunity to be able to make small contributions on the ground\, in particular\, to management of conflict and the achievement of peace\, because I do believe that the Middle East deserves peace.” \n \n \nThe author’s research for the book is based on extensive on-the-ground fieldwork “whether in overcrowded refugee camps\, presidential compounds\, or in the shadowy\, complex lairs of rebel leaders or urban battle zones\,” she said. Milton-Edwards argued that it is impossible to study the region only from textbooks or media sources; that one must learn from various experiences that are diverse in nature. She wrote the book through interacting with different cross-sections of society—state and non-state actors alike—to understand the essence of their myriad perspectives. \n \n \n“I am not attempting to change the world one student at a time\, but I feel that the book is a resource that can open up the opportunities for looking at a region in other ways.” \n \n \nMilton-Edwards said that her work as a researcher gave her unique insight into political and social interactions in various situations\, such as corruption\, foreign policy\, the interaction of states in Middle East with Western policymakers and politicians\, and\, most importantly\, security dimensions. Over decades\, her research has charted the rise and collapse of state nationalist projects\, the fixation on what she calls “strong man politics and the tragic consequences of states waging wars against their own populations or against other states in the region in order to distract from the problems at home.” \n \n \nWhat struck her when speaking with ordinary people was issues such as “regional wealth\, inequality\, labor mobility and unemployment\, Islamism\, the Palestinian–Israeli conflict\, and the US in the Middle East.” These everyday concerns are the themes and contents of the book\, and her way of “making sense of the politics of this vast ethnically\, politically\, religiously\, and socioeconomically diverse region.” One of the main points she makes in the book is that “the politics of the contemporary Middle East is not as exceptional as many in the West would have us believe.” She said the curious thing is why the world sees itself as different from the Middle East. The region reflects the lasting effects of “colonialism\, power relations\, lack of political participation or apathy\, poor economic growth\, increasing urbanization\, and a return to faith and faith-based discourses\,” she argued. The contemporary politics of the Middle East is driven by the same broad dynamics of change over the last century as elsewhere across the globe. \n \n \nMilton-Edwards also argued that\, for the foreseeable future\, the “politics of the region—within the region and between the people and the state\, as well as by the region and other parts of the globe—will stay animated in one way or another to one degree or another by these same issues.” She pointed to youth as one such issue. In the UK in 2017\, youth were central to the emergence of new forms of political mobilization in the general elections\, and\, in the US\, youth are challenging the powerful gun lobby. “Youth in the region represent a powerful intersectionality of class\, gender\, nationality\, and faith\,” as evidenced by the role they played in the Arab uprisings. “The same grievances are levied\, the same challenge to authority\, and dismissal of obsolete and out of touch political structures—the same intergenerational struggles\,” she said. \n \n \n“I am not attempting to change the world one student at a time\,” Milton-Edwards said\, “but I feel that the book is a resource that can open up the opportunities for looking at a region in other ways.” This is because\, as each chapter\, theme\, and case study illustrates\, the context does actually matter and shapes the issue under scrutiny\, she said\, and local context and history matter. For this reason\, the book goes back in history and explores the profound impact of colonialism. For so many political constituencies in the Middle East\, “the past is still very much present\,” affecting people’s lives in what she called “everyday insecurities.” She also cited the example of violence\, arguing that it is a “reaction to the politics of authoritarianism\, ethnic domination\, rights denied\, and freedoms reneged on\,” which explains the phenomenon of terrorism and violence in the Middle East. \n \n \nConcerning where we are today and where we go from here\, Milton-Edwards pointed to the last chapter of the book titled\, “The Arab Spring and the New Era of Uncertainty.” She read a segment from the chapter: “The future of the region is almost impossible to predict. Many of the issues outlined in this book\, such as political economy\, political Islam\, and the state and its rulers will probably continue to determine the political systems which will develop over the next decade. Not least of which will be the unfolding legacy of the Arab Spring\, and the resilience of authoritarian regimes. They will continue to be tested and challenged by the region’s citizens.” \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Khansa Maria\, CIRS Student Assistant \n \n \n \nBeverley Milton-Edwards is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. She is professor of politics at Queen’s University Belfast and security theme leader at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace\, Security and Justice. She is known for having pioneered both scholarship and practice in the field of conflict management\, including ceasefires. She was the principal investigator to the European Union’s Civil Police Mission to the Palestinian Territories Program in 2006–2010. Her recent books include: The Muslim Brotherhood\, the Arab Spring\, and its Future Face (2016); Islamic Fundamentalism since 1945 (2013); Jordan: A Hashemite Legacy (2012); The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict\, A People’s War (2011); and Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement (2010).  \n \n \n 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/cirs-book-launch-contemporary-politics-middle-east-0/
CATEGORIES:Dialogue Series,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/events_126886_49720_1548928685-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180326T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180326T170000
DTSTAMP:20260406T231129
CREATED:20180508T104517Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T092953Z
UID:10001367-1522054800-1522083600@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Karl Widerquist CIRS Book Workshop
DESCRIPTION:The Center for International and Regional Studies hosted a workshop on Universal Basic Income (UBI) experiments. This was part of the CIRS-Faculty Book Series\, which provides an opportunity for faculty members to present book manuscripts to scholars and receive critical feedback in advance of publication. The workshop was held on March 26\, 2018\, and included four sessions\, in which eleven scholars from around the world critically assessed and provided suggestions on the manuscript\, The Devil’s in the Caveats: A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments for Researchers\, Policymakers\, and Citizens\, by Karl Widerquist\, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University in Qatar. \n\nWiderquist’s book discusses an important new topic in social science\, large-scale experiments devoted to testing UBI—a policy that would assure every citizen a steady income regardless of whether they work or not. Several similar experiments were conducted in the United States and Canada in the 1970s\, and recent interest in UBI experiments has returned with more than a half dozen experiments underway or under consideration in countries around the world. \n\nThe book discusses the difficulty of conducting UBI experiments and communicating their results to nonspecialists in ways that successfully raise the levels of debate. This is because of the inherent limits of experimental techniques\, the complexity of the public discussion of UBI\, and the many barriers that make it difficult for specialists and nonspecialists to understand each other. The book suggests that researchers stay focused on the public’s bottom line: an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of a permanent\, national UBI policy. Even if experiments can examine only a few questions relevant to that overall evaluation\, they need to draw the connection between what they can do and what citizens evaluating a policy option really need to know.  \n\nIn response to the growing debate over Unconditional Basic Income\, several governments and NGOs around the world have begun or are seriously considering conducting UBI experiments. This book argues that a large gap in understanding exists between the researchers who conduct UBI experiments and the citizens and policymakers who hope to make use of experimental findings. The usual solution—a simple list of caveats—is not sufficient to bridge that gap. The problem is not simply that nonspecialists have difficulty understanding experiments\, but also that researchers conducting experiments have difficulty understanding the role of experiments in that debate. These gaps create risks of misunderstanding\, misreporting\, oversimplification\, spin\, and what researchers call “the streetlight effect”—examining the most easily answered questions instead of the questions in most need of answers. This book is an effort to help bridge those gaps in understanding to avoid potential problems. It examines the many ways in which experiments can go wrong or be misunderstood\, in an effort to help researchers conduct better experiments and communicate their results in ways more likely to raise the level of debate. \n\n“The devil’s in the details” is a common saying in policy proposals\, and the author suggests that perhaps we need a similar expression for policy research\, something like “the devil’s in the caveats.” This is both because nonspecialists (the citizens and policymakers who are ultimately responsible for evaluating policy in any democracy) have great difficulty understanding what research implies about policy\, and because specialists often have difficulty understanding what citizens and policymakers most hope to learn from policy research.   \n\nThis problem creates great difficulty for UBI experiments that are now getting underway in several countries. These experiments can add a small part to the existing body of evidence people need to fully evaluate UBI as a policy proposal. Specialists can provide caveats about the limits of what research implies\, but nonspecialists are often unable to translate caveats into a firm explanation of what that research does and does not imply about the policy at issue. Therefore\, even the best scientific policy research can leave nonspecialists with an oversimplified\, or simply wrong\, impression of its implications for policy.  \n\n\n\nKarl Widerquist is Associate Professor at SFS-Qatar\, Georgetown University. He specializes in political philosophy and his research is mostly in the area of distributive justice—the ethics of who has what. He holds two doctorates: Political Theory from Oxford University (2006)\, and Economics from the City University of New York (1996). He coauthored Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy (Edinburgh University Press 2017) and authored Independence\, Propertylessness\, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No (Palgrave Macmillan 2013). He coedited Basic Income: An Anthology of Contemporary Research (Wiley-Blackwell 2013); Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model (Palgrave Macmillan 2012); Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World (Palgrave Macmillan 2012); and The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee (Ashgate 2005). He was founding editor of the journal Basic Income Studies\, and he has published numerous scholarly articles and book chapters. His articles have appeared in journals such as Analyse & Kritik; Eastern Economic Journal; Ethnoarchaeology; Political Studies; Politics and Society; Politics\, Philosophy\, and Economics; Journal of Socio-Economics; and Utilitas. He has been co-chair of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) for several years and was a founder of the US Basic Income Guarantee (USBIG) Network and its coordinator from 2000-10. He was NewsFlash editor for USBIG from 2010-15. He was also a founder of BIEN’s news website\, Basic Income News\, and its principle editor for its first four years. \n\n 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/karl-widerquist-cirs-book-workshop/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,CIRS Faculty Research Workshops,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/05/events_127131_49719_1548925793-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180328T124500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20180328T134500
DTSTAMP:20260406T231129
CREATED:20180328T071618Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T092931Z
UID:10001361-1522241100-1522244700@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:A Conversation with George Osborne
DESCRIPTION:On March 28\, 2018\, George Osborne\, former British Conservative Party politician and current editor of the London Evening Standard\, was invited by CIRS to deliver a Focused Discussion in which he spoke to Georgetown University-Qatar faculty\, staff\, and students about the increasingly challenging state of international politics. He began the conversation by noting that “there is quite a profound pessimism about the direction that the world is heading in.” \n \n \nThere are several reasons for this general distrust in international politics\, including “an erratic president” in the United States\, an aggressively expansionist Russia reaching into Ukraine and Georgia\, the uncertainties associated with Brexit\, and a progressively fragmenting Europe in which the far right is coming to power in many countries. “The EU\, NATO\, the IMF—all of these institutions created in the aftermath of Second World War seem like they are struggling and like they are failing\,” he said. In the Middle East\, the problems continue\, with the Syrian conflict looming large\, and fears of an escalation in hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia. \n \n \n“All this makes the world look very gloomy\,” Osborne said\, but\, despite the ongoing negativity\, he offered “three reasons to be cheerful” regarding the current political climate. The first is that\, despite his inflammatory rhetoric\, President Trump has not made substantial policy changes\, and has taken a surprisingly orthodox stance when it comes to the Middle East\, even more so that of Bush and Obama before him. The US president has spoken of “fairly alarming policies\, but these did not turn out to be that big of a threat\,” Osborne argued. \n \n \n“All this makes the world look very gloomy.” \n \n \nEven though Osborne noted that “I did everything in my power to stop Brexit\,” he argued that a second reason for optimism is that despite Britain’s exit from the European Union\, it will continue to be intimately involved with the EU\, and will not be completely isolated. \n \n \nThe third and final reason to be cheerful\, according to Osborne\, is the steady but measured rise of China. Although the country’s ascendance has caused some governments to be wary\, he noted that “China is keen on asserting its rights\, but it is also keen on doing so through international channels.” China may have firm nationalistic aims\, but not at the cost of peace. “One thing that I learned from China in many years is that\, above all\, they are interested in stability\,” Osborne said. \n \n \nOsborne ended with some statistics to support his optimistic conclusions. Despite the current state of world affairs\, in 2017\, he said\, fewer people in the world died of hunger\, disease\, or violence as compared to any previous year in human history. Even with the many problems\, conflicts\, and challenges we face today\, “something is working\,” he concluded. \n \n \n  \n \n \nArticle by Khansa Maria\, CIRS Student Assistant \n \n \n \nGeorge Osborne was Member of Parliament (MP) for Tatton from 2001 to 2017. He served as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Prime Minister David Cameron from 2010 to 2016\, during which time he also served on the National Security Council. From 2015 to 2016\, he served as Britain’s First Secretary of State. He is Chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership\, a not-for-profit organization he created to promote economic development in the North of England. \n \n \n  \n \n \n 
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/conversation-george-osborne/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Distingushed Lectures,Regional Studies
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/events_126936_49718_1548924297-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR