Can the Middle East Reform?

Hind Aboud Kabawat spoke at the Woodrow Center for Scholars on Friday, October 10 on the subject of Middle East Reform. She opened by questioning why, in the Middle East, autocratic governments have remained the norm rather than the exception. Despite the unprecedented transfer of wealth to these governments, they have not matured; they still exercise complete and arbitrary power over their people. There is a direct connection between the immature government and the lack of social development evidenced by an inferior education system, inferior health care, and the lack of economy outside of the oil sector. Despite the accumulating wealth, most people remain stuck in ignorance and poverty.

Ms. Aboud Kabawat then moved on to discuss how to change this problem. The change she would like to see take place is the creation of an environment in which dissent is tolerated, there is political accountability, an independent judiciary, free press, and a government that serves the interest of all the people and is free from systemic corruption. She explained the problem of crediting the lack of current democracy to the absence of historical democracy. There is nothing in Arab societies, she argues, that inhibits democratic maturation. Another argument she discounts is that the presence of Israel in the region is some kind of external hindrance to democratic development. There has been too much time and energy, she stated, devoted to fighting when efforts could have been directed towards creating a fair and just society.

Then, what are the real causes of governmental immaturity? One, there is a lack of secular, Westernized elites who are not members of the ruling elite standing at the vanguard of society, creating a new pillar in the Arab world. Two, everyone is worried that fanatic Islam would be what the masses want. Both of these hindrances to democracy stem from the culture of fear that political elites foster through jailing and exiling advocates for change.

The signs that the government is immature are evidenced by the lack of infrastructure, and a lack of accountability to the people. There is no independent judiciary, free press or other checks on the government. There are no open elections, no transferring of power, no transparency. The shortage of transparency allows corruption to become systemic and further inhibit economic growth. The entire world is willing to pay for oil wealth, she stated, and these countries need to use this money transfer to develop other technologies and future wealth opportunities. This change will not happen effortlessly. The government is reluctant to embrace change because their absolute power gives them security and stability. However, change will happen. The Middle East is plagued by poverty, corruption, discrimination and unemployment.

So, what can be done? We can get a better future if we create a society where all can work together. There are four pillars Ms. Aboud Kabawat stated are important for maturing democracy in the Middle East. First, the rule of law must be established. There must be independent judges. Currently, the government does not want to share power, and results in suppressed civil institutions. However, the government should work with civil society and work on engaging everyone. She also asserts that secular government must be the norm; there must be a separation of state and religion because the state must be for all. The rule of law must stand free from religion.

The second pillar is the empowerment of women. This, she argues, is an essential part of modernization. In the Middle East, women have very few rights and the empowerment of women would lead of liberalization of the entire political system. Women are capable of doing great things, she states, we must let them do it. The third pillar is education. The current education is substandard. There must be quality education for all. This would result in more discussions and more ideas. Poverty, ignorance, and terrorism go well together. Fighting ignorance defeats poverty and the next generation of terrorists.

The fourth pillar is peace. Countries in the Middle East are spending money killing each other, while this money is spent on a fruitless war, it cannot benefit society. The U.S. is also guilty of this; money is being spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of building institutions. The poor are the ones suffering for this misappropriation of resources. There must be peaceful coexistence with Israel and the rest of the world. While fighting increases, there is a decrease in money spent on reform and chances for the country to improve.

She quotes Gandhi who says, “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.” There is a need for an environment of change, a need to get everyone working together. The Middle East intellectuals must play a primary role in change. Even in jail, or oppressed, they can never give up. They must keep trying to improve society. This will help convince leaders that change should happen. These four pillars must become the norm, and there must be engagement with the Middle East in order to see reform.

Date: October 10, 2008
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Attended by: Emily Riff

Pakistan’s Leading Reporters: Revolutionizing the Information Flow

This past Tuesday the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars invited seven of Pakistan’s leading Journalists and News Anchors to speak on the progression of the information flow in Pakistan. Before the discussion even began, the audience already had a brief understanding of the limitations facing Pakistani journalists, as two of the seven journalists where not able to obtain visas in time for the week-long summit.
This first journalist to speak was Zaffar Abbas, a resident editor in Islamabad for the Dawn newspaper. Zaffar focused on the strong pull of Pakistani news, and that journalists from surrounding countries always migrate to Pakistan because “that’s where the news is”. Zaffar mentions the dangers of journalism in Pakistan, but attributes that as one of the effects or having the freedom to publish controversial news articles, a freedom that Pakistani journalists have fought for, for years. The newly found press freedom has changed much of the political profile in Pakistan, which is why there are still debates, and politicians against many news agencies.
The second speaker, Massoud Ansari, is a political correspondent with the Herald. Having previously worked out of England, Massoud focused on the rush behind investigative journalism, and what drives many Pakistani journalists to risk their lives, as well as their families, in order to produce the controversial ground breaking news. Massoud stressed that in addition to the competitiveness between news agencies and constant pressure, there is a temptation to become famous, and to have the power to distribute the information to the mass public. For him, the biggest part of the job is assessing the consequences for ones-self and whether the story is worth your life. Massoud had once interviewed a man regarding his research on suicide bombing, and the following day the interviewee was shot dead, leaving him with the thought: at what point do you risk it?
Mazhar Abbas, the third speaker, deputy news director of Ary One World Television and 2007 recipient of International Press Freedom Award, elaborated on Zaffar’s mention of previous oppression of Freedom of Press, and told the audience his personal story revolving around the Press revolution. In his eyes, the Pakistani journalists are some of the most courageous, as many have been jailed and flogged, and had families killed in their efforts to liberate the press. Mazhar is part of a union that protested the day that the government banned Electronic Media. The Intelligence Office personally warned Mazhar that his life was in danger due to his publications and affiliations with the group. However, the personal charges against him were later dropped. Nevertheless, the Union protested (irregardless of the government’s zero tolerance), and the Pakistani court currently has a case against 200 journalists in the Union, Mazhar included. Mazhar concluded his personal account with the sobering fact that 45 journalists have been killed within the last 8 years, some just for the title of their articles, and others are still missing.
Ejaz Haider, the fourth speaker, and op-ed editor for the Daily Times and political talk show host for Dawn news, discussed his experience as a more main stream, non-radical journalist. While he opened his discussion by offering much praise for Mazhar Abbas’ work, and accrediting him for much of the freedom of Pakistani press, he himself chose the path of government cooperation simply because he was not willing to risk his life or be jailed. Ejaz focused on the difficulties of getting the true political story, or even facts, when working along side of the government. In his experience, there are only three ways to get the facts about the government/military activities. One is to be embedded with the military, where they can select what information to tell you, and edit what they want you to publish. The second is to go under the protection of the Taliban, where you get the insurgent opinion, however due to the sub divisions and cleavages within the Taliban your protection only goes so far as the guarantor’s control; the third being to be free-lance and risk being killed by the military and the Taliban as neither is protecting you. In any case, your news is going to been slanted, which is why it is such a novelty to get the facts in Pakistan.
The fifth and final speaker, Asma Shirazi, is the host of ARY One World’s “Second Opinion” talk show, and offers a unique perspective as Pakistan’s first female war correspondent and leading female journalist. While she did focus on the challenges provided by the military’s desire for secrecy, she also stressed the issues she faced as a woman, including various levels of harassment from colleagues, and the obstacles she occasionally faced while traveling. In her assessment of the current state of journalism in Pakistan, Asma stressed that with the greater freedom comes greater responsibility. That the journalists are at a point where they need to take full responsibility regarding how to report and convince people about certain political news, rather than just repeating a story.
All five journalists echoed Asma’s point, emphasizing that now that the journalists have achieved the next step in freedom, it will be interesting to see where they go with it, and how the next administration supports or denounces their field.

Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars
Date: September 16, 2008
Representative: Daria Willis

The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq

With the political atmosphere in Washington DC charged for the upcoming election, there are few issues debated more that the future of US military presence in Iraq? On Friday, July 25th the United States Institute of Peace, USIP, decided to engage those on all sides of this debate for a panel discussion concerning this very subject: The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq. The speakers included Ms. Kimberly Kagan, Mr. Charles Knight, Mr. Colin Kahl, and Ms. Rend al-Rahim.

Ms. Kimberly Kagan, the President of the Institute for the Study of War, detailed that the surges contributed to political process although political advances lag behind those of increased security. Our objectives in Iraq are to help Iraq establish peace with neighbors, become an ally in the War on Terror, and to generate a stable, legitimate, democratic government. She suggests we retain US military presence to prevent ‘malign’ influences on the upcoming elections and any resurgence of violence. It is wise to avoid considering the upcoming election as a culmination of efforts but instead to look at them as the beginning of a political process that will continue to need social, economic, and political assistance. She believes the US should maintain ‘peacekeeping activities’ because a withdrawal would give Iranian-backed enemies a timetable to regroup and jeopardize the political process. The presence of US forces allows the Iraqi government to focus on governance, reconstruction, and reintegration of previous extremist into government to begin negotiations.

Quite contrary to Ms. Kagan’s speech, Mr. Charles Knight, Co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, strongly expressed that the US military occupation is the central feature of “our strategic failure” in Iraq. He discussed the miscalculation of what could be accomplished by arms, the failure of the US to understand identity politics, and the failure to consider international cooperation and legitimacy of actions. He expressed that the US military presence in Iraq has “tarnished the meaning and promise of democracy.” Mr. Knight advocates for unconditional withdrawal accompanied by internationally supported reconciliation efforts under a code of non-interference. While he acknowledges that the surges have increased security, he believes it is far from sufficient and that the US- Iraqi alliance is a “shaky marriage of convenience.”

Mr. Colin Kahl, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, believes that our future presence in Iraqi is “all about balance,” between eradicating terrorism, generating stability, and providing leadership and credibility for governance. To contend with ongoing problems of ethno-sectarian conflicts, Mr. Kahl advocates that Iraq bring extremists into the political process, improve governance and increase employment. Additionally, the US needs to help professionalize the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to ensure that they will act as a neutral body accountable to the state. The best option for future US military involvement is that of conditional engagement to pursue withdrawal and also provide residual support. The idea of a timeline with ‘conditions’ attached is paramount because the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been US politics not involving conditionality according to Mr. Kahl.

USIP’s Iraqi Fellow, Ms. Rend al-Rahim strongly echoed Mr. Kahl’s sentiments stating that he has a good understanding on things on the ground and the failure of US policy strategy. She furthered Mr. Kahl’s argument that the surges have been successful in increasing security but their original intent to improve the political process has seen little gain. Furthermore, she cited four mistakes the U.S. made in structuring the ISF: focusing on quantity and not quality, focusing on combat instead of command or control, ignoring integration of those serving in the ISF, and ignoring issues of loyalty of the army to the state. Ms. al-Rahim supports conditional engagement in Iraq and believes that the United States’ lack of declaratory statements and sanctions against Iraq have actually hindered the development of good governance. Iraq remains fragmented and faces problems with amnesty which prevent sustainable security. She comments that is a great sense of apprehension in Iraq that the increased security can break down at any moment; therefore, the US military should continue to stress the importance of integrating the ISF. If Sunnis do not feel as though they are equal partners in the state then Iraq may face another insurgency and relapse in violence. Sunnis must see the benefits of participating in society and they must be integrated into the leadership of the country. Above all else, Ms. al-Rahim emphasized that the US has not yet used the whole range of carrots and sticks in the last 5 years in Iraq and the military should change our strategy to one of conditional engagement while we strengthen the ISF.

This idea of conditional withdrawal supported by both Mr. Kahl and Ms. al-Rahim and opposed by both Ms. Kagan and Mr. Knight adequately illustrated the strong differences in opinion presented at the panel. For example at the conclusion of the panel, while Colin was of the mindset that 2009 will be spent “managing our increasing irrelevance,” Ms. Kagan strongly believed that 2009 will be a crucial year demanding strong US military support for the upcoming Iraqi elections.

Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace
Date: July 25, 2009
Time: 10 am -12 pm
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker

Youth Recommendations for a better U.S. - Middle East Relationship

In one of the world’s most dynamic regions, young people make up relatively 2/3rds of the population and are becoming “an increasingly powerful demographic force” engaged in the political arena. Middle Eastern and American youth met at the Young Global Leaders Forum to promote US-Middle East Relations to foster democratic development in the Middle East and North Africa. This remarkable forum was comprised of three conferences this past spring hosting 138 youth leaders throughout the region in Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan to develop and ratify policy recommendations for their respective governments as well as international media and civil society organizations concerning Middle East reform and America’s role. The conferences were hosted by Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED). On Tuesday, July 29th these two organizations partnered with the Middle East Institute (MEI) to bring representatives from the conferences to present their policy recommendations here in Washington DC.


In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election, this summer has seen a myriad of policy recommendations for the next administration, especially concerning foreign policy in the Middle East. Ambassador Wendy J. Chamberlin, President of MEI, stated that this “refreshing” report is particularly compelling and thought provoking as these young people represent the next generation of global leaders. The policy recommendations emanating from the three conferences addressed the following questions:


- How can U.S. development assistance better foster sustainable economic and political reform in the Middle East?
- What impact have other U.S. policies had on political reform in the region?
- How can the U.S. best support independent media sources and freedom of expression?
- How can the U.S. and the Middle East cooperate to give youth a meaningful voice in social, economic, educational, cultural and political debates?

As Tuesday’s presentation was directed to an American audience, the youth emphasized that the ‘War on Terror’ is not simply an American concern but that the Arab World feels the threat just as much within its own countries. Accordingly, a panelist expressed that the U.S. should “not be a demanding power [but] rather a willing partner.” All three conferences had a unanimous desire for greater promotion of understanding Arab culture in the U.S. as well as a desire for increased face-to-face dialogue via video conferencing. The young people hope to express to Americans that an equal, mutually respected partnership between the U.S. and the Arab World is in the best interest of global security and democratic development in the Middle East and North Africa.

Sponsor: The Middle East Institute, The Project on Middle East Democracy, and Americans for Informed Democracy
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 12-1 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker

Islamist Parties and Democracy

The rise of Islamist Parties throughout the globe has restructured the historical debate regarding Islam and democracy not only as a theoretical issue but now as a policy concern. The July 2008 issue of the Journal of Democracy presents various essays containing experts’ opinions on this issue to “highlight the key points of controversy in assessing the implications of the rise of Islamist parties for the future of democracy in the region.” On July 21st, The National Endowment for Democracy and the Journal of Democracy held a panel featuring four of the essayists from the symposium including Tamara Cofman Wittes, Hillel Fradkin, Laith Kubba, and Amr Hamzawy.

Tamara Cofman Wittes, from Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, dates the beginning of this discussion back to the 1992 coup in Algeria which established a “prism through which many actors” in the western world view Islam and Democracy. She enlist as examples of the lack of Islamic democracies resulting partially from the western (i.e. American) insincerity regarding their commitment to democratic transportation as seen in Algeria and Gaza with the election of legitimate, illiberal, anti-American Islamic governments. Further, the American failure throughout the 1990s to differentiate between Islamic groups has contributed to a backlash against democracy promotion. Ms. Wittes explained that it is the militarism and not the religion on many Islamist political groups that dooms their democratic process as well as their environment of operating in failed states.

Hudson Institute’s Hillel Fradkin approached the discussion of Islamic parties and Democracy as one of paradox and caution. He believes it to be a paradox seeing as most Islamic parties have an origin in the Muslim Brotherhood which was a movement and not a party; furthermore, the Brotherhood was against liberal democracy and even the very idea of nation-state governance. Secondly, he believes that conversation of Islam and Democracy should be accompanied by a word of caution. In light of past failures he poses the question: is it in our security interest to encourage Islamic democratic experiments? Although he cites Turkey, Jordan, Morocco (PJD), and Iraq as examples of Islamic parties moving in the right direction towards democracy he explains that each attempt will be country specific and that the “crucial thing is the question of environment.”

NED’s own Laith Kubba cautioned against automatically associating Islamist politics with authoritarian governments because both secular and religious governments can be authoritarian. It is disastrous for American polity to assume that there is only one Islamic approach to political thinking although Islamic politics can be authoritarian and that “the minute religion is pushed on politics it is too powerful” and becomes so counterproductive and destructive instead of unifying; therefore, all political parties should guard against the abuse of religion according to Mr. Kubba. He insists that the focus should be on the CONTEXT in which Islamists come to power. Weak state and civic institutions can often lead to authoritarian politics. If the state is in better shape then political Islam is less autocratic; therefore, we should focus on strengthening civil institutions and culture to allow the democratic process to take place.

The last presenter, Amr Hamzawy of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, conveyed his essay’s explanation of the wide spectrum of Islamic movements, highlighting three patterns. The most successful attempts of Islamist parties pursuing democracy are seen in Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, and Kuwait. These countries exhibit relatively stable and integrated legal politics with checks and balances in the government. No one party in these countries has a monopoly over Islam itself allowing for internal debates and differences to be managed institutionally. Furthermore, these countries successfully shift the debates from ideology concerns to public policy and the needs of the people. However, these Islamists still face the challenges of keeping their constituencies convinced as many came to power out of reform oriented movements and they now have limited outcome of participation.

Secondly, Egypt and Jordan are examples of less stable developments of Islamist parties and democracy as the cycles of repression and intimidation have generated a polarized political scene creating a challenge for organized political participation of Islamists. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood holds a monopoly over Islamic politics and has been unable to move away from ideological debates. The lack of institutions to manage differences has lead to factionalism and resulted in instability; therefore facing a challenge of managing debates over participation in politics and the role of Islam. Sudan and Yemen have been the most unsuccessful in fostering democracy and their Islamic parties have shifted position to become opposition movements when they were once members of governing coalitions. They have been unable to fashion convincing messages to their audiences and their debates are increasingly out of touch. Saudi Arabia and Syria do not currently have modern, organized movements of Islamist Political Parties engaging in democracy.

All four panelists emphasized the political environment in which Islamic political parties come to power as a major influence in determining the success of democracy. Ms. Wiites summarizes this in saying that the “quality of overall political environment determines the quality of political participants.” Therefore, improving the scope of political freedom in the Middle East will allow the relationship between Islamist parties and democracy to progress.

Sponsor: The National Endowment for Democracy and the Journal of Democracy
Date: July 21, 2008
Time: 4:30-6 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker

Security and Development Workgroup

The Society for International Development put together a panel of experts to host an informal conversation regarding security issues in international development. Panelists included Jeff Abramson, the Managing Editor of Arms Control Today at Arms Control Association; Richard Hill, the Senior Director of Transition States at International Development Group-RTI International; and James D. Schmitt, Vice president of Center for Stabilization and Development at Creative Associates International. Each addressed their companies’ goals and initiatives towards increasing security in developing nations: arms treaties, legitimized security forces, and post conflict resolution.

According to Abramson, over the past few years the international community, along with reluctant cooperation from the US, has worked on drafting a collaborative Arms Trade Treaty. While it is unrealistic to expect countries to relinquish their independent rights to accept Arms Trade from other countries, the ultimate goal is to make the process much more transparent. That is to say, provide adequate documentation of which countries are receiving what arms.

Richard Hill applied Abramson’s briefing to the situation in Darfur. Hill stressed that as there is a need for a legitimate UN mandate regarding weapon’s trading, there is also a need for legitimate security in Darfur. However, since this is not currently a feasible option, RTI has focused on “Practical Security Solutions” addressing the health issues and violence directed towards the Internally Displaced Persons in Sudan. For example, in order to facilitate faster mobility and adaptability, RTI has provided chickens and stoves in the place of large farm animals and firewood so that Sudanese refugees are not required to leave the safety of the camps. In addition, RTI has provided donkeys for expedited transportation.

In addition to RTI’s initiatives, James D Schmitt discussed organization’s efforts to regulate post-conflict territories. Schmitt stressed that while the actions of non government organizations and for profit organizations such as RTI are crucial to the stabilization of a region, all efforts would be more effective if NGOs, for-profit organizations, and the military could collaborate their efforts. Schmitt refers to this theory as “clustering,” and brings up a valid argument that pooling the large variety of resources and funding could prove more beneficial in these post-conflict development efforts.

All three organizations are currently working for a better level of security in both developed and undeveloped regions around the globe. However, Abramson, Hill and Schmitt all recognize that, at the moment, these initiatives are very optimistic, and it may be an uphill battle.

Sponsor: Society for International Development
Date: 7/9/08
Time: 12pm-1:15pm
Representative: Daria Willis

Reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan

In the aftermath of United States military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, development is an increasingly important issue. Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), one approach to post-conflict reconstruction, are military units comprised of civilian development experts and military personnel. While PRTs are designed to assist and rebuild devastated areas of Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fallen short of initial expectations for success. Dr. Vic Snyder, Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a presentation and discussion evaluating the PRT system. He identified six challenges facing PRTs:

1. Lack of strategic guidance and oversight. Dr. Snyder likened implementing a PRT to “playing a pick-up game”, where teams must constantly make up policies and change their approach. This causes significant delays and reduces the effectiveness of projects.
2. Complicated chain of command. It is often unclear who is in charge of the PRTs, which significantly delays orders and clearance for action.
3. Complex funding systems. It is difficult for teams to understand the amount and source of their funding. Furthermore, those who do have clear funding sources don’t have enough flexibility to allocate that money when and where it is most needed.
4. Staffing challenges. Not enough personnel are present for the PRTs to be agile and adaptable to changing situations
5. No way to learn from previous lessons. Dr. Snyder pointed out that many of the challenges facing PRTs today were also problematic during the Vietnam War. These inadequacies could have been avoided by learning from the past.
6. Inadequate measures of outcomes of PRTs. It is very difficult to assess the progress of objectives such as “capacity building.” This ambiguity makes it difficult to monitor the overall success of a PRT.

Dr. Snyder concluded that PRTs, and development efforts in general, must increase their “strategic agility.” They must be able to adapt to constantly changing situations and respond to the needs of the communities in which they are based. Many members of the audience who worked on PRTs in either Iraq or Afghanistan echoed this sentiment as they discussed the future of PRTs. There was a general agreement that the United States should not assume that the PRT model will work in other places. Indeed, if the concept is to work in the future, the teams must be much more flexible. PRTs need a model that can be adapted to individual environments, the ability for increased mobility, and the freedom of when and how to spend money.

Sponsor: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Date: June 19, 2008
Time: 10:00am – 11:00am
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan

Fighting Impunity: High Stakes in the East and Horn of Africa

On June 26^th, NED (National Endowment for Democracy) hosted “Fighting Impunity: High Stakes in the East and Horn of Africa” featuring Hassan Shire Sheikh of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Network (EHAHRDN) and Bronwyn Bruton of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for International Private Enterprise. Bronwyn introduced Hassan with the story of his organization’s response to the situation of journalist fleeing Somalia last October. Hassan’s EHAHRDN responded immediately by providing basic assistance, relocation, and trauma counseling for over 20 journalists. Bronwyn believes EHAHRDP is truly an example of a new practice needed in the field. Traditional institutional responses have been proven insufficient, and EHAHRDP is a model for new mechanisms that need to evolve.

Hassan began his lecture with the idea that “every challenge has a response.” He explained that people in civil society really want to “pick up the pieces on the ground” to effect change at the grassroots level but they are in need of support and encouragement. Activists and Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) in the east and horn of Africa are well aware of the risk they are facing; however, they also understand that their reporting is absolutely vital to bring about change. These groups and individuals face numerous challenges including insufficient collaboration, insufficient skills, and immense resource constraints. EHAHRDP is working to establish a mechanism to fulfill three main objectives: protect HRDs, engage in advocacy on behalf of HRDs, and build capacity for skilled active citizenship among HRDs and those in their communities.

Hassan individually described the terrible conditions for Human Rights Defenders in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan. These four countries are constantly plagued with human rights violations including targeted rapes, denial of assistance to IDPs and refugees, targeted violence towards humanitarian workers and civilians, as well as unlawful arrests, detainments, and executions. Hassan believes that in regards to international assistance it is “not a lack of information but a lack of action.”

In order to provide adequate protection for HRDs in the East and Horn of Africa and to eradicate human rights violations, Hassan provided several constructive recommendations for the international community. Not only should it, continue its condemnation of HR violations, but it should call on all parties to bring an end to arbitrary arrests, harassments, systematic attacks, and targeted killings. Accountability mechanisms for governments and other actors should be set in place and investigations of HR violations should be encompassing and prompt.

Assistance should target marginalized groups such as women and defenders of minorities groups because they are the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, the increase in violations against HRDs will increase self-censorship and inhibit the dissemination of information regarding the atrocities in this region. This will have an exceedingly negative impact on the ability of these nations to progress and establish peace, justice, and stability.

Hassan called upon the international community and NGOs to provide logistical, political, and financial support to entities and bodies serving the HRDs network in Africa to end the unlawful censorship so as to promote the freedom of expression. In his published recommendations, Hassan emphasizes the need “to ensure that the respect of human rights and ending impunity is at the heart of all diplomatic and peace and reconciliation dialogues.”

Sponsor: The National Endowment for Democracy
Date: June 26, 2008
Time: 12-2 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker

Resettled Refugees Remember Those Left Behind

June 20, 2008 marked the eight annual World Refugee Day, a bittersweet day of remembrance for the over 11 million refugees and 26 million internally displaced people. It is unfortunate, recalled numerous presenters, that this day must be celebrated, but it is fortunate to hear the hopeful and inspiring stories of refugees who have ameliorated their lives and to hear of the countless volunteers who dedicate their efforts to assisting them. Protection for refugees and for those who serve them was the theme of this year’s event led by UNHCR's Deputy High Commissioner L. Craig Johnstone. He stressed the need to respect the human rights of refugees and volunteers.

A diverse myriad of speakers paid homage to the plights of refugees from four countries: Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Burma. NPR correspondent Deborah Amos anecdotally recalled her meetings with Iraq refugees and the challenged which affront them living in urban refugee settlements throughout Syria and Afghanistan. Sad stories of Sudanese refugees were recounted by Daoud Hari, whose memoirs are vividly depicted in his book The Translator. After losing much of her family in Afghanistan, The Other Side of the Sky author Farah Ahmedithanked the UNHCR for resettling her and her mother in the US. Joining her was Thimothy Ju, a young refugee from Myanmar whose recent journey from camps in Thailand to a home in Texas was documented in the MTV show True Life: I’m Coming to America. Although they all endured different experiences, they were united in their gratitude from the good works of the UN and their remembrance of those left behind. Poignantly stoic and blindly hopeful, their stories captivated the thousands in the crowds and depicted the triumph of the human spirit amidst unbelievable adversity.

This sad yet triumphant celebration concluded with the presentation of the Humanitarian of the Year Award, awarded to Chicago Bulls forward Luol Deng. Born in Sudan, he relocated to Egypt and later to Great Britain, where he developed his skill and passion for basketball. He is an instrumental partner in the UNHCR’s Ninemillion Campaign that aims to bring education and sport programs to the world’s nine million child refuges by 2010. Deng donates $50 to Ninemillion for every basket he scores and encourages people around the world to follow his example. Deng delivered a heart-warming speech that placed his basketball career second to his job as a humanitarian and volunteer. The joy and exhilaration from giving a helping hand far succeeds the thrills of any championship ring.

Sponsors: The National Geographic Society and the UNHCR
Date: June 20, 2008
Time: 12-1 p.m.
Representative: Elizabeth Caniano

Girls Count

Girls Count: A Global Investment and Action Agenda

Featured Speakers: Kathy Calvin, Margaret Greene, Caren Grown, Laura Laski, Ruth Levine, Joan Libby-Hawk, Cynthia Lloyd, Caroline Ryan

The importance of investing time, energy, and funding into the world’s young female population is clear and undisputed. Young females across the globe are undoubtedly crucial to developmental progress and to the success of the Millennium Development Goals. Despite the noticeably important role of this specific group, support systems that aim to promote good health, the ability to advance, safety, and favorable living conditions for young women are unreliable. Girls are not protected even though they should be. Their vulnerability is exacerbated by the lack of consistent support. So they have only reaped the benefits of lip service, not reliable support over time.

In recognition of this unfortunate reality, the Center for Global Development, the International Center for Research on Women and the Population Council have reported on issues concerning this underserved segment of humanity with hopes to bring awareness to the fore and action to the ground.

The speakers first addressed why girls matter and why investing in their well-being is an economically sound decision. They mentioned that in this era of common interconnectedness of nations, young women comprise the workforce base that light textiles and other global industries requiring cheap labor rely on. As a result of their utility, young women are often subject to unfair work conditions and the unfortunate cyclic factors that accompany such exploitation.

One factor that accompanies exploitative practices is the absence of a formal mechanism that recognizes the existence of young females. As a result, young women lack citizenship and access to the rights that rely on formal documentation and identity records. Thus, many girls are restricted physically by their inability to travel legally. They are also they are limited financially as official ownership of land titles, assets, and homes requires documentation, as well as the approval and/or sponsorship of a male, usually a husband or father.

With hopes to help combat the gender inequalities recognized world-wide, the speakers gave a series of recommendations and encouraged attendees to realize how girls effect development. They framed part of this discussion around the Millennium Development Goals and by focusing on what individuals, non-governmental organizations/private actors, and governments can do to mitigate the problems related to gender equality and insufficient support for young females.

Some of the proactive steps you can take include encouraging males to respect and care for women of all ages. Parents can (re)introduce psychological commitment to ensure feminist ideals are respected and viewed with legitimacy. Also, you can support specific programs that directly support democratic governance and improve the conditions of civil society such as the Somali Women’s Scholarship Fund supported by UNDP-USA.

If you would like more information concerning issues of development related to women around the globe or would like to know how you can take a role in improving gender inequality, contact the U.S. Committee for UNDP.



Sponsor: Center for Global Development, International Center for Research on Women, Population Council
Location: Hilton Washington Embassy Row
Date: January 30, 2008
Time: 10:00 am-12:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 300
Representative Attending: Saphonia Foster

A FAREWELL TO ALMS

Featured Speaker: George Clark

In a provocative lecture George Clark, professor at the University of California, Davis, presented his theories concerning the developmental history of the world. He exposed his findings in the new book “A Farewell to Alms” and shared his thoughts on conventional wisdom concerning economic growth and development.

The lecture was held at the University of California Washington Center and drew a broad audience including researchers, economists, graduate students, former diplomats, ambassadors, and various representatives from think tanks and developmental organizations.

In his talk, Clark veered from focusing on exploitation, geography, and the colonial legacy and engaged his diverse audience by challenging basic assumptions concerning development such as the belief that liberal markets spark growth. He confronted the ineptness of resource based explanations of development. He also challenged the idea that exposure to advances in technology engenders economic growth, progress, and improves living standards. These ideological foundations often guide academics and more importantly determine how policymakers frame solutions to combat the ills that accompany poverty and underdevelopment.

Clark continued to challenge these foundations by presenting a binary list of traits and factors that are generally presumed to catalyze economic growth and better living standards. While tracing historical data of England’s living standards, the professor drew a particular focus on the industrial revolution and on 16^th and17^th century sanitation practices, or lack there of. He juxtaposed this broad historical English context with various indigenous societies in Central America, South American, Africa, and India to support his claim that those who rested at the pinnacle of England’s social hierarchy did not necessarily bear the best standards of living based on his definition of high quality living standards.

The crowd was stimulated by Clark’s interesting presentation, which left spectators with more questions than answers. With this new approach to developmental thought, policy makers and humanitarian organizations can re-evaluate their approaches to development programs and question the primary premises that guide them. While doing so, development organizations can improve the impact they have on those abroad.

Date: Thursday January 10, 2008

Time: 10:00 am - 11:30 am

Location: 1608 Rhode Island Ave. NW- Washington, D.C. 20036

UNDP-USA Representative: Saphonia Foster

Discussion on School-Related Gender Based Violence

Featured Speaker: Mary Ellen Duke, Center for Development and Population Activities

School-related gender based violence (SRGBV) is a new theme in the field of development, yet one that deserves increased attention in policy circles. Studies have shown that SRGBV severely disrupts the healthy social and educational development of children, which can hamper their future societal participation. This presentation focused specifically on gender dynamics, the interactions between men and women of all ages, defined in large part by socio-cultural ideas and power relationships.

The Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), a non-profit organization working to improve the lives of women and girls in developing countries, conducted twin education programs in Egypt for both boys and girls, aimed at decreasing SRGBV both at school and at home. New Visions, the boy’s program, demonstrated high success rates in halting domestic violence and exploitation. Problems arose, however, when aspects of the program directly conflicted with religious or cultural teachings, in particular with the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Due to these obstacles, it is important to implement programs through grassroots partners who understand local traditions and sensitivities.

For more information visit http://www.cedpa.org.

Sponsor: EQUATE-MSI
Location: Solar Room, Management Systems International, 600 Water St. SW
Date: July 16
Time: 12:00-2:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 15
Intern Attending: Alexandra Martins

The Evolving Role of Humanitarian Assistance: Case Study of Afghanistan

Featured Speakers: Rick Corsino, United Nations World Food Programme Afghanistan Eric Meissner; Former USAID Advisor to the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A); John Patten, International Medical Corps; Kim Maynard, International Rescue Committee

Moderator: Rick Barton, CSIS

The panel, comprised of members with extensive experience in Afghanistan, provided an overview of humanitarian and military operations currently stationed there. The amount of red, or ‘no-go’, areas in the southern reaches of Afghanistan have expanded in recent months, making it difficult for relief agencies to provide services to those in desperate need of food, shelter and health care. Because of these conditions, Provincial Response Teams which are militarily trained stand alone in these areas and are desperate for inter-agency assistance. Because of the instability in Afghanistan these teams have been the most effective; however, stabilization is only the first step. There is a clear need for more development is needed to ensure that secure areas do not relapse once Special Forces depart.

The panelists articulated two areas of future focus: greater interagency cooperation and local-level consultative projects. The current disconnect between military and civilian operations make it difficult to achieve a holistic approach to humanitarian assistance. Greater coordination will allow specialized agencies to focus on needs they address best.

With regard to long-term impact, a consultative approach is essential to ensuring that Afghans can manage their own country once foreign actors hand over control to local authorities. The National Solidarity Program, a country-wide initiative created to increase Afghan involvement in the decision-making process, has found that local efforts are most effective. The International Rescue Committee, for example, has facilitated elections with local Community Development Councils, which give Afghans experience with democratic processes as well as local responsibilities. These interactions have shown that working with communities is the most effective way to assess needs and implement useful projects. Once these systems are operationalized, humanitarian actors should focus their work on transitioning power into local hands.

Sponsor: CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project
Location: CSIS
Date: June 7, 2007
Time: 10:00-11:30AM
Approximate Number of Attendees: 40
Intern Attending: Alexandra Martins

Iraq: The Road Ahead

Event Title: Iraq: The Road Ahead
Sponsor and Location: CSIS
Date: April 13, 2007
Time: 10:00-11:00am
Approximate Number of Attendees: 60
Intern Attending: Elysa Severinghaus

Featured Speaker: His Excellency Samir Sumaida’ie, Ambassador of Iraq to the United States

So often in the United States, we debate international issues on our own terms. Recently, the issue of peace in Iraq has been one of the most important issues at hand and yet we rarely lend an ear to the Iraqi voice in regard to the logistics of a timely solution. This is the voice that Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie brings to every audience he addresses in hopes that it will eventually reflect itself in American policy toward Iraq.

Many Americans see the war in Iraq leading in no specific direction and are generally disappointed with our executive officials’ handling of the conflict. The Ambassador commented that he profoundly understands this opinion, but would like to put the Iraqi situation in a context that lets Americans understand it, and not just as a problem but as a path to resolution. In 2003, after two wars, numerous economic sanctions, and failing infrastructure under Saddam Hussein, the United States’ invasion of Iraq was a welcome and necessary intervention. However, it seems that decision-making officials in Washington, D.C. had not sufficiently thought about what was to happen post-Saddam in Iraq. Consequently, there was a period of lawlessness and lack of control for which the Iraqi people and governing institutions are still paying. Before his defeat, Saddam had released thousands of criminals, in addition to the fact that terrorist organizations took advantage of the period of chaos to establish themselves.

Additionally, there is a problem of understanding of the current internal conflict from an international perspective. Unlike the Balkan conflict years ago, there is no inherent civil conflict between the two predominant Muslim sects, Sunni and Shi’a. The only sectarian violence that exists in Iraq is between extremist groups from each side. Therefore, the solution of a soft partition simply will not work because of the complete integration of the two peoples in the Iraqi state. There are without a doubt marriages that mix the two sects and Ambassador Sumaida’ie asks his audiences whether they would “run the borders through bedrooms?” He suggested that when the U.S. divides its country between Catholics and Protestants, they could then consider soft partition.

Today, in every action they undertake, the Iraqi people speak against the terrorists. What they are fighting is a confrontation that stretches far beyond Iraqi borders. While Iraq’s officials do require further American aid, Ambassador Sumaida’ie suggests that there must be a change of paradigm toward benchmarks and deadlines set for the country’s development. By setting a date for removal of all troops, armed forces simply give terrorists a timeline for when they should plan the next major onslaught. The Ambassador also commented that “things take long enough here, so don’t expect more of us than [you] would in a peaceful environment”. In essence, all he requests is patience for restructuring. The current government is taking vigorous action every day for resolve and with the help of the United States, and the respect of Iraq’s neighboring states, they will reach a conclusion. This conclusion will be pursued on a subjective timetable according to what is actually happening within their country.

Afghanistan Business Dialogue

Event Title: Afghanistan Business Dialogue
Sponsor: Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce
Location: The Embassy of Afghanistan
Date: March 15th, 2007
Time: 3:00 am- 5:00 pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 40
Intern Attending: Evan Davies

Featured Speakers: George Rubin, Claudio Lilienfeld, Amb Tayeb Jawad, Chris Moore, Atiq Panjshiri, Assad Mattin

The topic of this quarterly meeting focused on the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZ) proposal. The ROZ concept was introduced by President George W. Bush as an important part of a larger economic development program by the US government for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Following US Congressional approval, ROZs would offer duty-free trade for certain products which would create new employment opportunities. The entire territory of Afghanistan and certain portions of the border regions of Pakistan are eligible for ROZ designation. The major qualification for ROZ designation necessitates that the countries do not support any terrorist activities in their region.

Afghanistan’s economy was the fifth poorest in the world only six years ago, but in 2007 it is expected to export close to $10 billion. Promoting technology, the ROZ program is moving the economy forward. ROZ is also producing stable infrastructures and reconstruction programs that create jobs for the country. Support for ROZ should continue because it has decreased insurgency and increased the Afghan economy. Afghan Ambassador, Said T. Jawad, expressed the Government of Afghanistan's support for ROZs in his remarks: “While ROZs are an important part of the economic development process in Afghanistan, they will also make a significant contribution towards regional cooperation and prosperity, as well as to global security."

The parting message about enterprise in Afghanistan was that businesses must be supported and feel secure in the country. Support should come from the U.S. by way of strengthening the ROZ program. Although southern Afghanistan suffers from corruption and rumors of opium cultivation, panelists urged fellow businessmen to place their trust and business in Afghanistan.

The Bifurcation of the Continent of Africa

Event Title: The Bifurcation of the Continent of Africa: Bridging the Divide Between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa
Sponsor: The Africa Society of The National Summit on Africa
Location: Howard University- Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center
Date: 28th February.2007
Time: 2:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Approximate Number of Attendees: 45
Intern Attending: Aramide Bajulaiye

Featured Speakers: Ms. Linda Thomas- Greenfield, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs; His Excellency Amine Kherbi, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of Algeria; His Excellency Kwame Bawuhah-Edusei, Ambassador of the Republic of Ghana; Dr. Ben-Fred Mensah, Assistant Professor of Political Science in International Relations, Howard University.

There has been a growing realization that the division between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, created in the aftermath of colonialism by non-African governments and international organizations, calls for a closer look by African leaders and foreign governments. The panel of experts shed light on whether or how the current political and cultural separation can be addressed within Africa, and by outside actors.

The grounds for the bifurcation of Africa into two regions were political and cultural. Many outsiders perceived sub-Saharan Africa as being socially and culturally distinct from North Africa. According to this regional and racial classification, sub-Saharan Africa is comprised of traditional African cultures and societies and by the “black race.” North Africa, on the other hand, is dominated by the Arab culture, language, Islamic faith and “non-black,” peoples. Judged by their appearance, they were not considered culturally and socially African, with their roots originating in the Middle East.

In the past decade, there has been a growing recognition that the division of Africa into these two regions was created to fit Cold War and racial paradigms. While North Africa has a shared Arab heritage which distinguishes it from other regions in Africa, there are social, physical, cultural, and historical connections which unite North Africa with sub-Saharan Africa.

“Despite geographic and trade barriers imposed by Europeans, the new Africa will have easier trade, easier travel, and more democracy; lessening marginalization,” said Ambassador Kherbi, who began his diplomatic career specializing in sub-Saharan African affairs. Acknowledging the traditional divide between northern, mainly Muslim states and southern, mainly Christian nations in sub-Saharan Africa, Ambassador Kherbi said, “We also have a horizontal as well as vertical divide.” This means that, for example, flying from Tunisia to neighboring Morocco one must fly to Europe then to Morocco. Ambassador Kherbi went on to say that trade between Algeria and its neighbors is less than with Europe, despite the fact that European products must be shipped by sea or air to reach the continent.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, mentioned that, “bifurcation is not a constraint on how we conduct policy in Africa.” On a day-to-day basis, she said, the State Department’s Africa Bureau tends to focus on country-to-country relations. She continued to say that regional relationships are not ignored, and the African Bureau works closely with the African Union (AU). Within the AU the North African countries are equal members as ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States). On security matters, Africa is indeed vital to the security of the U.S. Ambassador Kherbi agreed with Ms. Linda Greenfield adding, “democracy is vital to the security of the United States, and Africa should be looked upon as a whole; especially concerning important issues like terrorism and economic development.”

Ghanaian Ambassador, Kwame Bawuah-Edusei, noted the good news that good governance and democracy are now universally acknowledged as the most rapid way to achieve progress. They will help Africa move into the global market. Good governance and democracy, he said, will lead to direct transportation links within Africa, less corruption, and increased transparency in governance. According to Ambassador Kherbi, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is an economic plan designed to address the current challenges facing the African continent. It deals with issues such as poverty levels, underdevelopment, the continued marginalization of Africa, and the need for an intervention led by African leaders. Ambassador Kherbi ended the discussion pointing out that NEPAD is, “acting as a bridge towards integrating all of Africa as a whole in the global economy.”

The Ion Ratiu Democracy Lecture: Are There Democracy Lessons Arabs Can Learn From Eastern Europe?

Event Title: Are There Democracy Lessons Arabs Can Learn From Eastern Europe
Sponsor: The Ion Ratiu Democracy Lecture
Location: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Flom Auditorium
Date: November 30, 2006
Time: 4:30pm -6:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 80
Intern Attending: Ava Jones

Speaker: Dr. Saad El-Din Ibrahim, professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo and director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.

Dr. Ibrahim began his speech by reminding us of the key events in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and how those impacted the region. Poland’s impact cannot be diminished. Rapid secession of independence movements to overthrow the communist government led to instability. According to Huntington, the third wave of democracy started in 1974 with Portugal. Dr. Ibrahim contends that Egypt has yet to be liberated from dictatorship. “No country is immune to democracy and freedom.” Two thirds of Muslims are living under a democratically elected dictatorship.

The Open Society Institute organized trips for Muslim democrats to Eastern Europe. These trips included seminars and workshops which offered advice on tricks to elude secret police, how to use the media and the outside world effectively, and how to manage fear. The seminars and workshops also addressed the mistakes made and lessons learned from the Eastern Europeans.

Dr. Ibrahim argued that there are three lessons that the Arab democrats can take from Eastern Europe. The first lesson is that there will always be a supply and demand for dictatorship because there is nostalgia for authoritarian rule, dictators, and communism. Under those forms of government there was order, a stable food supply, and no class problems, among other things. The second lesson is the importance of getting grassroots education so that you do not end up taking things for granted. The third and final lesson is learning how to deal with outside power, especially the influence of the West.

There are four critical differences that distinguish the Arab experience from the experience of Eastern Europeans. The first problem is dependence on oil. The second problem is Islamophobia. The third problem is the question of sincerity; there is a dearth of criticism on human rights violations with oil producing countries. Lastly, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in the summer of 2006 damaged the spread of democracy in the Arab world. There were an unprecedented eleven elections in the Arab world in 2005. Elections in Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are just a few examples of what Dr. Ibrahim sees as progress towards a democratic Middle East. He remains optimistic that democracy will prevail in the Arab world and he hopes that lessons learned from other countries previously in the same situation will be applied.

Beyond Politics: Prospects and Problems with International Peacekeeping

Event Title: Beyond Politics: Prospects and Problems with International Peacekeeping
Sponsors: The Atlantic Council of the United States and UNA-NCA
Location: The Atlantic Council
Date: October 26, 2006
Time: 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM
Approximate number of Attendees: 25
Intern Attending: Ashley Smith

Featured Speakers: Lieutenant Colonel Chuck Wilson, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College; Peter Gantz, Refugees International

The speakers began by giving an overview of NATO’s current deployments. Currently, NATO has 44,000 troops deployed worldwide. Two regions where there is a particularly strong NATO presence are the Balkans and Afghanistan. NATO has been working in the Balkans since 1995 and 13,000 NATO troops are stationed there today. In Afghanistan, NATO has been working in and around Kabul. Here they have set up Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) which have been working to bring together national and international communities in hopes of creating a sustainable peace. NATO is also currently in Iraq, where it focuses exclusively on peace building. Its role there is to train forces, including the Iraqi Defense Academy forces and the Iraqi government forces. NATO has also been doing work in Pakistan to aid in earthquake relief.

A positive aspect of NATOs efforts is that they seek to work with multiple regional partners, rather than relying solely on the support of large entities, such as the European Union. They refer to this multilateralism as pushing for “the big P’s”, Partners for Peace. NATO sees this as a way to incorporate capabilities that it does not have itself, including working with global security exporters. One challenge NATO faces is the “institutional rice bowl dilemma”. Which countries should receive credit for NATO successes? Participant countries need to realize that this is not relevant. Another issue is the fact that NATO provides purely kinetic solutions to problems through their use of force. Should the military be trained in other areas, like diplomacy? Or should others be given military training? Who would be responsible for that?

This question leads to the additional dilemma of burden-sharing within peacekeeping operations. There is sometimes a reluctance to donate troops or funding, and there tends to be a heavy reliance on European giving. Lack of funding is currently threatening the survival of UNIFIL, the United Nations mission in Lebanon. In any peacekeeping mission, coordination is essential to success, as evidenced by Haiti. In Haiti, three different international donors are working on peacekeeping. The U.S. government-backed mission successfully set up a Haitian police force. However, due to a lack of infrastructure in the Haitian prison and court systems, the overall efficacy was diminished.

Peacekeeping is often a key component in ensuring sustainable peace in conflict-prone areas. While reform may be necessary for both NATO and the UN, these institutions will continue to play essential roles in the global peace process.

Population Boom or Bomb? Population Trends in the Middle East

Event Title: Population Boom or Bomb? Population Trends in the Middle East
Sponsor: Global Strategy Institute
Location: CSIS
Date: Friday, September 29, 2006
Time: 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Approximate Number of Attendees: 60
Intern Attending: Kristin Broyhill

Speakers: Dr. Steven Kull, Director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and Dr. Jon Alterman, Director and Senior Fellow of the CSIS Middle East Program

According to Drs. Kull and Alterman, Middle Eastern states have a small window of opportunity to capitalize on the size of their young generation. The number of youth in this generation gives these states a unique economic advantage to develop and stabilize, in turn making way for foreign investment within the region. If this advantage is not realized, the difficulties this generation encounters while coming of age will translate into radicalization and conflict, and these will be felt throughout the world. While Europe will encounter the social and economical problems of this young Arab generation, the United States will endure political and military conflicts. The West must work with the willing Arab states to establish sustainable economies and to create a diplomatic environment that promotes alliance between the Western and Arab states.

The speakers noted that in most young Arab eyes, joining Al Queda and other radical organizations is their way of finding a voice, an identity and a place in the newly liberalized Arab world. Many feel that Western policies inhibit them from realizing the economic gains other regions have enjoyed. Membership is primarily not about creating an Islamic state or promoting fundamentalist ideas. Most of the youth agree with the values the West proclaims, but are disillusioned because those values appear hypocritical in Western domestic politics and foreign policy.

Statistically, 39 percent of the Arab youth who join Al Queda do so because the organization challenges the West, the United Nations, and the values of democracy and liberalism, while only 6 percent join to create an Islamic state. Fifty-four percent wish to separate church and state; 66 percent would like to see government decisions and policies based in the interest of their country, not Islam; seventy-seven percent think the United States aims to establish a permanent presence in Iraq; 78 percent do not believe the US would leave Iraq if asked; 68 percent approve of attacks on the US.

Out of principal, Arab states support those who are victims of or who are defaced by Western policies, such as the Palestinians or the Iranian state, even though such stances may hurt their own interests. They do not believe that the West should deal with Iran in such a confrontational way, and President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” label is alienating and insulting.

Between now and 2050, the majority of the Arab population will be at the prime age of productivity. However, 70-90% of those who have finished their studies and are job seeking, remain unemployed. With the lack of jobs, the traditional behavior regulating institutions such as marriage, family and education have broken down. When possessing a skill is not rewarded in their own country, most drop out of school to become migrant workers and end up working away from home in harsh conditions for low wages. With broken institutions and with no jobs, pride or voice, many of these men become radicalized. Those who are educated and skilled migrate out of the country, seeking employment in the West; taking with them their state’s chances of development and foreign investment.

The instability and feelings of resentment within Arab states are being felt throughout other geographical regions. Many Arabs are finding jobs in an aging Europe. However, the picture in Europe is a complicated one — European states face problems of low assimilation, public resistance and opposition from Arab migrants, and the importation of the very instability plaguing Arab homelands.

The US, on the other hand, will encounter more political and military issues with the booming young Arab population if certain measures are not taken. The U.S. needs to provide support to reestablish Arab states’ economies, institutions and quality of life. In addition, the West must rethink their alliances and policies, and take diplomatic measures so that together with the Arab world, they can take on more prominent global threats in the Middle East instead of generating new ones.

Impressions of Afghanistan

Event Title: Impressions of Afghanistan
Sponsor(s): Center for Strategic and International Studies
Location: CSIS
Date: September 25, 2006
Time: 12:30 PM - 2:00 PM
Approximate number of Attendees: 60
Intern Attending: Kristin Broyhill

Featured Speaker: Seema Patel - Lead Project Consultant for the Measure of Progress Afghanistan Post-Conflict Reconstruction International Security Program

Ms. Patel recently returned from Afghanistan after conducting qualitative interviews around the country with persons in academia, NGOs, private industry, Afghan, US and international government, international organizations and civil society. Her findings revealed that, after five years of international presence, Afghani optimism has fallen, the funds and projects supported by international actors do not meet the expectations or needs of the people, and that development needs to be more balanced throughout the country and among the different sectors of society.

Ms. Patel found that the Afghani people have become disillusioned with their new government, having little faith that the government will meet their needs as a society. Corruption and nepotism have increased within the new government and many members, previously dismissed due to corruption charges, have now been reinstated with a new title under Karzai.

The Justice system is the main culprit of government distrust, operating on bribes and failing to bring government officials involved in corruption, drugs, or other illegal activities to trial. Even Karzai’s anti-corruption department has not taken on a case. The justice system must also adapt traditional views to consider modern trends in crime (human trafficking and war crimes) and a changing demographic (IDPs and female-headed households).

Afghans need jobs, access to short term loans, physical and business infrastructures and land titles so businesses can be built. In the absence of these services, Afghans are instead turning to the Taliban because of the organization’s ability to meet public needs where the government cannot. Between meeting needs and easing restrictions, the Taliban’s public support and numbers have increased.

Ms. Patel noted that there have been gains in social needs such as education and medical access. However, many of these gains have been in infrastructure alone— Afghanistan does not have the money to train or pay professionals to work in the clinics or schools that have been built.

Afghans know of the billions of aid entering across their borders, but they do not see what progress is being made because promotion and communication about public reconstruction projects is both insufficient and often culturally inappropriate. Organizations must converse with all portions of society, not just the government sector, if their programs are to meet genuine public needs. Finally, the priorities of reconstruction must be rethought. International donors need to work in places where they have access and public support. Additionally, donors should work to strengthen their impact, visibility, and support, while stretching their funds to reach further. Currently, the major focus of reconstruction is in stabilizing the South, while people in the North, East and West are becoming increasingly impatient. From their perspective, by putting so much money in the South, the international actors are rewarding the South’s anti-government policies and actions.