An Arab brain drain?

A recent survey from Doha on the Middle East has indicated that a region-wide brain drain is on the horizon, as the population gets younger and there are fewer jobs to go around. Those with the best educations are opting to leave home and immigrate - more than 25% of Arabs with some college education want to move abroad, and nearly 33% of young employed Arabs say they would like to permanently leave their country. Only 17% of unemployed youth said they would like to immigrate.

A damaging effect of this is the potential for corresponding entrepreneurship drains and innovation drains. The bureaucracy in place already makes it very difficult to start a small business, and if young people feel that their ambition is stifled, it could lead to incredible domestic problems, especially when 2/3 of the Arab world's population is under 30.

Among the concerns, there may be cause for hope:

“We’re not dealing with a population that doesn’t know what the gaps are,” he said. In the index, young Arabs called for more education and training, better access to job placement and business development services, and a more responsive government.

“Young Arabs know exactly what they need, they just can’t find what they’re looking for,” added Mr Younis, who recommended greater co-operation among the 22 Arab nations surveyed.
“If young people are given the resources to succeed in the economic life of their country, they would rather stay in their home country than leave permanently.”

What do you think?

Welcome to our class

Hello gentlemen, and welcome to Diplomatic Communication. This is a blog which compliments the in-class discussions we will have over the next month, with links to relevant articles and video clips. If you have a gmail account, you can post comments, but most likely, we will just be discussing these issues in class.

Leading off our discussion, some articles about Yemen, the first discussing the problems donors face when trying to ensure aid money is used for the intended reasons. Four years ago, over $5 billion in aid was pledged to Yemen at a conference in London; so far, only 10% of it has been used. The problem: corruption. The solution?

"donor countries and organisations set up offices within Yemen to help direct the flow of money and services and ensure greater transparency."

The second Yemen article comes from the New York Times, and focuses on the increasing calls for separation in the south. One interesting aspect of this article is the contention that the Yemeni government is equating separatism with Al Qaeda, thus insuring support from the international community. Is this legitimate?


Also, some articles about Syria and Iran's relationship and what it means for the balance of power in the greater Middle East. The money quote:

"With Iran defiant in the face of international pressure, Israel – the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East – has said it would consider military strikes to stop Tehran obtaining atomic weapons.
Such threats will be costly to enforce if Iran is able to call on Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas to help retaliate. That is what Thursday’s Damascus summit between Hizbollah, Iran, Syria and Palestinian militant factions spelt out: if Iran is attacked, there will be a regional war. Not limited skirmishes, not a few unanswered air strikes – a Middle East war."

What do you think?

The end

So, you've finished our program and are ready to be posted abroad. I would like to both congratulate you for your dedication and professionalism, and thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge withe me. I can honestly say that I've learned more about Middle Eastern politics from my conversations with you than from years of reading. It has been a great experience for me, and I hope you feel that it's been helpful for you as well.

A recommendation: keeping a blog like this has countless benefits. When you're abroad, you can keep your families abreast of what's happening in your lives. It can also be really helpful for Emirati diplomats who will follow in your footsteps to read about your experiences in Shanghai and Kabul. If you do write about your time there, please keep me informed.

Thanks again, and good luck with the new jobs. I hope to see you again.

This week in the Oval Office: Mahmoud Abbas. Groundwork for Cairo. Heaven's South Gate.

A couple of articles on Abbas' trip to Washington to meet with Obama.

A column in today's Washington Post with a pretty good take on the complexities involved in putting together a diplomatic solution to Israel and Palestine. It's written as an open letter to President Obama:

You will not, of course, take Netanyahu's no as a final answer on the settlements. You are right when you say they are not only a huge obstacle to regional peace but also a stain on the global reputations of Israel and the United States. But the settlements cannot be treated in isolation or used as trophies with which to win Arab favor. They will eventually have to be for the most part evacuated as part of a give-and-take in which Israel's legitimate security concerns are addressed. For Netanyahu, agreeing to freeze settlements is tantamount to declaring them chips to be bargained away. He will require a good bit more than is on offer now from the Palestinians and other Arabs to make that move.

Getting ready for Obama's trip to Cairo. Getting ready to mark 20 years since Tiananmen. Anything going to happen in Beijing? Likely not.

The revolving door in the Oval Office

So, next up in Washington: Mahmoud Abbas, or, as the National calls him, "Mr. sorry, I can't". The article states that Abbas meeting with Obama is essentially as waste of time, as he can't deliver anything:

Long proclaimed as the Palestinian leader to complete the two-state peace that President Obama seeks, politically Mr Abbas has been hopelessly enfeebled, primarily as a result of his fruitless obeisance to Washington. So weak has his political authority become that, as the Israelis correctly point out, he cannot negotiate effectively on behalf of his people.

The key, according to the author, is in America pledging to work with a a Fatah-Hamas unity government, which the Bush admin famously fumbled. What do you think? Any chance the US is willing to accept Hamas?

Another link: Jordan's Foreign Minister, from last week, telling us why there is a real window of opportunity for a peaceful solution right now.

This happens, who gets the Nobel? This happens AND Afghanistan and the Taliban come to a negotiated peace, Obama is officially beatified. Until, of course, the election in Iran, and North Korea implodes.

Peace in Afghanistan?

The NYTimes has a must-read article from Dexter Filkins, one of the great war correspondents writing today. The story? That negotiations are under way in Afghanistan/Pakistan between the Taliban and the intermediaries of the Afghani government on a potential peace agreement.

The US isn't involved, and is commited to sending 20,000 new troops, so it could be that the Taliban wants to get something put together while they still have some bargaining chips.

Can we assume that the Obama effect has anything to do with this?

While the talks have been under way for months, they have accelerated since Mr. Obama took office and have produced more specific demands, the Afghan intermediaries said.

And what does the Taliban want in an agreement?

The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.

I wonder, how would an end to the war affect your posting, Yousef? And do you really think we can expect to see an end to hostilities very quickly?

Should we be reading anything into this?

It's been reported today that Mubarak has canceled his trip to Washington to grieve for his recently-deceased grandson. Of course, he's going to be hosting President Obama in a couple of weeks, so this meeting was probably not essential, but given the long line of leaders from the Middle East passing through the Oval Office in recent weeks, it's surprising that Mubarak would pass on the opportunity. He's also really old - 81 - so it could be that he's just not up for the travel.

Foreign Policy has an article this month claiming that Obama's approach to the Mubarak visit would give an indication of his approach to human rights, always a contentious issue with the previous administration. Guess we'll have to wait and see now.

A snippet:

For all his soaring rhetoric, Obama is a realist. He is suspicious of grand schemes to remake the world or of policies driven by moral mission; he will need to be convinced that pressing stubborn allies to respect human rights will advance U.S. interests -- that it is the smart thing to do, not just something that makes Americans feel good. Fortunately, the sober case for promoting human rights is easy to make. Realism argues for reclaiming this tradition, not rejecting it.

Admittedly, in the Middle East, the United States did derive some strategic benefit from its years of uncritical partnership with autocratic regimes, including access to oil and cooperation against Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But a realist would also have to acknowledge that it suffered strategic costs, as al Qaeda and other violent groups exploited America's closeness to dictators to build support for their cause, and authoritarian governments stifled moderate opposition movements that could have competed with extremists. In fact, leaders like Mubarak actually gave more space to Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood than to more secular-minded democratic activists, to create the illusion that that the only alternative to their rule was an Islamist takeover. When it bought that lie, the United States reaped not just popular resentment but a rising security threat.

Go read the rest.