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?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
