1. Introduction

The property rights school, a dominant philosophy in development strategies pursued by donor agencies, asks for the rapid legal institutionalization of private property that will theoretically move economies towards pareto efficient uses of resources and expand growth. However, pursuit of property stabilization as a means to a growth strategy is deleterious, as brisk institutionalization of private property regimes proved disastrous in a development context and created additional social pressures leading to humanitarian catastrophes. Further, in the history of the countries that now comprise the ‘developed world’, property stabilization was an elongated, bloody transformation that accompanied hundreds of years of conflict, demographic shifts, intricate adjustment, and political alteration. To expect a swift, fastidious, and peaceful transformation during property rights stabilization in light of recent history in Rwanda, Nepal, and across the developing world has shown to be not only myopic and intellectually dishonest, but dangerous as well.

Gender & Development Economics

Feminism has been vital in the struggle for solutions at the decentralized, local, and institutional level; it has fought discrimination and inequalities at many levels; it has changed institutions and decision making processes; it has incorporated new agendas in the politics of daily life; it has affected national policies; it has made an impact on international agendas; and it has been influential in first bringing human welfare to the center of debates on economic and social policy. (Beneria 2003, 89)

As emerging countries move into long-term economic growth and industrialization, their formative transitions typically display a corresponding shift from high mortality and death rates to low mortality and death rates. However, this demographic transition notably has not accompanied the economic development of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Instead, a glacial movement towards demographic stability has occurred in MENA, with only the past two decades witnessing substantive decreases in total fertility rates. With these decreases in fertility have come considerable changes, including a population bulge of youth. Those in this grouping find themselves increasingly disenfranchised politically and unable to attain long-term economic opportunities. Iran, a country of explicitly ‘Revolutionary Islamic’ politics, may provide insight into the demographic policies that could serve in the future as a model for practical natal strategies within the MENA and emerging Islamic framework. The absence of a significant demographic shift and corresponding source of economic growth within MENA must be evaluated from the social, cultural, and economic institutional impediments to successful progress.

Washington Consensus enactors assumed the importation of Western-style market liberalisation would have a spillover effect in Sub-Saharan Africa and improve gender equality with females having greater access to economic resources. While there has been a marked increase of female participation rates in the labor force, it has come at the cost of their health, living standards, and economic security. By working in the formal sector while continuing to shoulder household and reproductive duties females face a doubled work burden that has resulted in decreased life expectancies, increased vulnerabilities, and new forms of institutionalized marginalization. Though there has been recognition of the flaws of the feminization of wage labor, there has been little effort to alleviate the continued inequities faced by women in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is in the supposed greatest success stories – females employed in relatively well-paid occupations in export-oriented urban industries – that one can find the glaring deficiency of non-holistic, economically intransigent neoclassical development policies.

If anyone out there didn’t know, one of our own is studying in Europe. This is for you.

The news continues to filter in as the triumph of Hamas in the Gaza strip becomes apparent, culminating with the Palestinian government being dissolved by President Mahmoud Abbas this past hour. Fatah is running with its tail between its legs (quite literally – 40 Executive Force soldiers loyal to Abbas had to blow up a section of the Israeli-constructed Gaza-Egyptian wall to escape into Egypt), much to the dismay of the Western governments who trumpeted Abbas as the heralded moderate in post-Arafat Palestine. It seems his time is dwindling as a serious power broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or in Palestinian internal affairs (the tally for Abbas brokered cease-fires to be consequently ignored the next day is in the teens).

When a percentage of Muslims support civilian casualties, it’s called an internal threat and terrorism. When an even higher percentage of Americans support intentionally attacking civilians, what do we call it?

The past week, a highly publicized Pew Research Center poll was released on the beliefs and political perceptions of Muslim Americans. The survey concluded, that Muslim-Americans are “largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.” Yet on prominent mainstream media outlets, the survey was slanted as “Supporting Terror?” on a CNN crawl, on CBS News online, the headline incorrectly stated that 26% OF YOUNG U.S. MUSLIMS OK BOMBS, and in USA Today, more scare tactics: POLL: 1 IN 4 YOUNGER U.S. MUSLIMS SUPPORT SUICIDE BOMBINGS.

In light of the recent controversy in which Ron Paul had the gall to suggest that September 11th originated from years of mistrust and animosity towards the Western world and America in particular with regards to involvement in the Middle East, we wanted to provide a succinct list of perceived grievances towards America. Stated by Radley Balko in Fox News (of all places):

The famous Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once quipped that “the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity [for peace].” With Israel’s refusal to-date to accept the recently re-tabled Saudi Peace initiative offering Israel peace with the entire Arab World, it seems that it may be Israel this time that is guilty of Abban’s charge. For years there has been no substantive progress concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Israeli position has been that there is no “viable” partner from the Palestinian side to negotiate with. It seems as though the tide has changed in dramatic fashion over the course of the past few months.

In the past month, worries about foreign minister Abdullah Gul of the AK Party being nominated to the position of President came to a head with over a million marching in Istanbul for secularism preceded by a thinly veiled threat by the general staff of the Turkish army to intervene. The Western medias response was positive towards a Middle Eastern and predominately Muslim nation having large public shows of support for secularism but tempered by the possibility of another military coup to defend this position, leading the Economist to declare ‘If Turks have to choose, democracy is more important than secularism’. The majority of the reasoning led towards a questioning of the Turkish military’s role, a role that seems foreign to industrialized nations where the military is typically subordinate to civil governments.

China, on a domestic and international cleaning binge, is seeking to cleanse its status and reputation by the time it begins hosting the Olympics in 2008 to appear as a developed nation in a first-world prom dress. While this may appear as a farcical whitewash operation by a totalitarian regime, it presents an opportunity for the international community to take concrete steps in resolving the Darfur crisis.

As the Bush administration moves towards disengagement in the Middle East from those regarded as extremist — including Syria, Iran, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias in Iraq, Hamas in Palestine, and Hezbollah in Lebanon — the result has been a vacuum of power left from the absence of traditional diplomatic channels. In the post Cold War era, this meant typically working with, and in the least, involving the United States. But in recent months as American policy becomes more rigid and inflexible, Middle Eastern diplomatic channels have rerouted outside of Washington and back into the Middle East proper. In this capacity, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the new bridge where the forces of moderation can work within the framework of Middle East reality — a reality where extremists unfortunately are popular and united — and work on successful compromises.

American Task Force on Palestine,
Americans for Peace Now  &
Foundation for Middle East Peace   

   Invite you to a luncheon & panel discussion

AFTER THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP REPORT: POSSIBILITIES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE ON ALL FRONTS

 With 

Ziad Asali, American Task Force on Palestine
Ori Nir, Americans for Peace Now
Robert Malley, International Crisis Group
Geoffrey Aronson, Foundation for Middle East Peace

In a moment where the forces of dictatorship and tyranny seem to be pushing back against democracy, the common thread that has successfully aligned nations such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, and Sudan have been the supply and demand of energy. While it is encouraging that the relationships forged seem to be more based on Machiavellian pragmatism then aligned ideologies or long term goals, problematic occurrences and diplomatic realignment have debilitated the West’s efforts to act against undemocratic forces. Increasingly, the ability to act as a geopolitical actor has been taken away from the United States and the UN as powers forge alliances with lesser but energy rich nations, specifically China and Russia with Iran and China with Sudan. Ultimately, the resources are finite and so is the tolerance that the rest of the world should and will have for these deleterious and reciprocally empowering relationships among undemocratic forces.