محمود منشی پوری

The COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the hands of authoritarian regimes. Unlike those who have claimed that the outbreak tends to accelerate the movement toward greater geopolitical competition, we argue that the pandemic has necessitated further cooperation between democratic and authoritarian governments, thus enhancing the longevity of the latter. This explains why the global pandemic has caused no fundamental changes in the regional security dynamics of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), in part because it has ironically prolonged the rule of authoritarian in the region in the name of providing public health. Despite the rhetoric of religious pluralism, moderation, as well as constitutional reforms, sentiments echoing narrow and virulent nationalism and right-wing populism have simultaneously prevailed. On balance, the persistent use of repression in liberalized autocracies in the region has manifested itself in the form of repressing protesters during tough economic times.  For example, in protests against unemployment in Oman in 2018 or against tax reform in Jordan in 2019, and during Saudi Arabia’s 2017-20 Qatif unrest or in Algeria’s ongoing political protests, such patterns of behavior have been visible.  Even in those regimes that have introduced constitutional reforms in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, when priority has been given to combating a global pandemic, a floundering economy, and other emerging threats, such as the campaign against terrorism, authoritarian regimes have wound up consolidating their rule, thus exploiting such crises in order to grab further power at home and seek geopolitical advantage in the region.  However, it is short-sighted to underestimate the possibility of the spontaneous eruption of popular uprisings that could pose a destabilizing threat to authoritarian regimes at some point in the future.

This paper draws attention to some of the consequences of the decline and possible slump of the liberal world order, while focusing predominantly on factors that have divided the Western world, most notably the toxic rise of nationalism, nativism, populism, authoritarianism, anti-institutionalism, anti-immigrant, and anti-globalization sentiments.  We argue, that as the United States further embraces economic nationalism and protectionism under the Trump administration, the support for multilateral institutions, rooted in the liberal order, is likely to significantly retreat.  The dissolution of the liberal order will arguably pave the way for political disorder across the globe, while at the same time dividing the Western world at a time when an economically resurgent China, in a strategic alliance with a more assertive Russia under Putin, is likely to pose new challenges to the West.  Their rivalries notwithstanding, both Beijing and Moscow are likely to seek ways to improve their bilateral relations with Washington in order to curtail and better manage regional and global tensions.   It is worth noting that the risks of abandoning a liberal world order, which for more than seven decades has espoused relative prosperity, as well as a legal and institutional framework for conflict resolution, may prove to be enormously damaging and consequential.

Social media has concurrently unified and fractured the Palestinian people. It has facilitated international condemnation of Israeli occupation but also has fueled violence and sectarian conflict.  Pro-Palestinian activists continue to pursue Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) efforts and work with Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) professionals to further develop an Internet-based presence and distribute information using social media and new platforms. If, however, the Palestinian resistance movement is to succeed, it must come to terms with the emancipatory and simultaneously contradictory effects of social media.

The widespread uprisings of Middle East show the failure of the standard political trends with incapacitation of the government institutions in fundamental democratic changes. The combination of civil disobedience, political action and struggle seeking paved the way to unprecedented fall of regimes in the region. Doubtlessly, the economic downturn was effective in the democratic uprisings of Arabic spring. All of the region involve with anti-government protests of a generation that is disable to find job and freely express its opinions. A social consensus against the Populist authoritarianism is created that is resulting from decades of mismanagement, kindred ties, corruption and political suppressed. However, what has been ignored is evaluation of the role of emotions, solidarities and online activities. Unassailably, the modern technological communication provides a new condition for public debates to make them able to bring up their demands more effective. In the age of communication, these technologies would eliminate borders and obstacles and could create a good feeling of sympathy and fixation for the wide uprisings against tyrannical regimes. The motivations of change increasingly fill the region and mobilize the people to confront despotism. Unlike the view which new technologies are a threat to norms and cultural identity, these technologies lead to eruption of correlations, association of cultures and ultra-place identities. The main goal of new media technology is increasingly demand of political freedom, open society and human rights.

This paper argues spiral arms race in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is spurious and highly unlikely to lead to further stability. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the threat of arms race and the so-called “proliferation cascade” is a bogus excuse to thwart Iran’s nuclear deal with the “P5” group. Our central argument is that the notion that arms race intensifies regional rivalries may seem reasonable on its face, but it fails to match reality.Arguably, an arms race does not currently exist between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The situation can be more accurately described as a onesided arms buildup where Saudi Arabia has out-spent Iran by colossal amounts while Iran has worked to compete with Saudi Arabia without a corresponding increase in military spending. While it is possible in theory that improved efficiency in the procurement of arms could result in real military capability gains—often disguised by stable military expenditure—there isn’t ample evidence to support the idea that this is indeed the case.

US foreign policy toward the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the face of the 2011 Arab uprisings has encountered many and varied challenges: some manageable and others daunting and immensely difficult to meet. Given today’s regional changes and uncertain prospects, traditional US foreign policy tenets and practices need to be readjusted to better reflect US different and evolving interests, motivations, and capabilities. This paper examines the US reaction to the Arab Spring in an attempt to answer the following questions: (1) what effect have the democratic uprisings had on US foreign policy? (2) why has not the Arab Spring brought about a drastic adjustment in US foreign policy as a result; and (3) why, in spite of nearly a half century of US involvement in the region, do US policymakers still have limited understanding of—and even less ability to foresee—such uprisings there? These are profound questions worthy of addressing. Our central argument is that the 2011 democratic uprisings in the MENA region have become an alternative to civil war and authoritarianism, presenting new challenges not only to these regimes and but also to the broader US foreign policy toward the region.

This article conducts a comparative analysis of Iran and Turkey, two neighboring countries in the Middle East that share Islamic cultural identities and a clear political interest in promoting regional détente. While Turkey has made great strides in terms of consolidation of its ruling elite, industrial growth, job creating investment, the expansion of civil society, capacity building (economic development, and improving health care and education), and housing sector, Iran has had comparable successes in some areas, such as capacity building, but certainly has fallen behind in other areas, such as losing managerial skills, brain drain, widening divisions within its power structure, and growing restrictions on the expansion of civil society and democratic freedoms. One notable difference between the two countries is that trust in public institutions is higher in Turkey than Iran. Whereas Turkish civilian leaders exhibit noticeable disinterest in military rule, Iran’s clerical establishment has forged an alliance with the Revolutionary Guards. These issues are discussed with particular regard to the problems confronted in both countries in tackling domestic and foreign policy matters. The article highlights why the normalization of relations with the United States more specifically and the Western world more generally would benefit Iran. The political and economic troubles that Iran faces are likely to undermine Iranians’ support for the regime in coming years.

The 2011 uprisings sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa have rendered the old bargain with local autocrats obsolete. The Arab awakening is likely to revive pro-democracy movements in some countries of the region and cause new identities to surface among others. The Obama administration considers the counter-narrative of peaceful democratic change the most effective way to undermine the ability of terrorist groups and networks, such as al-Qaeda, to operate and recruit. This is a safe bet, even as the region’s complexity presents problems to its enduring success. We argue that the right to depose unjust rulers, recognized as one of the central tenets of many Islamic teachings, should be exercised by local people. Military intervention and the global campaign against terrorism are costly, destabilizing, and counter-productive. It is important to understand the limits to military solutions and seek multilateral legal and political solutions in confronting terrorism. It should also be noted that the use of force can be justified on humanitarian grounds in the cases of massacre and ethnic cleansing.

The process of globalization of finance, trade, communications, information technology, and world politics contains both challenges and dilemmas. Furthermore, the process is riddled with unintended consequences. From Asian currency crisis (1997) to the current economic downturn (2008-present), the fear that the market collapse could suddenly become global has become a reality and the need for an early-warning system for deteriorating national finances has become an imperative. The costs and benefits of globalization are not equally distributed among and within nation-states, as the most vulnerable are likely to suffer unjustly. Some unconscionable human costs will accrue to those most vulnerable and least able to adjust to such changes. The world is headed for a period of de-globalization, facing increased international tensions, conflicts, and nationalist fervor. The competition between great powers—specifically the United States and China—will surely dominate the political scene in the twenty-first century, and governments will aggressively intervene in their national economies as state power grows. Many observers have appealed to a rights-based approach to poverty reduction in the context of global justice, suggesting that the best way to tackle poverty is by defining it in terms of human rights entitlements. This paper addresses the ethical dilemmas of globalization and liberalization by first examining the extent to which globalization jeopardizes the social ethics of protecting the most underprivileged, and then by focusing on the varied consequences of globalization. The significance of this project lies in its ability to demonstrate the perils of subjugating public policy to the market economy. This paper concludes by suggesting possible structural solutions to the mal-distribution of benefits and costs of globalization.

The path toward integration of minorities has never been easy. Perhaps the single most important step is to enact a form of legislation that allows the members of a minority group to enjoy equal political, economic, and cultural rights. This, however, may not necessarily mean absolute autonomy, which is likely to pose a threat to the host country’s national cohesion and stability. Both the political regime and the minority groups should initiate necessary steps to pave the way toward eventual integration—-if not assimilation. Ultimately, however, their integration should be pursued not just for its own sake, but as a fundamental means toward achieving social justice and equal rights for all the members of the society irrespective of ethnic, religious, cultural, social, or political status.

U.S. unilateralism, as demonstrated in an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, has raised several concerns in the international community. One such concern relates to the issue of what constitutes a threat to international peace and U.S. security. Another concern pertains to the rights of the victims of war. The latter concern has been examined in this paper. Waging war in Iraq has amounted to the denial of one of the major principles of the UN Charter: non-combatant immunity. The protections of the victims of war have gained the status of customary international law and have long been guaranteed by treaty. The violation of the principle of non-combatant immunity (the victims of war) in the Abu Ghraib Prison has also raised another set of concerns. This paper argues that intervention and occupation in the name of humanitarian causes are warranted on the grounds of preventing injustice and human suffering. Preemptive strikes, however, pose different questions and present difficulties hard to tackle. Policies that intend to justify preemptive strikes for the sake of exporting democracy or altering a regional political landscape are difficult to defend. To address these issues, we rely on an interdisciplinary approach that draws on insights from public law, international relations, legal and normative philosophy, and international humanitarian law, and international law.

HIV-AIDS has become the greatest threat to global public health and now presents one of the most formidable challenges to human rights. This paper is an attempt to demonstrate that the right to health is so fundamental that individuals are unable to exercise any other rights if they cannot maintain their health. Human rights paradigm, we submit, provides a potent method of discourse and assessment to get at the root causes of this epidemic. We argue the need for the right to health by focusing on “structural interventions” aimed at changing the social determinants of risk. Without denying the importance of the individually-focused “behavioral interventions,” we contend that social justice is the foundation of public health. As such, income and class inequality, gender inequality, discrimination, and social stigmatization must be seen in this context. Any serious attempt to address public health issues must take into account structural interventions.