Latest Articles

This discussion aims to refocus attention on those historical facts—both known and overlooked—and to highlight the enduring power of words and terminology, coinciding with the resistance of the people of the Holy Land against the Zionists in Palestine.

The Arab Opinion Index data provides a look at a number of important issues, including assessments of foreign policy. Every year, the Index asks respondents across the Arab world their opinions on regional and world powers as well as specific foreign policy developments. Aggregate opinions may provide a general assessment of where the Arab world stands, but to understand fully the divisions and polarization that exists in the region today, it is important to look at country differences. In this paper, we will review Arab public opinion towards Iran, and whether there are sub-regional variations in assessment towards Iranian foreign policy. In this way, we can gauge whether polarization on the Iranian issue exists, and where it is most prevalent.

This paper discusses the implications of the Iranian nuclear agreement inside Iran which is experiencing an ongoing battle between moderates and conservatives. It also observes and analyzes the responses within the Gulf states, which is the Arab bloc geographically closest to Iran and the most involved with it and fearful of it. The agreement restrains the Iranian Republic more than it gives it free rein, as it places Iran under international monitoring. The kind of sanctions that can be imposed on Iran in future, if it violates any or all of the provisions of the agreement are a factor controlling Iran’s future course. Alternatively, from what has come to light, it is clear that the marathon negotiations were not limited to the nuclear agreement, as both sides wish to portray. Rather other issues were discussed, including Iran’s future role in the region and the world. The acceleration of action on Syria and Yemen may be a reflection of these other issues.

​This study is about the state-building impasse in the Arab World in General, and in Libya in particular. These states have suffered, since the beginning of the Arab Spring, from lack of political prospects, eruptions of civil wars, and obstacles of political settlements among different actors in the public space. These elements have inhibited the achievement of state building, the formation of a pluralist political system and the realization of an integrated national identity. This study endeavors to analyze the obstacles that have obstructed state-building in Libya until now. It focuses on tribalism and regionalism as main obstacles to that process. In addition, it analyzes the role of external factors and actors in the light of tribalism and regionalism. It argues that state-building in Libya has stumbled and has not followed a gradual path of modern state-building and formation, and it has not gone through the necessary stages of political transition. The former has trapped Libya within narrow loyalties which are short of the wider loyalties necessary for the national state.

Establishing a genuine and effective system to settle disputes through ministerial conferences is an essential point of progress for developing countries. Such a system would mean these states– and Arab countries in particular – would defend their rights based on a legal rather than economic basis. This paper argues that developing countries’ inability to benefit fully from the advantages of a dispute settlement system poses an essential and fundamental problem. It shows how the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system has failed to become an effective tool in the hands of developing countries to repair imbalances resulting from unequal economic relations between countries. It then asks why developing countries – including Arab countries – have taken part in this system. It examines the root cause of this participation, asking wither it is due to subjective factors such as limited contribution in WTO or the lack of specialized national talents? Or objective obstacles that the system places before developing countries, especially in terms of long and demanding procedures, as well as the nature of the implementation process. The paper encourages a reconsideration of the system in order to keep it in line with the positions and potentials of developing countries. In its approach, this paper adopts analysis at two levels; the first looking into the outcome of the participation of developing countries in dispute settlement, and the second a reading of plans to reform the structures of the system.

Milestones in Democratic Transition in the Arab World 1/7 - 31/8/2021.

Since the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and on through the presidents of the 20th century, the United States has talked about itself as the propagator, protector, and defender of democracy around the world. Yet America has never showed any qualms of forming military and political alliances with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The US justifies these international alliances on the basis that “not all dictatorships in the world are enemies of the United States, but all the United States’ enemies are dictatorships.” The US therefore adopted a two-track diplomacy: while working to spread democracy (directly or by means of international organizations and NGOs) the US has no issue in supporting autocratic governments when its interests are involved. How did US policy apply to the democratic transformation in the former Eastern bloc states in Europe on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently, when American values and interests went hand in hand, and how did it then apply to the Arab Spring of 2011, when US values and interests were congruent in some cases and out of sync in others, according to the situation in each country and its strategic importance from America’s perspective? What are the results of these policies and what differences emerge from such a comparison of the Arab and East Europe cases.

Milestones in Democratic Transition in the Arab World Between January 1, 2019- February 31, 2019.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ اﻟﺒﺤﻮث واﻟﻤﻨﺎﺑﺮ اﻋﻼﻣﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﻟ{ﻓﻜﺎر واﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼت اﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎن ﻟﻬﺎ دور ﺣﺎﺳﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ، واﻟﻤﻨﺎخ اﻟﺬي أﺷﺎﻋﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ "ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ". وﺗﺒﻴﻦ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﺴﻤﺎت ا ﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬه اﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎت ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﺎل اﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻨﻊ اﻟﻘﺮار اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻲ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻨﺎول اﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺎﺗﺖ ادارة اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀ ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻘﺎﺗﻬﺎ اﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ إزاء اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﻣﻦ دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﺟﺮى اﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ أﻧﻪ ﻣﺎ داﻣﺖ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻓﻲ دورﻫﺎ ﻣﺼﺪرًا ﻟﺘﻤﻮﻳﻞ اﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﺎت ارﻫﺎﺑﻴﺔ واﻟﻤﺘﻄﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق اوﺳﻂ، وﺗﺠﻴّﺮ ﻗﻮﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﻨﺎﻋﻤﺔ ﻟﻤﺼﻠﺤﺔ اﺳﻼم اﻟﺮادﻳﻜﺎﻟﻲ، ﻓﻤﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻘﻮل ﻃﺮح اﻟﺴﺆال إن ﻛﺎن ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴًﺎ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار إدارة دوﻧﺎﻟﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ ﻓﻲ "اﺳﺘﺌﺠﺎر أﺻﻮل" ﻣﻦ دوﻟﺔ ﺗﺆﻳﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ اﺳﻼم. واﻟﻬﺪف، ﺑﺤﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﺎﺟﺞ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ، ﻫﻮ أن ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻟﻤﺠﻬﺮ، ﻣﻜﺒّﻠﺔ اﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺘﺤﺮك وﻓﺎﻗﺪة اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة، وﻓﻲ اﻧﺘﻈﺎر ﺳﺎﻛﻦ ﺧﺎرج ﺣﻠﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﺮح اﻗﻠﻴﻤﻲ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ﻗﻄﺮ، ﻣﺮاﻛﺰ اﻟﺒﺤﻮث اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ، ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ. This paper highlights US research centers and platforms producing ideas and literatures that have played a crucial role in shaping US foreign policy and the climate that has shaped it in the formation of the "Trump's World", and outlines the main features of these writings in influencing US foreign policy-making. Furthermore, the paper discusses the intellectual elements that the current US administration is drawing form some of its basic premises on the attitude towards Qatar. These writings emphasizes that as long as Qatar continues to play its role as a source of funding for terrorist and extremist groups in the Middle East, the question raises weather Tramp administration would continue to "lease assets" from a country that supported such a version of Islam, but the goal is to keep Qatar inactive and waiting outside the regional theater.

This report highlights some of the major milestones of the Arab democratic transition. The countries covered include Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.