Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper looks at the disconnect between interviews with internet cafe users in Jordan and Egypt who tout the Internet as a life changing technology, and the overt persistance of authoritarianism. If the Internet aids mobilization, then why don't we see more of it in the Arab world, given the rapid diffusion of the technology. This paper looks at a series of potential answers.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The International Dimensions of Authoritarianism: The Cases of Egypt and Jordan Since the end of WWII, the question of democracy, and the preconditions for its development, has been one of the central themes in political science. The early literature emphasized the structural and cultural 'determinants' of democracy, and postulated a causal relationship between socio-economic and cultural development, one the one hand, and the emergence of democratic regimes on the other. The continued resurgence of authoritarian regimes in much of the developing world, and especially in those countries that were experiencing rapid rates of socio-economic development, challenged the optimism and some of the assumptions of the early literature and shifted the focus away from the question of democracy towards the question of authoritarianism. The wave of democratic transitions that overtook much of Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe, and some parts of Africa and Asia beginning in the mid-seventies and lasting into the early nineties reawakened interest in Democratic studies, and a second generation of Democratization theories emerged to explain this development. The transitions literature rejected deterministic structural and cultural explanations of democratization, and focused instead on strictly political factors, namely the breakdown of authoritarian coalitions, and the forging of democratic pacts among soft-liners in the regime and moderates in the opposition. Despite their fundamental differences the earlier and later literature on democratization share one important commonality: both see the transition to democracy as primarily a function of domestic factors, with the international environment hardly figuring into their analyses. When the international environment is brought in, it is generally viewed as positively reinforcing the global trend towards democracy, with the liberal and prosperous western democracies posing as role models, as objects of desire and imitation. The Arab world is one region where the international environment seems to have constituted a disincentive to democratization. The salient explanation for the stubbornness of authoritarianism in the middle-income countries of the region is that opposition groups in Arab countries constitute non-democrats of a peculiar kind. They are seen as uncompromising and ideologically driven, and hence unable to engage in the types of pacts that have made the transition to democracy possible elsewhere in the developing world. The standard explanation for the absence of a 'moderate' opposition in the Arab context is that salient norms in the region are a function of the unique and resilient nature of Arab-Islamic Culture. It my contention that an understanding of the linkages between the 'moderate' authoritarian middle income Arab regimes and their western liberal democratic allies, especially the US, is crucial for understanding why democratic values have not constituted the primary object of desire for opposition groups in the region. The perception among peoples in the Arab world that regimes in the region depend for their survival on western support, that secular liberal groups are pawns of neo-imperialist powers, combined with the relentless efforts by those same regimes to re-channel discontent outwards towards their western allies, have created an environment particularly hostile to the acceptance of the norms and values embraced by the west. This paper will seek to explore how, in the Egyptian and Jordanian contexts, linkages between international and domestic factors have created a deep suspicion, and often an outright rejection of things western, among the intellectual elite and the principle opposition groups, hence contributing to ideological polarization, and reinforcing authoritarianism.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Anti-Americanism has in the last decade or so been on the rise throughout the world, including Western Europe. Nowhere, however, has anti-Americanism been more salient and intense than in the Arab Middle East. It is found not only in states such as Syria, Iraq (during and after Saddam's regime), and Sudan, but curiously in pro-American states, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Anti-Americanism is not so formidable as to stop America's military thrust in the short term, but it has a significant long term potential in frustrating Washington's ambitious plans for the region. If winning the peace in Iraq (and elsewhere in the region) is ultimately what matters, then understanding the roots of anti-Americanism and winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs become imperative for US policymakers. Our objective in this paper is to provide an analysis of the root causes of anti-Americanism in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, United States's closest Arab allies. We will consider two alternative perspectives generally employed to explain anti-Americanism in the Middle East. I will refer to the first as identity/culture-based perspective (e.g., explanations that focus on the religious and cultural divide between Arab/Islamic world and the West) and the second as interest-based perspective (e.g., explanations that focus on Arab-Israel conflict, oil, and other interests). This paper rejects the extreme presentation of the cultural divide in the identity/culture perspective, yet it acknowledges that a long history of rivalry between the Christian and Islamic worlds as well as more recent European and American hegemony in the region have created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust that is ever present in interactions of both sides. The paper gives greater credence to the clash of interests (as opposed to clash of culture), but it does not view the interests of the two sides as diametrically opposed. America's policies in the region, we believe, are less a product of its greed and aggressive motives than of what might be called great power insecurities, and Arab world's authoritarianism and instability are a threat not just to the region but to world order at large. While each of those perspectives has merits and advances our understanding of the nature and dynamics of the relationship between the US and the Arab Middle East, neither alone fully accounts for the problem of anti-Americanism. A more satisfying approach, we will argue, is one that combines elements of both perspectives.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In the past several years over 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq, and a minimum of 2 million people have been internally displaced. This paper examines refugee policy and Iraqi refugee student access to and participation in state schools (primary and secondary) in Jordan and the U.S., two countries that receive Iraqi refugees. It draws from a continuing and multi-method study of Iraqi refugee students in the two states, including interviews with Jordan Ministry of Education officials as well as NGOs conducted during a country visit in August 2008, curricula from the two states, respective government documents and reports concerning refugee policy as well as refugee experiences, and reports generated by non-governmental policy institutes. The paper probes varying effects of factors relating to state refugee policy on school access and participation, including legal status, religious status, gender, age, ability to work, access to healthcare, and family resettlement. While their doors have remained open to Iraqi refuges (albeit to shifting and varying degrees) both states have been criticized for their treatment of Iraqis, and U.S. influence in Jordanian affairs warns against viewing the two states as fundamentally disconnected in this regard.

1. UNHCR (2008) Iraq Situation Supplementary Appeal, 2008.