On April 13th, I attended a Conference of World Affairs Panel that was titled “The Arab World: Imagining Peace and Prosperity.” This panel was aimed at conceiving potential futures for the middle east as well as steps needed to achieve those futures. The speakers on the panel were Ben Wagner, Kemal Kirisci, and Ross Wilson. Each speaker had their own intellectual approach to the question of the Middle East. Ben Wagner tended toward subjective and humanist arguments to break down the rigid American perspective of the Middle East which is in terms of conflict and resources only. Kemal Kirisci was more focused on theoretical conceptions as well as the need for inclusive institutions within the region. Ross Wilson, who is a veteran ambassador to
…show more content…
Mr. Wagner began by pointing out that our current perception of the middle east is unduly restrictive. He asked the audience to yell out some terms that describe the middle east. The great majority of the terms given circled around either conflict or resources. He then pointed out that when you only conceive of the middle east in terms of conflict and resources, any solution put forward will involve conflict or resources. He wanted the audience to break from that perception and treat the region like any other, with people just like us that have their own unique desires and interests. Mr. Wagner ended by emphasizing that the U.S. should do less fixing and more understanding. Next, Mr. Kirisci addressed the proposition by couching the region in the philosophical debate between Hobbes perpetual war and Kant’s perpetual peace with democracy. He believes that the middle east could reach Kant’s perpetual peace if the governments of the region were inclusive of their entire population. Mr. Wilson took a different approach to addressing the proposition by instead outlining what he conceives as the main influencers of the future of the Middle East. Those influencers are: the sunni-shia split and how to moderate it, the palestine question, Iran and the nuclear deal, poverty, and how to deal with autocrats. He ended his statement by also making the point that the less hostile the West is to the …show more content…
Mr. Kirisci thought that the conflict had reach a critical point where the potential for escalation between major world powers in incredibly high. If the conflict did come to an end soon, to have sustained peace in the country he believes that investment into local governments is vital and that any solution should be bottom up. Mr. Wilson did not have much optimism about the prospect of peace in Syria. While he doesn’t believe peace is coming any time soon, he did believe that if the conflict in Syria was resolved it would act as a driver for peace in the entire region. Mr. Wilson also made clear that there was very little the West could do to help. He believes that Assad has won and that any effort by the West should be to contain the problem for the future. What Syria needs is time to regenerate once this bloody civil war is over. Mr. Wagner focused on the failures we have made along the to get to the Syria we see today. He stated that the refugee crisis is going to be looked back upon as the biggest failure of our time. The other failure happens when it was obvious that Syria was going to fall into civil war, no international power was willing to step in an prevent the atrocities we see
Mr. Wagner began by pointing out that our current perception of the middle east is unduly restrictive. He asked the audience to yell out some terms that describe the middle east. The great majority of the terms given circled around either conflict or resources. He then pointed out that when you only conceive of the middle east in terms of conflict and resources, any solution put forward will involve conflict or resources. He wanted the audience to break from that perception and treat the region like any other, with people just like us that have their own unique desires and interests. Mr. Wagner ended by emphasizing that the U.S. should do less fixing and more understanding. Next, Mr. Kirisci addressed the proposition by couching the region in the philosophical debate between Hobbes perpetual war and Kant’s perpetual peace with democracy. He believes that the middle east could reach Kant’s perpetual peace if the governments of the region were inclusive of their entire population. Mr. Wilson took a different approach to addressing the proposition by instead outlining what he conceives as the main influencers of the future of the Middle East. Those influencers are: the sunni-shia split and how to moderate it, the palestine question, Iran and the nuclear deal, poverty, and how to deal with autocrats. He ended his statement by also making the point that the less hostile the West is to the …show more content…
Mr. Kirisci thought that the conflict had reach a critical point where the potential for escalation between major world powers in incredibly high. If the conflict did come to an end soon, to have sustained peace in the country he believes that investment into local governments is vital and that any solution should be bottom up. Mr. Wilson did not have much optimism about the prospect of peace in Syria. While he doesn’t believe peace is coming any time soon, he did believe that if the conflict in Syria was resolved it would act as a driver for peace in the entire region. Mr. Wilson also made clear that there was very little the West could do to help. He believes that Assad has won and that any effort by the West should be to contain the problem for the future. What Syria needs is time to regenerate once this bloody civil war is over. Mr. Wagner focused on the failures we have made along the to get to the Syria we see today. He stated that the refugee crisis is going to be looked back upon as the biggest failure of our time. The other failure happens when it was obvious that Syria was going to fall into civil war, no international power was willing to step in an prevent the atrocities we see