British Arab Exchange

Venue: 24 Greencoat Place

Date: 12th Spetember 2008

We reached the Initiatives of Change HQ at 6:15pm and the programme was just about to start. There were six of them. Five men and one woman. They are young, well dressed and calmly waiting for the the host of the evening to start the introductions. They are all professionals from Iraq - Haider A. Hmood, a teacher in Diwanyia; Rashad Salman Khayala Al-Rubae, and Mohammed Jaafar Saeed, both medical doctors in Baghdad; Waleed Khalid Khazal, a student of English literature in Amara; Saifuldeen Zaman Sahib, a microbiologist in Baghdad University and the only woman in he group, Zeena Jaafar Mohammed, a gynaecology and obstretics doctor at Hillah General Hospital. Along with them on the stage was Nihad Salih Mahdi Al-Samarrai, the Political Affairs Officer, UN Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI).

Mohammed, the young doctor started the presentation with som pictures of Baghdad orientating the audince of what daily life was in Baghdad since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Obviously not good! Only 2-3 hours of electricity in the city of Baghdad which meant for most who can afford, buying generators which are the only means by which electricity at homes could be ensured to run for few more hours evey day. Then Rashad showed, through the pictures, the cultural aspect of Iraq - like the Baghdad Symphony Orchestra, freedom statue and street art galleries (artists have started using the barrier walls erected around the city as a concrete canvas to express their art).

Haider, the teacher from Diwanyia was next. he spoke about the problem of street children in Iraq after the war (well the war is still on...). He lamented that violence has broken his country and he feared that it will be reflected in the lives of the future generation - the children, especially the street children. He mentioned about the group's experience in Ireland, where they have been the week earlier, and how he was convinced that there needs to be forgiveness on the table for Iraqia to build the future. This was in context to the strong (violent) tension between the two sects - Shia and Sunni. He could not speak English and had Waleed translating for him. Waleed being a student of English literature was pretty fluent in English. So was Mohammed.

Zeena is a Senior House Officer (Gynaecology and Obstretics) and explained how the shortage of drugs and doctors in hospitals in Iraq is severely affected the people. Most of the doctors have either been killed or have migrated to other countries, including the UK. Alcohol addiction and abuse of women is becoming a disturbing trend, she says. She disagrees with the Ministry of Health, Baghdad that drugs are available, since in her experience, either drigs are unavailable most of the time or those that are available have expired!.

Waleed spoke about the hope that he and many Iraqis had for things to be better after the fall of Saddam, but were left with disappointment after disappointment to see the situation grew from bad to worse. There were shortages of textbooks and many University professors left the country. He told how his college was attacked 5 times and at one of the attackes, 100 studenst were killed. He didn't mention who made the attacks.

Saifuldeen, the mocrobiologist seemed to be the most senior in the group and he gave the vision for the future of Iraq, some elements of which included, working together and fighting selfishness (among the politicians), involving those who are not members of the government but with much insight and experience to participate in governing policies and that people should be encouraged to vote for the representatives of their choice. He ended with 'without peace there is no development and without development there is no peace'. Saifuldeen is also an aspiring politician.

These young Iraqis shared their experiences in London under the joint programme of the Kubba Foundation and British-Arab Exchanges (BAX) which has more than 30 years’ experience of arranging exchange visits, with the aim of building trust and respect between future decision-makers of the Arab countries and the West. BAX has in the past arranged exchange visits involving young people from the Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and Sudan, Britain and other European countries to create and maintain a network of bridge-builders, train future opinion-leaders, provide space for dialogue, and focus on shared moral and spiritual values. The Kubba Foundation.is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation that promotes the social development of the Iraqi people and supports the rebuilding of a strong and viable civil society in a land ravaged by war, violence and dictatorship. The Foundation supports educational projects that directly benefit the people of Iraq, regardless of religion, ethnicity or background.

The first thing that struck me was the determination in Haider's eyes. Then I noticed the 'hardness' in Zeena's voice...made hard by the 5 years of witnessing dictatorship ending only to bring in death and destruction I thought. I asked Haider if there was anything new that he learnt during his visit that he would try to do when he gets back to Iraq. He says he will teach the school children about forgiveness. There were few more questions, but at the end of the event, I was not convinced I heard what I was supposed to hear or maybe, I did not hear the young Iraqis say what I sensed, they really had to say. To be honest, I expected a story that would give an Iraqi viewpoint on the war, what was wrong and what is right, what should be done and what can be done. After, attending the 'public diplomacy' talk a day earlier, I was expecting certain output/outcome indicators of this diplomacy. But, it was good that they managed to get their visas (they recevied their visas a week late) to come to the UK and share their stories. I wish them well and all the best in their difficult walk ahead.

Two-party and Multi-party negotiations

I spent nearly 4 hours today trying to read and understand something about two-party and multi-party negotiations and their differences. By the end of this piece, I felt I have gained some insights about the negotiation process and their potential outcomes. This subject is very interesting and hopefully I will find more time to read about this subject. I also think that mathematicians can be the best negotiators given the mathematical foundation of such negotiation concepts.

There are several contrasts between two-party and multi-party negotiations, among which the key differences are coalition formation, management of coalition processes and the shifting (kaleidoscopic) nature of priorities of members/parties that may threaten negotiated agreements. The content and comprehensiveness of information, and the assumptions based on it in a two-party negotiation differs from the complex character of the information that is presented in multi-party negotiations. The two-party setting can enable prevention and solution of principal-agent problems in a more direct and straight forward manner once the parties have gained each others’ trust in coming to an agreement. Though parties may have different information with different outcome possibilities there is greater likelihood in two-party negotiations that tricky issues such as withholding relevant information to protect individual interests or undervaluing each other’s information can be more readily resolved than in a multi-party negotiation process. An important consideration is the personality of party negotiators which would impact on the level of their connection and interaction. A more powerful or dominant party runs the risk of ruining or inability to sustain a negotiation /negotiated agreement if it fails to give the required space and importance to the other less powerful party. The issues of personality and power relation become more complex in a multi-party negotiation where coalition formation is aimed for to achieve the common interest of parties.

The nature of coalition politics in India is an example of the complexity of coalition building, breaking and managing. Though different (smaller/weaker) parties opposing a current (stronger) ruling party may be united in ousting their common opponent through a coalition, yet within-party interests (on social, economic and/or religious subjects) may be differ to an extent that will either prevent formation of the coalition or establish a coalition that is short-lived. Further, when an underdog political party produces an unexpected victory, the dynamics of coalition suddenly change as member parties re-think their alternatives which may result in the inclusion of a new member and/or expulsion of another. Opportunistic alliances are a threat to coalitions, and coalition members and supporters need to create and maintain a certain degree of consensus and group-think on acceptable levels of transparency, commitment and adhesion to coalition principles.

Power relation and aggressive planning can impact a coalition’s formation and responsiveness. A stronger or powerful party, in a multi-party negotiation, may initiate the process of coalition building (to less powerful parties) through the means of incentives or sanctions. The manner in which this dominant player communicates its intentions will shape the decision-making processes in the negotiation. In a two-party negotiation the weaker party has fewer manoeuvres to demand, and its agreement to the stronger party’s proposal may result in it not gaining as much as it expected. In a multi-party negotiation however, weaker parties that unite in subscribing to the coalition formation present a greater leverage that can ensure their demands are met. Coalition management needs a high degree of leadership and interpersonal skills among coalition leaders. This translates into being responsive to coalition partner sentiments and consistently providing relevant feedback through clear communication and inter-coalition coordination. It also means establishing rules and norms that are agreed upon by coalition members and having a check-and-balance mechanism to ensure compliance. In a bilateral process, negotiated agreements and their implementation is less constrained by conflicting views than in a coalition resulting from a multi-party process.

Two-party negotiations can be scaled up to multi-party negotiations depending on the emerging potential or realization of the advantages of coalitions within a particular context. Hence, processes like managing group dynamics and decision-making become imperative if the subsequent coalition that is formed becomes a winning or blocking coalition. In reality, winning and blocking co-exits within a coalition and it depends how effective winning mechanisms are employed over their counterpart to ensure the success of the coalition.

The New Age of Public Diplomacy

The title of the talk was catchy and I decided to attend this lunch hour (1-2 pm) Chatham House event (please see http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/). The venue was at the Geological Society, Burlington House at Piccadilly. The speaker, James K Glassman is the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. It's the first time I heard of 'public diplomacy' and sure enough, as Mr. Glassman completed a few introductory sentences, he explained what this meant. Public diplomacy is diplomacy directed towards the public he said. From what I could understand, it is the engagement (in a variety of 'non-militarised' ways) to achieve US policy goals of national security. The ultimate goal of his work he says, is to ensure a world in which violent extremism is no longer possible.

Drawing on the sad events of 9/11 seven years ago, he pointed out that Al Qaeda was responsible. This statement follows the next one where he says that the views held by some that the US masterminded 9/11 so it could invade Afghanistan was sad, because it is untrue. 'These (views) are trends that we need to combat', he said, and stated that his job is to win the 'War of ideas'. Suddenly 'public diplomacy' became clearer. It was made more vivid when he listed the ways in which public diplomacy would counter terrorism so that the US and the world could attain security and freedom. One way, he said, was through the exchange programmes (eg. Fullbright programme) by which international students can study in the US. He spoke about the Access Micro-scholarships, especially targeted for the Muslim society. Secondly, there are international information programmes (broadcasting of programmes in 60 different languages) in which the US would act as a facilitator of a 'grand conversation'. Thirdly, it is ideological education which translates to the 'War of ideas'. He said, 'winninig the war on terror means winning the war of ideas'. So the war of ideas is aimed to win hearts and minds which is the new age of public diplomacy.

The room was packed and was almost getting stuffy. Most people came well dressed in formal attire. I was the only one in short sleeves shirt and jeans. The question and answer round was bound to be interesting, and it was. A south asian man stood up and asked why is the US killing innocent children in Pakistan with its bombs recently, while denouncing Al Qaeda's terror tactics and killings. Mr. Glassman of course explained that the US does not intentionally kill innocent people but that Al Qaeda does, and that such collateral damages are regrettable. The chairperson also asked how the US will deal with the 'views' that many people now hold (like the 23% of Germans) that the US government was behind 9/11, to which no clear answer was given except that public diplomacy would have to counter that. I asked a simple question, 'If the aim is to rid the world of violence, then why is the word 'War' used to get to that?'. To me, it does not sound convincing that there is a true intention toward peace when the words used to explain this intention denotes violence and just the opposite of peace. Is the word deliberately put so that the public's mind think in terms of 'war', accepts that 'war' is the way to peace? Mr. Glassman listened to the last question of the final series of queries of the day (mine was number 3) and to my surprise, said that he will answer my question first (he even got close to pronouncing my name correctly). He says, he has been in the administration for just 3 months (he used to be a journalist before he became a diplomat) and that he does not like the 'War of ideas' phrase either, and though he tried to frame a different phrase, none was appropriate enough. Hence it stuck to that, but he reiterated that its the war of words not bullets that was implied. The truth however is that words and bullets have almost become merged such that we don't know the difference anymore.