DC Event: The US-Turkey-Iran “Triangle” and the Arab Spring

The Center for Democracy and Civil Society at Georgetown is excited to host a panel discussion on how the United States, Turkey, and Iran played a role in the Arab Spring and how they may play in to future democratization attempts in the region.

The Triangle
United States-Turkey-Iran: A new role in the Arab Spring

Friday, January 27, 2012
3:00 – 5:00 PM

Mortara Building
3600 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20057

Conference panel featuring
Colin H. Kahl – Professor, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University
Erol A. Cebeci – Executive Director, The SETA Foundation
Geneive Abdo – Fellow and Iran Analyst, The Century Foundation

Moderated by
Joshua W. Walker – Transatlantic Fellow, The German Marshall Fund

RSVPs are requested to rsvpforas@gmail.com.

What’s the Deal with China?

News Corp. Time Warner. Xinhua. Think one of these things doesn’t belong? Not if the Chinese government has anything to do with it. China has earmarked $7 billion USD, not including any money raised through non-state investors, to develop its state-owned media groups–including CCTV and Xinhua–into international conglomerates. They are intended as competition to the “household name” media giants, essentially breaking up the West’s media monopoly and positioning China atop a very strategic financial and political perch.

Just how far, though, can state-run media companies like Xinhua, CCTV, and People’s Daily really get in the global American-style capitalist system that we all know and love? The answer may surprise you. Over the past fifteen years, the introduction of a market economy to the production of print and broadcast media in China has resulted in a truly liberating restructuring of the sector. Rapidly increasing viewership has turned advertising revenue into a $28 billion USD industry in the country, and the reliance of state media outlets on the state themselves has dropped dramatically. While technically still state-owned, most state media outlets are no longer heavily subsidized by the government.

The Chinese government, contrary to popular perception, truly takes a “hands-off” approach to the majority of news media. It does certainly keep, to put it lightly, a tight rein on any traditional and new media it perceives as challenging its political authority. Its Internet police force numbers more than 30,000–and most of us in the field can rattle off a few names of famous imprisoned bloggers and activists from the top of our head. But despite this, the government has allowed coverage of entertainment, sports, and finance to go mostly unregulated, and a broad spectrum of media products have cropped up in recent years.

This system is, to borrow the words of CFR Senior Fellow and sinologist Elizabeth C. Economy, “schizophrenic.” But it works. While many surely crave political commentary, a market for consumers of non-political news is expanding by the day–illiteracy in China has, after all, decreased rapidly, from around 80% in 1950 to greater than 95% today. And along with more consumers, advertising revenues are ready to meet the demand.

It should be no surprise, then, that the Chinese government is ready to expand the system internationally. They have seen the the monetary success of introducing the media to an internal market economy, and are ready to use it to the country’s advantage. And when they do, the international community should be prepared. If the Chinese government plays its cards right, these state-backed media conglomerates may end up playing a huge role in the international system. Not only will they serve as machines of soft power supporting Chinese foreign policy abroad, but the government will generate ridiculous amounts of revenue–in the tens of billions per year, if not more–just for doing it.

Maybe the global market will reject media produced by a country with such a repellant journalistic reputation as China. But I’m not sure we should hold our (collective) breath.

Tunisia and the Arab Winter

from the FP blog Transitions

As I was checking the new Foreign Policy blog Transitions, by the Democracy Lab, I ran into a post called “Revolution Year One” in Tunis. It is hard to believe that it has already been a year since Tunisia, now called “the cradle of Arab revolutions”, overthrew Ben Ali. And they have been moving fast – the country had elections, the new Parliament is working and a new Constitution is on its way.

What is interesting is how the mood has turned sour so quickly. Expert Daniel Byman wrote for the Washington Post that “the peaceful demonstrations in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen that were supposed to bring democracy have instead given way to bloodshed and chaos, with the forces of tyranny trying to turn back the clock.” And he is not the only one to claim that the Arab Spring has become the “Arab Winter”.

But does the bitterness start with unrealistic expectations? Haven’t the real tests only just began?

In Tunis, it seems reality sank in, and now the arduous work of building a new democracy takes the space where before we could find excitement and hope. On the anniversary of the revolution, the general feeling was apparently lukewarm. Protesters were not chanting that the fight continues, and joyous Tunisians were not partying too loudly, according to the FP blog.

There were complaints that the celebration was taken over by the parties, instead of leaving it for the people. The moderate islamist Ennahda, the big winner of the recent elections, was allegedly the happiest one around, but many others showed up. I’m not sure that is a bad thing. Party strengthening is supposed to be an important feature of the process, and at least there is some organization at that level.

Of course, one should look at the level of support, participation and representation Ennahda and others enjoy now and going forward. At this stage, there seems to be an increasing gap between parties and people, which is cause for worry. One example is the recent outcry against the attempt by the new prime minister (a leader of Ennahda) to appoint media editors, threatening the freedom of the press. After protests, the government gave up, but it was too close to home for Tunisians used to life under Ben Ali, and the attempt brought back a lot of suspicion.

There is also disappointment with the state of the economy. Unemployment might stay close to 20% for the time being, although no one should have reasonably expected a large improvement so fast. The BBC reports that the number of acts of self-immolation increased five-fold in the past year, mostly inspired economic desperation (and the example of the young vendor who set himself and triggered the revolution over a year ago).

And there is the issue of controversial alliances, with the emir of Qatar and Hamas figuring at the top of the critics’ lists.

All that in a country deemed the most likely to succeed in building a new democracy. Egypt and Libya are much worse, of course, and I won’t even start on Syria. But still, I would caution against letting pessimism grow; instead, it is perhaps time to adjust expectations and keep working.

Egypt and D&G in the New York Times

In his New York Times column today, Thomas Friedman, while talking about Egypt, mentioned professor Daniel Brumberg and the MA in Democracy & Governance program. Those who are curious can check it out here.

D&S Vol. 9 Iss. 1, Spring 2012

The newest issue of Democracy & Society, A Decade of War on Terror, is now available online! Download the PDF file (422 KB).

In this issue:
“A Free Pass, But At What Cost?” by Elizabeth J.C. Cutler
“Geopolitics after 9/11: Did Iran Benefit?” by Stephan de Vries and Paul Aarts
“A Decade On: ‘The War on Terror’ and Indonesia’s Militant Islamist Groups” by Paul J. Carnegie
“Orwellian Lexicons: The Uses and Abuses of the ‘War’ on Terror” by Brenda Ong Bi Hui
“With Al-Qaeda’s Decline and Ten Years after 9/11, are U.S- Latin America Relations at Bay?” by Robert Valencia
Review Essay: “A Decade of War” by Andrew Gripp, Barak D. Hoffman, and Eli Lovely