The Return of Great-Power Competition to the Middle East: A Two-Level Game

Great-power competition has once again assumed primacy in the international arena. Facing a rising China and a resurgent Russia, the United States formally reoriented its National Security Strategy in 2017 to place more emphasis on the return of great-power politics and global multipolarity. With the resumption of such competition, the Middle East has rightfully been noted as a regional theater where Russia and China have sought to exploit US policy blunders and retrenchment (real or perceived) to push for increased regional multipolarity. Although the Middle East has been recognized as a prime theater for great-power competition, the approaches adopted by most existing studies are primarily one-sided: they examine great-power competition in the region from the outside, stressing how global powers are manipulating affairs in the Middle East in order to advance their own interests. Often missing from this conversation is how external engagement in the Middle East is being exploited and shaped by regional powers and endogenous developments. This study seeks to fill this gap by using the conceptual lens of omnialignment to examine how regional powers are manipulating the return of great-power competition to advance their own strategic imperatives, both at home and abroad.     

Stilwell in the stocks: the Chinese nationalists and the allied powers in the second world war

Dr Hans van de Ven is Reader in Modern Chinese History at Cambridge University. His most recent publication is War and Nationalism in China, 1925–45 (Routledge, London, 2003; this will be reviewed in the next issue of Asian Affairs). Other publications include Warfare in Chinese History (Leiden, Brill, 2000) and From Friend To Comrade: The Founding of the Chinese Communist Party (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1991). This article is based on the talk which Dr Hans van de Ven gave to the Society on 11 March 2003.     

The Iranians of AUB and Middle Class Formation in the Early Twentieth-Century Middle East

Iranian graduates of the American University of Beirut (AUB) constitute a neglected cross-section of an emerging middle class in the Middle East. Although the majority of students attending AUB were Arabs from the Ottoman Empire and later post-Ottoman Arab states, there was a notable non-Arab population including Iranians. Many felt an elective affinity with AUB because of the institution’s moral educational vision, its proximity to Baha’i leaders in Palestine, and its non-sectarian and practical orientation. Through club activities, published writing and studies, students articulated an understanding of the world that was at once modern and rooted in their religion and culture. By the same token, their career trajectories elucidate the unstable relationship between higher education and employment opportunities. Although they possessed specialized knowledge required for modern professions in government, education, medicine and law, other factors, such as religious discrimination and the lack of strong markets for certain areas of specialization, may have vitiated against the process of professionalization. More broadly, graduates had to navigate the volatile landscape of the post-Ottoman and post-Qajar Middle East in pursuit of their aspirations.     

Civil Society as Ideology in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective

Since the early 1990s support for civil society has constituted the linchpin of international efforts in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) to promote democratisation and democratic values. The rationale for this support lies in an understanding of civil society drawn from a liberal-democratic model, which dominates debates about civil society. This paper highlights the inaccuracies of this model when applied to the MENA and, using Turkey as an example, draws attention to the perils of supporting civil society organisations (CSOs) based on its conjectures. A critical analysis of CSOs and their role in Turkish society, drawing on the theoretical framework laid down by Gramsci, highlights two key issues: (1) contrary to the dominant policy view which equates civil society organisations with democracy, CSOs often assist elites in both democratic and undemocratic states to extend and consolidate their political economic power; (2) the idealisation of civil society by Western policy makers results in a diminished awareness of the factors which weaken civil society and erodes its democratic potential. Overall, the findings support the assertion that CSOs in the MENA facilitate predominantly elite interests over those of ordinary citizens and democracy more broadly.