Commerce and Investment

"Dubai & Co.: Global Strategies for Doing Business in the Gulf States"

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:25:03 -0400

MEI is honored to host Aamir Rehman, to discuss his book, "Dubai & Co.: Global Strategies for Doing Business in the Gulf States"

New Approaches to Enduring Issues: Welcome and Keynote Address

Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:00:00 -0500

In his keynote address at the Middle East Institute's 60th Annual Conference, US Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman discussed the need for diversifying energy sources in order to sustain global growth. Without diversification, developing nations will struggle to access increasingly costly fuel and environmental degradation will worsen. The private sector and government play a critical role in providing new energy solutions. In addition, states must transcend their narrow national interests and create cooperative solutions to overcome today's energy challenges.

Saudi Arabia Opening to Tourists

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:56:42 -0400

Many people snickered when Saudi Arabia announced a few years ago that it would create a tourism industry as part of a long-term effort to diversify its oil-dependent economy.

Tourism in Saudi Arabia? The forbidding alcohol-free kingdom where women are veiled, shops close at prayer time, religious enforcers patrol the streets, criminals are beheaded in public and the most important sites are off-limits to non-Muslims? What a joke.

Perhaps it’s time to stop chuckling. Crystal Cruises, a luxury cruise ship line that caters to affluent Americans, has added the Saudi port city of Jeddah to its ports of call. The Crystal Serenity, a 1,080-passenger liner, is scheduled to make its first stop in Saudi Arabia on March 23, 2010.

This is intriguing news for travelers, but it represents much more for Saudi Arabia. It can be read as a statement from the country’s rulers that they are determined to open up the country and engage with the world, despite what is certain to be outraged opposition from Saudi Arabia’s xenophobic religious and social conservatives.

For decades Saudi Arabia was difficult for non-Muslims to visit, but it mattered little because few people other than pilgrims headed for Mecca wanted to go there anyway, except on business. Now under the leadership of King Abdullah, the country is opening itself more and more to outsiders—issuing multiple-entry visas, creating an international university and hosting regional sports tournaments and even cultural events. The efforts of the Supreme Commission for Tourism are part of that trend, which has been driven mostly by the economic imperatives of creating new jobs and building self-sustaining industries beyond oil and petrochemicals.

The commission, headed by Prince Sultan bin Salman, an American-educated astronaut and grandson of the kingdom’s founder, has focused mostly on domestic tourism. The aim was to persuade Saudis to spend their holidays at home, on the Red Sea beaches or in the mountains of the sparsely-populated southwest. Welcoming boatloads of non-Muslim foreigners is another matter.

The cruise passengers may provide temporary employment for bus drivers and tour guides, but it is likely their presence will agitate the monarchy’s vocal Islamist critics. In Egypt, cruise ship day-trippers travel in armed convoys because of the security threat. What will be the security challenge in Saudi Arabia, where in recent years extremists have killed French travelers and attacked the US consulate in Jeddah?

According to Crystal’s announcement, the Serenity is scheduled to arrive in Jeddah at 8 a.m. and depart at 6 p.m. the same day. This is standard practice for cruise lines, which organize day trips to onshore sites and then sail on to the next destination in the evening.

But how many of the Serenity’s passengers, who on most cruises include many Jews, will want to disembark in Saudi Arabia? The State Department’s most recent travel warning “urges U.S. citizens to consider carefully the risks of traveling to Saudi Arabia” where “there is an ongoing security threat due to the continued presence of terrorist groups...”

For the passengers who do go ashore, there are other questions: What will the women wear? What will there be to see? Mecca is a short drive away but off-limits. The great Nabatean ruins at Midan Saleh and the vistas of Asir National Park are too far away for day trips. And will any passengers be permitted to disembark on their own and visit Jeddah independently of an organized tour, as some routinely do in other ports?

On its Web site, Crystal describes Jeddah as if it were an Arab Barcelona: “Jeddah is a dynamic and cosmopolitan commercial hub. It is also an artistic one, with public art on display on its roundabouts. In fact, the collection, which includes works by Alexander Calder and Joan Miro, makes the city the largest open-air art gallery in the world. For shopaholics, Jeddah is a paradise...And for anyone who appreciates scenic beauty, there are lovely beaches and a picturesque corniche, where locals and visitors alike can be found relaxing and drinking in the views.”

Jeddah is indeed interesting, but also hot, crowded and choked with traffic. The restored old city and its souk would take perhaps an hour to visit. And, while there is good snorkeling in the Red Sea, few beaches permit western-style bathing attire.

Crystal Cruises is Japanese-owned and its ships are registered in the Bahamas, but its offices are in Los Angeles and the great majority of its passengers are Americans. Like most cruise lines, it is always looking for new and offbeat destinations, and its 2010 itinerary in the Middle East reflects that quest. In addition to Jeddah, the Serenity is scheduled to call at Bandar Abbas, Iran; Khasab, Oman, on the Strait of Hormuz; and Ashdod, Israel.

UAE Warnings for a Friend

William A. Rugh — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:00:00 -0500

There are changes underway in the United Arab Emirates, but most go unnoticed abroad. First, I was struck by the high number of American visitors in town during my recent visit there, when I went to speak at a forum celebrating the second anniversary of Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayid’s accession to the presidency.

Just as I arrived, Karen Hughes, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, and the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force arrived with separate delegations and different goals. A large group representing the Guggenheim Museum was also in town to discuss cooperation with the UAE. A major international conference on breast cancer awareness and another one on women in business were just opening, with prominent American representatives in attendance. The best hotels in Abu Dhabi and Dubai were full. UAE newspapers and television provided ample coverage to the American visitors, along with prominent delegations from other countries. Posters displayed prominently on street corners announced future conferences planned for the coming months, including such featured speakers as “the first President Bush.”

When I was ambassador in the UAE 11 years ago, we had occasional visits from prominent Americans but nothing on this scale. The UAE has become a popular destination for Americans interested in commercial or humanitarian projects. The US ambassador says official bilateral relations are excellent and broad-based. Nobody mentioned the Dubai Ports flap of a few months ago. It does not appear to have discouraged people in the UAE from doing business with Americans.

Paradoxically, there is deep anxiety about the direction of US policy in the region despite the apparent desire of UAE officials and private organizations to work with the US in a wide range of activities. UAE nationals made clear to me their dismay over the US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Palestine and their apprehension about what would happen next. Palestine was as usual part of their list of complaints, but their immediate concerns focused on Iraq and Iran.

On Iraq, the anger and disappointment over US policies is stronger than I have ever seen it. The UAE nationals I spoke with privately, (former and current officials, academics, businessmen, journalists) who are basically pro-American, want desperately for us to change some of the things we are doing.

First, they very strongly recommend the US declare loudly and clearly that we support the unity and integrity of Iraq. Everyone I spoke with insisted that supporting partition or leaving the impression that we would accept partition would be a disaster for Iraq and for the United States. They said Arabs would forever remember that decision the way they remember the Sykes-Picot agreement and blame us if Iraq disintegrated. They said that if Iraq falls apart and we do not support partition, the Iraqis will be blamed, but if it falls apart and we favored it, we will be seen as the party responsible for it. Moreover, if we favor partition, most Iraqis will assume it is inevitable and they will sit back and wait for it to happen. So, we would influence the outcome and then be blamed for it.

Second, my UAE interlocutors argued that we should find other countries to send troops to replace Americans – any others. Several suggested sending the UN – with Arab troops as part of the blue-helmet force – but not with a US contingent. Send Muslim troops. Almost anyone will do, just get the US troops out of there as fast as possible because, they said, we are the problem not the solution. When I pointed out that it would be tough to get the UN to send troops at this point, they understood but they believe it is essential to remove the irritant of American soldiers as soon as possible. When I asked if this would not lead to more bloodshed, they told me the US presence has not stopped the bloodshed, it has increased the bloodshed and we should have realized by now that we need a radical change of policy.

Finally, everyone agreed that we should declare we don’t want to keep bases in Iraq nor control Iraqi oil. People in the UAE and elsewhere in the region still believe we went to Iraq for those aims, and would be very relieved if we dispelled that idea.

On Iran, my UAE interlocutors asked anxiously whether President Bush would launch a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites before he left office, as they had heard he was thinking of doing. When I said I didn’t know and could not reassure them on that score, they expressed their conviction that a US attack would be a huge disaster for the UAE and the region. It would, they argued, provoke Iran to retaliate against American interests. There would probably be a negative spillover on America’s friends like the UAE. An attack would solidify Iranian public support behind the Iranian regime and it would not stop Iran from its nuclear program.

We have many friends in the UAE who want to continue doing business with us and continue sending their children to study here. But, they are deeply worried about the course our Middle East policy has taken under the Bush administration, especially on Iraq and Iran. As friends of America, they are sincerely hoping we will soon find better ways to approach the region. As friends of America, before it is too late to prevent more conflict.

We Want Your Help and Your Business - Unless Its Arab

David Mack — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:00:00 -0500

The decision by the United Arab Emirates' Dubai Ports World to transfer its US operation to a US entity should not come as a surprise. As the company statement reads, it was done in the interest of preserving the ''strong relationship between the UAE and the United States.'' That's what allies do.

Some people are comfortable with the notion that we can rely upon our traditional allies in NATO and elsewhere around the world — ''people more like us'' — to deal with a terrorist problem that threatens all civilized countries. The reality is we are far more likely to find the critical help we need in Dubai or Jakarta than Stockholm or Paris.

The recent visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the UAE reinforced the Bush administration's understanding of the richness of US-UAE cooperation in a variety of security-related fields. The list is long -- from port and airfield support for US Navy warships and Air Force assets covering the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters to assistance in combating money laundering. Rice called the UAE a ``good partner in the war on terrorism, a stalwart partner.''

Before 9/11, regulations for the Dubai money markets had many holes. During my tenure as US ambassador to the UAE in the late 1980s, there was potential for strategic cooperation, but much still needed to be done to make it a reality. That has changed.

Today, the US Treasury Department holds up the UAE as a model for other countries to emulate. As for customs enforcement, the authorities in Dubai host US customs agents, providing us an unparalleled ability to inspect suspicious containers before they arrive in US ports. This is another model we hope other countries will adopt, since all the efforts we make at US ports of entry may be too late.

At this point we should start thinking about what we would lose if we were perceived as treating their cooperation with patronizing contempt. The UAE government and private sector leaders I talked to were too polite to hint at retaliation, but we cannot ignore the possibility.

Furor Over Prospective Deal

During my recent visits to Dubai and Abu Dhabi, both US and senior Emiri officials briefed me on the ways the UAE is helping us combat terrorism. There is nothing we have asked of the UAE government since September 2001, and we have asked for a lot, that they have not delivered.

The controversy over the ports deal landed with the thud of a misdirected bomb. The impression was that we had hung out a sign saying, ''Help wanted in the war on terrorism. Arabs need not apply.'' Reluctantly, I had to tell the Emiris that in the current Washington environment, if you put three words together — money, Arabs, and Bush — you guarantee a political firestorm.

They are amazed that US domestic politics could have such a powerful effect on responsible members of Congress. And, they wonder if the facts would make any difference. The furor over the prospective deal with Dubai Ports World also provides some lessons on the reality of US reliance on foreign capital and our double standards on foreign investments. At a time when the Bush administration is pursuing a free trade agreement with the UAE and other Arab markets to open the door for US companies, we are shutting the door to foreign investors at home, using national security as a smoke screen.

Foreign investment in our ports should not be confused with security. Our government, not the terminal managers, always will have the chief responsibility to guarantee port terminal security.

Dispel the Myths

On recent trips to the region, I found much interest in investing in this country. But nervousness over the potential political backlash is causing businessmen to explore other options.

We can use all the foreign capital we can get to help reduce our $700 billion global trade deficit. And we can certainly benefit from the international security support and political goodwill that comes with increasing international commercial cooperation.

It is time to dispel the myths about Arab investment that stir up anxieties and negative attitudes toward our trade partners. Increasing our international commercial cooperation not only provides economic benefits but also strengthens support in the Global War on Terror. The UAE government has acted more quickly and firmly than most in the region. Regardless of how the DP World affair plays out, now is not the time to turn our backs on our friends.

Don't Shortchange Afghanistan Again

Karl F. Inderfurth, Frederick Starr, Marvin G. Weinbaum — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:00:00 -0500

The forthcoming London conference on Afghanistan represents both a milestone and a challenge for the United States and the international community: a milestone because it will mark the completion of the Bonn process, the UN-brokered accord in 2001 to chart Afghanistan's path to a democratically elected government; a challenge because it will signal the beginning of the next critical stage in the country’s rebirth after decades of war and destruction.

Much has been accomplished since the Taliban were overthrown by US-led forces four years ago. President Hamid Karzai is justifiably proud in saying that Afghanistan "now has a constitution, a president, a Parliament and a nation fully participating in its destiny."

It is also true that Afghanistan is still at risk. The insurgency led by elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not going away. Afghanistan remains the world's leading drug supplier of opium. Corruption is on the rise. And many Afghans are beginning to ask, four years after the international community arrived, where are the promised roads, the schools, the health clinics, the electricity, the water?

In London, more than 60 countries and international organizations will gather to adopt a new, post-Bonn framework for cooperation and partnership with Afghanistan. A document known as the Afghanistan Compact will set out benchmarks and timetables to achieve specific goals in security, governance, and development over the next five years.

The conference will also provide the international community another opportunity to match its stated commitment to see Afghanistan rebuild with the resources necessary to accomplish that task. Two previous donors conferences — in Tokyo in 2002 and Berlin in 2004 — fell short.

These conferences generated less than half of the $28 billion that the Afghan government (and the World Bank) believes is required for reconstruction. Moreover, of the $13 billion actually pledged by the international community, to date only about $4 billion has been spent for rebuilding projects. This represents only a fraction of the much larger sums that have gone to reconstruction efforts in Iraq or the Balkans.

Afghanistan is getting shortchanged. The first order of business in London should be to correct this mismatch of Afghan needs and donor funding, and the United States should take the lead.

The US ambassador to Afghanistan, Ronald Neumann, is right in saying that the $623 million in US aid planned for 2006 will not be enough. In London, Washington should announce that it intends to double its reconstruction funding for the next five years, and challenge other donors, especially the Europeans, to follow suit.

There are three other urgent priorities the London conference should recognize.

First, the insurgency. A planned reduction in US troops in Afghanistan (by 13%) is causing concern in Kabul. While their replacement with NATO forces brings a welcome broadening of international responsibility, this should not result in a net loss of military capability. International peacekeepers should adopt rules of engagement that will allow them to conduct aggressive counterinsurgency operations and provide the protection necessary to enable reconstruction.

Second, weak governance. Without competent and honest civil servants at the local level, Kabul cannot hope to deliver the services the population desperately needs. Donors must invest in recruiting and training qualified government workers and police, and help the government build the tax base necessary to pay for them. The judicial system, without which policies will be unenforceable, must be rebuilt.

Third, the drug trade. Afghan farmers must be able to do as well from legal crops as from opium. This means renewing irrigation systems, introducing new plant stocks, developing transport systems and providing short-term credit. Just as the United States accepts moral responsibility for the effect of its drug habits on Colombia, European countries must accept their addictions are destroying Afghan society, and provide the needed investments.

Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United States, Said Tayeb Jawad, says his country clearly remembers its descent into extremism after the United States (and much of the rest of the international community) left at the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. The biggest concern that Afghans have about the international presence, he says, is that it might be short-lived.

The London conference offers the international community the opportunity to respond affirmatively to that concern, for the next five years and beyond.

A Roadmap for North Africa

Jacques Roussellier — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:00:00 -0500

What was intended as a meeting of European and Arab leaders in Spain recently turned out to be mostly empty seats. It is a potent reminder of how wide the gap remains between the two sides of the Mediterranean.

As the still simmering French riots and Dutch uneasiness remind us, even the most secularized countries in Europe are struggling to make sense of their own national identity in the face of mounting Islamism and the threat of terrorism among their own citizens of Muslim and Arab origin.

Though heralded as one of the finest hours of European foreign policy, the Brussels approach to the Maghreb and the Middle East is nonetheless the pursuit of narrow continental interests. Beyond a difference in tone between its soft stand, largely driven by economic development, migration, and rule of law, and Washington’s hard line efforts in the region, which are mainly driven by military and counter-terrorism concerns, the Brussels approach crucially misses the opportunity to foster economic development and long-term stability in North Africa.

There is much to gain from a joint effort to spur investment and create a common market in the region. According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, a regional market in North Africa will increase foreign direct investment by 62% in Algeria, 85% in Morocco and 165% in Tunisia.

But the North African countries’ failure to establish a regional free trade area — due to long-standing disputes, such as the status of Western Sahara, and hegemonic ambitions, particularly Morocco versus Algeria — is an issue that should have been addressed squarely and jointly by the European Union (EU) and the US. Besides fostering economic growth to help secure strategic objectives, the US and EU’s respective free trade accords reveal a striking lack of transatlantic convergence. The United States and European Union could have more effectively encouraged the resolution of regional problems by linking progress to economic incentives. Joint US-EU pressure could have been used to make the removal of regional obstacles a pre-condition for signing trade agreements with North Africa. Normalization of relations with Libya is also a case in point.

Morocco, for example, is the biggest recipient of EU aid and is a favorite of US support. The government signed separate trade agreements recently with the US and the EU, which could have been used as strategic leverage to pressure Morocco to seek more actively a resolution of the Western Sahara dispute.

Efforts to set up a regional free trade area would also exclude Algeria and Libya. Yet both states are strong candidates for future growth in oil production. Keeping them within a regional free trade area would enhance energy security for both Europe and the United States, especially their international oil firms.

Without North Africans doing their homework and the correct and coherent signals coming from across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, the old asymmetric game continues: North African states wishing for bilateral security guarantees get soft security piecemeal handouts, which is unlikely to create a stable Mediterranean basin. Without economic growth based on regional and international trade, there is still the twin curse of a failed economic and political model that renders conservative regimes from Morocco to Jordan more prone to terrorist recruits and suicide attacks.

The primary step in securing growth and countering the spread of terrorism needs to be coordinated policies between Washington and Brussels. Common long-term interests in security and development in the region are far more important than short-term gains in strengthening ties with key regional allies that only play into the hands of hegemonic agendas.

Furthermore, a common declaration on stability and security in the Maghreb should clarify what would be required from both sides in terms of settling regional disputes and promoting cooperation.

Finally, a regional security dialogue — a permanent organization for North Africa with perhaps the Sahel countries — should assist the implementation of regional and bilateral accords and provide a forum to resolve disputes and organize security cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts.

Free trade and economic growth in North Africa would not only provide stability in a strategically significant and volatile region, but would also contribute to a much needed security and economic buffer, as well act as a bridge between a desperately poor sub-Saharan Africa and an inward-looking Europe.

Winning the Battle but Losing the War

Edward S. Walker, Jr. — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:00:00 -0400

The Chairman of MEI’s Board of Governors, Wyche Fowler, and I were deeply disturbed by the extreme reaction we encountered in the business community in Saudi Arabia in December toward the United States and toward the Administration’s visa and immigration policies. The sense was that our primary institutions are prejudiced and not particularly interested in the problems of others or in the facts. In this article, I wanted to highlight a particular critical issue they raised that does not get much attention from our media.

The United States is losing the battle for public opinion in the region for many reasons. But one of the most practical reasons, and probably the easiest to fix, is the restrictive visa policy and the hostile behavior of some of our officials at our borders which have prevailed since September 11, 2001.

According to our Embassy in Riyadh, visa applications in Saudi Arabia have declined by 70 percent since before September 11. Applications in the Arab world as a whole have declined 40 percent. At the same time, the refusal rate in Saudi Arabia has stayed the same at about 2 percent. Saudi businessmen we talked to said they could not do business with the United States given the long lead time for visas, and they would not subject themselves to the indignities of US border controls. They cited horror stories of strip searches, cavity examinations, and long waits off line to be questioned. They admitted that the stories may be exaggerated but said that all that was needed was a single bad incident. In the close knit Saudi business community, such news spreads like wildfire and has a profound impact. The Saudis said that they were moving their business to Europe and noted that British and French tenders now advertised that visas would be accorded within 72 hours. The American business community was deeply concerned that US policies would eat into their bottom line over time. The cost of the new US policy to US business would mount into the billions of dollars.

Even more troubling to the Saudi business community was the drop in student visas. Many families were reluctant to send their children to the United States to study because of the fear of prejudice and ill treatment due to their national origin. Students were transferring to European universities in record numbers. Saudi businessmen pointed out that their ties to the United States had been formed in their university days and that they preferred US suppliers because of this experience. The next generations of Saudi managers will likely look to Europe for supplies and services. In addition, although the United States is advocating democracy, the very people in Saudi and the rest of the Gulf that could lead this effort were the graduates of US universities. Over 60 percent of the members of the Shura Council in Saudi Arabia have advanced degrees from the United States. This is an incalculable asset for those in the region who are advocating economic reform and democratization.

Our Saudi interlocutors were also concerned that the United States, which historically had taken the lead in human rights and democracy building, was now engaging in practices such as detention without trial, trial by military courts, and other practices which it had condemned roundly in the Middle East in the past. As a result, regimes in the region felt they had a blank check to engage in such practices themselves all in the name of combating terrorism. The United States was losing the moral high ground.

Everyone we spoke to understood the need for careful scrutiny of visitors as a result of the terrorist threat. And each one was quick to point out that Saudi procedures were also restrictive. But they urged us to consider measures that would discriminate between a high potential threat and businessmen and students that had a clear record and did not fit a threat profile. For example, they suggested that full time students headed to four-year degree granting universities and to graduate schools could be handled on a special fast track. Such students should be treated differently from those going to special short courses like flying schools that could be used as an access point for short-term terrorist planning or operations. Certainly, businessmen that have been coming to the United States for years without incident should be accorded a different status than a one-time visitor. What these businessmen could not understand was that the United States, with all its technological capabilities, could not devise a faster, more efficient and more consumer friendly system for low threat proven visitors. We had no answer for their questions.

The Modernization of Daily Life in Qatar

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:03:41 -0500

Having just returned from a research trip in Qatar in November 2007, I am astonished how much change the country has undergone since my last visit in June 2004. Qatar’s gas revenues are rapidly being spent to construct a twenty-first century country that was, just ten years ago, little more than a sleepy sheikhdom on the shores of the Persian Gulf.

Signs of modernization are everywhere. As an American citizen you need a visa to enter Qatar, but this can now be issued at the airport. Instead of waiting in long lines, a female officer at a booth now issues visas on the spot. Credit cards are welcomed, and as a bonus the visa will allow you to visit Oman as well. Interestingly, all the passport officers and luggage screeners are now Qatari women.

In the fashionable al-Dafna district of Doha, the vista is one of rising skyscrapers. There are now tens of them in different stages of construction. The imposing City Center shopping mall in the heart of al-Dafna is thriving with shops and business. When it was opened in 2001, it was said to be the sixth largest mall in the world. Three years ago it hosted one bank branch but now it has five, as well as money exchanges which allow over 600,000 foreign workers to send remittances to the Phillippines, India, Nepal, Egypt, Sri Lanka and other foreign destinations.

The new luxury mall Villagio was opened in 2006 with an interior similar to those of the five star hotels and casinos of Las Vegas. It has its own artificial sky with clouds and a Venetian-style canal complete with gondolas. It is not unusual to see traditional Qatari women covered in black from head to toe, sitting in the gondolas while the air is filled with Italian opera. Shopping centers are now so central to Qatari culture that on the weekends they are crammed full with families strolling in their best clothes. They go not only to shop but to dine, snack and above all to “see and be seen”.

This modernization has a few downsides, too. The hundreds of privately owned taxis that used to compete for fares have disappeared and been replaced by a single company, Karwa. While Karwa’s taxis are more modern and comfortable, they are harder to find and more expensive. Doha tried to counter this by starting a public transportation service in 2006, also run by Karwa, with bus service to various areas in the city. But the absence of covered bus stops means customers often have to wait under a sizzling sun. With the radical expansion of Doha has come the nightmare of enormous traffic jams, especially during rush hours. Traffic problems are exacerbated by endless roadwork and detours. Traffic police and heavy fines have forced a fundamental change of attitude among Qataris toward traffic rules. At one time drivers routinely ignored the rules, but now violation of a red light signal, for example, brings a fine of QR 10,000 (about US $3,000)!
The biggest surprise on this trip was the total remodeling of Doha’s old downtown market area--Suq Waqif. The narrow streets and winding alleys of the old suq are now clean and newly paved. Open-air shops are numbered and keep their merchandise inside the premises instead of spread out on the street. The remodeling has preserved the character of the traditional Arab suq, with each area specializing in merchandise such as textiles, clothing, souvenirs, kitchen utensils, sweets and toiletries. The main street of the suq now contains several remodeled cafes and popular restaurants with names like al-Bandar, Beirut, Istanbul, Umm Fatima and Umm Abd al-Aziz. Some serve traditional Qatari cuisine and the coffee shops offer tea, coffee, soft drinks and the traditional Arab water pipe.

Suq Waqif is now one of the hot spots to visit in Doha. Males and females, Arabs and foreign visitors can enjoy a water pipe while sipping tea and sitting on traditional long wooden chairs. Much of the credit for the historical renovation of the suq goes to Qatar’s ruler, Amir Hamid bin Khalifa Al-Thani. It is rumored that the Amir is so fond of the new Suq Waqif that he ordered all high buildings around the Suq to be demolished so that he could have an unrestricted view of it from his diwan.

One result of the rush to modernize is that finding a newspaper is no easy task unless you are staying at a first class hotel. Gone are the ubiquitous young Egyptian vendors who used to hawk newspapers on streets and at the roundabouts as one drove into the city. Now one has to go to a bookstore or gas station for the morning edition. Since 2004, two new dailies have been added to Qatar’s journalistic repertoire: an English language daily, the Qatar Tribune (2006), and a new Arabic language paper, al-Arab. Al-Arab is a revival of Qatar’s first Arabic language newspaper, which restarted again in November 2007 after a hiatus of eleven years. There are now four Arabic dailies (al-Sharq, al-Raya, al-Watan and al- Arab) and three English language papers (The Peninsula, The Gulf Times and The Qatar Tribune).

With its vast construction projects, improvement in infrastructure, and modernization of the education system, Qatar is trying hard to compete with Dubai as the Gulf center for investment and tourism. Ahmad Abd Allah al-Nuaimi, Head of the Tourism Office in Qatar, stated on November 4 that by 2012 Qatar would have 26,000 hotel rooms and that this number would double by the year 2016. Qatar Airways is already using Doha International Airport as a hub for passengers traveling between the United States, Europe and the Indian sub-continent and East Asia. By November 2007, Qatar Airways was serving some 55 destinations worldwide and had just signed a contract with Boeing for some 70 new planes. Qatar is building a new air terminal to handle this additional traffic.

Qatar has even bigger ambitions and dreams for the future. Doha intends to be a candidate to host the 2016 international Olympics and has already successfully hosted the 2006 Asian Olympic games, for which it built a huge sports city. The city’s boulevards are already filled with flags and banners welcoming the 2016 Olympic games. Qatar is also expanding industrially. In November, Crown Prince Shaikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani laid the first brick for a new aluminum factory to be the largest of its kind in the world. This project is the result of a partnership between Qatar petroleum and the giant Norwegian company Hydo Aluminum. Qatar has altered is property ownership laws to allow foreigners to buy real estate in certain areas and is focusing on luxury and upscale real estate development.

Everything in Doha from its vast boulevards, new luxury cars, large malls and its modern infrastructure bespeaks prosperity and affluence. It says louder than words that Qatar, with the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, is rich--and enjoying its bounty.

Improving Afghanistan Reconstruction Policy

Gary Bowersox (aka the Gem Hunter) — Thu, 13 May 2004 15:30:00 -0400

Gary Bowersox, also known as the Gem Hunter, has lived and worked in Afghanistan over the past 23 years, where his diverse travels led him to partner with figures ranging from Ahmed Shah Massoud to deprived miners. He will provide a window into recent developments in Afghanistan, focusing on the mineral resources market and US investment and one-of-a-kind anecdotes from his treks. Samples of gems collected during his travels will be on display and copies of his book The Gem Hunter: True Adventures of an American in Afghanistan will be available for purchase and signing.