The Russia - Iran Conundrum

The Economics of Dependency

A Weekly Political News Magazine

The Dignity Deficit

Issue 1634 - March 06/03/2017

The Russia - Iran Conundrum www.majalla.com

Doug Feith: Saudi capacity to counter Islamic extremism is unmatched

A Weekly Political News Magazine

Issue 1634 - March 6/03/2017

The Dignity Deficit

14

Mr Erbil: Kurdish Fashionistas are Turning Heads and Changing Minds 24

The Economics of Dependency

20 Contemporary Art Brings Life to Cairo's City of the Dead 28 HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd

A Weekly Political News Magazine

www.majalla.com/eng

10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG

Tel : +44 207 831 8181 - Fax: +44 207 831 2310

3

6/03/17

C

over story

The Russia - Iran Conundrum

Russia can only be regarded as a stumbling block towards any strategy to confront Tehran

by Hanin Ghaddar * Ever since US President Donald Trump won the presidential elections, it was obvious for many regional powers that Iran’s honeymoon in the US was over. Although it seems that the Trump administration is not going to revoke the Iranian Nuclear Deal Agreement or even overthrow the regime in Tehran, the new rhetoric against Iran is becoming increasingly aggressive and confrontational.

Many in the region – including the GCC, Turkey and Israel – are pleased with this new rhetoric, especially after the former administration’s “friendlier” approach towards Iran, which lasted eight years, and gave Iran and its Revolutionary Guards a free hand in the region.

The question today is how the Trump Administration is going to translate this rhetoric to action. Maybe it is too early to say for sure what the plans for Iran are, but there are two major challenges that need to be resolved before the US decides its next steps in the region.

The first challenge is Russia. President Trump has repeatedly said - during the presidential campaign and afterwards – that he wants better relations with Russia.

When it comes to the Middle East, especially Syria, his administration is trying to find a way to break up Iran and Russia alliance, assuming that Russia would prefer to be a closer ally to the US than Iran.

It is true that Russia and Iran do not see eye to eye on everything in Syria, mainly on the issue of the Shiite

militias’ role after a ceasefire. And it is true that Russia is coordinating with Israel when it comes to Hezbollah’s convoys and operations in Syria. However, this does not mean that Russia is going to split with Iran anytime soon.

This Iran-Russia alliance is too deep and entrenched to break. Putin wanted to improve ties with Iran for both political and economic reasons. Iran is a profitable market for Russia›s military and the arms trade, and so nuclear cooperation increased. Politically, the two countries share a strong opposition to Sunni Islamism, and against the US, although for different reasons. But most significantly, Iran was Russia’s main gate to the Middle East, through Syria.

In addition to the continued military coordination in and out of Syria, it was reported last week that Hezbollah has acquired about 8 advanced Russian-made strategic naval missiles.

According to Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, western intelligence agencies have expressed “grave concerns” that Hezbollah has acquired Yakhont missiles, also known as Onyx, a Russian supersonic anti-ship cruise weapon that is regarded as the naval equivalent of the antiaircraft S300-.

These missiles can be fired from the shore and have a range of up to 300 kilometers.

This information was revealed by Western intelligence officials over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference where world leaders and defense ministers met to discuss major security issues.

“Hezbollah could use these missiles to significantly

4

6/03/17

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and Iranian Pres-ident Hassan Rouhani (L) meet during the 4th Caspian Summit on September 2014 ,29 in Astra-khan, Russia.

Leaders of Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan attend to 4th summit of the Caspian Sea. (Getty)

threaten the Israeli Navy, the US Sixth Fleet and civilian vessels in the Mediterranean, as well as Israel’s newly built oil and gas rigs,” the Israeli newspaper warned. “Even the most advanced missile interception systems are unable to effectively intercept it,” said the reports.

If there are any signs of the cooperation between Russia and Iran, it looks like a sustained and functioning alliance, despite the remaining differences.

Nothing shows any signs of a potential disagreement, except for post-ceasefire Syria, which might take longer than expected or desired.

Syria and the region. Iran and Russia›s alliance in Syria has always seemed like a temporary one -- while they agree on war, they differ on peace. Tehran often treats Assad›s army as just another one of its militias in Syria.

Iran is not interested in state institutions or a unified Syria; it wants a partition plan that guarantees a Shiite state under its control

This alliance might fracture on the long-term, and it might witness deeper differences as things move forward in

5

6/03/17

It does not trust the army to secure its «Shiite corridor,» instead relying on Hezbollah and other Shiite militias to help change the demography of towns within regime-held areas. Iran›s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) believes that any future solution in Syria will be based on

C

over story

sectarian grounds. That’s why Iran prefers a partition plan that guarantees a Shiite state under its control. Iran is not interested in state institutions or a unified Syria.

On the other hand, Russia has no interest in demographic changes or sectarian division in Syria. Vladimir Putin does not want Assad›s authority to be usurped behind the scenes

by IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.

Instead, he prefers a political solution that leads to a gradual transition of power. Syria›s state institutions are more significant to Russia than Assad.

These differences might become more apparent after a ceasefire and when a political solution is discussed and implemented. Before that, the US cannot split the two powers.

In light of the above, the US might sooner or later realize that Russia is not a serious potential ally, and that Putin actually does prefer Iran to the US as an ally. Maybe when Russia is no longer considered a potential ally, there will be no need to make concessions, and it will be easier to move forward against Iran.

This brings us to the second challenge in Syria and that is the fate of Assad. So far, the US and other international powers have backed up from the “Assad must go” rhetoric.

It has become acceptable that ISIS is the most dangerous threat and that Assad’s forces are fighting ISIS, which is not really happening on the ground. With Russia and Iran both unyielding when it comes to the fate of Assad, and the international community not working against it, he and his regime will stay in power.

Trump Administration must solve two major challenges before deciding next steps in the region The Iran and Russia alliance and the fate of Assad However, with Assad in power, there is no stopping to the growing sectarian tension in Syria and the region at large.

Iran’s and the Shiite militias’ presence in Syria will always be protected by Assad, but it will also be surrounded

by a majority of Sunni population, not on in Syria, but in the Arab world as a whole. And this community is going to reject Assad no matter what the international community thinks or wants. Assad has committed multiple and horrendous crimes against humanity and he will not be able to reign over Syria as he used to, not after what happened in the past six years, and not with Iran and Russia controlling every decision of the state and its authorities. Even if Russia comes to understand this, Iran will not allow it. Therefore, Assad must go, and to make this happen, Iran’s militias and military presence must also go. They will have to be forced to go, one way or another.

If the West is going to seriously end the humanitarian disaster in Syria, Assad must go, Iran’s militias must go, and all foreign fighters – ISIS and others – must also go.

Trump cannot do all of the above without trouble with Russia. Therefore, it seems two things are inevitable: One, Russia can only be regarded as a stumbling block towards any strategy to confront Tehran. Two, Assad will have to go; otherwise, Iran won’t go.

6

6/03/17

Syrian girls walk carrying bread along a damaged street in Aleppo›s Tareeq al-Bab neighbourhood on January 2017 ,19, a month after government forces retook the northern Syrian city from rebel fighters.

(Getty)

The Russia conundrum will have to be solved before any steps to confront Iran. The good thing is that the Gulf States are no more marginalized, and are willing to cooperate and be involved in any upcoming strategy or moves to contain Iran.

One sign of this desired Arab role was last week’s visit by the Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir to Iraq, where he Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi - the first such visit by a Saudi foreign minister since 1990. This visit caused serious concern in Iran, which in turned warned its Iraqi proxies.

For example, Jawad al-Talibawi, a spokesman for the

If the West is going to end the humanitarian disaster in Syria, Assad must go, Iran’s militias must go, and all foreign fighters must also go armed wing of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, a Shiite Iraqi militia group with close ties to the I.R.G.C., cautioned Iraq’s leaders that they should “be vigilant” about “the hidden goals behind Jubeir’s trip to Baghdad,” during an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency – Iran’s state news agency.

It is obvious that the anti-Iran stances and moves will increase and the GCC-US cooperation will also improve.

However, a full-fledged war against Iran is still not in on the table, and there are many things that could be done without a military confrontation.

Besides economic sanctions, the US could work to empower the role of its Arab allies. And again, looking at Syria, Iran’s militias cannot continue to be given a free hand. Therefore, equal treatment of all terrorism groups Sunni and Shiite – will have to be achieved.

To do that, Russia should not be allowed to stop any action against Tehran. Otherwise, the international community will be back at square one, and continue to fight ISIS without thinking who is going to replace ISIS. Without a proper US strategy and presence in the region, we will only see an increased Iranian power and presence, and an ISIS comeback.

Soldier of the military looks at the remains of Palmyra seen in the background on May 2016 ,5 in Palmyra, Syria (Getty)

* Hanin Ghaddar is the inaugural Friedmann Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute.

7

6/03/17

I

nterview

Doug Feith: Saudi capacity to counter Islamic extremism is unmatched Washington - Mostafa El-Dessouki Douglas J. Feith began his career in government in 1975 as a staffer for storied Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Like others who identified as “neoconservatives,” he later transitioned to the Republican party, serving in national security positions under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. In the latter White House, he held the position of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy between 2001 and 2005. In the capacity, he helped formulate the Pentagon’s relations in numerous parts of the world, with a special focus on the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular.

Feith has since moved on to a combination of private consulting, scholarship, and policy research. He is director of the Center for National Security Strategies and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative public policy think-tank.

Iran, but felt rebuffed. What is your appraisal of those policies in retrospect?

A: Obama administration officials didn’t highlight Islamist Shi’ite militias as much as they should have.

The failure was rooted in the administration’s desire for a US-Iranian strategic partnership.

The Iran nuclear deal is best understood as part of the effort to achieve that strategic partnership, which President Obama strongly desired and thought was possible. He knew that as long as there was a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, it would be impossible to create the strategic partnership. He pursued the nuclear deal not because he thought it was inherently very important, but because he had to push the nuclear problem aside to open the way to the strategic partnership.

At first, he thought the Iranians would make major concessions regarding their nuclear program. He made tough demands about their ending all enrichment and Majalla interviewed Undersecretary Feith in Washington. dismantling their facilities because he thought they would consent. He didn’t understand the Iranians.

Q: During the Obama Administration, many voices in When the Iranians said no, President Obama dropped the Arab region raised concerns about White House those demands. Again, what he cared about was not the policies toward Shi’ite Islamist militias backed by substance of the nuclear deal, but pushing the problem

8

6/03/17

President Obama was repeatedly humiliated

by Iran

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith (left) and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Near Eastern South Asian Affairs and Special Plans William Luti brief reporters on policy and intelligence during a Pentagon press conference on June 2003. (Getty)

aside on whatever terms were possible. When the Iranians said no to a tough agreement, he agreed to a non-tough agreement.

Q: You said that “President Obama didn’t understand the Iranians.” What is it that you feel he missed?

A: President Obama didn’t understand the role Q: The Obama White House might have countered that that nuclear weapons played in Iranian strategy. a U.S.-Iranian strategic partnership could be helpful to He didn’t understand their indirect tactics – how the region. they manage to act both very aggressively and very cautiously. They are strategically clever. They A: If one’s motivating idea is creating a U.S.-Iranian export their revolution, but they do it in a carefully strategic partnership, then one discounts and underplays calculated fashion that is prudent and cautious.

Iranian-backed terrorism through Hezbollah, and in They prefer to use proxies rather than do violent things themselves.

Yemen, Gaza and elsewhere.

9

6/03/17

I

nterview

And sometimes, they are not cautious. When they found that the Obama administration was willing to suffer serious humiliation, they couldn't restrain themselves from overtly humiliating the US with the Iranian fast boats in the Persian Gulf. That was purposeful, with malice aforethought. President Obama took it and swallowed it.

Downplaying the importance of Iran’s use of proxies was another way that the Obama administration humiliated itself. This was partially conscious and partially a failure to understand the aggressiveness of Iran’s strategy. It’s obvious to the Saudis, for example, that Iran is working to encircle them through attacks and support for proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria.

but other Bush administration officials understood that, even though al-Qaeda is hostile to the Shi’ites, it can still cooperate with Iran against America. And al-Qaeda in fact did cooperate with Iran against America. The Iranians supported Hamas, and al-Qaeda — both Sunni groups, both ideologically anti-Shi’ite. The Iranians were happy to support them because they had common enemies in Israel, America, and Saudi Arabia.

Q: Now there is a new administration in Washington. In your view, has it already defined its policy vision with respect to Iran, or are such matters still in flux?

A: On many foreign policy matters, the president is a blank slate. He hasn’t personally given a lot of thought to national security matters, so there’s a major opportunity to influence his thinking. Saudi officials are presumably considering the three or four large strategic ideas they want to convey about their region. Those big ideas could help President Trump make sense of the many smaller issues in the region.

President Trump must reconcile his desire to improve relations with Russia and his intention to confront Iran

Mr. Trump has expressed notions about various Middle Eastern issues, but they are not quite consistent with one another. He said, for example, he wants to be tough against Iran, but he also wants to be cooperative with Russia, even though Russia is helping Iran in Syria. He’s talked about being tough against ISIS but doesn't want Q: Your own experience in government reached a to get entangled in Syria. If you pull together the various highpoint during the Bush Administration. Though its things he’s said about Iran, Russia, Syria, safe zones, policies were different than Obama’s in many ways, ISIS – they don't cohere. some in our region feel that it shared the same rightful focus on groups like Al-Qaeda, but was less inclined to Q: As Saudi officials begin to engage their new American counterparts, knowing what you do about the kingdom aggressively counter Iran. Are they correct? and its relations with the US, how do you think they will A: Under the Bush Administration, we never thought be perceived and received? that the war on terrorism was just about al-Qaeda. The problem was al-Qaeda and other Sunni groups and Shi’ite A: Saudi officials will, I assume, try to come up with a groups. As I saw it, the problem is Islamist extremism, succinct way of looking at the Middle East strategically which has both Sunni and Shi’ite elements. Some of the and try to convey this to President Trump. I would Sunni and Shi’ite elements hated each other, but they guess that they would say, “Mr. President, we consider were nonetheless allied against the West. Some people ourselves your friends. We have been disturbed that the at CIA had problems grasping that ideological foes policies pursued by the Obama Administration didn’t could be strategically aligned against a common enemy, serve American interests and seriously damaged Saudi Just put all those dots on the map – in the middle is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis naturally look at this as a strategic problem. They saw the Obama administration as oblivious to that strategic problem, unwilling to do anything to counter it.

10

6/03/17

Under Secretary Dough Feith with with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Chief of Mission in Islamabad Michele Sison and CIA officer Robert Grenier.

interests. We’ve tried to think through American strategic interests in the region, and we would like to present to you our thoughts in a way we think will serve the common interests of Saudi Arabia and the US in the region.”

President Trump will be focused not on Saudi interests but on U.S. interests. As he puts it, America First.

Q: How would such common interests be advanced?

The single largest strategic problem in the region is

11

6/03/17

Iranian hostility, Iranian aggressiveness, and Iranian capability. When it views the Middle East, America should have as an organizing principle that the Iranian Islamic Republic, as both a nation and a revolution, for both traditional national reasons and for ideological reasons, is the region’s major strategic problem. That’s true from the points of view of the US and Saudi Arabia.

Some people may question whether Iran is a problem due to nationalism or due to Islamist extremism. These are not

I

nterview

mutually exclusive. Persian aggressiveness is combined with this passionate Islamist ideology that Iran is looking to export. The Nazis were both German nationalists and they had their national socialist ideology, and it was the combination that made them such a danger. Even the Soviet Union became both a national and an ideological threat.

Point two, to address what’s on President Trump’s mind, one has to address ISIS. It would be a powerful message from Saudi Arabia, for example, to highlight the problem of this Sunni version of Islamist extremism. If Saudi leaders use the term he uses, I think he would listen.

The key to fighting ISIS-type extremism is to work with Muslims who consider themselves the enemies of those extremists. And so that’s where the Islamic Coalition comes in.

In the spring of 2003, there was a major terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, and it shocked the Saudi government, which started a serious effort to get its own clerics

against ISIS. But in addition a major component of the strategy should be an ideas campaign, the key to which is American cooperation with Muslims who want to oppose and fight ISIS. Saudis could say they are ready to work with the US in a serious effort to attack Islamist extremism and denounce all terrorism – all attacks on ordinary people for political purposes. They could say they want to work as a partner with the U.S. They could specifically say that you, President Trump, criticized your predecessor for failing to name the enemy. We are willing to name the enemy and work with you against that enemy, because it’s not only your enemy, but ours.

Again, I think President Trump lacks definite views on all aspects of Middle East policy. He’s open to ideas.

If Saudi Arabia sent to Washington someone like your foreign minister, who speaks English beautifully, and he sat with President Trump and his cabinet, he could effectively get these two messages across.

To repeat: First, Iran is a strategic problem for both the US and Saudi Arabia. That could help the Trump administration develop a correct appreciation of what’s at stake in Syria, where the Assad regime is Iran’s best friend in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia could also provide an organizing principle for understanding Yemen, Libya, and Lebanon.

Every administration needs the right organizing principles. Obama had an organizing principle, but it was a bad one: strategic partnership with Iran. President Obama shaped all his policies in the region around that organizing principle. Saudi officials would I think want to persuade the Trump administration to adopt a more sensible organizing principle regarding Iran.

President Trump is open to advice about how to defeat ISIS while pushing back on Iran and its proxies to denounce terrorism and fight the problem at an ideological level. But there are not many people in the West who know about this. It occurred not after 11-9, but after the 2003 terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia.

A Saudi message to President Trump that speaks to the countries’ shared interests could be described in terms of two main thoughts: One is Iran’s strategic importance as a threat to the shared interests of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia — as evidenced by Iran’s ambitions, hostility to the U.S., revolutionary ideology and its capabilities.

The second big thought is, if you want to fight ISIS, a key element of the campaign should be countering its ideology. There are also military means to use

Point two is about ISIS and Islamist extremism. The main message is that, to destroy ISIS, you need a combination of military and ideological means. And the key to the ideological effort is a partnership between the US and those elements of the Muslim world that want to fight against ISIS and the extremists.

12

6/03/17

Q: How do you see the Trump administration’s views evolving with respect to the role of Iraq, and Shi’ite militias?

As for what the U.S. should do in Iraq, President Trump may be inclined to want to use local forces to the maximum extent possible against ISIS. Does that mean the U.S. should ally with pro-Iranian forces against ISIS? If President Trump is clear on the strategic importance of opposing Iran, he will not want to ally with pro-Iranian forces to fight ISIS. So the United States has to be both anti-Iran and anti-ISIS, even though Iran and ISIS are enemies. Sometimes our enemy’s enemy is still an enemy for us. The United States should fight them both.

Q: In your view, what special assets can Saudi Arabia bring to the table with respect to the struggle against ISIS? Doug Feith and Mostafa El-Dessouki at the Undersecretary’s office in Washington.

A: As noted, if the U.S. wants to destroy ISIS, it needs a military component to the campaign and an ideological component to the campaign. It wants to make sure ISIS isn’t bringing up new people for recruitment and indoctrination. There’s no country in the world that has a greater capacity than Saudi Arabia to counter the ideology of Islamist extremism. It has singular authority on questions of the interpretation of Islam. Leading Saudis can intensify efforts to promote principles against suicide bombing and the killing of ordinary people — all ordinary people. They could fight it in principle, and have leading clerics give religiously persuasive arguments against the tactic of targeting civilians for political purposes. That could help dry up the pools from which ISIS and other groups recruit and indoctrinate their fighters.

Saudi officials could volunteer to work in partnership with the US, using the coalition. It could be effective with President Trump to tell him there are new and good things that Saudi Arabia has never done before that it’s ready to do with him in partnership. That would allow him to say that his negotiating skill and his leadership has led to the Saudis making statements and taking actions that they’ve never done before, and we’re proud to be partners with the Saudis — and they’re denouncing terrorism against Israel and against everybody else.

Under Secretary page Dough Feith

13

6/03/17

P

olitics

The Dignity Deficit Reclaiming Americans' Sense of Purpose

by Arthur C.Brooks "He who establishes conventional wisdom owns history,” a historian once told me. So it’s no surprise that ever since last year’s extraordinary U.S. presidential election, all sides have been bitterly fighting over what happened—and why. The explanations for Donald Trump’s surprise victory have varied widely. But one factor that clearly played an important role was the alienation and disaffection of less educated white voters in rural and exurban areas. Trump may have proved to be a uniquely popular tribune for this constituency. But the anger he tapped into has been building for half a century.

The roots of that anger lie all the way back in the 1960s, when President Lyndon Johnson launched his so-called War on Poverty. Only by properly understanding the mistakes made in that war—mistakes that have deprived generations of Americans of their fundamental sense of dignity—can the country’s current leaders and political parties hope to start fixing them. And only once they properly understand the problem will they be able to craft the kind of cultural and political agenda that can heal the country’s wounds.

ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ On April 1964 ,24, Johnson paid a highly publicized visit to Inez, the biggest town in eastern Kentucky’s Martin County.

Inez was the heart of coal country, the most typical Appalachian town that Johnson’s advisers could find. In the 1960s, “typical Appalachian” meant a place suffering from crippling despair.

The citizens of Inez were poor. Many of them were unemployed, and their children were malnourished. Johnson had chosen Inez to illustrate that dire poverty was not just a Third World phenomenon: it existed right here at home, and not just in cities but in rural America as well. But he also came to Inez to announce that this tragedy could be remedied.

In one famous photo op, Johnson stopped by the home of a man named Tom Fletcher, an unemployed -38year-old father of

eight. The president climbed up onto Fletcher’s porch, squatted down next to him, and listened to the man’s story. According to a 2013 article in the Lexington Herald-Leader by John Cheves, “Fletcher never finished elementary school and could not really read. The places where he had labored—coal mines, sawmills— were closed. He struggled to support his wife and eight children.”

The president used Fletcher’s struggles as a springboard for his own announcement. “I have called for a national war on poverty,” he declared. “Our objective: total victory.” Years later, Cheves reports, Johnson still remembered the encounter. “My determination,” he wrote in his memoirs, “was reinforced that day to use the powers of the presidency to the fullest extent that I could, to persuade America to help all its Tom Fletchers.” Over the next five decades, the federal government would spend more than 20$ trillion trying to achieve Johnson’s dream with social welfare programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Tom Fletcher personally received some of this largess: he got welfare benefits and found employment through government make-work initiatives, laboring on crews that cleared brush and picked up trash from roadsides. But he never held down a steady job, Cheves recounts, and although his standard of living rose along with the national average, he never made it out of poverty. By 1969, he no longer worked at all and relied instead on disability checks and other public assistance. After his first wife died, he married a woman four decades his junior, with whom he had two more children. In a cruel final twist, Fletcher’s second wife murdered one of those children (and tried to kill the other) as part of a scam to collect on their burial insurance. In 2004, with his wife still in prison, Fletcher died, never having gotten much closer to the American dream than he was when Johnson climbed onto his porch.

Visit the area today, and despite Johnson’s promises, you’ll see that idleness and depression still hang heavy in the air. In Inez, as across the country, the welfare state and modern technology have made joblessness and poverty less materially painful. Homes have electricity and running water. Refrigerators, personal computers,

14

6/03/17

Antipoverty efforts fail when they do nothing to give people a sense of dignity and purpose

Coal miners prepare for their shift in Gilbert, West Virginia, May 2014 .

(REUTERS)

and cars are ubiquitous. Economic growth and innovation have delivered material abundance, and some of the War on Poverty’s programs have proved effective at bolstering struggling families.

But even though poverty has become less materially miserable, it is no less common. In Martin County, just 27 percent of adults are in the labor force. Welfare is more common than work. Caloric deficits have been replaced by rampant obesity. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better on the national level. In 1966, when the War on Poverty programs were finally up and running, the national poverty rate stood at 14.7 percent. By 2014, it stood at 14.8 percent. In other words, the United States had spent trillions of dollars but seen no reduction in the poverty rate.

Of course, the poverty rate doesn’t take into account rising consumption standards or a variety of government transfers, from food stamps to public housing to cash assistance. But the calculations that determine it do include most of the income that Americans earn for themselves. So although the rate is a poor tool for gauging material conditions, it does capture trends in Americans’ ability to earn success. And what it shows is that progress on that front has been scant.

The War on Poverty has offered plenty of economic analgesics but few cures. This is a failure not just in the eyes of conservative critics but also according to the standard set by the man who launched the campaign. On signing the Appalachian Regional Development Act in March 1965, Johnson argued that the United States should aspire to more than simply sustaining people in poverty. “This nation,” he

15

6/03/17

declared, “is committed not only to human freedom but also to human dignity and decency.” R. Sargent Shriver, a key Johnson adviser on the War on Poverty, put it even more explicitly: “We’re investing in human dignity, not doles.”

I NEED YOU TO NEED ME At its core, to be treated with dignity means being considered worthy of respect. Certain situations bring out a clear, conscious sense of our own dignity: when we receive praise or promotions at work, when we see our children succeed, when we see a volunteer effort pay off and change our neighborhood for the better. We feel a sense of dignity when our own lives produce value for ourselves and others. Put simply, to feel dignified, one must be needed by others.

The War on Poverty did not fail because it did not raise the daily caloric consumption of Tom Fletcher (it did).

It failed because it did nothing significant to make him and Americans like him needed and thus help them gain a sense of dignity. It also got the U.S. government into the business of treating people left behind by economic change as liabilities to manage rather than as human assets to develop.

The dignity deficit that has resulted is particularly acute among working-class men, most of whom are white and live in rural and exurban parts of the United States. In his recent book Men Without Work, the political economist (and American Enterprise

P

olitics

Institute scholar) Nicholas Eberstadt shows that the percentage of working-age men outside the labor force—that is, neither working nor seeking work—has more than tripled since 1965, rising from 3.3 percent to 11.6 percent. And men without a high school degree are more than twice as likely to be part of this “unworking” class.

These men are withdrawing not only from the labor force but from other social institutions as well. Two-thirds of them are unmarried. And Eberstadt found that despite their lack of work obligations, these men are no more likely to spend time volunteering, participating in religious activities, or caring for family members than men with full-time employment.

That sort of isolation and idleness correlates with severe pathologies in rural areas where drug abuse and suicide have become far more common in recent years. In 2015, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an extraordinary paper by the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton. They found that, in contrast to the favorable long-term trends in life expectancy across the rest of the developed world, the mortality rate among middle-aged white Americans without any college education has actually risen since 1999. The main reasons? Since that year, among that population, fatalities due to chronic liver disease and cirrhosis have increased by 46 percent, fatalities from suicide have risen by 78 percent, and fatalities due to drug and alcohol poisoning are up by a shocking 323 percent.

Unsurprisingly, those left behind hold a distinctly gloomy view of the future. According to a survey conducted last year by the Kaiser Family Foundation and CNN, fewer than one-quarter of white Americans without a college degree expect their children to enjoy a better standard of living in the future than they themselves have today, and half of them believe things will be even worse. (In contrast, according to the same survey, other historically marginalized communities have retained a more old-school American sense of optimism: 36 percent of working-class blacks and 48 percent of working-class Hispanics anticipate a better life for their children.)

To be sure, rural and exurban whites who possess few in-demand skills and little education are hardly the only vulnerable group in the United States today. But the evidence is undeniable that this community is suffering an acute dignity crisis. Left behind every bit as much as the urban poor, millions of working-class whites have languished while elites have largely ignored them or treated them with contempt.

Americans from all walks of life voted for Trump. But exit polls unambiguously showed that a crucial central pillar of his support came from modern-day Tom Fletchers: Trump beat Hillary Clinton among white men without a college degree by nearly

50 percentage points. Tellingly, among counties where Trump outperformed the 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney, the margins were greatest in those places with the highest rates of drug use, alcohol abuse, and suicide.

WELFARE TO WORK If its goal is to instill dignity, the U.S. government does not need to find more innovative ways to “help” people; rather, it must find better ways to make them more necessary. The question for leaders, no matter where they sit on the political spectrum, must be, Does this policy make people more or less needed—in their families, their communities, and the broader economy?

Some may ask whether making people necessary is an appropriate role for government. The answer is yes: indeed, it represents a catastrophic failure of government that millions of Americans depend on the state instead of creating value for themselves and others. However, it’s not enough to merely make people feel that they are needed; they must become more authentically, objectively necessary.

The single most important part of a “neededness agenda” is putting more people to work. The unemployment rate is relatively low today, at around 4.7 percent, after peaking at around ten percent in 2010, in the wake of the financial crisis. But the unemployment rate can be a misleading metric, since it does not take into account people who are no longer even looking for work.

A more accurate measure of how many Americans are working is the labor-force participation rate: the percentage of all workingage adults who are currently employed. That figure hit a peak

16

6/03/17

Between 1966 and 2014, the United States spent trillions of dollars but saw no reduction in the poverty rate

policy in recent history was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The PRWORA, which became synonymous with the phrase “welfare reform,” made several major changes to federal policy. It devolved greater flexibility to the states but established new constraints, such as a limit on how long someone could receive federal welfare benefits and a work requirement for most able-bodied adults. The PRWORA was denounced at the time as a callous right-wing scheme. Critics insisted that people were only jobless because there were no opportunities to work and that the new requirements would force single mothers and vulnerable children into poverty.

The opposite has happened. According to the poverty expert Scott Winship, child poverty in single-parent homes has fallen by more than ten percent since 1996. Overall child poverty now sits at an all-time low.

Lyndon B. Johnson visiting with youth at a Philadelphia job opportunity center. As part of his 'War on Poverty,' Johnson created job training programs in partnership with industry.

(Getty)

of just over 67 percent in 2000 and has since fallen to around 63 percent today. The decline has been particularly pronounced among men. In 98 ,1954 percent of prime-age American men (those between the ages of 25 and 54) participated in the labor force; today, that figure has fallen to 88 percent.

Involuntary unemployment saps one’s sense of dignity. According to the American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett, recent data suggest that a ten percent increase in the jobless rate may raise the suicide rate among men by almost 1.5 percent. And a study published by the sociologist Cristobal Young in 2012 found that receiving unemployment insurance barely puts a dent in the unhappiness that follows the loss of a job. Feeling superfluous triggers a deep malaise that welfare benefits do not even come close to mitigating.

Increasing the labor-force participation rate will require significant tax and regulatory reforms to encourage more firms to locate and expand their operations in the United States. A logical first step would be to reform the draconian American approach to taxing corporations. On average, between federal and state policies, U.S. businesses pay a tax rate of around 39 percent.

That is far above the worldwide average of 22.5 percent and even more out of alignment with the average rates paid by companies in Asia (20.1 percent) and Europe (18.9 percent). One promising, revenue-neutral plan, put forward by the economists Eric Toder and Alan Viard (the latter of the American Enterprise Institute), would cut the U.S. rate to 15 percent (in conjunction with other important structural reforms).

Putting more people to work must also become an explicit aim of the social safety net. Arguably, the greatest innovation in social

17

6/03/17

This demonstrates that commonsense limits on welfare can increase people’s incentives to seek employment without crushing them or their families. Congress should apply that lesson to other programs. Housing vouchers and food stamps have weak work requirements that are rarely enforced. Simply bringing those requirements closer to the ones created by the PRWORA could help many Americans reenter the labor force.

Federal disability insurance, or SSDI, is in even more urgent need of reform. Many workers and employers have come to view SSDI as just another form of unemployment insurance. Its enrollment numbers have swelled by almost 40 percent since 2005, even as research offers no evidence of an accompanying uptick in actually disabling conditions. Economists have proposed several interesting ideas for curtailing this surge, which would keep more people in the work force. One plan would adjust employers’ payroll tax burdens depending on how frequently their workers enroll in SSDI; another would require employers to obtain private disability insurance policies, which have a better track record than SSDI when it comes to keeping employees in jobs where they are needed.

These policies represent fairly traditional conservative thinking, and as most conservatives would likely point out, putting them in place years ago might have mitigated much of the suffering that now afflicts so many Americans. But conservatives have failed to get their proposals enacted, in no small part because they have made the wrong arguments for them. Why reform taxes?

“To boost earnings and GDP.” Why require work for welfare?

“To make those lazy welfare queens work!” Such rhetoric has made good policies sound out of touch and inhumane. The most compelling reason for tax reform and further welfare reform is to create more opportunities for people at the periphery of society.

The truth is that not all good economic policy aligns perfectly with conservative orthodoxy. Take, for example, the challenge of helping low-wage workers earn enough to support their

P

olitics

families. For years, conservatives have railed against increases in the minimum wage, citing evidence that such increases do not decrease poverty rates and may well destroy jobs at the bottom of the pay scale. Although well intentioned, minimum-wage policies are more likely to restrict poor Americans’ opportunities to earn a stable living than to enhance them. So governments at every level should forget about increasing minimum wages—which is where the usual conservative argument ends. But they should also experiment with reducing minimum wages to help people trapped in long-term unemployment, making these vulnerable people more attractive to hire. Governments would then supply those workers with direct wage subsidies to increase their takehome income. For example, Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute has proposed that the federal government let employers hire long-term unemployed people at 4$ per hour and then itself transfer an additional 4$ per hour to each of these workers. Another promising idea is the expansion of an existing subsidy, the Earned Income Tax Credit, a refundable tax credit for low-income people who work. The EITC prioritizes families but is less generous to individuals without children; Washington should consider increasing the credit for the latter. Such prowork policies would help achieve the noble goal of ensuring that hard work results in sufficient rewards, without the negative consequences that accompany minimum-wage hikes.

Creating more opportunities for Americans to work would also require addressing the broken U.S. immigration system, which has a significant effect on the labor market. Economists disagree vigorously about the precise nature of that effect, but it’s reasonable to conclude that illegal immigration tends to moderately reduce wages in low-skill industries, whereas the legal immigration of high-skilled individuals has a positive effect on the overall economy and job creation. Congress and the Trump administration should therefore prioritize the enforcement of existing immigration laws, not through mass deportations but by targeting low-wage employers who hire and exploit illegal immigrants. But they should also significantly loosen the current quotas that limit the number of high-skilled immigrants who can enter the United States.

SKILLS TO PAY THE BILLS Making people more necessary will also require improving human capital through better education. At present, U.S. public schools leave millions of young people behind, especially the poor. This is not for lack of funding. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. government spending per pupil (adjusted for inflation) has more than doubled since 1970.

Yet math and reading scores for -17year-olds haven’t budged in four decades, and the achievement gap between poor and rich students has widened by about a third.

Policies designed to increase competitive pressures on public schools—vouchers to allow low-income families to send their

children to private schools, the devolution of more latitude to state and local authorities, and the expansion of charter schools— are the right place to begin. But these ubiquitous proposals are only the start.

For several generations, American education has moved away from teaching skills that help people specialize and gain greater job security. According to one trade association estimate, nearly 3.5 million manufacturing positions will be created over the next decade, but as many as two million may go unfilled. Another estimate suggests that the U.S. welding industry alone may face an imminent shortage of nearly 300,000 skilled workers. Much of the blame for such gaps goes to a widespread “college or bust” mentality that pervades American society and has resulted in a disconnect between supply and demand in the blue-collar labor market. Employers in several sectors are begging for more workers, but many young adults don’t have the necessary skills because they were never encouraged to learn them. There’s a fairly easy policy fix for this problem. Career- and technicaltraining programs take, on average, only two years to complete, and students can attend them while still enrolled in high school.

To get more students to pursue such options, governments should reallocate financial assistance toward trade schools and apprenticeship programs.

For that change to work, however, politicians and other influential figures will need to use moral suasion to attack the cultural fixation on gaining a four-year degree at any cost. More than 90 percent of high school seniors aspire to postsecondary education, and about 80 percent try it out within two years of graduating from high school, but only about 40 percent successfully earn a degree. That leaves too many young Americans with unfulfilled dreams, college debt, and no credentials or marketable skills—an outcome that could be avoided if they pursued a more practical direction.

Skills-based training isn’t only for the young. The crisis of dignity is most acutely felt among middle-aged populations that have been badly served by decades of lackluster federally funded job-training programs. Instead of relying on top-down directives from Washington, training programs should be embedded in the private sector and gently overseen by authorities at the state and local level, where officials could entice companies through tax incentives to train and hire workers who have been out of the labor force for long periods of time.

TWO AMERICAS A public policy agenda focused on building dignity and neededness would mark a departure from the status quo, but not an unthinkable or radical one. But on their own, these policies would not produce the dramatic change that is necessary. Only a profound cultural shift can achieve that.

18

6/03/17

The U.S. government does not need to “help” people; rather, it must find ways to make them more necessary

A Donald Trump supporter attends a rally for Trump on the first day of the Republican National Convention (RNC) on July 2016 ,18 in downtown Cleveland, Ohio.

(Getty)

Today, the top and the bottom of American society live in separate worlds. They do not attend school together, socialize together, or work together. They hardly know each other.

As a result, few people in either of these two Americas even recognize the social trends that are widening the cultural gulf between them. Some differences are trivial, such as regional accents or entertainment preferences. Other differences, however, are more consequential: for example, the birthrate among unmarried mothers. Whereas less than ten percent of births to college-educated women occur out of wedlock, the comparable figure for women with only a high school degree or less is more than 50 percent. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to grow up without a father, and those brought up in such circumstances are less likely to graduate from high school, more likely to suffer from mental health problems, and less likely to work later in life. In other words, classbased cultural differences are more than a matter of curiosity.

They are a major factor in producing the misery that so many Americans experience.

Of course, the United States does not need a cabinet-level secretary of middle-class morals. But legislators and officials should try to ensure that any social policy passes a simple test: Does it weaken family integrity or social cohesion—for example, by encouraging single parenthood, fragmenting communities, erecting barriers to religious expression, or rewarding idleness?

Moral suasion can be even more powerful than policy. Before elites on the left and the right do battle over policy fixes, they need to ask themselves, “What am I personally doing to share the secrets of my success with those outside my social class?” According to the best social science available, those secrets are not refundable tax credits or auto-shop classes, as important as those things might be. Rather, the keys to fulfillment are building a stable family life, belonging to a strong community, and working hard. Elites have an ethical duty to reveal how they have achieved and sustained success.

Readers can decide for themselves whether this suggestion reflects hopeless paternalism, Good Samaritanism, or perhaps both.

MAKE AMERICA DIGNIFIED AGAIN A few months after the launch of the War on Poverty in 1964, voters in Kentucky’s Martin County headed to the polls to choose the next president of the United States.

They rewarded the candidate who had traveled there, listened to them, and pledged to fight for their dignity. The deeply conservative community, where Richard Nixon had easily won in the 1960 presidential contest, made a brief exception: Johnson, a liberal Democrat, won Martin County with just over 51 percent of the vote. The outcome of the 2016 election was similar in one important respect: the man who swept Martin County with a staggering 89 percent of the vote was the candidate who had promised to return dignity to its people.

But merely backing the winning candidate will not guarantee dignity for today’s Tom Fletchers. The War on Poverty proved that beyond all doubt, having led to five decades of debt and welfare dependence, which, when blended with the Great Recession, helped produce the anger and disillusionment that drove the current populist surge.

Many elites and officials have reacted to Trump’s victory with a combination of shock, alarm, and depression. But they should see it as an opportunity for learning and reform, and they should respond with a positive policy agenda that is radically pro-work and serious about developing human capital. And they should learn to treat people at the periphery of society—from Inez to Detroit to the Rio Grande Valley— with enough respect to share with them the cultural and moral norms that can bring happiness and success in life. Doing so would be politically prudent. But much more important, it would help fulfill the moral obligation that leadership brings: to maximize the inherent dignity that all Americans are born with, remembering that we all possess a deep need to be needed.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com

19

6/03/17

E

conomy

The Economics of Dependency

How Countries Hit the Demographic Sweet Spot

by Sami J. Karam Demographics are among the most important influences on a country’s overall economic performance, but compared with other contributors, such as the quality of governance or institutions, their impact is underappreciated. Demographic factors, such as the age structure of a population, can determine whether a given economy will grow or stagnate to an even greater extent than can more obvious causes such as government policy. One of the most consequential aspects of demographics as they relate to the economy is a phenomenon known as the “demographic dividend,” which refers to the boost to economic growth that occurs when a decline in total fertility, and subsequent entry of women into the work force, increases the number of workers (and thus decreases the number of dependents) relative to the total population. The demographic dividend has contributed to some of the greatest success stories of the twentieth century, and countries’ ability to understand and capture this dividend will continue to shape their economic prospects well into the future.

BABY BOOMS Prior to the twentieth century, the age structure of most populations could be visualized as a pyramid. High fertility and mortality rates meant that the very young, who formed the wide base of the pyramid, were always the most populous group in a society, with a shrinking number of people in each successive age range forming

the narrowing sides of the pyramid, culminating in the top, which contained a small number of the very elderly. In such societies, the “dependency ratio,” or the ratio of dependents to workers—defined by the UN as the number of people under 15 and over 64 years old divided by the number of those between 15 and 64— was more or less stable, meaning that there were at most times a steady and sufficient number of workers to take care of dependents, made up of children and the elderly. Only large wars, pandemics, or deep economic crises disrupted the shape of the pyramid.

In the twentieth century, however, demographics in the industrialized nations became more volatile as a result of crises such as the two world wars and the Great Depression. In the United States, for instance, the total fertility rate, which measures the average number of children per woman, fell from 3.0 in the mid1920-s to 2.2 in the mid1930-s. Then, during the postwar baby boom, total fertility shot up to 3.7 in the late 1950s before dropping to 1.8 in the late 1970s. Since the early 1980s, U.S. fertility has fluctuated within the range of 1.8 to 2.1.

It was this volatility that allowed the United States, like industrialized countries elsewhere, to benefit from the demographic dividend. In essence, the demographic dividend is what happens when growth in a country’s working-age population coincides with a declining dependency ratio. This is usually the result of two related developments: first, declining fertility, which decreases the number of dependent children relative

20

6/03/17

A doctor walks past a poster at Italian fertility doctor Severino Antinori's clinic in Rome, June 2005.

(REUTERS)

to adults; and second, increasing female labor force participation, which is enabled by declining fertility as well as by broader social trends such as female literacy and changing cultural norms around women and work. The combination of the two means that there is more income per capita, freeing up money for discretionary spending on income and investment.

Consider the case of the United States from the mid1970s onward. Between 1975 and 2015, the size of the U.S. working-age population grew from 141 million to 213 million. At the same time, modern social norms and new technologies, such as the birth control pill and the washing machine, freed more women than ever before from the constraints of homemaking and child rearing. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 1940 only 20 percent of American women were in the work force, and in 1966 that number was still only 40 percent. But by 60 ,1998 percent of women were working, accounting for over 45 percent of the U.S. work force. Throughout this period, fewer births and more workers combined to lower the dependency ratio. These trends were a major driver of the long economic boom that started in 1983

21

6/03/17

and ended with the financial crash in 08–2007. During the boom, U.S. real GDP growth averaged 3.4 percent annually.

Demographics powerfully shape a country's performance, but their role is often under appreciated Indeed, similarly positive demographic trends were evident throughout the developed world—in Europe, the United States, Japan—during the second half of the twentieth century, leading to a massive increase in wealth and well-being across the globe. But this was true not only of the rich world—one of the largest development success stories of recent decades, China, also benefited from the demographic dividend. After the end of its civil war in 1949, China’s population

E

conomy

exploded as death rates declined even as fertility remained high—total fertility, according to the UN Population Division, averaged 6.0 in the 1950s and 1960s, a level matched today only by a few African countries. But in the early 1970s Chinese fertility began to fall, reaching 2.9 in 1979 just before the introduction of the one-child policy, after which it reached a low of 1.5 in the year 2000. At the same time, China had carried out extensive literacy campaigns for several decades. By 1990, Chinese youth female literacy had reached 91 percent, the world average at the time for upper-middle-income countries, despite China having a per capita GDP of 987$, lower than Sudan or Yemen. Dependency ratios fell rapidly, from 80.7 dependents per 100 workers in 1965 to 34.5 in 2010. Combined with rapid development on other measures—electricity consumption was rising, as was international trade—this demographic profile proved a boon to Chinese growth.

In each instance, the shift in the direction of the dependency ratio coincided with falling stock markets and the onset of a recession or economic stagnation. Dependency ratios, in fact, are rising in most of the world’s major economies and will continue to do so for many decades, which could be a major drag on economic growth. In the United States, for instance, the retirement of the large baby boom generation will lead to a bulge in the number of dependents even as population growth stagnates outside of new immigration. And in China, the positive effects of declining child dependency having been exhausted, the negative effects of the rising old-age dependency ratio will limit growth well into the twenty-first century.

GROWING UP The United States and China therefore show two very different examples of how an economy can capitalize on the demographic dividend. In the United States, western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other rich countries, the economic benefits tied to high levels of literacy and economic development were already present when their dependency ratio began to decline; in China, both the social indicators and the trends in fertility were the product of top-down, coercive state action. All, however, benefited from demographics in the quarter century from 1983 to 2007.

Yet today these favorable demographic trends are reversing themselves. As the chart below shows, in the advanced economies, the dependency ratio bottomed out, first in Japan in the early 1990s and later in Europe and the United States between 2005 and 2010, after which it began to rise.

Although the Chinese government has set GDP growth targets this year to a relatively low 6.5 percent, the experience of Europe, Japan, and the United States suggests that the country’s economy will need other drivers to mitigate the impact of deteriorating demographics.

SPREADING THE WEALTH But if aging populations in the more developed countries herald an end of their demographic dividends, global demographics are not uniformly stagnant. Many parts of the world, including India, parts of Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, still have high fertility rates and high population growth. All have fertility rates on a downward trajectory, giving them— in theory—an opportunity for a demographic dividend a decade or two from now, provided they can get other prerequisites for growth, such as literacy, infrastructure, and governance, in order.

Among the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia,

22

6/03/17

and China will be facing similar demographic headwinds as the United States and Europe. Yet India stands out for its rising population and falling dependency ratio. The country’s fertility rate now stands at 2.34 and is expected to decline to 1.89 by 2050, and between 2015 and 2040 its dependency ratio will fall from 52.4 to 47.1. If Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attempts to modernize the economy prove successful, India could see impressive growth in the medium- to long-term future.

In sub-Saharan Africa, meanwhile, the population is still booming. In the next 35 years, the number of working-age Africans is expected to grow by 800 million, from 518 million people in 2015 to 1.31 billion in 2050—an explosion that carries with it the potential for either a sustained boom or a grinding disaster. In theory, sub-Saharan Africa is in the same demographic sweet spot as India, with a rising population and declining dependency ratio. Fertility rates are falling across the board, albeit from exceedingly high levels. The total fertility rate for the region is now at 4.75 children per woman and expected to fall to 3.15 by 2050, during which time the dependency ratio is predicted to decline from 85.6 to 62.4. These are still very high figures for 2050, but China’s fertility fell rapidly from the 1960s to the 1970s, even before the introduction of the onechild policy, so an even quicker fall in African fertility is a possibility as long as some of the largest states, such as Nigeria and Ethiopia, are able to develop stronger state capacity.

Indeed, there are many reasons to be optimistic about Africa. Although the road ahead is still long, there has been considerable progress toward the Millenium Development Goals set in 2000, especially in the areas of education, gender equality, and health care. And although Africa’s demographics at present are a burden, they could prove beneficial in the near future. There is a clear correlation between GDP per capita and youth of the population, with younger countries tending to be poor and older countries tending to be rich. In western Europe and North America, for example, less than 40 percent of the population is under 30 years old, and in Japan it is less than 30 percent, but in almost every state in sub-Saharan Africa

The United States and China are two very different examples of how an economy can reap the demographic dividend

Sub-Saharan Africa's population explosion carries with it the potential for either a boom or a disaster over 60 percent of the population is younger than 30, and GDP per capita is correspondingly low. Many of these countries are laboring under the additional burdens of poor governance and rampant corruption. But if paired with improvements in literacy, infrastructure, and governance, the projected decline in fertility and dependency ratios over the coming decades could start a virtuous cycle that would significantly boost today’s poorest economies.

WHAT NOW? Demographics played a leading role in economic development in the twentieth century and will continue to do so in the future.

If the world saw unparalleled prosperity with the expansion of trade and freedom from 1983 to 2007, it is in large part because falling dependency ratios in the West, Japan, and China combined with steady population growth, technological innovation, and good governance to deliver a large demographic dividend. For those countries today, demographic tailwinds have turned into headwinds. Areas of the developing world, meanwhile, are poised for demographically driven growth, provided they can continue to improve their health, literacy, and governance indicators.

For rich countries, the road ahead is uncharted but potentially promising. On the one hand, developed countries will no longer be able to benefit from a demographic dividend. On the other hand, the United States and other developed countries could offer their enormous reservoirs of capital and know-how to help improve sub-Saharan and South Asian economies by making capital more available and helping build stronger institutions.

Although this assistance would greatly improve the lives of Africans and Asians, it would not be just an act of altruism but also a necessary intervention to create the next great engine of global economic growth at a time when the Chinese economy is slowing down. It is unlikely that either India or Africa alone could become the next China, but the combination of the two could create new demand for global products.

The alternative, consisting of weaker economies in industrial nations and near-disastrous conditions in the poorest countries, is too grim to contemplate.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

23

6/03/17

C

ulture

Mr Erbil: Kurdish Fashionistas are Turning Heads and Changing Minds Against a backdrop of bloody battles, militancy and poverty in Northern Iraq, a group of sharply suited, impeccably groomed men with a vision to reform society and reinvigorate the economy through the power of fashion have emerged. They call themselves “Mr Erbil”, after the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, a city at the frontline of the fight against ISIS. A year ago, these primped and polished young men who take inspiration from tradition Kurdish style from the 20s and 30s, set up a high-fashion gentlemen’s club. Images of them dashingly attired in their three piece suits quickly sparked a social media storm.

economic crises and an unexpected war against ISIS, but we as a young energetic generation, were still optimistic about the future of the region and we decided to forget the crisis and step forward. The main reason was to bring hope and bring back the taste of classic fashion we had back in 1920s known as "Afandis" style.

In an interview with Majalla, co-founders of Mr Erbil, Goran Pshtiwan, Omer Nihad and Ahmed Nauzad describe their ambition to use fashion as something more than just a tool for self-expression a potent weapon in the battle for reform.

We expanded our group from just three to thirty; our thirty members share a common interest for designing and styling their own fashion while also remaining passionate for bringing about positive change. When we held our first gathering, named Gents Gathering 2016, we were met with an unwavering amount of positive feedback, which in turn motivated us even more. We wanted to push our agenda further since we now had a platform where we knew we could capture people’s attention.

by Firoozeh Ramezanzadeh

Do you have any sponsors?

How was Mr Erbil’s Gentleman’s Club formed?

We don't have any sponsors, we finance it through our pockets.

A year ago today, in Erbil Kurdistan, three men from one of the world’s most ancient cities gathered with Do you have plans to expand the club? the ambition to form a gentleman’s club; their vision was to instil a passion for fashion in the youth.

We wanted to not only bring attention to the necessity of women’s rights, the protection of our environment, Back in 2014, the region started facing a major and our failing economy, but also to figure out ways

24

6/03/17

Members of Mr Erbil’s Men’s Fashion Club

to resolve these issues within our region. During this time, we faced many obstacles such as our failing economy, and the political issues that were brought on because of it. Despite our lack of resources, we were determined to turn our ideas into reality.

One of our greatest platforms has been social media. On our Instagram and Facebook page we do a series called “Thursday’s Inspiration Girl,” where we show our support for ladies who are active in our community and active in achieving their personal goals whether its producing a local product or just working towards women’s rights.

Our gents recently released a video, spoken in fourteen languages, with the message to stop violence against women. Not only have we received great feedback from men, but also from wonderful ladies.

25

6/03/17

C

ulture

Another goal is to have our own physical gentleman’s club, tailor everyone interested in our products for themselves or any special and barbershop combined where we can bring back “Afandi” man in their life. Now, Rishn has customers worldwide. fashion from the 20’s and 30’s, while giving local gents a place to In the near future we will launch our local tailored clothing line to boost the local economy.

We wanted to not only bring attention to the necessity of women’s rights, the protection of our environment, and our failing economy, but also to figure out ways to resolve these issues enjoy their time, have a haircut, and have a custom suit tailored to fit their highest fashion needs.

One of our proudest companies is one by the name of Rishn. It is a men’s grooming company, which consists of handcrafted products such as beard oil, moustache wax, and other grooming tools all produced in Kurdistan. At first Rishn became a local hit, with

26

In regards to our economy, we have attempted to create many local businesses; our goal is to become more dependent on local goods with the hope of providing jobs as well as providing goods that were hard to come by.

Please tell us about the Mr Erbil designs

Our clothing design is a mixture of the classic “Afandis", which is a style of fashion we had in our region in the 20s and 30s, and our own personal style.

Our group also goes to local tailors to design and craft our suits so that we give them business, boost our economy and also give ourselves a chance to be creative with our fashion. Our goal is to have our own clothing line, where future gents can come dress themselves before attending Mr. Erbil’s Gents Gatherings.

6/03/17

A

rt

Contemporary Art Brings Life to Cairo's City of the Dead

by Nadine Awadalla

putting a leash on a Pharaonic cat.

On a winding road leading into Cairo's City of the Dead, a cartoon mouse with round ears and green eyes adorns the shop fronts and walls of the mausoleums where thousands of Egyptians live among the gravestones.

Contemporary art is bringing life and color into the once-drab necropolis, part of an ongoing project by Polish architect Agnieszka Dobrowolska called "Outside In: the Art of Inclusion�.

The path leads to a 15th-century complex

"What we want to do is to bring together the old heritage, the traditions of this particular place, with creative contemporary art and with various cultural events to promote diversity.

Old meets new, death and life come together in the city of the dead, where we can exchange ideas and culture between east and west," Dobrowolska told Reuters.

Old meets new, death and life come together in the city of the dead, where we can exchange ideas and culture between east and west built by Mameluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qaitbey, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that has been recently revived as a local artistic hub. In an adjacent courtyard where local boys play football, a mural shows Frankie the mouse

What began as a conservation project for the complex - which includes a mosque, a school and the remains of a drinking trough - grew into the initiative to invite artists from around the world to engage the community and create art inspired by the local culture. It is largely funded by the European Union.

Artists have so far come up with murals,

28

6/03/17

A graffiti painted on the wall of a building is photographed inside the 15th-century complex built by Mameluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qaitbey, in Cairo's City of the Dead, Egypt.

REUTERS)

mosaics, sculptures, graffiti and even live performances. Frankie the mouse is the work of a Polish graffiti artist who uses the pseudonym Franek Mysza.

"ECCENTRIC PEOPLE” "Those artists, in the eyes of the community,

29

6/03/17

they’re eccentric people who have come here to do something unusual.

But when they work here in the street, there’s a constant delivery of tea and homemade cakes because they work (outside), they involve children and they try to contribute in any way they can," Dobrowolska said.

A

rt

One visiting British artist asked children to create clay objects they would like to take on a long journey. She displayed their snakes, crocodiles and cats alongside her own work.

Some families have lived in the necropolis, away from the bustle in Egypt's ancient capital of 20 million, for three or more generations. Residents include traditional artisans, whose work is sold in Cairo's Khan al-Khalili tourist market. "(This art) is something new, and it's important for the children's development.

Some of them accept it and some don't and

The art is important for the children's development. Some of them accept it and some don't, but none of them destroy just want to mess around, but none of them destroy it," said Mohamed El-Assal, a local shop owner.

Assal worked with a Dutch artist on a mural featuring stencils of the children's silhouettes.

Some residents said they hoped the art would lure tourists. visitors. Tourism, a crucial source of income for Egypt, has struggled to rebound since the 2011 uprising ousted autocrat Hosni Mubarak, ushering in years of instability.

"They (the artists) came and offered to do this and said it would be good for tourism.

They cleaned up the area and made it more beautiful," said Sameh, who owns a kiosk bearing a mural of Frankie the mouse. "I think that's a good thing.�

Children walk past a graffiti painted on the wall of a building located inside the 15th-centur built by Mameluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qaitbey, in Cairo's City of the Dead, Egypt. (REUT

* This article was originally published in Reuters

30

6/03/17

ry complex TERS)

A girl walks in front of a graffiti painted on the wall of a house located inside the 15th-century complex built by Mameluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qaitbey, in Cairo's City of the Dead, Egypt.

(REUTERS)

A man walks in front of a graffiti painted on a wall inside the 15th-century complex built

by Mameluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qaitbey, in Cairo's City of the Dead, in Cairo's City of the Dead, Egypt. (REUTERS)

31

6/03/17