Thread by @thomasjuneau

Over the next couple days, the amazing @b_momani and I are hosting a workshop in preparation for a forthcoming book on Canada and the Middle East. This thread introduces the participants, and will be updated until the end.

Panel 1 chapter authors on regional security: @AmarAmarasingam @StephanieCarvin on foreign fighters, @justinmassie1 and Marco Munier on the coalition against the Islamic State, @MikeFleet23 and @NizarMohamad1 on capacity building programs.

Thank you for great comments by discussants @vmkitchen, a government rep who shall remain nameless but who is brilliant, Melissa Finn, and Cesar Jaramillo.

And now up is @jenpeders on Canada and arms exports to the Middle East.

Good debate between @jenpeders and @HorakDennis - should Canada sell armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia? Is the arms exports regime working well? Jen says no and no, Dennis disagrees.

If an alien landed on planet earth, would it know what Canada's Middle East policy is? Under the Conservatives, it would: pro-Israel, anti-Iran, close to the Gulf Monarchies. Now? It's less coherent.

Great line by @heissenstat: inconsistency does not have to be a bad thing. Folks whose brand is moral consistency are not always morally consistent. Aiming for consistency in foreign policy is not, or should not be, the starting point of the discussion. I fully agree.

Twitter stars @StephanieCarvin and @AmarAmarasingam on foreign fighters

The whole group - I don't think I've ever been in a room in Canada with so much Middle East expertise

The other thing i have to say is that @b_momani is absolutely the best.

Last panel this afternoon, before breaking off until tomorrow: @EzraKarmel and Janine Clark on Canada and civil society organizations, Nawroos Shibli on Canada's response to the Syrian refugee crisis, and my @UOttawaGSPIA colleague Peter Jones on Canada's role as a mediator.

Many thanks to the discussants for this panel: @ranasweis, Maissaa Almustafa, and @rmslim. Now off to the restaurant for dinner and a keynote by the great @Ibishblog.

@Ibishblog: the defining binary of the Middle East today is between pro and anti-Iran camps. The pro-Iran camp is quite vertically integrated, certainly more than the other side.

The fall of Aleppo in late 2016 dealt a serious blow to the anti-Iran camp: the reality of Assad's victory to craft a more accommodating stance towards Iran.

Turkey has steadily emerged from the dust of Aleppo as a new pole. It's not as vertically integrated as the pro-Iran camp, but the concentration of power in Erdogan's hands has helped Turkey build its camp. Qatar is not a coequal member.

So typo up there: the region was binary from 2011ish to the fall of aleppo in 2016; it has been ternary since, with 3 poles: Iran, Turkey, and the proUS/status quo/accommodation/moderate camp (depending on who you ask).

This model is not a perfect description of the reality, but it is the perception of many in the region - and, a key point of @Ibishblog's great talk, perceptions matter a great deal in shaping action.

Day 2 about to start and you know it's a well organized conference when you reach this level of detail

First up this morning: @UOttawaGSPIA colleague David Petrasek on human rights and Canada's policy in the middle east. Key drivers: the positions of our allies is a major factor shaping what Canada does - there is a clear preference for multilateral action.

Other driver: we need to maintain good cooperation with key regional powers, and that heavily constrains the scope of human rights in our foreign policy.

Thord: do diasporas influence foreign policy? Hard to say, but there is little evidence that a search for votes shapes foreign policy; diasporas are not monolithic.

Great comments by discussant is @naderalihashemi. Starting point of the chapter should more clearly state the abysmal state of human rights in the ME. Also, Nader thinks David understates the role of diasporas in shaping foreign policy, especially the pro-Israel lobby.

Next up: Doctor Colonel Chris Kilford on Canada and Turkey. Starting point, Canada-Turkey are not very close. One interesting tidbit, a canadian officer commands the NATO training mission in Iraq, and a turkish officer is deputy commander.

Great comments now by @heissenstat. This could be the summary of our book, and of canadian foreign policy in general: Canada is loathe to prioritize.

Also: US-Turkey relations are probably going off the rails. What does this mean for Canada?

Next up: @nerminallam on Canada, political Islam, and Egypt.
-Canada has not had a consistent policy over the years, but it must engage with political Islam
-things did not change much from harper to trudeau: canada mostly supports Sisi.

The rhetoric may change, but the substance, not so much.
-key point: public debates too often take a simplistic, limited view of political islam, reducing it it to militant politics.

Comments by @awhawth: great timing, because the NYT reports this morning that Sisi asked Trump to list the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist when they met.

And an important point by @awhawth: where do Canada's allies stand? How did diplomatic entanglements shape or constrain canadian action? This is a strong theme of the book and, of course, of canadian foreign policy in general.

.@HorakDennis on human rights: why single out Iran, not others? You can't do everything; once you start, it's hard to stop (stopping the UNGA annual resolution on human rights in iran would send the message it's less important); it pisses off iran; the perception matters.

Next up: @CostanzaMusu on Canada and the peace process, with a good answer to the question of Canada's foreign policy priorities.

And a very useful piece of the broader context: Canada's trade wih the Middle East is very small.

And some good questions to conclude:

Very good point by the government discussant, reinforcing the limited importance of Canada-Middle East economic ties: our total trade with the region is roughly equal to our trade with Florida.

Useful overview of the role of ideology in shaping Canadian foreign policy by the next speaker, Frederic Boily:

And another good slide on how various parts of the political spectrum view Israel:

What about Justin Trudeau and Israel?
-limited interest
-somewhere between Harper (very pro Israel) and Chretien
-interesting: Trudeau's voting record at the UN is MORE proIsrael than Harper's (voting against 87% of resolutions condemning israel as opposed to 61% for Harper.

So, Frederic's conclusion, on Israel, Trudeau is Harper-lite.

Next ip, @IranWonk on the elephant in the room:

Last panel of the event: a 90 minute brainstorming session on next steps. How to make sure the book is coherent, what is missing, what should be in the introduction and conclusion. Overall, a great workshop, and fun work ahead. Thanks to all involved!