Pandemic Recalibrates Rules of Engagement for Gulf Expatriates

Unlike migration in many parts of the world, foreign workers in the Gulf region were subject to the ‘Conditional Migrant Integration Model’ to avoid granting of certain rights that would alter the prevalent socio-economic-political fabric. This ensured that expatriates remain in a state of “permanent impermanence”. However, amid a combination of factors—transition from oil to post-oil economy, economic slowdown, and intra-regional economic competition—Covid-19 has served as a disruptor of the rules of engagement between the regional governments and the expatriate population, including women. Recognizing the benefits of retaining talented and wealthy expatriates, some of the Gulf countries have rolled out multiple strategies, including reforming the Kafala system, offering longer durations of residence, and even potential citizenship, which is viewed as “conditional inclusion”. Using a combination of empirical data from secondary sources, laced with anecdotal evidence, this research paper delves into these changes, analyzes their impact on the future of Gulf expatriates and their contracts with their governments, assesses the impact on the delicate citizen-expatriate alignment, as well as the contradictions in some of these measures, especially nationalization of the workforce

Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and Women’s Contrarian Views on the Russia-Ukraine War

Most reactions to the Russia-Ukraine War, especially in the West, have been critical of Moscow’s aggression and sympathetic to Ukraine. But there is also a view, especially in the East, that the situation is not as black and white as it is made out to be, that there is a gray-area in global affairs related to the conflict. This research article highlights contrarian views from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and the reasons for the same. It also examines contrarian women’s perspectives on how underplaying the plight of war-affected women in the Middle East, compared to highlighting the plight of Ukrainian women, is tantamount to hypocrisy. It argues that these contrarian views are partly rooted in ideological moorings and also economic, political, and security concerns. Using empirical data from secondary sources, this article also contends that such reactions do not condone Russia’s belligerence but reflect a growing multipolar global order where strategic ambivalence on global affairs is a new tool to promote strategic autonomy as well as often-ignored human security