Dr Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House, has a bird's eye view of the politics of the world and he gives Qatar Today his take on how Europe and the Middle East can tackle the issues of migration and low oil prices.

All policy institutes around the world face the question whether their work is connected to policies and governments or not," says Dr Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House, when he was in Doha for the opening of a Qatar-based think tank. This was in reaction to a recent cover story in Qatar Today about the absence of positive outcomes from detailed research by think tanks, a story that threw light on the gap between researchers and policy makers. But Dr Niblett believes that this missing link is not a concern specific to Qatar.

That brings us to the question of the influence and the structure of working of all think tanks. How do they operate and how do they make sure that their work is relevant?

"The role of policy institutes is to look out into the horizons. A little bit ahead than what the governments normally are concerned about: problems that are not yet complications, to warn governments of issues that may not have hit the headlines yet. It's not essential that the governments would be listening to them as they are embedded in the issues of today," he says.

Niblett, who has also worked for many years at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) in Washington,D.C. has had a ringside view of the functioning of think tanks in the US too, where the scenario is more policy-centric but only if backed by the right people or institution. "The time when think tanks often influence people the most is when their research is taken up by a candidate as a mandate before he or she comes into power," he says. "US think-tanks will usually work with individuals who are preparing the ideas, hoping to go into the government with a certain policy that they want implemented."

But the moment they are part of the government, they don't listen to policy institutes either.

The style of working also influences the impact of think tanks, believes Niblett. "Some research institutes are very academic in nature. They might not be able to communicate their ideas in the best possible way that people in government can use and act upon. Lots of think tanks like to show how scholarly they are and come up with pages and pages of compiled work; even their executive summary of recommendations would be five or six pages long, which might not be acted upon just because of a lack of understanding of the research jargon," he says.

Then there is politics, says Niblett, another factor that influences the style of functioning of think tanks. In the West, domestic politics is very competitive, with regular fighting, generally through elections, on policies, to implement their view of governance. "International policy houses like Chatham House do not work on regional politics at all, not even on UK foreign policies. In our case, we use London as an international hub to prepare reports on climate change; we talk about what Gulf countries need to do for energy efficiencies, we work with the Chinese on their policies, on sanctions and other international concerns through this base. We are very less affected by regional politics," explains Niblett.

But the most important thing that one should be asking a think tank is how they are being funded.
"That's where it all starts," he says. "In the US, all major think tanks are privately funded from private institutions, foundations, individuals, and grants from governments; hence the work you undertake might be a constant dialogue with those who fund your work. You might have to adapt your project to be relevant to the funding agency." More independent think tanks have the liberty of working on subjects of their choice but they need to make sure that what they do is connected to the market and is relevant to policies. "Funding, in a way, connects you to your constituencies. The need for funding connects you to a diverse range of actors who are partly the influencers. These actors then take the ideas and become the echo chambers to direct your work into policy and help it become relevant. Your main audience is not just governments but the communities involved in delivering change. Those could be civil societies, NGOs, food companies, media companies that define the debate, private foundations who might be working as partners to governments," says Niblett.

The new age of think tanks
Niblett tells us about the change that some of the think tanks are going through - making use of podcasts and social media to communicate to the general public and gathering interest that can be channeled to reach the right audience. "Something that has changed in the last two to three years is that governments that used to make decisions in small groups of elite decision makers are finding that this population is getting better or more informed through social media. They are more engaged on the policies through campaigns or public opinion," he says. "What happens is that the space for government to participate in policies becomes more open because of public opinion. It is a big change," he says. "Psychologically, organisationally and it potentially makes the think tanks more interesting to the governments."

So what think tanks do now is they make two versions of their report; one for the elite and another in the form of podcasts, infographics and other interactive ways to make sure that the ideas can be picked up by the broader public or the interested civil society groups who would then take up your report to make it relevant to the government, says Niblett. Think tanks now have to listen, engage and inform to be relevant, he stresses.

But if it is international issues, does someone in London know what is happening in Syria, asks Niblett. This is where policy institutes have a role to play.

"That's where international think tanks like Chatham House come in. We are born that way and have continued that way. We have had a Western-centric outlook in the 40s but from the 80s, we have been as international as London as a communication hub is. Our biggest area of research is energy, the environment, human security, fossil fuel dependence, transatlantic relationships, etc."

The Geopolitical issues that the world will have to grapple with in 2016:

  • The EU is the largest single market in the world, bigger than the US. So the EU starting to fragment under the pressure of the migrant crisis and the risk of the British exit from the EU, will be bad news for everyone and especially for Britain. I feel that Britain will stay in the EU but  migration puts a lot of pressure on the country.

  • I always put North Korea on the list. Just because it hasn't happened does not mean that it is not a geopolitical worry. Any country that is run like a cult and which has nuclear weapons and massive military capabilities worries me. 

  • China's big experimentation with its anti-corruption drive could lead to political instability. So far it's working but if the economy would slow down aggressively, it would all blow up. China is still a very complex country that is going through a very difficult transition economically, politically and industrially with a very centralised government. It is not as much a worry but this is a strategic thing to watch. 

Migration in focus
Migration is one of the issues that Chatham House has focused on. "Not necessarily migration, but the politics around migration," stresses Niblett. "We come through the European door of the issue and then we also come through the Middle Eastern door to look at the issue from all angles. We had a project looking into how Syria's neighbours have been affected by the crisis and whether they themselves could be the lead actors in bringing about some kind of resolution on this. This is a project with all these countries - Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, Jordan - to understand how these groups are integrating to bring about solutions. On how Syrian politics and the presence of migrants are changing the domestic politics of the individual countries."

The countries are all operating separately, on the issue of migration laments Niblett. But from a global perspective, he is of the opinion that, the Middle East and North African countries are the most unintegrated in the world. "Look at North Africa," he says. "These countries - Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya - have had no trade links with each other, no political links, no transport links and no community links; and very little link with even the other parts of the world." The GCC is an exception, with changes in cooperation happening, though very slowly.

He looks at the European crisis and says that these countries have come a long way: "The EU was born out of two world wars, and it is a well-connected region- geographically- and relatively one land mass of hugely populated areas. The GCC has not gone through the same existential crisis that the EU has gone through. Compare this to the situation in the Middle East with an isolated land mass of deserts and mountains separated by seas. The Arab world is segregated and spread out; it is complicated. Separated not just by geographical topography but also by the economic divisions between two neighbouring countries. "

On the question of why the GCC countries are not sheltering migrants, he says that this is quite impossible with "the local population relatively small; to take in the kind of number of migrants that are coming in would completely destabilize the domestic balance of the indigenous population of these Gulf countries."

Even if Germany took in all of the migrants, they would only make up about 5% to 6% of the total population. "France right now has a muslim population of 6 to 8%, born from the North African-generated migration. In UK, after taking in migrants from South Asia as well as from the Middle East and North Africa, the total migrant population is still not more than 8%," he says. Europe would need a net immigration of 2.5 million per year for 10 years to sustain the current ratio of dependents to workers to maintain the demographic ageing profile.

"So we need these migrants. Our problem is not the need but the speed with which we can integrate them into our labour markets Look at the UK, which took in close to a million migrants from central Eastern Europe between 2004 and 2006. We have the highest rate of growth now and though there are minor issues of integration the main problem was not the minor strain on public services but that our governments did not communicate to its citizens about this imminent problem of migrants. They did not explain and prepare the local population that this influx will not affect the demographics of its population," says Niblett. So the issue was not a lack of resources or space; rather it was that the immigrant issue was not properly explained to the people.

Germany took in around 1.5 million in one year. "It could be said that it is slightly more difficult to integrate Muslim immigrants than Christian immigrants as their religion is more integrated to their way of life than Christian religion. But more than that, Angela Merkel did not warn her population of the benefits of taking in immigrants. The government seemed powerless and that's when people lose their trust. There is fear of migration as they feel that the government is not in control," explains Niblett. All of the EU countries need to do better in trying to handle the migration by showing that the government has a vision and that migration can help the countries.

The Chatham house rule

The Chatham House rule is not about keeping things confidential. Instead it is about getting information out.

"In getting the information shared and making sure that you can engage with people in governments and other important sectors without fear of sharing their affiliation or revealing the roles. Letting us use this information in our studies but knowing that their identity will be protected."

Chatham House usually works with a group of 12 and a maximum of 40 people and they never ever do a bigger conference. "We have to create a sense of intimacy to start with. We sometimes have problems with embassies, as one knows from WikiLeaks that the job of the diplomats is to report back to their office everything that happens within their jurisdiction. So it is not fair to involve diplomats when we know for sure that they will be sharing their information. It is better to invite columnists than journalists as we need contributions rather than just portraying news. The spirit as the rule is as important of the rule: information is not to be given away obliquely," he says.

Middle East in focus
Saudi Arabia faces particular challenges due to the size of its population, but if we see two or three more years of low prices, which according to Niblett, might be a reality, there are other challenges he foresees.

"We are moving towards an era where trade is declining as a proportion to the overall GDP growth, foreign investment is growing, and industrial production and wealth creation are becoming less energy intensive.

The Western world is already taking that path. Solar energy technology has improved greatly and the cost of the voltaic cells has gone down a lot; hence it is no longer impossible to go back to the status quo. The US will perfect the fracking technology and you will have relatively advanced technologies to extract oil. Oil is not going to be a priced commodity as before; alternative resources are much in demand and it will only increase from here."

People say that the bulk of energy consumption is going to be from Asia and Asia itself is going to be growing its own less energy-intensive alternatives. "The demand curve is going to taper off, renewables are better priced than they were before, and there is a lot more locally distributed energy sources: biomass, small villages with mini solar grids and even the transportation sector is slowly going the electric way and technology is improving and making the change to less energy-intensive methods an easier option," Niblett forecasts.

"The Middle Eastern countries will have to adjust their spending structure in this new era of low oil prices," he says. "Subsidies should be taken away not just for things like gas but vital commodities like water. All resource usage, energy consumption should be controlled and should come in its true value. Therefore I think it is a healthy move for all the countries to start thinking how responsive and accountable they are to the populations and retain the wealth of the country. People all around the world want to be directed by a responsive government in an era of growing population and oil prices, increased economic competition, efficiency in governance, political resilience play a vital role."

Economic diversification, which is the big one word, is not as easy as it sounds. When economies are built around single industries, you build human capabilities and governments will have to take note and build physical infrastructure to make adjustments and Niblett says that all GCC governments need to and are thinking about this very carefully.

After Niblett identifies the three most problematic geopolitical issues of the coming year, he reveals that while terrorism and IS attacks are a risk for the affected countries, it is not such a geopolitical risk to worry about. "It is a part of political instability but it is not a geopolitical game changer. It would become a game changer when IS acquires weapons of mass destruction and that is a very depressing thought; something we should watch out for."

© Qatar Today 2016