 Kui on kõik uurab Eurooosid kõik õgavõt kõik õrvast järjest, sest kui õrvast kõik õrvast kõik õrvast, siis, ja, sest, pahus, õrvast jõus. Ei ole, et olen ma jõusid, joh, Esame üldust on olnud ühli üalt investidust. Kui et pole maidus, onidist buriedi. Ma pealete, et kui ette või mängida, et jahvamid sõhmoine, on see ju talia, Me ei saanud, et see on põhvõi, et teeratikul ja teeratikul on põhvõi. Kui kõik on jõu, et me ei saanud, et me ei saanud. See on kõik, et see on väga kõik, et see on väga kõik. ...sabad maid pealupõhla. Täädakse teine kõige teidaks, ...puhalime, kas teidaks, ...pahalime teidaks, ...mängile seda... ...mängile teidaks, ...se teidaks ja teidaks, ...doktor Dengs üleks kävan, palastreened ära, B in Syria, or in Yemen. And therefore, you know, the three countries are enduring civil war, and acute and harsh bloody civil war. And also at the same time we don't want to get into the another possible result of deconstructing the so-called deep state, which is the counter-revolution. As we witnessed the developments in the last couple of years in Egypt. So basically so far we still look at Tunis as a country that has managed mostly to get a smooth transition relatively speaking smooth in comparison to other cases in the region, and a smooth transition into a democratic or democratically based political system. So from that sense I believe that I would argue that in a natural the problem is basically the phenomena of the strong deep state rather than weak institutions. And now moving into the political dynamics, I think I would just as my colleague Jopthed focus on business as a nontraditional sector, I would focus on the very classical and traditional sector and that is the civil society. Now that you know it is something new for us in the region, of course it has been always mentioned and discussed and has always highlighted you know all stakeholders the importance of the involvement and engagement of civil society organizations yet had always been kept at the hypothetical abstract theoretical level rather than to be basically part and parcel of the political process and the political system. I don't want to dwell on how important it is to include the civil society organizations. However because I think it goes without saying that you know we really need to balance the formula of governance in the region in different countries in a way that would basically allow the so-called participatory governance to flourish and expand and be applied in general. But the problem is after the so-called Arab Spring people, actually I wrote something now and based on the comments I decided to put my intervention aside and try to basically focus on whatever was I was stimulated by my colleagues interventions. So after the so-called Arab Spring we realized that you know okay we have been always calling for a bigger role for the civil society organizations but what civil society organizations and are they really civil and are they societal and are they representative of the so-called society at large. And apparently the question came to cross our minds after what we have witnessed and seen at the beginning of the so-called Arab revolutions in countries like Tunis or Egypt or even Yemen that you know all the so-called civil society organizations that have been existing for the last 20 years, two decades and donors have invested millions and millions of dollars and euros on these so-called CSOs and CSO activists had no role whatsoever in bringing on change in these countries. Not saying because they were basically collaborating or against that change but because really they ended up you know disconnected with the real people in the sense here real the normal layman the so-called the streets. And this connection is basically a result of the fact that you know for two decades these civil society organizations members and donors have ended up existing with their own bubbles and ended up really not touching base with what are the problems and the needs of the people of their own societies. So they adopted agendas that were was basically were basically addressing you know western democracies thinking. I'm not saying that in the sense of you know conspiracies etc. and so on and so forth as much as you know they were cutting and pasting agendas based on whatever the donors were thinking rather than adopting and advocating agendas that really reflect the needs of their societies. So I think that was seriously a problem that unfortunately until now we don't see international actors addressing. And this is where for me as an analyst and independent consultant I noticed that you know countries like Finland could be in a better position to intervene even humbly and modestly because of the fact that they don't have this baggage that other countries could have like Germany, like France, like Britain. With all due respect to all these countries I'm not saying that because I want to sound more royal than the king and more Catholic than the pope but because in reality I noticed after working now for more than five years with CMI at the regional level in all countries that we've been there whether be it in Morocco, Tunis, Libya, Egypt, let alone of course Sudan and South Sudan, in Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine and very recently in the Gulf which is very tough you know to basically accept interaction with NGOs, international NGOs especially in a city like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. They see that we really need international intervention that addresses the realities of the region but still that has no baggage that would make it more difficult for us to handle because it will become more political and I don't think more like engaging in the process for the sake of process rather than the sake of proper end results that could benefit the society. Therefore CMI in that sense were very fortunate to basically have a very humble and straightforward approach in serious conflicts in Iraq, in Yemen and in Libya that basically reflected upon what people right now do need or do think and when we say people you know even those who do not even speak English because it's a very important phenomena in the region that you know whenever you go to the region you end up talking to those who are working with those who speak English and unfortunately by that you are missing a lot by not contacting people who don't speak English yet do have very interesting and very important contribution to any process that could lead into reconciliation or stability but for the fact of not willing to invest in such a tiny logistical cost you could end up missing such a very big proportionate contribution coming from a very important sector and here we're not talking about one country be it Jordan or Egypt talk about 22 countries after all they're still considered as one big chunk of an Arab entity with definitely different nuances and discrepancies but still for somehow identically they still consider that they have more commonalities than discrepancies which basically make us you know forced to think that we could have at least a kind of one strategic approach to the region and the conclusion of my point is that as long as international organizations be it donors governments or even think tanks and NGOs as long as they do not invest more in their own building their own capacities to understand better understand the societies that they are dealing with you know and I'm not saying that is an easy task you know it is one thing to deal with a country like South Sudan you know you could spend investment time and become an expert and it comes to a whole region like the Arab world you know you are confused where to start and if you focus on Egypt you would not definitely be someone who could understand Syria and so on and so forth so therefore I'm not saying it is easy but at least it is time that we really touch and knock on the right doors rather than just you know wasting our efforts and energy and resources just for the sake of avoiding having a serious guilt trip you know it requires more than that and CSOs definitely are still very important and very useful instrumental actor in the polity of the region but it requires a different approach than what we have used to and maybe in the discussion I could touch upon certain experiences that we have had at CMI in our projects in Yemen or in Iraq or in Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt and Libya and Tunis and thank you very much. Thank you very much a lot of interesting points so are there any thoughts or comments from Dr. Luol in the beginning. No I think I would prefer to listen to the floor in that compact. All right. A very small comment. I think that you are absolutely right about very often donors driving agendas of civil society organisations to match the agenda of donors and not of the community they should actually be serving and working with and we see it in Ukraine as well and you end up with a less than effective response because it's not really serving the interest of the citizens, it's serving the interest of the donor by ticking the donors boxes and you often see programs not being red lighted by donors because that are actually right for citizens and instead you see programs green lighted by the donor that's right for the donor and that of course is exactly what you're saying and that's wrong and I'm sure that it's interesting to hear you saying it's happening in the Middle East and I certainly see it happening frequently in Ukraine. This is I'm not trying to engage in a blame game here and trying to suggest that all these arrogant donors actually we've been dealing with them for the last almost 15 years and we know that they are genuine about really helping and supporting. The thing is that they expect the local stakeholders to get back and correct them. And the problem is this is why I say we need to knock on the right door that these local stakeholders are simply looking at this as an industry. It has become an industry, it's a business. So I know that this is the song that you would like to listen to so I'm going to play this song for you. The donor, the poor donor comes thinking that this guy is very genuine and then I would need to support him. And after one project they start to build a kind of a relationship of trust and confidence and also convenience. So they feel it much easier to invest in this guy even though he is not the right guy but as long as he is legally and financially okay, meaning he's not corrupt, fine. At least the money in the pipeline is being spent and I don't have to face certain questions from my bosses back home. So it's not a blame game as much as the dynamics have to basically be addressed in a way that would bring on change. And this is also in my opinion a very important factor that we need to look into when we talk about political and economic dynamics in conflicts.