There is a lot of excitement and talk about the lifting of the ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia. Undeniably, it is a move in the right direction but there are a lot of changes that are needed, such as the guardianship rules. These rules mean that a woman must ask the permission of a father, a brother, or even a son, to travel, or even to work.

Also, the right for women to drive must be extended to a younger age group. Even under the new ruling, which comes into effect in June 2018 (plenty of opportunity to put more conditions in place), women under 30 are not allowed to drive, according to my friend in the port city of Jeddah.

My experience with drivers in Riyadh has not been good. It is possible for a woman to take a cab from the airport, which is driven by a man of course, and travel alone with the driver. I did it.

I also took a cab to an ATM in Riyadh, because I had to, even though it was within walking distance from the hotel.  A woman alone with an unknown male at night!

And Uber has lost its licence to operate in London, with one of the reasons cited as lack of security. In the UAE, and Iran for that matter, there are at least women taxi drivers.

The vote for Kurdistan’s, or Northern Iraq’s, independence has been fascinating. The Kurds are expecting a referendum result that overwhelmingly supports  independence- but whatever the outcome it’s unlikely that independence will be granted by the Iraqis, and Turkey, Iran and the US don’t won’t it. The Kurds might have spoken, as they have done in the past, but it makes little difference.

I spent  a few days recently with a Kurdish family in New Zealand- and they were totally passionate about Kurdish independence.

The Kurds are the largest majority in the Middle East who do not have an autonomous state; but countries are ready to use them to fight their cause. Recently,  the US armed the Kurds to fight ISIL. Will this change? These articles by the Brookings Institute in the US explains why.

Don’t underestimate Kurdistan’s resilience

By Ranj Alaaldin- Visiting Fellow - Brookings Doha Center

I've been following the Rohingya issue which is becoming increasingly complex. This time, rather than being Muslims versus the West, it is Muslims versus the Buddhists- a group we, in the West, had always been taught is tolerant and caring. Indeed, these are the reasons often cited for people transferring their religious preference from Christianity to Buddhism.

Therefore, I was keen to read this article by Lex Rieffel, non-resident senior fellow, Global Economy and Development, The Brookings Institute. Much of the world has condemned Aung San Suu Kyi, state counselor and leader of the National League for Democracy of Myanmar, for not speaking out about the Rohingya killings. Rieffel explains why.

Reporters on the scene are saying that 300,000 or more members of the Rohingya community (of Muslim faith) in Buddhist-majority Myanmar have fled across the border into Muslim-majority Bangladesh in the past two weeks. The refugees have been describing to reporters a litany of human rights abuses: homes burned, women raped, men beheaded, and more.

Editorial writers and columnists around the world have slammed Aung San Suu Kyi, state counselor and leader of the National League for Democracy of Myanmar, for allowing the atrocities to occur and have even demanded that the Nobel Committee withdraw the Peace Prize awarded to her in 1991.

As a scholar focusing on Myanmar for the past 10 years, during which I have visited the country more than a dozen times, I know how horrible the situation is. I have been to Rakhine state and have seen the Rohingya confined to a refugee camp on the outskirts of the state capital of Sittwe. At the same time, I believe that much of the media commentary is misdirected. It fails to describe the complex origins of the problem and explain how intractable it is.

As a former journalist in the Middle East and one that continues to check out what is happening to journalism in the region, the move towards mixing the media and foreign policy in a very clear way is disturbing. While it is not surprising for the media to be mixed up with politics, as this is always been the case, it is disturbing when one form of social media bans different opinions from its platform.

This is what the Wall Street Journal says about it.

Snapchat Removes Al Jazeera Channel in Saudi Arabia

Snap says it is complying with local law; Al Jazeera calls move an ‘attempt to silence freedom of expression’

Snap, trying to grow its popularity as a destination for news articles and videos, is encountering new questions around the potential for government censorship of that news on its social-media app.

Refugees are instrumental in running a hotel in Austria. Could a similar project be rolled out in New Zealand? Lucia Dore asks the CEO of Magdas Social Enterprise, Gabriela Sonnleitner, to explain how it operates.  

Magdas Hotel, in Vienna, Austria, is a hotel with a difference. Run by 20 former refugees and 11 hotel professionals, in co-operation with artists, architects and students, it aims to improve the lives of marginalised people, refugees in particular.

Sixteen countries are represented at the hotel and 26 languages are spoken. Training is done on the job and in special courses supported by professionals and volunteers.

The refugees have “regular work and that gives them security and stability in their lives. With their loan they have a secure income, can pay for a flat and other things and are no longer dependent on social welfare. They can live a self contained life,” says Magdas’ general manager, Gabriela Sonnleitner.

Even though the hotel is a social enterprise, based on the work of Nobel peace prizewinner, Muhammed Yunus, (who founded the Grameen Bank and pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance) it is self-financing and all income is reinvested. It does not receive any public funding.

The deal between the New Zealand government and Saudi businessman Hmood Al Ali Al Khalaf has re-surfaced. After the report came out by the Auditor General Lyn Provost last November that there was no evidence of corruption- although there were "significant shortcomings"- it was probably assumed that the matter was all done and dusted. But it's election time so it's probably not surprising that the deal has resurfaced.

Refugees and other marginalised people often find it very hard to find work. But this is only one of the many obstacles that they  must overcome. The article below about an asylum seeker in New Zealand tells a story that is all too common. It will be published within a larger volume of research that is being undertaken with the Canterbury Refugee Resettlement and Resource Centre (CRRRC).

I was listening to a podcast today by Nader Kabbani, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and a senior fellow in Global Economy and Development. He provided a background on the Qatar-Gulf crisis, which has gone on for three months, and outlined its social, economic, and political implications.

He noted that Qatar has shifted its air and land routes, and although it can take longer to get from A to B the difference is not significant. Flying to Europe and Asia takes about 20 minutes longer, while to Africa it can take longer.