Tag: the UAE

  • The blockade of Qatar is a move against the values of the Arab spring

    The blockade of Qatar is a move against the values of the Arab spring

    The move of Saudi Arabia,the UAE and Bahrain against Qatar was swift. It was launched on the back of a fake news report placed by hackers on the website of Qatar’s official news agency. That allowed the three Gulf states to launch a media campaign led by Saudi- and UAE-controlled TV channels.

    Qatar was simultaneously accused of hosting Hamas; supporting the Muslim Brotherhood; backing Hezbollah; having close ties with Iran; sowing the seeds of sedition inside Saudi Arabia, and all the while maintaining intimate relations with Israel. If you can do all those things at the same time, you are indeed a magician.

    The incoherence of these claims did not matter. The Saudis and Emiratis were addressing two audiences: the western one, which sees conflict in the Middle East through the exclusive prism of fighting terrorism; and the Gulf audience, which sees red when any of its leaders talk to Iran or Israel.

    On Monday, a set of measures were announced that are unprecedented in peacetime: cutting diplomatic relations; closing all the borders, sea lanes and airspace; banning citizens of all participating states from travelling to Qatar, and banning all Qataris and residents of Qatar from travelling to those countries. These are measures not even used in a warzone. They violate all the norms of international aviation.

    The pretext offered for all this was the desire to cut the funding of terrorist groups and radical Islamist ideology. And yet the most significant demand had nothing to do with this: it was to close down the al-Jazeera media network. This has been eagerly sought by many Arab states, first and foremost Saudi Arabia, ever since the original news channel launched in 1996.

    Al-Jazeera transformed the Arab media from a natural extension of the intelligence and security agencies to an independent sector whose values were transparency, accountability and democracy. This is exactly what so many Arab regimes fear.

    Al-Jazeera is very familiar with the charges Qatar now faces, because they were made against it: al-Jazeera was accused of aligning itself with Hezbollah, supporting Islamist groups and having intimate ties with Israel.

    The most important event al-Jazeera covered was the Arab spring in 2011. This was a political earthquake, driven by the dreams and aspirations of a new generation, born under dictatorship but raised in the age of the internet. Young people sought to turn those dreams into reality, taking to the streets, using the power of networking and learning from the experiences of other youth groups from around the world. The dynamic was neither partisan, sectarian nor ideological.

    Toppling regimes proved to be the easiest step. For these were ageing regimes whose structures had been infested with rampant corruption. Establishing consensus and rebuilding the state on democratic foundations was much harder. Young people alone were not up to the task. Counter-revolutionary forces, funded by the entire wealth of the Gulf, regained control.

    The dividing line was wealth. Revolutions erupted in the poorer nations such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, while the rich countries stood behind the counter-revolution. The three countries that have imposed a siege on Qatar funded the 2013 military coup in Egypt and have propped up the regime of Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. They have also funded and armed General Khalifa Haftar in Libya and waged an open war on the forces of the Arab spring.

    Qatar distanced itself from these policies. Qatar is not a democracy. Yet it was not hostile to the Arab spring.

    This was the reason behind the first Gulf escalation against Qatar in 2014, when the same three countries withdrew their ambassadors from Doha and threatened to close their borders. They demanded Qatar support the Sisi regime, fight the Muslim Brotherhood and curb al-Jazeera’s independence.

    The crisis did not escalate, as Barack Obama’s administration was not enthusiastic about such conflicts. By contrast, the current situation is being seized upon by Qatar’s foes. In his tweets, Donald Trump claimed ownership, saying the moves to isolate Qatar were the fruits of his address to more than 40 leaders of Muslim nations last month.

    The current dispute has nothing to do with funding terrorism or radical ideology and even less to do with any official Qatari leaning toward Iran. This is a resumption of an old fight: drying all the fountains of independent conscience in preparation for a restoration of the old order in the Middle East. This time, however, the old order has tough new security powers, created by the war on terror and the support of a president who has jettisoned all the US’s values.

    But are we going to fight terror with more persecution, or learn lessons from history? The fact is that dictatorial and corrupt regimes were the incubators of extremism in the region. Decades of suppressing liberties and violating human rights provided the oxygen for jihadi groups. While these regimes flouted the rule of law, they still enjoyed US support. As a result, the Middle East continues to be engulfed by conflicts and instability.

    We should not rebuild the Middle East on the foundations that generated terrorism. We should align ourselves with a future of youthful dreams. These may often be utopian or unrealistic. But at least we would be walking forward, rather than stumbling backwards.

    This article was first published by The Guardian

  • Transformations in UAE’s Foreign Policy

    Transformations in UAE’s Foreign Policy

    Introduction

    In the 1980s and the 1990s, the United Arab Emirates, led by its founding president, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, followed a centrist policy to international affairs that placed mediation in regional disputes at its heart. Under Sheikh Zayed, who ruled from 1971 until his death in 2004, the UAE followed a foreign policy predicated heavily on close relationships with Gulf and other states in the Arab and Islamic world.(1) Sheikh Zayed emphasised in the early years of the UAE the construction of close friendly relations with the other member states of the Arab League and, after its establishment in 1981, the Gulf Cooperation Council. Thus, in June 1972, Sheikh Zayed stated, in an interview with Al-Amal newspaper, that “the Union is eager to have the same attitude, to be headed in the same direction, and to use the same road as Saudi Arabia.”(2)

    Another prominent feature of UAE foreign policy during the formative years of the federation was the commitment to ‘Arabness’ and, in particular, Palestine. Support for Palestine took both political and financial forms. The UAE participated in the Arab oil embargo between October 1973 and March 1974 (although Dubai only joined the embargo three days after Abu Dhabi), cut exports to the United States and the Netherlands in retaliation for their support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, and provided the ‘front-line states’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict with wide-ranging support. UAE-based donors also made very considerable charitable donations and pledges of aid and development to Palestine, with Abdul-Monem al-Mashat estimating that more than US$20 billion was provided in the 1970s and 1980s. Once again, UAE actions were consistent with broader regional trends as other Gulf States during the same period also channelled foreign aid donations to ‘front-line states’.(3)

    Increased Security Engagement

    Major changes to UAE foreign policy began in the late 1990s, as Sheikh Zayed aged, and as the UAE moved gradually away from the focus on Arab and Islamic issues and engaged proactively with key developments in the global economy and international governance to accumulate substantial reserves of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power and carve out niches in selected economic sectors such as aviation, renewable energy and international finance. Relations with the United States deepened, particularly after the shock of 11 September 2001 attacks which included two Emiratis among the nineteen hijackers, and remain a cornerstone of UAE foreign policy. As such, the UAE has participated militarily alongside US forces in every Middle Eastern conflict since the Gulf War of 1991 with the sole exception of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq(4)

    UAE involvement in Afghanistan since 2001, illustrates the evolution in the country’s approach toward international affairs and the combination of elements of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power projection. Along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the UAE had been one of only three countries that had recognised the Taliban regime after it took over in 1996. After the fall of the Taliban, the UAE quickly threw its support behind the government of Hamid Karzai that came to power in December 2001. Members of the UAE Armed Forces were stationed in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014 and, as the only military force from an Arab country, engaged heavily in humanitarian work, such as aid and medical services, in addition to combat support for US and NATO forces. UAE military operations in Afghanistan operated in parallel with a humanitarian approach that emphasised how safety and stability were essential prerequisites for successful aid and development.(5)

    A shift in the centres of decision-making

    Over the past decade, the UAE increasingly has become a contributor to, rather than merely a consumer of, regional security structures not only in the Gulf but also in the broader Middle East region. Indeed, seen in retrospect, the scope and scale of the UAE’s military contribution to the Afghanistan operations anticipated its involvement alongside another NATO-led venture – Operation Unified Protector – in Libya between March and October 2011, and, on a regional level, its contribution to the GCC Peninsula Shield Force intervention in Bahrain in March 2011 and, on a far greater scale, to the Saudi-led Arab coalition that commenced military operations in Yemen on 26 March 2015 as part of Operation Decisive Storm. All of these examples illustrated the growing assertiveness in UAE foreign policy as a security ‘clique’ clustered around the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, asserted policymaking control.(6)

    Two power shifts have occurred in recent years that have impacted significantly on regional and foreign policymaking in the UAE. There has been a shift in influence within the seven-emirate federation away from Dubai to Abu Dhabi and from the nominal Ruler of Abu Dhabi and President of the UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. Sheikh Khalifa has not been seen since he suffered a stroke in January 2014 and it is unlikely that he will ever make any significant reappearance in public life. Even though Mohammed bin Zayed has been the real ‘power behind the throne’ in Abu Dhabi for several years, until 2015 he trod carefully on the federal stage, mindful of the need to avoid unbalancing dynamics within the Al Nahyan family and inter-emirate relations with Dubai. These constraints have been shed over the past two years as Mohammed bin Zayed has put members of his immediate family and other close allies in key economic and security positions across Abu Dhabi.(7)

    A Partnership of the Rigid

    The central axis within the GCC now runs through Mohammed bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia. A close working relationship has developed between the two men, who share a ‘can-do’ mentality that favours ambitious ‘big-picture’ approaches to national and regional issues. This new partnership has been most visible in Yemen and has survived the inherent policy contradictions whereby Yemen has effectively been carved into separate Saudi and Emirati spheres of influence. Most significantly, for Qatar, Mohammed bin Zayed has secured Saudi backing for his hard-line approach to the Muslim Brotherhood and other regional Islamist groups. Saudi Arabia joined the UAE in designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation in March 2014, the last time that both countries’ diplomatic ties with Qatar were ruptured. Although King Salman pragmatically engaged with members of the Brotherhood after he came to power in January 2015, the Saudi stance has once again moved closer to the Emirati one in recent months.(8)

    This leaves Qatar in an extremely delicate position, as evidenced by the orchestrated media offensive from Saudi and Emirati outlets that erupted in late May 2017 and the coordinated cutting of diplomatic relations and imposition of economic sanctions on Qatar on 5 June. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia appear to have calculated that the foreign policy inexperience of the Donald Trump presidency presents an opportunity to shape administration thinking on key issues. Close personal relations have developed between Saudi and Emirati leaders and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, and prominent members of the administration, such as Secretary of Defence James Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, hold positions on Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood that are virtually indistinguishable from Riyadh or Abu Dhabi.(9) And yet, while Emirati and Saudi leaders felt emboldened by President Trump’s Riyadh Summit to move rapidly against Qatar, Kuwait and Oman noticeably have not followed suit. The result of this latest diplomatic standoff with Qatar is likely to magnify still further the divisions between the inner and outer core of the GCC and conceivably lead to one or more member states leaving the group.

    This article was first published by Al Jazeera center for studies

    Endnotes:

    (1) Vania Carvalho Pinto, “From “Follower” to “Role Model”: the Transformation to the UAE’s International Self-Image,” Journal of Arabian Studies, 4(2), 2014, p.234.

    (2) Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, “New Assertiveness in UAE Foreign Policy,” Gulf News, 9 October 2012.

    (3) Abdul-Monem al-Mashat, “Politics of Constructive Engagement: The Foreign Policy of the United Arab Emirates,” in Bahgat Korany and Ali Hillal Dessouki (eds.), The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization (Cairo: American University of Cairo Press, 2008), p.472).

    (4) Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “In the UAE, the United States has a Quiet, Potent Ally Nicknamed ‘Little Sparta’,” Washington Post, 9 November 2014.

    (5) Mission: Winds of Goodness, “Our Partners who Helped and Supported the Project,” available online at .

    (6) Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “The UAE’s Evolving Power Dynamics,” Houston Chronicle/Baker Institute Blog, 1 March 2016.

    (7) Ibid.

    (8) David Hearst, “Three Potential Moves Behind the Tension between Qatar and its Gulf Neighbors,” Middle East Eye, 2 June 2017.

    (9) Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “US Policies in the Middle East Under the Trump Presidency,” Orient XXI, 18 April 2017.

  • The Gulf: An unprecedented crisis and major repercussions

    The Gulf: An unprecedented crisis and major repercussions

    Introduction

    On 5 June 2017, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, in marked succession, cut diplomatic relations with Qatar. Within a matter of hours, it became clear that this was not simply a move to sever ties, but a plan for a full embargo, an unprecedented step at a time of peace between these nations. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain blocked flights to Qatar, closed land and sea borders, and ordered Qatari citizens out of their countries while calling on their own nationals to leave Qatar. The same day, Maldives, Mauritius (though it later denied the news), the Libyan Tobruk-based government (which is not recognised internationally), and the Yemeni government based in Riyadh followed suit and cut ties with Qatar, unable to resist Saudi pressure.

    The next day, Jordan downgraded diplomatic relations with Qatar and revoked the licence of Al Jazeera’s bureau in Amman, while Mauritania severed diplomatic relations with Qatar. Mauritius, in an official statement, denied it had cut ties, raising questions of whether some party took the initiative on behalf of the Mauritian government.

    The actions taken at dawn on 5 June were the culmination of an unprecedented, anti-Qatar media blitz initiated by Emirati, Saudi, Bahraini and Egyptian media on the evening of 23 May. The campaign intensified until it assumed official imprimatur with the decision to cut ties and blockade Qatar.

    What, then, is happening to relations between countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)? After Gulf leaders came together in a scene of friendship, cooperation and solidarity during US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, why are relations between three GCC states and Qatar deteriorating so rapidly and in such unprecedented fashion? Was there an immediate cause that spurred Saudi Arabia and its partners to take this stance, or were these actions planned in advance? Is this simply a fleeting crisis in relations between GCC states, or could the break persist?

    From media campaign to severed ties
    Late in the evening on 23 May, Arabs and Gulf citizens were surprised by breaking news on the websites of al-Arabiya and Sky News Arabic reporting statements by the Emir of Qatar praising Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and discussing tensions between Qatar and the Trump administration. The Emir had held a friendly meeting with the American president two days earlier in Riyadh, and for years Qatar had pursued an anti-Iranian policy in Yemen and Syria. Within a few hours, it became apparent that the website of the Qatar News Agency (QNA) had been hacked and that statements ascribed to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad had no basis in fact. Qatar denied the statements and said that QNA officials had lost control of the agency’s website after the hack. Nevertheless, al-Arabiya and Sky News Arabic continued to carry the original news item and did not report the denial of the Qatari authorities.

    Meanwhile, the media campaign against Qatar and its emir continued. The reports first published by al-Arabiya and Sky News Arabic were quickly picked up by all Emirati and Saudi media outlets, including government and quasi-government newspapers and television channels. That evening, the Twitter account of the Qatari foreign minister was also hacked, and the hackers posted that Qatar had decided to sever ties with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt. None of the media outlets that participated in the anti-Qatar campaign published the official Qatari statement denying statements attributed to the emir or the subsequent statements ascribed to the country’s foreign minister. As the offensive against Qatar continued, it appeared that the media blitz was orchestrated in advance and those running it were waiting for the QNA hack to set the plan in motion.

    The campaign did not flag for the next ten days; in fact, it intensified, sinking to levels never before seen in Gulf relations and the traditions of the peoples in the region. Both Saudi and Emirati official media intimated that the campaign was given the green light at the highest levels of government in the two countries.

    On 4 June, a group of hackers announced they had hacked the email account of Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador in Washington, known for his closeness to the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, the strongman of the UAE. Within hours, the hackers began leaking some of the ambassador’s own emails and mails sent to him by former US officials, prominent think tankers, and even Obama administration officials. The leaked emails revealed the ambassador’s extensive efforts in Washington to link Qatar—and even Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia—to terrorism and his attempt to present the UAE as the moderate, most trustworthy nation in the Gulf and the Middle East, in cooperation largely with officials and researchers known for their strong ties to Israel. The emails also exposed Emirati efforts to support Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, and promote him in US circles as a reliable ally.

    Despite the intensity of the relentless anti-Qatar media campaign, it did not persuade most of the Gulf or Arab public. Popular reactions on social media—the only way to gauge public opinion in these countries – especially in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and – Oman revealed that most Gulf residents rejected the accusations of the campaign and showed widespread sympathy for Qatar. In response, the UAE announced that public displays of sympathy with Qatar would henceforth be subject to 3–15 years in prison and a fine of 500,000 dirhams.

    On 5 June, the media campaign solidified into official political decisions when Gulf states and their partners announced an embargo of Qatar and cut all diplomatic ties.
    Of course, this is not the first crisis in relations between Qatar and the three Gulf states. In March 2014, the three states in question withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar following rising frictions due to Qatar’s support for the Arab democratic revolutions and its opposition to the military coup in Egypt. That crisis persisted until November of the same year, when relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia were normalised thanks to Kuwaiti mediation in the last days of King Abdullah’s rule. The UAE and Bahrain soon followed suit, and the ambassadors of all three states returned to Doha. Clearly, however, the nature and goal of this crisis is different.

    What is sought from Qatar?
    The three states’ positions on Qatar demonstrate patent contradictions, seen not only in the content of the media campaign, but also in the official declarations justifying the embargo and breaking of ties. For example, Qatar was accused of supporting the Houthis and the Reform Party in Yemen, while the Reform Party is at the forefront of forces fighting the Houthis and Qatari soldiers are standing shoulder to shoulder with Saudi soldiers to defend Saudi Arabia’s southern border with Yemen. There is no hard evidence for the allegation that Qatar’s contacts with Iran run counter to GCC interests. The rhetoric Qatar uses to describe its relations with Iran, which is aimed at deescalating tensions, is the same as that employed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Moreover, among GCC countries, the UAE is Iran’s biggest trading partner, and all Gulf countries with the exception of Saudi Arabia maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. In fact, Qatar stands with the anti-Iran camp in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Saudi allegations that Qatar supports terrorist organisations and anti-Saudi groups were vague and unsupported by any evidence.

    The most incomprehensible development is how Saudi-Qatari relations, which have been warm and harmonious since King Salman came to the throne, deteriorated to this extent and how they remained so warm if Saudi accusations were well founded. Qatari-Emirati relations have been poor for some time, but Saudi-Qatari ties are a different story. While relations between Riyadh and Doha have swung between crisis and rapprochement over the last quarter century, there has been no sign of an impending crisis over the last few months.

    How, then, should we understand the drivers of the current Gulf crisis?
    Qatari policy has run at odds to Emirati policy since the Arab uprisings of 2011. The two states have divergent stances on the Islamist trend in the Arab region, and they stand in opposite camps on various specific issues. The differences between Qatar and the UAE have been manifested most starkly in their respective positions on the military coup in Egypt against the elected president, Mohamed Morsi, and Khalifa Haftar, who refuses to recognise the internationally recognised accord government in Libya and seeks military control of the country, as well as their stances on movements seeking to re-partition Yemen.

    Qatari-Saudi disputes are of a different order. Saudi Arabia and Qatar took divergent positions on the Arab revolutions in general, but this did not become contentious because Saudi Arabia did not adopt an overtly oppositional stance on the Arab popular movements in 2011. In Syria, a Saudi-Qatari consensus developed in support of the Syrian revolution and to counter Iranian influence. But Saudi-Qatari ties underwent a severe crisis in 2014 due to their differing stances on the military coup in Egypt in the summer of 2013. While Saudi Arabia has shown little interest in the Libyan situation since the war against the Houthis erupted more than two years ago, Doha and Riyadh seemed more in accord on Yemen than Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, at least on the face of it.

    It is therefore difficult to pinpoint a reason or new development that might have sparked the sudden Saudi hostility toward Qatar. The only logical explanation for the shift is that Saudi Arabia, encouraged by the UAE, is seeking total control of Qatari decision making and the country’s full capitulation, while also holding out Qatar as a warning to other Gulf states, such as Kuwait and Oman, that maintain a policy independent of Saudi Arabia.

    Those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE who made the decision to escalate against Qatar apparently believed that the resolution of the 2014 crisis was not satisfactory or adequate. At the time, King Abdullah had demanded limited concessions from Qatar in terms of its media coverage of Egypt and the expulsion of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders who had found refuge in Qatar in the wake of the 2013 coup. In contrast, the demand now is Qatar’s total submission to Saudi will—which is what Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement on 5 June. The ministry stated that Qatar’s national decision-making capacity was on the line and that its autonomy was a point of contention for the states leading the embargo and cutting ties. Any demands made of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, regardless of details, will further this objective.

    Qatar’s surrender would have ramifications not for any single pressing issue, but for the overall vision Riyadh (and Abu Dhabi) seemed to have formed for the Gulf region in particular and the Middle East as a whole. It would have an impact on relations with Iran and Turkey, the stance on political Islam and democratisation, and the future of the Palestinian issue and relations with Israel. The consequences would also not be limited to foreign affairs, but would touch Qatari domestic affairs and who leads the major national institutions.

    The escalation to force Qatar’s capitulation would not have been possible at the present time absent two significant developments. The first is the increasing closeness between the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, and the former’s sense that the latter has a network of influence in the US that successfully improved Saudi Arabia’s image with Trump. This, in turn, boosts Bin Salman’s position in the kingdom, since he managed to deflect the risks of the JASTA law and persuade Washington to adopt the Saudi agenda. The second development is the moral backing that President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia lent the camp of Bin Salman and Bin Zayed. Both men saw the visit as a victory for their policy, representing a return of the traditional alliance with the US and Washington’s abandonment of any illusions of democratisation in the Middle East.

    International dynamics
    From the outset, the campaign against Qatar, even after it evolved into a blockade and diplomatic break, was understood to be led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with those countries that later signed on playing only a marginal role. It was this understanding, in addition to regional and international concern that the crisis would impact Gulf stability that determined the nature of the reactions on the Arab and regional as well as international levels.

    Iran did not conceal its attempt to exploit divisions in the Gulf, showing sympathy for Qatar and expressing a willingness to provide any food goods to the Qatari market that could be affected by a closing of the border with Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Israeli officials said that the Gulf crisis offered the opportunity to strengthen Israeli relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE against Qatar, which backs the Hamas government in Gaza. As for Turkey, which maintains close, strategic ties to Qatar and has already begun building a military base in the country, it did not hide its sympathy for the Qatari viewpoint, but it simultaneously made efforts to mediate and contain the crisis. President Erdogan dispatched two envoys to Doha and Riyadh on 3 June, but after they returned to Turkey to brief the president, Ankara was taken by surprise by the sudden decision to sever ties and embargo Qatar, leading Erdogan to condemn the actions against Qatar.

    Most Arab states, even those participating in the alliance against the Houthis, such as Sudan, called for calm and found it difficult to take a stand in support of either side, particularly since Qatar maintains close ties with most Arab states. Both Kuwait and Oman undoubtedly fear that the campaign against Qatar is a prelude to threats to their own political autonomy, but, as is usual among Gulf countries, the two states took action to mediate the conflict and prevent further escalation. Kuwait has more experience and is in a better position given its good ties with both Riyadh and Doha and the Kuwaiti leadership’s close familiarity with Gulf disputes after the role it played in resolving the 2014 crisis.

    On the international level, Russia and China remained neutral, calling for a negotiated resolution to Gulf disputes. It was striking that Putin stressed Russia’s distance from the Saudi camp, saying that a break in ties was not discussed during Bin Salman’s visit to Moscow. The Europeans, particularly Germany, were closer to the Qatari position, expressing concerns that the crisis could fuel renewed instability in the Gulf.
    The US position, as is typical since Trump entered the White House, seemed more contradictory and confused: officials in the State and Defence Departments were plainly shocked by the rapid development of the crisis and the decision to sever ties with Qatar. Official statements issued by the State Department and the Pentagon affirmed US relations with Qatar and stated that the US had no plans to alter military ties between the two countries. But the day after the decision to cut ties, President Trump said in a tweet that leaders had pointed to Qatar when he spoke in Saudi Arabia of the need to end any support for terrorist groups and that the Qatari boycott was a consequence of his visit to the region.

    It can be understood from the US stance that Gulf leaders, perhaps Bin Zayed and Bin Salman, did in fact incite against Qatar during Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, but there was no in-depth discussion between the two sides, hence the surprise demonstrated by other arms of the US administration. According to media reports, the camp of Bin Salman and Bin Zayed enjoy strong ties with individuals close to President Trump, most significantly the close relationship between Emirati Ambassador Al Otaiba and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and advisor. But a prolonged crisis in the Gulf certainly does not serve US political interests—that much is clear from the statements of State Department and Pentagon officials. It was also clear that in the hours following the president’s tweet, US state institutions rushed to contain suggestions of bias toward Saudi Arabia and its partners.

    Spokesmen for both the State Department and White House again affirmed the ties of friendship between the US and Qatar, while US Secretary of Defence James Matthis spoke by phone with his Qatari counterpart, Khalid Al Attiyah, to reaffirm Washington’s traditional commitment to relations with Qatar. That same evening, President Trump spoke to King Salman, urging him to preserve the unity of Gulf states and Gulf stability.

    Major fallout
    Clearly, as Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said in a press conference in Paris on 6 June, Saudi Arabia and its partners are betting that the blockade will compel Qatar to yield to Saudi and Emirati demands. But Qatar is capable of withstanding these measures: it possesses substantial reserves, numerous options for imports, several sea and air outlets, and major economic partners linked to it through sizeable investments and vital contracts for gas imports, for example. Since the 2014 crisis, the Qatari government has also taken steps to counter a blockade much like the current situation.

    At the same time, despite the difference between the withdrawal of ambassadors in 2014 and the current crisis in Gulf relations, it is not impossible for Kuwaiti mediation efforts, backed by Oman and Turkey, to contain the situation, prevent further escalation, and find an exit in the coming weeks or months. Nevertheless, it is certain that Qatari-Saudi relations have undergone a genuine break, perhaps even more severe than the fracture in Qatari-Emirati relations. Riyadh and Doha’s view of one another has been scarred by a significant loss of trust. Qatar in particular will not soon forget the media rhetoric used against it or that Saudi Arabia set up a blockade with the intent of starving its population and breaking the fraternal bonds between the peoples of the two countries. It will be difficult to restore Qatari-Saudi relations to the status quo ante, particularly since the latest moves have undermined the few achievements of the GCC since its establishment, such as the free movement of individuals and banking relations.

    Bin Salman and Bin Zayed want Qatar’s total surrender and full control of Doha’s foreign and domestic decision-making power. Even if Qatar agrees to some concessions for the sake of reconciliation and a reduction of Gulf tensions, the Qatari leadership will not cede its ability to act independently, which could endanger the country’s security and population’s prosperity. Riyadh (and Abu Dhabi) will find it hard to compel Qatar to comply with conditions they themselves are not bound by—for example, by imposing strictures on Qatar’s foreign relations while Abu Dhabi freely interferes in Libyan and Yemeni affairs, backs Mohammed Dahlan against the Palestinian Authority, and gives itself the right to contravene Saudi Arabia in issues related to Yemen. How can the UAE allow itself such privileges while denying them to others?

    More broadly, the Gulf crisis casts a heavy pall over the future of the GCC, at least in the short and medium term, and raises questions about the capacity of the council to give expression to a united Gulf will. At issue is not only the severity of the crisis, its antipathy to the region’s traditional values, and its contrariety to the strong ties between its peoples; the problem is also that Riyadh (and Abu Dhabi) have demonstrated flagrant disregard for GCC institutions. All of this indicates that the council now means little to its biggest, most significant members. There was no call for an emergency Gulf summit, and the Saudi and Emirati allegations were not brought to any GCC institution for discussion. In fact, the GCC Secretariat learned of the decision of several GCC members to sever ties with another member state and embargo it through the media.

    When relations between GCC member states can transform so suddenly from cooperation, concord and alliance to a state of undeclared war, it is not unlikely that many GCC states could consider arrangements outside the council to maintain their security and stability. Even on the popular level, the crisis has led ordinary Gulf citizens to question the possibility of working and investing in other Gulf states, or even marrying citizens from other Gulf countries.

    Ultimately, whatever the fate of this crisis, it has put an end to the notion of Saudi leadership of the Gulf and Arab order that began to emerge with the erosion of Egypt’s position and the collapse of Iraq and Syria. The problem here is not solely Saudi disputes with other Gulf or Arab states, but also with the Arab and Gulf popular engagement with the Saudi-led media campaign and the nature of the measures taken by Saudi Arabia and its partners against another Arab, Gulf state. During this crisis, Saudi Arabia has acted less like a wise elder who considers other family members’ concerns and respects their independence as they respect his than a state aspiring for hegemony and custodianship, inspiring fear and anxiety, not trust and confidence.

    The crisis also has ramifications for the image of the US around the world. The US is bound to Qatar by strategic agreements, under which Doha allowed the US to establish the Udeid Air Base and later Centcom. Qatar has honoured this agreement since the early 1990s despite the risk of retaliation from Iran or armed groups that resent US military actions. The world will be watching the US position on Qatar with avid interest to see the true value of its stated commitment to its allies’ security.

    This article was first published by Al Jazeera Center for Studies