Connect with us

Middle East

Qatari opposition: A failed Quartet project

Published

on

The stand-off between Qatar and the Saudi-led Arab bloc has entered its fifth month bringing to the surface some Qatari exile opposition figures. Despite heavily promoted in Quartet states, it seems that these little-known figures, appearing suddenly out of nowhere, can play no more than an episodic role in the politic arena and it is hard to believe that any can become a serious challenger to the throne. 

However, despite their obscurity inside and outside Qatar, these so-called “leaders of Qatari opposition” have received broad media coverage in Saudi led quartet states.

Egyptian, Emirati and Saudi newspapers have been full of reports claiming that domestic opposition to Qatari Emir-Sheik Tamim was mounting. But, deeper analysis of this reports reveals that any possible threat for Qatari ruling elite, at least in theory, comes from its dissatisfied family members and not from the street.

Qatari opposition “leaders”

As soon as Qatari crisis emerged in June, Egyptian press reported that little known Sheikh Saud bin Nasser Al-Thani, member of the ruling family in Qatar, was preparing to form a political party based in London, in opposition to the ruling regime of Emir Tamim. This newly formed opposition party was to pursue a different course in its foreign policy, one more in line with Saudi and UAE demands, including freezing Qatar’s relations with Iran, ending Qatari support for Islamists in Libya and Egypt, and expelling Islamist leaders from the Gulf state. It was also reported that the ruling family’s dissidents, gathered around Sheikh Abdul Aziz Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the Geneva based uncle of the Qatari Emir, will create an opposition front against the current Qatari ruler.

Paris-based Sheikh Sultan bin Suhaim Al-Thani, the son of Qatar’s foreign minister from 1972 to 1985, Sheikh Suhaim bin Hamad Al-Thani, is also among those members of the ruling dynasty that oppose the policies of the Qatari Emir. Gulf media reported on October 16, that Qatari State security forces stormed his palace in Doha, confiscating documents and holdings of Sheikh Sultan bin Suhaim as well as his father’s archives. Before this incident, he heavily criticized Qatari leadership in his Sky News Arabia appearance in mid-September. “Because of mistakes made by the Qatari government”, he said, “I have all fears that the Qatari identity will be linked to terrorism,” while expressing its firm support to Sheikh Abdullah bin Ali bin Abdullah Al Thani’s views to resolve the Qatari crisis.

Sheikh Abdullah bin al-Thani has emerged as the central figure of the opposition, according to Quartet media, and soon became a frequent guest in Saudi royal court. He might have gained a few political points after high-profile visits with Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman due to his possible role in Saudi Arabia’s decision to allow Qatari pilgrims direct passage to the Saudi Arabia for the hajj in August. But this could have also been a tactical move of Saudis presenting little known Sheikh Abdullah, as someone who can solve the crisis. It is not surprising that soon afterward Saudis have been suggesting Sheikh Abdullah should rule Qatar as an emir in exile. Salman Al-Ansari, for example, the founder and president of the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee (SAPRAC), a powerful lobbying group, openly called for regime change in Qatar. In his tweet, he called for Quartet states to support Sheikh Abdullah bin Ali Al Thani as the “only legitimate” leader of Qatar.

Finally, Khalid al-Hail, a Qatari exile who has proclaimed himself a leader of the country’s opposition, is the latest personae to emerge amid the Qatar crisis. Although he came into the media spotlight back in 2014 when he founded a little known “Youth Movement for the Rescue of Qatar”, this entrepreneur caught the attention after organising the controversial and semi-secret conference held on September 14th in London. “The Qatar, Global Security & Stability Conference” was supported by the founder of the British Monarchist Society and Foundation.

The London Conference and its impact

The debate on the conference focused on political Islam and terrorist groups, democracy, human rights and Al Jazeera/free press. The conference website has presented a publication called “Qatar Crisis:  Exploring the possible outcomes of the Qatari leadership crisis.”

Possible outcomes presumed were that Qatar’s foreign relations will shift in a Saudi/Emirati direction, but without mentioning measures of democratic reforms inside Qatar. The document also openly advocated for a “bloodless coup” which would replace emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, either by dissatisfied members of his own family (with support from Qatar’s armed forces) or as a result of military intervention by “regional states.” All of these presumptions comply with Hail’s previous statements given to various Gulf media. But when asked to further explain the agenda of Qatari opposition and his views on foreign intervention against his own homeland and the role of neighbouring countries in supporting his movement, Mr al-Hail remains silent. The same goes for other participants at the conference, including Mr. Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills, the founder of British Monarchist Society and Foundation who supported this conference and  Daniel Kawczynski , a Conservative pro-Saudi MP and the “Honourable Member for Saudi Arabia,” who also has not responded to our calls.

Members of the anti-Qatar Quartet have heavily promoted Qatari opposition and their ideas of political changes in the Qatar. But this is rather strange, as quartet states have an extremely poor record on any of the points discussed at the conference including democratic values, human rights or freedom of the press, making their concern over these issues in Qatar even more bizarre.

This is why Perry Cammack, a  fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former senior staff member of former US Secretary of State John Kerry, thinks that “London opposition conference was an unusually ineffective PR stunt and irrelevant to Qatar’s future.”

Amna Al Thani, an AM Candidate from the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the Harvard University, is quite convinced that this event was conducted by a neighbouring country and very few Qataris participated at the conference “Did you see any Qatari at this event? London has thousands of Qataris living there as students or for other purposes and no one had attended. It has not really crossed Qataris radar even,” she noted.

Relevancy of Qatari opposition

The limited impact of the London conference brings a question how much influence these exiles from the newly formed “opposition” enjoy among Qataris and how much support if any they can expect from global key players?

According to Dr. Gerd Nonneman, Professor of International Relations & Gulf Studies from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University’s campus in Qatar, none of these figures have any significant support in Qatar. And even if they represented some minor strands of grievance among some sections of the population or the Al Thani, whatever credibility or support they might have theoretically derived from that would have been completely destroyed by their association with the four boycotting countries.

Calling for foreign intervention against its own people has never been met with sympathies anywhere.  Since the crisis began, there has been mass public support for Emir Sheikh Tamim all over Qatar. Amna Al Thani told us that the Qatari general public is “completely behind Sheikh Tamim as you saw from the happiness and sense of pride that occurred when he came back from New York after the UN general assembly meeting and his meeting with the US president.”  In the last five months one could easily notice an avalanche of support messages via social media and in public life as Qataris as well as expats decorated their cars and boats with images of Qatari Emir -Tamim al-Thani.

Cammack, however, noted that public opinion in the Gulf is notoriously difficult to measure, and some of the public displays of affection for Sheikh Tamim were no doubt exaggerated for international consumption. But nevertheless, “the instinct to rally around the flag into the face of political interference is nearly universal. It is almost certain that the clumsy support by Saudi Arabia and the UAE for the Qatari opposition will discredit it, rather than bolster it,” he told us.

Consequently, Amna Al-Thani believes that “if the blockade states are aiming to destabilize the country, it has certainly produced the complete opposite effect. “ So far there has been no evidence of a serious domestic challenger to the emir.

Therefore, Dr. Nonneman believes that Qatari exiles cannot get any serious support anywhere outside quartet states, as decision-makers elsewhere can see through these things and know they are no more than bit-players in the propaganda war of the Quartet. Even the international media have been very sceptical of the claimed roles and importance of these figures.

“Qatari opposition”- the failed Quartet project

The emergence of the exile opposition is without doubt closely linked with Saudi-UAE efforts to bring down the current Qatari leadership. It seems that the whole project of Qatari opposition has been inspired or at least heavily supported by the Quartet. According to Dr. Nonneman the “Qatari Opposition” tactic being adopted on occasion by Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi can only be understood as an attempt to cause friction, worry and questioning inside Qatar and the ruling family, in the hope that the tactic would lead in a more indirect way to destabilisation and hence might increase the Qatari leadership’s willingness to submit to the Quartet’s demands. The real impact of these efforts, according to Cammack, “is to further personalize the conflict, making it that much more difficult to resolve.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Nonneman points out that it is very hard to believe – although not completely impossible – that anyone in the leadership in the Quartet countries seriously thinks there was ever scope for regime change by using these tactics, but even the less ambitious idea betrays a real lack of understanding of current Qatari social and political dynamics. “That is why I think the explanation cannot be complete without pointing to flawed decision-making by a very small and closed circle in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, without the benefit of advice and intelligence from other voices and state institutions (including the intelligence professionals formerly overseen by Mohammed bin Nayef-deposed Saudi crown prince) where real insights on Qatari political dynamics might have been found”.  

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Saudi Arabia’s Entertainment Plans: Soft Power at Work?

Dr. Theodore Karasik

Published

on

Saudi Arabia recently broke ground on its ambitious “entertainment city” known as Qiddiya, near Riyadh. The splashy launch, attended by 300 dignitaries from around the world, highlights a frequently overlooked aspect of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan: the entertainment industry as a growing economic sector. As the kingdom diversifies its economy away from reliance on petro fuels, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been keen to showcase the increasing openness of his country, promoting festivals, concerts and sports events and ending the country’s 35-year ban on cinemas.

These projects are partially intended to bolster the economy and attract FDI—but not only. Saudi Arabia is also playing catch-up with other regional actors, such as Qatar and the UAE, in terms of cultural output and cultural participation. With Qiddiya and the other cultural projects in the works, Saudi is now carving out a road for itself to become a regional culture hub.

Thefirst phase of Qiddiya, which includes high-end theme parks, motor sport facilities and a safari area, is expected to be completed in 2022.  Saudi officials hope the park will draw in foreign investment and attract 17 million visitors by 2030; the final phase of the project is expected to be completed in 2035, by which point the entertainment resort will be the largest in the world, dwarfing Florida’s Walt Disney World.

Beyond these financial incentives, however, the Qiddiya project is Saudi Arabia’s answer to events like the Dubai Expo 2020 or the Qatar World Cup 2022 and suggests that the kingdom is trying to position itself as the next big destination for lucrative events – which also add to the idea that entertainment, culture, and innovation are key to Saudi Arabia’s economic vision and success.

Vision 2030’s emphasis on entertainment raises a key question: is Riyadh attempting to increase its soft power across the region in a constructive and proactive way?  The answer to that question is yes.

In the immediate future, Qatar and the UAE will remain the region’s foremost entertainment and cultural hubs.  From Qatar’s Islamic Museum of Art, which famous architect I.M. Pei came out of retirement to design, to Dubai’s theme parks, including a $1 billion behemoth which is the world’s largest indoor theme park, these two Gulf states are demonstrating their prowess to develop an arts and culture scene.  In Doha, Qatar is exemplifying its unique outlook towards world affairs by emphasizing humanitarianism and fourteen centuries of history.  Qatar is also hosting the World Cup in 2022, intended to bring Doha center-stage in the sports world. Abu Dhabi’s Louvre has been referred to as “one of the world’s most ambitious cultural projects”, while advertisements throughout the emirate insist that the museum will cause its visitors to “see humanity in a new light”.

Despite these Gulf states’ head start on developing vibrant entertainment sectors, there is still room for Saudi Arabia to offer something new. For one thing, some of its neighbors are dealing with trouble in paradise: Qatar’s once-strong economy is under increasing strain as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt boycott it; meanwhile, the company which owns many of Dubai’s largest theme parks lost $302 million in 2017.

The Qiddiya project also represents a particular vision that’s distinct from neighboring countries’ cultural programs. Qiddiya is designed to mix desert heritage and the ethos of the past with the technological advances of the future. The intended result is to be a fusion between aspirations and building on those achievements from desert to post-modernity, on a colossal scale.

The project is crafted both to satisfy domestic demand—it includes plans to build 11,000 homes to serve as vacation homes for Riyadh residents— and to compete directly against Saudi Arabia’s neighbors in the Gulf. With two-thirds of the Saudi population under the age of 35, building a thriving entertainment sector is particularly important.

The kingdom is hoping to use its idea of mixing the past with the future in Qiddiya to significantly alter the flow of tourist revenues in the Gulf. The UAE, Qatar and Bahrain rely on tourists from the Gulf and beyond for essential cash inflows—including the $30 billion a year Saudis spend on tourism abroad every year. By providing new entertainment options in-country for Saudi Arabia’s citizens and residents, who pay more than any other country’s citizens while on vacation, Riyadh aims to redirect some of this overseas tourism spending back into the kingdom. It’s set up concrete goals to this effect, hoping to increase domestic spending on culture and entertainment from about three percent of household income to six percent. Saudi Arabia also likely hopes that Qiddiya will attract significant international tourism as well—one senior official tied the park’s creation to the goal of making Riyadh one of the top 100 cities in the world to live.

Of course, it is likely to be a long wait before the kingdom itself starts producing the cultural output that will make it a real entertainment hub; after all, Saudi public schools still do not teach music, dance and theater, and the kingdom lacks music and film academies. But by taking the first steps of embracing the vast economic potential of the entertainment sector, the kingdom may well be on its way there.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Israel, Ukraine, and U.S. Crack Down Against Press

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On Wednesday, May 16th, Russian Television reported recent crackdowns against the press, on the part of both Ukraine’s Government and Israel’s Government. One headline story, “9 journalists injured by Israeli gunfire in Gaza ‘massacre’, total now over 20”, reported that Israel had shot dead two journalists:

“Yaser Murtaja, 31, a cameraman for Palestinian Ain Media agency, died on April 7 after he was shot by Israeli forces the previous day while covering a protest south of the Gaza Strip. He wore a blue protective vest marked ‘PRESS’.”

And:

“Ahmad Abu Hussein, 24, was shot by Israeli forces during a protest in the Gaza strip on April 13. He died from his injuries on April 25. He was also wearing a protective vest marked ‘PRESS’ at the time.”

The other 18 instances were only injuries, not murders, but Israel has now made clear that any journalist who reports from the Palestinian side is fair game for Israel’s army snipers — that when Palestinians demonstrate against their being blockaded into the vast Gaza prison, and journalists then report from amongst the demonstrators instead of from the side of the snipers, those journalists are fair game by the snipers, along with those demonstrators.

Some of the surviving 18 journalists are still in critical condition and could die from Israel’s bullets, so the deaths to journalists might be higher than just those two.

Later in the day, RT bannered “Fist-size gunshot wounds, pulverized bones, inadmissible use of force by Israel in Gaza – HRW to RT” and presented a damning interview with the Israel & Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch.

The other crackdown has been by Ukraine. After the U.S. Obama Administration perpetrated a very bloody coup in Ukraine during February of 2014, that country has plunged by every numerical measure, and has carried out raids against newsmedia that have reported unfavorably on the installed regime. The latest such incident was reported on May 16th by Russian Television, under the headline, “US endorses Kiev’s raid on Russian news agency amid international condemnation”. An official of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) stated there: “I reiterate my call on the authorities to refrain from imposing unnecessary limitations on the work of foreign journalists, which affects the free flow of information and freedom of the media.” An official of the CPJ (Committee to Protect journalists) stated: “We call on Ukrainian authorities to disclose the charges and evidence they have against Vyshinsky or release him without delay. … We also call on Ukrainian authorities to stop harassing and obstructing Russian media operating in Ukraine. The criminalization of alternative news and views has no place in a democratic Ukraine.” However, as reported by RT, Ukraine’s Prosecutor-General called the editorial policy of the anti-regime RIA Ukraine “anti-Ukrainian” in nature, amounting to “state treason.” So, the prosecutor is threatening to categorize and prosecute critical press under Ukraine’s treason law.

The U.S. regime is not condemning either of its client-regimes for their crackdowns. (It cites Ukraine’s supposed victimhood from “Russian propaganda” as having caused Ukraine’s action, and justifies Israel’s gunning-down of demonstrators and of journalists as having beeen necessary for Israel’s self-defense against terrorism.) In neither instance is the U.S. dictatorship saying that this is unacceptable behavior for a government that receives large U.S. taxpayers funds. Of course, in the U.S., the mainstream press aren’t allowed to report that either Israel or today’s Ukraine is a dictatorship, so they don’t report this, though Israel clearly is an apartheid racist-fascist (or ideologically nazi, but in their case not against Jews) regime, and Ukraine is clearly also a racist-fascist, or nazi, regime, which engages in ethnic cleansing to get rid of voters for the previous — the pre-coup — Ukrainian government. People who are selected individually by the installed regime, get driven to a big ditch, shot, with the corpses piling up there, and then the whole thing gets covered over. This is America’s client-‘democracy’ in Ukraine, not its client-‘democracy’ in Israel.

May 16th also was the day when the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee voted 10 to 5 to approve as the next CIA Director, Gina Haspel, the person who had headed torture at the CIA’s black site in Thailand where Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times and blinded in one eye in order to get him to say that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks; and, since then, Zubaydah, who has never been in court, has been held incommunicado at Guantanamo, so that he can’t testify in court or communicate with the press in any way. “The U.S. Government has never charged Zubaydah with any crime.” And the person who had ordered and overseen his torture will soon head the agency for which she worked, the CIA.

Whether the U.S. regime will soon start similarly to treat its own critical press as “traitors” isn’t clear, except that ever since at least the Obama Administration, and continuing now under Trump, the U.S. Government has made clear that it wants to seize and prosecute both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange for their journalistic whistleblowing, violations of “state secrets,” those being anything that the regime wants to hide from the public — including things that are simply extremely embarrassing for the existing rulers. Therefore, the journalistic-lockdown step, from either Israel, or Ukraine, to U.S., would be small, for the United States itself to take, if it hasn’t yet already been taken in perhaps secret ways. But at least, the Senate Intelligence Committee is strongly supportive of what the U.S. Government has been doing, and wants more of it to be done.

Continue Reading

Middle East

JCPOA in Post-US Exit: Consequences and Repercussions

Nisar Ahmed Khan

Published

on

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal signed by the P 5+1 in 2015 was widely hailed as a landmark achievement made possible by sincere dialogue and diplomacy. Indeed, the agreement is to a greater extent an achievement of the nuclear non-proliferation regime that helped checked the increasingly disturbing power symmetry in the Middle East which in return has managed to contain the transformation of low intensity conflicts into all out wars. A relative stability is the hallmark which resulted from JCPOA in the Middle East which is extremely volatile region of the world. A vital question is: how these achievements are going to be affected by the US withdrawal from it?

The US withdrawal from JCPOA will adversely affect the aforementioned three areas of its accumulative achievement with variant degree. First, it has negative consequences for the norm that negotiated settlements in international arenas has the potential and lasting credibility to minimize violence or other coercive means led by war. The momentum and confidence the diplomatic means have garnered in post- JCPOA scenario will come to the crushing halt. The sealed and mutually agreed upon agreements in international arena especially in which the US is the potential party, will come under extreme scrutiny leading to an environment of gross trust deficit. Therefore, on the first instance this withdrawal has negative lasting consequences for the diplomatic norms in itself.

Secondly, US exist from the deal does not augur well for the nascent nuclear non-proliferation regime. This regime has a dearth of good precedents like the JCPOA which has deterred a nation from acquiring and operationalizing nuclear weapons as is the case with Iran. Keeping in view this backdrop of this institution, JCPOA has been its glaring example wherein it has managed to successfully convince a nation to not pursue the path which leads towards the nuclear weapons. Therefore, the US withdrawal has shaken the confidence of the non-proliferation regime to its core. It has engendered a split among the leading nations who were acting as sort of de facto executive to enforce the agreements on the nuclear ambitious states. Therefore, this US withdrawal has undoubtedly far reaching repercussions for the non-proliferation as an institution. This development may affect the nature and its future development as an institutional mechanism to deter the recalcitrant states to change their course regarding the nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, in relation to the above mentioned negative consequences on diplomacy and nuclear non-proliferation regime, the US withdrawal from the deal has far serious security ramifications for the volatile and conflict ridden Middle East. It has multiplied the prospects of all-out war between Iran and its regional rivals on one hand and Iran and Israel on the other hand. Just tonight the announcement of Trump exiting JCPOA and the Israeli aggression on Syrian military bases substantiates the assertion that there exists a correlation between this US withdrawal and the Zionist regime`s regional hegemonic designs. It has extremely positive message for the Saudi Arabia. The impulsive and overambitious Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) went on extended tours in the US and Europe to convince Western leadership that Iran should be contained.  Therefore, element of stability in the region – contained low intensity conflicts – got serious motivation to turn into all-out-wars  with non-exclusion of nuclear options at the disposal of Zionist regime in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern region with this exit of the US is going to observe substantial turmoil in the months to come which will have some extra regional ramifications.

As a conclusion it could be argued that the US exit has some far reaching repercussions for the diplomatic norms, non-proliferation regime and above all for the volatile Middle Eastern region. All these ramifications resulted from the US withdrawal will also in return have some serious consequences internally and externally. The status of the US as the sole super power of the world will be diminished with this decision. It will create an unbridgeable gap in the West. Henceforth, the EU foreign will be more autonomous, integrated and autonomous in her conduct.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy