The
roles played by the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are worthy of some
explanation and evaluation as examples of how small states can influence
regional and international politics. These roles are adventurously innovative, boldly
unconventional, ruthlessly interventionist, and changing the meanings and
methods of security diplomacy in the region and beyond. These policies have
come at a cost for both countries, but they have also provided political clout
of sorts.
اضافة اعلان
But
why have they departed from their old ways of doing security business and
decided to take bold initiatives of their own?
Their
roles have gotten them politically, diplomatically, and militarily involved in
regional conflicts. Their actions are a statement about the deficit of effectiveness
of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League, and the Arab Defense and
Economic Cooperation Treaty.
None
of the Arab states, big and small, have managed to secure a sustainable region-based
security arrangement thus far. This conclusion also applies to the neighboring
countries such as Iran, Israel, Turkey, and Ethiopia in relation to Arab states.
Infighting
among Arab states and intrusive interventions by international and regional
powers in the internal affairs of Arab states have made it very difficult for
any arrangement to be feasible. It is this messy environment that made it
possible for these two small countries to move away from an inapt reality and
chart new, unconventional ways to move forward.
The
ineptitude of regional orders historically led MENA countries to resort to
bilateral arrangements with international and regional powers, to ensure
partial, but never total, security. That came at a very high cost: inter and
intra-state wars. This reality is not sustainable.
The
thorny issue of Israel-Palestine and the wider Arab-Israeli conflict has been
central to regional and international security talks, and many Arab and
regional countries were unwilling to talk security before this issue was
“satisfactorily addressed”.
The ineptitude of regional orders historically led MENA countries to resort to bilateral arrangements with international and regional powers, to ensure partial, but never total, security.
Over
the past two decades, new problems were added to the mix: nuclear proliferation
and the limitations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran’s expansion, more
failed and failing states, and endless civil wars. The more these issues
accumulate, the more complex solutions become.
Today,
a new language is emerging in international circles, calling for decoupling of regional
security talks from ongoing political processes, whether with Turkey, Iran,
Ethiopia or Israel. Qatar-Iran, UAE-Israel, Egypt-Ethiopia, and Jordan-US
relations are just a few examples of the increase in bilateral negotiations
which could be expected to continue in the near future.
The
zero-sum mindset which has ruled regional antagonists’ relations does not seem
to be desired by all actors, whether big or small. The international scene is
changing, and the region will have to find its own ways of preserving its
security.
The
feeling is that the world is tired of MENA problems and wars, and the US has
more important priorities to turn to. Regional conflicts have pushed development
in the region decades back, and more of such regression is not going to be
tolerable globally.
The writer is chairman
of NAMA Strategic Intelligence Solutions fares@namasis.com
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
