Saudi-Maldivian Ties: An Opportunity or Threat for India?

Anushree Ghisad, 

Research Intern, VIF

The President of Maldives Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom paid an official visit to Saudi Arabia from 18th March. A joint statement issued at the conclusion of Yameen’s visit to the Kingdom said that the two sides have expressed their desire to strengthen cooperation in foreign affairs, defence, Islamic affairs, justice, economic, investment and trade sectors, providing support to the issues of the Muslim nation as well as education, health and social affairs to realize their common interests. The Saudi Fund for Development will continue to finance development projects in Maldives. The statement also said that, “as part of efforts to deepen educational and cultural cooperation, Saudi Arabia will provide 150 scholarships to Maldives’ students.” Both the countries have rejected any foreign interference in their internal affairs. Discussions were also held on strengthening unity of Islam and increasing Saudi investments to give fillip to the Maldivian economy.

Implications of Gayoom’s Saudi Arabia visit

Amidst the ongoing Maldivian turmoil where former President Mohamed Nasheed has been sentenced to 13 years imprisonment without being given a fair trial, which has seen internal clashes in Malidvian society and has evoked a severe reaction from UNHRC and other countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi cancelled his scheduled Maldives trip in mid-March, so as not to endorse Gayoom’s actions of trampling democracy by undermining opposition and appointing loyalist to all constitutional places. It is China alone which had categorically declined to comment on the developments in the Indian Ocean island citing it as an ‘internal matter’, and now Saudi has joined the hands by endorsing President Gayoom and his policies. This raises substantial concerns for India as Maldives is coming under the influence of China under Gayoom’s regime, wherein Beijing is securing this precious ‘pearl’ in its ‘string of pearls’ by ensuring its multidimensional dependence on China. Saudi too seems to be following in the Chinese footsteps, albeit under the religious garb of promoting ‘Unity of Islam’, however antithetical any pseudo autocratic regime might be in the eyes of Islamic tenets.

Saudi Arabia’s recent mollycoddling with Maldives

Diplomatic relations between the Maldives and Saudi Arabia were established in 1981.It is noteworthy that in 2008, Maldives opened its embassy in Riyadh, which was its first ever mission to the West Asia. Both the countries have always recognized the historic friendship and Saudi’s role in development of Maldives. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has agreed to open an embassy in the island nation during the current visit of Maldivian President.

The Kingdom’s growing role in this Sunni littoral nation became palpable when in February last year many tourist reservations were cancelled with no prior notice as Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (the current Saudi head of state) allegedly booked three islands of Maldives. Tourism is the lifeblood of Maldivian economy and yet Maldivian government did not mind hampering its reputation for hospitality when it came to receiving the then Saudi prince, thanks to the Kingdom’s growing investment in the archipelago.

President Gayoom affirmed that the Republic of Maldives views the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the country that houses the two holy mosques and as the focus of the hearts of all Muslims as it represents their Qibla. He also emphasized that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the primary partner of the Republic of Maldives.

It is this growing camaraderie which infused a confidence in Maldives to take the EU head on when the latter removed the duty free status of Maldives’ fish a couple of years ago. Maldives reacted by attacking EU’s policy and said it would certify its fish as halal and find new markets in countries like Saudi Arabia.

Maldives’ Infatuation with Saudi Arabia

Maldives, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is a Sunni Muslim country and considers Saudi Arabia the fountainhead of Islamic practices, which is a well-respected fact. Enamoured by Saudi’s Islamic heritage, Maldives seems to have started adopting the customs of the Kingdom, but is it at the cost of undermining its own ancient tradition? For example, the official Maldivian language Dhivehi belonging to Indo-Aryan group of languages and is closely related to Sinhalese. The original Dives Akuru script was replaced by Thaana by around 18th century, which is largely modelled on Arabic style of writing. As against this, Central Asian states continue to follow the local traditions and language despite being Islamic countries.

Does this paradigm shift in the native ethnic orientation of Maldivian society underline its eagerness to submit to Saudi Arabia’s hegemony over Sunni Islam? Two success stories of Asia- Japan and South Korea, are firmly rooted in their respective ancient heritages and do not ape India despite being ardent followers of Buddhism. Invoking religious aping out of a genuine religious awe can turn into formidable identity crisis for locals as is evident in the case of Pakistan. And if this is the case, then will Maldives not try to replicate Saudi’s education system which is largely based on Wahabi ideology, for which Saudi is believed to be funding in this island nation?

Going beyond Religion- Saudi stakes in Maldives

Maldives has undergone lot of struggle since 2003 to throw off the shackles of dictatorial rule to see the light of democracy. It finally succeeded in throwing the three decade long dictatorial yoke of Mohamed Gayoom in 2008, when Nasheed came to power by democratic means. With strings of high profile political ousters and in desperate attempts to consolidate power by throttling Nasheed from contesting next presidential election scheduled in 2018, the current Maldivian regime is undermining the very spirit of democracy which its citizens had fought so hard for. As a result, the Jamhoori Pary (JP) has parted ways with ruling alliance and joined hands with Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to start a movement called ‘save the constitution’. Even the ultra-hardliner Adhaalath Party (AP) is disillusioned with the current government due to its brutality and its President Sheikh Imran Abdulla has called for the formation of a “national unity alliance” against the government. Occasional clashes between Gayoomists and Nasheedists on the streets of Male have further intensified this conflict.

Saudi Arabia finds itself cornered after Arab Spring as its roots are secured in economic and democratic reforms, the later one being the existential threat for monarchs of the Kingdom. Hence Saudi is clamouring hard to nip this spirit in its bud wherever it starts surfacing, and Maldives seems to be traversing the same path. Hence, Saudi Arabia might be willing to strengthen the hands of Gayoom by assuring investment and trade.

The usage of wordings in the recently released joint statement emphasises on ‘rejecting any foreign interference in their internal affairs.’ This implies that the arrest of Nasheed, a champion of democracy and human rights; which has clearly been orchestrated with Chinese blessings, has been upheld by Saudi Arabia.

In order to lose its clutches of overdependence on United States, Saudi has embarked upon what is touted in Riyadh as a ‘look east policy’ since mid of last decade, which is an attempt to diversify. Playing on its ‘custodian of holy mosque’ card, Saudi Arabia uses the non-oil Islamic countries like Maldives to ensure a master-client relationship based upon the broader connotations of ‘Islamic unity’. Also, it is in long term commercial interests of the Kingdom to have a stronghold in a strategically located island nation like Maldives, which falls on international sea lanes of communication through which a major chunk of Saudi oil passes.

Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in Indoctrination & Terror Financing

In the joint Communiqué, both the countries have repeatedly focused upon deepening of educational and cultural cooperation, for which, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has announced the allocation of one hundred fifty scholarships for students from Maldives. In 2014, Saudi scholars had pledged a grant of $ 100,000 for Islamic education, while the Saudi prince has pledged to build 10 world class mosques in Maldives.

According to Prof. Shireen Hunter, financial support received from abroad can be divided into two categories; one for maintaining Muslim institutions such as mosques and two, to exercise a degree of political control over various groups that are recipient of such funds. Saudi Arabia is the most important country mainly indulging in second kind of support. Though the impact of Saudi education is not uniform and does not necessarily transform into blind support for the Kingdom’s government as it also produces radical Wahhabis who are highly critical of country’s ruling elite. Yet any outcome, which rides on ‘mine is the only truth’ dictum and fails to appreciate the inherent pluralistic nature of human society, is inimical to long term stability and security structure of that region where such investment is being made. And due to modern tools of communication and social networking and rising people to people contact, the cascading effect of such ideologies can endanger the security structure of neighbouring countries as well.

Saudis follow the Wahabi school of philosophy in its own education model, and has a track record of funding for such education world wide. In India, we have the prime example of growing radicalism under the influence of Saudi funded Wahabi ideology in the Kashmir Valley. In a report in 2011, Asit Jolly indicated this trend and reported the mushrooming of mosques and madrassas, funded by the Ahl-e-Hadith. The report, quoting US intelligence sources, highlighted the House of Saud decision of 2005, to allocate US$35 billion for building mosques in South Asia. A large number of madrassas have also accompanied this growth, and have penetrated the poorer segment of Kashmiri society.

In this backdrop, Maldives can probably emerge as a smaller version of what they have done with PoK and Pakistan, a breeding ground of terrorism. According to Zahid Shahab Ahmed from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia was one of the prominent players who funded madrasas in Pakistan to promote anti- Shia Islam. It eventually resulted in the radicalisation of Pakistani youths.

Saudi is the main financier of Madrasas which creates Taliban type fighters. Saudi Arabia has also emerged as a large source for funds for terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed told the CNN-IBN news channel during his visit to India in 2009 that "Hundreds of Maldivians" have been recruited by the Taliban and are fighting in Pakistan. Dr. Azra Naseem of Maldives argues that Maldives is tilting towards Deobandi Islam, the religion of the Taliban. There are reports of Maldivian youths fighting alongside Taliban in Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of Pakistan. The growing radicalism, funded by money received from charities and donations, has led to extremist views on religion and its influence on society.

Saudi’s commitment to build ten world class mosques in Maldives reiterates the taboo of ‘liquor mosques’ where praying in the mosques built out of tourism revenue ( as tourists indulge in relishing alcohol) is considered haraam. Otherwise what logic explains building ten more mosques in a country which has less than 4,00,000 of population and already had more than 725 mosques by mid-1991? Hence such commitments by Saudi Arabia need to be watched carefully as it raises many apprehensions for regional stability.

Saudi: A stabilizing factor amidst growing ISIS threats in Indian Ocean?

Amidst the rising clout of non-state actors and global extremism, Saudi and Maldives have reiterated their determination to fight extremism and terrorism in all their forms and manifestations, as both the countries are based on “tolerant principles of Islam”. This could also be interpreted as a hint towards curbing the ISIS menace. Saudi Arabia, during the early days of ISIS appeared to be smitten by it, as it had pledged to vanquish the Shiite crescent with Sunni fire. But later the Kingdom officially condemned Islamic State’s activities as it started taking shape in the heart of a historical Sunni patrimony and posed existential threat to the Kingdom’s monarchy by promoting the pristine Wahabi ideology of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed". The ‘one leader’ here essentially meant the Caliph of Islamic State and not the king of the Saudi Arabian kingdom. As British diplomat Alastair Crooke observes, ‘On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahabist. On the other hand, it is ultra-radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahabism.’ To add to its woes, neither the pro-reform (spring leaders) nor anti-reform leaders (ISIS) are giving any importance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed had earlier expressed fears that around 200 Maldivian youths have been recruited by ISIS. Even the Commissioner of Police Hussain Waheed has said that it is a cause of concern that Maldivians nationals are leaving the country to fight in wars abroad. The exact number of Maldivians abroad for Jihad remains unclear, with sporadic groups departing to Syria and Iraq every week. The Commissioner of Police has estimated that around 50 Maldivians are working with foreign rebel groups, dwarfing figures suggested by Home Minister Umar Naseer in December 2014. A jihadist group called Bilad Al Sham Media (BASM) – which describes itself as ‘Maldivians in Syria’ – revealed that a fifth Maldivian had died in Syria. Now the figure of youths joining extremist groups can be contested, but the fact cannot be denied that even a small group is potent enough to spread the poison of extremism in this tiny nation, which can have cascading effect over maritime security of Indian Ocean.

If both the nations are genuinely committed to fight the ghost of ISIS, then it is a welcome move as a stable and peaceful Maldives is in the interest of regional security of Indian Ocean Region at large and India in particular. But the question remains as to what Saudi and Maldives are aspiring for? To replicate a Pakistani model in India’s backyard or to create a win-win-win situation for all?

Maneuvering between Two Friends- Way Ahead for India

Saudi Arabia is a time tested friend of India with trade being the dominant factor in the relationship. Diplomatically, Saudi is the gateway into the wider Arab world. India has contributed a lot in the prosperity of Saudi, by buying oil at high prices and by helping in building up its economy. It is largely believed that the Kingdom granted a grace period of six months to correct and regularize status of illegal workers in Saudi Arabia post enactment of Nitaqat wok policy in 2011 (directed at illegal expatriates in Saudi Arabia), keeping in mind more than 280,000 Indians working in Saudi.

Similarly, Maldives has traditionally come under India’s sphere of influence and depends heavily on India for its maritime security and military requirements. New Delhi’s immediate intervention under the banner of ‘Operation Cactus’ after Maldives request in 1988 to thwart the attempted coup against the then President Mohamed Gayoom is still remembered with reverence in Maldives. But the ongoing turmoil in Maldives which essentially is inimical to Indian interest is raising the concerns in New Delhi. Any attempt by an external player to strengthen ongoing consolidation of power and exacerbate the radicalization can have detrimental effects for India.

Deepening Saudi-Maldives relation can prevent Maldives from turning into the launchpad of Islamic State in Indian Subcontinent. But at the same time, India cannot remain insulated if Maldives becomes a safe haven for other extremists due to generous pouring of money from Saudi, which may like to foil Islamic State by emboldening its arch rival Al-Qaeda or LeT. Even the common Maldivian is not willing to endanger the gains of hard earned democracy by turning his homeland into a fertile ground of extremism. The challenge for India is to ensure that the money emanating from Saudi goes for empowerment of Maldivian society by actually promoting ‘the tolerant version of Islam’ than further radicalizing them and to pull out its economy from the current slump, without undermining the friendly relations with both the countries. It is extremely important to turn this credible threat of growing camaraderie between Saudi and Maldives into an opportunity for strengthening regional security mechanism by exchanging information.

The timing of Yameen’s visit to Saudi, barely five days after the pronouncement of Nasheed’s thirteen years jail term is alarming and underscores the urgency with which China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have legitimized President Yameen’s acts. India cannot in any case remain a mute spectator and has to steer the wheel if it aspires to be the ‘Net Security Provider’ of the Indian Ocean region.

---

Published date: 31st March 2015, Image source: http://vid.alarabiya.net

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

Security Architecture in the Persian Gulf: GCC, Gulf Union or Something Else?

Col Rajeev Agarwal

The West Asian region has been in turmoil for over three years now. What started off as a local incident in Tunisia in December 2010 engulfed the entire region of North Africa and West Asia in what has been popularly termed as ‘Arab Spring’. Three years down the line, some of the countries are still trying to grapple with the changed political dynamics (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen) while others have prevented it from taking an ugly turn (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait). Then, there is the case of Syria where the uprisings turned violent and have led to a state of civil war. In addition, there is the most recent case of Iraq which has imploded under the pressure exerted by the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Shams (ISIS). The recent conflict in Gaza too has re-opened the old wounds between Palestine and Israel. The Arabian Peninsula was however, by and large left unaffected by the Arab Spring. Yes, there were clashes in Bahrain; Saudi Arabia had to offer concessions to its population and there were some protests in Kuwait and Oman, but none of these events were on the same scale as what transpired in the rest of the region. The Gulf monarchies survived and still look resilient.

What is, however, affecting the Arabian Peninsula and particularly the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is the dynamic change taking place in the regional balance of power. It is no longer the case of Saudi Arabia versus Iran in the Gulf region or the popular discourse of Arabs versus Israelis. This is largely due to the emergence of new power dynamics in the region. The re-emergence of Egypt post Mubarak, increasing isolation of Israel and emergence of Turkey as another powerful actor are some of the indicators in this regard. Coupled with this is the progressive shift in US policy and towards the Asia Pacific as a part of its “rebalancing”.¹

The Gulf region in fact embodies and reflects the concerns of the larger West Asian region. The countries north and south of the Persian Gulf form the core in almost all aspects. They contains majority of the crude oil and natural gas resources, employ the largest number of expat workers in the region, are home to the most holy sites for the Muslims (both Shia and Sunni), harbour a bitter regional rivalry often drawn along sectarian lines between Saudi Arabia and Iran and have a major role to play in all other issues effecting the larger region at large. The Arab-Israeli dispute, Egypt-Israel peace treaty, US role in the region, question of Muslim and/or Arab unity and in recent decades the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism through groups like Al Qaeda etc all have links through the Gulf region.

The Gulf region and its well-being is therefore crucial towards ensuring peace in the region and to coordinate and implement it, there is a requirement of a potent and effective regional organisation. Perhaps concerned by the developing situation, the GCC decided to strengthen the regional security framework possibly in the shape of a‘Gulf Union’. This idea was discussed at the GCC Summit in Bahrain in December 2012,² but has yet to take any shape. During the Manama Dialogue in December 2013 too, Saudi Arabia brought up the issue of Gulf Union, but has failed to find resonance among all partners. Oman was quick to rubbish the idea with its Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi stating, “We are against a union,” at the Manama Dialogue further adding, “We will not prevent a union, but if it happens we will not be part of it”³. Saudi Arabia seems however convinced that Gulf Union is the need of the hour. “People in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) want a closely-knit union and such a union has now become inevitable,”⁴ was how Prince Turki Al Faisal of Saudi Arabia, the Chairman of the Board of the King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies described the stance of Saudi Arabia at the conclusion of Manama Dialogue. Going by inputs, it is likely that even in its expansion, the GCC is likely to initially restrict such a framework only to member countries. The expansion of GCC into a broader framework or a new framework would be more a question of seeking the right framework to address regional security problems than merely economic cooperation or anything else. If that be the case, it raises critical questions regarding the viability of such a union such as:

• Can the Gulf region ignore the rapidly evolving dynamics in the region, especially with regards to Syria and Iraq while evolving a new security architecture?
• Can there be any effective regional security framework in the Gulf region without the participation of Iran and Iraq?
• Can a security framework in the Arabian Peninsula take shape without taking Yemen and its security concerns into consideration?
• How would the architecture overcome the Gulf countries’ decades of over-reliance on foreign (read, US) military presence in the region for their security?

Clearly, the GCC security framework would be ineffective without answering most of these questions.

Evolving Dynamics of Regional Security in the Gulf Region

Commencing with Tunisia in December 2010, the popular people’s revolts have threatened to not only alter the political dynamics in the region but also the security balance in the region. The evolving political order in the region is likely to witness considerable shifts within individual countries as well as at the regional level. Economic issues and peoples’ aspirations are likely to be major factors in redefining the regional landscape. These changes would have long term implications for both regional and international actors.

Amongst the regional powers, Iran has attempted to emerge as a major benefactor. It has drawn parallels with its 1979 revolution and has called for Islamic awakening in the region. Saudi Arabia has managed to survive the Arab Spring both internally and within the region. It resorted to immediate economic appeasements to the population at home coupled with the brutal crackdown on protests to quell the revolution before it could threaten the regime. However, without long term systemic changes in system of governance, it knows that it is living on borrowed time.

Another factor to watch out for is the rise of Egypt post Mubarak. It has always been one of most powerful military powers in the region. Its revival could have major repercussions on regional power balance. With former Chief of the Armed Forces, Fatah Al Sisi now elected as the President, Egypt would be a nation to watch out for.

Just before the onslaught by the ISIS on Iraq and the threat of its implosion, Iraq too was slowly consolidating itself. Despite frequent terrorists’ attacks on Shia population, Iraq was rebuilding its military power. Oil production too was on the rise and is becoming competitive in the region. If and when the ISIS threat is brought under control, Iraq could emerge once again as a major player in the region by the end of this decade.

Yemen on the other hand, despite the ouster of President Saleh, continues to be in turmoil. Saudi Arabia has often accused Iran of instigating and supporting the Al Houthi rebels in the North against Saudi Arabia. Despite the constitution of National Dialogue Congress in March 2013, there is hardly any progress towards reconciliation and peace. The spillover of Al Qaeda influence from across Yemen too threatens its security interests. Also, Yemen is the only country in the Arabian Peninsula which is not a member of GCC.

The crisis in Syria has threatened to alter the entire equilibrium in the region. Its civil war initially polarized the country as well as the region into pro and anti-Assad camps. The use of chemical weapons in Damascus on 21 August 2013 further complicated the situation bringing Syria to the brink of US led military strikes and a larger regional military flare up. The subsequent Framework Agreement sponsored by Russia and the UN resolutions however ensured that Syria declare its chemical weapons stockpile, agree to its destruction and sign the international Chemical Weapon Convention (CWC). The Syrian civil war is however far from over. With no resolution in sight and the ISIS threatening to over-run eastern parts of Syria and virtually obliterate the boundaries between Iraq and Syria, there seems no immediate solution to the Syrian crisis in the near future.

The overpowering presence of Saudi Arabia in the GCC, its predominance in the only security structure in the region; the Peninsular Shield Force, the underlying suspicion of smaller states in the GCC on the hegemonic designs of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf region are some of the other concerns to be considered by the GCC and the region. Increased membership and presence of some more powerful players in the group would help counter balance Saudi Arabia.

The Iran, Iraq Factor

Among all the questions regarding Gulf Security Architecture, the most crucial is the question of regional participation. Can the GCC afford to ignore the two most significant countries of the Gulf region, namely, Iran and Iraq and still evolve a viable security framework? The clear answer is ‘No’. Iran is geographically and militarily too large to be ignored. Also, most of the security concerns of GCC members would be taken care of if Iran is either reined in or dovetailed in a collective security apparatus (even if entails having a framework with a common minimum programme). However, the contrary may not hold true as any security framework without Iran will render it unviable in terms of regional security.

As regards Iraq, whether in conjunction with Iran or independently, it is again too big and mighty to be ignored. Given the above, it is imperative that Iran and Iraq form part of a Gulf security framework. The ongoing dialogue on Iran nuclear issue which is the biggest security concern for the GCC countries could offer hope. The interim deal reached between P5+1 in November 2013 and any future resolution of Iran nuclear issue would help dispel doubts in the minds of members of GCC and could pave way for greater Iran-GCC engagement.

Foreign Military Presence in the Gulf Region and the Current Uncertainty

Historically, the six states which now comprise the GCC have relied on an external security guarantor both to safeguard the regimes and to protect against external military threats. The US has been the predominant, especially after the United Kingdom military vacated the Gulf region in 1970s. Commencing with its pledge made in the 1980 Carter Doctrine to use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Gulf, the US has continued to guarantee the security of Gulf regimes and uphold their sovereignty through the periods of the Cold War to the present Global War on Terror. In the three decades since 1980, all of the six GCC states have expanded and deepened their military ties with the US, through bilateral defence cooperation agreements. These bilateral defence deals have however inhibited individual growth and has resulted in each GCC state having very small standing armies. Military bases and bilateral security guarantees have prevented and complicated the emergence of any effective regional security architecture at the GCC level wherein the GCC countries could have found solutions to their historical disputes within themselves. The stationing of foreign troops in the region has also given cause and justification to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, spread of influence of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates as well as radicalization of disenchanted elements in the region. Trans-national terrorism and the spread of ideational alternatives to national identities has emerged as a significant challenge to Gulf regimes, who fear the spread of sectarian tensions from Iraq or the "blowback" from any attack on Iran to the Shiite communities in the Gulf. The Iranian nuclear issue is another issue which has created fears and apprehensions in the Gulf region although the present talks between P5+1 could lead to some long term resolution of this very critical regional issue.

Although it has prevented intra-regional wars in the Gulf region and helped regimes survive, US presence has, in the long run been detrimental to the larger security interests of the region. With its predominant military presence West and South of Arabian Gulf, it has polarized the region into pro and anti Iran camps. The war on Iraq has virtually handed over the depleted nation into Iran’s influence, thus extending the proverbial ‘Shiite crescent’ across the North of Arabian Gulf up to the Mediterranean Sea. Also, as mentioned earlier, it has been one of the significant factors in the rise and spread of terrorism in the region.

In the past three years, especially after the onset of ‘Arab Spring”, there is a widespread apprehension in the Gulf region and the larger West Asian region that the US may be losing interest in the region and may not be as actively involved as it was in the past decades intervening and solving conflicts in the region. The clear reluctance shown by the US in getting directly involved in the military campaign in Libya, its refusal to militarily intervene in Syria despite the widespread civil war and thousands of human lives lost as well as its drawing down on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a clear indication of its loosing appetite for any more involvement in the military conflicts in the region. Also, its renewed focus in the Asia-pacific through its ‘rebalancing’ policy towards the region could wean away some of the existing military and diplomatic vigor in the West Asian region. In addition, reports on US discovery and production of shale gas resulting in reduced reliance on the region’s oil as also the feeling that with the current economic downturn, the US will be forced to look more inwards are issues of grave concern to the region and are setting serious doubts in the minds of policy makers in the West Asian region on future US intentions.

Echoing these concerns, Abdulaziz Sager, Chairman of the Gulf Research Center said in a column in Arab News, “The US-GCC relationship appears to be at crossroads. Despite a long history of relations and a clear common and mutual interest in the stability and security of the Gulf region, the GCC states and the United States look as if they are growing apart on an almost daily basis…the prevailing mood appears to be that the terms are beginning to change to such a degree that the GCC states have no choice but to act on their own and without consideration of US interests and concerns. This is bound to have consequences, real and unintended, for both sides, and the question should be asked whether such increased separation will not come back to haunt the region as a whole.”⁵

Even Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense of the US while speaking at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies Research said, "It is our hope that the GCC can play an important role in the future providing security for this region. Across the board, Washington is urging allies to build local capacity. That's what we're doing for the UAE and that's what we're doing with other countries. Yes, we give them the help they need, we give them assistance, but the fact is that they have to help provide for their security.⁶"

Countries in the region are already planning for the worst case scenarios wherein they would be deprived of external security guarantees. While the idea of expansion of GCC into a Gulf Union could be one indicator, the increase in import of weapons and equipment in the region too is a pointer to this effect. In December 2011, the US signed a massive $30 billion sale of 84 F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia⁷. In April 2013, the US announced another big defence deal worth $ 10 billion through arms sale to Saudi Arabia, Israel and United Arab Emirates which includes sale of 26 F-16s to the United Arab Emirates and advanced missiles to both Gulf states capable of being launched in friendly territory and penetrating with great accuracy far behind an opponent’s borders. In the case of Israel, it is likely to procure new missiles designed to attack and incapacitate an adversary’s air-defence radars, advanced radars for its own Air force, refueling tanker planes and — in the first sale to any foreign military — the V-22 Osprey troop transport aircraft⁸.

A Possible Security Framework for the Gulf Region

GCC was formed primarily as a defensive mechanism against post revolution Iran. With Iran looking for better integration in the region and looking to emerge from the decade’s long shadow of sanctions, there is a need for a relook. In a speech at the Manama Dialogue 2006, Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, stated: “In the Gulf, no sustainable long-term regional security arrangement can be envisioned without Iraq and Iran acting as two of its pillars.”⁹ The ongoing civil war in Syria, the implosion of Iraq under the ISIS, the Gaza conflict, ongoing transition in Egypt and the struggle in Yemen clearly demonstrate that these conflicts cannot be resolved locally as also that the GCC cannot remain immune from such conflicts. There is thus a requirement to rework the regional dynamics in a comprehensive manner while devising a new regional structure.

Before finalising any security framework, GCC would have to deliberate and take a realistic view of the evolving regional dynamics. Also, the GCC needs to pause and take lessons from history. The League of Nations formed after World War I was rendered ineffective as the US did not join it initially and the USSR was barred from joining it due to the threat of communism. The result was a toothless organisation which could not prevent military conflicts nor settle disputes. Even the UN Security Council with only five permanent members selected in 1945 is out of sync with the developments in the world in past 65 years and is not representative of the security dynamics of the world.

GCC, the only regional organisation representing the Gulf region, too is grossly inadequate and underrepresented to address regional security issues. Firstly, it is restrictive in membership and does not include important nations North and West of the Persian Gulf like Iran and Iraq. Even within the Arabian Peninsula, it does not include Yemen. Secondly, it lacks a strong and regionally representative military force. The only military arm; Peninsular Shield Force consists primarily of troops from Saudi Arabia and therefore cannot be termed credible or effective. Thirdly, it does not have any forum to share views or vote of key external players in the region like the US, China or Russia.

Any future architecture will need a core organisation. GCC could be the core to commence this. It could be expanded to GCC+2 (Iran and Iraq) initially and thereafter expanded to include Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. Each member could have a veto power in matters of regional security which would preclude any one from taking any offensive action against another. There will be occasions when a member may feel threatened by another, but a veto and the threat of a collective punitive action by other members could deter the threat. Obviously, Israel would be a difficult issue. However, if there is some forward movement on Palestine and Israel could rethink its approach in the region akin to its reconciliatory policies in 1990s, there could be scope for a larger regional architecture. Obviously, any extra regional player having stakes and influence in the region will need to be incorporated in the structure, maybe as dialogue partners, but that could follow later.

This is not to say that by just making such a framework, all the problems which are intra GCC or within the Gulf Region would get solved. The differences and conflict of opinions and ideologies in the region are too deep rooted to be overcome soon. It would however be difficult to imagine expanding the GCC into an all-encompassing framework right away. Any start would be however welcome and if correctly articulated, could eliminate at least the threat of conflict within the region. Also, over time, some of the minor irritants could get solved through mutual dialogue. The inclusion of states like Iran, Iraq and even Egypt and Turkey would also act as counter balancing force to Saudi Arabia in the region. Another important spin off from a larger more encompassing security framework could be the effect on terrorism in the region. If the members of the new architecture align closely, the space occupied by terrorist forces like Al Qaeda could reduce. The vacuum created due the fall of dictators in the region which they have currently filled would then become vulnerable to state and larger regional control, thus edging them out of the region. Among all other new member states proposed, the inclusion and acceptability of Iran would be the key and could dictate the future course of such an organization. It is however interesting to note that presently, there is no formal platform of dialogue between GCC and Iran. How do they expect to resolve issues when they don’t even talk?

Further, the framework would have to see beyond its immediate geographical boundaries to include major stake holders in the region for which they could take a leaf out of ASEAN model where, in addition to the core members, various forums have been added to ASEAN to incorporate economic and security interests driven by extra regional powers. This could result in Turkey, US, Russia, India and even China being included as dialogue partners or as independent observers. It would help in improving the atmosphere and confidence in the region. Over time, the Gulf Security Council could hold joint military exercises, have military observers from each country and later even consider a Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) to replace the present Peninsular Shield Force¹⁰, which is grossly under equipped and is seen more as a manifestation of Saudi Arabia’s regional designs than anything else.

Conclusion

The bottom line is clear. The present system of Gulf Security is grossly inadequate to meet regional security challenges. A Security Framework based on merely GCC members too would be inadequate, as pointed out earlier. Also, with changing dynamics in the region as also likely change in the priorities of the US, it is possible that in coming decades, the Arabian Gulf does not get the same attention that it gets now from the US. Already there are signs of downsizing the military presence in the Gulf region due to budgetary cuts, ending the wars in the region (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the current policies of the US of not getting itself actively involved in any regional conflict (Syria, Libya).

The GCC thus has to start looking beyond US for their individual and collective security. It is therefore time for the GCC as well as other major stake holders like Iran, Iraq and Egypt to rise above the usual rhetoric and forge a regional Partnership. There will be teething problems, the framework might eventually fail, but all that can only be seen once they take the bold step to come together. If the two Germany could unite, if the US and Russia could talk now and during the Cold War, there is no reason why the Muslim countries in the Gulf region cannot garner courage and come together for their own collective security.

Endnotes

1. US Secretary of State speech at Asia-Pacific Summit in November 2011, available at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/11/176999.htm.
2. Saudi Arabia calls for ‘strong and solid’ Gulf union, Al Arabiya news, available at http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/12/24/256782.html
3. Oman opposes Gulf union, Arab News, 08 December 2013, http://www.arabnews.com/news/488956, accessed on 23 December 2013.
4. Gulf union is inevitable: Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal, Gulf News, 08 December 2013, http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/oman/gulf-union-is-inevitable-saudi-prince..., accessed on 23 December 2013.
5. “Whither GCC-US relations?” Arab News, March 29, 2013, at http://www.arabnews.com/news/446395, accessed on July 14, 2013.
6. US looks to allies to secure Arabian Gulf, The National, April 24, 2013, at http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/us-looks-to-allies-to-secure-ara..., accessed on July 14, 2013.
7. U.S., Saudi Arabia strike $30 billion arms deal, Washington Post, 29 December 2011, Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/us-saudi-..., accessed on 06 August 2013.
8. U.S. Arms Deal With Israel and 2 Arab Nations Is Near, New York Times, 18 April 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/middleeast/us-selling-arms-to-is..., accessed on 06 August 2013
9. Sam Sasan Shoamanesh, A New Security Order for the Middle East, 04 October 2012, http://globalbrief.ca/blog/2012/10/04/a-new-security-order-for-the-middl...
10. Shaheen Kareem, Defensive shield for the Gulf since 1982, The National, available at http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/defensive-shield-for-the-gulf-si...

(The author is Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses)

---

Published Date: 1^st October 2014, Image source: http://news.kuwaittimes.net

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

Israel Palestine Talks: Joining Pieces to Attempt Peace

Col Rajeev Agarwal

The recommencement of peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis on 29 July 2013 was long overdue and marked the culmination of six rounds of shuttle diplomacy in the region over the past six months by John Kerry, US Secretary of State holding multiple meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Kerry has given the current peace process a nine month period to find a final agreement to the longest festering dispute in the region. However, given the dismal record of past talks, it would be a miracle if there is any significant peace agreement at the end of these nine months.

As the peace talk’s process gets underway, there are a number of questions seeking answers which could project a clearer picture of the emerging situation. Some of the prominent questions are:-

• In the context of a history of failed attempts, what is so new and positive about this attempt that may raise expectations of a peace agreement?
• Within the complexities of the issues, how willing would be the two sides to compromise on their hard stand and attempt a peace resolution?
• How long is it possible for the current stalemate or status quo to be maintained?

In examining these issues, it is necessary to take a brief overview of the core issues of the conflict as also an insight into perspectives and positions of each of the major players in the dispute; Israel, Palestine and the US.

Contextualizing the Problem

Borne over six decades, the issues are complex; both sides have strong and opposing viewpoints backed by huge public support which often make the core issues unbridgeable. But, both the sides and even the US realize that time is fast running out on achieving the goal of two independent sovereign states existing side by side as Israel and Palestine. That is why perhaps, despite the existing stumbling blocks and the fact that there has been no forward movement since September 2010 talks, there is guarded optimism in the atmosphere. The last time peace talks generated optimism was the Camp David Summit in July 2000¹ hosted by US President Bill Clinton when he almost got Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat to agree to a peace agreement. Unfortunately the talks failed resulting in a bloody backlash in the form of the Second Intifada killing thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. The bitter memories of the Second Intifada therefore put in a sense of caution and controlled optimism of what could happen should the present talks fail.

As the current process gets underway, a look into the core issues confronting the two sides could give an insight into the possibilities of any substantial peace agreement.

Jerusalem as the capital

Israel is unwilling to divide and share Jerusalem with Palestine and stands by the 1980 Israeli Basic Law that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel²". The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, an area which was occupied by Jordan before being captured by Israel in 1967. It contains the al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest place in Islam. The US does not recognize the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and maintains its embassy still in Tel Aviv.

Borders and shape of Palestine State

Israel accepts that there should be a Palestinian state and that there will have to be an Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank (captured by Israel in 1967) to accommodate this. It, however, wants to keep major Jewish settlements that have grown up on the West Bank and Jerusalem. Palestinians want borders along 1967 lines but accept that some Israeli settlements will have to stay and insist that any land given to the Israelis would have to be compensated for by a balanced land swap. The US agrees that the starting point should be the 1967 lines and that a land swap will have to be the basis of any agreement.

Settlements

This has been the issue which has prevented resumption of talks for long. Despite being declared as illegal by the international community, Israel has continued to announce and build settlements in West Bank and Jerusalem. The Israeli government has insisted on keeping the major Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Palestinians want that all settlements be abandoned as they were in Gaza. However, they appear ready to accept that some will have to stay but argue for a minimum number and a land swap for any that are left. The US does not recognize the international legitimacy of the Israeli West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements and has repeatedly urged Israel to exercise restrain in announcing and building them.

Refugees

This is once again a very sticky issue. Israel rejects the idea that Palestinian refugees should be allowed any "right of return" to their former homes fearing that it could adversely affect the demography of Israel and the identity of Israel as a Jewish State. Palestinians, while maintaining the "right of return” could be willing to accept the return of a limited numbers with the balance being given adequate compensation by Israel. They however refuse to recognize the concept of Israel as a "Jewish state", saying that it ignores the Israeli-Arab citizens of Israel. The US understands the Israeli refusal to take back refugees and hopes that this can be resolved by compensation and development aid.

Security

Israel is concerned that Palestinian territory, if completely independent could be used to launch attacks on Israel. Therefore, it is insisting that the state of Palestine be largely demilitarized and that it keeps a large measure of security control, including in the Jordan Valley. Palestinians argue that viable security will come from a stable two-state solution not the other way round. They want as many attributes of a normal state as possible and clearly state that client-status would be untenable and unacceptable. US, while comprehending apprehensions of both parties, feels that this issue could be resolved even at the cost of deploying international peace mission along the two states.

Changing Geo-political Context in the Region and its Effect

While Israel and Palestine peace talks were stalemated after September 2010, significant developments in the region in the past three years have changed the geo-political dynamics in the region and therefore the context of the current initiative. A brief current overview of each player in Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) would give a better insight into respective compulsions as well as possibilities of any forward movement in the current process.

A critical appraisal of Israel’s standing in the immediate neighborhood and the region at large clearly indicates that the country stands more isolated and alienated than ever. Even countries and areas hitherto considered neutral or friendly have turned hostile, although all of this was not of Israel’s making. This is especially the case with the ‘Arab Spring’, which has brought about changes both within individual countries as well as in the region as a whole. Islamist parties are on the rise and economic concerns have risen to the fore. In Egypt, it lost Mubarak, its time tested ally, who had ensured peace between Egypt and Israel. The 1978 peace treaty hangs in the balance although Egypt has not yet indicated its intent to abandon the treaty. Sinai Peninsula, the buffer between Egypt and Israel, has erupted post ouster of Mubarak and caused concern in Israel³. When Egypt permitted two Iranian warships to cross the Suez Canal in February 2011 (the first time such an event has happened since the 1979 Iranian Revolution), it naturally caused alarm in Israel⁴. Israel’s ties with other countries in the region have also become unsettled. It has fallen out with Turkey (yet another regional leader) post the Gaza Flotilla incident of May 2010 despite the patch up prompted by President Obama in March this year⁵. With civil war raging in Syria, Israel fears that Assad would finally be forced out, thus disturbing the fragile peace on Israel’s eastern borders. Jordan could go the way of Islamists any time, which would spell more trouble for Israel. The Palestinians have already been given the status of Non Member Observer in the United Nations in 2012⁶. On June 30, 2013, the European Union, coming down harshly on Israel’s continued push to build settlements, adopted new guidelines, stating that future agreements between the European Union and Israel must exclude settlements in the occupied West Bank. The directive covers all areas of cooperation between the European Union and Israel, including economics, science, culture, sports, and academia. Though the material effect may be insignificant, it is a serious blow to ties with European Union. Finally, Iran continues with its civil (?) nuclear programme and despite the alarms raised by Israel, there are hardly any takers for military action against Tehran.

Domestically, Prime Minister Netanyahu leads the right-wing Likud party, which on the whole opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has already faced serious criticism for the July 28 cabinet approval for release of 104 Palestinian prisoners. In a statement, Prime Minister Netanyahu recognized how difficult this decision was for many Israelis to accept, but that this was a moment “in which tough decisions must be made for the good of the country⁷.”

Like Israel, Palestinians too are confronted with serious issues. Firstly, Mahmoud Abbas, despite being the leader of PLO does not represent all the Palestinians as Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and does not recognize Abbas as the sole leader of all Palestinians. There have been no elections after the January 25, 2006 elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council which Hamas won comfortably. The subsequent struggle for power resulted in split of 2007 resulting in Fatah ruling the West Bank and Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip. In such a situation, any agreement that Abbas may procure may not be truly representative of all Palestinians. Also, with Abbas aging and no successor nominated, there could be a serious leadership crisis after his death. There is also a fear that failure of current talks after nine months could diminish his political standing and boost that of the rival Hamas. With regards to the contours of Palestinian state, prominent Fatah leaders, concerned by increasing Israeli settlements, have said that the two-state solution is no longer viable and have begun speaking in favor of the creation of one democratic bi-national state for Arabs and Jews in all of Israel-Palestine, something which may not be acceptable at all to Israel. There is also the debate regarding the forthcoming UN General Assembly Session in September where the PLO could stake claim for upgraded status over the “non-member observer state” it got in 2012. However, US annoyance of their continued bid in 2012 despite US asking them to back down has cost them adversely in terms of withheld US aid. Perhaps, concerned with the enormity of all the above challenges, the Palestinian Authority says it has currently only agreed to “talks about talks.” Also, it agreed to the first step only after Israel announced the release of 104 prisoners and the Arab League backed the peace plan⁸. Mahmoud Abbas has also indicated that any peace deal would be first put to a referendum before all Palestinians before ratification, a measure that has been indicated even by Israel in its resolutions in Knesset.

Hamas, which has refused to recognize the current peace process, itself, is not on a very firm footing. The fall of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Egypt has temporarily weakened Hamas. Added to it is the severe crackdown by Egyptian Army in Sinai which has virtually blocked off all illegal supply routes into Gaza Strip. Its break up with Assad regime in Syria has negatively affected its relationship with its benefactor, Iran. Post the November 2012 conflict with Israel called “Pillar of Defense” by Israel; the Hamas military capabilities also have been severely reduced. Also, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians back non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation and reject military operations⁹. In such a situation, if a peace deal is reached, it would be very difficult for Hamas to remain defiant in Gaza Strip.

US has enjoyed tremendous influence in the region for the past four decades. It has been the virtual security guarantor for the Gulf nations and security of Israel has been one of its national security objectives. However, post the onset of ‘Arab Spring’, US has experienced diminishing influence in the region. The ouster of the dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya has not brought in regimes exactly favorable to US interests. Rise of Islamists in political mainstream has added to its concern. Syrian crisis and US reluctance to get directly involved militarily has drawn the ire of the region. In the midst of all this, Iran nuclear issue continues to fester along.

In such a situation, MEPP is one issue that can get US dividends and restore some of its influence in the region. It has been one of the personal priorities of President Obama and is a conflict in which the US still has considerable leverage with both parties. Failure to reach a satisfactory resolution till now inhibits its ability to achieve its goals in the region. Former U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, Chief Gen. James Mattis described the impact the lack of a solution has had on his work and why it underscores the importance of Kerry’s efforts; “I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel. … Moderate Arabs who want to be with us can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t want to show respect for the Arab Palestinians. So [Kerry] is right on target with what he’s doing¹⁰”.

There is also the issue of significant spin-offs from the resolution of this conflict. The most significant impact is likely to be felt on the Iran nuclear issue. If MEPP succeeds, there will be tremendous pressure on Iran to deliver. Also, Israel would be emboldened to further threaten Iran with military action. There is also the issue of US announcing its rebalancing towards Asia-Pacific in recent times. While it may not result in significant dilution of US focus and presence in West Asia, resolution of major issues like MEPP would certainly contribute towards its future course in Asia-Pacific.

US, shepherding the recommencement of peace talks, is banking upon two caveats for some success; first, that the nine month period for the talks is for all unresolved issues – there will be no interim agreement or confidence building effort that can be undermined by either side as was the case with Oslo. Second, by getting the Arab League to reaffirm its commitment to recognize Israel if a deal for Palestinian statehood is reached, it has given the Israel a major incentive to see the talks move ahead.

There is no Status Quo

MEPP has been stalemated since the breakdown of talks in September 2010. However, any talks of maintaining ‘status quo’ are misplaced as the status quo is changing by the day. As discussed above, there is constant evolution in the standing of each of the important players in this conflict. Also, with two critical factors; Israeli settlements and Palestinian population constantly increasing, status quo does not remain a feasible option. There are views which express concern that any continued stalemate might run the risk of completely jeopardizing a viable two state solution, perhaps by the end of this decade. There is also a realization that time is fast running out and if unduly delayed, there may not remain a viable scope for two independent states owing to expanding Israeli settlements and Palestinian populations. In a recent op-ed, Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, wrote, “This is a matter that requires national responsibility of the highest order. It requires taking advantage of what may be the last opportunity to extricate ourselves from the deadly clutches of our conflict with the Palestinians, clutches which we have tethered to ourselves¹¹.” Thus, there is no question of a status quo in this conflict.

Conclusion

The gaps between the two sides are significant and issues are complex. Declaration by both Israel and Palestine that the peace agreements will be put through public referendums reflects the skepticism of the leaders on the future of peace talks and its acceptability with respective populations. However, the good news is that all sides have agreed for the resumption of process after a gap of three years. It would be however unreasonable to expect too much too soon. Many a times MEPP talks have come on the brink and failed. Major compromises, bold decisions and domestic public support would be needed if the talks have any chances of moving ahead.

(The author is Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses)

Endnotes

1. History of Mid-East peace talks, BBC News, 29 July 2013, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11103745, accessed on 06 August 2013
2. Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, The Knesset Website, available athttp://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm, accessed on 07 August 2013.
3. Rajeev Agarwal, “Sinai: The Middle East’ New Hot Spot,” IDSA Issue Brief, available at http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/SINAITheMiddleEastsNewHotSpot_ragarwal_301112, last accessed on 07 August 2013.
4. “Iranian warships sail through Suez Canal,” CNN News, 22 February 2011, available at http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/egypt.iran.warships_1_suez-cana... , last accessed on 07 August 2013.
5. “Obama Brokers Apology From Netanyahu to Erdogan,” Al Monitor, 22 March 2013, available at http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/netanyahu-apology-erdo....
6. Report available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm, last accessed on 07 August 2013.
7. Michael r. Gordon and Isabel Kershner, Israel and Palestinians Set to Resume Peace Talks, U.S. Announces, New York Times, 29 July 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/world/middleeast/israel-agrees-to-pris..., accessed on 07 August 2013.
8. Kerry wins Arab League support for efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Haaretz News, 17 July 2013, available at http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.536305, accessed on 06 August 2013.
9. Poll: Hamas loses popularity among Palestinians , Jerusalm Post, 10n April 2013, available at http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Poll-Hamas-continues-to-lose-popularity..., accessed on 07 August 2013.
10. Matthew Duss, Creating an Environment Conducive to Progress in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Centre for American Progress, August 5, 2013, available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2013/08/05/71422/..., accessed on 07 August 2013.
11. Yuval Diskin, Diskin: Israel nears point of no return on two-state solution, Jerusalem Post, 13 July 2013, available at http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Diskin-Israel-nears-point-of..., accessed on 06 August 2013. 

Morsi’s Ouster: Failure of Political Islam

Kanwal Sibal, 

Dean, Centre for International Relations and Diplomacy, VIF

If the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak by the mass of protestors in Tahrir Square in 2011 was a surprise, the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi by even larger protests in Tahrir Square and across Egypt in recent days is equally dramatic.

Mubarak was in power for 30 years. The people, tired of his repressive and corrupt rule, wanted change. Morsi, in power for only a year, has alienated the people extraordinarily quickly, forcing a regime change.

Morsi, elected as President through a tortuous but reasonably credible democratic process, differed from the manner in which Mubarak assumed and retained power. Those young, social media activists who sought regime change in 2011 may not have intended power to be transferred to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), with the Salafists in tow. But the MB being far more organized and embedded at the grass root level than the more liberal and secular forces responsible for expelling the Mubarak regime, won the election and acquired political legitimacy. Now they have been ousted by what is effectively a military coup.

Brotherhood

This unforeseen development in a country that is the political and cultural heartland of the Arab world cautions against interpreting the nature of forces at play in the Arab world from narrow, self-serving political perspectives.

When political change occurred in Tunisia and Egypt through street protests against dictatorial regimes, it was pre-maturely hailed as the Arab Spring by the West. The Arab world, it was claimed, was moving towards democracy, refuting a widely-held view that Islam and democracy cannot cohabit.

The entry of MB into electoral politics was welcomed as a sign of maturing democratic impulses sweeping the Arab populace. Fine tuned analysis to disarm fears about the implications of this long-banned organization joining politics and aspiring for state power were offered. The MB comprised of various political currents, it was said, with moderates in the ascendant. “Political Islam”, which the MB represented, was seen as the only way that democracy could be ushered into the Arab world. Seen as a hostile force after the Iranian revolution, “political Islam” became a viable and acceptable instrument to promote America’s vocational attachment to the international spread of western style democracy.

Reservations about Morsi were held in abeyance, believing that he could successfully make the transition from military rule to democracy in Egypt. Morsi, in fact, made a fairly positive impression after assuming power, at least externally. He seemed intent on restoring Egypt’s political role in the region, reaching out to Iran, reducing the heavy weight of America on Egypt’s foreign policy, courting China, renewing relations with nonaligned friends of the past like India.

India received him in March this year, signalling our positive view of the political change in Egypt and acceptance of the moderate credentials of the MB. Surprisingly, we found common language on Syria as well as on terrorism in our joint declaration with him.

Revolt

However, perceived inadequately in their acuteness by the outside world because of tailored international media coverage, serious tensions have apparently been brewing in Egypt because of Morsi government’s policies to islamicize Egyptian institutions and society through appointments and educational and cultural initiatives. With the failure to improve economic conditions, with poverty and unemployment rampant and sectarian strife targeting the Coptic community, public grievance against the Morsi government has been escalating.

It did not seem, however, that matters had reached such a dangerous tipping point. Could such truly massive demonstrations that require huge resources, remarkable coordination skills and identifiable leadership occur spontaneously or erupt primarily through the use of social media, especially in an inadequately wired society? Individuals like El Baradei and Amr Moussa, with limited public following, have emerged as the political face of the popular revolt, which leaves many questions unanswered.

Coup

The US seems to have been egging Morsi to bridge growing domestic political differences, with its Secretary of State John Kerry, during his March visit to Cairo, while pledging additional aid, calling for restoration of “unity, political stability and economic health to Egypt”. Kerry spoke about the “deep concern about the political course of their country, the need to strengthen human rights protections, justice and the rule of law, and their fundamental anxiety about the economic future of Egypt" that political and business leaders conveyed to him. The US Congress reacted sharply in June to the repression of NGO workers- Egyptian and American- assisting Egypt “as it moves down the path towards democracy, democratic training, the building of civil society, and the establishment of the rule of law”.

The Arab Spring has withered at its roots. The political judgment that MB had evolved into a moderate force has proved faulty. That “political Islam” could usher in democracy in the Islamic world has proved to be wrong. Ironically, opening the doors for more democracy in Egypt allowed conservative Islam to walk in and thwart the wishes of a large section of the population.

If the revolt against MB rule in Egypt will reverse the rising tide of conservative Islam in the Arab world on the strength of Gulf wealth and Turkish ambiguities, it would be a welcome development. The immediate prospects in Egypt are, however, bleak as a legitimately elected government has been ousted by the military and the erstwhile President confined. The West is refraining from describing this as a coup, which it is as the Constitution does not empower the Egyptian armed forces to be political arbiters in a crisis, howsoever serious.

The Egyptian military, supposedly trusted by society, is now being castigated by MB activists, as is the US. So much for the Arab Spring and Egypt’s much-lauded experiment with democracy with Islamists in charge. The last word to be said may well be a bloody one!

Joint VIF – GIMI, Seminar on Response to Terrorism and Situation in West Asia

On 28 March 2013, VIF welcomed a delegation from the Galilee International Management Institute (GIMI), Israel for a seminar on Response to Terrorism and Situation in West Asia. The seminar began with opening remarks given by Ambassador P. P. Shukla, Joint Director VIF and Maj. Gen (retd) Dr. Baruch Levy, GIMI. The Seminar was divided into four sessions with specific focus on “Global Terrorism: Response”, “Arab Spring: Implications and Ramifications”, “Af-Pak Post-2014 Scenario: Global and Regional Implications”, and “Geopolitics and Iran”.

Session I- Global Terrorism: Response

The Session was chaired by Ambassador Shukla and had Dr. Levy and Dr. Ajay Sahni as the key speakers. Dr. Levy spoke on the Israeli experience and concepts of global terrorism. Dr. Levy described Israel as an Island in the Middle East with inimical countries surrounding it and asserted that it, therefore, has a pro-active concept of national security where deterrence is achieved by early warning and military performance. Assessing the present situation in Israel and the entire region, Dr. Levy underlined the fact that the threat posed by religious extremism and the weakness of democracies in coping with terror are critical challenges. He asserted that intelligence and security agencies have to conduct both offensive and defensive operations to degrade terrorist organisations. Meanwhile, he also highlighted the need to prepare for handling energy, space and cyber terrorism, which will present new security challenges in the coming years.

Dr. Ajai Sahni focused on state-sponsored terrorism. He argued that all enduring terrorist movements in the world are state-sponsored or state-supported; everything else is tactical. The spectrum of state sponsorship of terror is wider and includes the provision of weapons, training, safe havens, ideological mobilisation, etc. Assessing the situation in India, Dr. Sahni mentioned that more than 62,000 people have lost their lives due to acts of terrorism sponsored by external support. He stressed on the need of open acknowledgement of state sponsorship of terrorism, while, at the same time, continuing to persist in other patterns of engagement with them. Dr. Sahni also stressed on the need to de-legitimise any cause behind an act of terrorism. This inflexible approach would force states away from tactical advantages that terrorism offers.

Session II – Arab Spring: Implications and Ramifications

The second session was chaired by Dr. Joseph Shevel, GIMI, and included Ambassador Kanwal Sibal and Admiral Shabtai Levy as the two key speakers. Amb Sibal spoke on India’s perspective on Arab Spring. He said that the term Arab Spring is a misnomer. It was basically the overthrowing of a regime whose sell-by date had expired. However, Amb Sibal argued that there can be no democracy unless there is a genuine break between religion and politics. He highlighted that there is an anti-thesis between Islam and secularism; they both are incompatible. Amb Sibal said that India is not comfortable with the overthrow of secular regimes and the coming to power of extremists like the Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood. The erstwhile regimes, despite their despotic nature, exercised control over the extremists. He reassured that an Arab style revolution cannot take place in India as the Muslims here are empowered and part of the democratic system.

Adm. Levy began his talk by assessing whether it was an Arab Spring or Winter? The domino effect of the fighting and instability in Syria can reach Israel’s borders. He argued that freedom of navigation is central to Israel’s economic and security interests. Israel has tremendous experience in countering terrorism due to continuous involvement for the past 40 years. Today, Adm. Levy argued, the terrorists are greatly deterred by Israel’s actions and they refrain from touching its aviation systems for hijackings because they know there would be repercussions. He also expressed his hope that the Israel’s peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan will remain intact. Israel has good relations with India, Turkey and Jordan which needs to be strengthened further. The developments in Iran and Afghanistan and the question whether they go into the Salafist/extremist/Al Qaeda fold needs to be observed closely.

Session III – AF–PAK 2014: Regional and Global Security Concerns

The session was chaired by Ambassador Satish Chandra and included Dr. Joseph Shevel and Lt. Gen. (retd) Ravi Sawhney as key speakers. Dr. Shevel began his talk by introducing the work which GIMI has been doing across the globe. Bridging gaps through education and capacity building programs has been the mission of GIMI. Dr. Shevel insisted that through cooperation in higher education and capacity building programs, Afghanistan’s growing instability can be cured. Also, on the Afghanistan’s security aspect, Dr. Shevel argued that a well educated and technically trained Afghan National Army (ANA) would be much more capable of ensuring Afghanistan’s safety post-2014.

Lt. Gen. Sawhney began his talk by describing a well captured image, depicting the ground realities as they were before 2001 and at present. The Afghanistan before 2001 was in rumbles, with no infrastructures like schools, hospitals, etc and no doctors and teachers. However, Lt. Gen Sawhney highlighted that Afghanistan has seen remarkable progress in many aspects of life. Assessing the sense of nationalism in Afghanistan, while Lt. Gen. Sawhney recognized the vast number of tribes and ethnic groups which constitute the nation, he, however, stressed that there is a sense of strong nationalism which holds them together.

On the prospects of Afghanistan post-2014, Lt. Gen. Sawhney addressed certain questions which would be central to the security of Afghanistan and the entire region. First was the question of the extent of forces of the US and NATO which would be left behind post 2014. The second question was on the process of reconciliation between the Afghan Government and the Taliban. Lt. Gen. Sawhney assessed the possibility of any successful reconciliation to be remote as Taliban insurgents do not seem to be willing for any reconciliation at all. The third question was of the Presidential elections which are to be held in April 2014. Lt. Gen. Sawhney argued that it would be absolutely necessary to see that the elections are held before the withdrawal and that the newly elected government gets sufficient time to establish firm control over the country.

SESSION IV – Geopolitics and Iran

The fourth session was chaired by Ambassador R. Rajagopalan and included Maj. Gen. (retd) Dr. Baruch Levy and Dr. Arvind Gupta as the key speakers. Dr. Levy, firstly, mentioned the long civilization history of Israel and Iran, describing how the two civilizations have, in fact, had periods of friendly relations. However, Iran, since 1979, has gone deep into fundamentalism and instead of becoming a liberated society, Iran has become an oppressed one. Iran has also taken up terrorism and has lead in sheltering, training and investing in terrorism and terrorist activities. Dr. Levy also expressed his concerns on Iranian nuclear program. Discussing the upcoming elections in Iran, Dr. Levy argued that a new President could bring about a policy change in Iran.

Dr. Arvind Gupta analyzed the much broader concept of geopolitics in context of Iran. It is an ancient civilization which gives its people tremendous depth and insight; it has an exceptional geographic location, dominating the Persian Gulf; it connects with Eurasia, South Asia, and controls an important Strait of Hormuz; it is the largest Shia country; and its ongoing nuclear program affects the security concerns of the West, GCC, etc. As far as the nuclear program is concerned, Dr. Gupta argued that Iran may survive the economic sanctions which have been put to stop Iran from pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. While affirming that the sanctions have hit the economy badly, there are doubts whether the sanctions will bring down the current regime. As Dr. Gupta rightly pointed out, Iran and its people have faced tough conditions in the past and they will readily cooperate with the regime, considering the fact that the nuclear project is a matter of national pride.

On the speculation of an attack on Iran, Dr. Gupta underlined the fact that Iran has a strong air defence system. He also highlighted that their nuclear projects and military establishments are underground and spread across vast lands, thus any ground military action will be too expensive. On Indian relations with Iran, Dr. Gupta asserted that it is highly speculative. Iran has not forgotten India’s vote against it in a resolution passed by the IAEA. Yet, considering the issues of energy security, India would need oil supplies from Iran, despite the tremendous amount of cut down which India has already introduced on Iranian-oil imports.

Ambassador Shukla concluded the seminar, thanking all the chairs and speakers. He thanked the delegation from GIMI and expressed his hope for more exchanges with specific focus on the agenda of Afghanistan post-2014 and Israel’s role in it.