Manuel Almeida: Is de-escalation of Saudi-Iranian tensions possible/Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the region’s new equation/Mahir Zeynalov: Turkey’s culture of impunity
Is de-escalation of Saudi-Iranian tensions possible?
Manuel Almeida/Al Arabiya/October 08/15
The accusations, threats and general tone in many of the reactions from officials and public figures in the region to the awful stampede in Mecca on Sept. 24 were politics at its worse. Dismay and calls for accountability were inevitable following one of the worst accidents in the history of the hajj, with over 700 people killed, but the moment deserved far more soberness.The way that Saudi-Iranian tensions were brought to the fore over the incident gave the dangerous idea there are no reasonable limits to political and strategic rivalry. Writing after the tragedy, Abdulrahman al-Rashed, one of the most prominent and internationally respected Saudi journalists, said his country and Iran have presently reached “the highest level of tension” since the Iran-Iraq war ended in Aug. 1988.
Not irremediable
The calls for serious diplomatic engagement between the Saudi and Iranian leaderships, as a key step to improving relations and a path to address regional turmoil, have become frequent. Observers see bilateral tensions as a result primarily of the sectarian outlook of the two leaderships. This reading ignores a few important facts. First, with Iraq (the other big power in the Gulf) close to disintegration, an intensification of the strategic competition between Saudis and Iranians was to an extent inevitable. It also ignores how before the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in Iran, Saudis and Iranians kept a working relationship despite the rivalry on a few fronts.The latest news from Yemen regarding a written commitment from the Houthis to the seven-point peace plan brokered by the United Nations during talks in Muscat has to be treated with caution.
Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, understood well the importance of dialogue with Riyadh, to the annoyance of hard-line factions in Tehran. Framing this rivalry as a tit-for-tat sectarian battle equally overlooks the existence of a clear hegemonic project by Iranian hardliners and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). They pay little respect to the already weakened rules of state sovereignty in the region. This radical ideology and view of the region is no longer shared by all political factions with influence in Tehran. The way Major-General Qassem Suleimani, one of the biggest champions of Iran’s aggressive and intrusive military adventures in neighboring states, has been brought under closer oversight could be a sign of that. However, the powerful hardliners need an external enemy, and with the current hands-off U.S. approach to Middle Eastern crises, plus the Iran nuclear deal, they are short of enemies. Saudi Arabia becomes an obvious target. As Rashed put it, “for those acquainted with the situation, it’s not difficult to understand the reasons of Saudi concerns over Iran.”
Where to begin?
If any progress is to be achieved in getting Saudis and Iranians to talk meaningfully on how to reduce tensions and address some of the region’s crises, pragmatism is needed. It should be assumed that bilateral relations will not improve substantially in the near future, not with some many important differences to be bridged. A minimalist goal of basic confidence-building is already plenty to aim for. Where could this constructive engagement begin? Addressing a specific issue such as the war in Syria and its devastating impact would be the obvious place to start. However, not only is the conflict extremely complex, the Russian military intervention in aid of the Syrian regime has provided Iran with new room to keep sidelining a compromise that could potentially accommodate much of the Syrian opposition.
Contrary to what a few pundits have argued, for Iran to share with Russia its influence over the Syrian regime is an affordable price to pay for keeping its foothold in Damascus. If, tragically, the Syrian crisis gives the impression of getting worse before it gets better, could Yemen be a place to start? Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has been vocal about Tehran’s willingness to support a political solution in Yemen. Concessions are needed for confidence-building, and Yemen is where the Iranian government could compromise if it is serious about its intentions and has enough political power at home to push for such a compromise.
For the Saudis, the prospect of a Hezbollah-like militia controlling much of north Yemen and the government in Sanaa is a red line, and Tehran knows it. For Iran, neither support for the Houthis or Yemen as a whole constitute a key priority. At most, it keeps Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, which back the Syrian opposition, busy with a tough and expensive problem to solve. The latest news from Yemen regarding a written commitment from the Houthis to the seven-point peace plan brokered by the United Nations during talks in Muscat has to be treated with caution. It is not the first time the Houthis indicate their willingness to comply with the terms of a political solution while their actions on the ground tell otherwise. This time, however, it comes in the context of important gains by pro-government forces and the coalition. The soft talk of Iranian officials on Yemen has also contrasted with the ongoing attempts to deliver advanced weaponry to the rebels. Throughout the current conflict, most observers have underestimated the influence Iran and its revolutionary ideology have played in the rise of the Houthis. Given the negative Iranian role, Tehran should not expect much from Riyadh in return for any positive contribution to a political solution in Yemen.However, dropping support for the Houthis’ unrealistic and destructive plans could send a signal and mark the beginning of a less negative phase in Saudi-Iranian relations, while contributing to Yemen’s stabilization.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the region’s new equation
Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi/Al Arabiya/October 08/15
The Arab world now stands in need of a compass to point it on its way. The problems of the Arab regional system, plus the negativity of the Arab League, have left a vacuum which regional parties are trying to fill as they expand in the region and interfere in the internal affairs of Arab countries. With some Arab countries, having become fields for other countries’ political and militant activities, regional security has gone into a predictable decline. All eyes, it seems, are fixed on the important and influential Saudi-Emirati axis.
I believe the two allies’ strategic cooperation has saved the region from danger. Many agree that the strategic relations between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are evident in two ways: The two countries’ relations with each other as well as their influence in the region. I believe the two allies’ strategic cooperation has saved the region from danger. This was seen clearly at the time of the June 30 revolution in Egypt when they supported the choice of the masses who came out to protest. Their joint cooperation has also been highly evident in Yemen where the two armies went to the rescue of the Yemeni people. They opposed the expansionist dreams of some powers in the region, sacrificing their martyrs unhesitatingly in an effort to bring legitimacy and stability back to Yemen.
A shared foundation
The two countries have more than political positions or interests in common. Theirs is rather a relationship built on cultural awareness and a shared foundation. On the most basic level, it is worth noting that many Saudis live and work in the UAE and feel completely at home there. Many believe that the two countries can play an important role in protecting the Arab system which has been harshly jolted by the so-called Arab Spring and other changes in the region. The strategic partnership between the two countries represents a model that has succeeded in creating a cohesive regional bloc, and has also successfully challenged attempts to undermine it. In Europe, the French-German experience stands as the model for a relationship that led to European unity and the stability of Western Europe during the Cold War. The BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China — and to a certain extent, South Africa, have positive relations and share economic interests. They are a huge force according to current global economic standards. Other major world blocs show how partnerships can become institutional bodies linking interests and unifying political positions.
A common strategy
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have a shared vision in political ideology and strategies, with neither having any expansionist dreams. Currently and historically, the two countries have played a major mediating role in bringing Arab countries closer to each other by striving for an end to conflicts and tensions. This political reality based on wise and moderate policies is a good foundation for the alliance, particularly in that the region’s political leaders have a roadmap for bringing stability to the region and focusing on development and prosperity instead of wars. This correct vision makes it important to have a relationship with a high street-credibility and considerable political and economic influence which both countries. Looking at the development of the Saudi-led coalition in Operation Decisive Storm, one can clearly see how the two countries’ strategic relations formed the core of the alliance. The Saudi-UAE alliance was able to establish a presence on the international political stage.
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, the UAE foreign minister, stressed the strength of the relationship at the U.N. which is the most important international podium. He stood there and said: “The UAE stands firmly with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in opposition to any Iranian attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of the Arab states.”In support of that, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have taken the initiative to protect the Arabs from opportunistic plans which would jeopardize the region’s stability. The Gulf remains one of the richest areas in the world but it lives amid flames which make coordination and cooperation a vital necessity.The strategic partnership between Saudi Arabia and the UAE can and should lead this union. The Gulf can only be protected by its sons and the blood of its martyrs has shown that to the world.
Turkey’s culture of impunity
Mahir Zeynalov/Al Arabiya/October 08/15
In traditional societies, political and economic security come with loyalties in various forms. Turkey is no exception. What is unfortunate in Turkey’s case is that it has been struggling to join the EU and reform its bureaucracy and economic structure in line with Western standards. Despite significant progress initially, that dream has long gone. In the United States, for instance, many believe that the path to success is through hard work because there is equal access to opportunity for almost everyone. In Turkey, however, loyalty to one group or another is considered a sure path to success. Displaying political allegiance is rewarded. This mentality has the potential to disrupt media, bureaucracy, judiciary and even civil society groups. Fear of breaking laws is replaced with fear of losing lucrative goodies. High-level government officials and local authorities are acting with impunity. They understand well that political loyalty is more important than complying with the law.
Before anti-government protests that rocked Turkey for a month two years ago, the government at least tried to remain within the law, even if its actions were considered illegitimate. This is not the case anymore. High-level government officials and local authorities are acting with impunity. They understand well that political loyalty is more important than complying with the law. This harmful atmosphere has created a large segment of disadvantaged people, who are disillusioned with the rule of law in the country.This deepens societal divisions and reinforces identity politics.
Military
On Saturday, for example, a horrific video surfaced on social media that enraged the entire society. It showed the body of an alleged militant linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) being dragged in a street. A member of the Turkish special forces is heard swearing at him, a reflection of deep-seated hatred against Kurdish separatists that is still prevalent in some segments of Turkish nationalists. The government and pro-government media have significantly escalated their sometimes-racist rhetoric against Kurds since the June 7 parliamentary elections. Pro-government newspaper Sabah even ran a story that characterized the incident as a “routine practice” to check if the body is strapped with explosives.
The rise of the PKK in the 1990s was largely due to inhumane treatment of Kurds in the southeast. Twenty years ago, Turkish special forces burned down villages, tortured dissidents and killed suspects in cold blood. It seems the authorities failed to ensure that troops and special forces take extra care in using their power while fighting the PKK. Every army has rogue officers, but a responsible army punishes wrongdoers. The idea that special forces drag the body of a militant in Kurdish-populated residential areas, openly swear at him, film the incident and share it online indicates how certain they are that their actions will go unpunished.
Media
Just hours before the incident, another special-forces member was caught on camera threatening a journalist at gunpoint. This is an everyday ordeal for Turkish journalists. It is naive to expect law-enforcement officers to respect journalists when President Recep Tayyep Erdogan is openly threatening journalists in public rallies and promising to jail more of them. I doubt that a police officer could dare put a gun to a journalist’s head if the authorities made sure journalists were free to do their job. The environment is enabling such rogue officers to abuse their power. There was even more cause for concern when four thugs beat up prominent journalist Ahmet Hakan outside his house last week. This is a chilling signal to every critical voice in Turkey that they may face a similar fate. Suspects who attacked the journalist confessed that the intelligence and “reis” – a Turkish euphemism for Erdogan – were involved in the incident. In what type of democracy are mercenaries sent to beat up a journalist?
Judiciary
Nothing could depict this culture of impunity more than a judge posting unbelievably partisan and obscene messages on Twitter. Many were shocked to see the judge using a real profile photo, name and bio. In his posts, he feels confident trolling journalists and activists on Twitter, posting partisan tweets and swearing at anyone who criticizes the government. In what type of democracy can a judge act in such a blatantly partisan way? Perhaps he thinks that being a government apologist will save him.
The judiciary is slowly becoming partisan. Because standing by the government is a shortcut to promotion, judges and prosecutors do whatever it takes to earn the government’s favor. For example, a prosecutor prepared a 1,453-page indictment last week, claiming that those who carried out twin corruption investigations targeting Erdogan’s inner circle attempted “to stage a coup.” Jurists mocked the prosecutor, saying the document was almost completely fabricated. In what type of a democracy can a prosecutor prepare such a farcical indictment? Perhaps he thinks it is a way to climb up the ladder. The rule of law is a significant ingredient of any functioning democracy. It does not only ensure the proper punishment of violators, but also helps eradicate a mentality that believes breaking the law is permissible as long as there is a reward.
