Saudi Arabia and the United States: A Lover's Quarrel

Last Friday, October 18th, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia announced that it was unhappy in its relationship with the United States of America. This news was not especially disturbing to the United States, as we have incurred the displeasure of Saudi Arabia before with no real consequences. Based King Abdullah's recent actions, however, it appears as if Saudi Arabia means business this time.

The first hint we had of the King's disillusionment with the United States was his rejection of a seat on the U.N. Security Council.The Saudi government had been grooming government officials and lobbying for this highly sought-after position for the better part of a year when, on October 18th, the Kingdoms efforts were vindicated.The announcement that Saudi Arabia would have a seat on the U.N. Security Council was met with cheers and jubilation, but these celebrations were short-lived. Mere hours later, a shocking announcement came from the capital in Riyadh. The King ordered Saudis, "...'to cancel the celebration'. In a step unprecedented since the UN’s creation, the kingdom declared that it would renounce the seat. The council had failed to bring peace to the Middle East, it said, noting in particular Palestine and the civil war in Syria. So membership would be refused until the council is reformed." 

Despite Saudi Arabia's failure to cause any real damage in the past, King Abdullah seems determined now to make trouble for United States. He is upset with our foreign policy --or lack thereof-- in the Middle East and it appears that he is serious in his threats this time around. Rejection of the seat on the Security Council is the first of many actions Saudi Arabia can take to rebuke America for its recent, yet egregious, foreign policy blunders in Syria. One option is to hit us where it hurts -- oil imports. The United States imports 8.1% of its oil from Saudi Arabia -- with Saudi Arabia's help, gas prices have remained in check, but who knows what would happen if we broke things off? Also, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia possesses vast amounts of wealth and has already hinted at its plans to provide twelve times the amount financial aid that the United States currently supplies to Egypt. This proposal must look very appetizing to Egyptians, considering we supported the overthrow of their president, but provided no viable solution to the power vacuum that followed. Oh, and don't forget that we recently reduced the amount of aid we send to Egypt. Were I Egyptian, I would be awfully tempted by Saudi Arabia's offer.

Clearly, Saudi Arabia is no longer intimidated by the United States and the government has the ability to cause a great deal of problems for America. Regardless, Saudi Arabia will not be alone for long. Soon enough, the Kingdom will realize that it lacks the military capabilities to stand alone -- a service that the United States has readily provided in the past. I am certain, however, that Russia would be more than happy to fill the hole left behind by the United States. What needs to happen is a mutual reconciliation, to be initiated by the United States. America must start producing viable, non-military solutions to the turmoil in the Middle East. Then and only then will we be back in King Abdullah's good graces.  

  

Why Don't Americans Care More About Foreign Policy?

As a foreign policy enthusiast, it always comes as a shock to learn how little most Americans care about what's going on in other parts of the world. Perhaps it's more that they are unaware of the political situations in other countries, but in my opinion, that is still an unforgivable offense. If you were to ask the average person on the street, "What are your feelings on going to war with Syria?", It would be safe to assume that the majority would respond somewhere along the lines of, " War with Syria would be a terrible idea!" -- and I would have to agree with them. Now, just for kicks, you ask another question, "Can you tell me who is the current ruler of Syria?" or better yet, "Where exactly IS Syria?" and I bet that most respondents will be left struggling to come up with an answer. Even back in 2012 in the race for the presidency, Mitt Romney was caught with his pants down when he claimed that Syria was Iran's direct route to the sea. Fyi, Iran already borders the sea... on two sides. ( Image below for your viewing pleasure)

Although this foreign policy gaffe comes from last year's election, it is more than frightening that a presidential candidate knew that little about the region currently drawing on massive amounts of U.S. diplomatic and military resources.

Poking fun at Romney aside (however fun it may be), U.S. politicians are not the only members of society that can be faulted for their ignorance and apathy. When it comes to foreign policy, many Americans simply brush it off and refuse to believe that their country's fate is interlinked with events transpiring across the globe. To quote a professor of international politics at Tufts in an opinion piece he wrote for the New York Times, "Foreign policy is boring, but important." Now, I don't necessarily agree with the "boring" part, but I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that a majority of Americans who read this sentence were vigorously nodding their heads in approval.

At crucial junctures, such as presidential elections, the continuing economic stagnation and our most recent shutdown fiasco, people tend to focus their efforts on the issues closest to them -- and understandably so. Many would ask themselves, if people are suffering in our own country, then why should our government focus its efforts abroad? Now, I am by no means arguing that our economic and political situation does not require our attention, but I do not believe that this should distract from our relationships and dealings with other nations. We still need government officials and policy-makers to focus on halting Assad's murder of innocent Syrian citizens and to monitor the successful --for now-- dismantling of his chemical weapons program. Our efforts must also stay focused on Syria to prevent the rise of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra front that has emerged from the chaos. We most certainly need to continue monitoring the situation in Iraq because, although we pulled out the majority of our troops, we caused a great deal of destruction to an already ailing nation.  If we cease to care now, the situations in these nations will continue to deteriorate and our negligence may come back to bite us in the future.

In addition its current status as global watchdog,  the U.S. government needs to maintain old diplomatic relationships and continue to build new ones -- something our economic and more recent partisan issues has hindered.  Our more important role on the world stage and higher levels of global interconnection demands a greater awareness of foreign affairs from all of us, especially those in positions of power. Ignorance in this domain is a dangerous beast and can only lead to a repeat of the disasters similar to Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued disintegration of the United States' relationship with the leaders of Arab nations.

Now, it may seem as if I am being overly critical of U.S. citizens and policy-makers, but I assure you that is not my intent.Foreign policy is a dynamic field of study and even I cannot profess to be an expert in the region -- but I have committed myself to developing my understanding in order to become a more conscientious citizen. Here are some reasons why everyone should take some time out of their day to learn more about happenings in other parts of the world:

1) All Americans know that wars are being waged in the Middle East, but learning why they are occurring will bring a much deeper understanding of a region plagued by social, political, religious and economic issues -- this knowledge can only increase our government's production of viable policy solutions.

2) Learning where different countries are geographically speaking will also aid in our understanding of the region's conflicts. For example, the Syrian refugee problem in Turkey would make a great deal more sense if people knew that the two countries share a border. Plus, geographical skills are always impressive.

3) Increased awareness of regional conflicts creates more informed and capable voters. (The U.S. economy is important, but we're also spending billions of dollars in the Middle East)

Hopefully this serves as instructive. I am not writing for the sake of criticizing, but to push people to develop greater global cognizance!

Food for thought.

Why Mohammed Assaf's Arab Idol Victory Is More Than Just A Record Deal

If you are familiar with the t.v. show American Idol--and I'm assuming you are--than you are aware of its premise--taking ordinary people with extraordinary talent and  transforming them into international singing sensations. The show caught like wildfire, and versions of American Idol have cropped up in countries from Brazil to Bangladesh, drawing aspiring pop stars from all economic backgrounds. Despite the contest's promises of fame and fortune, for some, winning this contest holds a much deeper meaning--especially those who have very little to be happy about. For Palestinians, Mohammed Assaf's Arab Idol victory was something to celebrate in a place where they have very little in the way of good news.  

Those who do not experience the ostracization and abuse first-hand fail to realize the extent of inequality that Palestinians experience on a day to day basis. Ben White of the Huffington Post outlined some of these disparities in a past blog post:

"Since 1948, more than 700 Jewish communities have been established in Israel's pre-1967 borders, and just seven for Palestinian citizens. By the mid-1970s, the average Arab community inside Israel had lost 65-75% of its land. Around 1 in 4 Palestinian citizens are 'present absentees' (i.e. internally displaced), their lands and property confiscated by the state. Residency in 70% of Israeli towns is controlled by 'admissions committees' that filter out those 'unsuitable' for the 'social fabric' of the community." 

After decades of marginalization and discrimination, Palestinians were searching for something to celebrate, and they found it in Mohammed Assaf. 

Apart from the social implications, Assaf's victory also held political overtones. It served as a focal point around which the disjointed factions in Palestine could unify, if only for a short while. The rift between Fatah and Hamas has only expanded since the upheaval caused in 2007 when the groups split into warring factions. After the schism, the two factions were preoccupied fighting amongst themselves and weakened their presence in the face of their common enemy, Israel. This weakness undermined their efforts to prevent Israel from continuing to push Palestinians to the outer limits of society as a "demographic problem".

Despite early condemnation, even the radically conservative group Hamas recognized that Palestine desperately needed a positive symbol around which to unite. Assaf has since gained the approval of both Fatah and Hamas, and has been granted a diplomatic passport to Palestine to act as ambassador to the territory. Although it is impossible for Assaf's victory to erase decades of pain and suffering, it proves to Palestinians that there is still hope for happiness and unity. 

And now, for your listening pleasure, Mohammed Assaf singing 3ali Al Keffiyeh (Raise Your Keffiyeh):

Ripple Effects of the Government Shutdown

This post lacks the Middle East foreign policy focus that trends throughout my previous posts, however, it touches on foreign policy as a whole and how conservative idiocy is detrimental to U.S. diplomatic efforts. The government shutdown affects more people than just those representing Democratic party. In addition to the suspension of "non-essential" government services and the furlough of approximately 800,000 workers, this current conservative temper tantrum has created a ripple effect that stretches overseas. Although the effects of the shutdown have a much wider reach, for my purposes, I am concerned about the wrench it has thrown in the works of U.S. diplomatic efforts.

 In the light of growing instability in the Middle East and North Korea, and our tenuous relationships with numerous other nations, our diplomatic efforts are more crucial than ever before. Due to the government shutdown, President Barack Obama has once again been forced to postpone a diplomatic visit  to Asia, specifically Indonesia for a vital opportunity to boost appeal for more extensive U.S.-Asia trade agreements. In his blog post about Obama's postponed trip, Max Fisher of the Washington Post emphasizes the vital symbolic importance of this missed diplomatic opportunity. The United States wishes to shift its foreign policy focus away from the Middle East and more towards Asia--a region full of commercial, entrepreneurial and technological promise. President Obama's failure to appear at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Bali projects an image of America as a nation that is slowly decreasing in global influence, which is exactly the opposite of the image we should be casting as we carry on our competition with China and Russia.

While the Republican Party thought that the shutdown would coerce Democrats into repealing an act that gained the approval of Congress, the Supreme Court and the United States populace, they are, in fact, shaming America's reputation the world over.

Thanks, guys.

Muslims? Democracy? Preposterous! Or is it?

In the dialogue surrounding Middle East foreign policy and the Arab Spring these days, I often hear discussion of the question, “Is the Middle East ready for democracy?” Many pundits tend to argue that, no, the Middle East is not ready to switch from its authoritarian roots to an open, democratic societal system. But why do they feel that way? What is the logic behind this reaction? It’s simple, really: according to the aforementioned pundits, Middle Eastern culture and values make it impossible for Arab nations to attain such lofty levels of political freedom and awareness. The idea that religious and cultural beliefs alone can preclude a nation from achieving democratic governance is rather insulting to Arabs the world over.

I wonder, how do the nay-sayers know for certain that democracy in the Middle East is an impossibility? The glaringly obvious answer would be that, gee, up until now, there haven’t been any successful established democratic systems in Arab nations. At first glance, it seems as if this line logic has left no room for argument. I would like to point out that, until now, certain foreign powers have prematurely vilified and obstructed elections when they felt that their strategic interests were threatened. Based on this new information, perhaps the question begging to be asked is not “Is the Middle East ready for democracy”, but rather, “Are outside powers ready to accept the forms of democracy that will be produced by the Middle East?”

In Iran, 1951--again, not an Arab nation, but still considered part of the greater Middle East--Mohammad Mossadeq was democratically elected Prime Minister. Mossadeq was not an illegitimate candidate. He promised progressive social and political reforms for Iran and also planned to nationalize Iranian oil so that his country could master its own natural resources. Until this point in time, a concession granted to William D’Arcy in the early 1900's dictated that the majority of Iranian oil and oil revenues belonged to Britain and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Nationalizing Iranian oil would mean that a greater portion of the revenues coming from the AIOC would be redirected into the Iranian economy, rather than finding their way into the hands of the British. Concerned at the prospect of giving up their lucrative enterprise, the British MI-6 collaborated with the CIA to overthrow Mossadeq in 1953 and replace him with the previously ousted Mohammad Reza Shah--a joke of a political leader and a Western puppet. Documents declassified in 2011 verified the CIA’s participation in the overthrow of a democratically elected leader in order to replace him with one who would be more easily malleable to Western foreign interests.

The coup of 1953 is a perfect example of Westerners' fear of what they cannot control--especially when it comes to the rise of Islam in politics. Many suffering from Islamophobia refuse to accept the legitimacy of candidates whose religious beliefs are at odds with their own. We would back a secular candidate over an Islamic one in a heartbeat, and justify it by saying, "Islam is incompatible with democracy," completely disregarding their qualifications to rule, as we did in Iran. The second Mubarak was ousted, the Western world was gripped with fear that an Islamic leader would take his place in the power vacuum. Before we had heard anything about Mursi's qualifications as a leader, the words "Muslim Brotherhood" had us all up in arms. It might be prudent to mention here that today's Muslim Brotherhood, although still far too conservative for my standards, is not the violent radical Islamist party of the 1930s-1970s, having renounced its violent ways decades ago. Despite Mursi's incompetence as a leader, the democratic process was founded on the principle that all parties wishing to participate must be allowed to do so, not just those with whom we agree.

Democracy is not something that can be taken out of a mold and forced upon a nation. Democratic systems must change and adapt to best fit the personality of the country in which they are operating. This means that yes, even Islamic parties can produce successful democratic candidates! Islam and democracy can exist simultaneously, if given the chance--just look at the developments in Turkey within the last decade. Foreign leaders need to accept that democracy, as a dynamic institution, develops differently in different parts of the world. A democracy that has developed outside of the narrow bounds of Western notions is not inherently any less legitimate than our own.

American Interventionism: A Cautionary Tale

Although President Obama has since scaled back his intentions to execute a strike on Syria, his finger still hovers over the proverbial “button”. Military action and U.S. intervention in the Middle East in general, is a bad idea—I know, this all sounds terribly unpatriotic, but hear me out. What the United States government and military officials fail to understand is that there is no such thing as black and white when it comes to the Middle East –there is no quick fix. Did somebody say the War in Iraq? Oh, and the one in Afghanistan too? (Not technically an Arab country, but you get my point). Despite numerous failed attempts, we keep sticking our beak, as it were, into the Arab nations’ business. 

Why has the world’s premier military-intelligence complex been unable to enact viable change in the Middle East up until this point, you ask? Well, I’ll give you one reason, at least. It is because they don’t know what they’re getting themselves into! Enter, sectarianism. Here in the United States, despite our superficial differences, we are a relatively homogenous people. Our nation has had time in the post-industrial phase to develop a sense of stability and balance that nations in the Middle East have not yet been able to achieve. Arab nations are wrought with complexities – religious offshoots within religious offshoots, tribal affiliations, marginalized non-Arab ethnic groups, warring political factions, etc. In theory, the head of the government should deal with conflicts on all of these levels simultaneously, or risk the unraveling of their nation. Sounds difficult, right? That is precisely why, in reality, many dictators, such as Bashar Al-Assad, choose not do so. Let me clarify what I mean when I say “sectarianism” in regards to Syria, as it has a different meaning for every Arab nation. Here is a visual that should help:

As you can see, the map is full of complexities. For simplicity's sake, let’s just say that religious sectarianism is the primary source of divisiveness in Syria, and that the two major players are the Shi’a and the Sunni. Now, to make things even more complicated, the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, his officials and the military—thanks to some careful planning and nepotism—are Alawites. With the start of this revolution in 2010, the already strained relationship existing between these groups was pushed to the breaking point. If U.S. intervention tips the scales either way, the entire nation will crumble. If we support the Sunnis, the oppressed majority could take this opportunity to make the Assad family pay for seventy years of Alawite oppression. By contrast, if Assad emerges victorious in spite of our support for the Sunnis, he will most certainly redouble his efforts to decimate the Sunni population. There is no way to win this war, as America has no say in a religious conflict that has existed in its present form for decades, and traces its roots back to 632 A.D. 

Terrible as it is to say, the existence of chemical weapons does not change this fact. We intervened in Iraq and toppled a dictator for the very same reasons, creating a power vacuum that led to a rapid increase in sectarian violence, sent Iraq into a tailspin and embroiled the United States in a decade-long war. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria makes a similar argument here, also drawing on the 1975 civil war in Lebanon as an example. I know I would not be keen on adding another war to the national agenda and public polls hint that others aren’t too keen on the idea either. Public opinion aside, imagine the devastating impact our intervention would have on ordinary Syrians. For the sake of the civilians, please, America, mind your own business. 

My Foray Into the Blogging World

Well,

This is my first adventure into the blogging world. My background is in Arabic and Middle East studies, so this blog will focus primarily on that region of the world. Through my posts, I hope to delve into Western perceptions of the Middle East and how those affect the United States socially, culturally and politically. I am using this as a means through which I can disseminate my knowledge and also for my own personal academic growth, so, feel free to share!

The title of my blog was inspired my Mitt Romney's ad-lib and misguided approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. More gaffes to come, of course.

"All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."


U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST  = CHECK. 

Nailed it.