Day: May 29, 2021
Taking score of the GCC at 40: better on economics than politics
On 05/27, the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW) celebrated this weeks’ 40 year anniversary of the founding of the Gulf Cooperation Council by discussing the organization’s origins, achievements, and future challenges. A Eurocentric approach to the GCC yields few results. The member states’ and region’s different dynamics make an EU benchmark counterproductive. Nonetheless, the panel agreed that this anniversary should be an opportunity to reconsider and renew the GCC’s Charter and mission. The GCC’s achievements are many. As the recent inter-GCC conflict showed, however, it faces serious challenges for the future too.
The speakers were:
Abdullah Baabood
Chair of the State of Qatar for Islamic Area Studies & Visiting Professor
School of International Liberal Studies, Waseda University
Matteo Legrenzi
Professor of International Relations
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Emma Soubrier
Visiting Scholar
Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington
Kristin Smith Diwan
Senior Resident Scholar
Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington
The GCC’s origins: no ‘Gulf-EU’
Matteo Legrenzi thinks it is important to acknowledge the different factors that led to the GCC. It is true that worries about Iran were a key reason. However, Gulf cooperation had been on the rise since independence from the UK in the 1970s. Furthermore, the GCC was intended to keep Iraq out, as much as it was intended to unite against Iran. Iraq had been seeking inroads in the Gulf in the context of its Arab nationalist leadership aspirations. Keeping Iraq out of the GCC was a clear signal in the context of the Iran-Iraq War. Diwan remarked that ironically the GCC’s secretary-general’s speech this week emphasized the efforts underway to involve Iraq in the GCC more. Baabood added that the Arab state system’s instability at the time also contributed to the Gulf’s desire for cooperation. Egypt’s peace with Israel and the Arab League’s outrage at the time put regional security on shaky footings.
Emma Soubrier explained that the GCC never became a regional security system, nor was it intended to. It did achieve a strong Gulf identity alongside the prevailing Arab identity of the time. This succeeded both domestically and internationally. Abdullah Baabood commented that the GCC achieved a tariff and trade union. It managed to become greater than the sum of its parts and outperformed expectations in doing so.
Matteo Legrenzi took some time to emphasize the differences between the GCC and the EU model. The domestic organization of GCC states – where a small ruling class wields absolute power – allows quick action to be taken when leaders agree. However, GCC institutions should not be expected to develop supra-national powers. All countries freely admitted to this from the start. Because of this, certain fields see less cooperation than others. Security and defense are less integrated than trade and economics for this reason.
Facing today’s challenges
The Middle East faces a new security order today. Rather than a post-US order, this is a multipolar order in which the US plays a definite part, according to Soubrier. We should therefore not be afraid to be a little US-centric. The conclusion of the al-Ula agreement (which ended the blockade of Qatar) mere weeks before Biden took office is no coincidence, for example. The conflict surrounding Qatar is a major elephant in the room in the GCC.
Baabood acknowledged that it is unprecedented. Its scope went beyond the political to include the societal and public opinion. It hurt the Khaleeji (Gulf) identity that the GCC had so successfully helped establish. Furthermore, it went directly against the GCC common market, without using any GCC mechanisms for resolving disputes. This seriously harmed the trust the GCC is built upon. Much remains to be restored after al-Ula particularly between Qatar and the UAE. Soubrier did emphasize that the GCC leaves much room for bilateral projects and cooperation. This “integration at different speeds” is one of the GCC’s strengths.
The war in Yemen is another conflict in which the GCC might play a part. However, Legrenzi warned that the GCC should not be expected to play a role in political resolutions. Rather, its strength will be in reconstruction of the Yemeni economy, once the political disputes have been resolved. Yemeni accession to the GCC is unlikely because the monarchical model is central to the GCC.
The future
The panel concluded with discussion of the directions the GCC could and should take in the near future. Soubrier emphasized the need for more human-based security. Humanitarian issues in the region are at a peak and the disconnect between Gulf leaders’ vision and public sentiment – e.g. on the recent Gaza war – shows the need for a new focus. Legrenzi and Baabood agreed that the 40th anniversary would be a good occasion to review the GCC Charter. As Legrenzi noted, the charter is a product of the 1970s and 80s. It is full of language relating to Arab nationalism, making it a historical document rather than a modern guideline. There are some mechanisms and aspirations mentioned in the charter which never came to fruition. The GCC countries should take the opportunity to reassess their vision for the organization. This could reinvigorate the project in the process.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 29
– WaPo notes that John Warner served when chairmen ruled. Now party leadership has taken control, undermining what I favor as the regular order.
-As the US tries to sort out the role of the Space Force, Jeff Shesol reminds us how Eisenhower and Kennedy fought to keep the US space program civilianized.
– WSJ notes that “hijacking” was originally coined to describe thefts of bootleg liquor.
– Quincy Institute has an interesting report on reforming think tanks.
– Just Security says junior officers are more likely to resist civilian orders.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Republican disrespect for America is a big win for Democrats
Memorial Day Monday commemorates those lost defending America in its too many wars. Yesterday the Republicans in the Senate, using the filibuster, blocked creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 attack on The Capitol. The irony should be lost on no one: while commemorating those who defend America, elected representatives are preventing investigation of the most successful physical attack on its institutions, and on them, since 1812. Why?
It’s not because they don’t want to know why January 6 happened. It’s because they know perfectly well. Supporters of then-President Trump were attempting to disrupt the constitutionally mandated tabulation in Congress of the Electoral College results. Trump himself encouraged them to do so, claiming fraud during the November election that did not occur and urging his supporters to march on The Capitol. The January 6 rioters, hundreds of whom are now charged in court, included white supremacists and others who wanted to prevent the votes of Black and Brown minorities from deciding the outcome of the election.
Creation of the bipartisan commission would have been an excellent opportunity for the Republican Party to separate itself from the racist miscreants who led the January 6 insurrection. The party leadership–which includes not only Trump himself but notably also Senate Minority Leader McConnell–passed on that opportunity, despite McConnell’s speech after the second impeachment blaming Trump for the assualt. The result is all too apparent: the GOP is now fully committed to racism and white supremacy, not only in Congress but also through the dozens of bills introduced in state legislatures to limit voting by non-whites.
The main question now is whether this racist political program will thrive or not. The six Republican senators who voted in favor of the January 6 commission will soon have to decide whether they can continue to inhabit the GOP or need to break definitively from it. That kind of formal split would doom the Republicans to serious losses in the 2022 election. Even without a formal split, racist strength among GOP loyalists, who are the main participants in primaries, guarantees that it will nominate for the House and Senate more candidates who back Trump than the six defectors. The 2022 election will be a referendum not only on Biden’s performance, which is garnering solid approval so far, but also on Trump Republicanism, which retains something like 30% support.
That’s why the voting rights issue is so important. The electorate that put Biden in office would unquestionably inflict a massive defeat on the racist version of the GOP. But mid-term elections like 2022 do not bring out the same electorate as a presidential contest. Fewer people, and fewer minorities in particular, vote. If Republicans at the state level suppress the vote by making it more difficult for people to register, cast absentee ballots, get to the polls, and cast their votes, Trumpism has a far better chance, even though he will not be on the ballot.
He won’t be in 2024 either, despite his effort to suggest that he might run again. There are indications prosecutors in New York will be charging Trump within the next few months with financial crimes, including tax fraud and election campaign violations as well as other associated felonies. Conviction could take a long time, so he will be wrapped up in court for years to come, if his health holds up. It is hard for me to imagine that Trump will continue to be a fundraising paladin once indicted, but if he is donors will be throwing good money down a rat hole. The notion of a Republican presidential nominee who is under indictment or convicted is beyond my imagination, though of course it is possible.
Speaker Pelosi will now appoint a select commission, including a quotient of non-Trumpist Republican-affiliated big shots. If it manages to report truthfully before the end of the year or early next, the impact could be close to that of a bipartisan commission. By defeating that proposition, Trump has guaranteed he will be blamed for January 6. The Republicans are defeating themselves. Democrats should not be too unhappy.
RSS - Posts
