DOCSLIB.ORG

KING ABDULLAH's GAME: AUTOCRATS and GLOBALIZED INTERESTS a Thesis Submitted to the Kent State University Honors College In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
KING ABDULLAH's GAME: AUTOCRATS and GLOBALIZED INTERESTS a Thesis Submitted to the Kent State University Honors College In KING ABDULLAH’S GAME: AUTOCRATS AND GLOBALIZED INTERESTS A thesis submitted to the Kent State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for University Honors by Sarah Jane Krisanda May, 2013 Thesis written by Sarah Jane Krisanda Approved by ________________________________________________________________, Advisor ________________________________________, Chair, Department of Political Science Accepted by _____________________________________________________, Dean, Honors College ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………...1 II. CONTEXT……………………………………………………………….14 III. INTEREST COALITION MODEL……………………………………...32 IV. ISLAMIC INTEREST COALITION NETWORK……………………...40 V. STATUS QUO INTEREST COALITION NETWORK………………...50 VI. REFORM INTEREST COALITION NETWORK……………………...56 VII. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………..71 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..74 iii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1………………………………………………………………………………..37 FIGURE 2………………………………………………………………………………..41 FIGURE 3………………………………………………………………………………..56 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is a product of two years of laughter, tears, triumph, pain, and a whole lot of helpful people. I want to thank Virginia, David, and John Krisanda for their unconditional love and support. Thanks to my entire family for all your prayers and encouragement. Thank you, Hamish Wallace and all my brothers from Alpha Phi Omega for everything. Thank you Jamie Johnson, Melisa Michael, and Victoria Sack for bringing me tea every time I pulled an all-nighter. I could not ask for better friends. Many thanks go to Jeanne Smith and Gina DeNardi. I appreciate all of the guidance you have given me about writing and life. You kept me sane, and you forever changed the way I think about learning. Thank you for always believing in me. I appreciate the scholars of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Special thanks go to Dr. Frances Trix and Dr. David Ottaway. It has been a pleasure. Thank you, also, to Dr. Richard Robyn and the Washington Program in National Issues class of 2013. I have learned how to find the right answers at Kent State University, but one person taught me how to ask the right questions. Ahmed, thank you for your stories. You are the reason I began this thesis. v Thank you, Dr. Joshua Stacher, Dr. Sara Newman, and Dr. Patti Dunmire. I appreciate all of your patience and your willingness to work with me. The passion you each have for knowledge and learning made my thesis worth writing. My greatest appreciation goes out to Dr. Julie Mazzei. Without her, I never would have completed this project. In fact if her first class had not introduced me to the interesting side of politics, I never would have pursued a political science degree. Mazzei, I can never thank you enough for all you have done for me. For all the emails you replied to at four in the morning, for all the times you put up with my hysterics, for every moment you asked me to consider a different idea, and for every time you expanded my world, I thank you. vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The escalation of the Arab Awakening has raised doubts as to whether the autocracies of the Middle East will be able to survive much longer. Uprisings have torn through the Middle East, rejecting repressive governments. As each new country rises up against its government, we are all left asking, “who’s next?” Most of the world turned a blind eye to authoritarianism, human rights abuses and social issues in the oil-producing countries of this region as long as the oil kept flowing. The world believed that even though the living conditions for the people of these countries were not ideal, the regimes were at least stable and would continue to export oil. Now that the stability of so many of these regimes has been rattled, it is critical to understand why some regimes have fallen and others have not. In an increasingly globalized society, the recent upheaval affects our entire world’s dynamic. The Middle East exerts a unique kind of influence on the world stage. Because the Middle East holds some of the largest stores of oil, its countries are vitally important in the global economy. The conservatism of the region’s social and cultural life is highly publicized for its slow crawl towards reform. Politically, the Middle East represents a collection of autocracies, and it is infamous for its isolated extremism. Saudi Arabia is unique even among other Middle Eastern states. 1 2 Saudi Arabia, as a crucial source of oil for the United States and other countries, is particularly important on the world stage. It maintains an appearance of relative stability among uprisings in Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen, but this stability should not be taken for granted. Saudi Arabia possesses characteristics similar to the political environments in the aforementioned countries, but its governance is handled with an elevated finesse. Not only is the government different, the society has a deeply imbedded tradition that sets it apart from the region. To understand the reasons Saudi Arabia is different from the rest of the Middle East, political scientists’ understanding of stability maintenance needs to be re-contextualized. Today, political, economic, social, and cultural interests from around the globe intersect and are challenging the way we think about analysis. The structure of analysis used by international political analysts is outdated, and its resulting conclusions skew our interpretation of Saudi Arabia and our world. How does King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia manage both domestic and global interests to maintain the survival of his regime? In this study, I will attempt to explain how Saudi Arabia has balanced global integration and societal isolation to maintain its stability. In the process, I will explain why current methodologies are no longer adequate to analyze the decision-making factors of governance and propose a revised theoretical model in response to the increasing trend of globalization. I will use the case of Saudi Arabia as a framework to focus on the ways in which autocratic leaders have adapted to the globalized demands placed upon them. Literature Review 3 Current political analysis of international factors on domestic leaders’ actions examines the roles of political actors, namely, individuals, states, and systems. Political interactions among these actors shape the way in which policy decisions are made. Individuals play a central role in policy making. Their behavior is influenced by many internal factors like their characters, ideologies, irrationalities, idiosyncrasies, and experiences. These internal factors contribute to the interactions individuals have with other individuals, and these interactions shape international relations (Rourke & Boyer, 2010). Another level of political analysis focuses on the ways states interact with each other. The global governance system recognizes that state sovereignty is central to political interactions. This means that states retain the right to their individual authority, and they act as distinct political actors. States contain similar internal influences in the form of societal norms, government structures, and national contexts. These characteristics affect the ways in which they interact with the international community (Rourke & Boyer, 2010). System-level analysis examines the restraints on international relations. It focuses on the structures of interactions among political actors. Systems are affected by the organization of authority and the nature of relationships among actors. The economic and political contexts of international relations influence the ways political actors interact and form policy, and system-level analysis focuses on the ways context and relationships affect global politics (Rourke & Boyer, 2010). These three “levels of analysis” are falling short of fully examining political interaction. I argue here that utilizing these distinct 4 levels of analysis in scholarship has been made obsolete due to globalization, which has blurred the lines between actors in the different arenas. Globalization takes many forms in the 21st century. Economic, social, political, technological, and cultural spheres are colliding and integrating. These spheres work together to form systems of cooperation. Globalization is the merging of peoples, economies, and ideologies, and it is transforming the way we think about politics (Brown, 2008; Lindholm & Olsson, 2011). Brown (2008) describes the evolution of globalization, writing, “prior globalizations were characterized by the obvious exploitative elements of military expansion and colonialism, [but] the current era of globalization has been brimming with promises for human development and global advancement” (p. 47). The evolution of technology and global capitalist markets has played a key role in enmeshing the ways in which international actors may influence domestic policy-makers. Both economics and technology are changing the face of cosmopolitans’ social spheres1. The global market has brought people together as cosmopolitans, and technology has increased the speed with which people come in contact with each other. Socially, “the global sphere can give rise to increased cultural understanding and resilience as well as create and aggregate tensions between national, social, and cultural groups” (Lindholm and Olsson, 2001, p. 225). As tensions grow, transnational actors form networks of interests,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israeli–Palestinian Peacemaking January 2019 Middle East and North the Role of the Arab States Africa Programme
    Briefing Israeli–Palestinian Peacemaking January 2019 Middle East and North The Role of the Arab States Africa Programme Yossi Mekelberg Summary and Greg Shapland • The positions of several Arab states towards Israel have evolved greatly in the past 50 years. Four of these states in particular – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and (to a lesser extent) Jordan – could be influential in shaping the course of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. • In addition to Egypt and Jordan (which have signed peace treaties with Israel), Saudi Arabia and the UAE, among other Gulf states, now have extensive – albeit discreet – dealings with Israel. • This evolution has created a new situation in the region, with these Arab states now having considerable potential influence over the Israelis and Palestinians. It also has implications for US positions and policy. So far, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Jordan have chosen not to test what this influence could achieve. • One reason for the inactivity to date may be disenchantment with the Palestinians and their cause, including the inability of Palestinian leaders to unite to promote it. However, ignoring Palestinian concerns will not bring about a resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which will continue to add to instability in the region. If Arab leaders see regional stability as being in their countries’ interests, they should be trying to shape any eventual peace plan advanced by the administration of US President Donald Trump in such a way that it forms a framework for negotiations that both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships can accept. Israeli–Palestinian Peacemaking: The Role of the Arab States Introduction This briefing forms part of the Chatham House project, ‘Israel–Palestine: Beyond the Stalemate’.
    [Show full text]
  • International Spectator
    This article was downloaded by:[UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] On: 9 December 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 769895062] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Spectator Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t768481834 Saudi Arabia Walks the Tightrope Paul Aarts Online Publication Date: 01 December 2007 To cite this Article: Aarts, Paul (2007) 'Saudi Arabia Walks the Tightrope', International Spectator, 42:4, 545 - 550 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/03932720701780413 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03932720701780413 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Saudi Arabia Walks the Tightrope Paul Aarts These are times of ascendency for Saudi foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Rising to Iran's Challenge
    RISING TO IRAN’S CHALLENGE GCC Military Capability and U.S. Security Cooperation Michael Knights Policy Focus 127 | June 2013 THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY RISING TO IRAN’S CHALLENGE GCC Military Capability and U.S. Security Cooperation Michael Knights Policy Focus 127 | June 2013 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2013 by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 2013 in the United States of America by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Cover photo: UAE, Italian, Bahraini, and U.S. armed forces sight in on a mock target while performing a Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure demonstration at the Port of Zayed area in Abu Dhabi, UAE, as part of Exercise Leading Edge 13, January 2013. Leading Edge 13 military-to-military engagements are intended to sharpen capabilities among nations in an effort to foster relationships and build regional security. (USMC photo/MSgt. Salvatore Cardella) CONTENTS The Author v Acknowledgments vii Executive Summary ix 1 | Introduction 1 2 | SWOT Analysis of the Gulf Militaries 7 3 | Key Missions for GCC Allies 23 4 | Implications for U.S. Security Cooperation 37 THE AUTHOR MICHAEL KNIGHTS is a Lafer fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, specializing in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and the Gulf states.
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis, Reform, Or Stagnation?
    DISCUSSION PAPER Saudi Arabia under Muhammed Bin Salman: Crisis, Reform, or Stagnation? Ebrar Şahika Küçükaşcı DISCUSSION PAPER Saudi Arabia under Muhammed Bin Salman: Crisis, Reform, or Stagnation? Ebrar Şahika Küçükaşcı Saudi Arabia under Muhammed Bin Salman: Crisis, Reform, or Stagnation? © TRT WORLD RESEARCH CENTRE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WRITTEN BY Ebrar Şahika Küçükaşcı PUBLISHER TRT WORLD RESEARCH CENTRE November 2019 PHOTO CREDIT ANADOLU AGENCY TRT WORLD İSTANBUL AHMET ADNAN SAYGUN STREET NO:83 34347 ULUS, BEŞİKTAŞ İSTANBUL / TURKEY TRT WORLD LONDON PORTLAND HOUSE 4 GREAT PORTLAND STREET NO:4 LONDON / UNITED KINGDOM TRT WORLD WASHINGTON D.C. 1819 L STREET NW SUITE, 700 20036 WASHINGTON DC / UNITED STATES www.trtworld.com researchcentre.trtworld.com The opinions expressed in this discussion paper represent the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the TRT World Research Centre. 4 Saudi Arabia under Muhammed Bin Salman: Crisis, Reform, or Stagnation? Introduction ince 2015, the world has witnessed In other words, MBS is an exception to his Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad predecessors, who only tried to modernise the bin Salman’s (MBS) ascension to country superficially. power and his ensuing designs to initiate top-down economic and However, upon closer inspection, it is clear that cultural reforms in Saudi Arabia. In the modernisation attempts of MBS have several Sthese four years, MBS has not only asserted himself inherent deficiencies, and will most likely fall short both domestically and internationally, but has also just like his predecessors’ efforts. On the one hand, established a positive framing of himself through his the planning process is widely viewed as being narrative of reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Changed Priorities in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia and the Emirates Rethink
    Introduction Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Comments Changed Priorities in the Gulf WP Saudi Arabia and the Emirates Rethink Their Relationship with Egypt Matthias Sailer S Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are likely to scale back noticeably on their generous financial gifts to Egypt under its President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In the one year that King Salman has ruled Saudi Arabia, the kingdom has improved rela- tions with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization the Egyptian regime portrays as the source of all evil. Riyadh’s overriding priority is now to stem Iran’s influence in the region, particularly in Yemen and Syria. However, in Syria especially, al-Sisi’s stance diverges from Saudi Arabia’s. Moreover, both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are frustrated by the lack of progress Egypt has made in improving its financial, economic and security situation. In addition, low oil prices have brought about a more restrictive spending policy in the Gulf. Consequently, for the first time since the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi, Germany and the EU have an opportunity to push for change in Egypt by offering financial support that is made conditional on implementing measures to increase political participation and improve governance. Between 2011 and the death of the Saudi Gulf Cooperation Council, primarily from King Abdullah in January 2015, Saudi and Saudi Arabia and the UAE, marched into UAE regional policies primarily targeted Bahrain. Their mission was to support Bah- preventing the so-called Arab Spring from rain’s ruling family in violently putting spilling over onto the Arab Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Denied Dignity RIGHTS Systematic Discrimination and Hostility Toward Saudi Shia Citizens WATCH
    Saudi Arabia HUMAN Denied Dignity RIGHTS Systematic Discrimination and Hostility toward Saudi Shia Citizens WATCH Denied Dignity Systematic Discrimination and Hostility toward Saudi Shia Citizens Copyright © 2009 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-535-0 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org September 2009 1-56432-535-0 Denied Dignity Systematic Discrimination and Hostility toward Saudi Shia Citizens I. Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations to the Government of Saudi Arabia ................................................... 2 Methodology .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rivalry in the Middle East: the History of Saudi-Iranian Relations and Its Implications on American Foreign Policy
    BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Summer 2017 Rivalry in the Middle East: The History of Saudi-Iranian Relations and its Implications on American Foreign Policy Derika Weddington Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, International Relations Commons, and the Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons Recommended Citation Weddington, Derika, "Rivalry in the Middle East: The History of Saudi-Iranian Relations and its Implications on American Foreign Policy" (2017). MSU Graduate Theses. 3129. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3129 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RIVALRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE HISTORY OF SAUDI-IRANIAN RELATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY A Masters Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University TEMPLATE In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science, Defense and Strategic Studies By Derika Weddington August 2017 RIVALARY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE HISTORY OF SAUDI-IRANIAN RELATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, August 2017 Master of Science Derika Weddington ABSTRACT The history of Saudi-Iranian relations has been fraught.
    [Show full text]
  • The Saudi-Iranian Meeting: Momentary Reconciliation Prior to Escalation? Yoel Guzansky
    INSS Insight No. 364, August 20, 2012 The Saudi-Iranian Meeting: Momentary Reconciliation prior to Escalation? Yoel Guzansky King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Iranian President Ahmadinejad met in Mecca last week at an emergency summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which decided to suspend Syria’s membership in the organization. This decision is mainly symbolic, but Ahmadinejad's participation at the OIC meeting on Saudi soil at this time was as surprising as was the invitation itself. Ahmadinejad, who headed a delegation of senior officials, had visited Saudi Arabia previously (December 2005 and March 2007), but given the events in Syria and the increased tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia, his visit carries significant weight. The two main ideological and geostrategic rivals in the Middle East appear to be attempting to bridge their differences and maintain open channels of communication, if only for tactical reasons. A year ago, King Abdullah spoke publicly against Assad for the first time. The exceptionally tough statement by the Saudi king, who demanded “to stop the killing machine,” was additional evidence that Saudi Arabia was pitted against the radical axis led by Iran, after a similar stance in Bahrain. Saudi Arabia, which is aiding the opposition in Syria, would like to see Assad fall, if only because this would cause Iran to lose its main ally, undermine the radical alignment, and give the Saudis the opportunity to lead a Sunni camp that is larger and more cohesive than in the past. This would occur if the Sunnis do in fact seize power in Syria.
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks Following Discussions with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and an Exchange with Reporters in Crawford, Texas April 25, 2002
    Administration of George W. Bush, 2002 / Apr. 25 for loving that child with all your heart It is an honor, a high honor, to be the and all your soul, and if you’re a good President of the greatest land on the face citizen, you’re responsible for loving a of the Earth. Thank you for giving me that neighbor. And that’s what’s happening in privilege. May God bless you all. God bless. America. This is a great country. I can’t tell you NOTE: The President spoke at 6:33 p.m. at how optimistic I am about the future of the Sioux Falls Arena. In his remarks, he re- our land. I’m optimistic that we’ll achieve ferred to senatorial candidate John Thune; peace. I’m optimistic that we will stand Gov. William J. Janklow of South Dakota and squarely in the face of evil, with acts of his wife, Mary Dean Janklow; and Joel Rosenthal, chairman, Ron Schmidt, national kindness and decency. And I’m optimistic committeeman, and Mary Jean Jensen, na- that this country will remain the most tional committeewoman, South Dakota Re- hopeful place on the face of the Earth. publican Party. Remarks Following Discussions With Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and an Exchange With Reporters in Crawford, Texas April 25, 2002 The President. Good afternoon. I was We discussed the need for Arab states honored to welcome Crown Prince to condemn terror, to stop incitement of Abdullah to my ranch, a place that is very violence, and as part of a long-term peace, special for me and a place where I wel- to accept Israel as a nation and a neighbor.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran and the GCC: Hedging, Pragmatism and Opportunism
    Research Paper Sanam Vakil Middle East and North Africa Programme | September 2018 Iran and the GCC Hedging, Pragmatism and Opportunism Iran and the GCC: Hedging, Pragmatism and Opportunism Summary • The withdrawal of the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has renewed international attention on Iran’s interventions in the Middle East. • While much of the Middle East leadership sees Iran as an adept foreign policy actor, which has successfully increased its influence and leverage in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, the country has few meaningful, conventional bilateral relationships. • Iran’s relations with the Gulf states are guided by opportunism rather than an overarching strategy. Traditionally, Tehran has focused on Israeli and US threats in the Middle East rather than relations with its southern Gulf neighbours. • Over the years, instead of dealing with the GCC as a bloc, Tehran has pursued bilateral relations with Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, capitalizing on internal GCC tensions, which have escalated since the 2017 Qatar crisis. These ties have enabled Tehran to protect itself from past US-led isolation and containment efforts, but have not graduated beyond reactionary, pragmatic engagement. • Gulf states, being cognizant of their geography and proximity to Iran and Saudi Arabia, have engaged with Tehran as part of a hedging strategy to balance against pressure from Riyadh. As seen by the Qatar crisis, this hedging policy has exposed deep divisions among the Arab Gulf states. Without accommodation and resolution of the Qatar crisis, relations among the Gulf countries will remain fragmented and encourage further regional instability. • Saudi–Iranian relations have dramatically deteriorated, despite a short period of rapprochement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arab Peace Initiative: a Primer and Future Prospects
    Joshua Teitelbaum The Arab Peace Initiative: A Primer and Future Prospects המרכז הירושלמי לענייני ציבור ומדינה Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Joshua Teitelbaum The Arab Peace Initiative: A Primer and Future Prospects המרכז הירושלמי לענייני ציבור ומדינה Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs © 2009 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel Tel. 972-2-561-9281 | Fax. 972-2-561-9112 Email: [email protected] | www.jcpa.org ISBN 978-965-218-071-1 Producon Coordinator: Odelia Zaguri Graphic Design: Gama Design Pictures Credits: AP Photo Cover photo: Arab leaders pose at the Arab League Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, March 28, 2007. All photos are from AP and used with permission. The Arab Peace Initiative: A Primer and Future Prospects Joshua Teitelbaum • In the wake of the terrorist aacks on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia was under intense scruny since fi een of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers had proved to be Saudis. In February 2002, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia gave an interview to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in which he proposed to Israel “full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with UN resoluons, including in Jerusalem, for full normalizaon of relaons.” • In a flash, Abdullah had transformed the discourse: Instead of focusing on Saudi involvement in terrorism, the Western press was now talking about Saudi peacemaking. However, by the me the Abdullah trial balloon reached the Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002, the iniave had been modified and its terms hardened. • “Full normalizaon” became “normal relaons” (which sll marks significant progress over the Arab League formulaon in Khartoum of 1967: “no peace, no recognion, no negoaons”).
    [Show full text]
  • Arab League's Syrian Policy
    SETA Policy Brief SETA | Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research | April, 2012 | www.setav.org | Brief No: 56 Arab League’s Syrian Policy Müjge Küçükkeleş S E TA POLICY BRIEF ABSTRACT Suspension of Syria’s Arab League membership in November 2011 could be characterized as a turning point in Arab league’s 66-year old history. By condemning the Syrian and Libyan regimes for disproportionate use of violence against their own people, the Arab League has somewhat found rightful the demand of Arab people. the League has signaled with these decisions that it would move away from ideas of Arab nationalism and Arab unity in pursuit of further integration with the international system. On the other hand, the authoritarian state systems of most of the member states of the League make it difficult to regard Arab League decisions as steps supporting democracy. The League’s ‘‘democratic stance’’ is an outcome of the pressure of revolutions as much as of harmony of interests among the member states. Even though strengthening democracy in the region seems like an unrealistic desire of member states, these decisions push each member towards thinking about change and thus pave the way for democratic reform process. The study at hand consists of two parts. The first part addresses the League’s policy proposals, decisions, and reactions regarding the Syrian crisis and concentrates on what these all policy measures mean for the League as a regional organization. The second part examines regional dynamics that play a crucial role in the current crisis by looking at different positions of regional and global actors on the Syrian crisis.
    [Show full text]