Wahhabism Versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Darwich, May Working Paper The Ontological (In)security of Similarity: Wahhabism versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy GIGA Working Papers, No. 263 Provided in Cooperation with: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Suggested Citation: Darwich, May (2014) : The Ontological (In)security of Similarity: Wahhabism versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy, GIGA Working Papers, No. 263, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/105805 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should limit in any other venue. Copyright remains with the authors. Inclusion of a paper in the Working Papers serve to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior publicaton encourage exchange ideas and academic debate. Working GIGA Institute of Middle East Studies ___________________________ The Ontological (In)security of Similarity: Wahhabism versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy May Darwich No 263 December 2014 www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers GIGA Working Papers 263/2014 Edited by the GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Leibniz‐Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien The GIGA Working Papers series serves to disseminate the research results of work in progress prior to publication in order to encourage the exchange of ideas and academic debate. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presenta‐ tions are less than fully polished. Inclusion of a paper in the GIGA Working Papers series does not constitute publication and should not limit publication in any other venue. Copy‐ right remains with the authors. GIGA research unit responsible for this issue: Institute of Middle East Studies Copyright for this issue: © May Darwich WP Coordination and English‐language Copyediting: Melissa Nelson Editorial Assistance and Production: Kerstin Labusga All GIGA Working Papers are available online and free of charge on the website <www.giga‐hamburg.de/workingpapers>. For any requests please contact: <workingpapers@giga‐hamburg.de> The GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies cannot be held responsible for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in this Working Paper; the views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author or authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Leibniz‐Institut für Globale und Regionale Studien Neuer Jungfernstieg 21 20354 Hamburg Germany E‐mail: <info@giga‐hamburg.de> Website: <www.giga‐hamburg.de> GIGA Working Papers 263/2014 The Ontological (In)security of Similarity: Wahhabism versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy Abstract It has long been argued that identity matters in international relations. Yet, how identity impacts enmity and conflict among states remains the subject of debate. The existing liter‐ ature asserts that differences in identity can be a source of conflict, whereas convergence and similarity lead to cooperation. Nevertheless, empirical evidence from the Middle East has long defied this hypothesis. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which prides itself on be‐ ing an Islamic model and claims Islamic leadership, has opposed the rise to power of Is‐ lamist movements in the Middle East. To address this paradox, this article builds on the growing literature on ontological security to propose a theoretical framework explaining how similarity can generate anxiety and identity risks. This framework, I argue, moves beyond traditional regime‐security approaches to reveal that security is not only physical but also ontological. I then illustrate the argument through a comparison of Saudi identity risks in the wake of the Iranian revolution (1979) and the ascendance of the Muslim Broth‐ erhood to power in Egypt (2012). Ultimately, these cases provide intriguing insights into foreign policy behaviour during critical situations. Key words: ontological security, anxiety, identity, distinctiveness, similarity May Darwich, MA is a research fellow at the GIGA Institute of Middle East Studies and a doctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh (UK). Contact: <may.darwich@giga‐hamburg.de> Website: <www.giga‐hamburg.de/en/team/darwich> 263/2014 GIGA Working Papers The Ontological (In)security of Similarity: Wahhabism versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy1 May Darwich Article Outline 1 Introduction 2 Ontological (In)security: A Theoretical Framework 3 An Ontological Security Interpretation of Saudi Foreign Policy 4 Conclusion Bibliography 1 Introduction It has long been argued that identity matters in international relations. Yet, how identity im‐ pacts enmity and conflict among states remains an issue of debate. The existing literature as‐ serts that differences in identity and culture can be a source of conflict, whereas convergence and similarity can lead to cooperation (Huntington 1993, 1996; Horowitz 1995). Likewise, constructivists in international relations (IR) argue that states will identify positively with those with a similar identity (Wendt 1999). As Haas has argued, ‘the greater the ideological 1 I am particularly grateful to André Bank, Juliet Kaarbo, Stephan Rosiny, and Adham Saouli for their invalua‐ ble insights on earlier drafts. This research was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the American Political Science Association. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the World Congress of Middle East Studies, Ankara, on 18 August 2014. GIGA Working Papers WP 263/2014 May Darwich: The Ontological (In)security of Similarity: Wahhabism versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy 5 similarities among states’ leaders, the more likely they will view one another’s interests as complementary, and thus the greater the incentives pushing these individuals to form an al‐ liance’ (2003:36). Nevertheless, empirical evidence from the Middle East has long defied this hypothesis. As Walt observed in his study of alliances in the region, ‘certain ideologies are more a source of division than of unity, even though the ideology explicitly prescribes close cooperation among the adherents’ (1987:170). Pan‐Islamism, which overtly aims to overcome national territorial differences and unify different entities in the region, has paradoxically been a source of fragmentation and division.2 This article extends upon, and goes beyond, the existing literature to argue that similari‐ ties in identity can be a source of conflict and enmity. Largely based on the adaptation of ‘on‐ tological security’ to IR theory (McSweeney 1999; Steele 2005, 2008; Mitzen 2006), this article proposes a theoretical framework to explain how similarity can generate anxiety and identity risks. Building on the assumption that states have a basic need for ontological security, which refers to ‘the need to experience oneself as a whole’ (Mitzen 2006:342), I argue that se‐ curity is enforced through a stable conception of self‐identity. The essence of such a concep‐ tion of self‐identity is the distinctiveness of the self vis‐à‐vis the other. Accordingly, critical situations leading to the erosion of such distinctiveness trigger anxiety and insecurity, as the regimes’ identities become equivocal. As a reactionary imperative, actors attempt to restore a secure self‐identity through two mechanisms: counter‐framing the other in a demonizing manner and reinventing a new self–other distinction. This argument is illustrated through a close comparative examination of Saudi foreign policy in 1979 and 2012. Despite its pan‐Islamic nature, the Islamic revolution in Iran was perceived as a threat to the Saudi Kingdom, a monarchy which itself asserted a broad pan‐Islamic identity. This anti‐ Iranian stance was often couched in sectarian terms, with the kingdom defining its identity as ‘Sunni’ vis‐à‐vis a ‘Shiite’ other. Following the 2011 Arab uprisings, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its political offshoot the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt brought up several uncertainties within the Saudi royal elite, who could not hide their relief at the Brotherhood’s quick downfall a year later. The Saudi reactions to the ascendance of this Sun‐ ni movement to power in Egypt went beyond the conventional sectarian polarization in the region to reveal a fundamental