Saudi's want a political & military union to stave off domestic unrest but there is dissent among the members.
See the source for links to op-ed's from various newspapers
GCC Debates Gulf Union | MEPC Commentary | May 22 2012
Last December, Saudi Arabia proposed an expanded, tighter and stronger union for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Now, months later, high representatives of several Gulf states, as well as Jordan and Morocco, have met in Riyadh to discuss the idea. The Saudi proposal came during a time when instability in Bahrain seriously rattled the region’s Sunni rulers, who grew concerned that restive Shia populations could threaten their stability and supremacy. This has led much of the commentary about the “union” to focus on Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, the presumed first merger in a new GCC. The reaction to the proposal was mixed among GCC member states and received a serious pushback from Iran, the clear regional rival of the proposed union.
According to some news reports, “thousands of Iranians rallied Friday against plans for union between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain…and an influential cleric denounced the idea as an ‘ill-fated plot’ that will never be tolerated by Muslims. In Bahrain, thousands of mainly Shiite also protested against the union outside the capital Manama....Tension between Iran and U.S.-allied Gulf Arab states has run high in recent months with Arab leaders accusing Tehran of fomenting Shiite Muslim unrest in Bahrain….The dispute worsened when Tehran denounced efforts by six Gulf Arab states at a summit earlier this week to forge [a] closer political and military union, largely to counter Iran’s growing regional power.”
However, Iranian objections to the plan received a cold shoulder by the Arab League, which called “on Tehran on Monday to halt what it described as a media campaign against Bahrain over a proposal for political and military union between Gulf Arab states....Riyadh's initial goal appears to be a merger with Bahrain, where majority Shi'ites have been staging pro-democracy demonstrations targeting the Sunni Muslim ruling family for over a year. Bahraini leaders have been publicly receptive to union.”
According to the Lebanese Daily Star, ultimately, the GCC could only “agree to keep studying [the] union proposal….Gulf leaders agreed Monday to allow more time for further discussions over a Saudi proposal to turn the six-nation council into a union likely to start with the kingdom and unrest-hit Bahrain. The leaders who met in Riyadh have instructed their foreign ministers to ‘continue studying the report of the special commission,’ Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said.”
Judging from the regional commentary and editorials, this was perhaps to be expected. While there is some support for the Saudi proposal among the GCC member-states, most observers still have reservations about how to implement the needed reforms and institutional changes.
Gulf News’ Francis Matthew believes “there are several challenges to this idea of a union, not least that the details have not been made clear....the Saudi foreign minister insisted this week that the proposed union should be for all GCC members, and not just for two (referring to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia)....But doubts have been expressed all round the GCC. For example, in February, Kuwait's parliament speaker, Ahmad Al Saadoun, said that union between members of the GCC is unlikely, [due to] to differences in political systems....The GCC is a group of like-minded nations, who share a common heritage of Gulf culture. But they have not built the shared political structures that would allow the pooled sovereignty that is required to allow full political union to flourish.”
A similarly ambivalent message was expressed by Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg, who, in an op-ed for Al Arabiya, cautioned: “While the proposed Gulf Union enjoys tremendous support at both the popular and official levels, this support does not obviate the need for sustained efforts to reach agreement on the practical modalities of this historical project. Work toward the Gulf Union is certain to continue until it becomes a reality, which should not be in the too distant future. There are of course some discordant voices that have raised doubts about the union’s value or even cast aspersions on its motives. Those noises are largely self-serving and come mostly from hard-core nationalists and extremists at the other side of the Gulf, which is expected.”
Asharq Alawsat’s Adel Al Toraifi offers a set of suggestions for making the Gulf Union a reality: “It seems there are opposing stances and legitimate questions regarding the Saudi call for a Gulf union, perhaps the most prominent of which is the debate around the mechanism or form of this planned union....the Gulf States want to achieve an idealistic image of a union without acknowledging the natural constraints of any large-scale, comprehensive project....If the Gulf States are serious about the union project, they should establish a defense union first, for this was, and still is, the primary motivation for cooperation between them, ever since the establishment of the GCC.”
Writing in support of the project and on “the power of unity” for Asharq Alawsat, Hussein Shobokshi also raises some concerns about the real challenges ahead: “The Gulf Union, if it is launched with conviction and without compromise, will be a quantum leap, not only in terms of form and name, but in terms of goals, hopes and ambitions, and we must take advantage of this historic political opportunity....The governments and people of the GCC have an important opportunity and a historic choice, and similar circumstances may not come again to achieve it. This opportunity must be used wisely to form a genuine union, as that is the ultimate goal.”
In another Asharq Alawsat op-ed, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed confesses he would be opposed to a Gulf Union should it force “Kuwait to abolish its parliamentary system and concept of political participation just to appease Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman. I would reject the proposal if it forces Bahrain or Dubai to implement Kuwaiti and Saudi regulations restricting social freedom, such as closing down cinemas or curbing tourism and hotel services....I think the political and social concerns regarding the establishment of the Gulf Union come from a lack of clarity around the proposed idea....Hence if we take the proposal from a positive frame of mind, we can understand that it does not aim to impose any system, nullify the character of any member state, or marginalize any ethnic group.”
Finally, Tehran Times’ Mohammad Farazmand sees nothing but realpolitik at play in the Saudi plan: “Saudi Arabia is the only government that is enthusiastically insisting on the establishment of such a union....The proposal shows that Riyadh is very concerned about the Arab revolutions and their potential impact on the balance of power in the region....Thus, the proposal for a Saudi-Bahrain union is viewed by many analysts as a continuation of the Saudi Arabian government’s intervention in Bahrain, which began in early 2011, to suppress the popular protests in the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom. In other words, Saudi Arabia’s military intervention did not quell the uprising and the proposal for a union is another hasty decision meant to prevent Bahrain’s contagion from reaching the shores of Saudi Arabia.”
Nice idea, I wonder if they are serious whether they'll go the US or Euro path. Hopefully the folly of the Euro system is now open to all.
I'd suggest they all start with a mutual non-agression pact, common import/export regulations and a committee to establish common foreign policy. Just that would make the Iranians shit tacks.
Its advertised as a politcal & military union first. Fiscal union component is small in comparison.Originally Posted by Parihaka
The purpose of this union seems to be to allow the Saudis to enter any territory (within the union's borders) they deem as threatening their interests. This i take is what they mean by Bahrain being the first to join. Its like the big guy calling the shots. Small wonder the smaller parties are not on the same page.
This seems like the Saudi grand plan to stall democratic reforms within their region. No disturbances = no complaints and therefore less reasons to reform
Wanted to add something else as well, read it in one of the MEPC talks..
person who made that comment, Jim Placke(?) was an assistant secretary of state for the middle east at the time.I’d like to offer a comment on the creation of the GCC, which has come up several times this morning. Neither Iraq or Iran had anything to do with it. It was in response to the takeover of the whole — of the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979. And that was done by the son of a leader of the — (inaudible) — that supported King Abdul-Aziz in his efforts — early days’ efforts to create the consolidated Saudi Arabia. They were a group of Muslim extremists who wanted to impose a very conservative version of Islam that Abdul-Aziz was not in sympathy with and ultimately turned against them. And it was the son of one of their leaders who led the takeover of the Mecca mosque.
But the reason for the GCC creation in consequence was because this man was arrested, then released in Saudi Arabia. He went to Kuwait. Kuwaitis knew he was there. They knew he was plotting against Saudi Arabia, but that didn’t have anything to do with Kuwaiti security, so they didn’t do anything about it. And the GCC was created in the first instance to bring about a coordination within the various security apparatuses of the six members.
Its quite clear that the Saudis primary emphasis for such a union is security. They will sell this abroad as preserving stabilty and how important that is for their region blah blah.
Yeah sure looks that way, I'm just an eternal optimist is all
Pari,
The term "Union" is a nicer and more acceptable way of saying "Annexation of Bahrain by KSA".
BTW: Post 500 and my promotion to the rank of regular.
Lord almighty man, what have you been doing all this time? 500 posts in 4 years? Don't hurry or anything
BTW: Post 500 and my promotion to the rank of regular.
Within past 4 years I've learned to post only if I have something to say, other wise I just lurk in the back ground, read and learn. This is WAB and I can go through Zraver's survival post blindfolded.Lord almighty man, what have you been doing all this time? 500 posts in 4 years? Don't hurry or anything
An Iranian view about this development
Saudi Arabia Cannot Establish an Arab NATO | Iran Review | MAY 27, 2012
Saudi Arabia Cannot Establish an Arab NATO
SUNDAY, MAY 27, 2012
Ja'far Qannadbashi
Expert on the Middle East and Arab world Issues
Ja'far Qannadbashi is an expert on the Middle East and the Arab world who believes that the proposed security agreement for the union of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is sign of the failure of Bahraini government in muffling its people’s protests. If the agreement is signed, he says, it will further intensify popular protests inside the country. The expert believes that the agreement will cause the Saudi military to protest to Riyadh’s foreign policy approaches sooner or later. Qannadbashi also argues that there is no possibility for the establishment of an Arab NATO following possible conclusion of the security pact between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Q: To begin with, what are the main reasons behind vehement protests by the Iranian lawmakers to proposed security pact between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?
A: One reason behind these protests is the Iranian MP’s support for the rights of Bahraini people. The proposal for the union between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia has totally ignored the rights of Bahraini people. The right to self-determination is more important than the right to have pure water and healthy food.
The second reason is that the agreement creates changes in regional equations and disturbs the balance of power in the region. Any agreement which will disturb the balance of regional power should be reached through a general consensus. The third reason is that the union has been basically proposed as a reaction to Iran and this is the most important reason why Iran objects to the agreement.
Q: The text of the agreement has considered Bahrain an independent state, but Majlis deputies have noted in their protests that it compromises sovereignty of Bahrain.
A: Early reports on the agreement, which were published in winter, were about annexation and merger. They even said that Bahrain’s Al Khalifa rulers were trying to scare the people of Bahrain by raising the idea of merger and tell them if they did not end their protests they would go under the yoke of Saudi Arabia.
Naturally, in any case of merger, the sides claim that independence of the merged state will remain intact. A case to the point is the strategic partnership agreement between Afghanistan and the United States in which there are frequent references to the fact that Afghanistan’s independence should not be ignored; why? Because that agreement practically violates the rights of the Afghan people, and to make up for this shortfall, the Americans have done their best in the text of the agreement to show that the rights of the Afghan people and nation will not be violated by the United States.
Emphasis on the independence of Bahrain in the text of the security agreement between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is another case. That agreement goes far beyond the unity of the two countries, a practical sign of which is the ongoing presence of the Saudi military in Bahrain. Therefore, what our Majlis deputies say about the agreement is accurate. However, the union between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain will go ahead in stages.
Other contemporary instances of union between countries, either between two parts of Germany, or Vietnam, or Yemen, occurred between countries which were previously a single state and were then divided for various reasons. There has been no other case in the world when two totally separate countries have become united. Countries lacking cultural and historical commonalities have become separated, but they have never been united before.
Q: From the viewpoint of the Islamic Republic, this agreement, in view of its security nature, will actually legalize suppression of Bahraini people’s protests by Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes. This is one reason why we are opposed to it. The important issue, however, is that the agreement is even to the detriment of Saudi Arabia. It shows that Al Khalifa has failed in stopping the revolution of Bahraini people and is now forced to sign such an agreement with Saudi Arabia. This will spell the doom for Bahrain’s regime.
Q: How this intervention will possibly mean the end of Bahrain’s regime and how it may hurt Saudi Arabia if Riyadh practically succeeds to prevent the fall of Al Khalifa?
A: This agreement has been signed in reaction to internal problems of Bahrain by which a political system has clearly owned up to its inability to manage its social problems and has asked another country to suppress its people.
Q: How this agreement may harm Saudi Arabia?
A: Saudi Arabia does not want Bahraini people’s revolution to triumph because it would be against the interests of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian officials should actually tell Bahraini officials that they are rulers of an independent country and an embankment to protect Saudi Arabia. That is, they should avoid of direct intervention in Bahrain’s affairs.
The Americans try to find allies for them and they usually do not take direct part in regional issues. We also do that. By doing so, Saudi Arabia has officially announced that Bahrain is dependent on Saudi Arabia and this will cause rifts among various groups of Sunni Bahrainis.
On the other hand, by doing so, Saudi Arabia has added the Shia population of Bahrain to its own Shias. There are Shia groups in eastern part of Saudi Arabia that have problems with the central government. By signing this agreement, Saudi Arabia will connect Bahraini Shias to its own Shias in the eastern parts which are also major areas of unrest in Saudi Arabia. This will be evidently and practically to detriment of Saudi Arabia. This is a very naïve thing for Saudi Arabia do to.
In addition, other member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] are pessimistic toward the “big brother” and are in permanent fear of being devoured by Saudi Arabia. A union between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia will further increase pessimism of the GCC member states toward Riyadh.
Apart from this, the GCC was originally supposed to be a defensive council. The council came into being exactly four months after victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran with defensive goals in mind. Therefore, its economic and cultural aspects have been insignificant in comparison to its defensive aspect.
The agreement between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is clear admission by Bahraini government that the GCC has had no defensive functions for that country. Changing the name of the council to union will not help this problem in any way.
All member states of the GCC have already signed defense pacts with the Western countries in order to promote their defense and security indices. The agreement between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain will in fact confirm that the GCC has been totally useless and its members are now forced to replace it with a union.
Q: Didn’t the GCC try to provide military support to Kuwait during the first US invasion of Iraq in 1990?
A: Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait supported by financial assistance of member states of the council. When Saddam attacked Iran, members of the council purchased about 100 billion dollars of arms and gave them to Saddam. Saddam then invaded Kuwait without paying his debt to the council’s member countries.
In fact, financial support of the council to Iraq encouraged Baghdad to attack Kuwait. Members of the GCC, however, could do nothing to defend Kuwait and, finally, implored the US to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
Q: Since the security agreement between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is supposed to further develop to assume a military dimension as well, can that agreement be considered as the beginning of an Arab NATO in the Middle East?
A: No. The issue of establishing an Arab NATO had already been raised. Arab countries lack capabilities to create an Arab NATO. This agreement can only lead to a new round of selling arms to Arab states of the region by Western countries and will, especially, strengthen the presence of Western military advisors in these countries.
The history of the Gulf Cooperation Council also shows that its member countries are not able to form an Arab NATO. The prerequisite for the establishment of an Arab NATO is existence of independent countries with shared regional goals and security attitude, both of which are lacking in Arab states. Arab countries, therefore, cannot give birth to a common military organization.
Q: What consequences can this agreement have for the Middle East region?
A: This issue is positive for revolutionary people in the region because it proves how fearful the regional Arab countries are of those revolutions. That fear, in turn, reflects deep concerns. The Saudi system is currently plagued with a serious crisis among Saudi princes as well as profound internal differences. The tribal and reactionary structure of Saudi Arabia does not allow them to solve their newly emerging problems.
Q: So, you think that the agreement will lead to unrest in Saudi Arabia?
A: Yes. The Saudi military will wonder what has happened to warrant such an agreement? I mean, why a regime which has not been able to solve its economic and political problems in full, is now investing so heavily in Bahrain?
Saudi Arabia should first solve its domestic problems. It should change its administrative divisions followed by the urban management and goods distribution system before attending to foreign problems.
Q: So, you think that the agreement may also increase protests among the Saudi military?
A: Certainly. Saudi military commanders have mostly studied in Britain and the United States and have open minds. They have not been trained in a closed environment. Of course, their number is not high, but they are different from traditional forces in the Saudi society. The Saudi military is dissatisfied.
Q: What harm can this agreement do to Saudi military to make them object to its conclusion?
A: The Saudi military is educated and they like to see their country progress. Military personnel are zealot and attach high importance to their country’s national power. An educated military person does not like to see his country’s people poor and its roads in ruins. The current political structure in Saudi Arabia is tribal and pre-modern and Saudi military commanders are well aware of this fact.
Source: Asriran News Website
Asiran.com
Translated By: Iran Review
Last edited by Double Edge; 31 May 12, at 00:49.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: