China’s Saudi Iranian mediation spotlights flawed regional security policies.
By James M. Dorsey
To watch a video version of this story on YouTube
please click here.
A podcast version is available on Soundcloud, Itunes, Spotify, Spreaker, and Podbean.
A Chinese-mediated
Saudi-Iranian reconciliation potentially casts a spotlight on
fundamentally flawed security policies of regional powers, including not only
the kingdom and Iran but also the United Arab Emirates.
While much of the discussion in recent years has focused on
Iran’s strategy of creating a defense line far beyond its borders by nurturing
and/or supporting aligned militias in various Arab countries, Saudi Arabia,
and, even more so, the UAE, have adopted similar approaches.
To be sure, Iran has itself to blame for being the focal point of
the debate.
Its nurturing and/or support of militias-cum-political organizations
such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Units in Iraq, Houthi
rebels in Yemen, and in Syria, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, has
been one driver of US and Arab efforts to contain the Islamic republic.
Support for militias “empowers complex networks of surrogates…that…become
increasingly actors in their own right who disrupt post-conflict resolution and
state building… Security assistance to non-state actors…does not contribute to
building institutions in recipient states but exacerbates conflict polarization
and division,” Mr. Krieg said in a
just-published study of UAE policy in Yemen and Libya.
It’s an approach that reduces conflicts to a zero-sum game and
exploits weak institutions and governance rather than seeking to empower the
state by building strong foundations and transparent and accountable authorities.
It also allows supporters of non-state actors to evade
responsibility under the guise of plausible deniability.
Shielded by public relations and public diplomacy mastery, the
UAE has long been able to keep out of the public eye the downside of its
regional security strategy that shapes its defense, foreign, and soft power
policies, including its militant opposition to political Islam and the quest to
be the dominant power in defining
what constitutes moderate Islam.
Much like what happened in Libya where the UAE, together with
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others, support renegade Libyan Field Marshall
Khalifa Haftar against the country’s internationally recognised government in
debilitating civil strife, Emirati support for secessionist groups in Yemen
could complicate if not thwart efforts to end its war.
In a sign of what could happen in Yemen, Mr. Haftar’s Libyan
National Army has refused to
relinquish control of oil-rich swathes of eastern and southern Libya. Mr. Haftar
has threatened to renew fighting if the country’s political stalemate persists.
The UAE withdrew the bulk of its troops from Yemen in 2019 but
continues to support the Southern Transitional Council (STC) that demands
independence for South Yemen in what would be a return to two separate Yemeni
states as they existed before unification in 1990.
In a first response, the Council welcomed the China-mediated
agreement “as an embodiment of our keenness to strengthen relations
between the peoples and countries of our region.”
The Council controls southern Yemen’s strategic ports and
waterways, the UNESCO-protected Socotra archipelago, and the volcanic Mayun
Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The UAE is operating Socotra as if it were Emirati rather than
Yemeni territory with infrastructure
projects that link it to the Gulf state and Emirati immigration and social
service policies.
The UAE strategy resembles Iran’s support for Arab non-state
actors.
That may be one reason why the UAE was stepping ahead of Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf states such as Bahrain in rebuilding relations with Iran,.
This included returning
its ambassador to Tehran in 2022.
The UAE downgraded its diplomatic representation in Iran in 2016,
but, unlike Saudi Arabia, did not break off relations in the wake of the ransacking
of Saudi diplomatic outposts in the Iranian capital and the
shrine city of Mashhad.
The missions were attacked by crowds protesting the kingdom’s
execution of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric, Nimr al-Nimr.
Moreover, the UAE sent Emirati
coast guard commanders in 2019 to Tehran for discussions with their Iranian
counterparts on maritime cooperation in the Strait of Hormuz.
To be sure, mounting
uncertainty about the reliability of US pledges to guarantee
Gulf security was the most immediate driver of Emirati outreach to Iran.
Uncertainty is also what governs the UAE’s engagement in
surrogate warfare in a bid to project power and influence.
In that sense, the drivers of surrogate warfare are equally valid
for Iran, which sees itself as encircled by hostile US-backed powers with
varying degrees of security ties to Israel, and Saudi Arabia which views
Iranian-supported non-state actors and Iran's weapons programs as existential
threats.
“One of the most concerning drawbacks of security assistance
being provided to non-state actors that do not cooperate but compete with
government authority is that it creates new fault lines in already polarized
conflicts,” Mr. Krieg said.
He went on to say, regarding Libya and Yemen, that “rather than
offering avenues for the integration of conflicting parties into an inclusive
national framework that could assist with reconciliation,” support for
non-state militias adds “additional layers of conflict to already conflict-torn
countries.”
That is as true for Iranian and Emirate surrogate warfare and
degrees of Saudi support for non-state actors as it is for direct Saudi
military intervention in Yemen or Iranian involvement in Syria.
To be sure, dialling down the tension between Saudi Arabia and
Iran is in the interest of all parties.
So are inclusive security approaches that consider the concerns
of all and strengthen institutions and governance rather than mitigate against
reconciliation and reconstruction.
The ultimate valuation of the Chinese mediation will depend on
the degree to which it contributes to sustainable conflict management, if not
conflict resolution.
What is certain is that in the words of analyst Raffaello
Pantucci “people will look at China’s proposals and its attempts at mediation
as evidence of
Beijing offering something new which, while not perfect, is at
least not simply stoking the flames of conflict.”
Potentially, that is what offers an opening for a rethink of
security strategies and the development of approaches that that could help
create a more sustainable security environment.
Thank you for joining me today. I
hope you enjoyed the newsletter and/or podcast. Diplomats, policymakers,
investors, executives, journalists and academics listen to my twice-weekly
podcast and/or read my syndicated newsletter that is republished by media
across the globe. Maintaining free distribution ensures that the podcast and
newsletter have maximum impact Paid subscribers help me cover the monthly cost
of producing the newsletter and podcast. Please consider becoming a paid
subscriber. You can do so by clicking on Substack on the subscription button at
www.jamesmdorsey.substack.com and
choosing one of the subscription options or support me on Patreon at www.patreon.com/mideastsoccer. Please join me for my next podcast in the
coming days. Thank you, take care and best wishes.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist
and scholar, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S.
Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated
column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.
Comments
Post a Comment