Shifting Arabian Sands

BY TOM ARMS

The recent establishment of diplomatic relations and business ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates raises a host of questions, hopes, problems, issues and consequences.

Is it good or bad?  In the constant shifting sands of the Middle East where tribal loyalties overlap with religious and ethnic rivalries it is probably best to say that it is a bit of both, and the need for a supreme balancing act will continue to be the order of the day.

The UAE has at least partially opened the diplomatic floodgates and other Arab countries are expected to soon follow. It is reckoned that the next Arab country to establish links with Israeli will be the Gulf island kingdom of Bahrain. King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was among the first to congratulate both Israel and the UAE on their bold move. The reason? Sunni king Al Khalifa is terrified of Iran. The Persians have long claimed the island as part of their territory, and 60 percent of the population is Shia.

Next on the likely list is Oman. The late Sultan Qaboos regularly acted as a mediator between Arab and Israeli interests. In 2018 he hosted a visit to Muscat by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Omanis have been praised for their regional diplomacy, not only between Israel and the Arab world, but also between Iran and Arabia.

Sudan is another possibility. The Sudanese leader Abdel Fattah Al-Barhan and Netanyahu recently met in Sudan. Relations have slightly cooled since then, but cash-strapped Sudan is most likely to follow the money and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has dropped unsubtle hints that cash is available in return for diplomatic recognition.

The biggest question mark hangs over Saudi Arabia. Its long-standing enmity with Iran has pushed it into cooperation with Israel on intelligence and related issues. But at the same time, the kingdom’s role as custodian of the Islamic holy places and banker to the Arab and wider Muslim world, constrains their room for diplomatic manoeuvre. Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman has the additional problem of large Shi-ite population in the kingdom’s Eastern Province.

The Shia versus Sunni conflict is these days running neck and neck and at times surpassing the Arab-Israeli clash. The quarrel is as much about ethnic, historic and cultural differences as it is religious. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution the differences have been complicated by Iran’s diplomatic volte face from staunchly pro-American to rabidly anti-American, and the regional leader of the anti-Israeli forces. The realpolitik truism “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a driving force behind Arab recognition of Israel.

READ ALSO: Politics of Fear and Loathing

It is also the reason why certain key Arab states will be last in line to accept accommodation with Israel. Iraq, Syria and Lebanon all have large Shi-ite populations. Shia dominance in southern Iraq led to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and Iran has strongly backed Syria’s Alawite President Assad (Alawites are a Shia offshoot) in the civil war. In Lebanon, Iran provides a wide range of support to the Shia Hezbollah Party which now controls the border area with Israel and several key cabinet posts.

Diplomatic recognition of Israel by Arab governments does not necessarily mean acceptance by the general population. Egypt’s Anwar Sadat was assassinated because he established relations with the Jewish state. None of the Arab states are democracies or have adequate political structures that allow the views of the general population to be heard. The UAE’s decision to recognise Israel was made by a Western-educated, business-driven elite who are largely isolated from the fundamentalist populations they govern. This dichotomy is even more pronounced in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and could lead to an Arab Spring-type instability.

Establishing Arab-Israel relations, does, however, provide the Arab world with a potential brake on Israeli policies. The UAE made it clear that its recognition was dependent on Netanyahu shelving plans for the annexation of the West Bank; which he has done although he refuses to abandon the project.

But at the same time, recognition also pushes both Iran and the Palestinians into progressively radical positions.  They are increasingly being ignored by the guiding hand of American diplomacy. The long-held two-state solution has been jettisoned by the Trump Administration and Iran ranks alongside China as international public enemy number one. But neither the Palestinians nor the Iranians will disappear. Sweeping them under a Persian carpet will only create dangerous lumps to trip over at a later date.

World Review

The phrase “vote early and often” is Chicago’s major contribution to the political lexicon and has been variously attributed to the gangster Al Capone and two of the city’s most corrupt mayors: William Hale Thompson and Richard Daley. Well, now the phrase has gone national and President Donald Trump can be added to the list of this illegal threat to democracy. To be fair, he didn’t use the same exact words. He just suggested that voters “test” the reliability of postal voting by voting first by mail and then a second time at a polling station. This, of course, is related to Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that mail-in voting will lead to widespread electoral fraud in November. But why stop with vote testing? Why not drive 120 miles an hour down the High Street to test the speed of local police cars? How about breaking into a bank to test the alarm system? Or, maybe the president should test his oft-stated belief that he could shoot someone dead in the middle of New York’s Fifth Avenue and people would still vote for him.

Tony Abbot was Australian Prime Minister from 2013-2015. During his short tenure he negotiated free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. In that respect, he seems on the surface to be well-qualified to take on the role of chief trade negotiator for post-Brexit Britain. The British have no one of his similar experience because the European Commission handled all trade negotiations. Then why are so many so angry about his appointment? Because he is also notorious for his misogynistic and homophobic comments as well as his position as a climate change denier.  But what does that have to do with his suitability as a trade negotiator? Simple, trade negotiations involve advanced diplomatic skills and one of the most important attributes of a diplomat is their ability to get along with different kinds of people, regardless of their gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. If a key figure is known to have strong prejudices against the type of person with whom they are negotiating then it can detrimentally affect negotiations.

Speaking of Brexit, the likelihood of a deal before the end of year grows less likely with each passing day. This means that Britain may well end up with the much-feared no deal Brexit. There are three main sticking points: Fish, “level playing fields” and the role of the European Court of Justice. The fishing industry contributes only 0.1 percent to the British GDP, but that is politically immaterial. British fishermen have become the emblematic standard bearer of plucky independent Britain fighting to take back control from the heartless Brussels Eurocrats. They are demanding that EU fishing boats are effectively banned from the 200-mile exclusive economic zone around Britain and woe betide the Johnson government if they don’t back them. The problem is that given the geographic location of Britain, such a move would destroy the fishing industry of the rest of Europe which since 1975 has had almost unrestricted access to British waters. The “level playing field” refers to the EU’s fear that the British government will change regulations and standards—and possibly introduce state aid—that will enable British industry to unfairly undercut European competitors. And finally, the question of which legal jurisdiction—British or EU—will be paramount in the arbitration of any future disputes is absolutely crucial to the future EU-British trading relationship. There is no progress on any of these fronts which means a likely double hit on the British economy, 6-10 percent contraction for a no-deal Brexit and 20-25 percent shrinkage from the effects of coronavirus.

Japan’s long-serving Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigned this week due to ill health with one of his chief tasks unfinished—the rewriting of the Japanese constitution to eliminate restrictions on the country’s military. The price of Japanese aggression during World War Two was American insistence on the insertion of Article Nine in a new constitution which took effect in May 1947. This article bans Japan from using war as a means of settling international disputes. This has not stopped the Japanese from having a military. In fact it has one of the world’s largest defence establishments with 250,000 active personnel and a budget of $50.3 billion. Neither does it prevent Japanese soldiers from being deployed overseas. Japan is the third largest contributor to UN peacekeeping forces. But it does stop them from using what many countries regard as a sovereign right of being able to threaten war in the pursuit of political aims. This was unacceptable to right-wing nationalist Shinzo Abe. Neither does it sit well with the Trump Administration which would dearly love a more heavily-armed Japan so that it can withdraw all—or a big chunk—of its 53,000 troops in Japan and give Japan a bigger role as a counterweight to rising Chinese militarism. But, of course, that would result in an adverse reaction from China and possibly also both North and South Korea who have historically disastrous relations with the Japanese military.

Let’s be clear. I am very much in favour of a free press and freedom of expression. They are essential elements in a democratic society and an essential driver for progress. I also support the cause of individual liberties which are part and parcel of freedom of expression. But, at the same time, these rights and freedoms have to be balanced against the duties which we all have to protect and preserve for the benefit of our collective society. This balancing act has come to the fore again in France where the trial started this week of 14 people accused of involvement in the deadly January 2015 attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The initial attack was caused by the magazine’s publication of a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed and resulted in the death of 12 people at the hands of Muslim terrorists. The reproduction of images of Mohammed is banned by Islamic law as blasphemy. The problem is that the magazine is French. France is governed by French—not Islamic—law and there is no blasphemy law in France. But in this shrinking world does that mean that we should endanger lives by ignoring the strongly-held views of other religions and countries? The staff at Charlie Hebdo think so. They have marked start of the trial with a republication of the Mohammed cartoon. On balance, I agree with Charlie Hebdo, but I must also confess to a scintilla of doubt and concern.

Fifty-six-year-old Caroline Barnes from Portsmouth, England is an avid visitor to art galleries. She is particularly fond of impressionist exhibitions. Which is why she was particularly upset when the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of Britain’s art galleries. Denied her regular artistic fix, Ms Barnes turned to DIY art and started recreating her favourite impressionist paintings on pieces of toast. The bread was the canvas and bits of sculpted fruit, meat and vegetable became the paint. Her favourite so far is Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” which was inspired by the last-minute cancellation of her overseas holiday because of quarantine restrictions.

Stay Healthy,

Tom Arms