Plenary session No. 2
GCC security and economic development
Saturday 8 December 2007, 10.30 am
A DISCUSSION WITH
Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al Thani
Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Qatar
The second plenary session took the form of an extended conversation with a staunch supporter of the Manama Dialogue since its inception in 2004: Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al Thani, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar. In his introductory remarks Sheikh Hamad underlined the importance of the Gulf region to global security; called for calm heads to prevail in international responses to Iran’s nuclear activities; stressed that force alone could not resolve the region’s troubles; and emphasised the importance of inclusive dialogue ‘based on peaceful cohabitation, mutual respect and non-interference in others’ internal affairs’ on all matters of concern. In was in this spirit that he welcomed the Manama Dialogue.
The conversation began with a question posed by Dr Patrick Cronin, at the time IISS Director of Studies and since appointed Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the US National Defense University. He asked what contribution Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) members were making to the stability and economic development of neighbouring Iraq. Sheikh Hamad replied that while the GCC did have a special investment programme with regard to Iraq it was frankly neither doing enough nor sufficiently involved in the issue. This was contrary to GCC interests, in so far as problems in Iraq had a tendency to be transmitted throughout the Gulf region. The Council’s membership should provide more assistance to the United States in its efforts in Iraq. That said, Sheikh Hamad indicated that GCC action had tended to be constrained by dissatisfaction with developments inside Iraq. Pressed a little further by Dr John Chipman, IISS Director-General, about what precise political and economic conditions would stimulate greater Qatari involvement in Iraq, Sheikh Hamad said, in a reference to Iraqi sectarian politics and the marginalisation of Sunni groups, that Qatar ‘would like to see all Iraqi people treated the same’ and, in reference to the elaboration of arrangements to share oil wealth between the main Sunni, Shia and Kurdish communities, that ‘we would like to see all the wealth of Iraq for all the Iraqis’. Provided that these conditions obtained, Qatar would be in a position to make more significant investments in the future of Iraq.
A second dominant theme of the conversation, concerning regional policies towards Iran, was raised by Dr Gary Samore, Vice President and Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, United States. Noting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s attendance at the most recent GCC Heads of State meeting in Doha, Samore asked what role Iran might play in the security architecture of the Gulf region. Had there been any sense that Tehran would be willing to put territorial disputes with the United Arab Emirates to international mediation? Sheikh Hamad replied that one could not get away from the fact that Iran was an important power, and that it was incumbent upon the GCC members to try to fashion positive relations with Iran: ‘I do not think we can solve our problems by trying to seal Iran off from the region’. At the same time Tehran would need to understand that relations would have to be conducted in the spirit of equality: ‘What is important is that nobody tries to dominate the region’, he said. Iran often blamed the GCC states for undermining regional security through ties to external powers such as the US; the GCC members, however, maintained such relationships, which were not directed at Iran (‘we do not believe that it is wise to threaten our friends or our brothers in Iran’), precisely in order to promote stability. As regards the territorial dispute between the UAE and Iran, Sheikh Hamad hoped that it could be worked out bilaterally or through international mediation as the parties saw fit. The matter should in any case be resolved peacefully.
Following up on the matter of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s participation at the GCC summit in Doha, Dr Mamoun Fandy, IISS Senior Fellow for Gulf Security, said this had caused some confusion inside the Council. It had been suggested in the Arab media that Qatar had not fully consulted other GCC members on this matter. Was Qatar trying to use the occasion in order to enhance its own regional stature and role to ‘punch above its weight’, by playing to both the Iranian and other galleries; did it hope to induce more constructive and rational policies in Tehran and was this indeed the result? Sheikh Hamad answered that invitations to GCC summits were a matter for the host country. This was standard practice. Other Council members had been informed a few days in advance. Qatar had not initiated contact, but had merely responded positively to a direct Iranian request to take part. Qatar was a small country but sensed an obligation to be an active participant in regional affairs: ‘sometimes it is right, sometimes it is not right, but in my opinion we are proud of our role, and will continue our role’. Responding to a point made by Fandy concerning the implied duplicity of Qatar’s strong military relations with the US and its status as the home venue of the al-Jazeera media network, which is highly critical of aspects of US policy, Sheikh Hamad refuted the charge as unfounded: in all respects Qatar’s policies and positions were transparent and above board.
Another question connected to Iran’s relations with the GCC was raised by Mark Fitzpatrick, IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation, who wondered if the GCC, having already approved feasibility studies into the development of nuclear power, would indeed press ahead with a significant programme over coming years, perhaps also as a political and strategic response to Iranian nuclear activities. Sheikh Hamad said that Qatar was looking into this matter, despite its own abundant gas supplies, partly owing to the possible desirability of powering water-desalination processes through nuclear energy.
At this point, Dr Mowaffak Al Rubaie, National Security Adviser of the Republic of Iraq, intervened to return the conversation to a number of subjects already addressed. He took the opportunity to welcome Sheikh Hamad’s remarks concerning the need for greater GCC investments in Iraq. Regarding Qatari concerns about the inclusiveness of Iraqi’s political system, he offered the assurance that democratic constitutional arrangements there were among the most progressive in the region. But he also sought clarification as to why not only Iran but also Turkey had been invited to participate in the GCC Summit in Doha, whereas Iraq – an Arab Gulf state, vital to regional security – had not been invited. Al Rubaie also asked whether Sheikh Hamad believed the Doha-based al-Jazeera network’s broadcasts were ‘contributing positively or negatively to the fight against terrorism in the region’. Sheikh Hamad answered on the first point that Ahmadinejad’s attendance at the Summit had been ‘a good idea’. Qatar had responded to a request in this instance, and also in the case of Turkey’s participation. Iraq was a country of considerable importance, and it was in the interest of the region that it be politically, militarily and economically strong. But relations were affected by the fact that Iraq had not achieved a sufficient degree of unity amongst its constituencies and communities: ‘Some parties feel they are not being taken as full citizens. Maybe they are wrong but that is what we hear.’ Constitutional amendments would need to be considered in order to ensure that the interests of all groups were properly safeguarded. As for the role played by al-Jazeera, Sheikh Hamad said that Qatar valued press freedom and that free press coverage would inevitably be the source of controversy from time to time.
With the discussion having ranged over the issue of GCC–Iranian dialogue, was there, asked Jeremy Bowen, Middle East Editor of the British Broadcasting Corporation, now a case for direct contact between Iran and the United States with a view to negotiating a ‘grand bargain’? Such direct contact was desirable, said Sheikh Hamad, adding that wherever mediation takes place, ‘something is lost in the middle’. The United States had asked Arabs and Israelis to talk directly in the recent Annapolis Middle East Summit, and so should contemplate a similar approach towards Iran. Only through such contact could one define and come to understand the intentions of the other.
The conversation then turned to the contemplation of terrorism. General (Retd) Klaus Naumann, former Chief of Staff, German Armed Forces, agreed with Sheikh Hamad that the common threat of terrorism could not be eradicated by the use of force alone. What, then, were the root causes of terrorism that would need to be addressed and how might the GCC, NATO and other European partners collaborate on these and other security questions? Sheikh Hamad replied that the causes of terrorism were wide: resentments stirred by ongoing regional conflicts; a lack of proper education; and a want of democracy were among them. The GCC certainly needed the help of the United States and Europe, who in the eyes of some in the region were pursuing anti-Muslim policies, in addressing many of these root causes. For its own part, Qatar had been the first regional state to initiate contact with NATO, something which had now been extended to the GCC as a whole. For Mansoor Al Arayedh, President, Gulf Council for Foreign Relations, the key question as regards responses to terrorism was how one might bridge what he said were contrasting Western and Eastern approaches and so ‘work towards a consolidated effort’. Sheikh Hamad felt that there was a need for greater precision and clarity when defining terrorism and terrorist groups. In this process domestic as well as international sensitivities would need to be taken into account. There was a need for a ‘rule of thumb’ that allowed for the grey areas that inevitably arose.
Discussion then turned to Israel and Iran. Dr Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, Professor of Political Science, UAE University, asked Sheikh Hamad to comment on the statement made earlier in the day by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the effect that Iran posed a greater threat to regional security than Israel. He also asked whether it was not time to end America’s ‘monopolisation’ of regional security policy, allowing for greater regional initiative and external involvement. In his reply to the first question, Sheikh Hamad said that Israel had occupied territories, caused mass refugee flows and defied UN resolutions, and in doing so had supplied pretexts for terrorist actions. There was no wish to see Iran as an enemy, but at the same time a number of differences and disputes were in need of correction. Concerning the role that outside powers might play in the region’s security affairs, Sheikh Hamad hoped for more consultation from ‘friends’. He suggested it had been humiliating for countries of the region to learn of reported diplomatic approaches to Iran that had anticipated GCC acquiescence to terms offered on a number of fronts, without any prior consultation or referral.
William Cohen, former US Secretary of Defense, offered a contrast between Israel and Iran: no Israeli head of state, he said, had ever called for the destruction of Iran, whereas the reverse was not the case. As for the issue of regional consultation, he asked whether Sheikh Hamad supported some wider regional framework for addressing Iran, roughly analogous to the Six-Party Talks mechanism evolved in Asia with regard to North Korea. Was there, in fact, a regional consensus about the threat posed by Iran that might allow for a common policy approach coordinated between the region and the United States? He also sought clarification on the matter of whether the Gulf States would still feel compelled to develop civilian nuclear-power capabilities if Iran were indeed persuaded not to continue its uranium-enrichment drive. Sheikh Hamad said that, for Qatar at least, pursuit of nuclear power would be driven more by economic than geopolitical factors, but this might be different for larger powers: ‘it is part of their pride … if the Iranians have it, and they do not have it’. As for Iranian threats to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, Sheikh Hamad felt that policy should not be overly sensitive to what he implied was bluster of a kind not uncommon in the Middle East: ‘we should make our policy on facts’.
Other matters discussed during the conversation included economic integration and openness in the region. Baroness Symons, a former British government minister, asked about progress being made towards the establishment of a common GCC currency and single financial regulatory authority – both touted for 2010. She also enquired about ongoing negotiations to launch a free-trade area between the European Union and the GCC. Sheikh Hamad doubted that a single currency, which he felt would be economically stimulative, would be launched by 2010. It was important, however, to pursue financial regulatory reform, unsettling and disruptive though the transition might be. He said that the trade talks with the EU had been protracted, with difficulties more on the European side, but that only a few issues remained to be resolved.
