Qatar’s pursuit of ‘active neutrality’ is strengthening its stature as a peacemaker of global import, says Dr John Chipman, director-general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He is in Doha to expand ties between Qatar and the IISS, a highly reputed think-tank, which counts top government officials and defence and security analysts from over 100 countries among its members. In an exclusive interview with Qatar Tribune’s Saif Shahin on Wednesday, he spoke about the changing face of regional geopolitics, the impact of Iranian policies and Qatar’s evolving relationship with the US and emerging powers like China and India.
15 May 2008: Qatar Tribune
Q: How do you view Qatar’s Growing rile in regional and international geopolitical affairs?
A: Qatar is known for its position of ‘active neutrality’, where it seeks to have relations with all the countries of the region. This reputation has sometimes put it in the important position of a diplomatic facilitator. Even as we speak, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign affairs HE Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al Thani is on such a mission to end the crisis in Lebanon.
But having strong links with countries or interests on opposite sides of the geopolitical spectrum can also be challenging. How risky can this balancing act be for Qatar?
Of course it is a challenging role to play. But over the last 10 years, Qatar has done a great job in developing its international personality. Probably over the next five to 10 years, equal importance will be given to developing the concept of citizenship within the state. As Qatar’s domestic personality develops, it can have more impact on the way it conducts its international affairs.
What are the biggest security threats to the region?
States in this region are either too strong or too weak. Their biggest challenge is to individually develop the concept of citizenship, so that peoples bonds aren’t only to the trans-national bonds of Islam or at the lower level to the bonds of clan, sect or tribe, but at the middle level of the state itself.
When citizens feel their relationship with the state is an important defining link for them, and that their future is intertwined with that of the state, then regional stability would improve as much as domestic security. So if there is one enduring security challenge, it is to develop that concept of citizenship and to strengthen the place of the state in the lives of ordinary people.
How can countries do that?
A very basic thing is to speak more regularly of what the state’s natural interests are. There is an understandable tendency to speak about the interests of the Arab world. In some countries, there is a tendency to speak about the interests of tribes and clans. But when the narrative of the interest of the state is greater, when more and more people are involved in fulfilling the ambitions of the state, then the concept of citizenship will become more ingrained.
As long as much of the political discourse in the region hinges on the trans-national idea of Arab or Muslim solidarity, it will be difficult to speak of the interests of the state within that. But as people begin defining the interests of the state, and aligning themselves with it, the concept would develop. It would, however, take decades to do so. These countries have moved quiet a lot in the 40 years or so since they gained formal independence.
How serious is the threat of homebred terrorism in the Gulf countries, and how much is it linked with the need to develop a sense of citizenship?
I think the threat of terrorism differs from country to country. It is probably greatest in Saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons. One of the objectives of Al Qaeda is to over throw the house of Saud. Saudi Arabia has also conducted the most comprehensive domestic counter-terrorism in the region, and a major de-radicalisation programme is also in place. So each country has a challenge of its own.
Is Iran a threat?
There are many angles to that. The first is of course Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For many years the country ran a secret centrifuge enrichment programme. That raises suspicions, not just in the west but also in other countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Iranians argue the purpose is to create fuel for their civilian nuclear reactor. But heir only such reactor at Busehr has been built by the Russians, and they don’t have the specifications for that fuel. Secondly they have never built a fuel fabrication plant. This makes people think Iran is at least trying to develop the option of nuclear weapons. If achieved that would change the regional balance of power.
The second angle is that Iran seems to be now very interested in exporting the 1979 revolution across its borders. There is debate within Iran if it is necessary or even advisable to do so. Former President Khatami has opposed the idea. So, if the Iranians themselves are questioning this, it is only natural that countries in the region might be wondering what such a policy would lead to. This has special significance for countries with Shiite populations that could be animated by the Iranian impulse. These countries are trying to integrate Shiite’s into their societies. Bahrain, for example is doing a lot to ensure Shiites are represented in parliament and have a sense of Bahraini citizenship. But these efforts could be undermined by moves to create international Shiite solidarity under Iranian leadership.
Thirdly, Iran has a very strong interest in supporting the opposition in Lebanon. That has partly given rise to the latest crisis there. There is in effect a proxy war being fought. The question is, can one solve proxy wars through proxy diplomacy? The answer is no. Proxy wars need to be addressed by direct diplomacy. It is important for all the powers to directly talk to Tehran about these issues, especially the situation in Lebanon.
Former US defence secretary William Cohen recently told me in an interview that neighbours would follow suit if Iran developed nuclear weapons. Do you agree?
While it has been accepted and acknowledged throughout the region over the last 25 or more years that Israel has a nuclear weapons capacity, there has been no military response to that. Egypt or Saudi Arabia have not decided to develop nuclear weapons in turn. But it is also clear that if Iran were to have a proven, acknowledged and open nuclear capacity that would change the balance of power so much that a number of other larger states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – would have to reconsider their position.
Some people feel that ties between Qatar and the US are no longer as close as they used to be. What is your view?
Relations between Qatar and the US did pass through a difficult period. It is an objective fact that there were rather bad tempered relations, especially over the vexing issued of Al Jazeera.
The US felt Al Jazeera was promoting radical view points and supporting terrorism. There was a point when the US found it difficult to convince Qatar to vote on some sensitive subjects during the latter’s Security Council tenure.
But I believe the ties are likely to warm up now. The difficult relationship between Qatar and Saudi Arabia has been repaired. Everyone noticed that the Saudi crown prince was in Qatar for as many as three days in March. The normalisation of their relationship should mean the normalisation of relations between Qatar and the US.
The US is urging GCC countries to open embassies in Baghdad. Is it time?
GCC countries have two issues with that. One is they believe the Iraqi government is sectarian. The other is of course the security situation. I think direct diplomatic relations should be established if the security situation is satisfying. Such relations do not indicate your approval of the government and its policies.
Why are Gulf countries now looking towards India and China to multiply their security options?
The strengthening of the links between the Gulf and the rest of Asia is one of the most important trends in international geopolitics today. Countries like China and India have immense interest in the region’s security. It is only healthy for both sides to invest not just in economic relations but also in political and ultimately security cooperation.
