Monday, July 25, 2011

Saudi's Dangerous Role in Syria


Although I am moving all of my content to my new blog, and have therefore taken all postings off here to avoid cross-confusion, I have decided that it is best to keep the below article up due to it's being heavily cited. I don't want those citing it to have broken links on their pages.

Matthew Mainen

While Saudi Arabia’s involvement in suppressing Bahrain’s uprising is well documented, it’s behind the scenes role in Syria’s rebellion and Kuwaiti turmoil demonstrates that the monarchy seeks Arab-Islamic rather than Gulf hegemony. The collapse of the Syrian regime would albeit serve as the final blow to Iran’s quest for Mideast dominance, leaving Saudi Arabia the sole superpower. These prospects are troubling, given Saudi Arabia’s singular role in promoting Islamic extremism and its go-to move of creating sectarian tension.

For long it appeared that Iran was gaining the upper hand. By the end of 2008, Iraq’s Saudi-supported Sunni insurgency was defeated and Iraq’s Iranian backed Shia-majority asserted territorial control. In early January, Lebanon’s unity government collapsed, making Hezbollah a kingmaker. Then, on February 17th, Bahrain’s Shia majority, along with equally disgruntled Sunnis, rose up against the Sunni monarchy, presenting Iran with the perfect opportunity to attempt to backdoor into the Arab world.

Saudi Arabia acted swiftly, leading a contingent of over 2,000 Gulf troops to quell the uprising, but seeing a perfect opportunity to gain the initiative, Saudi Arabia went beyond Bahrain. Saudi affiliated members of Kuwait’s parliament, on the behest Saudi Arabia, called for a vote of no confidence on Kuwaiti Prime Minister Nasser Mohammed Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah, who has good relations with Iran.

Pro-Saudi MPs such as Waleed al-Tabtabaie have called for political union with Saudi Arabia. While Kuwait is a Sunni majority state, it has a large and disenfranchised Shia minority. The second they protest for equality, and they eventually will, the calls for unification will grow louder as Saudi troops will be invited to “secure” Kuwait from an “Iranian plot.”

Already, Saudi Arabia and their Kuwait protégés are constructing a unified foreign policy, which is first emerging in Syria. Saudi Arabia took the role as the lead foreign funder for the Istanbul Syrian opposition conference, while coordinating with private Kuwaiti citizens and sympathetic MPs as they hosted fundraisers.

Saudi based Syrians have been given a free hand to criticize the government and organize in anti-Syrian regime activities, a sign of official approval given that Saudi-based Egyptian opposition activists were expelled. Not surprisingly, such activists found a similar fate in Kuwait.

On the ground, Saudi Arabia and its Kuwaiti supporters are engaged in a joint hearts and mind campaign in the Turkish refugee camps. This is not a humanitarian gesture as evidenced by the fact that Saudi officials have not visited a single legitimate refugee camp elsewhere in the Muslim world. Rather, it’s an opportunity for Saudi Arabia to rally Syria’s Sunni majority against the country’s Alawite rulers, all the while Kuwait and the other Gulf states sans Qatar play second fiddle.

Using Saudi-owned television stations, the monarchy has opened the airwaves to carefully selected Sunni Syrian clerics. Adnan al-Arour, for example, has called on his Sunni counterparts to “grind the Alawites and feed them to the dogs.” His calls were recently answered, with Sunni-Alawite clashes in Homs.

These relatively small sectarian clashes are a precursor to what further Saudi involvement entails. A fullscale ethnic conflict has the potential of mirroring the Iraqi civil conflict, especially because what the Alawite minority lacks in numbers they make up for in arms and military training. This is to say nothing, of the possibility of Syria being flooded with Saudi-born jihadists as was the case in Iraq.

Prince Nayef, Saudi Arabia’s de facto crown prince, played a decisive operational role in Iraq’s Sunni insurgency, sending prominent terrorists such as Abdullah al-Rashoud to Iraq. His son has played a similar role. The clerical establishment also involved itself throughout the insurgency by collecting funds and even issuing a fatwa calling on Muslims to join the jihad in Iraq.

The United States cannot sit on the sidelines as Saudi Arabia helps shape Syria’s future. Regime change is desirable. Saudi-sponsored regime change is not. As things stand now, the most active Syrian opposition figures are Saudi-sympathizers. A progressive and democratic Syria aligned with the United States will do the most to contain Iran, not a Saudi proxy.

Under U.S. guidance, Qatar, which has played a prominent role in shaping events in Libya, should take the initiative from Saudi Arabia by funding and assembling progressive opposition leaders. While influencing Syria’s future, the U.S. will avoid accusations of meddling so long as Qatar does the groundwork. This will allow for a controlled Syrian transition, a contained Saudi-Iranian conflict and renewed U.S. influence in the region.

By Matthew Mainen

12 comments:

  1. Having Qatar act as a US conduit for assistance to Syrian opposition is an interesting one. What exactly would such an arrangement entail and what role would the US play in the cooperation with Qatar? Is this an idea that has suggested either by you or other authors? I follow Syrian politics and US policy as a hobby and had never heard this policy suggestion before. Great post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Qatar should do the following

    1. Guarantee a new Syrian government low-interest loans, specifically to finance U.S. backed programs in conjunction with those sponsored through USAID and other organs of the U.S. designed to promote civil development and democracy.

    2. Provide the Syrian opposition with the necessary tools to broadcast into Syria and abroad.

    3. Publicly offer to negotiate between the Syrian opposition and the government. Later, when the government in Syria falls, the U.S. should designate Qatar as mediator between Israel and Syria as Turkey is no longer capable of carrying out this task.

    These are just some groundwork suggestions. A contact group needs to be established similar to that established for similar.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a great post and is very interesting! I really enjoy Mr. Herndon's post, but am still a little bit confused. You say that the United States should act through Qatar as a conduit for assistance to Syria as a way to prevent accusations that the US is meddling in the middle east. But you also say that the US should guarantee programs and work through USAID to promote civil development and democracy. How would doing those actions not be perceived as "meddling" that you suggest in the original article?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd suggest that USAID stick to the relatively benign things it does like moderate civil service development (training elementary school teachers etc..) and funding children's projects here and there while the funds for the "dirty work" - democracy building be picked up by Qatar, who will direct from the U.S.' lead.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the response. If I may ask one more question for further clarification, you have suggested that Qatar should do all of the "dirty work," ie Democracy building and that the USAID do small civil service development programs such as training school teachers. Is this to suggest that the US should refrain from providing democracy assistance and allow Qatar do all of that work?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The U.S. should provide democracy assistance through third parties financed by Qatar, such as think tanks. By organizing and financing the endeavor, Qatar, not the United States will be seen as the guiding party. In reality, Western ideology will guide the process.


    So, for example, say that for the constitutional convention, Qatar foots the bill for hiring a committee of outside advisers, but you will hardly find anyone qualified for this task in Qatar's government! Instead, you'd be looking to Harvard, Yale, former administration officials in the U.S. and other Western countries and leading policy analysts from think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations. Qatar would take it upon itself to assemble and finance these experts, but will play a very limited role in their actual tasks.

    This is a win-win for the U.S. and Qatar. Qatar want's nothing more than prestige and out outshine Saudi Arabia. For the U.S., the benefits of having Western oriented thinkers guiding the process while avoiding "direct" involvement is obvious.

    After all, it's not the U.S. imposing it's will on the Arab world, but merely meeting its request as was the case in Libya.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you so much again for your prompt and thorough response!

    I just want to ask you one more direct question.
    You have suggested that the US should give some guidance to Qatar to help with democracy building in Syria. My question is does the US government need to provide direct assistance to Qatar, or could the Qatar government seek assistance from the US unilaterally? My worry is that there is a possibility that the US congress may hold up the needed funds considering the debt ceiling debate. It seems to me that Qatar could contact the same think tanks and Universities that you mentioned would be critical in helping the democratic process in Syria.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're Welcome.

    I think that Qatar should do nearly all of the financing on its own, and even if it did the organizing on its own, without any U.S. government involvement, it would inevitably wind up with the same Western oriented experts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting thread. I certainly understand how importing US thinkers might help coalesce the movement (through civil society building, etc) but does "unilaterally" farming out the process to Qatar have the desired effect of preventing a Saudi led post-Assad government? It seems, if as Amy suggests, the only US involvement is unofficial it would miss the mark of winning influence in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Personally - I have absolutely no objections regarding an overt U.S. role. But it's not practical given the fact that Obama took this long to even ask Assad to step down. Anything that could hint at meddling is it out of the question for Obama, though the Clinton camp is doing their best. I think that given the circumstances, using Qatar as a proxy is the only real option.

    On the other hand, if this thing drags out like the Iranian revolution and into a potential Republican administration in 2013, then that really changes what options the U.S. has.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I must concur with Mr. Mainen that such an overt act of democracy assistance would be rapidly interpreted by many Arab actors as nothing short of a kick in the "Gut" on the part of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This year's college policy debate topic is about whether or not the United States government should increase its democracy assistance to Arab Spring countries including Syria. Herndon and Schade are a college coach and debater who have a desire to quote you in college debates on what U.S. policy toward Syria should be. Their questions are not motivated simply by their hobbies of following politics. They would like to quote you as advocating that the United States route its democracy assistance for Syria through Qatar and are hoping you would flesh out how such a process might go do. They are trying to pry out of you some quotes on how such a process might work. What they really want to know are your thoughts on how the U.S. might best deliver effective democracy assistance to Syria. Would you care to expand on your thoughts on how the U.S. might adopt a more effective approach to democracy assistance in Syria?

    ReplyDelete