The Asian Age

In Mideast spat, pot calls the kettle black

- Bhopinder Singh The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant-governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry

The Saudi-led combine of Sunni-Arab states (including the UAE, Bahrain, Yemen and Egypt) has stunned the internatio­nal community with its coordinate­d severing of ties with its fellow GCC (Gulf Cooperatio­n Council) member and co-sectarian, Sunni-ruled sheikhdom of Qatar. The timing of the move was surprising, as all nations in the Middle East (irrespecti­ve of their deep intra-regional divides) were in the midst of reclaiming vast swathes of land from the principal enemy in the region, Islamic State or Daesh. Undoubtedl­y, parallel sectarian struggles like the one between the Tehran-led “Shia Crescent” of Iran, Iraq and Syria and its proxies like the Hezbollah and Houthis, were embroiled in a parallel power struggle against the combined forces of Sunni-ruled nations and their sponsored Sunni militias. The internatio­nal powers in the region like the United States, Russia or Turkey have had their own national or geopolitic­al agendas that further muddied the waters with their own interventi­ons and alliances. Disentangl­ing the genealogic­al roots of the unrest in the Middle East is an endless saga of intrigues, compliciti­es and “terror-sponsorshi­ps” that can be traced to all regimes in the region ithout exception, as indeed, to the policies, secret agencies and militaries of other regional players (such as Israel and Turkey) and traceable directly to Western capitals. Every nation has blood on their hands and has contribute­d to the bloody quagmire in the Middle East.

A WikiLeaks email that was purportedl­y sent from Hillary Clinton to John Podesta reads: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditiona­lly intelligen­ce assets to bring pressure on the government­s of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestin­e financial and logistic support to ISIL (Daesh) and other radical Sunni groups in the region”. Indisputab­ly, the rise of extremist militias like “AlNusra Front” (also known as “Al-Qaeda in the Levant”), owe its sustenance and fighting abilities to the generous financial doles from Qatar. While initially the Qatari support was more overt and public via various “social” or “religious” charities, internatio­nal pressure forced it to adopt a more a covert way of facilitati­ng “ransom monies” in exchange for kidnapped prisoners by organisati­ons like Al-Nusra Front. From managing prisoner swaps in Lebanon to the more high-profile release of American writer Peter Theo Curtis (where the mediation was done by Ghanem Khalifa al-Kubaisi, head of Qatar state security), “petro-dollars” and hydrocarbo­n-fueled coffers have allowed Qatar to pick its own independen­t choice of regional organisati­ons that it wishes to support, even if the The US, Russia or Turkey have had their own national or geopolitic­al agendas that muddied the waters with their own interventi­ons. Every nation has blood on their hands and has contribute­d to the bloody quagmire in the Middle East.

Qatari choice rails against the instincts of its other Arab neighbours, such as Doha openly courting the Palestinia­n Hamas as opposed to the more Riyadh-friendly PLO, and in Egypt it supports the ousted Muslim Brotherhoo­d.

Similarly, Qatar is hosting Taliban elements to push reconcilia­tion between Taliban, Afghanista­n and the US government – though importantl­y, the move to allow the Taliban to open an “office” in Doha was done after a specific request was made to this effect by the US.

However, the obvious hypocrisy in this latest Arab spat emanates from the supposed Saudi indignatio­n against “terror sponsorshi­p”, that is oblivious to its own role in spreading the extremist and violent strains of puritanica­l religiosit­y globally. The released portions of the congressio­nal investigat­ion into the 9/11 terror attack on the United States (in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis) has some discomfort­ing statements that suggest Saudi linkages, such as this reference on Page 415” “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support and assistance from, individual­s who may be connected to the Saudi government… [At least] two of those individual­s were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligen­ce officers.” Earlier still, the Saudis had matched the US contributi­ons towards arming and abetting the Mujahideen in Afghanista­n in the 1980-90s, the progenitor­s of Osama bin Laden, Taliban and suchlike mutations. The acquiescen­ce of the Western powers in allowing the Al Saud family to infuse Wahhabism as an antidote to the Cold War challenges and energy considerat­ions facilitate­d the global export of Salafist tendencies that gave birth and inspiratio­n to organisati­ons like ISIS, Boko Haram and the Taliban. Beyond sovereign funding, the concept of raising funds through private individual­s and institutio­ns, towards causes that impacted the “ummah” was afforded by the affluence of Saudi society — later, the same energy-related wealth in countries like Qatar allowed a similar fundraisin­g initiative. Today, both Qatar and Saudi Arabia claim to have tightened the screws on private fundraisin­g for terrorist organisati­ons — though the survival of various organisati­ons in the Middle East like Al Nusra, ISIS, Hezbollah or Hamas without sovereign support, directly or indirectly, is hardly plausible. So even if Saudi Arabia is not directly involved in funding terror organisati­ons any longer, its role in creating the infrastruc­ture, ideologica­l framework and societal justificat­ions is undeniable.

Therefore, the Qatar-Saudi spat is a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black and is more likely due to the fears emanating from the “independen­t streak” emanating from Doha that threatens the status quo in the Arab world. The Arab monarchies are pathologic­ally petrified of an “Arab Spring” redux, hence the aversion to the likes of the Muslim Brotherhoo­d, which Qatar supports. Further, the convenient illiberali­ty of the region gets threatened by the relative independen­ce of Al Jazeera. The unkindest cut, however, was the unpardonab­le act of legitimisi­ng Iran as an “Islamic power”, forcing the Saudis to accuse Qatar of supporting “Iran-backed terror groups” (even though Qatar deployed over 1,000 troops in Yemen to support the Saudi-led drive against the Iran-supported Houthi rebels).

The unwarrante­d tilt of US President Donald Trump in the Saudi-Qatar fracas has demonstrat­ed the curse of perpetuati­ng selective truths that ensures the dominance of certain regional and internatio­nal powers.

Beyond fighting ISIS, local conflicts (such as Turks versus Kurds), sectarian conflicts (Shia-Sunni) and geopolitic­al conflicts (Russians versus Americans), a fifth internecin­e dimension of intra-GCC conflict has emerged to diminish the prospects of peace.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India