Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1164991330-scaled

Is there a future for the GCC?

Maybe it's time for everyone to move on.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The Gulf Cooperation Council’s establishment in 1981 occurred when the six member-states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — saw a need for an effective collective security institution. To varying extents, these Arab sheikdoms all saw the nascent revolutionary Iranian regime as a danger. They worried about how spillover of the Iran-Iraq War could threaten their vital security interests. At that time there was much logic behind the idea of these Western-partnered monarchies coming together within framework of the GCC.

Nearly four decades later, however, there is every reason to challenge the assumption that the GCC in its current form is a necessary or even relevant organization. The “GCC seems to have lost the very foundations of its existence,” Dr. Marwan Kabalan, Director of Policy Analysis, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, recently argued. “With no shared values or common interests and without agreement on threat perceptions, there seems to be very little impetus left for the block to remain.”

The blockade of Qatar, which began three years ago, has exposed the GCC as an entirely dormant institution. Considering that three member-states linked up with Egypt (a non-GCC country) to impose a siege on Qatar, which was a founding GCC member, it is entirely evident that the institution lacks any teeth. Moreover, this was the second time in three years that the GCC has been unable to prevent three of its member states from turning on a fourth, after Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE withdrew their ambassadors from Doha for nine months in 2014. Although the GCC has a dispute settlement mechanism, at no point in 2017 was it activated, whether to express political grievances with Qatar or as a channel of mediation to settle those differences.

Although denied by officials in Doha, reports and rumors have surfaced that Qatar is considering exiting the GCC. Purportedly, Kuwaiti diplomats have been urging Qatar to not leave the council. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, there is still an important question to consider: If Qatar cannot count on the GCC to serve its purpose, which is to protect each member-state from threats, what incentives do officials in Doha have for keeping their country in this organization? It is legitimate to ask if, from a Qatari perspective, the benefits of remaining a member outweigh all the costs.

From a security standpoint, Qatar’s most important partners and allies are not in the GCC: the U.S. and Turkey. In terms of trade/economics, China, India, Iran, and Japan are far more important partners for Qatar than the three GCC states that cut ties with Doha in mid-2017. Thus, it would not be too surprising if Qatar leaves the GCC in the not so distant future. Just as Qatar decided in 2018 to leave OPEC, which was partially due to Doha’s desire to free itself from transnational institutions that are under de facto Saudi leadership, Qatar exiting the GCC could be understood within the same context.

The GCC crisis of 2017 came out of nowhere from Doha’s perspective. In fact, Saudi leadership was quite cordial to Qatar between the resolution of the GCC spat of 2014 and the ongoing blockade that began in mid-2017. King Salman’s visit to Doha in late 2016 underscored how much progress Saudi Arabia and Qatar had made in their bilateral relations, at least judging from the surface, and explain why so many Qataris were taken by surprise when Saudi Arabia began its hostile campaign against Doha.

It is difficult to imagine Qatar ever trusting Riyadh again as an ally or partner in the region. Given that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom all expect will become the next King of Saudi Arabia, is only in his mid-30s, Doha can expect him to become a ruler who stays on the throne for many decades to come. With MbS ruling Saudi Arabia for possibly another 50 years, could Qatar ever consider realigning with his country?

In a hypothetical situation in which Qatar exits the GCC, where would Kuwait and Oman find themselves? Would it be more likely for these two Gulf states to join Qatar in leaving the institution, or would they stay in a GCC that would only have five member-states? The Kuwaiti and Omani governments and societies have observed the past three years of the GCC crisis and wondered what the Arabian Peninsula’s new geopolitical order means for their countries. Whether either Kuwait or Oman will receive the “Qatar treatment” from the Saudi-Emirati axis is a question on the minds of many in Kuwait City and Muscat.

Kuwait has its own institutions that are far more democratic than those of the other five GCC states. Consequently, the Saudis and Emiratis have long been frustrated with Kuwait’s political system. While the Al Sabah rulers have gone to pains to maintain Kuwaiti neutrality in the GCC crisis, some Kuwaitis have voiced pro-Qatar positions that infuriate authorities in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi who would like to see the Kuwaiti government silence these citizens.

At the same time, Kuwait has a healthy and cordial relationship with Turkey and in some ways with Iran too. Also, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s tacit partnership with Israel are becoming increasingly difficult to deny, Kuwait remains committed to opposing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. If there is a future in which Qatar is no longer in the GCC, there have to be concerns in Kuwait City about more Saudi/Emirati pressure coming down on Kuwait to embrace more of the core tenets of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi’s current policy agendas across the Middle East.

From Oman’s perspective, the blockade of Qatar has damaged the GCC’s political, social, diplomatic, and economic fabric in ways that are extremely unfavorable. Despite some commentators implying otherwise, Oman has always favored a strong GCC. Yet the Omani vision for the GCC has differed significantly from those espoused by the Crown Princes of Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. Officials in Muscat have long believed that individual member-states of the council need to be free to make many foreign policy decisions on their own, as sovereign states, while also working together to achieve greater economic integration among the six monarchies. There has long been a concern among Omanis that Saudi Arabia seeks to assert itself as a hegemonic power in the Arabian Peninsula that does not always respect the sovereignty of the GCC’s smaller countries.

As Oman has sought to maintain its good relations with Qatar, pragmatic ties with Iran, and a neutral position in Yemen’s civil war, Muscat has been concerned about the Saudi and Emirati leaders pressuring the Sultanate in an effort to push Oman into closer alignment with the Riyadh-Abu Dhabi axis. Similar to Kuwait, Oman has concerns about being the target of a coordinated campaign waged by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Years ago Saudi Arabia reportedly began attempting to convince the Trump administration that Oman has grown too close to Tehran and that U.S. pressure should be put on Muscat in order to distance Oman from its Persian neighbor while bringing it closer to the Saudi/Emirati fold. According to one Omani scholar, Dr. Abdullah Baabood, the plan Saudi Arabia and the UAE have for Oman and Kuwait “goes way far beyond what they did for Qatar and it is much more sinister, reckless and dangerous.”

Ultimately, there are no easy solutions to the GCC crisis. If any of the GCC states leave the organization, there will still be tension between the different Arab Gulf regimes as well as their populations that have become increasingly nationalistic in recent years. The fundamental issues that have fueled this three-year-old feud will not disappear by virtue of Qatar — or even Kuwait and/or Oman — exiting the GCC.

Doha’s perception of the Saudi/Emirati axis posing a threat, as well Riyadh and Abu Dhabi’s view of Qatar as a menace, will not change regardless of how the GCC evolves — or perhaps disintegrates — as an organization in the upcoming future. Nonetheless, Qatar, or any member-state, leaving the sub-regional institution would be extremely symbolic and illustrative of the fact that Arab Gulf unity is merely a concept on paper that no longer exists in practice.


Image via Husni Tawil/shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
Swedish military Greenland

Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)

Trump digs in as Europe sends troops to Greenland

Europe

Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.

Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.

keep readingShow less
Congress
Top image credit: VideoFlow via shutterstock.com

Congress should walk Trump's talk on arms industry stock buybacks

Military Industrial Complex

The Trump administration’s new executive order to curb arms industry stock buybacks — which boost returns for shareholders — has no teeth, but U.S. lawmakers could and should take advantage.

The White House issued an Executive Order on Jan. 7 to prevent contractors “from putting stock buybacks and excessive corporate distributions ahead of production capacity, innovation, and on-time delivery for America’s military." The order empowers the Defense Secretary to "take steps to ensure that future contracts prohibit stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance, insufficient prioritization or investment, or insufficient production speed."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.