Mapa del área de competencia del Comando para el Indo-Pacífico del Pentágono estadounidense [USINDOPACOM]

JOURNAL /  Juan Luis López Aranguren

[Documento de 6 páginas. Descargar en PDF]

INTRODUCCIÓN

El cambio tectónico internacional que se está produciendo con la cristalización del Indo-Pacífico como uno de los principales ejes globales no es algo que pasase desapercibido a los internacionalistas de los últimos 150 años. Ya a finales del siglo XIX, el historiador y estratega naval Alfred Thayer Mahan predijo que “quien domine el Océano Índico dominará Asia y el destino del mundo se decidirá en sus aguas”. Tiempo después, en 1924, Karl Haushofer predijo la llegada de lo que llamó “la Era del Pacífico”. Posteriormente, Henry Kissinger afirmó que uno de los cambios más drásticos a nivel global que se producirían en este siglo sería el desplazamiento del centro de gravedad de las relaciones internacionales del Atlántico al Índico y Pacífico. Y fue en los ochenta, durante la mítica reunión entre Deng Xiaoping y el primer ministro indio Rajiv Gandhi, cuando se produjo la declaración por parte de Deng indicando que sólo cuando China, India y otras naciones vecinas colaboren se podría hablar de un “siglo de Asia-Pacífico”.

En cualquier caso, la experiencia histórica indica que la unidad y la colaboración entre diferentes estructuras sociales (sean estas naciones, ideologías o civilizaciones) pueden coexistir con relaciones competitivas entre ellas provocando que el escenario donde interactúan y rivalizan se convierta en uno de los ejes geopolíticos del planeta. El Mediterráneo fue el punto de unión, comunicación y comercio de las culturas clásicas a las que regaban sus aguas durante milenios, pero también un espacio de competición diplomática y lucha por recursos, influencia y expansión de colonias, tal y como describió Tucídides en su Guerra del Peloponeso. De la misma forma, desde el siglo XV, el Atlántico también fue el campo de competición estratégica en la proyección progresiva de las ballenas o potencias marítimas europeas hacia América y África occidental, solapándose las dimensiones política, económica, religiosa y cultural. Y el siglo XVIII fue testigo del intenso conflicto desatado en el océano Índico entre Francia, Reino Unido y el Imperio maratha indio por el control de sus aguas y sus costas.

En última instancia, los mares y los océanos son el vector que permite a las potencias terrestres expandirse y proyectar su poder fuerte o blando más allá de las limitaciones de su ámbito territorial. El mar se convierte así en el ámbito donde el árbol de posibilidades de las naciones se maximiza. Ya lo explicó Ian Morris destacando que la razón por la que Europa se había convertido a partir del siglo XV en un poder global, expandiendo su civilización por todo el planeta, era precisamente que Europa era una península de penínsulas, y esto ofrecía un fácil acceso al mar a cualquier idea, producto, fuerza militar y revolución que se quisiera exportar e importar. El mar ha sido, por lo tanto, un acelerador de la evolución social en aquellas civilizaciones que contaban con la ventaja estratégica de un fácil acceso al mismo. Por ello, el planteamiento de la futura evolución de las dinámicas globales desde una perspectiva marítima en lugar de terrestre puede resultar más práctico a la hora de definir los futuros escenarios posibles. Esto nos lleva a la conclusión de que quizá resulta más adecuado hablar de una Era del Indo-Pacífico antes que de un siglo terrestre asiático, ya que estos océanos se asemejan a un lienzo donde los poderes antiguos y nuevos, regionales y globales, colectivistas e individualistas, se disputan la proyección de sus intereses, sus esferas de influencias y sus identidades, hasta lograr un alcance global.

Xi y Trump durante la única visita del presidente estadounidense a China, en 2017 [Casa Blanca]

JOURNAL /  Florentino Portero

[Documento de 10 páginas. Descargar en PDF]

INTRODUCCIÓN

Occidente admiró a Deng Xiaoping y comprendió que China, el imperio milenario, comenzaba una nueva etapa que habría que seguir con detenimiento, pues fuera cual fuera el camino finalmente elegido la China resultante determinaría la evolución del planeta en su conjunto.

El Imperio del Centro no había sabido o querido entender la dimensión histórica de la I Revolución Industrial y con ello se adentró en un callejón sin más salida que la humillación internacional y el fin de su régimen político. Japón vivió circunstancias semejantes, pero supo reaccionar. Gracias a la Revolución Meiji cambió su estrategia y trató de comprender y adaptarse a las nuevas circunstancias. China acabaría sufriendo la invasión japonesa de Manchuria y la imposición de condiciones humillantes por parte de las potencias occidentales. Finalmente, el Imperio fue derribado, dando paso a una guerra civil que se complicaría con la II Guerra Mundial y el intento japonés de imponerse como potencia de referencia en Extremo Oriente. En aquel complejo proceso de descomposición y reconstrucción de una cultura política profundamente enraizada, China perdió la oportunidad de entender y sumarse a la II Revolución Industrial.

El triunfo del Partido Comunista chino en la guerra civil puso fin al proceso de descomposición y dio paso a un nuevo período de su historia. De nuevo se imponía en Beijing un poder fuerte, en este caso totalitario, que reconstruyó y dotó de gran energía al estado. Los nuevos gobernantes, con Mao Zedong a la cabeza, trataron de imponer una cultura ajena, trasformando muchos de los elementos característicos del antiguo Imperio. Fue aquel un gran intento de ingeniería social, que abocó a una generalizada pérdida de libertad y pobreza, mientras la corrupción empapaba las distintas capas del partido. China había vuelto, estaba dotada de un estado fuerte y de un liderazgo cohesionado y dispuesto a asumir grandes responsabilidades. Sin embargo, la ideología se impuso al realismo y China perdió la III Revolución Industrial, privando a su pueblo de bienestar y a su economía de un modelo de desarrollo viable.

Mapa de la visión japonesa de Pacífico Libre y Abierto [MoFA]

JOURNAL /  Carmen Tirado Robles

[Documento de 8 páginas. Descargar en PDF]

INTRODUCCIÓN

Se dice que el concepto de Indo-Pacífico libre y abierto (FOIP) se remonta al artículo del oficial naval indio Capitán Gurpreet Khurana, quien escribió por primera vez sobre este concepto geopolítico a principios de 2007, en un documento titulado “Security of Sea Lines: Prospects for India-Japan Cooperation”. En aquel entonces, el Indo-Pacífico libre y abierto era principalmente un concepto geográfico que describía el espacio marítimo que se extendía desde los litorales de África oriental y Asia occidental, a través del Océano Índico y el Océano Pacífico occidental hasta las costas de Asia oriental. En la misma época el primer ministro japonés Shinzo Abe presentaba su plan de política exterior cimentada en valores democráticos a partir de la cual proponía “I will engage in strategic dialogues at the leader’s level with countries that share fundamental values such as Australia and India, with a view to widening the circle of free societies in Asia as well as in the world”, lo que unido a la consolidación de las relaciones con Estados Unidos (“The times demanded that Japan shift to proactive diplomacy based on new thinking. I will demonstrate the ‘Japan-U.S. Alliance for Asia and the World’ even further, and to promote diplomacy that will actively contribute to stalwart solidarity in Asia”), crea el concepto de Cuadrilátero o Quad, en contraposición con una visión sino-céntrica de Asia.

La idea del Quad se une al FOIP cuando Abe, en agosto de 2007, en su discurso ante el Parlamento de India, se basó en la “Confluencia de los océanos Índico y Pacífico” y “el acoplamiento dinámico como mares de libertad y prosperidad” de la región geográfica más grande de Asia y más tarde, ya en su segundo mandato, presentó en la VI Conferencia de Tokio sobre Desarrollo de África, que tuvo lugar en Nairobi (Kenia) el 27 de agosto de 2016 (TICAD VI), el nuevo marco geopolítico del Indo-Pacífico.

[Alyssa Ayres, Our Time Has Come. How India Is Making Its Place in the World (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2020) 360 pgs.]

RESEÑA /  Alejandro Puigrefagut 

Una India en ascenso progresivo quiere ocupar un lugar destacado entre las potencias globales. En las últimas décadas, las discusiones sobre el surgimiento global de la India y el lugar que le corresponde en el mundo han ido en aumento, en ocasiones en un contexto de posibles alianzas para hacer frente a un excesivo predominio de China.

Alyssa Ayres, experta sobre India, Pakistán y el Sur de Asia del Council on Foreign Relations de Estados Unidos, refleja bien, a través de su libro Our Time Has Come. How India Is Making Its Place in the World, el papel que desempeña esta democracia a nivel internacional, los obstáculos a los que se sigue enfrentando y las implicaciones de su ascenso para Estados Unidos y otros países de la región del Indo-Pacífico, como Pakistán y China. Es justo decir que la expansión económica de India ha colocado a este país entre las principales potencias emergentes del mundo, pero ahora quiere avanzar y conseguir un lugar entre las potencias globales.

Para la plena comprensión del papel que juega India a nivel global, la autora analiza su realidad política, económica y social interna. India es la mayor democracia del mundo, por lo que abarca una amplia gama de partidos nacionales y regionales que abogan por políticas radicalmente dispares. Esto crea complicaciones a la hora de llegar a acuerdos que beneficien a gran parte de la población. Además, otros factores que complican la relación entre la población son la división social y la religión. Para empezar, la India tiene un grave problema de división social provocada por la distinción entre clases sociales, o castas, las cuales algunas continúan teniendo un peso importante en la toma de decisiones. Igualmente, la cuestión religiosa adquiere un papel destacado debido a la gran cantidad de religiones que conviven en el territorio indio; no obstante, la mayoría hindú y musulmana son las que marcan la agenda política.

Ayres destaca dos características que moldean la posición de la India actual en el mundo: la propia percepción de país en desarrollo y la abstención en los enredos mundiales. Según la autora, a pesar del surgimiento de India como una de las economías más grandes del mundo, continúa teniendo a nivel nacional una percepción de sí misma como un país sentenciado a estar siempre entre las naciones en desarrollo. Eso provoca que las políticas económicas nacionales frenen y obstaculicen las ambiciones internacionales y por ende se encuentren en un conflicto continuo. Por el otro lado, históricamente, India se ha mantenido al margen de los grandes problemas globales y de los distintos bloques internacionales con su política de no alineación.

Our Times Has Come, a pesar de defender el elevado posicionamiento de India en el sistema internacional, subraya también los grandes desafíos a los que se enfrenta este país por no haber abandonado sus antiguas políticas. En primer lugar, la economía sigue siendo ciertamente proteccionista y no existe un consenso claro sobre las nuevas aportaciones que podría traer una economía de mercado más abierta. En segundo lugar, India sigue luchando contra el legado de su política exterior de no alineación y sigue siendo ambivalente sobre cómo debería ejercer su poder en las instituciones multilaterales. Y, en tercer lugar, este país sigue siendo demasiado protector de su autonomía, por lo que busca moldear sus interacciones internacionales en términos indios. De ahí que India tienda a moverse con cautela y deliberación en la esfera internacional.

Por otro lado, el libro hace hincapié en las relaciones entre India y Estados Unidos. La interacción entre ambos países difiere de sus relaciones con otros Estados debido a que Nueva Delhi, aunque busca una relación estratégica y económica más cercana con EEUU, no quiere estar sujeta a las obligaciones inherentes de esta alianza, sino adquirir autoridad sin tener que inclinarse ante Washington.

Ayres enfatiza la necesidad de reformar la gobernanza global para crear un espacio específico para Nueva Delhi. Entre sus recomendaciones se incluye el respaldo a la membresía de India en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU y otras instituciones que establezcan la agenda económica y de seguridad globales. Está claro que India, como potencia en ascenso, debería entenderse y apreciarse mejor en sus propios términos. En otras palabras, Nueva Delhi debería adquirir un papel más fundamental en el ámbito internacional y tomar cierto liderazgo para evitar verse presionado por sus competidores directos a nivel regional y global.

Las páginas de Our Times Has Come aportan varios años de conocimiento y estudio de primera mano sobre la política exterior de la India, mostrando sus complejidades y las grandes características que la moldean. La académica Alyssa Ayres, a través de este libro, nos ofrece un análisis imprescindible para entender qué es la India, pero, sobre todo, qué quiere llegar a ser.

Imagen satelital de las islas Canarias [NASA]

COMENTARIO /  Natalia Reyna Sarmiento

La pandemia global causada por el Covid-19 ha obligado a aplicar cuarentenas y otras restricciones en todas partes el mundo y eso ha limitado enormemente los movimientos de personas de unos países a otros. No obstante, el fenómeno migratorio ha seguido su curso, también en el caso de Europa, donde el cierre de fronteras durante parte de 2020 no ha impedido la inmigración ilegal, como la procedente del África subsahariana. De hecho, la miseria sanitaria de los países pobres ha añadido en este tiempo de pandemia otro motivo de fuga desde los países de origen.

El incremento de las migraciones en las últimas décadas ha sido consecuencia de diversos desafíos humanitarios. La falta de seguridad, el temor a la persecución, la violencia, los conflictos y la pobreza, entre otros motivos, generan una situación de vulnerabilidad que empuja en muchos casos a quienes sufren esas circunstancias a salir de su país en busca de mejores condiciones. La emergencia del Covid-19 ha sido otro elemento de vulnerabilidad en las sociedades con escasos recursos médicos en el último año también, al tiempo que la llegada de migrantes sin conocer si eran portadores o no del virus ha agravado la resistencia social hacia la inmigración en las economías desarrolladas. Ambas cuestiones se dieron la mano especialmente en la crisis migratoria vivida por las islas Canarias a lo largo de 2020, sobre todo en los últimos meses.

Catorce años después de la “crisis de los cayucos”, el archipiélago experimentó otro notable auge de llegada de inmigrantes (esta vez el término que se ha generalizado para sus embarcaciones es el de pateras). En 2020 llegaron a Canarias más de 23.000 inmigrantes, en travesías que al menos se cobraron la vida de cerca de 600 personas. Si en 2019 arribaron a las islas unas cien embarcaciones con inmigrantes ilegales, en 2020 fueron más de 550, lo que habla de un fenómeno migratorio multiplicado por cinco.

¿Por qué se produjo ese incremento, redirigiendo a las islas Canarias un flujo que otras veces ha buscado la ruta del Mediterráneo? Por un lado, sigue primando la travesía marítima para alcanzar Europa, pues además del coste del pasaje aéreo –prohibitivo para muchos–, los vuelos exigen una documentación que muchas veces no se posee o que facilita un control por parte de las autoridades –de salida y de llegada– que desee evitarse. Por otro lado, las dificultades en puntos de la ruta del Mediterráneo, como políticas más estrictas en la admisión refugiados rescatados del mar impuestas por Italia o la situación de guerra que vive Libia, donde llegan itinerarios que por ejemplo salen de Sudán, Nigeria y Chad, derivaron parte de la presión de las mafias migratorias hacia Canarias. En ello también pudo tener un papel la actitud de Marruecos.

España tiene interés en mantener una buena relación con Marruecos por razones obvias. Su frontera con Ceuta y Melilla y su proximidad a las islas Canarias le convierte en un vecino que puede contribuir tanto a la seguridad como a intensificar la presión migratoria sobre territorio español. Precisamente en un momento crítico de la crisis canaria, el ministro español de Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, acudió el 20 de noviembre al vecino país a entrevistarse con su homólogo marroquí, Abdelouafi Laftit, con la intensión de requerir la ayuda de la monarquía alauí para poner freno a la crisis migratoria. No obstante, aunque en los siguientes días se registró una disminución de llegadas de pateras a Canarias, pronto las llegadas fueron aumentando otra vez, dejando efectividad la visita realizada por Marlaska.

Por otro lado, en esas semanas, Pablo Iglesias, vicepresidente del Gobierno español y secretario general de Podemos, reclamó a Marruecos la celebración de un referéndum sobre el futuro del Sáhara Occidental, excolonia española y bajo tutela marroquí admitida por la ONU hasta la celebración de consulta al pueblo saharaui. La admisión en esos mismos días de la soberanía de Marruecos sobre el Sáhara Occidental por parte de la Administración Trump (a cambio del establecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas entre Marruecos e Israel) llevó a Rabat a esperar una revisión de la postura española, que está alineada con el planteamiento de la ONU. La ratificación de esta por boca de Iglesias y sobre todo su tono de exigencia hizo que el monarca marroquí, Mohamed VI, decidiera no recibir al presidente del Gobierno español, Pedro Sánchez en un desplazamiento que iba a haber al vecino país. Otros asuntos, como la delimitación de las aguas territoriales hecha por Marruecos en enero, expandiendo su zona económica exclusiva, han aumentado los desencuentros entre los dos países.

A la tensión normal en Canarias por la llegada de miles de inmigrantes en poco tiempo se juntaron los riesgos sanitarios debidos a la pandemia. Más allá de los miedos extendidos por algunos sobre la posible entrada de personas efectivamente contagiadas con coronavirus, los protocolos establecidos obligaban a mantener aislados a los llegados en pateras, lo que causó un problema de hacinamiento en instalaciones inicialmente no adecuadas.

La Cruz Roja Española creó zonas reservadas para los aislamientos de las personas que dieran positivo en los tests de Covid-19. Además, se establecieron macrocampamentos temporales para realojar a miles de migrantes que primero estuvieron acogidos en distintos hoteles. El traslado de grupos de ellos por avión a puntos de la Península creó polémicas que el Gobierno tuvo que capear. La entrada de 2021 ha rebajado, al menos momentáneamente, la presión.

[Rory Medcalf, Indo-Pacific Empire. China and the Contest for the World’s Pivotal Region (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020) 310 págs.]

RESEÑA / Salvador Sánchez Tapia

En 2016, el primer ministro Abe de Japón y su homólogo indio, Narendra Modi, realizaron un viaje en el tren bala que une Tokio con Kobe para visualizar el nacimiento de una nueva era de cooperación bilateral. Sobre la base de esta anécdota, Rory Medcalf propone al lector una reconceptualización de la región más dinámica del globo que deje atrás la que, por mor del influjo norteamericano, ha predominado por algún tiempo bajo la denominación “Asia-Pacífico”, y que no refleja una realidad geopolítica más amplia.

El título de la obra es un tanto engañoso, pues parece aludir a un eventual dominio mundial ejercido desde la región indo-pacífica, y a la lucha de China y Estados Unidos por el mismo. No es esto lo que el libro ofrece.

Para Medcalf, un australiano que ha dedicado muchos años a trabajar en el servicio exterior de su país, “Indo-Pacífico” es un concepto geopolítico alternativo que engloba a una amplia región eminentemente marítima que comprende los océanos Pacífico e Índico, por los cuales circula la mayor parte del comercio marítimo global, así como los territorios costeros conectados por ambos mares. En el centro de este inmenso y diverso espacio se encuentran, actuando como una suerte de bisagra vertebradora, Australia, y la zona del sureste asiático que comprende el Estrecho de Malaca, vital paso marítimo.

El enfoque geopolítico propuesto sirve de argumento para articular una respuesta regional al creciente y cada vez más amenazador poder de China, que no pase por la confrontación o la capitulación sumisa. En palabras del autor, es un intento, hecho desde un punto de vista liberal, para contrarrestar los deseos de China de capitalizar la región en su favor.

En este sentido, la propuesta de Medcalf pasa por que las potencias medias de la región –India, Australia, Japón, Corea, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.– logren una mayor coordinación para dibujar un futuro que tenga en cuenta los legítimos intereses de China, pero en el que estas potencias equilibren de forma eficaz el poder de Beijing. Se trata de que el futuro de la región esté diseñado con China, pero no sea impuesto por China. Tampoco por Estados Unidos al que, no obstante, se reconoce como actor clave en la región, y con cuyo apoyo el autor cuenta para dar cuerpo a la idea.

El argumento del libro sigue un guion cronológico en el que aparecen tres partes claramente diferenciadas: pasado, presente y futuro. La primera de ellas expone las razones históricas que justifican la consideración de la indo-pacífica como una región con entidad propia, y muestra las deficiencias de la visión “Asia-Pacífico”.

El bloque referido al presente es de índole descriptiva y hace una breve presentación de los principales actores del escenario indo-pacífico, del creciente poder militar chino, y de cómo China lo está empleando para retornar, en una reminiscencia de la época del navegante chino Zheng He, al Océano Índico, convertido ahora en arena de confrontación geoeconómica y geopolítica, así como en pieza clave del crecimiento económico chino como ruta por la que navegan los recursos que el país necesita, y como en parte marítima del proyecto global de la nueva Ruta de la Seda.

En lo tocante al futuro, Medcalf ofrece su propuesta para la región, basada en un esquema geopolítico en el que Australia, naturalmente, ocupa un lugar central. En una escala que va desde la cooperación hasta el conflicto, pasando por la coexistencia, la competición y la confrontación, el autor hace una apuesta por la coexistencia de los actores del tablero indo-pacífico con China, y plantea acciones en las tres áreas de la promoción del desarrollo en los países más vulnerables a la influencia –extorsión, en algunos casos– china; de la disuasión, en la que Estados Unidos continuará jugando un papel central, pero que no puede estar basada exclusivamente en su poder nuclear, sino en el crecimiento de las capacidades militares de los países de la región; y de la diplomacia, ejercida a varios niveles –bilateral, multilateral, y “minilateral”– para generar confianza mutua y establecer normas que eviten una escalada hacia la confrontación e, incluso, el conflicto.

Estos tres instrumentos deben venir acompañados de la práctica de dos principios: solidaridad y resiliencia. Por el primero se busca una mayor capacidad para gestionar el ascenso de China de una forma que promueva un balance entre el equilibrio de poder y el acercamiento, evitando los extremos de la contención y el acomodo a los designios del gigante. Por el segundo, los estados de la región se hacen más resistentes al poder de China y más capaces de recuperarse de sus efectos negativos.

No cabe duda de que este enfoque geopolítico, que sigue la estela abierta por Japón con su política “Indo-Pacífico Libre y Abierto”, está hecho desde una perspectiva netamente australiana y de que, de forma consciente o no, realza el papel de esta nación-continente, y sirve a sus intereses particulares de definir su lugar en el mundo y de mantener un entorno seguro y estable frente a una China que contempla de una forma cada vez más amenazadora.

Aún reconociendo esta motivación, que no deja de ser consecuencia lógica de la aplicación de los viejos conceptos del realismo, la visión propuesta no carece de méritos. Para empezar, permite conceptualizar a China de una forma que captura el interés por el Índico como algo integral a la visión que de sí misma tiene respecto a su relación con el mundo. Por otra parte, sirve como llamada de atención, tanto a las numerosas potencias medias asiáticas como a los pequeños estados insulares del Pacífico, sobre la amenaza china, ofreciendo el maná de una alternativa diferente al conflicto o a la sumisión acrítica al gigante chino. Finalmente, incorpora –al menos conceptualmente– a Estados Unidos, junto con India y Japón, a un esfuerzo multinacional capaz, por el peso económico y demográfico de los participantes, de equilibrar el poder de China.

Si la intención del concepto es la de fomentar en la región la conciencia de la necesidad de componer un equilibrio al poder de China, entonces puede argumentarse que la propuesta, excesivamente centrada en Australia, omite por completo la dimensión terrestre china, y la conveniencia de incorporar a ese balance a otras potencias medias regionales que, aunque no se cuenten entre las marítimas, comparten con ellas el temor al creciente poder de China. De forma similar, y aunque pueda pensarse que las naciones ribereñas de África y América forman parte integral de la entidad definida por las cuencas indo-pacíficas, éstas están conspicuamente ausentes del diseño geopolítico, a excepción de Estados Unidos y Rusia. Las referencias a África son muy escasas; América Central y del Sur están, simplemente, innombradas.

Se trata, en definitiva, de una interesante obra que aborda una importante cuestión de alcance global desde una óptica novedosa, realista y ponderada, sin caer en escenarios catastrofistas, sino abriendo una puerta a un futuro algo esperanzador en el que una China dominante pero cuyo poder, así se argumenta, podría haber ya alcanzado su pico máximo, pueda dar lugar al florecimiento de un espacio compartido en el corazón de un mundo reconectado de una forma que los antiguos navegantes no habían podido ni siquiera imaginar.

[Barack Obama, Una tierra prometida (Debate: Madrid, 2020), 928 págs.]

RESEÑA / Emili J. Blasco

Las memorias de un presidente son siempre un intento de justificación de su actuación política. Habiendo empleado George W. Bush menos de quinientas páginas en «Decision Points» para intentar explicar las razones de una gestión en principio más controvertida, que Barack Obama utilice casi mil para una primera parte de sus memorias (Una tierra prometida solo cubre basta el tercero de sus ocho años de presidencia) parece un exceso: de hecho, ningún presidente estadounidense ha requerido tanto espacio en ese ejercicio de querer dejar atado su legado.

Es verdad que Obama tiene gusto por la pluma, con algún libro precedente en el que ya demostró buena narrativa, y es posible que esa inclinación literaria le haya vencido. Pero probablemente ha sido más determinante la visión que Obama ha tenido de sí mismo y de su presidencia: la convicción de tener una misión, como primer presidente afroamericano, y su ambición de querer doblar el arco de la historia. Cuando, con el paso del tiempo, Obama comienza a ser ya uno más en la lista de presidentes, su libro revindica el carácter histórico de su persona y sus realizaciones.

El primer tercio de Una tierra prometida resulta especialmente interesante. Hay un repaso somero de su vida anterior a la entrada en política y luego el detalle de su carrera hasta alcanzar la Casa Blanca. Esta parte tiene la misma carga inspiradora que hizo tan atractivo Los sueños de mi padre, el libro que Obama publicó en 1995 cuando lanzó su campaña al Senado del estado de Illinois (en España apareció en 2008, a raíz de su campaña a la presidencia). Todos podemos sacar lecciones muy útiles para nuestra propia superación personal: la idea de ser dueños de nuestro destino, de cobrar conciencia de nuestra identidad más profunda, y la seguridad que eso nos da para llevar a cabo muchas empresas de gran valor y transcendencia; el poner todo el empeño en una meta y aprovechar oportunidades que quizá no vuelvan a presentarse; en definitiva, el pensar siempre por elevación (cuando Obama vio que su trabajo como senador de Illinois tenía poco impacto, su decisión no fue dejar la política, sino saltar al ámbito nacional: se presentó a senador en Washington y de ahí, solo cuatro años después, llegó a la Casa Blanca). Se trata, además, de unas páginas ricas en enseñanzas sobre comunicación política y campañas electorales.

Pero cuando la narración comienza a abordar el periodo presidencial, que arrancó en enero de 2009, ese tono inspirador decae. Lo que antes era una sucesión de adjetivos generalmente positivos hacia todos, empieza a incluir diatribas contra sus oponentes republicanos. Y aquí está el punto que Obama no logra superar: otorgarse todo el mérito moral y negárselo a quien con sus votos en el Congreso discrepaba de la legislación promovida por el nuevo presidente. Cierto que Obama contó con una oposición muy frontal de los líderes republicanos en el Senado y en la Cámara de Representantes, pero estos también apoyaron algunas de sus iniciativas, como el propio Obama reconoce. Por lo demás, ¿qué fue antes, el huevo o la gallina? Amplios sectores republicanos se echaron enseguida al monte, como pronto evidenció la marea del Tea Party en las elecciones de medio mandato de 2010 (en un movimiento que acabaría desembocando en el respaldo a Trump), pero también es que Obama había llegado con las posiciones más a la izquierda que se recordaban en la política estadounidense. Con su empuje idealista, Obama había dado poco ejemplo de esfuerzo bipartidista en su paso por el Senado de Illinois y de Washington; cuando algunas de sus reformas desde la Casa Blanca se vieron bloqueadas en el Congreso, en lugar de buscar un acomodo –aceptando una política de lo posible– fue a la calle a enfrentar a los ciudadanos con los políticos que se oponían a sus transformaciones, enquistando aún más las trincheras de unos y otros.

El historiador británico Niall Ferguson ha apuntado que el fenómeno Trump no se entendería sin la presidencia previa de Obama, aunque probablemente la agria división política en Estados Unidos sea una cuestión de corriente profunda en la que los líderes juegan un papel menos protagonista de lo que supondríamos. Justamente Obama se vio a si mismo como alguien idóneo, por su mezcla cultural (de raza negra, pero criado por su madre y abuelos blancos), para superar esa grieta que en la sociedad estadounidense iba agrandándose; sin embargo, no pudo tender los puentes ideológicos necesarios. Bill Clinton se enfrentó a un similar bloqueo republicano, en el Congreso liderado por Newt Gingrich, y procedió a transacciones que fueron útiles: restó carga ideológica y trajo una prosperidad económica que relajó la vida pública.

Una tierra prometida incluye muchas reflexiones de Obama. Generalmente aporta los contextos necesarios para entender bien las cuestiones, por ejemplo en la gestación de la crisis financiera de 2008. En política exterior detalla el estado de las relaciones con las principales potencias: la animadversión hacia Putin y la suspicacia hacia China, entre otros asuntos. Hay aspectos con distintas posibles vías de avance en los que Obama no deja margen para una posición alternativa lícita: así, en un tema especialmente emblemático, carga contra Netanyahu sin admitir ningún error propio en su aproximación al problema palestino-israelí. Esto es algo que otras reseñas del libro han señalado: la ausencia de autocrítica (más allá de admitir pecados de omisión al no haber sido todo lo audaz que hubiera deseado), y la falta en admitir que en algún aspecto quizás el oponente podía tener razón.

La narración transcurre con buen ritmo interno, a pesar de las muchas páginas. El tomo termina en 2011, en un momento aleatorio determinado por la extensión que se prevea para una segunda entrega; no obstante, tiene un colofón con suficiente fuerza: la operación contra Osama bin Laden, por primera vez contada en primera persona por quien tenía el máximo nivel de mando. Aunque se desconoce el grado de implicación de otras manos en la redacción de la obra, esta tiene un punto de lirismo que conecta directamente con Los sueños de mi padre y que ayuda a atribuirla, al menos en gran medida, al propio expresidente.

La obra contiene muchos episodios de la vida doméstica de los Obama. Los constantes piropos de Obama a su mujer, la admiración por su suegra y las continuas referencias a la devoción por sus dos hijas podrían considerarse algo innecesario, sobre todo por lo recurrente, en un libro político. No obstante, otorgan al relato el tono personal que Obama ha querido adoptar, dando además calidez humana a quien con frecuencia se le acusó de tener una imagen pública de persona fría, distante y demasiado reflexiva.

The wave of diplomatic recognition of Israel by some Arab countries constitutes a shift in regional alliances

▲ Dubai, the largest city in the United Arab Emirates [Pixabay]

ANALYSIS / Ann M. Callahan

With the signing of the Abraham Accords, seven decades of enmity between the states were concluded. With a pronounced shift in regional alliances and a convergence of interests crossing traditional alignments, the agreements can be seen as a product of these regional changes, commencing a new era of Arab-Israeli relations and cooperation. While the historic peace accords seem to present a net positive for the region, it would be a mistake to not take into consideration the losing party in the deal; the Palestinians. It would also be a error to dismiss the passion with which many people still view the Palestinian issue and the apparent disconnect between the Arab ruling class and populace.

On the 15th of September, 2020, a joint peace deal was signed between the State of Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and the United States, known also as the Abraham Accords Peace Agreement. The Accords concern a treaty of peace, and a full normalization of the diplomatic relations between the United Emirates and the State of Israel. The United Arab Emirates stands as the first Persian Gulf state to normalize relations with Israel, and the third Arab state, after Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The deal was signed in Washington on September 15 by the UAE’s Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan and the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. It was accepted by the Israeli cabinet on the 12th of October and was ratified by the Knesset (Israel’s unicameral parliament) on the 15th of October. The parliament and cabinet of the United Arab Emirates ratified the agreement on the 19th of October. On the same day, Bahrain confirmed its pact with Israel through the Accords, officially called the Abraham Accords: Declaration of Peace, Cooperation, and Constructive Diplomatic and Friendly Relations. Signed by Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the President of the United States Donald Trump as a witness, the ratification indicates an agreement between the signatories to commence an era of alliance and cooperation towards a more stable, prosperous and secure region. The proclamation acknowledges each state's sovereignty and agrees towards a reciprocal opening of embassies and as well as stating intent to seek out consensus regarding further relations including investment, security, tourism and direct flights, technology, healthcare and environmental concerns.

The United States played a significant role in the accords, brokering the newly signed agreements. President of the United States, Donald Trump, pushed for the agreements, encouraging the relations and negotiations and promoting the accords, and hosting the signing at the White House.

As none of the countries involved in the Abraham Accords had ever fought against each other, these new peace deals are not of the same weight or nature as Egypt’s peace deal with Israel in 1979. Nevertheless, the accords are much more than a formalizing of what already existed. Now, whether or not the governments collaborated in secret concerning security and intelligence previously, they will now cooperate publicly through the aforementioned areas.  For Israel, Bahrain and the UAE, the agreements pave a path for the increase of trade, investment, tourism and technological collaboration. In addition to these gains, a strategic alliance against Iran is a key motivator as the two states and the U.S. regard Iran as the chief threat to the region’s stability.

Rationale

What was the rationale for this diplomatic breakthrough and what prompted it to take place this year? It could be considered to be a product of the confluence of several pivotal impetuses.

The accords are seen as a product of a long-term trajectory and a regional reality where over the course of the last decade Arab states, particularly around the Gulf, have begun to shift their priorities. The UAE, Bahrain and Israel had found themselves on the same side of more than one major fissure in the Middle East. These states have also sided with Israel regarding Iran. Saudi Arabia, too, sees Shiite Iran as a major threat, and while, as of now, it has not formalized relations with Israel, it does have ties with the Hebrew state. This opposition to Tehran is shifting alliances in the region and bringing about a strategic realignment of Middle Eastern powers.

Furthermore, opposition to the Sunni Islamic extremist groups presents a major threat to all parties involved. The newly aligned states all object to Turkey’s destabilizing support of the Muslim Brotherhood and its proxies in the regional conflicts in Gaza, Libya and Syria. Indeed, the signatories’ combined fear of transnational jihadi movements, such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS derivatives, has aligned their interests closer to each other.

In addition, there has been a growing frustration and fatigue with the Palestinian Cause, one which could seem interminable. A certain amount of patience has been lost and Arab nations that had previously held to the Palestinian cause have begun to follow their own national interests.  Looking back to late 2017, when the Trump administration officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, had it been a decade earlier there would have been widespread protests and resulting backlash from the regional leaders in response, however it was not the case. Indeed, there was minimal criticism. This may indicate that, at least for the regional leaders, that adherence to the Palestinian cause is lessening in general.

The prospects of closer relations with the economically vibrant state of Israel, and by extension with that of the United States is increasingly attractive to many Arab states. Indeed, expectations of an arms sale of U.S. weapon systems to the UAE, while not written specifically into the accords, is expected to come to pass through a side agreement currently under review by Congress.

From the perspective of Israel, the country has gone through a long political crisis with, in just one year alone, three national elections. In the context of these domestic efforts, prime minister Netanyahu raised propositions of annexing more sections of the contended West Bank. Consequently, the UAE campaigned against it and Washington called for Israel to choose between prospects of annexation or normalization. The normalization was concluded in return for suspending the annexation plans. There is debate regarding whether or not the suspending of the plans are something temporary or a permanent cessation of the annexation. There is a discrepancy between the English and Arabic versions of the joint treaty. The English version declared that the accord “led to the suspension of Israel’s plans to extend its sovereignty.” This differs slightly, however significantly, from the Arabic copy in which “[the agreement] has led to Israel’s plans to annex Palestinian lands being stopped.” This inconsistency did not go unnoticed to the party most affected; the Palestinians. There is a significant disparity between a temporary suspension as opposed to a complete stopping of annexation plans.

For Netanyahu, being a leading figure in a historic peace deal bringing Israel even more out of its isolation without significant concessions would certainly boost his political standing in Israel. After all, since Israel's creation, what it has been longing for is recognition, particularly from its Arab neighbors.

Somewhat similarly to Netanyahu, the Trump Administration had only to gain through the concluding of the Accords. The significant accomplishment of a historic peace deal in the Middle East was certainly a benefit especially leading up to the presidential elections, the which took place earlier this November. On analyzing the Administration’s approach towards the Middle East, its strategy clearly encouraged the regional realignment and the cultivation of the Gulf states’ and Israel’s common interests, culminating in the joint accords.

Implications

As a whole, the Abraham Accords seem to have broken the traditional alignment of Arab States in the Middle East. The fact that normalization with Israel has been achieved without a solution to the Palestinian issue is indicative of the shift in trends among Arab nations which were previously staunchly adherent to the Palestinian cause. Already, even Sudan, a state with a violent past with Israel, has officially expressed its consent to work towards such an agreement. Potentially, other Arab states are thought to possibly follow suit in future normalization with Israel.

Unlike Bahrain and the UAE, Sudan has sent troops to fight against Israel in the Arab-Israeli wars. However, following the UAE and Bahrain accords, a Sudan-Israel normalization agreement transpired on October 23rd, 2020. While it is not clear if the agreement solidifies full diplomatic relations, it promotes the normalization of relations between the two countries. Following the announcement of their agreement, the designated foreign minister, Omar Qamar al-Din, clarified that the agreement with Israel was not actually a normalization, rather an agreement to work towards normalization in the future. It is only a preliminary agreement as it requires the approval of an elected parliament before going into force. Regardless, the agreement is a significant step for Sudan as it had previously considered Israel an enemy of the state.

While clandestine relations between Israel and the Gulf states were existent for years, the founding of open relations is a monumental shift. For Israel, putting aside its annexation plans was insignificant in comparison with the many advantages of the Abraham Accords. Contrary to what many expected, no vast concessions were to be made in return for the recognition of sovereignty and establishment of diplomatic ties for which Israel yearns for. In addition, Israel is projected to benefit economically from its new forged relations with the Gulf states between the increased tourism, direct flights, technology and information exchange, commercial relations and investment. Already, following the Accord’s commitment, the US, Israel and the UAE have already established the Abraham Fund. Through the program more than $3 billion dollars will be mobilized in the private sector-led development strategies and investment ventures to promote economic cooperation and profitability in the Middle East region through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, Israel and the UAE.

The benefits of the accords extend to a variety of areas in the Arab world including, most significantly, possible access to U.S. defense systems. The prospect of the UAE receiving America’s prestigious F-35 systems is in fact underway. President Trump, at least, is willing to make the sale. However, it has to pass through Congress which has been consistently dedicated to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. According to the Senate leader Mitch McConnell (Rep, KY), “We in congress have an obligation to review any U.S. arm sale package linked to the deal [...] As we help our Arab partners defend against growing threats, we must continue ensuring that Israel’s qualitative military edge remains unchallenged.” Should the sale be concluded, it will stand as the second largest sale of U.S. arms to one particular nation, and the first transfer of lethal unmanned aerial systems to any Arab ally. The UAE would be the first Arab country to possess the Lockheed Martin 5th generation stealth jet, the most advanced on the market currently.

There is debate within Israel regarding possible UAE acquisition of the F-35 systems. Prime Minister Netanyahu did the whole deal without including the defense minister and the foreign minister, both political rivals of Netanyahu in the Israeli system. As can be expected, the Israeli defense minister does have a problem regarding the F-35 systems. However, in general, the Accords are extremely popular in Israel.

Due to Bahrain’s relative dependence on Saudi Arabia and the kingdom’s close ties, it is very likely that it sought out Saudi Arabia’s approval before confirming its participation in the Accords. The fact that Saudi Arabia gave permission to Bahrain could be seen as indicative, to a certain extent, of their stance on Arab-Israeli relations. However, the Saudi state has many internal pressures preventing it, at least for the time being, from establishing relations.

For over 250 years, the ruling Saudi family has had a particular relationship with the clerical establishment of the Kingdom. Many, if not the majority of the clerics would be critical of what they would consider an abandonment of Palestine. Although Mohammed bin Salman seems more open to ties with Israel, his influential father, Salman bin Abdulaziz sides with the clerics surrounding the matter.

Differing from the United Arab Emirates, for example, Saudi Arabia gathers a notable amount of its legitimacy through its protection of Muslims and promotion of Islam across the world. Since before the establishment of the state of Israel, the Palestinian cause has played a crucial role in Saudi Arabia’s regional activities. While it has not prevented Saudi Arabia from engaging in undisclosed relations with Israel, its stance towards Palestine inhibits a broader engagement without a peace deal for Palestine. This issue connected to a critical strain across the region: that between the rulers and the ruled. One manifestation of this discrepancy between classes is that there seems to be a perception among the people of the region that Israel, as opposed to Iran, is the greater threat to regional security. Saudi Arabia has a much larger population than the UAE or Bahrain and with the extensive popular support of the Palestinian cause, the establishment of relations with Israel could elicit considerable unrest.

While Saudi Arabia has engaged in clandestine ties with Israel and been increasingly obliging towards the state (for instance, opening its air space for Israeli direct flights to the UAE and beyond), it seems unlikely that Saudi Arabia will establish open ties with Israel, at least for the near future.

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has only heightened prevailing social, political and economic tensions all throughout the Middle East. Taking this into account, in fear of provoking unrest, it can be expected that many rulers will be hesitant, or at least cautious, about initiating ties with the state of Israel. 

That being said, in today’s hard-pressed Middle East, Arab states, while still backing the Palestinian cause, are more and more disposed to work towards various relations with Israel. Saudi Arabia is arguably the most economically and politically influential Arab state in the region. Therefore, if Saudi Arabia were to open relations with Israel, it could invoke the establishment of ties with Israel for other Arab states, possibly invalidating the longstanding idea that such relations could come about solely though the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Regarding Iran, it cannot but understand the significance and gravity of the Accords and recent regional developments. Just several nautical miles across the Gulf to Iran, Israel has new allies. The economic and strategic advantage that the Accords promote between the countries is undeniable. If Iran felt isolated before, this new development will only emphasize it even more.

In the words of Mike Pompeo, the current U.S. Secretary of State, alongside Bahrain’s foreign minister, Abdullatif Al-Zayani, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the accords “tell malign actors like the Islamic Republic of Iran that their influence in the region is waning and that they are ever more isolated and shall forever be until they change their direction.”

Apart from Iran, in the Middle East Turkey and Qatar have been openly vocal in their opposition to Israel and the recent Accords. Qatar maintains relations with two of Israel’s most critical threats, both Iran and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group. Qatar is a staunch advocate of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. One of Qatar’s most steady allies in the region is Turkey. Israel, as well as the UAE, have significant issues with Ankara. Turkey’s expansion and building of military bases in Libya, Sudan and Somalia demonstrate the regional threat that it poses for Israel and the UAE. For Israel in particular, besides Turkey’s open support of Hamas, there have been clashes concerning Ankara’s interference with Mediterranean maritime economic sovereignty.

With increasing intensity, the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has made clear Turkey’s revisionist actions. They harshly criticized UAE’s normalization with Israel and even said that they would consider revising Ankara’s relations with Abu Dhabi. This, however, is somewhat incongruous as Turkey has maintained formal diplomatic relations with Israel since right after its birth in 1949. Turkey’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region, including in Qatar, is also a source of contention between Erdogan and the UAE and Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia. Turkey is Qatar’s largest beneficiary politically, as well as militarily.

In the context of the Abraham Accords, the Palestinians would be the losers undoubtedly. While they had a weak negotiating hand to begin with, with the decreasing Arab solidarity they depend on, they now stand even feebler. The increasing number of Arab countries normalizing relations with Israel has been vehemently condemned by the Palestinians, seeing it as a betrayal of their cause. They feel thoroughly abandoned. It leaves the Palestinians with very limited options making them severely more debilitated. It is uncertain, however, whether this weaker position will steer Palestinians towards peacemaking with Israel or the contrary. 

While the regional governments seem more willing to negotiate with Israel, it would be a severe mistake to disregard the fervor with which countless people still view the Palestinian conflict. For many in the Middle East, it is not so much a political stance as a moral obligation. We shall see how this plays out concerning the disparity between the ruling class and the populace of Arab or Muslim majority nations. Iran will likely continue to advance its reputation throughout the region as the only state to openly challenge and oppose Israel. It should amass some amount of popular support, increasing yet even more the rift between the populace and the ruling class in the Middle East.

Future prospects

The agreement recently reached between President Trump’s Administration and the kingdom of Morocco by which the U.S. governments recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara in exchange for the establishment of official diplomatic relations between the kingdom and the state of Israel is but another step in the process Trump would have no doubt continued had he been elected for a second term. Despite this unexpected move, and although the Trump Administration has indicated that other countries are considering establishing relations with Israel soon, further developments seem unlikely before the new U.S. Administration is projected to take office this January of 2021. President-elect Joe Biden will take office on the 20th of January and is expected to instigate his policy and approach towards Iran. This could set the tone for future normalization agreements throughout the region, depending on how Iran is approached by the incoming administration.

In the United States, the signatories of the Abraham Accords have, in a time of intensely polarized politics, enhanced their relations with both Republicans as well as Democrats though the deal. In the future we can expect some countries to join the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan in normalization efforts. However, many will stay back. Saudi Arabia remains central in the region regarding future normalization with Israel. As is the case across the region, while the Arab leaders are increasingly open to ties with Israel, there are internal concerns, between the clerical establishment and the Palestinian cause among the populace – not to mention rising tensions due to the ongoing pandemic. 

However, in all, the Accords break the strongly rooted idea that it would take extensive efforts in order for Arab states to associate with Israel, let alone establish full public normalization. It also refutes the traditional Arab-state consensus that there can be no peace with Israel until the Palestinian issue is en route to resolution, if not fully resolved.

Behind the tension between Qatar and its neighbors is the Qatari ambitious foreign policy and its refusal to obey

Recent diplomatic contacts between Qatar and Saudi Arabia have suggested the possibility of a breakthrough in the bitter dispute held by Qatar and its Arab neighbors in the Gulf since 2017. An agreement could be within reach in order to suspend the blockade imposed on Qatar by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain (and Egypt), and clarify the relations the Qataris have with Iran. The resolution would help Qatar hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup free of tensions. This article gives a brief context to understand why things are the way they are.

▲ Ahmad Bin Ali Stadium, one of the premises for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar

ARTICLE / Isabelle León

The diplomatic crisis in Qatar is mainly a political conflict that has shown how far a country can go to retain leadership in the regional balance of power, as well as how a country can find alternatives to grow regardless of the blockade of neighbors and former trading partners. In 2017, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain broke diplomatic ties with Qatar and imposed a blockade on land, sea, and air.

When we refer to the Gulf, we are talking about six Arab states: Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. As neighbors, these countries founded the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981 to strengthen their relation economically and politically since all have many similarities in terms of geographical features and resources like oil and gas, culture, and religion. In this alliance, Saudi Arabia always saw itself as the leader since it is the largest and most oil-rich Gulf country, and possesses Mecca and Medina, Islam’s holy sites. In this sense, dominance became almost unchallenged until 1995, when Qatar started pursuing a more independent foreign policy.

Tensions grew among neighbors as Iran and Qatar gradually started deepening their trading relations. Moreover, Qatar started supporting Islamist political groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, considered by the UAE and Saudi Arabia as terrorist organizations. Indeed, Qatar acknowledges the support and assistance provided to these groups but denies helping terrorist cells linked to Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State or Hamas. Additionally, with the launch of the tv network Al Jazeera, Qatar gave these groups a means to broadcast their voices. Gradually the environment became tense as Saudi Arabia, leader of Sunni Islam, saw the Shia political groups as a threat to its leadership in the region.

Consequently, the Gulf countries, except for Oman and Kuwait, decided to implement a blockade on Qatar. As political conditioning, the countries imposed specific demands that Qatar had to meet to re-establish diplomatic relations. Among them there were the detachment of the diplomatic ties with Iran, the end of support for Islamist political groups, and the cessation of Al Jazeera's operations. Qatar refused to give in and affirmed that the demands were, in some way or another, a violation of the country's sovereignty.

A country that proves resilient

The resounding blockade merited the suspension of economic activities between Qatar and these countries. Most shocking was, however, the expulsion of the Qatari citizens who resided in the other GCC states. A year later, Qatar filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice on grounds of discrimination. The court ordered that the families that had been separated due to the expulsion of their relatives should be reunited; similarly, Qatari students who were studying in these countries should be permitted to continue their studies without any inconvenience. The UAE issued an injunction accusing Qatar of halting the website where citizens could apply for UAE visas as Qatar responded that it was a matter of national security. Between accusations and statements, tensions continued to rise and no real improvement was achieved.

At the beginning of the restrictions, Qatar was economically affected because 40% of the food supply came to the country through Saudi Arabia. The reduction in the oil prices was another factor that participated on the economic disadvantage that situation posed. Indeed, the market value of Qatar decreased by 10% in the first four weeks of the crisis. However, the country began to implement measures and shored up its banks, intensified trade with Turkey and Iran, and increased its domestic production. Furthermore, the costs of the materials necessary to build the new stadiums and infrastructure for the 2022 FIFA World Cup increased; however, Qatar started shipping materials through Oman to avoid restrictions of UAE and successfully coped with the status quo.

This notwithstanding, in 2019, the situation caused almost the rupture of the GCC, an alliance that ultimately has helped the Gulf countries strengthen economic ties with European Countries and China. The gradual collapse of this organization has caused even more division between the blocking countries and Qatar, a country that hosts the largest military US base in the Middle East, as well as one of Turkey, which gives it an upper hand in the region and many potential strategic alliances.

The new normal or the beginning of the end?

Currently, the situation is slowly opening-up. Although not much progress has been made through traditional or legal diplomatic means to resolve this conflict, sports diplomacy has played a role. The countries have not yet begun to commercialize or have allowed the mobility of citizens, however, the event of November 2019 is an indicator that perhaps it is time to relax the measures. In that month, Qatar was the host of the 24th Arabian Gulf Cup tournament in which the Gulf countries participated with their national soccer teams. Due to the blockade, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain had boycotted the championship; however, after having received another invitation from the Arabian Gulf Cup Federation, the countries decided to participate and after three years of tensions, sent their teams to compete. The sporting event was emblematic and demonstrated how sport may overcome differences.

Moreover, recently Saudi Arabia has given declarations that the country is willing to engage in the process to lift-up the restrictions. This attitude toward the conflict means, in a way, improvement despite Riyadh still claims the need to address the security concerns that Qatar generates and calls for a commitment to the solution. As negotiations continue, there is a lot of skepticism between the parties that keep hindering the path toward the resolution.  

Donald Trump’s administration recently reiterated its cooperation and involvement in the process to end Qatar's diplomatic crisis. Indeed, US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien stated that the US hopes in the next two months there would be an air bridge that will allow the commercial mobilization of citizens. The current scenario might be optimistic, but still, everything has remained in statements as no real actions have been taken. This participation is within the US strategic interest because the end of this rift can signify a victorious situation to the US aggressive foreign policy toward Iran and its desire to isolate the country. This situation remains a priority in Trump’s last days in office. Notwithstanding, as the transition for the administration of Joe Biden begins, it is believed that he would take a more critical approach on Saudi Arabia and the UAE, pressuring them to put an end to the restrictions.

This conflict has turned into a political crisis of retention of power or influence over the region. It is all about Saudi Arabia’s dominance being threatened by a tiny yet very powerful state, Qatar. Although more approaches to lift-up the rift will likely begin to take place and restrictions will gradually relax, this dynamic has been perceived by the international community and the Gulf countries themselves as the new normal. However, if the crisis is ultimately resolved, mistrust and rivalry will remain and will generate complications in a region that is already prone to insurgencies and instability. All the countries involved indeed have more to lose than to gain, but three years have been enough to show that there are ways to turn situations like these around.

Soft power in the regional race for gaining the upper hand in the cultural and heritage influence among Muslims

▲ A picture taken from the Kingdoms of Fire official trailer

ANALYSIS / Marina García Reina and Pablo Gurbindo

Kingdoms of Fire (in Arabic Mamalik al nar) is the new Emirati and Saudi funded super-production launched in autumn 2019 and born to face the Turkish control in the TV series and shows field for years. The production has counted on a budget of US$ 14 million. The series goes through the story of the last Sultan of Mamluk Egypt, Al-Ashraf Tuman Bay, in his fight against the Ottoman Sultan Selim. The production is the reflection of the regional rivalries in the race for gaining the upper hand in the cultural and heritage influence among Muslims.

Historicity

To understand the controversy this series has arisen we have to comprehend the context where the story takes place and the main characters of the story. The series talks about the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluk Sultanate of 1517. The Ottomans are already known for the general public, but who were the Mamelukes?

A Mameluke is not an ethnic group, it is a military class. The term comes from the Arab mamluk (owned) and it defines a class of slave soldiers. These mamluks had more rights than a common slave as they could carry weapons and hold positions of military responsibility. They were created in the ninth century by the Abbasid Caliphs with the purchase of young slaves and their training on martial and military skills. They became the base of military power in the Middle East. This military elite, similar to the Roman Praetorian Guard, was very powerful and could reach high positions in the military and in the administration. Different groups of mamelukes rebelled against their Caliphs masters, and in Egypt they successfully claimed the Caliphate in 1250, starting the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria. Their military prowess was demonstrated in 1260 in the battle of Ain Yalut where they famously defeated the Great Mongol Empire and stopped its expansion towards the west.

The Ottoman Empire was formed as one of the independent Turkish principalities that appeared in Anatolia after the fall of the Sultanate of Rum in the thirteenth century. It rapidly expanded across Anatolia and also reached the Balkans confronting the Byzantine Empire, direct heir of the Roman Empire. In 1453, after a long siege, they conquered Constantinople, sealing the fate of the Byzantine Empire.

By the sixteenth century, the Ottomans and the Mamluks were the two main powers of the Middle East, and as a perfect example of the “Thucydides trap”, the conflict between these two regional powers became inevitable. In 1515, Ottoman Sultan Selim I launched a campaign to subdue the Mamelukes. Incidentally, this is the campaign represented in the Arab series. In October 1516, in the battle of Marj Dabiq, the Mamluk Sultan Al-Ghawri was killed, and Syria fell into Ottoman rule. Tuman Bay II was proclaimed as Sultan and prepared the defense of Egypt. In 1517 the Ottomans entered Egypt and defeated Tuman Bay at the battle of Riadanieh, entering Cairo unopposed. Tuman Bay fled and, supported by the Bedouins, started a guerrilla campaign. But he was betrayed by a Bedouin chief and captured. On April 15, 1517, he was hanged to death on the city gates of Cairo and with him the Mamluk Sultanate ended.

With the end of the Mamluk rule, Egypt became an Ottoman province. The Ottoman control lasted from 1517 until the start of WWI, when the British Empire established a protectorate in the country after the Ottoman Empire entered the war.

A response to Turkish influence

Unlike Saudi Arabia, which until 2012, with the release of Wadjda, had never featured a film shot entirely in the country, other Middle Eastern countries such as Turkey and Iran have taken their first steps in the entertainment industry long before. 

Turkey is a clear example of a country with a well-constituted cinema and art industry, hosting several film festivals throughout the year and having an established cinema industry called Yesilcam, which can be understood as the Turkish version of the US Hollywood or the Indian Bollywood. The first Turkish narrative film was released in 1917. However, it was not till the 1950s when the Turkish entertainment industry truly started to emerge. Yesilcam was born to create a cinema appropriate for the Turkish audience in a period of national identity building and in an attempt to unify multiplicities. Thus, it did not only involve the creation of Turkish original films, but also the adaptation and Turkification of Western cinema. 

One of the reasons that promoted the arising of the Turkish cinema was a need to respond to the Egyptian film industry, which was taking the way in the Middle East during the Second World War. It represents a Turkish nationalist feeling through a cinema that would embrace Turkey’s Ottoman heritage and modern lifestyle. 

Now, Turkish productions are known and watched by audiences worldwide, in more than 140 countries, what has turn Turkey into world’s second largest television shows distributor, generating US$ 350 million a year, only surpassed by the USA.

These Turkish productions embracing the Ottoman period are also a reflection of the current Neo-Ottoman policies carried out by the President Tayyip Erdogan, who many believe is trying to portray himself as a “modern Ottoman ruler and caliph for Muslims worldwide.” It is clear that the Turkish President is aware of the impact of its TV shows, as he stated, in a 2016 speech referring to a Turkish show named “The Last Emperor”—narrating important events during the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid—, that the West is treating Turkey in the same way as 130 years ago and, regarding Arabs, he stated that “until the lions start writing their own stories, their hunters will always be the heroes.”

A soft power tool

Communication—especially visual communication and, therefore, cinema—plays an important role in either reinforcing the identity status quo or challenging self-views and other-views of the dynamic, multi-faceted self[1]. It is precisely the own and particular Saudi identity that wants to be portrayed by this series. 

The massive sums invested in the production of Mamalik al nar, as with other historical TV shows, is an evidence of the importance of the exercise of “soft power” by the cinema and TV show industry in the Middle East. As it has been highlighted above, Turkey has been investing in cinema production to export its image to the world for a long time now. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been restrictive when it comes to cinema, not even allowing it within the country in the case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) for more than 35 years, and they have had few interest on producing and promoting self-made cinema. Now this has dramatically changed. Saudis have an interest in translating their self-conception of matters to the world, and communication is a way of contesting and resisting a dominant culture’s encroachment[2] that is being headed by Turkey.

In the words of Yuser Hareb, Genomedia owner (Mamalik al nar’s film production company), the series was born from the idea of creating an alternative to the influence that Turkish productions have within Arabs. The producer argues that the Ottoman Empire period is not much of a glorious heritage for Arabs, but more of a “dark time,” characterised by repression and criminal actions against Arabs. Turkish historic cinema “adjusts less than a 5% to reality,” Hareb says, and Mamalik al Nar is intended to break with the Turkish cultural influence in the Middle East by “vindicating Arab history” and stating that Ottomans were neither the protectors of Islam, nor are the restorers of it.

Dynamics are changing in the region. The Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), the large Emirates-based and Saudi-owned media conglomerate that is one of the strongest broadcasting channel in the Arabic speaking world, was in charge of broadcasting in the Arab countries some of the most famous Turkish dramas since 2007, such as the soap opera Gumus, which final episode had 92 million viewers across the region. In March 2018, MBC rejected several Turkish dramas and it even announced an unofficial moratorium on broadcasting any Turkish series. This decision was praised by the Genomedia owner (the producer of Mamalik al nar), Yuser Hareb, pronouncing against those who passively permit the influence of foreigners with their films and series. Furthermore, MBC is also responsible for the broadcasting of Mamalik al nar in the region. The combination of these movements put together can easily portray a deterioration of Turkish-Arab relations.

Egypt also serves as an example of this anti-Turkish trend, when in September 2014, all Turkish series were banned in response to Erdogan’s support for the Islamist president Mohammed Morsi  (overthrown in July 2013) and his attacks on President Abdelfatah Al-Sisi. This adds to the backing of Turkey of the Muslim Brotherhood and the intromission in Libya to gain regional leadership over the exploration of gas deposits. In short, the backing of Islamist movements constitutes the main argument given when criticising Turkey’s “neo-colonialist” aims, which are not completely denied by the Turkish government as it claims the will to be a restorer for the Muslim world.

Double-sided

Ultimately, both the Turkish and the Saudi Arabian sides have the same opinion of what the other is trying to do: influencing the region by their own idiosyncrasy and cultural heritage. It is indeed the crossfire of accusations against one another for influencing and deceiving the audience about the history of the region, especially regarding who should be praised and who condemned.

Turkish and other pro-Erdogan commentators have described Mamalik al nar as an attempt to foment division between Muslims and attacking the Ottoman legacy. Yasin Aktay, an advisor to Erdogan, remarked that there are no Turkish series that attack any Arab country so far, unlike this Saudi series is doing with the former Ottoman Empire by manipulating “historical data for an ideological or political reason.” Indeed, it is an attack on “the Ottoman State, but also on contemporary Turkey, which represents it today.”

The legacy of the Ottoman Sultanate has been subjected to political and intellectual debate since medieval times. Specifically, after World War I, when a lot of new Arab nation-states started to consolidate, the leaders of these new-born states called for a nationalist feeling by means of an imperialist discourse, drifting apart Turks and Arabs. It is still today a controversial topic in a region that is blooming and which leadership is being disputed, however —and, perhaps, fortunately—, this ideology does not go beyond the ruling class, and neither the great majority of Arabs see the Ottomans as a nation that invaded and exploited them nor the Turks see Arabs as traitors.

No matter how much Erdogan’s Turkey puts the focus on Islam, the big picture of Turkish series is a secular and modern outlook of the region, which has come to be specially interesting to keep up with the region’s changing dynamics. That could be overshadowed by salafist movements restricting freedom of speech in what is considered immoral forms of art by some.

All in all, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are determined to counterbalance Turkey’s effort to increase its regional clout through the use of “soft power” instruments by means of reacting to the abundance of Turkish dramas by launching TV series and shows that offer an “Arab approach” to the matter. In any case, it is still to be seen whether these new Arab productions narrating the ancient history of the Arab territories will have or not a success equivalent to the already consolidated Turkish industry.

[1] Manuel Castells. The rise of network society. (New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

[2] Thomas K. Nakayama and Raymond J. Krizek. (1995). Whitness: A strategic rhetoric (Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1995), 81, 291–319