US client state in revolt?!!?
Qatar is a small state in the Arabian peninsula. I don’t know much about it – it’s an oil reliant country, and is a monarchy under a fellow known as Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. I also had always thought of it as one of a number of US client states in the region.
So I was surprised to see on some 24 hour news station or other (it might have been the BBC) that Sheikh Hamad was speaking out on behalf of Hamas. He basically called the US on their hypocrisy. They’re supposedly involved in democratising the Middle East, but when Hamas were elected they were dismissed as terrorists, and the US refused have anything to do with them. This is despite the fact that the EU called the Palestinian elections ‘free and fair’.
This didn’t fit with my image of Qatar. At first I thought it might have had something to do with the recent US elections, but I discovered that the same Sheikh had spoken out in favour of Hamas in February. Good for him, I say.
To me, it seems pretty straightforward that isolating Hamas, and denouncing them as terrorists, will only serve to radicalise Palestinians more and more. Despite Hamas’ rhetoric about demanding the destruction of Israel, the reality is that they would be willing to begin the process of moderating their position in negotiations with Israel. In any case, the so-called prisoners’ document implicitly recognised Israel (haven’t time now, but I plan to give more sources for this stuff later).
The very process of interacting with democratic structures will put more pressure on Hamas to moderate its position and become less hardline. So, if the US discourse about democracy was genuine, they would be encouraging Hamas’ engagement with democratic institutions. This goes for any state, including Iran. The US approach to Iran, in my view, is likely to either marginalise or radicalise any moderate actors within Iran, when they should be nurtured and encouraged.
As far as I’m concerned, all of the rhetoric about democracy in the Middle East is a red herring, and any claim by the US that their intentions are benevolent has no legitimacy. In any case, I’m interested in this Qatar-ish head of state’s stance on the issue. Maybe he’s a critical theorist...
So I was surprised to see on some 24 hour news station or other (it might have been the BBC) that Sheikh Hamad was speaking out on behalf of Hamas. He basically called the US on their hypocrisy. They’re supposedly involved in democratising the Middle East, but when Hamas were elected they were dismissed as terrorists, and the US refused have anything to do with them. This is despite the fact that the EU called the Palestinian elections ‘free and fair’.
Sheikh Hamad of Qatar
This didn’t fit with my image of Qatar. At first I thought it might have had something to do with the recent US elections, but I discovered that the same Sheikh had spoken out in favour of Hamas in February. Good for him, I say.
To me, it seems pretty straightforward that isolating Hamas, and denouncing them as terrorists, will only serve to radicalise Palestinians more and more. Despite Hamas’ rhetoric about demanding the destruction of Israel, the reality is that they would be willing to begin the process of moderating their position in negotiations with Israel. In any case, the so-called prisoners’ document implicitly recognised Israel (haven’t time now, but I plan to give more sources for this stuff later).
The very process of interacting with democratic structures will put more pressure on Hamas to moderate its position and become less hardline. So, if the US discourse about democracy was genuine, they would be encouraging Hamas’ engagement with democratic institutions. This goes for any state, including Iran. The US approach to Iran, in my view, is likely to either marginalise or radicalise any moderate actors within Iran, when they should be nurtured and encouraged.
As far as I’m concerned, all of the rhetoric about democracy in the Middle East is a red herring, and any claim by the US that their intentions are benevolent has no legitimacy. In any case, I’m interested in this Qatar-ish head of state’s stance on the issue. Maybe he’s a critical theorist...
posted by Paul at 12:43 PM
5 Comments:
I don't think Qatar can straightforwardly be seen as a US client state, and I don't think the Emir's recent comments can be seen as some kind of amazing new direction in that country. Qatar is these days most notable as the home of Al-Jazeera, with that TV station existing in the same country as a huge US military base on the suffrance of the Emir. I suspect he is some kind of crypto-Marxist, as he seems to like dialectical relations - he salutes Hamas, but maintains trade and diplomatic relations with Israel.
Yeah, it obviously can't straightforwardly be seen as a US client state... But like you say it does have a lot of links with the US. I believe it also housed a major US military command centre for the war in Iraq. Interesting Qatarian contradictions.
I have been day dreaming about what constitutes a client state. mmm.
Qatar has a huge American military base - I think it might have the longest runway in the world and was used lots and lots for the invasion of Iraq. The Sheik that runs the country is an interesting character, personally funding Al Jazeera and promoting free-speech in the wider Middle East, at the same time not allowing Qatar or himself to be criticised.
An interesting book on this issue is Hugh Miles' Al Jazeera: How Arab TV News Challenged The World.
Mark.
Qatar is an ally of the United States in the same way many of the Gulf states are. However, just like the Saudis, they often support Arab causes - particularly when it comes to the Palestinians. So, Qatar's relationship with the United States and their support of Hamas is not strange at all, but fairly normal.
http://politicalworld.wordpress.com
Post a Comment
<< Home