They say that more business is done on golf courses than in boardrooms. I suspect that there is quite a measure of truth in that statement as the setting itself is very conducive to enable the initiation and conclusion of business deals: plenty of space, a lot of walking, concentration on hitting the ball, quietness, minimal distractions from the outside world, and informality coupled with the time dedicated to the game which can take anything from a few hours to a full day. Of all of the factors mentioned, I think the structured informality is the most conducive for effecting business.
The annual dialogues designed and organised by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) throughout the world were probably thought out in the same context: bring the people who matter together in one location over a weekend and get them to talk, discuss their concerns by having face-to-face meetings away from the pressure and structure of formal meetings, this way disparate points of view have a much better opportunity to be reconciled and thus, real progress can be made.
The 2006 Manama Dialogue is already shaping up to be a good success; in fact, it already is if you consider that it was only started in 2004 as an experiment, 2005 further solidified its stance with more participation and this year, 2006, has 22 countries represented at ministerial and national security advisers level.
As for discussion themes, this region certainly offers a plethora of issues to choose from, and hopefully make some strides toward their resolution; issues which must be discussed include nuclear proliferation, conflicts, presence of foreign forces, unemployment and the absence of democratic institutions.
These points were emphasized in the keynote speech by Prince Muqrin bin Abdulziz, the Chief of General Intelligence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the opening remarks of the Director-General and Chief Executive of IISS, Dr. John Chipman.
Dr. Chipman summarised the importance of this particular conference succinctly by discussing the dire need for its presence in his opening remarks, in which he stated,
“Why the need for this security Dialogue? Certainly the issues are pressing. The political, economic and military situation in Iraq continues to worsen and the policy of key players towards the country and the region is in flux. Iran is seeking to assume a vitally central position in the region that its size and population would naturally recommend, but its ambitions are inspiring concern amongst its Arab neighbours, and even greater anxiety elsewhere.“
He further amplified on the real challenges this region is facing and which must be addressed which include “demographic realities and sectarian divisions” and the very dangerous situation of the “ever-shifting political arithmetic,” as he put it and which I suspect he means the absence of real security and political strategies which if present at some point, continuously shift as the situation dictates, particularly as there is no regional organisation which includes the main regional powers of Iraq and Iran and the near complete sidelining of Yemen as if that country simply does not lie physically on the Arabian peninsula; hence, their problems cannot be germane to the decision making process of the area.
These are points worth thorough consideration as their solution will pave the way not only to regional stability, but will also allow the long sought after goal of rapprochement, prosperity, education and the increase in quality of life.
Prince Muqrin highlighted more immediate concerns and cautioned against the pending nuclear arms race – even by regional moderate countries – alluding that Iran joining the race is a direct response to the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons,
“The fact that Israel is having nuclear weapons is the most dangerous threat against the Gulf security for both the near and the middle future. Consequently, some countries in the region took part in the competition for having nuclear weapons, as this is currently witnessed. It may be unanimously agreed that the spread of mass destruction weapons in the region will make the security issues more complicated in the whole region. It will rather give the right for the countries in the region to adopt policies and to make alliances with the countries of nuclear technology. It will also stimulate moderate countries in the region which adopts policies for eliminating mass destruction weapons, to make nuclear programs (whether concealed or declared) aiming at creating military balance in the region in order to defend their interests, gains and beliefs.“
The worry of course is whether these remarks also indicate a serious attempt by the Saudi regime to actively pursue nuclear technology acquisition in order to balance the Iranian threat on one side, and the Israeli on the other. That would certainly be a very problematic development.
Israel also featured very highly in his keynote speech where he reiterated the usual Arab stance that no local solutions to various ills could be effected without the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and called upon the world powers to exert even more efforts to realise this goal by adopting King Abdulla bin Abdulaziz’s Beirut Summit plan of 2002.
I personally could not understand what Prince Muqrin’s solution to the sectarian strife is when he stated that “one political point of view, and one set of social structure that ensure security and solidarity for the region” need to be adopted. I would have rather thought that a better understanding and tolerance is what is actually needed to solve this thorny issue. I would hope that he does not mean that he would want to “purify” the region and make it exclusive to a single sect. I agree this is a highly unlikely point of view, but I could not understand what the rationale for the above statement is, especially when you consider that he also declared that “ideological discrepancies should be set aside because they create further discrepancies in regard to principles, and political views“, does that mean that Saudi now officially suggests a real departure from Shari’a Law and deal with this problem through modern civic means? I surely hope that is true, but again I suggest that this conclusion is very highly unlikely.
I am glad that the 22 countries represented have sent very high level delegations to the Manama Dialogue as two of the main actors – Iran and Iraq – are represented by foreign ministers and national security advisers. What I would have liked to see, and I highly encourage IISS and the Kingdom of Bahrain to consider for any forthcoming Dialogues, is inviting Israel to join the debates, particularly that considering the keynote speech and opening remarks, much of the discussions will concentrate on Israel, and them not being present for face-to-face discussions rather weakens the premise of the meeting.
I am disappointed however that neither the keynote speech nor the opening remarks contained any reference of the real requirement for nurturing and inculcating democracy and democratic institutions in this area, as I firmly believe that without the application of the principals of democracy, no stability nor security would ever prevail, and all of these dialogues are nothing more than simple posturing.
I anxiously await the transcripts of today’s sessions to get more insight into the thinking and ideologies of our surrounding region.
I wish the conference and the delegates much luck and patience; what they are all doing is helping to close gaps which would never mend without direct, open and honest discussion.
Comments
Do you believe him ? Israel had nuclear weapons since at least 1970, yet no-one was crying about it then.
Now Iran gets a weapon … watch him cry. Does he think iran is a real threat for a nuclear attack on saudi soil ?
I’ve read Prince Muqrin’s speach a couple of times now and, as far as I can see, it can be boiled down to a very few words:
“It’s not our fault!”
And, who then are to be blamed, yes, you’ve guessed it, Israel, USA and Iran.
A new culprit has appeared on the scene, namely unemployment. I guess Prince Muqrin realized people were getting bored of seeing those three countries mentioned as the evil forces behind al that’s bad in the region. Doesn’t he realize that it’s because of his own government’s decisions that so many foreign workers are present in The Gulf. Does be really believe that the unemployment is caused by the illegal workers and their governments?
He also mentions sectarianism. When I started reading that part my initial reaction was: “Wow, he must be one of Mahmood’s secret admirers”. But then I read on and realized my mistake. Unless, of course, he means “secularity” when he talks about “one political point of view, and one set of social structure that ensure security and solidarity for the region”.
But wouldn’t that be heresy?
He seems to have forgotten The Arab Human Development Report 2002. Or maybe he never read it?
Try the Arab Human Development Report 2006 which just came out. Even better.
Here is something that might shed a bit more light on the subject of nuclear technology
thanks for the heads-up milter!
Mahmood,
I must admit, your headline of this article gave me a couple of sleepless nights. Well, maybe not quite that much but, I was wondering, what the h.. does he mean by that?
“Structured informality” was a phrase I’d never come across before. A bit of googling lead me in what I think is the the right direction. Am I correct in interpreting it as meaning something like this:
“An informal way of discussing issues without the normally associated bureaucratic obstacles, among parties that aren’t too closely related to the decision makers, but still have the power to make their findings heard”?
While Israel is definately a problem in and of itself, I am getting tired of our leaders constantly using it to stall civil rights movements in their respective countries. Its like living under a constant state of emergency. Forever.
Quite frankly, what they fail to realise, is that the lack of freedom cuts off our ability to use our minds, and capitalise on our talents, for various problems, both domestic and foreign.
And we definately need minds to counter foreign-meddling. I havent made my mind up entirely on the nuclear issue, but something tells me that if one of Israel’s “enemies” had nukes, their Likud-on-steroids parties would not even dare to think about deporting the entire Palestinian population again, for expanding their beloved Eretz Yisrael.
-Ibn
Ibn, first you write:
Then you write:
You don’t normally seem to pay much respect to the opinions of the leaders of The Middle East. Why, then, do you agree with them that the presence of an Israeli state is a problem?
Then you write about your leaders:
Have you ever wondered about why those freedoms seem to more freely available in Israel?
Milter,
Eh??… I am totally against what Hitler did for example, but Im sure both of us would agree 100% on how to put our pants on.
So you see, the point Mr milter, is that our leaders say: Israel is a problem, therefore we must restrict your rights.
But I say: Yes, Israel IS a problem, but that does not give you excuse to restrict my civil rights!
Sure. The Zionist movement was European Jew (Ashkenazi) in its roots. Naturally, they inherited the European model at the time, which was based on democracy, civil rights, etc, which is great. (If you’re a Jew). But they also inherited the bane of its time, namely, European colonialism. (Hence, our current problems).
But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
-Ibn
Milter I never heard that phrase before either as I created it as indicative of how I felt the conference was structured; an informal game of golf with no one (officially) keeping score, hence the title of the piece.
Your interpretation is spot on too.