kmiainfo: In the transformations of alliances the economy and the national state first In the transformations of alliances the economy and the national state first

In the transformations of alliances the economy and the national state first

In the transformations of alliances the economy and the national state first Since that historical rupture between Turkey and the Arab world, Turkey has, throughout that time, been a missing factor in the Middle East stability equation The Arab region and the Middle East are witnessing a state of apparent political transformations in the rearrangement of “alliances” between their countries, after the region was witnessing a state of polarity and the building of various axes related to political and ideological positions, so that the situation has changed in recent months in favor of a change in the political map, not necessarily by building solid alliances. new, but rather to rearrange the differences and their centrality, so that these existing differences express only positions that do not necessarily affect the relationship of these countries to each other (at least temporarily). The reformulation of relations will not necessarily be fully successful or long-term, with the depth of differences between countries and their links with different visions and different ideologies, but it is based on the possibility of cooperation as possible within the priorities of the economic and political challenges associated with these countries and their interests linked to the national state itself and not to the regional role To be more precise, it appears that the repositioning of relations in the Arab Gulf between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, and all other countries, in addition to re-arranging relations between a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt on the one hand, and Turkey on the other, and at the same time Turkey is talking about re-arranging Its relationship with the Israelis, and the UAE with the Iranians, all of this points to transformations in the region that depend on 3 central factors: First, political factors: within the policy of “zero problems” and “more stable.” With the events of the Arab Spring that upended the balances of the region and were linked to the various countries’ fears about the future of their existing regimes and the pillars of their deep state and the transmission of the manifestations of the Arab Spring to their countries; Its political positions related to the Arab Spring and its manifestations were clear by standing against it and against those who supported it, while others decided to stand with it for their political interests and their vision related to the future of the region if these revolutions succeeded, not to mention some ideological or principled reasons that ranged between interests and corruptions that these revolutions could reap. Countries. In order for the discussion not to be general, the positions of the different countries were linked to 3 issues: -The nature of the country undergoing transformation. -The expected political future of this country. -The effects of the revolutions in these countries on the political map in the region. Attitudes about what was happening in Syria were related, for example, to the relationship of some countries with the Syrian regime, and in the Egyptian context, they were related to Egypt’s depth and influence, and the possibilities that the Islamic movement would be in power. Thus, the positions differed so that we would have a clear division in the positions of the Middle Eastern regimes regarding the events of the Arab Spring, from Iran to Turkey, to our various Arab countries and even the Israelis. But what can be unanimously agreed upon is that these positions affected the state of political stability and inter-regional cooperation among the countries of the region, translating into a number of problems and severing relations, as happened between Turkey and Egypt, Qatar and other Gulf states, increasing Iranian-Arab tension, and other divergent positions. With the state of decline or relative stability in the case of the Arab revolutions and the reality of stagnation and lack of change that hangs over the political scene, it seems that these countries will try to reposition their relations in a context that takes into account other international and economic transformations, within the goal of reaching a state of political stability and “zero problems” ( If this is possible!) in an effort to bypass the existing international changes associated with the presence of a new president in the White House, the Corona pandemic, and the critical economic situation in the world. Secondly, economic factors: With the Corona pandemic and the crises it caused on the global economy and on local economies, a number of countries are suffering from internal crises that necessitate cooperation and opening opportunities and prospects for dealing with other countries. In this context, the importance of the “national economy” and the preservation of the national state appears at the expense of the agenda related to external issues.All this is accompanied by a state of transformations that the region is experiencing in several economic aspects related to the discovery of gas in the Eastern Mediterranean and the transformations associated with the market for transporting goods and maritime navigation, as well as The wave of high prices and the state of inflation experienced by some countries in the region. Third, ideological factors: a state of decline in the ideological alignment overshadowed the region at the expense of other alignments, within two important equations: The state of weakness experienced by ideological groups. For years, the alignments were linked to the ideological division, especially with the rise of Islamist movements to power in several Arab countries. It seems that the state of political stagnation in the region after the military coup in Egypt and the decline in the role of Islamic movements, at least on the official side in several countries, made some countries choose to leave this issue on the shelf at the expense of other crises they are experiencing at the national level, and it seems that this is not a denial For its ideological dimension, but a reformulation of priorities. In general, reformulating relations will not necessarily be fully successful or long-term, with the depth of differences between countries and their links with different visions and different ideologies, but it is based on the possibility of cooperation as possible within the priorities of the economic and political challenges associated with these countries and their interests linked to the national state itself and not to the regional role, and the agreement to leave the existing differences at a low level and with a lower priority, and therefore it seems that these relations will be difficult to be strategic while the ideologies and political visions behind them have not changed, but they will seek to be based in the next stage on an agreement to leave the differences on other agendas at a lower level with cooperation in Other issues, especially economic. Third, as is the reliance in international relations that the international players are rational in their decisions, this matter remains problematic with authoritarian and individualist regimes that can change their decisions overnight. Fourth, an unexpected eruption in one of the region's issues could make these alignments regress, given the fragility of some of the principles based on them and the need for some countries to take a position that transcends interests.(Ibrahim Al-Khatib)

In the transformations of alliances the economy and the national state first


Since that historical rupture between Turkey and the Arab world, Turkey has, throughout that time, been a missing factor in the Middle East stability equation

The Arab region and the Middle East are witnessing a state of apparent political transformations in the rearrangement of “alliances” between their countries, after the region was witnessing a state of polarity and the building of various axes related to political and ideological positions, so that the situation has changed in recent months in favor of a change in the political map, not necessarily by building solid alliances. new, but rather to rearrange the differences and their centrality, so that these existing differences express only positions that do not necessarily affect the relationship of these countries to each other (at least temporarily).

The reformulation of relations will not necessarily be fully successful or long-term, with the depth of differences between countries and their links with different visions and different ideologies, but it is based on the possibility of cooperation as possible within the priorities of the economic and political challenges associated with these countries and their interests linked to the national state itself and not to the regional role

To be more precise, it appears that the repositioning of relations in the Arab Gulf between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, and all other countries, in addition to re-arranging relations between a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt on the one hand, and Turkey on the other, and at the same time Turkey is talking about re-arranging Its relationship with the Israelis, and the UAE with the Iranians, all of this points to transformations in the region that depend on 3 central factors:

First, political factors: within the policy of “zero problems” and “more stable.” With the events of the Arab Spring that upended the balances of the region and were linked to the various countries’ fears about the future of their existing regimes and the pillars of their deep state and the transmission of the manifestations of the Arab Spring to their countries; Its political positions related to the Arab Spring and its manifestations were clear by standing against it and against those who supported it, while others decided to stand with it for their political interests and their vision related to the future of the region if these revolutions succeeded, not to mention some ideological or principled reasons that ranged between interests and corruptions that these revolutions could reap. Countries.

In order for the discussion not to be general, the positions of the different countries were linked to 3 issues:

-The nature of the country undergoing transformation.
-The expected political future of this country.
-The effects of the revolutions in these countries on the political map in the region.

Attitudes about what was happening in Syria were related, for example, to the relationship of some countries with the Syrian regime, and in the Egyptian context, they were related to Egypt’s depth and influence, and the possibilities that the Islamic movement would be in power. Thus, the positions differed so that we would have a clear division in the positions of the Middle Eastern regimes regarding the events of the Arab Spring, from Iran to Turkey, to our various Arab countries and even the Israelis.

But what can be unanimously agreed upon is that these positions affected the state of political stability and inter-regional cooperation among the countries of the region, translating into a number of problems and severing relations, as happened between Turkey and Egypt, Qatar and other Gulf states, increasing Iranian-Arab tension, and other divergent positions.

With the state of decline or relative stability in the case of the Arab revolutions and the reality of stagnation and lack of change that hangs over the political scene, it seems that these countries will try to reposition their relations in a context that takes into account other international and economic transformations, within the goal of reaching a state of political stability and “zero problems” ( If this is possible!) in an effort to bypass the existing international changes associated with the presence of a new president in the White House, the Corona pandemic, and the critical economic situation in the world.

Secondly, economic factors: With the Corona pandemic and the crises it caused on the global economy and on local economies, a number of countries are suffering from internal crises that necessitate cooperation and opening opportunities and prospects for dealing with other countries. In this context, the importance of the “national economy” and the preservation of the national state appears at the expense of the agenda related to external issues.All this is accompanied by a state of transformations that the region is experiencing in several economic aspects related to the discovery of gas in the Eastern Mediterranean and the transformations associated with the market for transporting goods and maritime navigation, as well as The wave of high prices and the state of inflation experienced by some countries in the region.

Third, ideological factors: a state of decline in the ideological alignment overshadowed the region at the expense of other alignments, within two important equations:

The state of weakness experienced by ideological groups. For years, the alignments were linked to the ideological division, especially with the rise of Islamist movements to power in several Arab countries.
It seems that the state of political stagnation in the region after the military coup in Egypt and the decline in the role of Islamic movements, at least on the official side in several countries, made some countries choose to leave this issue on the shelf at the expense of other crises they are experiencing at the national level, and it seems that this is not a denial For its ideological dimension, but a reformulation of priorities.

In general, reformulating relations will not necessarily be fully successful or long-term, with the depth of differences between countries and their links with different visions and different ideologies, but it is based on the possibility of cooperation as possible within the priorities of the economic and political challenges associated with these countries and their interests linked to the national state itself and not to the regional role, and the agreement to leave the existing differences at a low level and with a lower priority, and therefore it seems that these relations will be difficult to be strategic while the ideologies and political visions behind them have not changed, but they will seek to be based in the next stage on an agreement to leave the differences on other agendas at a lower level with cooperation in Other issues, especially economic.

Third, as is the reliance in international relations that the international players are rational in their decisions, this matter remains problematic with authoritarian and individualist regimes that can change their decisions overnight. Fourth, an unexpected eruption in one of the region's issues could make these alignments regress, given the fragility of some of the principles based on them and the need for some countries to take a position that transcends interests.(Ibrahim Al-Khatib)
Tags:

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post