clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

Losing influence in the Middle East

July 15, 2015 at 12:19 pm

It is the end of an era in the Gulf – for the United Kingdom at least. Once an imperialist power that used gunboats and clever diplomacy to push local wealthy families into supporting the British Empire, the formerly Great Britain has been reduced to little more than a useful idiot for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain – and to a lesser extent Qatar, which remains somewhat of an outlier within the Gulf cluster.

With its regional footprint dramatically decreased since UK troops blundered into the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, with David Cameron now viewed as an importent actor by the House of Saud and bin Zayeds after he tried and failed to launch an intervention into Syria, and with the bulk of the largest arms deal in history, Al-Yamamah, now complete, London – the foreign policy capital that effectively created the modern Gulf – appears of little use to today’s crop of Arab rulers (except perhaps as a real estate investment opportunity).

Nowadays, the UK government – and particularly its current leader David Cameron – can only gain leverage through carrying out embarrassingly small-time political favours that mainly serve the propaganda needs of the Gulf rulers, keen as they are to continually boost their reputation in the West.

Hence what appears to be the harassment of exiled Bahraini pro-democracy activist exiles based in London at the hands of British police and immigration officers (paid for British taxpayers), and the loud advocacy on behalf of the Al-Khalifa regime by unprincipled British Parliamentarians – a regime that continues to accelerate backwards on human rights issues.

It is telling that even the United States, a traditional backer of abusive regimes in the Middle East, has felt the need to reprimand the Bahrainis over their conduct towards their own people – yet the UK has only stiffened its support.

A key to this is the building of a controversial new British naval base in Manama. The significance in defence terms of this new base has been somewhat exaggerated – in particular because the Conservative-Liberal-Democrat Coalition of the previous term has cut naval resources to the point where it is unclear if there would even be enough ships available to maintain a meaningful presence there. In any case, the far larger American base up the road will remain the more serious bulwark against Iranian aggression.

In fact, the only real effect of that new base is a propagandised show of renewed support for the Bahraini regime, and by extension, an offer of fawning obedience to their larger and more powerful cousins, the Saudis. As a recent European Council on Foreign Relations Report put it: “In order to preserve its position as Bahrain’s key Western partner – and also to gain favour with Riyadh – the UK’s position on ongoing rights violations has been tamer than that of nearly all other Western states.”

If support for Bahrain is the cost of British friendship with Saudi Arabia, it is not the only cost. Last year, Prime Minister David Cameron was criticised by human rights activists, media commentators, and even his own Foreign Office for instigating a highly unusual investigation into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Cameron also publically bought into the conspiracy theory put about by the United Arab Emirates – a staunch opponent of Qatari foreign policy with strong form of manipulating Western media against Doha – that the Al-Thani family were secretly funding Islamic State (ISIS). Finally, having cut away the defence resources to back Saudi intervention in Yemen earlier this year, Cameron reprised his useful idiot role and squeaked approval.

Simultaneously, Cameron has sought to attract wealthy Gulf Arabs to London, bucking his theoretical anti-immigration stance by introducing generous visa schemes and even, possibly, changing the immigration rules around domestic workers brought to the UK by Gulf employers so that household staff can’t “run away” on arrival.

Finally, the UK has become the reputation-laundering capital of choice for the Gulf. Portland Communications, based in London’s Covent Garden, represents Qatar, while Mayfair-based Quiller Consultants looks after the UAE. Bahrain, whose spin doctors have a harder job than most, have been represented by at least ten London PR firms since the 2011 revolution began, including the notorious Bell Pottinger.

Compare this approach to that of the Swedes, who called Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women “medieval” when they withdrew their ambassador, prompting Saudi Arabia to hire a crisis management public relations firm in Stockholm. This is the kind of stance that free liberal European nations should be taking.

Trade is not too much of a problem if limited, and particularly if it happens outside the realms of defence procurement – which in itself acts as a particularly enthusiastic form of moral endorsement for oppressive regimes. There are clear energy trading requirements, which the UK must stick to as long as it intends to build fracking or renewable energy capacity, or adopts nuclear power – all of which should be explored as a matter of urgency.

Commerce between small and medium sized businesses in Britain and the Gulf, along with those corporations who deign to pay tax in the UK, are also acceptable – not only because such trade enriches the UK but encourages cultural understanding.

Yet within that narrow commercial frame, there should still be room for strong and unyielding admonishment by the British government on human rights, a roadmap for improvement – and not, as we have seen in the case of Bahrain, praising “progress” when there is anything but. It is, overall, a “good thing” that Britain has relinquished real power over the Gulf and the wider region, but to continue this kind of fawning “useful idiot” role is a national embarrassment.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.