Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Qatar’s Anti-Bullying Narrative

Qatar is working overtime to cast itself as a sympathetic character in its ongoing conflict with Saudi Arabia.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Lobelog

 

Fortunately the Qatar crisis has thus far not escalated into a military confrontation. Nonetheless, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) diplomatic row has escalated into a harsh war of narratives between Qatar and the Anti-Terror Quartet (ATQ)—Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This clash has played out in Western capitals with a host of public-relations firms, think tanks, and press outlets championing either Qatar or the ATQ’s narrative.

Despite its strenuous efforts, the quartet has failed to successfully sell its anti-Qatar narrative to the diplomatic and defense establishment in Washington, although President Donald Trump and other current and former officials have expressed varying degrees of support for the ATQ. To the contrary, the Saudi/UAE-led blockade of Qatar has arguably given Doha a valuable tool in Washington that it lacked prior to June 5, 2017: the victimhood card.

Before the Gulf dispute erupted, Qatar’s image in the US suffered from a host of issues. Voices in Washington criticized the emirate for its record of labor rights violations, alleged bribery to secure the 2022 FIFA World Cup bid, and Doha’s questionable ties with nefarious Islamist actors in the Muslim world. Yet most of these criticisms also extended to other GCC states including those in the ATQ that supported hardline Salafist fighters in Syria and whose economic development has relied on exploited foreign laborers.

The American Left in particular has had a rather negative perception of Qatar as a Western lackey that hosts the main US military installation in the Persian Gulf with a legal code based on an anti-LGBT sharia (Islamic) law. Anti-war voices in the US pointed to Qatar’s coordination with US military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as a sign of Doha’s support of American hegemony and militarism in the Middle East.

US officials have had their own concerns about Qatari foreign policy and Doha’s ties with certain Islamist actors. But after the GCC’s diplomatic row broke out, the establishment in Washington found the ATQ’s blockade of Qatar to be too harsh, strategically flawed, and unjustified. As a geographically small country blockaded by its larger neighbors that shared Qatar’s only land border, Doha gained sympathy as an “underdog” from unexpected quarters. Qatar has used its ability to portray itself as the victim of the ATQ’s “bullying” to garner support in the US and other Western countries. Beyond Washington, leaders in other Western capitals such as Berlin, London, and Paris have also called for a lifting or easing of the blockade and have strongly affirmed their countries’ commitment to remaining Qatar’s allies.

For all the economic costs (to the tune of tens of billions of dollars) and sacrifices they have made to resist pressure to capitulate to the Saudi/UAE-led bloc’s demands, the Qataris have proven that they can chart their own course independently of the quartet. Yet a challenge for Qatar will be to take actions that back up its narrative about being different from other GCC states as a more modernized country. Doha has used the Gulf crisis as an opportunity to communicate to Western audiences that Qatar is unique in the GCC as a more tolerant, forward-thinking, and inclusive country committed to promoting democracy and human rights in the Arab world. Indeed, Qatar has argued that these attributes have made it the victim of the ATQ’s actions.

Qatar is keen to escape the negative perceptions that segments of Western societies had of the emirate prior to the Gulf dispute. Regarding the rights of Qatar’s foreign population, including the low-paid workers mainly from Asia, Doha has passed landmark legislation to abolish the Kafala system and received cautious praise from Amnesty Internationaland Human Rights Watch for doing so (albeit with the caveat that implementation remains to be seen). Emir Tamim has also vowed to run elections to the country’s legislative body in 2019, which may serve to weaken the argument that Qatar hypocritically promotes democracy abroad while denying its own citizens the right to vote their lawmakers into power.

In response to the ATQ’s efforts to isolate the emirate, Doha has also turned to bodies of international law on disputes stemming from the GCC crisis. In this way, Doha seeks to portray itself as a responsible member of the international community determined to strengthen institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and various human rights organizations.

In the final analysis, although the future of the Gulf crisis is uncertain, Qatar has successfully gained sympathy by effectively using a narrative of victimhood. Although many in America criticized the emirate on a host of issues, the general perception of Qatar in Washington was that it was just “another Gulf state” guilty of the same objectionable policies and practices of other GCC states. The current dispute, however, has driven a wedge into the GCC, making it essentially irrelevant. Washington must thus come to terms with a new reality in which its closest Arab Persian Gulf allies are no longer cooperating with one another.

The war of narratives between Qatar and the quartet will continue in Washington and other Western capitals, with Doha continuing to portray itself as a country that has unjustly suffered for its independent reaction to the Arab world’s uprisings of 2011. Of all the ATQ’s miscalculations vis-à-vis Qatar, the gravest one was perhaps the quartet’s inability to predict how effectively Doha would leverage its image as a victim that has suffered for its promotion of modernity and openness in the Middle East.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share