“How the Arab Spring Skirted Oman”, December 2011
3rd, 4th Paragraphs
Some analysts, however, quickly attributed the unrest in Sohar to the neighboring United Arab Emirates (UAE). By playing up economic differences between wealthier tribe members residing on the UAE side of the border, in stark contrast to their poorer Omani “cousins,” analysts argued that Abu Dhabi sought to send an unmistakable message to Muscat about its “friendly” relations with Tehran.
Since assuming power, the Sultan has played a delicate balancing game between his strategic alliance with Iran while aligning himself with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which comprises Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Oman is the only GCC country to carry out joint military exercises with Iran. Nonetheless, as a staunch American ally, former U.S. Vice President Dick Chaney visited the Sultanate three times during his years in office.
7th Paragraph
The historical mistrust between Qaboos and the UAE in particular stems from when the GCC failed to support the Sultan in his uprising against his father. While the Shah of Iran and King Hussain of Jordan were the only regional leaders to support the young British-educated prince in his quest for the throne, Qaboos apparently never forgot - and since formed a strategic alliance with Tehran. At the same time, as part of an effort to balance his relationship with Iran, the Sultan formed strong military ties with the United States and with Britain in particular. Oman also maintains diplomatic relations with Israel by chairing the Middle East Desalination Research Center (MEDRC), a Muscat-based research center dedicated to share expertise on desalination technologies and clean fresh water supply with the people from the MENA region. MEDRC also facilitates multilateral track diplomacy between Israel and the GCC, under the auspicious of the highest levels of the Omani government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sigurd-neubauer/oman-arab-spring_b_1144473.html
“Are Libyan rebels backed by Saudi Arabia or Iran”?, June 2011
The National Transitional Council in Libya is slowly trying to establish itself as the legitimate successor to Gaddafi. The West has helped the rebel movement by widely promoting it and calling for countries throughout the world to officially back the new regime. However while the U.S , the U.K, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Canada have officially recognised the political organisation as the new legitimate representative body of the Libyan people, countries in Africa and in the Middle East have been so far less inclined to do so.
While the Arab league officially supports the Nato-led operation in Libya, only Qatar and Kuwait have formally recognized the council, a move followed by only two African countries, which are Senegal and The Gambia. Given the fact that Gaddafi was highly criticised by numerous Arab states and has been increasingly ostracised in the last few years (thanks to his own actions), it seems surprising that countries such as Saudi Arabia have not taken a much stronger stand in support of the Libyan rebels. Looking at the reactions emanating from the Middle East it seems that the Libyan conflict has put more than one country in an awkward position.
Its no understantement to say that there never was any love lost between Gaddafi and King Abdullah of Saudi. For years the two have been locked in an incessant circle of accusations and public spats.
Indeed, over the years, Libya has been accused of subversion by several Arab countries, including Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. For example, Libyan agents reportedly planned on several occasions to disrupt the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. In addition, for many years Libya supported the mostly Christian rebels in southern Sudan, against the central government in Khartoum. Libya was considered to be so unfriendly and untrustworthy, as Gaddafi was known to change alliances rather quickly, that when the United States bombed its cities in April 1986, only a few countries condemned the action strongly.
Also, in 2003, Saudi Arabia claimed they had unveiled a Libyan plot aiming at the assassination of the then Crown Prince Abdullah. The men arrested included, according to Saudi investigative documents, eight Saudis and five Libyans, four of whom were Libyan intelligence agents
The Libyans were caught delivering more than $1 million in cash at a hotel in Mecca to Saudi dissidents hired to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah. The Libyan agents had allegedly recruited the Saudis to launch grenades and other explosives into Abdullah's apartment in Mecca, the documents show.
At the time, Saudi, U.S. and British officials maintained they had traced the origins of the plot to a public exchange of insults between Abdullah and Col. Moammar Gaddafi, Libya's long time ruler, at an Arab League summit in March 2003.
During the summit, held shortly before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Gaddafi accused the Saudi prince of "making a pact with the devil" by supporting U.S. military forces in the region. Abdullah, who has long had a testy relationship with the Libyan leader, responded: "Your lies precede you and your grave is in front of you."
Of course the Libyan authorities denied any involvement in the plot, but the relationship between the two leaders did not ease as in 2009 Gaddafi famously told King Abdullah: "You are propelled by fibs towards the grave and you were made by Britain and protected by the US."
When the uprising started in Libya many expected the Saudi King to seize the occasion and support the rebel movement to punish Gaddafi. Obama was quick to ask for the support of Saudi Arabia in arming the rebels. However so almost nothing has been heard on the subject from Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi regime has gone quiet and has stood clear of the rebels. Four weeks ago it even prevented the new Libyan leaders from reaching Qatar, where they had meetings planned, by forbidding them to cross their airspace. When asked about the reasons behind their decision, the authorities refused to comment.
Unfortunately it seems that the U.S. demand came at a time where the regime was itself trying to suppress a nascent protest movement in Saudi, as they banned all street protests to try and supress the uprising. The Saudi monarchy knows that its position is fragile as in the region people see its demise as just a question of time. Moreover, the U.S. involvement in getting European countries and Nato involved in the conflict bared an uncomfortable truth to Saudi King Abdullah and many of his counter-part in the region: Washington will help to push you out of power if it finds it politically advantageous.
As much as siding with the rebels to get to Gaddafi might sound attractive, Saudi it seems has for now decided to follow the lead of most Arab countries, that is not breaking with their tradition of doing absolutely nothing when controversial conflicts arise.
Saudi Arabia is not the only country that the Libyan conflict has put in an awkward position. Tehran has tried to balance support for the Libyan opposition, which it views as part of a region-wide "Islamic awakening," with rejection of the Nato-led military strikes.
Keeping in with their anti-Western outlook, Iranian officials still insist that the U.N.-endorsed military intervention on humanitarian grounds is hypocritical and part of a secret Western agenda. Tehran has made no secret of the fact that it opposes any military intervention in the Middle East, even if in Iran's interest, and had also opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, despite the fact Saddam Hussein was Iran's main adversary in the region.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed Iran's anti-intervention attitude and said: "The intervention of some European countries and America in the regional nations increases concern and makes circumstances more complicated."
"The double standard action of the Western countries in Bahrain and Libya and their silence towards the atrocities of the Zionist regime against the innocent Palestinians shows their contradictory performance in the world."
However its seems that the person who illustrates the best Iran's dichotomist position is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who explained, "Iran utterly condemns the behaviour of the Libyan government against its people, the killings and pressure on people, and the bombing of its cities... but it (also) condemns the military action in Libya."
Additionally to their similar awkward reaction to the Libyan conflict, it is important to point out that the two countries are also both oil exporters. Could they see the Libyan Transitional Council as a potential business competitor, and is the Council already warning them that a new player is in the game by attempting to seek diplomatic ties with Israel, who currently have to look very far afield for their oil, a move that is set to particularly upset Iran?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/are-libyan-rebels-backed-by-saudi-arabia-or-iran-157943
“Iran Backs Libyan Rebels, Chastises West Over Oil, Bahrain”, April 2011
Libya’s rebellion has put Iran in an awkward position. Tehran has tried to balance support for the Libyan opposition, which it views as part of a region-wide “Islamic awakening,” with rejection of the NATO-led military strikes.
Iranian officials charged that the U.N.-endorsed military intervention on humanitarian grounds is hypocritical and part of a secret Western agenda. Tehran opposes any military intervention in the Middle East, even if in Iran’s interest, because of the precedent it sets. Iran also opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, despite the fact Saddam Hussein was Iran’s main adversary in the region.
In his Nowrouz (New Year) speech last month, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei charged that the United States and its allies were motivated by interest in Libyan oil. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson said that coalition was pursuing a new form of colonialism.
U.S. policy on Bahrain, where the ruling al Khalifa family has forcefully crushed the predominantly Shiite protest movement, has fueled Iran’s anger. Unlike Libya, the United States has used quiet diplomacy to mediate with the Sunni monarchy. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a country of greater strategic importance to Iran than Libya, and the plight of its largely Shiite population has been a sensitive issue inside Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad complained of a “double standard” during a telephone conversation with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Iran and Libya have maintained diplomatic relations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Libya is one of the few Arab countries that supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), and both have denounced Israeli actions at the United Nations. Qaddafi congratulated Ahmadinejad on his victory after the disputed 2009 presidential elections.
Libya has not been critical in Iran’s foreign policy, although the two countries did take steps in recent years to extend bilateral ties. Iran’s foreign minister visited Tripoli in 2010 to discuss economic ties, including joint oil and gas projects.
The one constant tension between Iran and Libya has been the mysterious disappearance of Lebanese Shiite leader Musa al Sadr, who was born in Iran. In 1978, Sadr disappeared during an official visit to Libya, which created tensions in relations between Tehran and Tripoli. Sadr’s niece is married to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.
In March 2011, Sadr’s family speculated that the religious leader might still be alive and imprisoned in Libya, a claim that played a central role in Tehran’s denunciation of Qaddafi’s recent crackdown on the opposition.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
"The United States and its western (allies) claim they want to defend the people by carrying out military operations or by entering Libya... You did not come to defend the people, you've come after Libyan oil."
"Iran utterly condemns the behavior of the Libyan government against its people, the killings and pressure on people, and the bombing of its cities... but it (also) condemns the military action in Libya." New Year (Nowrouz) speech on March 21, 2011
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
"The intervention of some European countries and America in the regional nations increases concern and makes circumstances more complicated."
"The double standard action of the Western countries in Bahrain and Libya and their silence towards the atrocities of the Zionist regime against the innocent Palestinians shows their contradictory performance in the world." Quoted during a phone conversation with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, April 3, 2011
Ramin Mehmanparast, foreign ministry spokesman
"These countries enter usually with seductive slogans of supporting the people but they follow their own interests in ruling the countries and continuing colonialism in a new form."
Quoted in the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), March 20, 2011
Ali Larijani, speaker of parliament
“The West, and specifically the United States, has deceived people in the past with democracy and human rights slogans, but now it is evident that what is of importance to them is oil and the interests of corporations.”
“The United Nations issues a resolution in support of the people of Libya and engages in widespread attacks against the Libyan regime, while in Bahrain they do the exact opposite. They tell the Saudi army and other Arab countries to enter the country in support of the Bahraini regime…The question is that if the United States and the West want to support the opposition, then why are Gaddafi's bases targeted by aircraft and missiles under the pretext of supporting revolutionary people while the revolutionaries are being repressed in Bahrain?” Quoted in the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) March 26, 2011
Editorial in Sobh-e Sadeq (newspaper linked to the Revolutionary Guards)
“The best choice for solving the Libyan crisis is the continuation and perseverance of the peoples movement, and pressure on the Qaddafi regime without military expeditions to this country. This way the Libyan people can determine their destiny without foreign intervention.”
April 3, 2011
Editorial in the semi-official Mehr News Agency
“The recent upheavals have shown that the dictators of the Arab world do not want to learn from the past. All of them—from the Al-Khalifa’s in Bahrain, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya—have chosen a destiny similar to the grim fate of Saddam [Hussein].”March 31, 2011
Iran's National Human Rights Committee
"Iran's National Human Rights Committee denounces brutal and inhumane acts of Libyan government against its oppressed and defenseless people and extends sympathy with victims and those harmed following violence." March 18, 2011
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2011/apr/05/iran-backs-libyan-rebels-chastises-west-over-oil-bahrain
“Why Does Turkey Love Omar al-Bashir?”, March 2009
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. The ICC accused al-Bashir of being directly responsible for the attacks by pro-government militia in Sudan's Darfur province.
Turkey hosted al-Bashir twice last year and his deputy Ali Osman Taha recently visited Ankara to seek support for the president. The arrest warrant puts Turkey in an uncomfortable position, because as a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council, Turkey has the power to suspend the ICC's arrest warrant.
In case the Security Council decides to debate the al-Bashir case, Turkey's vote will be critical. It seems that Turkey would want to support the view of the Arab League and African Union, which are calling on the Security Council to suspend the warrant (see EDM, February 24). Moreover, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, stated at a press conference in Cairo that the ICC's arrest warrant showed a double standard and asked why the ICC had not investigated the Israeli incursion into Gaza (Zaman, March 6).
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said, "We will see what consequences the warrant will have, but to be honest, we have concerns. ...We believe the problems [in Sudan] cannot be resolved by excluding the Sudanese administration. On the contrary, the problems will grow" (Hurriyet Daily News, March 6). The Turkish press reported that Ankara would not only vote for al-Bashir if the case were brought before the Security Council but would take an active role in convincing the other members of the Security Council to suspend the arrest warrants (Aksam, March 6).
Ankara's support for al-Bashir has prompted a debate over whether Turkey should support the Sudanese president. Liberals who often support the Erdogan government are strongly opposed to the decision to back al-Bashir. The influential liberal columnist Hasan Cemal of Milliyet, for example, asked whether Erdogan would criticize al-Bashir the way he criticized Israeli President Shimon Peres about Gaza (Milliyet, March 6). The liberal daily Taraf ran the headline "Ankara Defends the Killer" (Taraf, March 6), and Yasemin Congar wrote an editorial accusing Ankara of supporting a "rapist" regime (Taraf, March 6).
On the other hand, Islamists disagree with the ICC's decision, which has opened up a new discussion in the Muslim world about how "hypocritical" the western institutions are. The basic premisef is that the ICC has not done anything about the crimes committed in Iraq and Gaza, for example, but has targeted Sudan for political reasons (Zaman, March 6).
Yet, neither the liberal intellectuals nor the Islamists have asked why the AKP government, the Turkish Foreign Ministry, and perhaps also the military would want to support al-Bashir. Perhaps the AKP elites' knowledge about Sudan is limited to the ideology of Hassan Al-Turabi, whose ideas were once widely circulated among Islamist groups in Turkey.
It seems that Turkey does not want al-Bashir to leave his post, because Ankara hopes to keep Sudan a unified country. More importantly, the al-Bashir government supports Turkey's dispute with Cyprus. In addition, al-Bashir's government wants to see the Turkish military deployed in Darfur to control the territory (Aksiyon, January 1, 2008).
Knowing that Ankara's main foreign policy objective in the region is to support the integrity of existing countries, one could expect Ankara to support al-Bashir for the sake of Sudanese unity. Even more, Ankara may hope to benefit from Sudan's recently discovered oil fields. These two possible motives have not been widely discussed in the media, perhaps because of a lack of knowledge about the region and perhaps even because Turkish diplomats are unsure about al-Bashir's future. Ankara's wholehearted support of al-Bashir would seem to indicate that Turkey considers Sudan to be an important country in its Africa strategy in the near future.
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34671#.V2eY_fmLRdg
“Turkey's Erdogan wins Gaddafi prize for human rights”, November 2010
The Muammar Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights will be given to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during his visit to Libya next week. Erdogan will visit the country to attend a conference of African countries and the European Union.
The prize, founded by the Libyan leader, was awarded in the past to former South African President Nelson Mandela, Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. (AFP)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3990296,00.html
“Zimbabwe and Algeria sending troops to support Gaddafi in Libya war?”, June 2011
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/zimbabwe-and-algeria-sending-troops-to-support-gaddafi-in-libya-war-159320
“Libya, Chad and Sudan – An Ambiguous Triangle”?
http://www.zms.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/mittelmeerstudien/mam/downloads/zms_-_wps_-_5.pdf
“Hizbullah’s part in Gaddafi’s downfall”, October 2011
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/10/24/charles-glass/hizbullahs-part-in-gaddafis-downfall/
“Hezbollah slams crimes committed by Gaddafi regime”, February 2011
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Hezbollah-slams-crimes-committed-by-Gaddafi-regime