Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #16 
After the deadline for Qatar to respond to Saudi demands was extended, the Qataris have delivered their response to the Emir of Kuwait.  

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/03/middleeast/qatar-deadline-extended/index.html

The U.S. military establishment was taken aback recently when President Trump came down so hard on the side of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., while the U.S. has it's biggest military base in Qatar.  They found it advisable to praise Qatar quickly after the President tweeted against the Emirate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-usa-pentagon-idUSKBN18X2G2

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/06/donald-trump-qatar-tweets-us-diplomatic-damage

This goes a long way in explaining the lower volume of U.S. involvement in this dispute.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #17 
UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt assert that Qatar did not honour its agreements:
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/07/10/Al-Arabiya-publishes-the-Riyadh-Agreements-of-2013-2014-signed-by-Qatar.html

Rex Tillerson continues to try to resolve the crisis:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-tillerson-qatar-20170710-story.html

Qataris and foreign residents rally behind their ruler:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-04/qatar-learns-to-cope-with-its-isolation-as-saudi-deadline-looms
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #18 
Kuwait takes action against Iranian regime presence in their country:
http://gulfbusiness.com/kuwait-orders-iranian-embassy-reduce-staff-close-offices/

Rex Tillerson accused of mismanaging the dispute:
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/07/17/rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-sabotage/
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #19 
http://gulfnews.com/news/mena/egypt/qatar-adopting-pro-terrorist-policy-egypt-says-1.2062321

It's no surprise that I've followed the Arab-Qatar diplomatic dispute closely, as it's the first time in decades that two or more royal families have been in conflict, even if it is falling short of war (and we sure hope it doesn't come to that). A dispute that provokes discussion on a wide range of issues, yet is rooted in complex history.

As monarchists, we delight in pointing out that Arab monarchies have worked better than other systems in the region who have invariably been failed states. This is because of the inherent legitimacy of the hereditary system, rooted as it is in the tribe and clan system and history of the region. In general, we can safely say that the most successful states are those where there are the three Cs - continuity, consensus and compromise - among the elites. Whether it is a traditional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy, these are the essential elements of a successful, functioning system.

Beneath the veneer of modernity, many Arab states still have a very traditional way of social and governmental relations rooted in the tribal and clan structure. Liberals and modernists may scoff at this, but this shouldn't be seen as a negative. Meritocracy isn't the be all and end all of everything, and even if democratic norms such as elections are impeccably observed, it is neither reasonable nor realistic to expect a system to conform to Western norms.

Indeed, we have seen what happens when coups and revolutions destroy an existing order. It happened most recently in Iran in 1979, but it had happened in Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958, Syria in 1963 and Libya in 1969. In most or all of these cases, revolutions destroyed the social and political basis of old established elites. In short, an organic social and political order of a monarchy or democracy is replaced by an artificial order imposed from the top down by a dictatorship. These were or are states devoid of compromise, whose rulers suppressed anyone they didn't like or disagree with by various less than civilised means. It is no coincidence that societies like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya are breeding grounds for Islamist militants, because of the societal vacuum created from a revolutionary process decades ago.

In this background, and the threat from the Iranian Revolution, the belligerence of dictatorships and of terrorist organisations, it is no surprise that Arab royal families formed a much closer bond over recent decades, resulting in the formation of the GCC. They more or less had to stick together as a group, because they shared a common interest in preserving the Old Order threatened by leftist and Islamist enemies. This is why, for instance, previously rival royal families learned to get over historical differences (think Jordan and Saudi Arabia).

And it is also why the sense of betrayal they feel by Qatar begins to become understandable. The belief, increasingly backed by evidence, that Qatar is a haven for subversives who threaten precisely the very same order created, its generous financial support having favoured extremists that undermined legitimate democratic aspirations in Syria and Libya, and more dangerously, hosting the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates that threaten the Gulf states.

The UAE has blacklisted the Muslim Brotherhood and its US affiliate CAIR because of its dangerous, revolutionary nature. Egypt is waging a war on domestic terrorists who threaten all of its people (above all else Coptic Christians, which is why they support Sisi). Bahrain is threatened by Leftist and Islamist agitators supported by the Iranian regime and egged on by moronic Western Leftists. In fact, when Washington heaped praise on Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco or other such states, the Left hates it no matter which party is control of the White House (they didn't like that the Obama Administration praised them, they'll hate it even more that Trump is even more enthusiastically backing them).

In this we see the evil nexus of Leftist and Islamist forces who are on one hand advancing the interests of the Iranian regime and its proxies, and on the other hand helping Sunni Islamists who are allegedly the nemesis of the former. Both of which threaten the traditional social and cultural order of the Middle East. By aiding and abetting the Islamist agenda, Western liberals also do great harm to Muslims, even if they think they aren't.

I have striven for consistency here. My loathing of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran is legion. My loathing of the Assad regime in Syria is equally so. I have denounced Hezbollah, ISIS, Al-Qaeda affiliates like Al-Nusra, and also the PKK/PYD for numerous human rights violations in Rojava. I do so in the interest of truth, reason and evidence, and in the name of fair play. Societies are infinitely better of where traditional norms and the rule of law are observed, and enforced by an effective state.

That Qatar stands accused by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE and Bahrain among others of being a patron of dangerous individuals and movements (not least through Al Jazeera) is one thing.

The other question is why has this been so? Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran have been patrons of radical and revolutionary movements and not all of them are Islamist. All of them, however, have been useful to the regime's agenda and goals and consistent with its worldview.

They have not been the only ones. Among the many states that have stood accused of sponsoring terrorism included Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Gaddafi, Syria under the Assads, Sudan under Omar al-Bashir and the now defunct Communist regime in South Yemen. Most of those were not Islamist regimes but were generally considered to be in the "radical" or "rejectionist" camp. But so were Egypt (before the Peace Treaty) and Algeria. Many of these regimes supported a whole host of terrorist groups, whether left-wing or Islamist, whenever it suited them. Whether it was the Communist PFLP the and Islamist Hezbollah and Hamas, the IRA, or insurgents in the Philippines.

Now it seems to me that Qatar has filled a vacuum left by Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad (remember that the US did take Libya off the terror sponsors' list when they normalised relations a decade ago and Gaddafi was now in the "good books").

As I stated earlier, the problem of post-colonial states in Asia, Africa and the Middle East which claim a "revolutionary" national narrative is that it is an ideological millstone, unhelpful in the formation of a stable, rational society or conducive to democracy, human rights and rule of law.

The common thread in regimes that emerged out of revolutions - Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, Bashir, South Yemen, et al - is that while they were not responsible for creating Al-Qaeda and ISIS, their combination of domestic oppression and support for foreign terrorism and the destruction of society they wrought created the perfect environment for ISIS et al to thrive.

In this regard, Qatar's patronage of organisations and individuals which are controversial is mind-boggling. A strong sense of solidarity among Arab monarchies has long been noted, and given what we saw in World War I and the events of 1958 and 1979, all the more understandable. It makes no sense for Qatar to do so. When Gaddafi sponsored terrorists, he was a darling of Western "progressives" and Third World "anti-imperialists". Qatar, because it is a traditional monarchy, will get no such status.

And hence it is somewhat understandable that the Gulf states and Egypt would be indignant about Qatar doing it, even though it should not just be Qatar that should be held accountable, but also Western governments that have allowed Islamist movements to thrive in their societies even when proscribed in Muslim countries.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #20 
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/07/24/Iran-Qatar-rapprochement-and-fueling-of-terrorism.html

It's dicey to accuse countries of sponsoring terrorism, sure, but for a state to be a sponsor of terrorism it must meet two criteria:

1) Support for such movements is part of official state policy and ideology.

2) There must be verifiable evidence of links between actual terrorist groups and the said governments.

When countries were placed on the sponsors of terrorism list - Iran, Iraq, Syria, South Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea - it was because there was clear evidence of their support for terrorism. Gaddafi supported terrorists but then backed away to get back into the West's good books. What Iran and Assad want, of course, is to have their cake and eat it - i.e. normalise relations with the West AND to continue supporting terrorists. One might ask if this is what Qatar falls under.

While it is undeniable that many Irish-Americans and some politicians supported the IRA, it would have been hard to censure the US for that given the evidently widespread support for IRA terror among some British elites...

Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 356
Reply with quote  #21 


Thanks for that analysis of the sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world.

It's indeed true that during  the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, many Irish-Americans, and politicians who represented those constituencies, supported the I.R.A. Noraid (a Northern Ireland charitable organization with close ties to the I.R.A. and Sinn Fein), used to come around door-to-door in Irish American neighborhoods soliciting charitable contributions for Northern Irish children affected by the violence of the Troubles. Most of the contributions did go to the charitable purposes for which they were intended, but a significant part of them were filtered into buying guns and ammunition for the I.R.A.

But almost all Irish-Americans and their politicians have, since 1998, supported the Good Friday power-sharing agreement between the Northern Irish political parties, Britain, and Eire, which ended the violence in Ulster. (Sinn Fein and the DUP also seem sincere about supporting this agreement.) The I.R.A. has been quiet and inactive since then. The UDA/UVF have morphed into organized crime and drug-dealing organizations.

The younger generation in Northern Ireland is concerned with achieving peaceful economic prosperity  and the older generation is relieved that the violence is in the past. DUP and Sinn Fein grudgingly cooperate in Stormont (although I believe that the provincial government there is still in a state of suspended animation following the results of the last provincial election). Both DUP and Sinn Fein opposed Brexit, as did most of the Ulster constituency, probably because they want to keep the agricultural subsidies that the E.U. provides. But since the recent national British election, the DUP has apparently switched over to supporting Brexit.  Nonetheless, both DUP and Sinn Fein have pledged support for keeping an open border with Eire, even when Brexit goes into effect, which should keep things on an even keel in Northern Ireland.

But there are always firebrands on both the Unionist and Nationalist side who are ready to resort to violence and terrorism at the first opportunity. For some, the process of reconciliation will take longer than for others.  The peace achieved by the Good Friday Agreement shouldn't be taken for granted, and Britain, Eire, DUP, and Sinn Fein need to maintain a firm commitment  to what they've already pledged. They need to be cautious and ensure that Brexit is implemented in a way that doesn't interfere with the Good Friday Agreement.


__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #22 
Northern Ireland was not central to this discussion but in many ways Irish Republicanism has influenced much modern terrorism and indeed Third Worldist, anti-imperialist ideology which in turn has had significant influence on Islamism.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #23 
Among the blacklisted entities operating in Yemen and Libya, it does seem that the atrocities in Manchester and London may have compelled Arab and Muslim nations to be seen as taking the issue seriously:

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/07/25/The-nine-entities-added-to-the-Qatar-backed-terror-list.html
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 602
Reply with quote  #24 
A small but significant step, but in my mind a fraction too late to the party for my comfort.
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #25 
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/07/29/Qatar-s-secret-plan-to-sabotage-Gulf-states-revealed-in-documentary.html

More accusations against Qatar in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gulf region.

Perhaps a disturbing precedent can be found in Europe up to and including 1914. Qatar's apparent support for radical and revolutionary groups is seen, not without reason, as a betrayal. Considering that before 1914, Russia and Serbia were more or less promoting pan-Slavism and Austria was opposed to that (which gave rise to Croatian and Ukrainian nationalisms, btw).

Yet today there can be no excuses as since 1958 and again since 1979, the threat from leftist and Islamist radicals to the old order should have been ever more apparent. We know that regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, South Yemen and Iran all supported terrorist groups without much in a way of ideological consistency (I mean, in Iran secular leftists are proscribed and persecuted, but the regime allies with socialist-ruled Venezuela). The point is, Qatar has really gained nothing from these entanglements and should come back into the fold.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #26 
The visit of firebrand Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to Saudi Arabia could raise a few eyebrows. Is the Gulf bloc looking for a Shiite counterweight to the Iranian regime?

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2017/07/30/Muqtada-al-Sadr-in-Saudi-Arabia-for-the-first-time-in-11-years-.html
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #27 
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/12/Kuwait-Interior-minister-forces-capture-12-Abdali-cell-suspects.html

One thing that Arab royalty, and that includes the likes of Saudi Arabia who many understandably aren't fans of, do at least understand that I can find admirable is that simply to play nice and do good for others is never going to cut it. Even when Arab states do their fair bit for humanitarian assistance. They understand this because since 1958 and 1979 the threats have been so obvious, whether from the Iranian regime, jihadists or leftists.

This is something, sadly, that I fear European royalty may not get. It doesn't matter what good you do for others and how nice you are, the enemy still hates you and is hell-bent on your destruction not for what you do but for who you are. Britain and Commonwealth nations may do their best for the "non-white" people of the Commonwealth, but that will never endear us to the leftist and ethnic activists who will hate us regardless. You can do good for minorities or other countries but you still are in the firing line of the enemy.

Niceness is one thing, but there is a place and a need for ruthlessness in face of the enemy.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #28 
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/19/The-Independent-manipulates-Al-Arabiya-TV-report-on-the-Qatar-crisis.html

The Independent is indistinguishable from The Guardian with its Far Left anti-British reports. So no surprise they are blatant liars and manipulator of national and international news like this. Attacking aircraft in the Gulf would be something akin to Sarajevo. Perhaps this is what the Independent wants?

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/20/Sheikh-Abdullah-Al-Thani-My-main-goal-is-to-mediate-the-affairs-of-Qataris.html

Has a royal mediator been found or an "acceptable" branch of the dynasty?
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #29 
More about Abdullah bin Ali Al-Thani, the prince who met with King Salman and just joined Twitter:

https://english.aawsat.com/salman-aldossary/opinion/abdullah-al-thani-solution-within-qatar

Amir Taheri on Kissinger's naivete:
https://english.aawsat.com/amir-taheri/opinion/kissingers-analysis-mideast-full-loopholes
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,502
Reply with quote  #30 
The UAE says the role of Iran and Turkey in Syria is "colonial":
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/08/29/UAE-criticizes-colonial-role-of-Iran-Turkey-in-Syria.html
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.