This article was first published in the Cyprus Star and Turkey Star on May 18 2012.

The Gulf possibly presents a preeminent scenario of the complex differences that exist in the Arab world. Whilst the Gulf states are mostly known for their wealth and rapid economic growth derived from oil exploration, the state actors in the area are each a product of their own historical, geographic and economic trajectories; and thus characterized by different political models which often lead to contention and visible geopolitical rivalries between states in the region. 

Most notable is the rise of a Saudi-Iranian rivalry that stems from deep-rooted issues; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia endorses Sunni Wahhabism as its official ruling ideology, whilst the Islamic Republic of Iran adopts Shiism, leading to ideological clashes as both state actors compete to establish regional spheres of influence.

It takes two

The Saudi-Iranian enmity in itself goes a long way and is deeply entrenched in the Sunni-Shia divide. Ever since the breakup of the Islamic world into separate jurisdictions, the rise of Persia (today Iran) elevated Shiism to a ‘national’ religion and gradually cut Iran from the rest of the Islamic ecumenical society, which consequently came to reflect into the power balance maneuvers of the region. 

Today, both Iran and Saudi Arabia having undergone contrasting forms of political Islam, seek to establish themselves as influential state actors within the region often leading to direct confrontation and clash of interests. Ever since the 1970’s Saudi Arabia has spent more than $70 billion in foreign aid that has mostly been directed towards ‘exporting’ Wahhabism beyond Saudi confines. Iran, captured in the spirit of the Islamic Revolution that embodies Shia Islam into the state structures, has shaped its regional foreign policy to become a leader for the Shia populations in the Gulf, engaging in considerable effort to establish a radiant Shia sphere of influence encompassing Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia itself.

Listen to the rain on the roof

What first was a rivalry based on different religious ideologies and varying forms of political Islam, has evolved to incorporate conflictual strategic interests and competitive economic relations.

Saudi Arabia is becoming increasingly keen to foster deeper economic cooperation with the neighboring Sunni-ruled Gulf monarchies and has made use of regional institutional mechanisms in order to build market leverage at the expense of Iran. The Kingdom has endorsed the prospective formation of an Arab Customs Union (ACU) and supports the idea of an Arab common market, which could potentially lead to an Arab trade bloc, and thus make it harder for Iran, being outside the institutional framework of the ACU or the Arab League (AL) to trade in the region. Given the rapid rise of economic wealth that both Iran and Saudi Arabia have experienced due to oil exploration, economic lead is one of the crucial issues that underpin the contemporary nature of the geopolitical rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Furthermore strategic geographic interests come into the fold. The Strait of Hormutz that borders Iran on one side is a highly strategic waterway in the MENA region, which provides the only nautical access to the Persian Gulf. Given that Saudi Arabia and the other oil-exporting monarchies in the region depend on access through the Hormutz in order to reach world markets, there has developed further friction with Iran, as the potential closure or restriction on access to the Hormutz by the latter could lead to Saudi economic devastation.

This is where the intimacy between Saudi Arabia and the United States (US) comes into the picture, as the US provides external succor to counteract potential Iranian threats in the region.  In itself, US presence in the Gulf region serves to fuel further the Saudi-Iranian enmity as Iran remains determined to oppose any kind of external presence within the region, and thus the more Saudi Arabia and its allied Sunni monarchies in the Gulf rely on US protection, the more Iran becomes resistant and forceful.

There won’t be trumpets

The Gulf is rich in oil resources, and oil is the black gold. As the rivalry has evolved, the economic interests at stake make it harder for any state actor to move an inch. The Sunni regimes in the Gulf have found an outside protector in the US, and the latter having established a foothold in such a globally strategic region, has no interest in moving out anytime soon. On the other hand, the world is watching Iran. The West has moved on from diplomatic talks, to verbal condemnations and more recently to sanctions, in a bid to counteract growing Iranian siege mentality. Perhaps the time has come to go back to the drawing board and understand exactly the stark ideological differences and diversity of the Arab world. We might realize that external influence is sometimes the wrong approach to bring about stability, and perhaps international relations are after all about the pursual of national interests.

-

E-mail: darren.chetcuti.vella@hotmail.com

This article was first published in the Cyprus Star and the Turkey Star on April 6 2012. 

I have already written about Kony on ‘The Insiter’ along with my colleague Elizabeth Mallia, but it seems nobody could get enough of Kony these days and the mass hysteria surrounding the KONY 2012 campaign has led to the boldest mass pronouncements via social media directly influencing on the conduct of US foreign policy. It quite worrisome how the public is not digging further on the Kony Campaign and is not yet aware of the larger picture surrounding the Kony-Uganda affair. So clearly there are some points which must be repeated. 

Invisible Children, Inc. has drawn the world’s attention with their latest campaign KONY 2012. The focus is on Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), whose militia has allegedly kidnapped some 66,000 children in Uganda and other African countries and forcing them to fight. In 2005, the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Kony for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The organisation is hopeful to make Kony so famous that the American government would send troops to pursue Kony and bring him to justice. The video campaign has become an Internet sensation and registered more than 85 million views on YouTube. But where is all this leading to we ask ourselves…

There’s Something about a War 

If you watched the film, you know how persuasive it is. Invisible children has tried to sway public opinion through displays of emotion and children. The director’s son directs the audience through a simplistic thought path, interrupted by footage of desperate children fleeing the LRA, to convince us that Kony is brutal. However, it’s not all that simple and the LRA’s actions need to be put into context.

With Uganda’s independence in 1962 came internal rivalry between the Bantu in the South and the Acholi in North. Since the 1980s, the LRA, an offshoot of a greater resistance Acholi movement has fought a civil war with the Ugandan government. The campaign itself largely ignores the fact that the child abductions have occurred within the context of a conflict and has weighed Kony in the balance and found him guilty.

Digging Further

An armed conflict always has more than one party to the dispute and Invisible Children fails to mention the atrocities committed by the other belligerents. If the organisationis so concerned about children in Africa, it should note that the Ugandan government first used child soldiers in the conflict.

Furthermore the LRA operations have shifted away from Uganda, into South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central Republic of Africa. The issue is no longer about child abductions in Uganda but how to reinstate security in Central Africa. In Congo alone, an estimated 90% of the people in LRA-active territory live in fear due to non-existent societal security in the region.

Lack of security bring crisis and crisis wreaks havoc. The conflicts in central Africa have caused a number of internal displacements of peoples. The is no single reference in the Kony video about the worsening conditions in Ugandan refugee camps accommodating displaced people, which the Ugandan government (that the charity supports) is responsible for.

The West: Time to come clean

The campaign shows no comprehensive understanding of African political-economic development. The Ugandan issue largely stems from the colonial era, when borders in Africa were created artificially to suit the interests of colonisers.  Following independence, Uganda couldn’t function as a unified state: the development of the state itself was not aligned to the political patterns of the country. The conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan government stems from the incompatibility between the Acholi people and the southern tribes.

The video ignores the fact that the Western powers might play a role in the crisis, instead advocating for US intervention. Invisible Children (hopefully with good intentions) are enforcing the beliefthat the west knows how to handle it better.

Come in, stranger

If the US intervenes in Uganda, it will not be bona fide intervention. The US government needs to justify an intervention back home and would devote its military and logistic resources only if it could get something back in return. This is where politics and economics intertwine. Uganda is rich in copper and oil, but lacks the infrastructure and indigenous knowledge to extract resources. If Multi-national Corporations find operation in Uganda financially viable, it is most likely that the US would develop an interest in restoring stability in the region. This is a form of emerging neo-colonialism where the MNC’s extract the resources without having the legal burden of governance. The USA could end up consolidating its hegemony, because the American public, influenced by the mass hysteria made by Invisible Chidren, asked for action. Neat isn’t it? 

—

E-mail: darren.chetcuti.vella@hotmail.com

by ELIZABETH MALLIA and DARREN CHETCUTI VELLA

During last year’s royal wedding, an Independent correspondent remarked that whilst 8,000 journalists had assembled in London to cover the nuptials, “the entire African continent has perhaps 500 Western journalists at any time”. Despite the lack of Western coverage, the rise of social media campaigns can draw the public’s gaze to issues that are often ignored in mass media. KONY 2012 is a case in point.

KONY 2012 is the name of the campaign by Invisible children Inc., concerning the Ugandan warlord and leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), Joseph Kony. The LRA has allegedly kidnapped around 66,000 children and forced them to join the army as child soldiers.[1] The organisation hopes to make Kony a household name so the American government will be forced to actively take an interest in capturing Kony and bringing him to justice. The video campaign quickly became an internet sensation and has registered more than 87 million views on YouTube alone.

The LRA

The LRA is a militant group which stemmed from the conflict and civil war in Uganda, an offshoot of a greater resistance movement by the Acholi. With Uganda’s independence in 1962 came internal rivalry between the Bantu in the south and the Acholi in north. Since the 1980s, the LRA and the central Ugandan government have fought a bloody civil war. The LRA was further strengthened when in the mid-1990′s it obtained military support from the Sudanese government.

Kony’s kingdom

The attempts of the US army, the UN Stabilization Mission in Congo, and several central African states to destroy the LRA have proven futile. Kony and the LRA have shifted their operations from Uganda to South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. Although the government of Uganda claims that the LRA has weakened considerably, and estimates reveal that by 2011 the LRA had only 300 to 400 combatants,[2] the LRA still manages to wreak havoc in central Africa, as its operations have spread beyond Uganda.

The LRA is believed to have abducted more than 3000 and killed some 2500 civilians in South Sudan, Central Republic of Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo between 2008 and 2011, displacing many others and creating one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world.[3] In 2005, the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Kony for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Political Communication

Anyone who has watched the KONY 2012 video will have noticed how persuasive it is. In political communication, children and displays of emotion have proved themselves to be successful audience manipulators. Invisible Children has applied this strategy in its video campaign, using the director’s son to direct viewers through a simplistic thought path, interrupted by images of desperate child refugees fleeing the LRA, sobbing or huddled up, in a bid to convince the public Kony is pure evil.

Soft power reversed

The KONY 2012 campaign is an example of a soft power strategy that uses social media. Joseph Nye describes soft power as the qualities of attraction and influence that a country gains when foreign audiences and important figures in the international scene become attracted to the culture and ideas of that country. Soft power is more subtle and perhaps more persuasive than military action or coercive strategies (such as economic sanctions), trying to accomplish international aims using co-operation and persuasive diplomacy.

The Kony campaign changes the way soft power is used. Soft power is normally a top-down exercise, employed by governments to target their own public or foreign audiences. In this case, we have an NGO trying to influence the public, who will in turn try to influence the US government to intervene in Uganda.

Two sides to a story

Kony 2012 has a rather one-sided stance: it has weighed Kony in the balance and found him guilty. While it is highly doubtful that Kony is innocent, the Statute of the ICC states that suspects are always presumed to be so. Part of presumption of innocence is that the suspect or accused must not be afforded arbitrary or prejudicial treatment by various institutions, including the media.

The video campaign shows no comprehensive understanding of African political-economic development. Invisible Children should try and identify the problems of development in Africa. The roots of the Ugandan issue lie in the colonial era, when borders in Africa were created artificially to suit the interests of colonisers.  Following independence, Uganda couldn’t function as a unified state: the development of the state itself was not aligned to the political patterns of the country. The conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan government stems from the incompatibility between the Acholi people in northern Uganda and the southern tribes.

The video ignores the fact that other Western powers might play a role in the crisis, instead depicting US intervention as the only solution. International law says that states are sovereign entities. This means that they control what happens within their territory. Invisible Children (hopefully with good intentions) are effectively encouraging the US government to ignore Uganda’s sovereignty and step right in. They might as well hold up a placard saying ‘Let the big powers handle it’. When the video was shown in Uganda, a several people flung stones at the screen to show their disapproval.

The campaign seems to ignore the fact that a dispute always has more than one party, and fails to consider that the other combatants may have committed offenses as well. If the people behind Invisible Children are so concerned about children in Africa, it should note that it was the Ugandan government that first used child soldiers in the Ugandan conflict. Most of the current LRA operations are based in Congo, where it is estimated that 90 per cent of the people living in LRA-active territory do so in fear of their safety, due to non-existent societal security in the region. The issue is not just about child refugees, but how to reinstate state security, not just in Uganda, but also in most of Central Africa. Invisible Children should also note the worsening conditions in refugee camps accommodating displaced people, which the Ugandan government it supports is responsible for.

Come in, stranger

If the US government decides to send troops to Uganda, it would not be out of altruism. Uganda is rich in copper and oil, but lacks the necessary infrastructure and indigenous knowledge to harvest or use these resources. Foreign intervention would only materialize if it is financially viable for multinational corporations to step in and extract these resources. It’s a form of neo-colonialism. Back in the colonial era, a foreign power could step into a country, take it over, and extract its resources. Today a corporation can take the resources without the hassle of governing the place. The USA could gain a powerful hold on Uganda because the American public, for altruistic reasons, asked them to take action. Democratic, isn’t it?