Geopolitics of GCC+ region

[King Solomon]

Not with the current leadership that we or you have. They are just American lackeys.

We must analyse this issue in the broader context.

Fact 1: GCC countries now have good relationship with USA.

What other option do they have?

Option 1: Cut relationship with US or deteriorate it.

Result of Option 1: Immediately ALL military contracts which are to be delivered in 2015-2020 of GCC would be invalid. GCC would be essentially defenseless against their enemies. Plus US Navy already has a big naval presence in Persian Gulf... would it tolerate GCC moving against US? Probably not. What will happen would be a covert CIA-orchestrated uprising in GCC nations. A full scale invasion of GCC by US navy is not out of the table either. Would we like to see GCC infrastructure and stability destroyed just because of their sudden desire to move away from US? No. Overall = Not feasible.

Option 2: Carry out Option 1, but with this increase cooperation with other Muslim countries

Result of Option 2: Effect of Option 1 + Gains would only be in the long term (20-25) years. It takes time to build an industrial base. The industrial revolution occurred in a period of over 100 years. What will happen in this period? Again, GCC would be defenseless which will make these countries very vulnerable to attack. Overall = Not feasible.

Option 3: Carry out option 1 + Build good relationship with Russia/China.

Result of Option 3: Effect of Option 1 + GCC oil exports would come to a halt if US stops importing oil.. Russia does not need Middle east oil as it already is in a huge surplus. China needs, but it already imports enough and the marginal amount would not be enough to tackle the loss of business GCC will suffer. This option would only benefit Russia as Russia will fill in the short term gap of US oil consumption. Overall loser would be GCC.

Overall Conclusion: You have to chose the best option among the options available to you. Something is better than nothing. And GCC nations are already faring much better than many other nations at present including pakistan. Please feel free to add any other options that I may have missed but according to my analysis, GCC is much better off at present status quo. I have to commend their policy makers for having foresight and chosen the best among possible alternatives for the betterment of their citizens.

 

[lem34]

^^^ well they do not have to have double standards for a starters. On the one hand they want to teach Syrians democracy and the other hand hold back people in Bahrain.

I agree that being anti American may not be an option for them as mistakes of their leaders in the past. But they do not have to lead the attack against Iran Syria etc. They do not have to be more American than American

 

[King Solomon]

..............well they do not have to have double standards for a starters. On the one hand they want to teach Syrians democracy and the other hand hold back people in Bahrain..............I agree that being anti American may not be an option for them as mistakes of their leaders in the past. But they do not have to lead the attack against Iran Syria etc. They do not have to be more American than American.................

It depends on how you see it. You will notice that Arab leaders only voice their opposition to Syria's regime due to the people who are being killed by Syria's army. Some people will consider them as freedom fighters some will consider them terrorists. Don't many people consider the Chechen insurgents (who are terrorists in our eyes and logically so) as freedom fighters? I have seen many people in the forum consider them freedom fighters. GCC leaders just have a different perspective. We cannot really blame them for this. Everybody is entitled to their view even if it may be different to what we think.

Please note that not once has GCC ever threatened to militarily intervene in Syria. GCC leaders do not have the "hunter-type" (aggressive) mentality which nations like US, Russia, China (even Iran) has. Their opposition is only limited to voice. They are far, far, FAR less aggressive. Example: Iran threatened military action against UAE whereas UAE only called for peaceful resolution of island issue.

About Bahrain.. if you compare Syrian economy with Bahrain, you will realize that it is not a genuine revolution. GDP/Capita and living standard is at least TEN times better in Bahrain compared to Syria. Average citizen in Bahrain can afford things which many in the west wouldn't be able to. Bahrain's leader did not massacre tens of thousands like the French backed Hafiz-al-Assad (father of Bashar al assad).

Tell me, if Pakistan's GDP/Capita was $40000 like Bahrain (on par with nations like Norway, Sweden), and suddenly a minority "rose up" against the government, would you support them? Majority would not! Why? Because people are immensely better off at present and these protesters would be no more than nuisance in their eyes. And remember, Bahrain army did not kill any group of protesters so far like Syrian army (that is again a different discussion).

Protests, anger occur if the government fails to provide for citizens. Thus, I do not see Bahrain revolution as a genuine one because the average citizen is already well provided - much better than many nations. Overall, I tend to agree that it may have occurred due to vested Iranian backing behind it.

 

[lem34]

Protests, anger occur if the government fails to provide for citizens. Thus, I do not see Bahrain revolution as a genuine one because the average citizen is already well provided - much better than many nations. Overall, I tend to agree that it may have occurred due to vested Iranian backing behind it.

Its quite simple the ones in power can answer the question if there is Iranian interference they can hold election???

 

[King Solomon]

Its quite simple the ones in power can answer the question if there is Iranian interference they can hold election???

The question should be, is election the answer?

Let us compare with other Muslim countries. Take for example pakistan. Now, it is quite documented that south asian nations have poverty levels where 30-40% population lives below $1.25/day. Didn't Pakistan and India hold hundreds of elections in central and divisional level since its inception? Was the result satisfactory till now? South Asia is still plagued by poverty.

Now compare it with GCC nations (including bahrain). In 1970, Saudi's GDP was only $7 billion - Same as Pakistan. Now Saudi has a GDP/capita of $20000+ with $400 billion GDP.

Both Saudi and Pakistan has had pro-US leaders. Both of them had "puppets" (in conventional terminology). Who benefited?

Whereas Saudi's GDP, standard of living and wealth multiplied by a hundred times in this 40 years, Pakistan still remains a low-income nation DESPITE holding elections and the "democracy". Both started from the SAME position in 1970.

Election, democracy, dictatorship etc. requires a suitable mentality of the nation in question. Western mentality is suited to it. This does not mean that GCC mentality would also be suited to democracy. When Prophet Mohammed started preaching his religion, according to some historians, if it were other races people would start questioning philosophical aspects of the religion. But this did not happen in this case because Arabs are traditionally faithful to their leaders. Maybe GCC is more suited to kingdom than democracy? Evidence and past record suggests this to be the case!

Edit: It turns out Pakistan had double the GDP of Saudi in 1970 ($10 billion) compared to Saudi's $5 billion......

 

[lem34]

The question should be, is election the answer?

If you want to make assertions which some Arabs have made on here You do need elections. You too asserted that you suspected Iranian interference. Well why not elections and clear the matter up.

Let the people decide we are told a majority like the Kings etc. Well let it be backed up by an elction

 

[King Solomon]

If you want to make assertions which some Arabs have made on here You do need elections. You too asserted that you suspected Iranian interference. Well why not elections and clear the matter up.

Let the people decide we are told a majority like the Kings etc. Well let it be backed up by an elction

It is not really an assertion. I debated with logic and reason also made relative comparison to actually examine whether elections would be good for GCC or not. Please feel free to present counter-arguments if you think my points are not valid/reasonable.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

forget building better relations with russia or china , stay like this untill you can totally stand on your own feet , ( maybe 25 years with good defence industry aswell) then make your own policy and on your interest , NEVER EVER MAKE MISTAKE OF DOING WHAT WEST SAYS ESPECIALLY UK , FRANCE ( the UK expert of divide and rule -skyes picot agreement) then we can have a very strong Turkiye - GCC and then no 2 faced relations

 

[lem34]

It is not really an assertion. I debated with logic and reason also made relative comparison to actually examine whether elections would be good for GCC or not. Please feel free to present counter-arguments if you think my points are not valid/reasonable.

you stated earlier that you felt there was interference from Iran. Something that supporters of the status quo are saying along with some Arabs on here have stated that the majority is happy with Kings etc.

Well surely if that was the case it is relatively simple to hold an election and show the "minority" that that is the case.

 

[Ottoman-Turk]

Also by then we will also have our own very good engines , we can provide 100% of land , 100% navy and like %60 of air by then , by 2023 young population of 85+million , 2+ trillion economy etc

 

[King Solomon]

you stated earlier that you felt there was interference from Iran. Something that supporters of the status quo are saying along with some Arabs on here have stated that the majority is happy with Kings etc.

Well surely if that was the case it is relatively simple to hold an election and show the "minority" that that is the case.

But is holding an election "practical"? I answered the question in detail in that post..

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Thats what some said about Gadaffi

What a long dream, very very long dream that will take decades until a slap wakes you up for the harsh reality. Keep your dreams on my friend.

 

[lem34]

But is holding an election "practical"? I answered the question in detail in that post..

I think it is. If a govt wants to explain its legitimacy to represent there must be a mechanism to show that.

What a long dream, very very long dream that will take decades until a slap wakes you up for the harsh reality. Keep your dreams on my friend.

That's your answer to everything isnt it a slap. Is that the Arab way. Israel slapped you lot so silly that your countries leaders now behave like Israel's lapdogs

 

[King Solomon]

I think it is. If a govt wants to explain its legitimacy to represent there must be a mechanism to show that.

Yes, but my argument was that as a normal citizen in a country, he/she does not really care who runs the government provided that he/she has his/her basic (perceived) civil liberties, security and livelihood (Hint: maslow's hierarchy of needs). In this respect, my conclusion was that any government is legitimate be it democracy, kingdom or autocracy for that matter if these services are provided for to the average citizen.

 

[lem34]

Yes, but my argument was that as a normal citizen in a country, he/she does not really care who runs the government provided that he/she has his/her basic (perceived) civil liberties, security and livelihood (Hint: maslow's hierarchy of needs). In this respect, my conclusion was that any government is legitimate be it democracy, kingdom or autocracy for that matter if these services are provided for to the average citizen.

Yes but we are having regularly having demonstrations in Bahrain. So to clarify not just for outsiders but to those demonstrators that the will of the majority is being followed elections are the logical answer. Also people have been killed in some of these. If elections save 1 life they must be held