A Gulf Sheikh down coming?

Moderator's Note

I have merged a small thread 'Arab Spring comes late in Kuwait' and 'Impact of the Arab Spring on Saudi Arabia' into this newly created thread (ends).

Quote:

---

Dozens of Kuwaiti protesters stormed parliament late on Wednesday, as hundreds more demonstrated outside. Eyewitnesses said they were demanding that Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammad al-Sabah step down. Hundreds of people, including opposition lawmakers, have been protesting weekly outside parliament over alleged corruption.

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15768027

The BBC reports a previous demo over the PM earlier in 2011 and a no confidence vote being defeated.

Given the strategic role of Kuwait in providing facilities for the dwindling US presence in Iraq I am sure there's ample reason to watch.

Populaces are evolving. Governments seek to sustain the status quo. This creates gaps that can be exploited by both internal and external actors seeking change.

Now is not the time to push for concepts of American brand democracy, nor for "universal" values as currently defined by the US government (which frankly find little universality within the US, let alone without); nor for foreign leaders to step down.

Now is not the time for governments to cling doggedly to dated forms of foreign policy or to equally dated forms of domestic policy or concepts of governance. Now is the time for governments to listen very carefully to those they seek to influence or govern. Now is the time for governments to become far more flexible in their ability to tailor and implement small changes that target directly at the most important concerns of these evolving populaces.

Change is scary, and for those governments who focus on "control" as the measure of success there will be frustration and increasing challenges. For those who can embrace the uncertainty of approaches that are less controlling and more influential, there will be continued success.

Remember, ideology does not create these gaps. Insurgents do not create these gaps. Trans-national terrorists do not create these gaps. These are the tools and agents of opportunity. States also have opportunities in this evolving environment if the politicians possess the courage and vision to assume reasonable risks to reach out and take advantage of the same factors that these illegal opportunists leverage currently.

We should not fear instability, as it is a metric of progress. But there are risks. The greatest risk, however, is to fear change and to cling to artificial stability imposed through "rule of law" and "increased security force capacity." Seek justice, not law. Justice is blind, but the law can be a directed tool of the state and quickly lose it's justice component, particularly in times when states feel threatened. Current forms of government are threatened. Current politicians are threatened. States and nations are not at risk here. We must ask these leaders what it is they truly seek to protect?

We live in exciting times of dynamic change. But to overly seek to resist or control that change is the most dangerous course of all.

Quote:

---

Populaces are evolving. Governments seek to sustain the status quo. This creates gaps that can be exploited by both internal and external actors seeking change.

Now is not the time to push for concepts of American brand democracy, nor for "universal" values as currently defined by the US government (which frankly find little universality within the US, let alone without); nor for foreign leaders to step down.

Now is not the time for governments to cling doggedly to dated forms of foreign policy or to equally dated forms of domestic policy or concepts of governance. Now is the time for governments to listen very carefully to those they seek to influence or govern. Now is the time for governments to become far more flexible in their ability to tailor and implement small changes that target directly at the most important concerns of these evolving populaces.

Change is scary, and for those governments who focus on "control" as the measure of success there will be frustration and increasing challenges. For those who can embrace the uncertainty of approaches that are less controlling and more influential, there will be continued success.

Remember, ideology does not create these gaps. Insurgents do not create these gaps. Trans-national terrorists do not create these gaps. These are the tools and agents of opportunity. States also have opportunities in this evolving environment if the politicians possess the courage and vision to assume reasonable risks to reach out and take advantage of the same factors that these illegal opportunists leverage currently.

We should not fear instability, as it is a metric of progress. But there are risks. The greatest risk, however, is to fear change and to cling to artificial stability imposed through "rule of law" and "increased security force capacity." Seek justice, not law. Justice is blind, but the law can be a directed tool of the state and quickly lose it's justice component, particularly in times when states feel threatened. Current forms of government are threatened. Current politicians are threatened. States and nations are not at risk here. We must ask these leaders what it is they truly seek to protect?

We live in exciting times of dynamic change. But to overly seek to resist or control that change is the most dangerous course of all.

---

Thanks for neatly encapsulating one of the most important challenges facing the Arab World and Africa. The US, on the other hand, really needs to look beyond counter-terrorism and energy security.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingJaja

Thanks for neatly encapsulating one of the most important challenges facing the Arab World and Africa. The US, on the other hand, really needs to look beyond counter-terrorism and energy security.

---

This applies to US foreign policy as well. When a system of foreign policies are designed for an era and mission that no longer exists (as the US Cold War based, "GWOT"-shaped containment grand strategy is) similar "gaps" occur. When that policy is seen as promoting an artificial stability dedicated to an increasingly irrelevant status quo it also creates motivations in the populaces of the affected nations to be more apt to participate in acts of transnational terrorism.

We see the Obama administration working on one hand to break from the status quo and to become more supportive of those populaces who are willing to pursue reasonable (if not entirely peaceful) ways and means to achieve change. This is a start, as it is not a blind commitment to forcing the status quo. Equally dangerous, however, is to push for US forms of governance, and current US values; as if populaces everywhere were somehow in the same culture, the same time and place as US socio-cultural evolution is right now. To move another government artificially in such a way is to create an even larger, more illegitimate, and more inappropriate, more exploitable gap in the other direction. Neither internal nor external governments should expect the populace to conform to them, it is governments that must conform to the people.

For US foreign policy we need to tailor our approaches by nation, and be more respective of differences, and if anything, encourage governments to be more in synch with their own people. We need to find new ways to pursue our own interests that are less tied to artificially stabilized status quos, as this is the primary driver of transnational terrorism against the US.

This is simply a matter of leadership style. We've been able to get away with "lazy leadership." A controlling style based upon superior strength and wealth. We will need to adopt a more sophisticated and nuanced form of influence-based leadership. The best leaders always spent 80% of their time in influence-based leadership, only applying power as needed, when needed. Lazy leaders are all power, all the time. The US is a lazy leader. Maybe that is what the president meant in his recent comments in Asia... He is seeking to turn this around, but we've been on this path for a several administrations and too many people have come to see such power-based lazy leadership as "what right looks like."

Just a theory. Governments need to control the one thing they have the right to control, their own actions. They need to then govern in ways that are more attuned to the people they affect, at home and abroad.

Opinion from a regional source... always good to have some non-US perspective:

http://www.zawya.com/story/In_a_rest...emailmarketing

Quote:

---

Saudi Arabia: In a restless realm

Saudi Arabia's absolute monarchy watched the demise of its close ally, President Hosni Mubarak, with alarm. The Al Sauds had sought to avoid this dramatic moment of change in the Arab world, even pleading with their American friends to save the Egyptian despot's regime.

Eighteen months on, however, the conservative rulers of the world's largest oil producer and the biggest Arab economy are learning to adapt...

---

My personal sense is that addressing discontent by distributing money will work, at least for a while. Saudi Arabia is not Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, or Syria: a quite large percentage of the population is materially comfortable enough to have a stake in the status quo, and the very strong fear of instability still trumps the widespread dislike for the regime. How long that lasts is anybody's guess.

Almost a year ago I listened to a Saudi diplomat talking on the regional situation and some of his remarks are relevant here.

Quote:

---

The language used to describe radicals was very strong, akin to them being perverts and following 'destructive ideologies' making them revolutionaries. Followed by 'using the cloak of religion to disguise their naked power seeking'.

A long time was spent on the KSA's counter-radicalisation programme. The 'hard' and the 'soft'. A 25% pay increase for security forces, funded rewards, 2k had been interviewed and 1k detained.

A $4b in unconditional aid had been given to Eygpt, after Mubarak's removal, unlike the World Bank and others. KSA had supported the Mubarak regime for many years, it was sad to see him go, but it was the choice of the Egyptian people and they respected that.

The phrase 'Arab Spring' was a misuse of the word 'Spring' as it had to date been quite bloody; note this was just after he pointed out that the KSA & GCC forces in Bahrain were 'all to protect critical infrastructure, not face civil disorder'.

---

Quote:

---

A $4b in unconditional aid had been given to Eygpt, after Mubarak's removal, unlike the World Bank and others. KSA had supported the Mubarak regime for many years, it was sad to see him go, but it was the choice of the Egyptian people and they respected that.

---

Whether they sent the money out of respect for the choices of the Egyptian people or in an attempt to buy influence with the new regime is of course a matter open to question.

The Saudi regime, or extended royal family must be aware of the impact of the Arab Spring, with once friendly, or allied governments being overthrown and replaced with something very different. What I have yet to see is any in-depth reporting on the impact upon the Saudi population.

We appear to assume the regime using both "soft" and "hard" power is capable of identifying its weaknesses and responding to them. From my very limited reading the regime's response is "more of the same". Whether that is still suitable is the key question.

What I would be looking for is increasing numbers of Saudis staying abroad after their studies, possibly volunteering to work in other post-Spring countries; more savings leaving and more "disappearances", even renditions back to Saudi Arabia.

For strategic reasons most Western nations prefer the Saudi regime and avert their eyes from looking more closely.

I am reminded of a conversation many years ago, possibly by a retired UK diplomat on the radio; he talked about two foreign policy nightmares for the UK: a bearded, junior Pakistani army officer appears on TV and announces a successful coup. Second, a raging bearded, fanatical Saudi face appears on TV to announce all the royal family are dead and the oil is turned off.

Quite fanciful I thought until a retired soldier responded that this shock had already happened once before - Gadafy's coup in Libya in 1968. At the time the UK had more troops in Libya than their army, apparently to defend the Libyan oilfields from Eygpt (plus RAF & USAF bases).

I assume national governments have thought through the possibilities and adjusted their calculations over policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

The Saudi regime, or extended royal family must be aware of the impact of the Arab Spring, with once friendly, or allied governments being overthrown and replaced with something very different. What I have yet to see is any in-depth reporting on the impact upon the Saudi population.

---

It would be very difficult to assess the impact on the population as a whole.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are quite different from the states so far affected by the Arab Spring, in a number of ways.

One factor that I think is much underrated in the West is the extent to which traditional aristocracies are granted a degree of legitimacy, at least as long as they keep bringing home the... well, not bacon, but you know what I mean. To the outside eye there may be little difference between the sheiks, emirs, and princes of the GCC and a ruler like Gaddafi, Mubarak, or Assad. In the Gulf the perceived difference is very large, and it's not limited to the ruling class.

The second factor of course is that in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf a large part of the populace, in most cases a majority, is materially comfortable enough to have a stake in stability. There is a real envy of the political freedoms and human rights enjoyed in the west, but also an overpowering fear - you could almost call it terror - that liberalizing would bring chaos, collapse, and a loss of all they have.

I've picked up some repeated threads in time spent in that region: not a scientific survey by any means but comments repetitively heard...

It's almost a mantra that democracy and human rights promotion are western conspiracies designed to weaken traditional systems so that Westerners can come in and take control of the oil.

It's often heard that while government is corrupt and it's terrible, the very fact that ruling is so profitable makes democracy dangerous: factions will destroy the country in a fight over the control of the spoils. Corruption with stability is better than corruption with chaos.

Another mantra: "Osama is good and pious and we all support him, but if he and his people ever took over here we would have a war and we would lose everything"

In short, I get the feeling (again, through very un-scientific means) that the dominant political positions of Gulf populaces are driven less by what they seek than by what they fear, and that the status quo, for all it's deficiencies, is often seen as better than an unknown and potentially catastrophic change.

Dayuhan,

I've just posted on another general, regional thread an item (Post 79) that ties in with your last post:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=1455&page=4

Secondly there are two clearly related threads: 'Terrorism, CT and internal issues in Saudi Arabia':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...read.php?t=546 and 'US policy with an ally like the Saudis':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2119

I think a key thing to remember is that revolution only seeks complete overthrow of the current system in the most extreme cases. Most often revolution simply seeks to place pressure on governments to make evolutions of governance that the government would prefer not to make.

As to "Arab Spring," it is best not to think of "spring" as in the season, but rather spring as in the compressed, coiled populaces long held in situations deemed unacceptable - with the compression effect increasing in recent years as the populaces of the Middle East have evolved in their expectations of governance far more rapidly than the governments of the region have been willing to evolve.

The pressure in Saudi Arabia is much greater than is healthy for a society. They seek to buy that pressure down. They export trouble makers to go to places like Yemen and Pakistan to raise trouble elsewhere; they turn a blind eye to the funding of organizations that either directly or indirectly fund illegal agents of political change, such as AQ. They diligently and ruthlessly identify and arrest any who show signs of attempting to organize movement against the government.

So far this has been enough. But the Saudi family has been far less proactive is seeking to understand and address the root grievances of an evolving populace living in an evolving world. Perhaps more "youthful" members of the family will emerge to lead the government to a more sustainable place, or adopt measures that give the populace a greater voice in how they are governed. Perhaps. Doing so would do wonders to reduce the pressure on the "Arab Spring" of the Saudi populace. Far more so than if they listen to the misguided pleadings of American leaders to adopt values and forms of governance designed by and for American populaces as a recommended cure.

My fear is that they will do as most monarchies do, and cling to their rights to do as they please and not take the growing signs of discontent seriously. This is not about "effectiveness," this is about how people feel and who they blame. Highly effective governments that are equally highly rigid and out of touch with an evolving populace are every bit as susceptible to revolution as are highly ineffective governments. Just ask King George of England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I think a key thing to remember is that revolution only seeks complete overthrow of the current system in the most extreme cases. Most often revolution simply seeks to place pressure on governments to make evolutions of governance that the government would prefer not to make.

---

Quote:

---

Revolution

noun

1: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system

---

OED. QED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

As to "Arab Spring," it is best not to think of "spring" as in the season, but rather spring as in the compressed, coiled populaces long held in situations deemed unacceptable - with the compression effect increasing in recent years as the populaces of the Middle East have evolved in their expectations of governance far more rapidly than the governments of the region have been willing to evolve.

---

Are you putting "the populaces of the Middle East" together in a generic basket? I'm not sure that's a good idea, nor is it a good idea to assume that anyone's "expectations of governance" are what yours would be in their place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

The pressure in Saudi Arabia is much greater than is healthy for a society.

---

Based on what evidence? Seems to me the pressure has ratcheted down very considerably from the 90s, when things really felt like they could blow at any minute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

They seek to buy that pressure down. They export trouble makers to go to places like Yemen and Pakistan to raise trouble elsewhere; they turn a blind eye to the funding of organizations that either directly or indirectly fund illegal agents of political change, such as AQ. They diligently and ruthlessly identify and arrest any who show signs of attempting to organize movement against the government.

---

Yes, they do. Efforts to organize against government, though, have so far involved fairly small groups and a fair portion of the populace actually sees them as a threat and supports the government's aggressive moves against them. I see little evidence suggesting a rapidly spreading or expanding anti-government movement. I suspect that this is less because the government is liked (it isn't) than because these movements have nothing to offer that the populace wants and because the fear of instability outweighs the dislike of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

adopt measures that give the populace a greater voice in how they are governed. Perhaps. Doing so would do wonders to reduce the pressure on the "Arab Spring" of the Saudi populace.

---

By what right or knowledge do you speak for the Saudi populace? Do you assume that "a greater voice in how they are governed" tops all popular agendas, everywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Highly effective governments that are equally highly rigid and out of touch with an evolving populace are every bit as susceptible to revolution as are highly ineffective governments. Just ask King George of England.

---

Are they out of touch with the populace, or out of touch with your view of the populace? I suspect that they may have a better handle on their populace than you do. They know that the bulk of the populace is fairly comfortable, quite conservative, and generally terrified of any change that might threaten what they have. They also know that as long as the people are comfortable dissent is likely to remain confined to ideological fringes that have little appeal to the mainstream. How long they'll get away with it is anyone's guess. I could be wrong, but I suspect they'll get away with it longer than you think. Again, the key is to look not only at what people want, but also at what they fear. Do those who pose themselves as an alternative to the royals offer the populace what they want, or what they fear? It makes a difference.

There are a whole lot of people in The Kingdom who will gladly send money and praise to sustain AQ in their fight against the infidel, as long as that fight is somewhere else. That doesn't mean they want AQ in charge of The Kingdom. Most of them know all too well where that would lead, and I don't think they don't want to go there.

So now we must dogmatically cling to what dictionaries tell us? LMFAO at that. I prefer to rely on the reality of the matter, and the reality is as I described revolution, not as your dictionary defines them. I would expect such an argument from a SAMS graduate, but I expect a bit more willing to think outside the lines from you.

When I say "populaces of the Middle East" that is plural. If I wanted to lump them into one homogeneous blob as you suggest I would have said "the populace of the Middle East." But of course I didn't say that. The many diverse populaces of the Middle East are evolving and demanding more of government. The facts support that. The many diverse populaces of Saudi Arabia are no exception, no matter how much their government and ours likes to hope and pretend they are.

Etc, etc. Your counter points are all equally groundless attempts to twist my meanings to fit the points you want to argue against. Not sure what to do with that. I do, however, stand by the positions made in my original post. If you actually want to discuss those, I am happy to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

So now we must dogmatically cling to what dictionaries tell us? LMFAO at that. I prefer to rely on the reality of the matter, and the reality is as I described revolution, not as your dictionary defines them.

---

You can't have a discussion without consensus on what the basic terms mean. Changing definitions is not "thinking outside the box", it's simply an effort to skew the argument in a direction you want it to go.

Claiming that there is a revolution or insurgency ongoing in Saudi Arabia (or China, or North Korea, or Iran, or Qatar, or any number of others, is simply wrong: it is incompatible with the generally accepted definitions of those terms. You could say that circumstances in any or all of those countries are conducive to revolution. You could say they are ripe for revolution. You could say that there is substantial dissent and that the regimes in question are creating a risk of revolution or insurgency by suppressing that dissent instead of addressing its causes. You couild say that the symptoms of oncoming revolution are on display. In any of those cases you'd have to explain why you believe that, and ideally produce some evidence to support the claim. But to say that revolution or insurgency are actually ongoing in those places on the basis of revised definitions that are unique to you is simply confusing the issue.

There's plenty of scope for thinking outside the box without trying to change the language. It's a very versatile language with a wealth of terminology at hand. There's no need to dilute or devalue existing terms by redefining them in midstream or expanding their definitions to a point that deprives them of utility.

/rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

When I say "populaces of the Middle East" that is plural. If I wanted to lump them into one homogeneous blob as you suggest I would have said "the populace of the Middle East." But of course I didn't say that. The many diverse populaces of the Middle East are evolving and demanding more of government. The facts support that.

---

The evolution and the demands are very different among very different populaces, and to assume that they are all evolving in the same direction, or that they all have identical or even similar demands, is to lump multiple populaces together in a homogeneous blob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

The many diverse populaces of Saudi Arabia are no exception, no matter how much their government and ours likes to hope and pretend they are.

---

Again I think you're making assumptions about the direction of popular evolution and the nature of popular demands that are based less on evidence than on your own ideas of what a populace ought to want. I remain unconvinced that circumstances on the ground actually fit those assumptions.

I do not maintain that the Saudi populaces love their government, far from it. I do think that while dissent is widespread, the tendency of that dissent to develop into broad coherent action, and the ability of dissenting movements to gain traction with the mainstream population are being restrained by a number of factors that you aren't acknowledging. I suspect that you may be adjusting reality to fit the model, rather than adjusting the model to fit the reality on the ground.

A new book 'After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies' by Christopher Davidson, a UK-based academic, is published this week and FP has an article that opens with:

Quote:

---

At first glance the Gulf monarchies look stable, at least compared to the broader region. In reality, however, the political and economic structures that underpin these highly autocratic states are coming under increasing pressure, and broad swathes of citizens are making hitherto unimaginable challenges to the ruling elites.

---

Which ends with:

Quote:

---

Finally, and most importantly, the vicious crackdowns and arbitrary detentions that have been taking place as regimes have sought to silence these voices are tragic, but are nonetheless helping to dispel the illusion that these unelected, unaccountable rulers have anything in common with the tribal, benevolent rulers of the pre-oil era.

---

Link:http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/pos...cy_in_question

A shorter summary:http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Sheikh.../dp/184904189X

If this was to come about, in one or more nations, the Arab Spring would take a very different form. SWC have discussed the Gulf states before, although in brief - except for Saudi Arabia.

There is a substantial thread on Bahrain's Unrest:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...t=12530&page=6

The other night several Tweets reported disorder in Amman, Jordan; OK a little way inland from the Gulf sheikdoms, but the same theme - uncertainty comes.

Protests about fuel prices being the catalyst.

Two BBC reports:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20321086 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20335287

The NYT, which has a number of protesters cited:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/wo...econd-day.html

King Abdullah is due to visit London next week, for a speech giving; so one wonders will he leave home?

In my last post I noted:

Quote:

---

King Abdullah is due to visit London next week, for a speech giving; so one wonders will he leave home?

---

His visit has been cancelled.

Quote:

---

The UK will provide expertise in physical security, cybersecurity and counter-terrorism to the oil-rich Gulf Arab state. It comes as Kuwait is experiencing a wave of anti-government protests....it would provide "state-of-the-art surveillance and command-and-control systems as used in the London Olympics".

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20530427

Some may say this is a gamble, but since the UK's stance on Bahrain has been to speak quietly not unexpected.

A good FP article which supplements Post 15. It opens with:

Quote:

---

The Arab Spring was hard on Arab presidents: most of the personalist presidential autocracies are now gone. But no Arab monarchs fell during the Arab Spring. Why did the monarchs fare so well? The strong correlation between monarchism and survival suggests, of course, that monarchism had something (or everything) to do with it.

---

Ending with:

Quote:

---

The rest of the monarchs possessed two key advantages over the presidents in the spring of 2011. First, they profited from comparisons between their rule and that of the presidents.....A second factor also helped the monarchs: they could make credible promises to implement political reforms.....The problem for monarchs going forward, in the wake of the Arab Spring, is that these two factors are not at all permanent....The next time around, promises will not likely be enough: real signs of change will need to be clear. Absent that, the monarchs might wind up going down the road of Bahrain's ruling family, ruling over an embittered population that no longer believes promises of reform. That would not necessarily doom the monarchs, especially the family businesses of the Gulf. But it would send them down a dead end of discord and repression.

---

Link:http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/pos...rchism_matters

A review of 'After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies' by Christopher M Davidson, as per Post 15:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...iew?CMP=twt_gu

It also reviews a second book on Saudi Arabia 'The Islamic Utopia' (Pluto, £17.99), by Andrew Hammond and knowing some here watch KSA:

Quote:

---

...neatly decapitates the argument that the ultra-conservative kingdom (which, it bears repeating, is named after its ruling family) is undergoing a credible reform process. Since the 9/11 attacks, which upset their cosy relationship with the US, the Saudis have claimed to be leading the fight against jihadism and to be responding (cautiously) to demands for change at home.

Outside a few "gimmicky" liberal enclaves that are beyond the reach of the morality police, ordinary Saudis are encouraged to shop and pray, but not to think.

---

A rare commentary on Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, with a Shia majority, who can have an unhappy relationship with their rulers. Interesting to see some Sunni-Shia dialogue.

Link:http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/20...-promises/ffnh

Ends with:

Quote:

---

Finally, many in the province point approvingly to a sweeping investigation into the disturbances of the East published last year by the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies and leaked to an opposition website. Based on extensive interviews, the 125-page document is remarkable for its objectivity and detail in identifying the roots of dissent in the Eastern Province as an entrenched social, economic, and political problem—rather than as the usual explanations of criminality or Iranian-assisted subversion. “It is Saudi Arabia’s own Bassiouni Report,” noted one Shia activist in Safwa, referring to the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. Sadly though, the document may suffer a similar fate as its Bahraini counterpart; it seems unclear as to whether or not Saudi authorities have the power—or even the will—to act on its recommendations.

---

Small protests in Suadi Arabia, including in Riyadh; from a previously unknown source via a reputable hat tip:http://muftah.org/saudi-arabia-on-lo...exWNvk.twitter

A taster:

Quote:

---

The Saudi regime’s failure to deal in a just manner with calls for reforms and civil and human rights has exacerbated popular frustration, and increased challenges to the government’s legitimacy.

---

An IISS Strategic Comment, which opens with:

Quote:

---

With a popularly elected parliament and relatively open political system, Kuwait is an exception among Gulf states. The resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammed in November 2011 marked the first time in the region that public pressure had succeeded in ousting a head of government. However, after nearly 18 months of feuding and two dissolutions of parliament, there is no sign of an end to the power struggle between the government and opposition factions. As Gulf governments harden their positions in the face of domestic unrest following the 2011 Arab uprisings, the relative openness of Kuwaiti politics may be at risk.

(And ends)As the constitutional court's verdict nears, the government will have to decide whether appeasement or containment of opposition groups is the best way to harmonise and restore balance to Kuwait's political structure. A radical transformation may be unlikely, but a compromise between different political factions could temporarily bring the crisis to a halt. The challenge for Kuwait is to attain stable government and at the same time accommodate an increasingly ambitious opposition.

---

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...tical-turmoil/

There is a thread on The US-Kuwaiti strategic relationship, from 2007-2008:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3924

Yesterday my wife and I watched the hour-long documentary by the BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner, who had returned to Saudi Arabia, where he was shot by Al Qaeda in 2004, and his explanation how it has so far avoided an Arab Spring revolution. My wife would normally not watch such TV, but remarked it was very good.

Frank Gardner is a fluent Arabic speaker which helps, even if this was made with official "minders" it featured numerous critics.

Sometimes such BBC TV is not available beyond the UK, but assuming it is the link is:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._Saudi_Arabia/

Christopher Davidson, author of 'After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies', spoke this week:

Quote:

---

... the "UAE 94" trial provides a useful example of how these monarchies deal with opposition.

---

Ah, what is the UAE 94? Very briefly:

Quote:

---

Last week, just a day before Morsi's ousting, verdicts were announced in the "UAE 94" case – a mass trial of Emirati activists which has been condemned by human rights organisations as fundamentally unfair. Of the 94 accused, 69 were given jail sentences of between seven and 15 years, while 25 others were acquitted. Many – but by no means all – of them are members of al-Islah, a local Islamic movement which the authorities have been eager to link to the Muslim Brotherhood.

---

Link:http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/july...opposition.htm

Alerted via Twitter to a new book 'Sectarian Politics in the Gulf: From the Iraq War to the Arab Uprising' (Pub. Columbia University Press, December 2013), by Frederic Wehrey, from Carnegie:carnegieendowment.org/experts/?fa=709

Amazon.com link:http://www.amazon.com/Sectarian-Poli...+Arab+Uprising

One review, my emphasis:

Quote:

---

Sectarian Politics in the Gulf represents the most up-to-date and insightful study on the politics of sectarianism in three key Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. Far from being an intrinsic or innate feature of these societies, Prof. Wehrey shows in careful detail how sectarianism is invoked, produced and instrumentalized, and for very specific goals by governments, clerics as well as members of the Shii opposition. The book's argument situates sectarianism within local and regional political dynamics and contexts, and through this underscores that as a political phenomenon sectarianism cannot be apprehended by historically-rooted religious hatred. Based on a careful reading of primary sources and extensive fieldwork in the region, including in-depth interviews with many of the key activists, this book provides the most comprehensive and readable account of religious politics in the Gulf today.

---

Logical and almost predictable for the Gulf sheikhdoms & KSA:

Quote:

---

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has invited Jordan and Morocco to form a military alliance to resolve the bloc’s manpower issues....The most recent move, according to the Jordanian official, is seen as another step in solidifying the relationship between the only remaining monarchies in the Arab world.

---

Link:http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...Jordan-Morocco

Now whether the people accept fellow Arabs from elsewhere is a moot point. Who says mercenaries are history?