Voices from the Arab press: Riyadh’s diplomatic role

Riyadh’s diplomatic role

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, October 30

Diplomatic solutions have long been the bedrock of establishing stability in the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia is undertaking significant efforts to bolster peace in areas of crisis. The current regional landscape demands diplomatic policies that genuinely engage all relevant stakeholders. There’s no question about the crucial role of deepening both Arab and international cooperation in overcoming crises and fostering sustainable development. 

Saudi Arabia’s strategic vision mirrors its comprehensive approach to restoring peace and security in the region. Playing a pivotal role in reducing regional tensions, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia strives to avert war’s devastating impact and lay the foundation for peace. The kingdom recognizes that political crises threaten regional security and are obstacles to sustainable development. 

Riyadh underscores its profound commitment to achieving Middle Eastern stability by championing diplomatic solutions. These initiatives highlight the kingdom’s vision to enhance Arab and international cooperation in addressing current challenges. Through its international and regional alliances, Saudi Arabia is committed to integrated strategies designed to alleviate tensions. These efforts involve collaboration with major global powers like the US and Russia, facilitating dialogue on security and economic issues. The kingdom actively works to bolster regional security and counter extremism through these partnerships. Diplomacy is at the heart of the kingdom’s policies, underscoring its commitment to resolving conflicts through peaceful means. 

Lebanon endures complex political and economic crises that necessitate serious diplomatic interventions, prompting Saudi Arabia to back initiatives focused on restoring stability. These initiatives aim to bridge political divides and encourage national dialogue by supporting moderate forces, with Riyadh aspiring to fortify an inclusive government representing all factions of the Lebanese populace. 

Regarding Palestine, the Palestinian issue ranks high among the priorities of Saudi foreign policy. The kingdom advocates for a two-state solution and seeks to facilitate dialogue among the pertinent parties. Riyadh offers both financial and political backing for initiatives targeting peace-building in Palestine, reflecting its commitment to regional stability. Saudi initiatives continue to aim at safeguarding Palestinian rights and enhancing chances for peace. 

The Yemeni crisis is one of the most pressing challenges confronting the region. The kingdom’s emphasis is on diplomatic efforts through mediation to broker peace agreements with warring factions. These initiatives are concentrated on securing a sustainable truce and ensuring humanitarian aid reaches those in need. It’s apparent that diplomatic solutions in Yemen are vital to ending human suffering and for the country’s reconstruction. 

In Sudan, as the nation navigates a transitional phase, robust support from Arab countries has become imperative, prompting Riyadh to play a key role in supporting national efforts geared toward peace and democracy. The kingdom persistently backs initiatives that champion civil peace and mitigate divisions, demonstrating its willingness to collaborate with the international community to support Sudan, reflecting the broader Arab commitment to regional stability. 

The ongoing humanitarian and political crisis in Syria sees the kingdom pursuing a peaceful resolution by backing international efforts intended to cease the conflict and promote political resolutions. Riyadh also emphasizes national unity and social peace as critical components of any settlement, driven by the belief that a stable Syria will have beneficial ramifications for regional security and will improve Arab relations. 

In conclusion, diplomatic solutions are indispensable for achieving stability in the Middle East. Accordingly, Saudi Arabia is making concerted efforts to promote peace in areas beset by crisis. The prevailing circumstances necessitate diplomatic approaches that engage all involved parties. There is no denying that enhanced Arab and international cooperation is crucial for overcoming crises and achieving sustainable development, and Saudi strategies consistently reflect an all-encompassing vision for restoring peace and security in the region. – Muhammad Ali Al-Husseini

Will BRICS remain an economic group?

Al-Ahram, Egypt, October 31

The BRICS consortium has made significant strides since its inception in 2009, both in expanding its membership, which originally included four economies – China, Russia, Brazil, and India – and later welcomed South Africa in 2010. 

In a pivotal development, January 2024 marked the inclusion of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Ethiopia in the group. This expansion has bolstered the group’s influence on the global economic arena, as demonstrated by its increasing share in global output and its pivotal role in international transactions encompassing trade, investment, and tourism. 

BRICS has consistently underscored its economic essence by focusing on an economic and financial agenda, mirroring the trajectory of other international economic groups and forums that have emerged over the last three decades. This path began with the formation of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1989, the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) in 1997, and later, the G20 in 1999. These organizations share a common foundation: They were established to address economic goals and challenges. APEC’s mission is to foster economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region, a process initiated voluntarily that has subsequently led to the creation of a regulatory framework to sustain and deepen this integration. Similarly, the IORA was set up to enhance economic collaboration among countries bordering the Indian Ocean, while the G20 emerged as a bridge connecting the Group of Seven industrialized nations with emerging markets, particularly during the financial turmoil that impacted Asian economies in the late 1990s. 

While economic factors played a central role in the creation of these groups and continue to do so, their political influence has grown as they gradually began to address political and security issues to varying degrees. Although this evolution has been limited in APEC, the IORA, and the G20, BRICS might follow a different trajectory for several reasons that set it apart. Chief among these is its embodiment of a distinct international movement comprising emerging markets and middle powers – an aspect that separates it from other frameworks, which include a mix of developed and emerging economies. The presence of advanced industrialized economies within these groups influences their agendas and discussions, whereas BRICS aligns more closely with the interests of its member economies. BRICS’s focus on emerging markets within the global economy enhances internal harmony, making consensus on policy positions more achievable. This could demarcate emerging markets from industrialized economies, echoing the formation of the Group of Seven industrial nations in 1975, which was aimed at representing the economic, political, and security interests of developed countries and managing international crises. 

This potential shift is underscored by the current geopolitical climate characterized by tensions between the United States and its allies, as well as China and Russia. These tensions extend beyond political and military dimensions to include economic and financial domains, prompting China and Russia to establish new economic structures that reflect their interests. 

Concerns over stalled IMF reforms due to US resistance have amplified the resolve to create an economic framework that encapsulates these interests, leading to the establishment of initiatives such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with China as a major stakeholder, and the New Development Bank, BRICS’s financial arm. Evaluating this evolution requires considering the time necessary for its completion and the political ramifications involved despite its economic veneer. This scenario does not guarantee that BRICS will inevitably engage in severe or military confrontations with developed economies or institutions led by the US, like those born out of the Bretton Woods system. However, the nature of this conflict is likely to be primarily economic and financial, focusing on the institutions and philosophies that steer the global economy. 

This conflict has crystallized from hypothetical to actual, challenging the Western-centric dominance over crucial international prerogatives like equitable development, unbiased access to financing, fair market entry, and inclusion in key decision-making processes affecting emerging markets. While developed economies have achieved growth without imposing stringent conditions, often at the expense of other nations, BRICS’s rising economic weight and influence, especially through its burgeoning new economic frameworks, will undeniably accelerate a power shift that necessitates discussions on political and security matters within the group. This shift in focus is not contradicted by the group’s leaders, who continue to emphasize its economic mission, as such transformations naturally evolve. Nonetheless, separating economic and financial roles from political and security considerations is increasingly impractical, and balancing global relations demands an equitable economic and financial environment– a balance that burgeoning and middle powers within BRICS are poised to influence at this crucial juncture. – Mohammed Fayez Farhat

Gulf trends toward AI

Al-Ittihad, UAE, October 31

The Gulf’s initiatives to advance the modern technology and artificial intelligence (AI) sectors are gaining momentum, positioning the region for significant economic transformation. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations possess the financial resources to facilitate this shift. 

Within just seven months, profound changes have sparked global discourse: Could the GCC become a global hub for AI technologies? This question is not without merit, given the substantial advancements made in a short span. Notably, the world’s largest smart chip producer, TSMC, is based in Taiwan, alongside South Korea’s Samsung and several major American AI firms. 

While it’s impossible to cover every recent Gulf development, some key highlights are worth mentioning. The Wall Street Journal has reported a visit from a TSMC delegation to Abu Dhabi, exploring a potential $100 billion investment in a smart chip manufacturing complex, possibly in collaboration with Samsung. Such a development would establish a significant technological hub for chip and AI production in the UAE, which would be signified by the involvement of one of the leading global companies in this arena. 

Moreover, Dubai has seen its digital company count swell to 120,000, with investments reaching $38 billion, which is projected to escalate to $140 billion. Dubai’s status as a tech magnet is attributed to its robust infrastructure. Concurrently, Saudi Arabia has ascended 17 positions in the global AI index, securing 14th place, surpassing many developed nations. This advancement mirrors the substantial investments in advanced technologies and AI. 

There is, however, another layer to this story: the localization and development of these technologies beyond mere technology transfer. This is evident in the significant changes within universities and institutes in the GCC, which have founded notable AI institutions and introduced educational reforms to encourage enrollment in applied sciences. Additionally, over 250,000 Gulf students are currently enrolled in various international colleges, many pursuing modern tech disciplines, while a comparable number continue their higher education in GCC institutions in scientific and technical fields. Gulf universities have seen remarkable progress, achieving competitive standings in global educational rankings. In this context, the recent assembly of Dubai’s Higher Committee for Future Technology and Digital Economy has launched a strategic initiative to train 5,000 citizens over the next five years, preparing them for employment in hi-tech firms. 

Evidently, the Gulf’s current direction transcends mere adoption of automated processes; it emphasizes the localization of these technologies, particularly in AI. Most transactions within the Gulf are now conducted digitally, promoting skill development and enhancing smart transaction capabilities. Thus, the question of the GCC’s potential to emerge as a global AI technology center is not only rational but also founded on a robust technological and educational foundation. This development represents an important leap toward economic diversification and keeping pace with the world’s smart technological shifts, ensuring the GCC’s active and foundational role in these global transformations. – Mohammed Al-Asoomi

Islamists in Sudan: From power to rebellion

Al-Arab, London, November 2

In recent years, the Islamic movement has consistently demonstrated a lack of strategic foresight. It has relied heavily on short-term visions and tactics devoid of comprehensiveness, resulting in ongoing confusion. 

The Sudanese Islamic Movement, in particular, serves as an exemplar of a system where political, organizational, military, and tribal elements are intricately woven together. It has adeptly leveraged these facets to entrench its interests and enhance its influence, adopting a model that bears a striking resemblance to the Iranian approach to constructing power networks. This approach employs both military training and ideological indoctrination. From its inception, the Sudanese Islamic Movement drew inspiration from the methods of the Iranian revolution, striving to establish an organized entity operating on multiple levels. It appeared that the ultimate aim was to secure a significant foothold in power through various mechanisms. The movement’s ambitions extended beyond mere organizational structuring; it aimed to establish military fronts, most notably the Rapid Support Forces. 

Originally conceived as a tool to maintain equilibrium within the military system and subsequently seize control of power, the Rapid Support Forces evolved into an independent force with its own ambitions, ultimately turning against its creators. 

This outcome underscores the Islamic movement’s failure to adequately calculate the long-term implications or deeply consider potential consequences. Now, with the Rapid Support Forces out of their control, the Islamic movement has turned to the “joint forces” to counter this organization. These joint forces comprise several armed factions with diverging visions and ideological orientations. This heterogeneity in ideologies and allegiances could pose a future threat to the army itself, as these groups lack absolute loyalty. It is anticipated that they may eventually resort to arms to assert their rights and interests, potentially rendering the military institution fragile and prone to defections. 

The Islamists face an unprecedented challenge; their absence of a strategic vision places them at risk of facing severe repercussions on security and political fronts, threatening to erode both their influence and authority. This lack of long-term vision is rooted in a fundamental crisis within their intellectual and organizational framework, where the emphasis remains on crisis management without radical solutions, all while precariously seeking power. This inconsistent approach has resulted in internal fragmentation within Islamist ranks and ongoing conflicts among their leaders, causing them to lose political credibility and widespread appeal. 

Should the joint forces rebel against the Islamists and take up arms, the consequences for the government in Port Sudan could be catastrophic, leading to a loss of control over western Sudan and exacerbating instability across other regions, which could further fragment the nation. The Islamists would find themselves in an increasingly difficult position, their leaders facing mounting political and military pressures that are beyond their control. In such a scenario, internal divisions within the Islamists may deepen, revealing the racist tendencies that could intensify existing fractures within the movement. Islamists are at a crossroads, encountering an unprecedented challenge as their lack of strategic vision threatens to bring about dire consequences for security and politics. This scenario risks eroding their influence and authority, potentially propelling the country into a new phase of chaos, which may pave the way for emerging political and social forces to reshape the Sudanese landscape anew. – Abdelmonem Hemat

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb/The Media Line. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.