UAE sees 'parting of ways' if Qatar does not accept Arab demands

[rooster59]

UAE sees 'parting of ways' if Qatar does not accept Arab demands

By Aziz El Yaakoubi

 

United Arab Emirates' Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Mohammed Gargash attends a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) meeting in Riyadh March 12, 2015. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser/Files

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - A senior United Arab Emirates official said on Saturday that if Qatar did not accept an ultimatum issued by fellow Arab states which imposed a boycott this month on the tiny Gulf Arab nation, there would be a "parting of ways".

 

The 13-point list of demands from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE include closing the Al Jazeera satellite television network, curbing relations with Iran, shutting a Turkish base in Doha and paying reparations.

 

The demands are apparently aimed at dismantling Qatar's two-decade-old interventionist foreign policy, which has reflected the clout generated by its vast natural gas and oil wealth but incensed conservative Arab peers over its alleged support for Islamists they regard as mortal threats to their dynastic rule.

 

Doha said it is reviewing the list of demands and that a formal response will be made by the foreign ministry and delivered to Kuwait, but added that the demands are not reasonable or actionable.

 

"The alternative is not escalation, the alternative is parting of ways, because it is very difficult for us to maintain a collective grouping," UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash told reporters.

 

He said diplomacy with Qatar remained a priority, but added that mediation efforts to resolve the dispute had been undermined by the public disclosure of the demands.

 

"The mediators' ability to shuttle between the parties and try and reach a common ground has been compromised by this leak," he said. "Their success is very dependent on their ability to move but not in the public space."

 

Gargash said that if Qatar fails to comply within the 10-day timeline set out in the ultimatum, it will be isolated. But he did not make clear what more could be done since the four Arab nations have already cut diplomatic relations with Doha and severed most commercial ties.

 

The most powerful Middle Eastern country to stand with Qatar in the dispute has been Turkey, which has rushed through legislation to send more troops to its base in Doha as a sign of support.

 

Two contingents of Turkish troops with columns of armoured vehicles have arrived in Doha since the worst crisis among Gulf Arab states for years erupted on June 5.

 

Gargash said the Turkish deployment was a "meaningless escalation" and he hoped Ankara would act in a "reasonable way".

 

"We hope that Turkey prioritises the interest of the Turkish state and not partisan ideology," Gargash said.

 

Turkey, whose President Tayyip Erdogan has his roots in an Islamist political party, and Qatar have been the main backers of the Muslim Brotherhood movement that challenges Arab rulers.

 

Kuwait is helping mediate the dispute as is the United States, for which it has posed a challenging test since Qatar hosts a base housing the headquarters of U.S. air power in the Middle East as well as 11,000 troops.

 

The Sunni Muslim Arab group that imposed the sanctions on Qatar accuse it of funding terrorism, fomenting regional unrest and drawing too close to their Shi'ite Muslim enemy Iran. Qatar rejects those accusations and says it is being punished for straying from its neighbours' backing for authoritarian rulers.

 

The uncompromising positions adopted by both sides leave little prospect for a quick end to the crisis.

 

The sanctions have disrupted Qatar's main import routes by land from Saudi Arabia and by sea from big container ships docked in the United Arab Emirates. But Qatar so far has avoided economic collapse by quickly finding alternative channels and says its huge financial reserves will meet any challenges.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-25

[darksidedog]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." is clearly something not well understood in the Middle East. Many of those singling out Qatar, would do better to clean up their own house, especially Saudi Arabia. The call for Al Jazeera to be closed is utterly ludicrous. Al Jazeera is not a terrorist organisation, and reports a lot more fairly and impartially than anyone else in the region. Qatar should not bow down to such blatant hypocrisy.

[ilostmypassword]

 

2 hours ago, darksidedog said:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." is clearly something not well understood in the Middle East. Many of those singling out Qatar, would do better to clean up their own house, especially Saudi Arabia. The call for Al Jazeera to be closed is utterly ludicrous. Al Jazeera is not a terrorist organisation, and reports a lot more fairly and impartially than anyone else in the region. Qatar should not bow down to such blatant hypocrisy.

It's not so much a matter of reporting fairly and impartially as it is reporting on certain topics at all. There are lots more taboo subjects for the  media in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other allied nations.

 

[ilostmypassword]

The fact that the Saudis et alii demand that the Turks depart Qatar is the best argument for them to stay there. 

[Kwasaki]

US Trump was wrong to state and single out Qatar in support. 

The demands are unacceptable.

As Al Jazeera being closed another joke it's like the EU demanding the BBC be shut down.

Saudi demanding for payment reparations has gotta be a joke.

 

Been in many Arab countries and Saudi has to be the worse IMO it has an atmosphere of being so too,  secret police informers everywhere. 

[mercman24]

well i like Al Jazeera, its better than the hypocrites running the BBC

[Thaidream]

The fact is that the Moslem Brother was the party of record in Egypt's election and was overthrow in a coup which was supported by the West.  Qatar is a sovereign state and gives support to the Brotherhood as it is a legitimate political party. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the governments are scared to death that their people may be influenced by the Brotherhood and watch Al Jazeera to learn the truth of their authoritarian rule that has made them all wealthy while subjugating women as second class citizens.The only thing that keeps many of these people in power is oil- otherwise they would be herding goats in the Arabian desert.

 

In addition, for Donald Trump to support such nonsense is indicative of his lack of knowledge of what really is happening in the Arab World.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The fact that the Saudis et alii demand that the Turks depart Qatar is the best argument for them to stay there. 

If you say so, it must be right. But just how would further military involvement, sponsored by a leader not famed for being either moderate or reasonable, help things? Currently, there is no real indication that things will escalate, and as cited on other topics - US military presence should prove enough of  a deterrence. And if things were to go south, the additional Turkish deployment wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

Regardless of one's sentiments, two of the issues raised in the OP are spot on. The first being involvement of irresponsible parties not conductive to peaceful resolution, and the second, with regard to negotiations having more chance of success when conducted outside of public view.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Morch

[Briggsy]

Do not forget the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the emirs of the UAE, the military government in Egypt  and, for that matter, the Saudi-recognised government in Yemen all consider the alliances and actions of the Qatari government to be an existential threat. In these countries, loss of power doesn't mean quietly accepting some non-executive directorships, it means huge loss of wealth, status and power, very possible loss of freedom, exile and sometimes loss of life.

 

Whether you agree with Qatari policies or not, the Saudis et al are not worried about the finer points of Middle East relationships, they are worried about their palaces and their heads.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

If you say so, it must be right. But just how would further military involvement, sponsored by a leader not famed for being either moderate or reasonable, help things? Currently, there is no real indication that things will escalate, and as cited on other topics - US military presence should prove enough of  a deterrence. And if things were to go south, the additional Turkish deployment wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

Regardless of one's sentiments, two of the issues raised in the OP are spot on. The first being involvement of irresponsible parties not conductive to peaceful resolution, and the second, with regard to negotiations having more chance of success when conducted outside of public view.

There is no real indication things will escalate? An ultimatum doesn't count as an indication? As for US troops being a deterrent...they are located on an airbase out of harm's way. Do you seriously believe they would put themselves in harm's way to confront the Saudis? The Turks are far more likely to. And the Saudis know this. Hence their objections to the Turkish presence. As for involvement of irresponsible parties...I would rank the new Crown Prince as pre-eminent among them. And there are plenty of people knowledgeable about the mideast who would not disagree with that assessment.

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There is no real indication things will escalate? An ultimatum doesn't count as an indication? As for US troops being a deterrent...they are located on an airbase out of harm's way. Do you seriously believe they would put themselves in harm's way to confront the Saudis? The Turks are far more likely to. And the Saudis know this. Hence their objections to the Turkish presence. As for involvement of irresponsible parties...I would rank the new Crown Prince as pre-eminent among them. And there are plenty of people knowledgeable about the mideast who would not disagree with that assessment.

 

There is no real indication things will escalate to a military confrontation. I don't know that the ultimatum mentions anything of the sort. A quote from the op:

 

Quote

"The alternative is not escalation, the alternative is parting of ways, because it is very difficult for us to maintain a collective grouping," UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash told reporters.

 

That you repeat your "expert" view that the US troops are out of harms way means less then little. For some obscure reason you seem to imagine that a hypothetical military confrontation would be limited to ground forces meeting each other face to face, or something. Let me assure you no one fights this way anyone. Out of harm's way is a very fluid term nowadays. The US troops mere mere presence pretty much guarantees neighbors will think twice and thrice before initiating military operations. If it helps, consider the US Tomahawk strike in Syria, and the advance notice given to Russia. The US troops have no need to confront the Saudis or anyone else, that's just a faux scenario you're inserting to the discussion.

 

And despite your high regard for the Turkish military prowess, their limited contingent wouldn't be much of a hindrance if push came to shove, which again - doubt will happen.

 

If you consider the Saudi side irresponsible, it still doesn't make it clear how involving yet another irresponsible (not to say, erratic) leader would make things any better.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Morch

[midas]

7 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

It's not so much a matter of reporting fairly and impartially as it is reporting on certain topics at all. There are lots more taboo subjects for the  media in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other allied nations.

 

One in particular that Al Jazeera feature in interesting documentaries from time to time which provides a most enlightening perspective of the other side of the argument which other mainstream media outlets never even mention 

[Kwasaki]

23 minutes ago, midas said:

One in particular that Al Jazeera feature in interesting documentaries from time to time which provides a most enlightening perspective of the other side of the argument which other mainstream media outlets never even mention 

RT does as well even more so,   Al Jazeera gets a bit on the editing side if you ask me,  l watch both.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There is no real indication things will escalate to a military confrontation. I don't know that the ultimatum mentions anything of the sort. A quote from the op:

 

 

That you repeat your "expert" view that the US troops are out of harms way means less then little. For some obscure reason you seem to imagine that a hypothetical military confrontation would be limited to ground forces meeting each other face to face, or something. Let me assure you no one fights this way anyone. Out of harm's way is a very fluid term nowadays. The US troops mere mere presence pretty much guarantees neighbors will think twice and thrice before initiating military operations. If it helps, consider the US Tomahawk strike in Syria, and the advance notice given to Russia. The US troops have no need to confront the Saudis or anyone else, that's just a faux scenario you're inserting to the discussion.

 

And despite your high regard for the Turkish military prowess, their limited contingent wouldn't be much of a hindrance if push came to shove, which again - doubt will happen.

 

If you consider the Saudi side irresponsible, it still doesn't make it clear how involving yet another irresponsible (not to say, erratic) leader would make things any better.

The demands of Realpolitik mean that the US is not going to attack Saudi troops if they invade. Given the current administration's tilt in the mideast that would be disastrous for its plans. Whereas the absorption of Qatar or its reduction to a vassal state would not be. A few tsk tsks and it will be business as usual for the USA-Saudi alliance.

Maybe if Obama were still President that might give the Saudis pause, but with a cheerleader-in-chief for the Saudis heading the U.S. government, it's understandable why the Saudis could see, if not a green light, then at least an amber one.

 

Whatever the allegedly previous irresponsible behavior of the Saudis or the Qataris, inviting in the Turks is definitely not that. When your neighbor is a relative behemoth issuing ultimata and effectively headed by a very rash person with virtually unchecked power, getting yourself a tough, pugnacious ally with a military that's reckoned to be the second strongest in the region onto your territory is sound strategic thinking. And I use "strategic" not "tactical" advisedly.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The demands of Realpolitik mean that the US is not going to attack Saudi troops if they invade. Given the current administration's tilt in the mideast that would be disastrous for its plans. Whereas the absorption of Qatar or its reduction to a vassal state would not be. A few tsk tsks and it will be business as usual for the USA-Saudi alliance.

Maybe if Obama were still President that might give the Saudis pause, but with a cheerleader-in-chief for the Saudis heading the U.S. government, it's understandable why the Saudis could see, if not a green light, then at least an amber one.

 

Whatever the allegedly previous irresponsible behavior of the Saudis or the Qataris, inviting in the Turks is definitely not that. When your neighbor is a relative behemoth issuing ultimata and effectively headed by a very rash person with virtually unchecked power, getting yourself a tough, pugnacious ally with a military that's reckoned to be the second strongest in the region onto your territory is sound strategic thinking. And I use "strategic" not "tactical" advisedly.

 

The demands of staying within the realm of what's real mean that at some point acknowledgment that the imagined military confrontation is imaginary. And so is the "absorption of Qatar". Same goes for definitive assertions regarding how the US military will react.

 

For someone belittling Saudi military forces, you seem to place undue trust in their ability to contain and limit the imaginary fighting to specific areas within a rather small territory. Armed conflicts are rarely that neat, and if US forces will be under direct threat, then  "realpolitik" won't mean a thing.

 

The original comment regarding irresponsible leaders etc referred to the Erdogan's involvement. If the aim is to avoid escalation,  his involvement is counterproductive. Your deflection is dully noted. And once more, even without taking your assessment of Turkish might seriously, it seems necessary to point out that the actual Turkish contingent in Qatar is rather limited, and that Turkey is not exactly in the immediate neighborhood.

 

The OP does not mention a military confrontation, you do. Based on little.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The demands of staying within the realm of what's real mean that at some point acknowledgment that the imagined military confrontation is imaginary. And so is the "absorption of Qatar". Same goes for definitive assertions regarding how the US military will react.

 

For someone belittling Saudi military forces, you seem to place undue trust in their ability to contain and limit the imaginary fighting to specific areas within a rather small territory. Armed conflicts are rarely that neat, and if US forces will be under direct threat, then  "realpolitik" won't mean a thing.

 

The original comment regarding irresponsible leaders etc referred to the Erdogan's involvement. If the aim is to avoid escalation,  his involvement is counterproductive. Your deflection is dully noted. And once more, even without taking your assessment of Turkish might seriously, it seems necessary to point out that the actual Turkish contingent in Qatar is rather limited, and that Turkey is not exactly in the immediate neighborhood.

 

The OP does not mention a military confrontation, you do. Based on little.

Based on the fact that the Turks have a military presence there and that the Saudis and their friends strongly object to it.

 

And your previous argument about modern warfare actually support my point. You previously cited such devices as tomahawk missiles. One thing about modern warfare, if you've got the money, targeting can be terrifyingly accurate. The Saudis have the money and the cruise missiles. The airforce base is 36 kilometers from Doha. US troops can rest snug and comfy if the Saudis decide to act.

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Based on the fact that the Turks have a military base there and that the Saudis and their friends strongly object to it.

 

So, to your mind, that implies an upcoming military confrontation?

 

 

[nasanews]

I can't ask for more with the present king letting his favorite youngest son run the country, first by appointing him as a secretary of defense who declared war on the neighboring Yemen using silly argument of fighting Iran presence there.   Now we see even more childish decisions implementing total blockade on Qatar and no lifting it unless Qatar agrees to abide to a list of 13 ridiculous demands.
I see more disastrous decisions on the royal family's future to come with the thirty years old spoiled son of king Salman in charge of the kingdom.

[dexterm]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

So, to your mind, that implies an upcoming military confrontation?

 

 

Precisely the opposite!  The Saudis would not want to upset Turkey in any way. Thus even the small Turkish presence is a deterrence. Otherwise, who's to stop the  Saudis and Emiratis from invading to effect regime change and shut down Al Jazeera....the presence of US forces?? They could actually be a Trojan horse with Donald as Commander in Chief...anything to please his Saudi and Israeli buddies.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Based on the fact that the Turks have a military presence there and that the Saudis and their friends strongly object to it.

 

And your previous argument about modern warfare actually support my point. You previously cited such devices as tomahawk missiles. One thing about modern warfare, if you've got the money, targeting can be terrifyingly accurate. The Saudis have the money and the cruise missiles. The airforce base is 36 kilometers from Doha. US troops can rest snug and comfy if the Saudis decide to act.

 

 

Unless grossly mistaken it was you who took the view that Saudi Arabia's military wasn't all that pro, and lamented their record of inflicting "collateral damage", causing civilian casualties and the like. Strangely enough, you've also argued against sale of precision munitions to Saudi Arabia. So which one is it?

 

And once more, there upcoming attack seems mostly in your imagination.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Precisely the opposite!  The Saudis would not want to upset Turkey in any way. Thus even the small Turkish presence is a deterrence. Otherwise, who's to stop the  Saudis and Emiratis from invading to effect regime change and shut down Al Jazeera....the presence of US forces?? They could actually be a Trojan horse with Donald as Commander in Chief...anything to please his Saudi and Israeli buddies.

 

Precisely how? Did you even read the topic before commenting?

 

The Saudis already snubbed and upset Erdogan, by demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Qatar, and by rejecting his bizarre offer of setting up a Turkish base on Saudi Arabian soil. This wouldn't even be the first clash between Erdogan and Saudi Arabia with regard to regional issues. While I do not think that Saudi Arabia is looking forward to a military confrontation with Turkey, the deterrent factor alluded is grossly overstated.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense - the OP does not support the hyperbole fantasies of impeding invasion or regime change. The drivel about US forces is, of course, not based on anything whatsoever.

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Precisely how? Did you even read the topic before commenting?

 

The Saudis already snubbed and upset Erdogan, by demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Qatar, and by rejecting his bizarre offer of setting up a Turkish base on Saudi Arabian soil. This wouldn't even be the first clash between Erdogan and Saudi Arabia with regard to regional issues. While I do not think that Saudi Arabia is looking forward to a military confrontation with Turkey, the deterrent factor alluded is grossly overstated.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense - the OP does not support the hyperbole fantasies of impeding invasion or regime change. The drivel about US forces is, of course, not based on anything whatsoever.

Saudis upsetting Erdogan is neither here nor there. Dead Turkish soldiers killed by invading Saudis would not be a trivial matter. If you can't figure out how that is precisely a deterrent, then you are being disingenuous.

 

>>The drivel about US forces is, of course, not based on anything whatsoever.

 

Nonsense. The entire current situation in the Middle East is based on US interference and regime change on the most tenuous of pretexts. And that's only the last 20 years.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Saudis upsetting Erdogan is neither here nor there. Dead Turkish soldiers killed by invading Saudis would not be a trivial matter. If you can't figure out how that is precisely a deterrent, then you are being disingenuous.

 

>>The drivel about US forces is, of course, not based on anything whatsoever.

 

Nonsense. The entire current situation in the Middle East is based on US interference and regime change on the most tenuous of pretexts. And that's only the last 20 years.

 

You may want to ease on posting and realize that there is no Saudi invasion. Then you may have the time to look up Erdogan's recent comments, already upping the ante.

 

I did not suggest that the Turkish military presence is not a deterrent, just that you blow it out of proportion - especially relative to the US military presence.

 

And you can deflect all you like, but there is nothing to support the nonsense posted earlier about US troops being Trojan horse etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[impulse]

On 6/25/2017 at 8:17 AM, rooster59 said:

but incensed conservative Arab peers over its alleged support for Islamists they regard as mortal threats to their dynastic rule.

 

There's the snippet that defines the whole issue.

Edited June 26, 2017 by impulse

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You may want to ease on posting and realize that there is no Saudi invasion. Then you may have the time to look up Erdogan's recent comments, already upping the ante.

 

I did not suggest that the Turkish military presence is not a deterrent, just that you blow it out of proportion - especially relative to the US military presence.

 

And you can deflect all you like, but there is nothing to support the nonsense posted earlier about US troops being Trojan horse etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, whoever posted that nonsense about the US troops being a Trojan Horse, it wasn't me. However, on the off chance your comments were directed at mine, then the apt metaphor would be "scarecrow".

Edited June 26, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

w

Unless grossly mistaken it was you who took the view that Saudi Arabia's military wasn't all that pro, and lamented their record of inflicting "collateral damage", causing civilian casualties and the like. Strangely enough, you've also argued against sale of precision munitions to Saudi Arabia. So which one is it?

 

And once more, there upcoming attack seems mostly in your imagination.

Incompetence coves all sorts of grounds in cases of military matters. It may be that their missiles and bombers can hit what they are being aimed at. It their choice of targets that's questionable. And their strategy. Also, their ground troops are pretty much untested in battle. 

[dexterm]

56 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You may want to ease on posting and realize that there is no Saudi invasion. Then you may have the time to look up Erdogan's recent comments, already upping the ante.

 

I did not suggest that the Turkish military presence is not a deterrent, just that you blow it out of proportion - especially relative to the US military presence.

 

And you can deflect all you like, but there is nothing to support the nonsense posted earlier about US troops being Trojan horse etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>You may want to ease on posting and realize that there is no Saudi invasion. 

 

Of course there isn't a Saudi invasion and the posters above explained why not. In your posts above you profess some military knowledge, but pretend this is not a possibility.

 

If one were a corrupt privileged Saudi prince clinging to power and had the military might of Saudi and UAE (relative to Qatar), and there was absolutely nothing to prevent one from invading Qatar to get rid of the Emir, install a more compliant puppet, and shut down the pesky Al Jazeera that exposes one's shortcomings, with US forces confined to base (unless Iran became involved that is), a tut tut from US administration and Trump cheering on one's fake anti terrorist stance via Twitter, one would be a fool not to proceed, and later face an international slap on the wrist. Irritation gone; problem sorted; fait accomplit.. and we all know about those in the Middle East.

 

But the presence of Turkish troops is a fly in the ointment preventing an invasion.

Edited June 26, 2017 by dexterm

[ilostmypassword]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You may want to ease on posting and realize that there is no Saudi invasion. Then you may have the time to look up Erdogan's recent comments, already upping the ante.

 

I did not suggest that the Turkish military presence is not a deterrent, just that you blow it out of proportion - especially relative to the US military presence.

 

And you can deflect all you like, but there is nothing to support the nonsense posted earlier about US troops being Trojan horse etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I realize that there is no Saudi invasion. But this isn't whether or not Santa Claus. Santa Claus doesn't exist now and never will exist. Just because there is no Saudi invasion now doesn't mean there won't be one. And the Qataris would have to be fools to count on the Saudi leadership exercising common sense.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, whoever posted that nonsense about the US troops being a Trojan Horse, it wasn't me. However, on the off chance your comments were directed at mine, then the apt metaphor would be "scarecrow".

 

I was replying to a post made by another poster. Not too hard to discern if following the topic. There was no implication you posted it, not even an off chance one.

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Incompetence coves all sorts of grounds in cases of military matters. It may be that their missiles and bombers can hit what they are being aimed at. It their choice of targets that's questionable. And their strategy. Also, their ground troops are pretty much untested in battle. 

 

Lame backtracking there.