• Middle East and North Africa
    Guess Who’s Coming to (the GCC) Dinner?
    On May 13 and 14, President Obama will be hosting a summit meeting with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation. The members nations are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar. The problem is, it may not exactly be a "summit" meeting at all. Sultan Qaboos of Oman has been ill, as is Sheik Khalifa, president of the UAE. Two down. I imagine the king of Bahrain, King Hamad, will attend, and so will the young Emir of Qatar, Sheik Tamim. I’d also bet on the Emir of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah, but it may be 51/49. He is 85, and a quick trip to the United States cannot be very appealing. If the Saudi king skips this meeting, Sabah may as well. The key question is whether Saudi Arabia’s new King Salman will attend. As with Emir Sabah, age is a consideration: Salman is 79. But there is more: he became king in January and has not been to the United States in that capacity. Normally, such a visit would be a very big deal: it would be an official or even a state visit, with great fanfare. Does he want to visit the United States for the first time as king in this way-- merely as one of a group? And merely as one of a group that will for the UAE and Oman, and perhaps others,  not consist of heads of state? So the "summit" might just have two heads of state, Qatar and Bahrain-- and that’s a problem in itself. After all, Qatar has been a foreign policy problem for the United States (and its GCC partners) for a decade or more, backing extremist Islamist groups that we oppose (like the Muslim Brotherhood, or radical groups in Libya and Mali). And in Bahrain there is a significant human rights problem, with the Sunni monarch crushing the political hopes the Shia majority population. The president should not have announced the "summit" until he had the agreement of the Kuwaiti and Saudi to attend. If they said no, he should have called a meeting of ministers of defense and foreign affairs, perhaps hosted by hosted jointly by Ashton Carter and John Kerry, with himself as the honored guest. Instead, he may host a dinner for GCC heads of state and get only the two of them he would probably least like to have. Bad planning, bad staff work, if it turns out that way.  
  • Egypt
    Weekend Reading: Reading History in Doha, Egypt Intervenes in Libya, and Nervous Gulfies
    Explore the Qatar Digital Library, an archive featuring the cultural and historical heritage of the Gulf and the wider region. Janet Basurto, writing for Egyptian Streets, explores the reasons behind Egypt’s intervention in Libya. Mark N. Katz examines the security worries of the GCC countries.
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Rebuilding Gaza Starts Slowly--Very Slowly
    The Hamas claim of victory in last summer’s conflict with Israel was based largely on the associated claim that life in Gaza would now change to the great benefit of the people living there. A vast reconstruction program would commence almost immediately. But now it’s October, and there has been no reconstruction. An Associated Press story tells the tale: More than five weeks after the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip, tens of thousands of people whose homes were destroyed or badly damaged in the fighting still live in classrooms, storefronts and other crowded shelters. In some of the hardest-hit areas, the displaced have pitched tents next to the debris that once was their homes....reconstruction efforts appear stymied by a continued Israeli-Egyptian border blockade of Gaza and an unresolved power struggle between the Islamic militant group Hamas and Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas....Skepticism about rebuilding efforts is widespread in Gaza. The recent 50-day war was the third in the territory in just over five years. Many homes destroyed in previous fighting still haven’t been rebuilt. There are at least two main issues. First, Egypt and Israel want to be sure that construction materials do not go to Hamas for its construction of tunnels, arms depots, and other means of making war rather than for building homes, schools, and the like. They also want to be sure that Hamas does not smuggle in arms and ammunition. This means the establishment of a border control regime and some way of identifying end users inside Gaza. Second, the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah (or the Palestinian Authority--same thing) continues. On October 12 in Cairo, at an international conference on rebuilding Gaza, PA president Mahmoud Abbas will ask for $4 billion in pledges. He may get some pledges; cash is a different story. Many donors are wary of corruption in the PA and in Hamas, and fear Hamas efforts to divert funds and materials to illicit terrorist uses. Donors from the EU have made some foolish statements about how tired they are of paying for reconstruction of buildings that Israel then bombs, and appear to be seeking some Israeli promise never to strike Gaza again. This is impossible, because Hamas remains in charge in Gaza and may well decide to launch fusillades of mortars and rockets into Israel again, hiding as it usually does within, behind, and under civilian facilities such as houses, mosques, and hospitals. If this happens Israel will respond, so the kind of pledge some European donors have been seeking is impossible to give. Hamas has chosen war several times before and may well choose it again. The central problem is that Hamas is still running Gaza. The new Palestinian "technocratic" government is not yet functioning, at least in the sense that it, and the PA, are actually in charge. No doubt Hamas would be happy to see lots of money coming into Gaza, and a deal has apparently been struck under which the PA will pay the salaries of Hamas civil servants in Gaza with new Qatari money, as well as continuing to pay its own. This deal is supposed to exclude terrorists, ie the so-called Hamas "armed wing," but who will really keep track? No doubt Hamas would be happy to see and take credit for a vast reconstruction program, and to allow PA agents to sit in border posts. But will it disband its own police and military forces? Will anyone in Gaza really believe the PA is in control, including the PA’s own agents? Will any Palestinian really raise a challenge when he or she sees diversion of material by Hamas, knowing that death could be the price to pay? Misery in Gaza is not in Israel’s interest nor that of Egypt, nor nowadays that of Hamas. There is a very widespread desire to alleviate the suffering in Gaza and begin reconstruction. But the practical problems are great, and reflect justifiable convictions that Hamas will take any opportunity to rebuild its own strength as its top priority, much more important to it than the mere reconstruction of houses and apartments. The skepticism on the part of Gazans reflects reality. As long as Hamas is in power in Gaza, reconstruction will be slow--and another round of conflict with Israel is quite possible.        
  • Israel
    The Kerry-Qatar Axis
    Sympathy and support for Hamas are much lower in the Arab world than in past Israeli-Hamas conflicts--except in Qatar, whose government has a special relationship with Hamas. Indeed Hamas’s political leader Khaled Meshal spends most of his time in Qatar’s capital, Doha. Qatar has poured money into Hamas-ruled Gaza. So what’s the American position on the negotiation of a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas? Do we want Egypt, with its hostility to the terrorist group and desire to weaken it, to be the negotiator, or Qatar? The answer should be obvious: we want Egypt to play this role, because Egypt will push Hamas harder, show it less sympathy, and try  to ensure that it emerges from the war without any gains. But that has not been the American position. Secretary of State Kerry has happily kept the Qataris in the loop from the start, as if whether they or the Egyptians play the key role is a matter of indifference to us. Israeli and Egyptian officials have noticed and have been at a loss to understand his position. "What is Kerry doing?" has been the tone of the comments. The United States should be insisting that Egypt, with its long border with Israel and its border with Gaza, must be the mediator. "What is Kerry doing?" is, on this point, a fair question. We should be trying to marginalize the Qatari role, not preserve it or enhance it.
  • Palestinian Territories
    Arafat and al-Jazeera: Manufacturing Trouble
    This week Russian experts added their voices to those of French experts who had examined Yasser Arafat’s remains to determine if he was poisoned. "French experts have ruled out a theory that Yasser Arafat was killed by poisoning," AFP reported several weeks ago. Now BBC reports that "Announcing its conclusions on Thursday, the head of Russia’s Federal Medical-Biological Agency (FMBA), Vladimir Uiba, said ’Yasser Arafat died not from the effects of radiation but of natural causes.’" But the third team, the Swiss, came to a different conclusion--that Arafat might have been poisoned. The striking thing about the Swiss "investigation" is that it was inspired and financed by al-Jazeera. The report itself is on al-Jazeera stationery, and the opening lines reveal that the entire thing was invented by al-Jazeera. At al-Jazeera’s web site, here, huge amounts of attention are devoted to proving that Arafat was poisoned. There are an amazing 41 "news" stories and documents listed under the headline "Al Jazeera Investigates: Killing Arafat." The other teams were not bought and paid for by al-Jazeera and they reached the opposite conclusion. In fact this recent hullabaloo about how Arafat died represents not new science or new evidence, but an effort by al-Jazeera to create trouble. It is yet another proof that al-Jazeera continued to operate in 2013 without the restraints of a normal news medium and should not be regarded as one. The government of Qatar --which owns al-Jazeera-- changed during this year; there is a new emir and some speculation that he will rein in Qatari foreign policy. Thus far he has not reined in al-Jazeera, and its pretensions to be a Middle Eastern version of CNN or BBC should be rejected. This entire Arafat/poisoning affair shows us that al-Jazeera continues to pursue political goals and to manufacture what it hopes to persuade us is "news."    
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Al Jazeera Backs the Muslim Brotherhood
    I’ve done several blog posts questioning the impartiality of Al Jazeera as a news source (for example, here), but even so I was amazed by a line in the Washington Post today. In an article entitled "Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Finds Havens Abroad" we find this: an exile leadership is starting to take shape here among the shimmering high-rises of Doha. Several of the exiles live temporarily in hotel suites paid for by Qatar’s state-run Arabic satellite network Al Jazeera — and it is in those suites and hotel lobbies that the future of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and, more broadly, the strategy and ideology of political Islam in the country may well be charted. Hotel suites paid for by Al Jazeera! Al Jazeera America presents itself as "the new American news channel that reports unbiased, fact-based and in-depth journalism that gets you closer to the people at the heart of the news." Al Jazeera says it has a code of ethics that includes this: "Being a globally oriented media service, Al Jazeera shall adopt the following code of ethics in pursuance of the vision and mission it has set for itself: 1. Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political over professional consideration." None of that can be squared with paying for hotel suites for Muslim Brotherhood leaders, month after month. If the Post has the facts right, this practice means that the owner of Al Jazeera, the Government of Qatar, is simply using the network as a tool to provide financial support for the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood’s leadership in exile. Perhaps the facts are wrong, and if so Qatar and Al Jazeera should let us know. If the Post has it right, it is a startling piece of journalistic malpractice and another reason to see the network as a tool of the Qatari government rather than as a news station.  
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Fifteen Years for a Poem?
    In 2011, with the "Arab Spring" under way, a Qatari poet named Mohammed el-Ajami wrote a poem. It contained this line: “We are all Tunisia in the face of the repressive elite.” He has also criticized, apparently in prose, the presence of American forces in Qatar, writing that  “I hope that change will come in countries whose ignorant leaders believe that glory lies in U.S. forces.” For those "crimes" he was tried in secret in 2012, and given a life sentence for insulting the Emir and inciting the overthrow of the government (the latter a capital offense). That sentence has now been reduced to 15 years, but upheld at that level. His only hope now is a pardon by the new Emir, Sheik Tamim.  That would be a wonderful move by the new ruler, while failure to make it would affirm the view that freedom of speech is non-existent in Qatar. Fifteen years for a poem? Qatar is sensitive to its image and its role in the Arab world and beyond, so one can hope that continuing pressure may lead to a pardon. If it does not, one can only hope that those who laud Qatari foreign policy, or glorify Al-Jazeera and the new Al Jazeera America, which the Qatari government owns, or participate in their programs, will find a way to protest. Al Jazeera America is meant to increase Qatari influence and showcase Qatar as a progressive nation. But we should not forget the poet who has received a fifteen year sentence for the lines he wrote in 2011.
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Slave Labor in Qatar: A Test for Al Jazeera
    Qatar will be the host of the 2022 World Cup, and has underway what may total $100 billion in construction projects. But the tiny emirate has a tiny native population, and 90% of those living there are foreigners. It is foreign laborers who will build all these new roads, stadiums, hotels, and the like, and it now emerges that they live and work in misery. The Guardian of London now reports a story entitled  "Revealed: Qatar’s World Cup ’Slaves.’" The Guardian says this about working conditions: This summer, Nepalese workers died at a rate of almost one a day in Qatar, many of them young men who had sudden heart attacks. The investigation found evidence to suggest that thousands of Nepalese, who make up the single largest group of labourers in Qatar, face exploitation and abuses that amount to modern-day slavery.... The Guardian’s investigation also found men throughout the wider Qatari construction industry sleeping 12 to a room in places and getting sick through repulsive conditions in filthy hostels. Some say they have been forced to work without pay and left begging for food. "The evidence uncovered by the Guardian is clear proof of the use of systematic forced labour in Qatar," said Aidan McQuade, director of Anti-Slavery International, which was founded in 1839. "In fact, these working conditions and the astonishing number of deaths of vulnerable workers go beyond forced labour to the slavery of old where human beings were treated as objects. There is no longer a risk that the World Cup might be built on forced labour. It is already happening." The ambassador of Nepal, from which about 100,000 workers have gone to Qatar, called the emirate an "open jail" due to its disrespect for the rights of foreign workers. The official Qatari response to The Guardian simply says that Qatari law protects everyone. On the issue of the young Nepalese men dying of heart attacks while laboring in Qatar its reply is chilly: Q. Why do so many young Nepalese die of heart attacks? A. This question would be better suited for the relevant health authorities or the government of Nepal. Now this is an interesting story, and FIFA, the international body ruling the World Cup, will have to pay it some attention, as will the International Labor Organization. But will Al Jazeera? Al Jazeera is owned by the Emir of Qatar, and never has covered Qatari matters fairly--if at all. A story embarrassing to the country, and to the Emir, is almost certain to be ignored--especially in the main Al Jazeera broadcasting in Arabic. Now there is a new station, a chic and sleek Al Jazeera America (built on the carcass of Al Gore’s failed TV network). AJ America has new names and bright colors, and claims to be unbiased, and free, and not just a cat’s paw for the Emir. OK, this is a test. Can Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera America can cover this story fairly? As they say in Arabic, vamos a ver. But as they say in English, don’t hold your breath.  
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Where Is Qatar Heading?
    On June 25th a new Emir took over the leadership of Qatar. The question is whether he brought with him new policies. Yesterday a sign of the old Qatari orientation emerged: Egypt returned a remarkable $2 billion to Qatar. Relations between the two countries remain nasty: Egypt has closed the offices of Al Jazeera (the station owned by the Qataris), detained some Al Jazeera journalists, and refused to increase the number of flights between Doha and Cairo. As VOA reported, "Cairo’s relations with Qatar deteriorated after the Egyptian army deposed Islamist President Mohamed Morsi on July 3. Qatar had been a firm backer of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and lent or gave Egypt $7.5 billion during the year he was in power." Relations have not recovered, suggesting no change in Qatari policy. I have heard it argued that this will simply take time; it is not yet three months since Sheik Tamim took over as emir. I have also heard it argued that he has not fully taken over, and that at least with respect to foreign policy his father the former emir, Sheik Hamad, remains very much in charge. The most one can say now is that this is a work in progress, and there is no way to know how far Tamim will depart from the previous Qatari alignment with groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that other Gulf Cooperation Council members view as enemies. If Qatari policy is driven by rivalry with Saudi Arabia, policy will not change much.  If it is driven by ideological affinity with or sympathy for Islamists, the question is whether Tamim feels that sympathy as deeply as his father Emir Hamad, and the former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem, appeared to do. One thing is not changing: the government of Qatar appears to sympathize with calls for change and for democracy everywhere but at home in Qatar.
  • Middle East and North Africa
    The Emir of Qatar Departs
    The Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has abdicated in favor of his son Tamim, proving that rumors--this one had been circulating for many weeks in the region--are sometimes accurate. The key question is what this change means for Qatari foreign policy. Some aspects of that policy are very unlikely to change. Qatar’s reliance on the United States, and the presence of American bases in Qatar, will remain the cornerstone of that nation’s security. Rivalry with Saudi Arabia can be reduced but not eliminated. Qatar will continue to act as a Sunni power concerned about the rise in Iranian and Shia influence, working with its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies. In addition, it is unlikely that the key elements of domestic policy will change--especially the avoidance of democracy. As the most recent State Department report on human rights in Qatar noted, "Qatar is a constitutional monarchy in which Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani exercises full executive power....The principal human rights problems were the inability of citizens to change their government peacefully, restriction of fundamental civil liberties, and pervasive denial of expatriate workers’ rights. The monarch-appointed government prohibited organized political parties and restricted civil liberties, including freedoms of speech, press, and assembly." Will Qatar’s leadership in Arab councils remain as active, and as idiosyncratic? This seems to me very doubtful, for the current prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, Hamad bin Jassem, known as HBJ, is apparently leaving those posts and Tamim will appoint his own man or men. It’s unlikely that a successor will have HBJ’s energy and clout, and those personal traits count for a lot at GCC, Arab League, United Nations, and similar meetings. We can see that Saudi Arabia’s influence has declined in part because it’s long-time foreign minister (since 1975), Saud al-Faisal, has for years been coping with bouts of poor health and is now 73 years old. Rumor mills have long suggested that Tamim is less wedded to the kind of Qatari adventurism that his father and HBJ favored, and we will soon find out.  Qatar under Hamad and HBJ gave substantial sums of money to extremists in Mali and in Syria, groups that other Arab nations (and the EU and US) avoided. Qatar has supported the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt for example, to an extent that angered other GCC governments. Under Hamad and HBJ, al Jazeera often supported extremist groups and actions by giving them great amounts of favorable publicity. Many American officials believe the station (owned and controlled by the government of Qatar, and prevented from covering Qatar itself fairly) cost American lives in Iraq through its coverage of the war there. It is unlikely that Qatar will fully regress to the norm under its new ruler, because the taste for an international profile is widespread in Doha; the World Cup will take place there in 2022. And Tamim like his father will have gigantic revenues at his fingertips and a local population of only 250,000 (Qataris make up only about 15 percent of those now living in the country, the rest being expat workers). But there are many ways to show leadership and separate Qatar from other states in the region: in addition to the World Cup and similar events, Qatar has spent a fortune on its educational system and attracted American universities such as Cornell and Georgetown. With the Middle East in turmoil, we must hope that Qatar now turns away from supporting various forms of extremism and becomes another voice--and source of funding--for more responsible groups and ideas.
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Sandmonkey, Egypt, and the IMF
    When I began this blog a little more than two years ago, one of the early posts was entitled "Free Sandmonkey." Sandmonkey is the "nom de blog" of Mahmoud Salem, then Egypt’s most famous blogger, and he had that day in 2011 been "ambushed & beaten by the police, my phone confiscated, my car ripped apar& supplies taken," as he informed his readers. He continues to be one of the most interesting and persuasive commentators on events in Egypt. Today he has written an article entitled "A View from Cairo: Egypt Is Too Big to Save," published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr. Salem’s conclusion is this: If Washington pushes the IMF to expedite the loan under the current economic and political conditions, it will not succeed in stabilizing the country or restoring investor confidence. Rule of law is key -- a loan without necessary reforms would be money wasted on propping up a failing government for a few more months, further entangling Washington with the Morsi administration at a time when the latter’s long-term survival is increasingly costly and doubtful. He is in my view absolutely right. He explains how much trouble Egypt is in, and how little Washington appears to understand it: Two years after the popular revolt that toppled Hosni Mubarak, Egypt appears headed toward a "failed state" scenario. While Cairo has not yet defaulted on its debts -- an economic hallmark of nearly all erstwhile states -- it already meets many of the other political conditions associated with comprehensive failure. In Washington, the discussion is narrowly focused on the implications of the rapidly deteriorating economic situation, with little appreciation that the financial morass is inextricably linked to the government’s increasingly authoritarian politics. If the ruling Islamist party does not change its approach, the economy will not improve, and the state will move closer to collapse. Egypt’s economic problems require a political as well as economic solution; throwing money at them--even if we had the money--is not enough. The Qataris will find this out and not even they have enough spare cash lying around to keep Egypt going if its government refuses to change its current policies.
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Qatar in Mali: Which Side Are They On?
    In the last decade the influence of Qatar has grown greatly, fueled by its vast oil and gas revenues and by the skill of its leaders. Whether that influence is being used positively, or in ways that comport with American interests, are separate matters. In Mali, there is good reason to question whether Qatar is helping the government of that country and those coming to its aid--France and France’s allies (including the EU, United States, and the nations of West Africa)--or helping the Al Qaeda-linked rebels. As long ago as last summer this question was being asked in France, due to the Qatari presence in northern Mali and its aid to areas controlled by the Islamist groups; the mayor of the town of Gao was quoted as saying "the government of France knows who is supporting the terrorists. There is Qatar, for example...." The same article quoted a specialist at the Sciences-Po in Paris saying "In the same way that Qatar has provided special forces to lead opposition to Gaddafi, we think a number of element Qatari special forces are now in northern Mali to ensure the training of recruits who are in place there, especially Ansar Dine." The French weekly Le Canard Enchaine wrote last June that "Based on information collected by the [Directorate of  Military Intelligence], the Tuareg rebels of the MNLA, Ansar Eddine, AQIM, and Mujao were assisted with dollars from Qatar." Accusations are not proof, and there appears as yet to be no proof. There is a Qatari Red Crescent society presence in northern Mali, and there are programs that Qatar says are providing humanitarian assistance only. But an article at the web site Open Democracy by the French analyst Mehdi Lazar sums up the background well: the presence of Qatari forces in Mali has been, and continues to be, a strategy used increasingly in Africa, especially since the Arab Spring. The emirate became involved in the financing of political parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 and 2012, was involved in mediation in Darfur which was held in Sudan in 2011 and engaged in the NATO coalition that fought the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 (similarly, Qatar has also funded rebel fighters in Libya). Besides the presence of the Qatari Red Crescent humanitarian aid in Mali, one may speculate about other possible reasons for their presence in this part of the Sahel. If the assumption of funding, even training and arming Islamist groups by Qatar forces in northern Mali is confirmed, then it is possible to draw several conclusions. Firstly, this intervention would provide the emirate with a simple but risky strategy to greatly increase its influence in West Africa and the Sahel. Indeed, Qatar could greatly increase its influence in the mediation between the Malian government, ECOWAS, the northern rebels, and even France. This would increase its political clout on the continent, taking advantage, as it often does, of a favourable political environment. In the case of Mali, it is a failed state with a sudden power vacuum in the North, due both to the Tuareg rebellion in the North and the coup in the South. Add to this, the fortuitous presence in the Sahel of many fighters together with the weapons used in the recent war in Libya, alongside the presence in the North of young and unemployed Tuaregs opposed to the Malian state, and one can see how it might be possible to fund the rebels. Using this combination of favourable factors, the emirate can see a way to continue making its influence heavily felt in Africa, work also undertaken in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. In this respect, as in the case of Qatari engagement in Syria, two factors are in common. Firstly, after the success of the Libyan campaign, the emirate feels confident in being able to directly intervene abroad a power perspective. In addition, as in Syria, the presence of the emirate in Mali, if it is real, should be viewed in the context of a twofold competition: first with Saudi Arabia to control the Sunni Islamic world, but also to strengthen the power struggle of Sunni Muslims against Shiite Muslims (because the axis Iran - Syria - Hezbollah remains strong while the Shia in Iraq rises). Another common point, but this time with Libya, is that Mali is seen as a potential owner of large reserves of natural gas and has a need for infrastructure development; two areas in which Qatar specializes. It could therefore, in the event of good relations with the leaders of an Islamic state in northern Mali, exploit the subsoil rich in gold and uranium, and prospect the country’s oil and gas potential. Finally, geographically, Mali is also an axis of penetration into black Africa and West Africa where Qatar is pursuing its influence through the purchase of resources and agricultural land, as well as the funding of places of worship. The subject of the Qatari role is now attracting more attention, for example in a January 22 story in France 24 entitled "Is Qatar Fueling the Crisis in North Mali?" That there has long been a Qatari presence in the north seems clear, but whether it is purely humanitarian or--as some argue--means Qatari aid to and influence over the Islamist and even terrorist groups remains uncertain. Given the new French role in Mali, and American support for it, this aspect of Qatari foreign policy is already proving deeply controversial--and rightly so.
  • Climate Change
    How to Waste Money Fighting Climate Change
    The only concrete development out of the Durban climate talks so far is an announcement that Qatar will host next year’s negotiations. As John Broder points out in the New York Times, Qatar has the distinction of being the largest per capita greenhouse gas emitter on the planet. It’s also home to a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project that’s a textbook study in that system’s often severe flaws. The Al Shaheen Oil Field produces about 200,000 barrels of oil each day. It also produces a lot of natural gas, much of which has historically been flared (increasing emissions) rather than captured and sold. In 2006, Qatar Petroleum (QP) submitted an application to the CDM executive board, asking that it be allowed to generate carbon credits in exchange for capturing and selling the associated gas, and in 2007, the project was approved. CDM projects are supposed to provide financial support for emissions-cutting activities that are otherwise uneconomical. How did QP make its case? Its documents assert that the project would require an initial capital investment of $260 million, followed by about $12 million in annual operating and insurance costs. The project would also generate just under $29 million each year from gas sales. QP estimated that over a twenty one year period, the project would yield an annual return on investment of 9.7%, less than the 10% hurdle it normally imposes on new investments. Put another way, QP claimed that the net present cost of the project would be about $5 million dollars (including a requirement that it return an annual 10% profit to its owners). Hence the claimed need for carbon credits, which QP estimated would generate$46 million each year. Indeed when it recalculated its economic including carbon revenue, it ended up projecting an annual return of 16%, or a net present value (again allowing for a 10% annual discount rate) of $111 million. Think about this for a moment: a $5 million grant could have made this project economic. Through the magic of the CDM, though, Kyoto signatories will be paying Qatar $128 million (discounted to the present) for it instead. And that is a charitable interpretation. Could QP really not have negotiated the capital cost down from $260 million to $255 million? That would have made the project profitable without carbon credits. Moreover, if you look at the QP documents, you’ll find that it expects to sell the gas for a mere 70 cents per mmbtu. (For reference, gas prices in the United States, which are low by world standards, are about four bucks for the same amount.) QP points out that domestic Qatari gas prices are low, which is true. But that’s because the government controls prices; the value of the gas is higher. So you’ve got a bizarre situation: a state owned oil company is saying that it needs foreign subsidies in order to overcome the hurdle presented by price controls that are imposed by the state itself. It doesn’t take a genius to conclude that this leaves a lot of room for mischief. Indeed the document I’ve linked to is a second draft of QP’s application. There’s only one change in the assumptions from the first one: the initial draft assumed a gas price of 80 cents per mmbtu, which would have rendered the project economic without carbon credits, while the second one pushed the assumed price down and made offset sales essential. Not all CDM projects, of course, are so ridiculous. But the Al Shaheen experience should remind us that setting up effective mechamisms for solving global problems is tough, especially when a lot of money is involved.
  • Human Rights
    Qatar and Bahrain
    My post yesterday about Qatar’s support for the crushing of popular demonstrations in Bahrain has occasioned a fair amount of angry comment (here and on Twitter). My point was that when Qatar supports the call for democracy and free elections in Libya but assists in the smashing of demonstrations in Bahrain it is pursuing a foreign policy detached from principle. Has this been Qatar’s policy in Bahrain? First, Qatar sent troops to Bahrain as part of the GCC force organized to assist its government in ending the demonstrations. Second, Al Jazeera has clearly been pulling its punches about events in Bahrain. But some comments have protested that on the contrary Al Jazeera has covered the troubles in Bahrain and even done a whole program on it. True—in English only. Bahrain did protest the show, called “Shouting in the Dark," but who is kidding whom here? When the owners of Al Jazeera–namely the royal family-decide that the protests in Bahrain are to be covered fairly by Al Jazeera English only, and slighted in Al Jazeera Arabic, they are doing a huge favor to the Bahraini authorities. Al Jazeera’s influence does not come from what it broadcasts in English. So I continue to believe what I wrote yesterday: “Qatari diplomatic activity is designed to advance the interests of the tiny country and of its ruling family. Its adoption of the Libyan opposition, for example, is not based on any principle (such as liberty, democracy, or free elections), for the Qatari government and its TV station, Al Jazeera, have been notably silent about the crisis in Bahrain. There, they have backed the royal family and the Saudi-led GCC armed presence.” The only change I would make is to add that they have been silent in Arabic, where it counts.
  • Israel
    How Brave Is Qatar?
    Qatar has acquired a reputation for sharp, quick responses to crises in the Arab world and for modern and unorthodox thinking. It is undeserved. Qatari diplomatic activity is designed to advance the interests of the tiny country and of its ruling family. Its adoption of the Libyan opposition, for example, is not based on any principle (such as liberty, democracy, or free elections), for the Qatari government and its TV station, Al Jazeera, have been notably silent about the crisis in Bahrain. There, they have backed the royal family and the Saudi-led GCC armed presence. A reasonable test of the Qatari ability to provide real leadership and new thinking is Qatar’s relations with Israel, which are getting worse and worse. According to press reports, Israel’s Foreign Ministry has concluded that “Qatar has stepped up its activity on behalf of Hamas and other Gaza terror groups. Qatar has been one of the chief backers of the PA’s bid to declare an Arab state in PA-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria, and has been a major funder of anti-Israel groups abroad. Qatar also promised to fund all legal action Turkey might take against Israel in international courts over the deaths of Hamas-affiliated Turkish activists on the Mavi Marmara last year.” Moreover, the story goes on, “Qatar’s activity included significant involvement in the legal preparations of the Palestinian request to the UN, and it has been pushing the PA towards the unilateral move of declaring Palestinian statehood in September. The report states further that Qatar maintains intense ties with Hamas, which include, among other things, frequent visits by Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashal to Doha.” As a result, Israel has closed its one-man commercial office in Doha and is now blocking Qatari activities with Israeli Arabs and in the Palestinian territories, including by the giant Qatar Foundation. Qatari representatives will henceforth not be permitted to visit Israel or the West Bank. In this context it is worth asking why, if Qatar is so supportive of the Palestinians, it gives them so little money. Today Qatar announced a gift of $50 million to the Palestinian Authority, to help pay salaries. This will be extremely helpful to the PA, but it  brings its donations to the PA in 2011 to….well, to $50 million. This, from a country that runs a multi-billion dollar budget surplus each year, has an $85 billion sovereign wealth fund, and plans to spend $4 billion on new stadiums for the 2022 World Cup. The priorities are clear. Backing the royal family in Bahrain, supporting Hamas but then giving some money to the PA, and financing the rebels in Libya shows Qatari flexibility, but not courageous leadership. What does Qatar seek, beyond influence? Influence for what? If one judges by the programming on Al Jazeera, the royal family seeks a Middle East where American influence is diminished and radical groups are more powerful. But that would be a Middle East with little room for fabulously wealthy kings, sheiks, and emirs. As ye sow....