If one were to believe a recent spate of headlines spanning both sides of the Atlantic, the small Gulf nation of Qatar is singlehandedly responsible for the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as well as the region’s general instability. Over the last few weeks, dozens of articles published in rapid succession by The Telegraph have alleged that Qatari citizens could be responsible for financing Islamic extremists, including ISIL. A 20-page Foreign Policy article written by Elizabeth Dickinson, a former correspondent for UAE-funded news organization The National, also alleges that Qatar has “pumped tens of millions of dollars […] to hard-line Syrian rebels and extremist Salafists”. And Eli Lake, senior national-security correspondent for The Daily Beast has been active both online and on television declaring that this small Gulf state is no ally of the United States.
However, this new crusade reeks at best of Western hypocrisy and at worst of the shadowy forces of political lobbying.
First, blaming Qatari support of the Syrian opposition for ISIL is ironic when it is the United States that has consistently funneled money and arms to questionable anti-Assad groups. Few know exactly where this money has ended up. Also, let us not forget that most of the weapons ISIL is currently using to slaughter civilians, hostages and POWs are American-made.
Second, there is general agreement that, if ISIL was able to so quickly stride into Iraq, it is first and foremost because of the United States’ misguided war against Saddam Hussein under Presidents Bush II and Obama. Bush’s de-Baathification order, aimed at destroying the system and ideology that had allowed Hussein to reign over Iraq for so long, is now widely regarded to have hollowed out the country’s infrastructure and military. Crucially, the process drove many Baathists underground instead of granting them a role in a more democratic, inclusive system. As political organizer and writer Robert Creamer states, “It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today’s ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.”
De-Baathification exacerbated sectarian tensions, notably between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, and Nouri al-Maliki’s 8-year tenure as Prime Minister only succeeded in driving the former towards tacit or direct support of extremist groups like ISIL.
Both The Telegraph and Eli Lake strongly supported the Iraq war back in the day, but now have the gall to heap the blame for the de-stabilization on other countries, from Iran to Qatar. Glenn Greenwald, the legendary Guardian reporter who brought us the Snowden revelations, unearthed a more troubling possible reason for the sudden demonization of Qatar in his investigation into UAE lobbyists. According to public documents, the United Arab Emirates, upset at Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, retained the Washington-based lobbying firm The Camstoll Group in order to set up meetings with and persuade hawkish pro-Israel reporters to speak critically of Doha. (Israel is also upset at Qatar over their support of Palestine and Hamas.)
A self-defeating strategy
Beyond dissecting the possible motivations of the writers that have ganged up on Qatar, however, it is crucial to mention how counterproductive these measures are. While criticizing Qatar may allow Israel and the UAE to score political points in Washington and London, it will not help the West to build allies in the Middle East. And this is in the interest of everyone who wants a stable Arab region free from incessant drone attacks and Western intervention. The more neoconservatives in the U.S. and elsewhere damage relations between Washington and potential Middle East allies, the more the U.S. will feel that military intervention is the only possible course of action.
The truth is that there are many reasons for developing a closer relationship with Qatar, and the fact that they are culturally distinct from the West’s Judeo-Christian majority should be seen as an asset to building bridges with much of the world.
Indeed, Qatar has often played the role of mediator in international affairs, brokering peace agreements between competing factions in southern Lebanon and Darfur. How did the small Gulf State achieve peaceful outcomes between warring groups? Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, invited all parties to the negotiating table in Doha to voice their respective concerns and find a compromise, a much more democratic solution than using the weight of the U.S. Air Force to bomb “strategic targets”. It was also Qatar that managed to act as a middleman between U.S. officials and the Taliban in June, securing the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Moreover, Qatar has often been a key source of humanitarian aid for countries that the West has neglected either for political reasons or for lack of understanding. In October, Qatar pledged $1 billion towards reconstruction efforts in Gaza following the Strip’s largely one-sided conflict with Israel last summer. Doha has also donated $10 million to Norway’s initiative to gather relief for South Sudan, and promised $60 million to relieve the current suffering of Syrian refugees (more than 3 million refugees have been registered and many more internally displaced).
Qatar is by no means a perfect country in its internal or external affairs. Could Qatar do more to combat terrorism? Perhaps. But for the West to blame this small Gulf State for the Middle East’s turmoil after two disastrous wars and a series of poor foreign policy decisions following the Arab Spring is unwarranted and hypocritical. Worse, the negative media blitz might just cost them just the ally they need.
Let me see if I understand this correctly…
The author is suggesting that criticism of Qatar has no legitimacy, because it is rooted in the financial interests of its Arab neighbors?
Firstly, what is Qatar if not a nation that, first and foremost, uses its vast wealth to gain influence with people like the author herself?
Aside from contributing millions to U.K. and U.S. think tanks, such as the Brookings Institute, Qatar built “Education City” in Doha, where it lured universities from both nations, with the condition that none of them would criticize either Qatar or the Muslim Brotherhood.
And we’re not talking about just ANY universities. We’re talking about the universities with the greatest clout and influence in the national security, foreign and public policy establishment. We’re talking Oxford, Georgetown, Carnegie-Mellon, GW, Harvard and Cornell.
So what happens?
See for yourself:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014102135002/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/georgetown-the-unapologetic-beneficiary-of-a-terror-regime.html
As a result, Washington and London both have an overwhelming Qatar/Muslim Brotherhood problem on their hands. There is no defense for it, other than the author’s standard approach of shifting focus away from what Qatar has been doing. In both the U.S. and the U.K., apologists for Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood have conveniently overlooked the very nature of the Brotherhood’s long, jaded history of subversion. Some would call that “denial”. Others, such as myself who assume that the policy makers are guided by national security interests, would call that TREASON.
Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive tactics are plain to see. All one really needs to do in order to understand this is to speak with an objective third party in Egypt, who experienced the Brotherhood’s subversion of the nation’s institutions under Morsi.
Of course, there’s an explanation for this. Sayyid Qutb transformed the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s, incorporating Leninist ideology (which he was, at the very least, in awe of) into the Brotherhood’s guiding tenets.
But more to the point, Qatar’s fingerprints are all over the entire ‘Arab Spring’ and the recent explosion of Jihadist activity throughout the Middle East. But they would not be, were it not for the full support and complicity of both the Washington and London establishments.
In order to understand this, one must take a 10,000 foot view of the situation, as explained here:
http://www.constitutionalright.net/2014/03/the-jihadi-threat-report-on-islamist.html
The only hippocracy I see is from the author herself who, no doubt, is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood.
The author is suggesting that criticism of Qatar is hypocritical and counterproductive. One would think the title of the piece should have made that clear enough.
Okay, you have one opportunity to support your assertion that the author had a financial incentive from Qatar to write this piece.
Turns out, I was wrong. See my second and third comments.
Listen, the bottom line is this:
De facto state capture by Qatar, not a chapter out of the “Protocols of the Elders of Z10n”. Dugin’s Israeli wet dream will destroy Russia.
If you want to stop Obama, stop the al-Thanis and Dawood’s D-Company.
This is the best intelligence you will find on the planet. Believe me, every intelligence agency on the planet is on my network.
LOL…maybe you could help me secure my network.
Foreign Policy Journal, Jeremy R. Hammond…
O.K., I get it now.
The question is…why don’t you guys get it now?
Qatar will do the same to you that it has done to us.
The U.S. is now the puppet, not the other way around.
I don’t understand your question. Who is “you guys”? Who is “us”? What is “it”?
As in…
RUSSIA.
Again, please clarify your question.
Let’s review…
Russia:
Infowars, HuffPost, Rolling Stone, Media Matters, Mother Jones, Forbes, Adbusters, the Daily Beast, Stormfront, “Occupy”, “Anonymous”, Libertarianism, Ferguson, Missouri, “Bridgegate”, Cliven Bundy ranch, conspiracy theories, 9/11 truthers, Bitcoin, Globalresearch, International Business Times, the “police militarization” narrative, De Blasio, the “Pauls”, Paneurasian Nationalism, Scottish, Spanish, Italian and Alaskan secession, MS-13, FARC, legalization of marijuana, etc.
???
A little primer on Russian disinformation and destabilization…
Intelligence suggests that Sharpton and Jackson are CUBA, like the neighborhood in Brooklyn that they both grew up in.
Consider who votes themselves up and hence controls the narrative on Google news.
Ferguson is “Occupy” and “Anonymous”. Ferguson is HuffPost, Adbusters, the Daily Beast, Mother Jones, Media Matters, RT (Russia Today, multimedia arm of Ria Novosti), Rolling Stone, Forbes.
Just this past week, Putin all but took credit for the Occupy movement in the U.S.
And what’s the pattern of those in the media who push the interests of Russian intelligence in American media? THEY ARE ALWAYS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION IN POWER, however subtlely, unless the administration in power conforms to their narrative.
Recall that Alex Jones (infowars) has been talking about “police militarization” for years. And where does Jones source half his material? Russia Today, Izvestia, Voice of Russia, Ria Novosti, Forbes.
Huffington Post?
Recall that Pravda was sold to a wealthy Greek family. Friends of Golden Dawn, friends of Arianna, friends of Russia. You know, Arianna Huffington…”I’m a Liberal. Now I’m a Conservative. Now I’m a Liberal again.”
When the narrative needs to shift, the pushers of the narrative shift.
Same as David Brock, founder of Media Matters.
Ever noticed those funky Russian futurist fonts that Adbusters uses?
Do you know of another media outlet that is both pro-LGBT and fiercely pro-Life? No wonder…Russians are facing negative population growth. And the GRU crowd is running Russia today, not the KGB crowd. They’re Nationalists and Capitalists and believe themselves to be Christians. Google Aleksandr Dugin’s Wikipedia page…he is the man behind Putin.
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones? Notice the Ed Snowden obscession? Always critical of America. Remember the McCrystal interview?
Forbes?
Steve Forbes, Mr. “Flat Tax”…same tax structure that exists in Russia. Remember 2013? Putin is the “most powerful man in the world”? Recall that when the Ukrainian crisis was ramping up, Pravda published a puff-piece on the Ukrainian opposition leader, Vitali Klitschko, helping to dispel the “myth” that he’s somehow tied to the Russian mafia. And there was Forbes, publishing a piece asserting that in order for fair elections to exist in Ukraine, it would only be fair for Klitschko to run. This, despite the fact that when he speaks Ukrainian, his Russian accent is so strong that Ukrainians have a difficult time understanding him.
THIS is how it works.
To learn more, Google:
the menace of unreality
And,
in plain sight Kremlin
Finally…
Assange, Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald? About as tied to Russia as one can get.
Rather than beat around the bush, why don’t we discuss Qatar in a way that actually serves both of our purposes?
No Caroline..it is the TRUTH….Just like Obama’s amnesty is to destroy the American Citizen
WE THE PEOPLE in a historic, landslide election said NO to AMNESTY
94 Million American Citizens out of work
74% of jobs created under Obama went to New Immigrants or Illegal Immigrants
Obama is destroying the American Citizen…stealing our jobs…
Stop this madness….CALL…AND pass this on
Put in your ZIPCODE HERE: http://heritageaction.com/congress/
You automajically land on the page with direct contact info to your
representatives, WITH TALKING POINTS, my cat could do it..meow.
Click on the telepone ICON, and pulls up their phone number.
http://heritageaction.com/2014/11/yes-congress-can-block-obamas-amnesty/
Heritage ACTION is the only platform that provides direct citizen
involvement on fast moving politicians.
Some have asserted lawmakers have “no fiscal leverage” over USCIS, the
agency that will be tasked with carrying out a key plank of President
Obama’s executive amnesty program. The New York Times put it this way
last week:
“Officials of the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee have
concluded that the government agency most responsible for implementing
any new executive order — the Citizenship and Immigration Services —
would not be hindered if government funds are cut off; it operates
entirely on revenue it generates through immigration applications.”
Ironically, a spokesperson for the House Appropriations Committee later
acknowledged “a rider on the executive order” can be attached to a funding
bill. Two additional data points suggest Congress can act to block
Obama’s executive actions: 1) President Obama has signed into law (Public
Law No: 113-76) congressional restrictions on the use of user fee funded
accounts within the Department of Homeland Security; and 2) 25 of the 28
Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee – including the chairman
and every cardinal – voted (2014 House Vote #479) to deny “Federal funding
or resources” for an expansion of Obama’s executive amnesty plan.
Today, Breitbart reported that the Congressional Research Service found
“Congress can in fact block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive
amnesty order.” Below is an excerpt of that report:
In light of Congress’s constitutional power over the purse, the
Supreme Court has recognized that “Congress may always circumscribe
agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the
operative statutes.” Where Congress has done so, “an agency is not
free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities.” Therefore, if a
statute were enacted which prohibited appropriated funds from being
used for some specific purposes, then the relevant funds would be
unavailable to be obligated or expended for those purposes.
A fee-funded agency or activity typically refers to one in which the
amounts appropriated by Congress for that agency or activity are
derived from fees collected from some external source. Importantly,
amounts received as fees by federal agencies must still be
appropriated by Congress to that agency in order to be available for
obligation or expenditure by the agency. In some cases, this
appropriation is provided through the annual appropriations process.
In other instances, it is an appropriation that has been enacted
independently of the annual appropriations process (such as a
permanent appropriation in an authorizing act). In either case, the
funds available to the agency through fee collections would be subject
to the same potential restrictions imposed by Congress on the use of
its appropriations as any other type of appropriated funds.
–Qatar that managed to act as a middleman–
More frankly said — it is the callable wealth which makes a merchant more powerful — so the Qatari rulers are using the oil and gas wealth the way they want.