It
is easy to think of the Middle East as one homogenous region with little
thought as to how the different countries in this region interact with one
another. We associate Iraq and Iran and Oman to be one and the same. They’re
neighbors, right?! So they must be allies! To group these nations together,
however, is almost like saying the United States and Canada and Mexico are
identical. As I’ve spent the past few months abroad gaining an Omani
perspective on life, my eyes have been opened as to how much a nation’s foreign
policy affects its position in both economic and political terms. This past week, in particular, was
especially helpful in understanding Oman’s foreign policy. Lecturer Alex Brown,
a former UK diplomat for sixteen years and current president of his own
consultation company in Muscat, visited the Center of International Learning
and shared with us a bit about the history of Oman’s foreign relations
Historically
speaking, Oman’s foreign policy from 1900-1970 can be summarized in one word:
Britain. From British perspective, Oman was a key link in British trade routes
with India, one of Britain’s main hubs of resources and money. And Britain
feared losing this connection to the influence of the French or Portuguese;
therefore, it aimed at keeping a close relationship with Oman’s government. In
regional conflicts, Britain also always took Oman’s side. Even from 1965-1975 when
the Communist-led Dhofar Liberation Front began to propagate their Marxist-Leninist
philosophy during the Cold War, Britain sent troops to help Oman’s government
maintain control.
The
new sultan, Sultan Qaboos took over the reins of power in a coup against his
father in 1970. Having been educated in England and having finished the
military program at Sandhurst, Qaboos kept an ongoing relationship with Britain,
but he changed his approach to foreign policy. Oman’s current foreign policy
can be summed up by, “Don’t offend anyone else.” Oman is only concerned with
not hurting anybody’s feelings and consistently remains on the fence regarding
major political issues. For example, Oman is probably the only country in the
world that holds military exercises with both the US and Iran. Not at the same
time, of course. Naturally, a country has to maintain relationships with its
neighbor and other major military powers, but slowly Oman is realizing that
appeasement of everybody’s goals does not always work.
While
this foreign policy of peace seems attractive, it has major two downsides.
First, you irritate your potential allies. When you’re constantly undecided, it
is impossible to maintain strong relationships with other countries. Recently,
in discussions with Australia and Japan about the whaling moratorium, Oman made
a statement supporting Japan in its procurement of whales for “scientific
purposes.” Australia then criticized Oman for supporting the killing of whales
that were not for Japan’s scientific lab, but for eating purposes. A few days
later, Oman silently revoked its former statement and supported Australia. This
move angered the Japanese. While seeking to be friends with both nations, in
the end Oman lost.
With
this foreign policy, Oman also runs the risk of alienating its own people. The
government makes its own decisions and does not represent the opinion of the
people. The common man then does not feel like he can play identify with any
single position, because the government cannot stay committed to a single cause.
From
an American point of view, a neutral policy for Oman is certainly better than a
pro-Iranian stance. If Oman were to ally with Iran, the Straits of Hormuz would
be threatened and countries that normally depend on resources that flow through
those straits would face uncertainty. While Oman may face pressure to ally with
the West, it may not be the safest move politically. Oman is its own country
that will soon have to decide a better foreign policy stance. Trying to make
friends with everyone, they will instead be friends of no one.
No comments:
Post a Comment