Speaking after a US-GCC ministerial meeting last week, GCC Secretary-General Jassim Mohammed al-Budaiwi was clear that any future regional security arrangements must take into account the interests and security needs of GCC member states.
Statements like this by senior officials inevitably raise the question of the future role of the six-member GCC in the post-war regional order.
Specifically, it raises the question of the whether the GCC, which celebrated its 45th anniversary last month, can or should transform into a security and defence alliance or rebrand as a conflict mediation framework that can resolve, if not prevent, regional crises as they happen.
In theory at least, regional organisations like the GCC do provide members with opportunities to work together to address shared challenges. But there are limits to what regional organisations — whether in the Gulf, Europe, Asia, or anywhere else — can achieve as frameworks primarily focused on providing security or delivering peace.
The 55-member African Union has regularly deployed military, as well as civilian, resources across its home continent to manage crises. The EU has done the same on the Union’s borders and, at times, further afield in parts of Africa and Asia. These are the exceptions not the norm.
Of the estimated 300 regional organisations active today, very few have the legal authority, political will or institutional and operational capabilities to enforce existing peace agreements. Even fewer use force to restore peace, never mind undertake more pro-active security operations intended to defend or achieve the organisation’s core interests.
In the first place, regional organisations are “meeting places” for member states not independent entities free to act as they choose on matters of security and peace. In the EU, for example, ultimate decision-making on these issues requires the unanimous agreement of member states through the EU Council.
What complicates matters further is that members usually have different, and often competing, values and beliefs. They also tend to prioritise different interests, and disagree with each other over what threats deserve the most attention.
It is only on those rare occasions when the security interests of members converge that regional organisations can mobilise to undertake security operations. But even this requires members to share a vision of the benefits of acting together, as occcured with the GCC in Bahrain in 2011 during the Arab Spring. Once the specific threat subsides, members again opt for sovereigty over security cooperation inside the regional organisation.
The doctrine of non-intervention in domestic affairs is intended to protect the sovereignty of member states. It makes it especially challenging for regional organisations to act in peace and security. It is the foundational principle of ASEAN, which includes Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia among its members. It is also a core value of most other regional organisations, including the 81-year old Arab League, one of the world’s oldest. Non-intervention is not cost-free. It can impact on the credibility and legitimacy of regional organisations, especially when they refuse to respond to regional conflicts that result in humanitarian crises or atrocities.
But the doctrine of non-intervention also plays an important role in building trust and sustaining regional organisations during challenging times. It reduces the likelihood that disagreements spill over and undermine cooperation between members on issues where interests overlap. For example, following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the Arab Cooperation Council (ACC) collapsed because members – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and North Yemen – aligned on opposite sides of the crisis.
The non-intervention doctrine also demands shared, or at least consensus-based, decision-making. This makes it harder for bigger members, with larger economies and armies, to impose their preferences on smaller partners. It also allows smaller actors to gain disproportionate influence relative to their size. For example, an April survey of ASEAN opinion leaders ranked Singapore as the most influential and effective member ahead of Indonesia — home to the bloc’s biggest population, economy, and army.
Smaller members can use their available resources and expertise to promote their policy preferences to shape, and even set, the regional agenda. They can also lobby other members to back their the policy preferences or convince them to join with them in collective action to fight for common peace and security goals. This “multiplier effect” is a very important instrument of power for smaller actors inside regional organisations.
This is how Sweden, despite the opposition of larger members, won its fight for the inclusion of a civilian crisis management mechanism — the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflict — in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). It is also how Ireland convinced the EU to fully back its two national priorities during the EU-UK Brexit negotations: blocking a hard border between the north and south of the country, and protecting the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement.
Smaller member states also use the “multiplier effect” within the regional organisation to play an oversized role in external mediation and multiparty negotiations. Some examples include Ghana, Gambia and Togo in West Africa’s ECOWAS; Guyana and Suriname in CARICOM in the Caribbean; and Uruguay within Mercorsur, the Brazil-dominated South American common market.
Disillusioned states all over the world are currently searching for new peace and security mechanisms to counter rising uncertainty, instability, and disorder. Regional organisations, including the GCC, are unlikely to meet those needs. But that does not reduce their value. They provide a safe space for building trust and nurturing collective problem solving among neighbours. They can empower smaller members to play a role in regional affairs and they can add legitimacy and credibility to the values and interests of those inside the organisation. In today’s evolving geopolitical environment, these all help to reduce regional conflict and increase opportunities for peacemaking.
- The writer is Professor of International Politics and Director of the Small States and Energy Studies Programmes at Georgetown Univeristy in Qatar@RoryDavidMiller