Akhtar Raja
The successes of Qatar, both domestically and internationally, are widespread and clear to see. It has grown into an effective and successful sovereign state with gravitas. Qatar is well positioned to address future challenges.
In the new world order sovereign states which are different in nature must find acceptance, respect and dignity if peace and security is to have a chance. The nature of a state’s sovereignty is dictated by culture, geopolitical interests, and its history.
Since gaining independence in 1971 Qatar has developed into an economic, political and cultural powerhouse in the Middle East. It has substantial resources in the form of the third-largest global natural gas reserves and one of the world’s highest GDP per capita. It has an impressive international investment portfolio and substantial infrastructure projects at home. Qatar achieves peace and security, contentment of its citizenry and the management of resources successfully.
These are the ground realities.
At the heart of Qatar’s instrument of governance there lies a constitutional jewel. Article 1 provides ‘Qatar is an independent sovereign Arab State. Its religion is Islam…’ This represents recourse to the ultimate centre of accountability – a separate reality - where power in its true form lies. It requires a psychological and philosophical commitment behind the intention and acts of governance respectively.
It is a concept that is not readily understood through the prism of different versions of democracy. Such systems are restricted to the factors in play on the ground and deny the existence of any other dimension which has overall command on outcomes. It is naive to dismiss the importance of this by virtue of intellectual laziness, dogmatism, or bias.
Democracies are fragile and fallible. Democracy does not suit all sovereign states. Circumstances vary. The efforts to introduce democracy can produce grand, and often unlawful, failure. Democracy in isolation does not fit hand in glove in every cultural setting particularly where the head of state is morally charged with commitment to a higher authority.
History has turned a page or two. Use of unlawful force or coercion to extinguish rivalry powers are becoming failed projects. No state or block is exceptional. Prosperity, and even survival, are dependent on a bona fide willingness to co-exist with mutual respect and to act justly. The alternative is conflict. This would be grotesquely costly in every sense and on every level. Presently, the embers of local wars are being fed oxygen with a real risk of becoming wider raging flames. If that outcome transpires democratic players will carry significant responsibility for failure.
Even with a new global centre of gravity reflecting cyclical patterns of history, peace and security is not inevitable. The problem is: history repeats itself because man never learns. There may be further tectonic shifts between equitable monotheistic faith-based sovereign states and other countries.
Many democracies seem to be fighting for survival in a dystopian and unjust world. Major economies have been seized by debt. This is steadily increasing and represents an eye watering multiple of their GDPs. Institutions have become insolvent. Shrinking economies are now faced with double digit inflation and high interest rates. Stagflation, shortages of labour and supplies, and increased costs of production are hitting hard. Recession is at the doorstep. COVID-19, climate change, the risk of further pandemics, cyber warfare, the US-China repositioning, aging populations, and a backlash driven by increasing income disparity are facing ill-equipped democracies.
Short sighted politics for short term popularity to win elections are preventing hard decisions being made. For example, the UK’s Brexit represents a monumental and possibly irreparable act of self harm. Arguably, the failure of international ‘democratic’ parties to mediate fairly and effectively spurned the Russian and Ukrainian conflict with its profound adverse effect, globally.
On matters of rule of law democracies do not guarantee restraint and accountability for grave unlawful or unethical conduct. Let’s look at some random and wide-ranging examples.
Oppressive sanctions were imposed before the illegal Iraq war in 2003. Apart from Jacques Chirac, European states did not speak out against the invasion.
I had the opportunity to look into some of the tragedies that ensued. A civil-defence shelter in Amiriyah was subjected to an aerial bombing attack that killed at least 408 civilians on 13 February 1991. During the oil for food programme and the operation of no-fly zones over Iraq numerous children were born with birth defects. This appeared to be attributable to depleted uranium coated bombs contaminating the food chain and gene pool.
I also visited Mosul to investigate the killing of shepherds - the Jarjees family. Four children, their father and grandfather were bombed on 30 April 1999 under the Northern no-fly zone in what seemed like a game of target practice by pilots from an alliance of democratic states policing the skies.
It is difficult to forget the US Senate Select Committee’s findings concerning the ‘brutal’ failure of ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques during the invasion.
In Gardez, Afghanistan in December 2003 nine children were gunned down in broad daylight. In 2009, in western Farah province, almost 100 civilians (mostly children) were killed and blown into unrecognisable pieces. This was nightmarishly like the fate of the Jarjees kids. In September 2015 a gunship attack on a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital killed 42 patients, doctors, and other medical staff.
The largest self-proclaimed democracy in the Middle East was responsible for an armed drone strike that killed four Palestinian children playing on a beach in Gaza in 2014. They were chased by the drone before being struck.
In September 2015, the image of three year old Alan Kurdi was imprinted in our minds – a drowned toddler, lying dead, face down on a beach. Alan and his family were fleeing war.
Global migration has increased. The Swedish ambassador to the EU, Lars Danielsson has said that “migration is an issue where you can win or lose elections in virtually every member state”. EU law and UN conventions are being broken on the borders of Hungary, Croatia and Romania. Migrants are being forced to live in freezing weather. And while people die crossing the English Channel at the hands of unscrupulous smugglers, the British Government is trying to shift asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing. It also intends to scrap the Human Rights Act – a central pillar of democracy.
Qatar has become a muscular international player. In doing so it has overcome negative economic forces and avoided flagrant unlawful and unethical behaviour.
The idea of a super alien intelligence beyond metaphysics, all parallel universes and the numerous dimensions (so far recognised by scientists) being the solitary power capable of intervening with compassion where justice demands is attractive. This represents the centre of Qatar’s constitutional paradigm.
The Amir governs. As long as in matters of state conduct and governance the Ruler continues to rely on Qatar’s paramount constitutional principle, he will attract a Higher favour and protection, and serenity of heart, enabling sound and even stronger decision making irrespective of global turbulences.
In history, it has never been a numbers game – Moses successfully defeated Pharaonic systems and secured physical and mental emancipation. He had the same centre of accountability.
Akhtar Raja, is a British lawyer based in London and Principal of Quist Solicitors.
