*This article was published in the Trending Events periodical, issued by Future for Advanced Research & Studies - Issue 16, Mar-Apr 2016.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy motives have become, more than ever, a hot subject matter of analysis, commentary, speculation, and propaganda. Due to its “new” proactive approach on the regional level, various contradictory interpretations were unleashed to interpret the logic of this policy. In the midst of these impressionist analyses, that ignore the rationale that is behind this behavior; widespread misconceptions contribute to misunderstanding the true motives of the Kingdom’s regional policy.
First: Fundamental Determinants of Foreign Policy
In a world of nation-states, survival and conservation of the state is the basic driving motive of its conduct. Saudi Arabia is no exception to this premise. Thus, preserving internal and regional security and stability are the most important determinants of Saudi’s behavior. Saudi Arabia is a status quo state by its very nature, and therefore any radical changes that threaten existing internal and regional order is not easily accepted.
In light of the emergence of nation-states in the Arab world, the same national goals were set: to maintain the survival and independence of the state, and development of a regional order consistent with the common bond, Arabism, through the establishment of the Arab League in 1945, and its specialized agencies. This regional order reflected the desire of these states to promote and consolidate the status quo, which recognizes the legitimacy of the nation states system and policies. Despite the Arab regional system’s failures in facing regional challenges and threats causing instability to the region as a whole, this order’s primary purpose is to maintain the status quo in the Arab world.
Since the Middle East region is not a sole Arab region, regional balance of power was preserved by dominant International status quo powers, first under Pax Britannica and later under Pax Americana. Preserving such regional order was imperative for Saudi Arabia, as a means to maintain regional peace and security, and in turn the Kingdom’s peace and security. During the 1950s and 1960s, when this system was threatened by transnational ideologies and revisionist trends, Saudi Arabia was always a central figure of diplomatic dynamism. By mobilizing its material resources, political capital, soft power, and it is international alliances the Kingdom was able to maintain the regional status quo and therefore it is own security and stability.
Saudi Arabia addressed the nationalist movement led by President Gamal Abdel Nasser when his ideology was seen as a threat to the regional security and stability. It also confronted the communists in the region, supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war when it was evident that Iran sought to change the regional order, and stood fast against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
Second: The Kingdom’s Approach to Change
As much as Saudi Arabia is suspicious of any radical change that may change the status quo, historical experience shows that when these kinds of changes take place, and there is no direct threat to region’s security and stability, the Kingdom attempts to influence the course of events to preserve the status quo. Such a strategy explains the Saudi position towards the Baath party ideology, and “friendly” relations with both Syria and Iraq under Baath regimes, for as long as they did not meddle in the affairs of others. It also explains its recognition of many revolutions including, the July 1952 revolution in Egypt, and the Iranian revolution in 1979 (pertaining to Iran’s internal affairs).
Furthermore, this also explains the shift in Saudi Arabia’s position, from apprehension to acceptance, towards the changes that took place during the “Arab Spring.” However, when it became clear that the Muslim Brotherhood hijacked the Egyptian state to expand their trans-national ideology that threatened the security and stability of the region, Saudi Arabia supported the actions taken to prevent such possibility from occurring.
In Yemen and Bahrain, Saudi Arabia was forced to intervene to influence outcomes directly. Since its inception, Saudi Arabia sees the security and stability of Yemen as part of its security and stability and has always been accepting of whoever comes into power as long as the regime maintained relations with Saudi Arabia and preserved the balance of power within Yemen to sustain internal peace. However, upon the Houthi takeover of Yemen, who are ideologically connected with Iran and did not preserve the internal balance of power and peace within Yemen, Saudi Arabia had to intervene militarily to stop the militias to restore the legitimate regime chosen by Yemenis in their national dialogue.
The same thing could be said about Saudi’s position toward Syria. Syria is very important and central in Saudi political thought; due to its centrality in any regional balance of power, therefore supporting the change in Syria and influencing such change is a matter of strategic importance to guarantee the continuity and centrality of the Syrian state within the regional system. In this context, one could understand the Kingdom’s reaction to Iran’s meddling in the affairs of Arab states.
Third: A new approach to facing challenges
It is fair to say that Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy has succeeded in preserving the regional status quo despite all the challenges, as well as its security and stability. In fact, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the region that has enjoyed almost eight decades of stability and security within its borders.
Since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and failure to formulate a sustainable Iraqi national regime, and the aftermath of the Arab uprisings, where states are on the verge of collapse due to civil war, the status quo of the region was shaken up. Saudi Arabia, faced with such regional challenges that threatened its security and stability, had to act to bring the collapsing regional status quo to order. Therefore, Saudi Arabia’s new dynamism is a natural response to the immense challenges faced by the region.
With this dynamism, Saudi Arabia needs to envision an alternative to the old status quo. Thinking of this alternative is impossible before knowing where the dust will settle in the region. However, immunizing its peace and security during these troubled times will allow it to rethink such alternative. States within the region must have a new thought process that goes beyond the realist paradigm of international relations and its balances of power. There is a need to restore peace and stability to the region and to allow people to realize their aspirations for dignity, freedom, economic prosperity, and social justice. Any new order must have these components to guarantee its success and ensures the safety and security of all states in the region.