By Dr. Spyridon N. Litsas
October 21,
2020
BESA Centre Perspectives Paper No. 1,782,
October 21, 2020
What does”small”
mean in the vast theoretical framework of international relations? IR theory
clearly advocates in favor of comparing state actors to classify their power relative
to one another. Each state’s power capacity can only truly be assessed through
comparison. For example, while it is a theoretical fallacy to argue that the US
is a strong state, it is correct to say that the US is stronger than all other
states in the international arena.
Flags of Israel and the UAE, image via @Israel Twitter
----
Comparison
is a useful tool that enables us to comprehend the qualitative rather than the
quantitative characteristics of each and every state. This is important because
quality, unlike quantity, never gives a false indication of either power or
weakness.
The same
applies to the word ”small.” If the word is used to refer to a state’s size,
then it does not adequately support IR theory, as the size of a state does not
always determine its relative might in the international arena. There are
several cases in which size clearly did not correlate with might. Great Britain
was never a physical giant, but it nevertheless managed to establish a global
empire on which “the sun never set” through effective diplomacy, efficient
private economic institutions (e.g., the East-India Company), and a fearsome
navy. At the other end of the spectrum is China, a geographical and demographic
giant that has experienced 100 years of continuous humiliation; and the former
Soviet Union, a territorial giant with economic glass legs that was defeated by
the physically smaller but economically and technologically much more advanced
US.
From a
theoretical point of view, therefore, a quantitative approach cannot offer
satisfactory answers to the pressing questions of the 21st century.
Globalization and cosmopolitanism are not just ideological trends but
undeniable facts deriving from the impressive technological advancements
humanity has achieved over recent decades. In particular, artificial
intelligence (AI), which has entered the defines industry, thoroughly changes
the normative quantitative approaches of the past. AI opens a new qualitative
list of variables to indicate whether a state will succeed or suffer
existential failure. This new dichotomy can be labelled smart states vs.
foolish states.
A smart
state is a rational actor in the international arena. It rejects IR revisionism
and every other fundamental systemic change that might produce total war. It
pays close attention to its own technological advancement and reinforcement.
Its state economy gives the private sector room to breathe, but controls
natural resources such as water. It allows public schools and universities to
compete with private schools to produce a balanced societal educational
outline, and encourages social mobility.
A smart
state develops its homeland security policy on a qualitative and not a
quantitative basis. It invests heavily in AI, as the technology—which defies
the logic of pure numbers—opens a new chapter in war theory and grand strategy.
For example, a hypothetical army of 20 well-equipped robots with high-tech guns
might prove more efficient than an army of 10,000 ill-equipped militiamen.
A smart
state has the agility to develop both soft power that can positively influence
public opinion in other states and a “softer” form of hard power not easily
traced by the intelligence services of non-friendly states. This could include
psychological operations with the intent to undermine adversaries’ bureaucratic
structures.
A smart
state is one that invests in flexible diplomacy, comprehends fluctuations in
the international environment, and acts to secure its national interests by
elevating its status in the structural scale of power to maximize its prospects
for survival.
And last
but not least, a smart state does not try to read the future by remaining
stubbornly stuck in its own past.
On
September 15, 2020, the UAE and Israel signed the Abraham Accords, normalizing
relations between the states. This move highlighted the already well-defined
characterization of these states as “smart” due to the choices they have made
over the past decades. The UAE is a global educational hub and Israel is the “Start-Up
Nation.” Both favor the preservation of the existing status quo and oppose
revisionism by state or non-state actors.
Israel and
the UAE have constructed two of the most technologically advanced hard power
capacities in the international system, while their soft power capabilities are
based on cultural and religious resilience. The Abraham Accords also reveal the
continued capacity of the US to act as global stabilizer and formidable western
power, one that is still capable of generating international progress despite
unprecedented frictions at home.
The Abraham
Accords exceed their dimensions as a mere step in the strengthening of the
already durable state structures of two nations. They have the potential to
operate as a new cornerstone of collective response to state and non-state
threats in the wider region.
The world
is still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this will eventually pass
and international life will return roughly to normal. Dismal economic
conditions in Iran and fallout from the August blast at the Beirut Port, which
exposed Hezbollah to public anger, will force the Tehran regime to play
hardball to ensure its survival. The post-pandemic international reality may
bring to the surface Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear capability. A regional
front against Tehran’s profound revisionism could prove a strengthening factor
to protect the status quo in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.
At the
moment, the global jihadist movement is in retreat. Both ISIS and al-Qaeda have
been considerably weakened, mainly as a result of the War on Terror. However,
global jihadism is not dead: it is going through an ideological and
organizational restructuring. Al-Qaeda, for example, is facing an existential
dilemma: whether to follow ISIS’s example and organize a broader social base
via a new ideological narrative that can be easily followed by the masses, or
continue in its secluded operational circle. As reports from around the world
indicate, it is awaiting an opportunity to spread death and misery once again.
In addition, jihadism does not operate within national boundaries. This means
that strong al-Qaeda cells in sub-Saharan Africa are still capable of operating
around the world.
The Abraham
Accords may function as a decisive mechanism with which to crush terrorism, as
both Israel and the UAE have thorough knowledge and experience in dealing with
it. Such knowledge put to use in concert could prove exponentially more
effective.
Also, since
February the Eastern Mediterranean has witnessed an increase of Turkish
maximalism in the Aegean, around Cyprus, in Libya, and in the Gaza Strip. This
is not just a sporadic manifestation of Turkey’s behavioural issues but a
disclosure of Ankara’s hegemonic intentions, both as a major naval player in the
region and as the purported champion of the Sunni world. Israel and the UAE,
together with Greece, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, have the capacity not only to
blockade these revisionist moves but to deter Turkey from spurring a violent
confrontation between NATO members.
Turkey’s
problematic behavior has undoubtedly been spurred on by Washington’s decision
to cozy up to Ankara to some extent rather than definitively discourage Turkish
aggression. A strong front against Turkey’s conduct will foster peace and prosperity
in the wider area of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, offering
more geostrategic confidence to the other states of the region.
Since the
dated quantitative approach does not allow for a thorough examination of the
status quo in the Eastern Mediterranean and its prospects after the Abraham
Accords, a “smart state” theory should be shaped in its place according to
which states defy their size and build their own futures. Israel and the UAE
are the first in a circle of smart states in the region. Now that they have
acted, the other rational actors of the wider Eastern Mediterranean and the
Middle East can follow. An excellent path has been paved, and more states are
sure to emulate the smart example of the UAE and Israel.
----
Dr. Spyridon N. Litsas is Professor of
International Relations at the University of Macedonia and Visiting Professor
of Strategic Theory at the Supreme Joint College of War of the Hellenic Armed
Forces.
Original Headline: Smart, Not Small: The Abraham Accords and the
Role of Small States
Source: The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/uae-israel-smart-states-constitute/d/123216
New Age
Islam, Islam
Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in
Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In
Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism