CONTACT US
CONTACT US
English
اŲ„ØđØąØĻŲŠØĐ
Author: AMEC_admin
25 JanArticle

Powering Partnerships: Qatar’s Trade Dynamics with ASEAN

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

By: Nabila Osman

This article examines Qatar’s trade with ASEAN countries through the lens of 2022 trade data, highlighting a strong economic relationship shaped by energy exports and trade imbalances. This asymmetry underscores potential areas for diversification and deeper bilateral relationships, while also exploring the key dynamics, regional trends, and implications for both Qatar and ASEAN.

1- Qatar’s Trade Surplus and Export Dominance:


Qatar enjoys a substantial trade surplus with all ASEAN countries, primarily driven by exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), crude oil, and petrochemicals. In recent years, Qatar’s trade relations with ASEAN members have grown significantly, with the bloc collectively accounting for around 50% of Qatar’s trade market in 2017. The export of Qatari gas to the region has also contributed to Qatar’s economic resilience during the 2017 blockade by ensuring stable revenue streams and maintaining vital trade connections.

These energy exports cater to the industrial needs of economies like Thailand ($3.92 billion), Singapore ($3.83 billion), and Indonesia ($856 million). Smaller nations such as Laos ($633 million), Brunei ($546 million), and Myanmar ($670.35 million) also demonstratesignificant reliance on Qatari energy, though reciprocal trade remains minimal. This reliance underscores both the dependence of these countries on Qatari resources and the untapped potential for diversifying trade relationships.

Although ASEAN countries possess strong manufacturing and agro-industrial capabilities, their market penetration in Qatar remains limited. This may be due to mismatched demand or restricted trade agreements that hinder further market expansion for both regions. Malaysia has suggested establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) between ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) at the first ASEAN-GCC Summit held in October 2023, but this proposal remains in the preliminary stages. Similarly, though the first round of FTA negotiations between the GCC and Indonesia commenced in September 2024, its realization could potentially take a few years. Notably, Singapore is excluded from this challenge, as it already has an FTA with the GCC, including Qatar, since 2013.

2- Regional Economic Relationships:


Singapore stands out as a pivotal trade hub in Qatar-ASEAN relations. Facilitating $3.83 billion in Qatari exports and $658 million in imports to Qatar, Singapore leverages its strategic location, robust financial infrastructure, and neutral foreign policy to act as a bridge between the Gulf and Southeast Asia. This role reflects Qatar’s broader strategy of diversifying its economic and political ties beyond the GCC.
Other ASEAN nations also contribute significantly to Qatar’s imports. For instance, Thailand ($379 million), Malaysia ($354 million), and Indonesia ($315 million) supply a mix of high value goods that reflect their manufacturing and agro-industrial strengths. Thailand exports machinery and transport equipment to Qatar, while Indonesia supplies mineral fuels and oils.
Emerging economies like Vietnam ($175 million in exports to Qatar) and the Philippines ($83.4 million in exports to Qatar) present opportunities for growth as they continue to industrialize and diversify. These nations are poised to enhance their economic engagements with Qatar as they expand their manufacturing and export capacities.
Meanwhile, less developed nations such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar maintain minimal trade flows with Qatar. These limited engagements highlight untapped potential for deeper economic integration between Qatar and ASEAN’s smaller economies.

3- Implications for Qatar and ASEAN:


The trade dynamics between Qatar and ASEAN highlight both opportunities and challenges for the two regions, underscoring the need for strategic adjustments to enhance mutual benefits. For Qatar, its reliance on hydrocarbon exports poses significant risks as the global energy transition gains momentum. While ASEAN has emerged as a key market for Qatar, the country’s limited diversification beyond energy products leaves its economy vulnerable to future shifts in global energy demand. Expanding its export portfolio to include value-added products could reduce this risk and create a more sustainable trade framework. Additionally, ASEAN’s advanced manufacturing capabilities offer Qatar an opportunity to diversify its imports. Enhancing these import ties could bolster Qatar’s supply chain resilience and reduce dependency on traditional trading partners.
ASEAN’s energy security is a multifaceted issue, with member countries sourcing LNG from various global suppliers. While nations like Thailand have diversified their LNG imports, including recent agreements with Oman LNG, others such as Vietnam are expanding their LNG infrastructure to reduce coal dependence. Smaller economies like Laos have minimal or no LNG import activity, reflecting their limited demand or alternative energy strategies, while Brunei is a notable LNG exporter with no need for imports. To enhance energy security, ASEAN countries are focusing on diversifying energy sources and suppliers, thereby mitigating risks associated with over-reliance on a single source and reducing exposure to potential supply disruptions.
ASEAN countries also have untapped potential to expand their export footprint in Qatar, targeting sectors like halal food, which caters to the dietary preferences of Qatar’s Muslim-majority population; textiles, leveraging ASEAN’s established manufacturing base, especially in countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Myanmar, which are known for their competitive garment and textile industries; and electronics, reflecting the region’s growing expertise in high-tech industries. While trade between Qatar and ASEAN demonstrates strong growth potential, the significant imbalance in export-import dynamics reveals a need for proactive strategies on both sides. Qatar has already made notable investments in ASEAN’s infrastructure, renewable energy, and technology sectors, reflecting its commitment to fostering strong economic ties. Building on these existing efforts and further diversifying into emerging industries within ASEAN could ensure reciprocal benefits and solidify long-term partnerships. For ASEAN, fostering stronger trade agreements and targeting high-value export opportunities in Qatar would enhance regional integration and economic security.

4- Additional Observation:


An interesting dynamic is that Qatar’s top two trade partners in ASEAN, Thailand and Singapore, are non-Muslim majority countries. This indicates that Qatar’s trade in the region is driven by economic pragmatism rather than cultural or religious alignment. Singapore’s strategic role as a financial and logistics hub and Thailand’s industrial capacity underscore their significance as trade partners. This fact reflects Qatar’s ability to prioritize mutual economic benefits over cultural considerations, enhancing its reach and influence in diverse markets.

5- Conclusion:


Qatar’s trade dynamics with ASEAN go beyond economics, reflecting a strategic blend of energy diplomacy and Qatar’s use of energy exports to expand its geopolitical reach. Singapore’s role as a major trade hub underscores its significance as a key economic partner for Qatar. Smaller trade partnerships with countries like Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia reflect Qatar’s efforts to diversify its diplomatic relationships and reduce over-reliance on Gulf neighbors. Moving forward, strengthening trade agreements and diversifying exports and imports could solidify Qatar’s economic influence while creating sustainable benefits for both regions.

By: Nabila Osman

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Sources:

Atlantic Council. (2017, July 7). ASEAN and the Qatar crisis. Atlantic Council.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/asean-and-the-qatar-crisis/

Gulf Cooperation Council. (2024, September 13). The first round of free trade agreement
negotiations between the GCC and the Republic of Indonesia. Gulf Cooperation Council.
https://gaft.gov.sa/en/media-center/news/Pages/The-First-Round-of-Free-Trade-Agreeme
nt-Negotiations-Between-the-GCC-and-the-Republic-of-Indonesia.aspx

Gulf Times. (2018, November 15). Asia a key trading partner for Qatar: FM. Gulf Times.
https://www.gulf-times.com/story/568009/Asia-a-key-trading-partner-for-Qatar-FM

Reuters. (2024, August 23). Vietnam’s second LNG terminal seeks cargo to begin commissioning
tests. Retrieved from
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/vietnams-second-lng-terminal-seeks-cargo-be
gin-commissioning-tests-2024-08-23/

Reuters. (2023, October 20). Malaysia PM proposes free trade pact between ASEAN, Gulf
Council. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/malaysia-pm-proposes-free-trade-pact-betwe
en-asean-gulf-council-2023-10-20/

Reuters. (2024, September 16). Thailand’s PTT signs 5-year LNG deal with Oman LNG.
Retrieved from
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/thailands-ptt-signs-5-year-lng-deal-with-oman-ln
g-2024-09-16/

The Observatory of Economic Complexity. (n.d.). Bilateral trade profiles with Qatar. Retrieved
January 8, 2025, from

https://oec.world

Read More
10 JanArticle

Foreign Policy Analysis – Trump: A Game of Russian Roulette with the World

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

Will Trump Drown America with the World or Make It Great Again? 

This is an enduring question about Trump’s presidency, debated long before he even won the election. Most people already understood that Trump was on the brink of a historic victory against the relentless push from corporate globalist forces. Yet, the tight-knit circles controlling the Biden administration obstinately refused to heed external counsel or consider alternative perspectives. 

Over a week ahead of Trump’s inauguration, he and his team began dropping hints about the planned dismantling of the existing global governance structures that sought to keep him from power. The blunt and unapologetic threats directed at sovereign nations are the sort of rhetoric one might expect from countries like India and Pakistan, where political decorum often takes a backseat to raw, unfiltered power struggles. 

The overt hostility displayed towards Canada and other traditionally friendly nations has shaken the bedrock of Western political stability—a foundation that once distinguished the West from more chaotic political arenas. It echoes the crumbling illusion of Israel’s once-invincible military dominance, which, when truly tested, has repeatedly faltered. It seems increasingly clear that 2025 will be one of the most turbulent years in recent memory for Western nations. 

Timing and Narrative Control: The Musk Factor 

It is important to ask why Trump and his team are making these pronouncements at these specific moments. Elon Musk’s recent attacks on the British government were not random—they were strategically timed. Just as Trump’s MAGA base erupted in fury over his suggestion of bringing in large numbers of Indian workers to the U.S.—a stark reversal of his earlier vow to dismantle foreign work visa schemes—Musk conveniently launched his tirade. His enormous following on X (formerly Twitter) makes it the perfect tool to steer narratives and subdue dissent within Trump’s base. 

When discourse around grooming gangs in Britain escalated and was painted broadly as an “Asian problem,” Musk swiftly reshaped the narrative by retweeting posts suggesting it was a Pakistani issue, not an Indian one. This was not a coincidence. Yet, India remains one of the world’s leading countries for reported sexual assaults—an uncomfortable fact seemingly ignored by Trump and his team for reasons of political convenience. 

During his first term, Trump met India’s far-right Prime Minister Narendra Modi on three occasions: once in Washington D.C., another time at the grandiose “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas attended by 50,000 Indian-Americans, and finally during his state visit to India in February 2020. Back then, Trump likely viewed India primarily as a lucrative market for American goods. However, in his second term, India’s influence appears set to grow within Trump’s inner circle, with key Indian-American figures holding influential positions or even being married into his core team. 

This is a significant development. Apart from the long-standing Israeli dual national influence in U.S. politics, India now seems poised to become the second most influential foreign power in shaping American domestic and foreign policy over the next four years. Trump appears likely to prioritise India even above Europe and Canada—a notable irony considering the severe diplomatic fallout between Canada and India in June 2023, when Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a prominent Sikh separatist leader and Canadian citizen, was assassinated outside a gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia. Canadian intelligence directly accused the Indian government of orchestrating the assassination. 

Canada, India, and the Fragile Western Alliance 

India’s growing proximity to Trump is being conspicuously overlooked by many analysts, despite its obvious significance as a key piece on Trump’s geopolitical chessboard. However, Trump seems blind to the repercussions of alienating Canada, Panama, and Europe simultaneously. Such confrontations will likely push these nations to band together in opposition to the United States, causing instability not just abroad but within American borders. 

Russia, meanwhile, will likely observe the unfolding chaos with detached amusement, popcorn in hand. The friction that Russia once faced with NATO seems now to be brought to NATO’s doorstep by Trump and his team—an ironic twist orchestrated, in part, by the world’s richest man. 

NATO: A House in Disarray 

Following Trump’s first term, some European nations, notably France, floated the idea of forming a European army to ensure collective security independent of American whims. However, Biden’s presidency largely shelved these ambitions, redirecting focus towards NATO’s war efforts in Ukraine. 

With Trump back in power, NATO may face paralysis, or worse, disintegration. Individual member states might break ranks, showing loyalty to Trump in exchange for economic benefits rather than prioritising collective security. This would spell disaster for NATO, which could soon become a hollow shell of its former self. 

Trump’s Economic Gambit: A Risky Transaction 

Trump has always portrayed himself first and foremost as a businessman, and his foreign policy reflects this transactional mindset. While his approach may generate short-term economic gains, it risks leaving the U.S. isolated on the global stage and could severely disrupt international supply chains. 

If Trump aggressively targets Canada, the UK, or European nations with economic warfare, the resulting fractures will deter foreign investors. Already wary of America’s unpredictable political climate, they may pivot towards other, more stable economies. 

Simultaneously, Trump’s expected crackdown on illegal immigration and potential skirmishes with Panama and Mexico could wreak havoc on cross-border cooperation, exacerbating economic tensions. 

The Ripple Effect: Global Stability in Question 

The question now arises: as the Western hemisphere grows increasingly unstable, what ripple effects will emerge in the next one to four years? How will foreign investors interpret Trump’s relentless attacks on America’s traditional allies? If Trump alienates multiple key partners simultaneously, they are likely to unite against America for at least the duration of his presidency. Such a scenario would create severe investor instability not only in the U.S. but across the Western world. 

Will European countries begin to see China as a more dependable trading partner? Could Trump’s brash style inadvertently gift China strategic advantages while undermining India, which seems to have gone all-in on Team Trump? Asia seems poised to become a more stable region, but this will depend heavily on how individual nations play their cards. 

Meanwhile, Trump will attempt to manage crises on multiple fronts: illegal immigration in the U.S., potential military tensions with Panama and Mexico, and economic wars with Canada, the UK, and Europe. At the same time, he will likely seek to secure support from select Asian countries to counterbalance China in the twilight years of his presidency. 

Trump: A Game of Russian Roulette 

Trump’s presidency increasingly resembles a high-stakes game of Russian Roulette. And this is without even touching on the complexities of the Middle East. His grandiose claim of resolving a conflict that even Israel has been unable to win after a year of brutal warfare is unlikely to lead to meaningful negotiations. Instead, it seems more plausible that Trump will continue to blow hot air in the media while privately making contradictory promises and threats to both sides, playing the role of the ultimate salesman. 

His primary goal will be to secure a symbolic victory—something he can showcase to his voter base as proof that he’s not only an entertainer but also a peacemaker capable of solving conflicts that have endured for decades. 

As world leaders clamber for Trump’s attention, eager for a metaphorical (and literal) selfie with the man of the hour, they must tread carefully. Beyond the photo-op lies a precarious balance, where one wrong step could lead to either unparalleled economic prosperity or a catastrophic geopolitical downfall. 

Mr. Muad M Zaki   

Senior Fellow

WRITTEN BY:

Muad Zaki
Director of Democracy & Transparency Initiative,
AMEC

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Read More
17 Decpress statement

One Day International Conference on ‘Assessing Opportunities and Challenges in ASEAN-GCC Interactions’

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

Leaders, academics, and experts from across ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) convened in Jakarta for the International Conference on ‘Assessing Opportunities and Challenges in ASEAN-GCC Interactions.’ This landmark event explored the potential for collaboration between these two dynamic regions amid shifting global geopolitics.

Organized by the Asia Middle East Center for Research and Dialogue (AMEC) in collaboration with prominent academic and research institutions, the conference featured keynotes and panel discussions by policymakers, academics, and industry representatives from ASEAN and GCC countries.

Highlights of the Conference
The conference hosted distinguished speakers from various nations, showcasing a diversity of perspectives and expertise:

Keynote Addresses:
The opening keynote was delivered by Mr. Yayan Ganda Hayat Mulyana, Head of the Foreign Policy Strategy Agency, who represented H.E. Bapak Anis Matta, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Indonesia.

Plenary Sessions:
Experts from Qatar, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines led discussions on topics ranging from economic diversification in the GCC, ASEAN’s engagement with West Asia, and opportunities for greater cultural integration.
Key speakers included:

  • Dr. Maryam Mohammed Al-Kuwari (Qatar)
  • Dr. Abdolreza Alami (Malaysia)
  • Dr. Henelito A. Sevilla, Jr. (Philippines)

MOU Signing Ceremony:
A significant highlight was the signing of Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between AMEC, Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta, Universitas Padjadjaran, and Asia West East Centre. These agreements formalized collaborations aimed at strengthening ties between ASEAN and GCC regions.

Objectives and Themes
The conference focused on:

  • Fostering geopolitical alignment and identifying common interests.
  • Promoting economic integration by leveraging complementary strengths.
  • Enhancing cultural understanding through educational and people-to-people exchanges.

Collaborating Institutions
The conference was co-hosted by:

  • Asia Middle East Center for Research and Dialogue (AMEC)
  • Universitas Indonesia (UI)
  • Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta (UMJ), Indonesia
  • Universitas Padjadjaran (UnPad), Indonesia
  • Asia West East Centre, Malaysia

About the Conference
The International Conference on ‘Assessing Opportunities and Challenges in ASEAN-GCC Interactions’ provided a unique platform to deepen understanding, foster cooperation, and build stronger bridges between ASEAN and GCC nations. The outcomes of this dialogue are expected to contribute significantly to global stability, economic growth, and cultural exchange.

Read More
21 NovArticle

Why is Allowing Ukraine to Use Ballistic Missiles a Major Escalation?

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

The Biden administration’s decision to provide Kyiv with access to US ballistic missiles, to be deployed against Russian territory, constitutes a substantial escalation in the ongoing conflict, which extends beyond the physical harm that might be inflicted by the deployed weapon.  Indeed, the significance of the act that compelled Moscow to revise its nuclear doctrine does not lie in the end of targeting Russian territory but in the mean itself.

As a fact, in recent months, the Ukrainian army has conducted several drone strikes against inland Russian military facilities, without significantly altering the rules of engagement between the warring parties. Nonetheless, the use of ballistic missiles, despite their inability to shift the balance of power on the battlefields, is a noteworthy change in the rules of engagement that extends beyond tactical considerations to encompass the entire strategic and geopolitical landscape.

Initially, this would represent a departure from conventional weapon systems by introducing strategic weapons capable of carrying nuclear warheads, marking the first instance in history and representing a significant step toward nuclear escalation.

Secondly, this would shift the US and NATO strategy from a proxy war and buck-passing to limited direct involvement, as launching those missiles would necessitate the participation of US satellites and engineers. In this scenario, a Russian retaliation might not be limited to just Ukrainian targets. This could open the floodgates to an uncontrolled spiral of reprisal retaliation and counter-retaliations, escalating fiercely up the escalation ladder. 

Additionally, by such act, the White House would violate the principles that have traditionally guided the military doctrines of the US and the USSR (now Russia) and shaped the relationship between the superpowers. These principles are embodied in formal agreements such as SALT I and SALT II, as well as in the enduring, unwritten norms of nuclear deterrence.

Yet, the Biden administration appears to be taking this risky gamble based on two main assumptions. First, the over-reliance on the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence as a restraining factor for Moscow. This perspective suggests that Russians would carefully weigh the consequences of any escalation against the US or its NATO allies, knowing that such actions could provoke a second strike against them.

 Second, the perception of Russia’s banking on Donald Trump’s presidency as a potential turning point in the ongoing conflict, and the US intent to leverage it. This is especially relevant considering the terms outlined in J.D. Vance’s proposed peace draft, which favors Moscow and could lead President Putin to be more tolerant of provocations from the current White House administration.

On the other hand, some might argue that access to US ballistic missiles is nothing more than a last desperate attempt by the current administration to save face in Ukraine before Trump’s presidency, under which the administration would be blamed for its losses. Regardless, in any case, the US is playing with fire amid dry bushes.

Khaldoon Ahmed Hasson Abdulla

Senior fellow

WRITTEN BY:

Khaldoon A.H. Abdulla
Senior Research Fellow at Asia Middle East Center for Research and Dialogue

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Read More
13 NovArticle

Two Factions At War to Decide America’s Future: Is Trump’s America First Already Struggling?

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

Donald Trump, who has outperformed and beaten all the attempts of his opponents, has not completely won his goal to make America great again just yet. He has won the election in both the electoral votes and the popular vote, defying criticism from the mainstream media and establishment politicians in both the Democratic Party and the Republicans.

The US election has come close to a political world war, with every possible factor at stake. Trump has now emerged victorious in the first phase of becoming the 47th President of the United States of America. The election was broadcast live on nearly every mainstream media channel, including social media, which made it much harder for his opponents to manipulate the results or obscure the process.

His opponents tried everything—from leveraging the legal system to exert pressure on those close to him, to pushing for nation-wide voting without consistent voter ID verification. Interestingly, states where Democrats performed well tended to have lenient or absent voter ID laws, raising questions about the credibility of the results.

Today, on November 11th, Trump and his core team have entered the second phase of this political war: maneuvering through the offline and shadowy realms of politics, which are often hidden from ordinary citizens. Trump’s strategy now involves placing “America First” candidates in key positions that eluded him during his previous term in office (2017-2021). However, he’s on establishment turf now, where he’s up against political insiders accustomed to exerting influence behind closed doors.

Although Trump effectively leveraged his entertainment background to connect with the public and broadcast his message freely on social media platforms like X and TikTok, the world of “dark politics” is very different. This arena operates without the transparency of social media and is proving to be an uphill battle for Trump and his America First agenda.

One challenge lies in Trump’s attempt to balance diplomacy with filling government positions. On the one hand, he must navigate demands from foreign-policy experts and institutions that favour establishment figures. On the other, he’s determined to position loyal America First candidates in key roles. This balancing act is revealing where his allies’ loyalties truly lie. At this phase, Trump may once again find himself disappointed by those in his outer circle, who gained his trust only to undermine his policy goals at a critical moment.

Despite Trump’s popularity, figures like Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson—who possess influence and media platforms—are limited in how much they can expose about these dark political processes. The reasons for this are likely complex; it’s possible they either do not want to or are unable to shed light on how the political establishment actually functions. The America First movement, which is relatively small, is pitted against a deeply rooted establishment, one that has permeated American institutions and government bodies for decades. This entrenched power, dating back to major political shifts like the post-JFK era, poses a significant challenge to Trump’s ambitions.

A recent example of establishment influence can be seen in Trump’s selection of Elise Stefanik as the United Nations ambassador. While Stefanik is known for her alignment with Trump’s policies in some areas, the choice suggests a need for Trump to compromise or that his power is being subtly curtailed. Establishment Republicans are simultaneously trying to limit Trump’s influence further, particularly by vying for Senate leadership positions that could either support or obstruct America First policies. If Senator Rick Scott wins his current Senate battle, Trump would secure a crucial win for his agenda. However, if Scott loses, the establishment would have an influential figure positioned to challenge and dilute Trump’s initiatives from within.

As Trump fills other top positions, observers will be scrutinizing each choice closely, knowing that the Trump administration may have factions within itself. If the establishment can install its allies in critical roles, it would create a third phase of resistance to slow Trump’s agenda. In this phase, anti-America First factions would work to obstruct key policies, block legislative progress, and even target Trump-appointed officials to discredit or replace them, a tactic that could slowly undermine Trump’s agenda over the next several years.

For Trump’s supporters, the greatest frustration is likely a feeling of helplessness. The intricacies of political appointments and bureaucratic infighting are opaque, leaving supporters unsure of how to help or even understand the full scope of the struggle. The stakes, however, extend far beyond Washington. What unfolds in the coming months will not only shape the future of America but also send powerful ripples across the world stage.

Should Trump’s America First vision gain traction, the ripple effects could realign global alliances, impact international trade dynamics, and redefine U.S. foreign policy priorities in regions like the Middle East, Europe, and the Indo-Pacific. Countries around the world are closely watching this internal American conflict, knowing it will ultimately affect their own economies, security strategies, and political landscapes. Allies accustomed to traditional U.S. diplomacy may need to adjust, while rivals, too, are recalibrating their expectations.

For supporters, this battle isn’t just about domestic policy—it represents a fight for what America stands for and how it engages with the rest of the world.

 

Mr. Muad M Zaki   

Senior Fellow

WRITTEN BY:

Muad Zaki
Director of Democracy & Transparency Initiative,
AMEC

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Read More
05 Novpress statement

Press Statement

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

One-day International Conference on Palestine: Exploring Asian Perspectives

Kuala Lumpur, 4 November 2024 – The Asia Middle East Center for Research and Dialogue (AMEC), in collaboration with the Hashim Sani Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Malaya, is convening an International Conference on Palestine titled Exploring Asian Perspectives. This one-day conference assembles a distinguished lineup of experts, scholars, and advocates to examine Asia’s response to the ongoing Gaza crisis and reflect on the region’s role in Palestinian advocacy.

Dr. Nur Al Deen, Senior Research Fellow at AMEC and Conference Director, will open the conference, followed by remarks from Puan Sri Norma Hashim, Founder of the Hashim Sani Centre for Palestine Studies. YBhg Tan Sri Datuk Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar, Honorary Advisor of AMEC, will then deliver a keynote address that underscores Asia’s potential to advance the Palestinian cause.

In the first session, titled “Malaysian Response to the Gaza Genocide,” Dr. Ferooze Ali of AMEC will moderate a panel featuring key Malaysian voices. Mr. Chua Tian Chang will provide insights into Malaysia’s political stance on the issue, while Mrs. Nurul Izzah Anwar will speak from her experience as an advocate. Dr. Noraishah Hanifa will discuss key ideas from her latest book, which explores the Palestinian struggle. Additionally, Mr. Jismi Johari will share his unique perspective as both an activist and academic, emphasizing the importance of scholarship in Palestinian rights advocacy.

The second session, “Asian Responses to the Gaza Genocide,” moderated by Mr. Khalid Jimat from the Hashim Sani Centre, will offer insights from a broader regional perspective. Speakers in this session include Prof. Dr. Mohd Nazari Ismail, who will discuss the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement across Asia, Mr. Saul Takahashi on Japan’s stance, Dr. Aina Thaipratan on Thailand’s engagement, Ms. Nabila Osman on Singapore’s involvement, and Bapak Tengku Zulkifli Usman on Indonesia’s perspective.

The conference will conclude with closing remarks from Mr. Muslim Imran, Director of AMEC. A second keynote address will be delivered by YB Tuan Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh, Head of the Malaysian Parliament Caucus for Palestine. The day will end with the launch of Dr. Noraishah Hanifa’s new book, Baitulmaqdis Jerusalem dalam Cengkaman Israel.

This conference offers a crucial platform for Asian decision-makers, policymakers, and scholars to discuss Asia’s expanding role in supporting Palestinian rights. By connecting academic perspectives with actionable policy insights, participants will work toward strategies to advance justice for Palestine, address humanitarian challenges, and strengthen regional solidarity. Through expert panels and collaborative dialogues, the conference seeks to equip policymakers with impactful guidance that aligns with Asia’s commitment to human rights, support for Palestine, and a vision for lasting peace.

Press StatementDownload

 

WhatsApp Image 2024-11-04 at 2.49.27 PM
WhatsApp Image 2024-11-04 at 11.06.39 AM (1)
WhatsApp Image 2024-11-04 at 11.51.05 AM
WhatsApp Image 2024-11-04 at 2.33.29 PM
WhatsApp Image 2024-11-04 at 2.03.26 PM
WhatsApp Image 2024-11-04 at 11.06.38 AM
photo_6143233642529407070_w
Screenshot
photo_6143233642529407416_y
Read More
07 OctArticle

Is Ukraine the New Berlin Wall?

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

By : Khaldoon Abdulla

After the end of World War II, Germany emerged as a focal point in the global balance of power. The construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 symbolized the geopolitical division between the two superpowers and the new bipolar world order. The wall’s fall in 1989 marked the beginning of a domino effect in the pro-USSR Bloc and the eastward expansion of NATO, which Russia, in decline, could not prevent.

As Putin rose to power with nostalgic and historical aspirations, he understood that repositioning Russia on the international scene required defining a Putin/Russian version of the US Monroe Doctrine amid ongoing NATO expansion, which made the use of force unavoidable. Indeed, from the wars in Chechnya in 1999, Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022—not to mention the unconventional and indirect warfare in the Balkans and Caspian Sea regions—Russia has been defining its geopolitical sphere of influence. On the other hand, the US, by expanding NATO and the Liberal International Order, intended to exploit the geopolitical vacuum and use unipolarity to create a favorable and irreversible geopolitical balance.

Located in the heart of Eurasia, Ukraine serves as both a bridge and a buffer between East and West. Consequently, similar to Berlin during the Cold War, it has become the epicenter of new geopolitical tensions. Yet, Ukraine also possesses unique geographical, ethnic, cultural, and religious factors that could lead to division, emphasizing the “Berlin Wall Effect,” if such a term can be used.

Geographically, the post-Soviet state is divided by the Dnieper River into eastern and western blocs, with Kyiv located at the point of contact on the western bank. The West Bank of Ukraine is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking and ethnically Ukrainian, while the East Bank is mostly Russian-speaking and ethnically Russian. Consequently, the ongoing hostilities have exacerbated the pre-existing divisions within the Ukrainian identity.

As such factors were not absent in Washington’s and Moscow’s calculations, three potential interpretations of the situation involving the US, Russia, and Ukraine can be discerned. Since 1990, the US has sought to encircle Russia, believing that a future rising Russia, under encirclement, would succumb to self-consumption and destruction. Therefore, Ukraine has to act as a buffer for Russia and serve as a forward base for Western liberal institutions.

The Russian perspective saw Ukraine as a historical and geopolitical extension of Russia, acting as a gateway to its pivot to the West strategy, such as through the natural gas pipelines. Therefore, Russia’s interest lies in maintaining a strong influence over its neighbor. This was compounded by Ukraine’s failure to maintain a neutral position and pursue a multilateral/multi-dimensional foreign policy, which drew it into the center of the US-Russia security dilemma.

Currently, the US is exploiting Ukraine in a proxy war of attrition against Russia. Meanwhile, Putin, who never wished for a full-scale invasion, intends to integrate the eastern bank into Russia and install an affiliated regime in Kyiv on the adjacent side of the Dnieper. Consequently, this is a war for strategic depth at the expense of Ukraine, with neither side able to secure a decisive victory. Under these circumstances, a settlement in the balance of power ought to define the spheres of influence of the two camps and the new Berlin Wall.

Khaldoon Ahmed Hasson Abdulla

Senior Research Fellow, AMEC

Twitter:  https://x.com/KhaldoonA23445/status/1809854189880676382

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Read More
07 OctArticle

Connecting the Dots in Saudi Arabia Mingling Foreign Policy

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

by : Khaldoon Abdulla


Recently, Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy has witnessed a series of significant shifts that may seem chaotic and counterproductive. For example, the Kingdom aligned with China and Russia upon joining BRICS+ but subsequently signed the IMEC MoU countering China’s BRI. These fluctuations in Saudi Arabia’s relationships were not limited to its ties with the major powers but were also evident in its regional foreign policy, particularly with Iran and its allies in the region, raising doubts about the consistency of its foreign policy.

The main impetus behind Saudi foreign policy is the Iranian threat, exacerbated by its prominence and geographical proximity. Over the past decade, this threat has been further amplified by Iranian nuclear aspirations and the surge of its regional allies. This situation unfolded amidst the disintegration of the Gulf Cooperation Council, resulting in the isolation of Saudi Arabia, which found itself encircled by Iranian proxies in Yemen and the Fertile Crescent. For the past nine years, Iran has managed to hit Saudi soil with hundreds of missiles, mostly by the Houthis in Yemen, while the only retaliation the Kingdom could take was a prolonged war with the Yemeni insurgents.

Given this, the Kingdom, led by the Crown Prince (MBS), believes a defense treaty with the US is potentially the most effective safeguard for the Kingdom’s security. Yet, this must consider China’s and Russia’s strategic calculations globally and in the Middle East. MBS and the Saudi security establishment understand that despite Iran’s strategic partnership with Russia and China in various sectors, both major powers would be reluctant to jeopardize their national security by engaging in a war on behalf of Iran.

Leveraging this advantage, Saudi Arabia, in concert with its negotiations with the US, adopted a multidimensional foreign policy approach, establishing diplomatic ties with China and Russia to pursue four principal objectives:

First, to firmly assure the Russian and Chinese counterparts of the Kingdom’s unwavering stance of neutrality in the power dynamic between the US and China as well as Russia, stressing that any alignment with the US is strictly confined to regional objectives. Secondly, Saudi Arabia intends to utilize its growing ties with leading nations in the Global South to exert pressure on the US, which imposes stringent conditions on the Saudis, particularly about the normalization of relations with Israel, as will be elaborated upon shortly.

Thirdly, exploring potential Russian and, to a greater extent, Chinese mediation in the Saudi-Iran security dilemma. This strategy was initially fruitful but ultimately collapsed in the aftermath of the October 7th Gaza war. Fourth, contrary to the third objective, Saudi Arabia also intends to establish itself as a more valuable and stable ally to Moscow and Beijing, thereby weakening Tehran’s position in the regional balance of power.

Nonetheless, the Saudi-US negotiations did not witness distinctive progress, as the US sets normalization with Israel as a precondition for its security umbrella, which the Saudis insist must be in exchange for a two-state solution. Though Riyadh and Tel Aviv have never posed a threat to each other, the formal normalization of relations between the two parties could have severe impacts on the Kingdom’s symbolic role in the Muslim world, akin to Egypt after signing Camp David.

Therefore, the two-state solution acts as a balancing strategy for normalization in Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, Israeli intransigence obstructs the progression of the deal. The outbreak of the war in Gaza has put Riyadh under immense pressure. On one hand, as Hamas is perceived by the Saudis as an ally to Tehran, their operations on October 7 represented an escalation of the Iranian threat, thus accelerating normalization. Conversely, the Israeli genocide in Gaza will make the consequences of any normalization disastrous for Saudi Arabia unless Israel agrees to a two-state solution, which is unlikely to happen.

Under these circumstances, the Kingdom is stuck between three complicated alternatives: first, the preferable yet most improbable scenario of convincing the White House to separate the security deal from normalization with Israel; second, to normalize relations with Israel and bear the consequences in exchange for a US security guarantee; third, to be left to bear with the surging Iranian regional influence and its nuclear aspirations.

Khaldoon Ahmed Hasson Abdulla

Senior Research Fellow, AMEC

Twitter:  https://x.com/KhaldoonA23445/status/1811337468525916284

–

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Read More
18 SepReport

AMEC’S ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION ON THE UNITED KINGDOM’S 2024 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The British parliamentary election held on July 4th, 2024, marked a significant turning point in the UK’s political landscape. Utilizing the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, voters selected candidates to represent their constituencies in Parliament. The Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer, achieved a landslide victory, securing 411 seats and ending 14 years of Conservative rule. The Conservatives, led by Rishi Sunak, experienced one of their worst electoral defeats, securing only 121 seats. The Liberal Democrats, Scottish
National Party (SNP), and other smaller parties also saw notable changes in their representation. Key issues influencing voters included the economy, healthcare, immigration, Brexit, and international events, such as the conflict in Gaza. The election process was conducted smoothly with high standards of professionalism observed at polling stations. Despite a historically low turnout of 60%, the election was characterized by a relatively peaceful post-election environment.

MUAD ZAKI
Director, Democracy & Transparency Initiative

AHMED FARIH MOHAMED
Fellow, Democracy & Transparency Initiative

UK Parliamentary ReportDownload

Read More
22 AugArticle

Strategic Shifts in Global Power: The Evolving Relations between Asia and the Middle East

by AMEC_admin0 Comments

By: Mutaa Aladhami

Introduction :

This research reflects the significant realignment in global geopolitics, driven by the growing economic, political, and security ties between Asia and the Middle East. This research is vital for policymakers as it offers insights into the changing power dynamics that challenge traditional Western dominance, particularly the United States, and highlights the strategic importance of Asia’s increasing influence in the Middle East. Understanding these shifts is crucial for formulating policies that ensure economic collaboration, energy security, and regional stability in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

full Article :

Strategic Shifts in Global Power, The Evolving Relations between Asia and the Middle EastDownload

Mutaa Aladhami
Intern for Democracy & Transparency Initiative Under
AMEC

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

Read More