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.

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.

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.

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

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 :

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.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – The Asia Middle East Center for Research and Dialogue (AMEC) is delighted to announce that its Democracy & Transparency Initiative has been accredited by the British Electoral Commission. This prestigious recognition marks the first time a Malaysian think tank has been authorized to observe British elections, underscoring the global significance and growing influence of AMEC’s work in promoting democratic values.

AMEC, based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, is honored to be trusted by the UK for this important role. This invitation highlights the UK’s recognition of AMEC’s expertise and commitment to democracy, transparency, and fair governance. It speaks volumes about the respect and confidence placed in Malaysian institutions to contribute to international electoral processes.

Leading this high-profile mission is Mr. Muad Mohamad Zaki, Director of the Democracy & Transparency Initiative. Mr. Zaki is a notable Maldivian political figure who has played a pivotal role in establishing democracy in the Maldives. His impressive credentials include advanced studies in International Relations & Security in the UK and serving as the youngest head of relations for the Maldivian Democratic Party to the UK & EU. Mr. Zaki is accompanied by Mr. Ahmed Farih Mohamed, a distinguished Maldivian diplomat and entrepreneur. Their extensive experience and expertise in international relations will elevate AMEC’s contributions on the global stage and enhance the understanding of democratic practices and cultural nuances.

AMEC’s election observation team has arrived in the UK and is prepared to provide insights and analysis on the upcoming British Parliamentary Elections on July 4th. This initiative not only reflects AMEC’s unwavering dedication to promoting democratic values worldwide but also places Malaysia on the map as a key player in global electoral processes. The accreditation by the British Electoral Commission is a testament to AMEC’s capability and commitment to operating at the highest levels of international electoral observation, bringing pride to Malaysia and showcasing its potential in the realm of global diplomacy and governance.

DEMOCRACY & TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE

Asia middle East Center

for research and dialogue

By Muhammad Rumi Azhari Nur Irfani

Southeast Asia, with its vibrant colors of cultural influences, presents a unique study in the interplay of diverse historical and social forces. Despite the geographical distance separating the region from the Middle East, the cultural elements of Southeast Asia echo Middle Eastern influences in many ways. These parallels manifest in various domains, including philosophy, religion, ethics, and art. Given such extensive overlaps, a pertinent question arises: How did such a geographically distant region come to bear the imprint of Middle Eastern culture so distinctly? Unraveling this question requires a historical, anthropological, and psychological exploration of the influences that have shaped Southeast Asia’s cultural identity.

Historically, Southeast Asia and the Middle East’s cultural identities were shaped by their thriving trade networks. The Spice Route, active between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D., was a vital conduit for sharing commodities, ideologies, beliefs, and traditions. Middle Eastern traders, acting as cultural emissaries, significantly influenced Southeast Asia’s coastal regions. This cultural exchange deepened with the rise of Muslim traders, notably the Bugis and Malay, in the 18th century. Their wide-reaching trade networks amplified the spread of Islam and Arabian influence. Further, mid-18th century immigrants from Hadhramaut—a culturally rich region in Yemen—strengthened the Middle Eastern influence on Southeast Asia’s culture, introducing their distinct religious and cultural practices to the region (Shimada, 2019). 

Franz Boas’ Diffusion Theory sheds light on this cultural interplay. It suggests cultural traits can transfer from one society to another, rather than being solely indigenous. Coastal societies in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, Brunei, and Malaysia, didn’t just receive these traits passively. They adapted them to their social structures, a process fostered by ongoing contact with traders (Boas, 2015). Consequently, this didn’t just lead to the adoption of certain Middle Eastern customs or practices; it also led to a significant transformation in societal norms, ethical frameworks, and religious orientations. This widespread cultural diffusion effectively restructured the social fabric of these societies, setting the foundation for a cultural legacy that continues to shape their identity.

Another notable aspect of this cultural interchange is the adoption of Middle Eastern philosophies, particularly Islam, in Southeast Asia. The region was no stranger to foreign philosophies, with the teachings of Chinese Confucianism and Budhism, along with Indian Hinduism, already ingrained in various societies. Despite this, Islam carved out its niche within these coastal communities. Theory of Confirmation Bias might be a suitable explanation of this phenomenon. According to this theory, new information that aligns with existing beliefs or offers a simpler understanding is more readily assimilated (Draper & Nichols, 2013; Fernandes, 2023; Nickerson, 1998; Ruzzier & Woo, 2023). In this light, the straightforward socio-political tenets of Islam might have seemed less complex compared to the metaphysical nuances of Indian and Chinese philosophies. This could account for why Islam resonated so strongly with the local populace, leading to the establishment of numerous Sultanates in Southeast Asia.

Despite the significant cultural assimilation along the coastal regions, the transition was not without its complexities. As Islamic influences permeated the region, particularly in nations like Thailand, the inland areas witnessed protracted conflicts. The expansion of Islamic Sultanates into these territories often clashed with the existing non-Muslim kingdoms, causing wars that spanned centuries. A clear example is the intermittent conflicts between the Sultanate of Malacca, a prominent maritime Islamic kingdom in the 15th century, and the Kingdom of Ayutthaya in present-day Thailand. These disputes were not merely about territorial expansion but reflected deeper cultural differences and resistance against the adoption of Middle Eastern philosophies (Ann Kordas et al., 2022; Chris Quan, 2022; Joll, 2012).

These policies served as shields against cultural changes from the coast, helping these kingdoms retain their identities. Geography also played a role, protecting them from direct Middle Eastern influence. Today, this past is visible in their culture. For instance, Thailand remains Buddhist despite being between Muslim-majority Malaysia and Indonesia. Similarly, Cambodia, Laos, and parts of Vietnam have kept their unique blend of Theravada Buddhism and local traditions (Von Der Mehden, 1980). These kingdoms, fortified by their geopolitical locations, were somewhat insulated from the cultural changes sweeping the coastal areas, allowing them to preserve their unique identities. This divergence in cultural evolution has led to the coexistence of Islamic and non-Islamic traditions in Southeast Asia, a testament to the region’s diversity.

As the region evolved socio-politically, the Middle Eastern influence remained pervasive, shaping various aspects of Southeast Asian civilizations. However, the pace of cultural assimilation varied, slowing down as societies became more aware and proud of their unique identities. According to the study by Abramitzky et al. (2020), it is argued that the rate of cultural conversion nowadays are slower compared to the past decades. In modern times, while Southeast Asian nations actively engage in global dialogues, they still strive to maintain their distinct cultural identities. This would explain the reason of why at the present, the transformation of cultural and philosophical affinity is not prevalent as it was before the modern times.

The vibrant cultural realm of Southeast Asia, woven with threads of Middle Eastern influence, is an enduring testament to centuries-old trade networks and the spread of philosophies like Islam. Such exchanges have indelibly shaped Southeast Asia, from its coastal societies—altered by their interactions with traders—to its inland areas, which retained unique identities. Today, the region stands as a diverse meld of traditions, beliefs, and practices. Despite a slow-down in cultural assimilation due to modern times, this interconnected heritage continues to shape the area’s future. Thus, Southeast Asia’s narrative underscores the profound, transformative power of cultural exchange and the lasting bonds it forms, transcending both time and distance.

References

Abramitzky, R., Boustan, L., & Eriksson, K. (2020). Do Immigrants Assimilate More Slowly Today than in the Past? American Economic Review. Insights, 2(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1257/AERI.20190079

Ann Kordas, Ryan J. Lynch, Brooke Nelson, & Julie Tatlock. (2022). The Malacca Sultanate. In World History Volume 2, from 1400 (Vol. 2). OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/world-history-volume-2/pages/2-2-the-malacca-sultanate

Boas, F. (2015). The Diffusion of Cultural Traits. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 82(1), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1353/SOR.2015.0001

Chris Quan. (2022, November 2). Ayutthaya Kingdom. Asian Highlights. https://www.asiahighlights.com/thailand/ayutthaya-kingdom

Draper, P., & Nichols, R. (2013). Diagnosing Bias in Philosophy of Religion. The Monist, 96(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.5840/MONIST201396319

Fernandes, M. R. (2023). Confirmation bias in social networks. Mathematical Social Sciences, 123, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATHSOCSCI.2023.02.007

Joll, C. M. (2012). Indic, Islamic and Thai Influences. Muslim Merit-Making in Thailand’s Far-South, 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2485-3_2

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Ruzzier, C. A., & Woo, M. D. (2023). Discrimination with inaccurate beliefs and confirmation bias. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 210, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEBO.2023.04.018

Shimada, R. (2019). Southeast Asia and International Trade: Continuity and Change in Historical Perspective. 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3131-2_3

Von Der Mehden, F. R. (1980). Religion and development in South-east Asia: A comparative study. World Development, 8(7–8), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(80)90039-X