Middle Eastern Monarchies

Ingroup Identity and Foreign Policy Making

Anna Sunik

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000164541
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The monograph explores the dynamics of ingroup identity in the foreign policy-making of Middle Eastern monarchies from the evolution of the regional system after the World Wars until the present. Utilising an innovative theoretical framework that combines Foreign Policy Analysis in the context of authoritarian regimes and Social Identity Theory, the book theorizes the origins and inner workings of a "monarchic peace" among hereditary regimes in the Middle East, including the Gulf monarchies as well as Jordan and Morocco.

While the phenomenon of the "democratic peace" is well established in political science, this book argues that like the examined "monarchic peace", it is, in fact, a sub-case of a broader Similar Political Systems Peace (SPSP). The theory posits that monarchies do not wage war against each other because they recognize each other as members of the same "ingroup" which allows for other mechanisms of conflict resolution – behaviour that is allowed against outsiders might be prohibited against members of the same club or "family". The theory is illustrated with numerous case studies that look at overall regional dynamics as well as four crucial cases of monarchic interstate conflict: Bahraini-Qatari relations, the Saudi-Hashemite rivalry, and the relations between Kuwait and Iraq and Iran and the UAE.

This in-depth account of the foreign policies and community, connecting Middle Eastern monarchies will be of interest to readers in international relations, authoritarianism studies, Middle East and Persian Gulf politics.

1 Introduction

Explaining the dynamics of “monarchic peace”

Almost half a century ago, Huntington seemed convinced that authoritarian monarchies were a thing of the past, claiming that the “future of the existing traditional monarchies is bleak…. The key questions concern simply the scope of the violence of their demise and who wields the violence” (Huntington 1968, 191). The “king’s dilemma” (cf. also: Huntington 1966) became the new paradigm in authoritarianism research: the monarch’s choice was only between increasing repression or increasing irrelevance. Huntington’s quote embodies the sentiment that the word “monarchy” often invokes to this day – “an anachronism in the modern world of nations” (Hudson 1977, 166) that is likely to disappear soon. In light of waves of democratization and the founding of new states as republics, they seem to be relics of the “zeitgeist of an earlier era” (Maddy-Weizmann 2000, 37). Such an ancient and obsolete form of government may seem a fitting topic for historians and nostalgic audiences but hardly relevant to the politics of the modern world in the 21st century.

Yet this peculiar type of political system has survived in one region in particular: the Middle East and North Africa, the home of eight of about 15 remaining authoritarian monarchies worldwide (Friske 2008). In this region, almost half of all states are monarchies – from Morocco in the utmost west of North Africa to Oman on the Persian Gulf in the east.

The transformation of the region following the Arab Spring has reignited popular and scholarly interest in this group of states, because they proved remarkably resilient in contrast to their republican neighbors. No monarch was overthrown amid the disturbances that brought down four (or five, including both regime changes in Egypt) presidents, with another one fighting in a vicious civil war in Syria to conserve his rule.

While scholars have focused on the monarchies’ seemingly unique resilience, they have so far overlooked an even-more-puzzling feature of monarchic foreign policy: monarchies in the Middle East do not wage war against each other. However, they sometimes go to war against other types of states. These patterns mirror those found in the foreign policy of a different group of political systems: democracies.

How can the fact that there has not been a single case of interstate war between monarchies in a region so highly accustomed to military conflict be explained? After all, the Middle East witnessed 11 major interstate wars since 1948, and monarchies have always formed a large share of all states–even the majority until the 1960s.

This book argues that this monarchic peace has the same explanation as the democratic peace: similar political systems do not go to war against each other. Instead of a peculiar democratic or monarchic pacifism, it is that when weighing their choices on war and peace, an important part of the calculation of states is who their counterpart is and whether it is part of their ingroup or an outsider. The rules on conflict management inside an ingroup differ strongly from rules toward those on the outside. The foreign policy patterns of Middle East monarchies help uncover this similar political systems peace (abbreviated here as SPSP) that trumps monarchism and democracy alike.

1.1 The empirical puzzle: are monarchies more peaceful?

What are the patterns of monarchic foreign policy? The first indications of monarchic idiosyncrasies can be discerned in descriptive statistical data on interstate war on the global level.

Table 1.1 summarizes some of the more interesting patterns relating to war and conflict internationally that seem to distinguish monarchies and republics. For instance, in relation to republics, monarchies are proportionally less involved in wars globally (“Participation”) and are less likely to initiate wars (“Initiation”) or even merely participate in them on the side of the aggressor (“Initiator party”). Much more significantly, however, after World War II, there has not been a single case of a war where monarchies fought against each other (“Intragroup war”).

Table 1.1 Monarchies and Participation in International Wars Since 1945¹

Out of 38 interstate wars	Participation	Initiation	Initiator party	Intragroup war	Share of all states
Monarchy	6 (15.7%)	2 (5.2%)	4 (10.5%)	0 (0%)	~10%–20%
Republic	38 (100%)	36 (94.7%)	37 (97.4%)	36 (94.7%)	~80%–90%

1 “Participation” indicates the number and share of interstate wars in which monarchies participated out of all 38 interstate wars in the correlates of war (CoW) data set between 1945 and 2003 (Sarkees and Wayman 2010; Stinnett et al. 2002). “Initiation” refers to the number and share of interstate wars in which a monarchy/republic was the initiator. “Initiator party” lists the number and share of interstate wars in which monarchies/republics participated on the side of the war initiator. “Intragroup war” refers to the number and share of intra-monarchic/intra-republican war. Of the two wars when a republic did not fight a fellow republic, one is the Falkland War, thus referring to the democratic UK. Excluding democratic monarchies (that are outside of the scope conditions of this book) would thus again further strengthen the existing tendency. “Share of all states” refers to the share of monarchies/republics out of all existent states. Due to the increase in the number of states and regime changes during the time scope of the data set (1945–2003), only a rough average share of monarchies/republics is noted in this table. The asymmetric distribution of especially war initiation and intragroup war is nonetheless evident.

Since the Second World War, monarchies formed about 10%–20% of all states (Geddes, Wright, and Frantz 2011, 12–14)¹ and thus seem to be underrepresented concerning war involvement and initiation. Surprisingly, in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, an especially conflict-ridden place, where monarchies accounted for two-thirds to slightly less than half all states,² we find the same tendency even reinforced.

Table 1.2 shows a more detailed breakdown of interstate wars, this time only for the Middle East. The overview shows additional hints of a monarchy–republic gap. Middle East monarchies appear less likely in general to initiate or support the initiator of a war, or even to merely participate in an interstate war compared to republics and their share of states in the region.

The only outlier was the Gulf War 1990–2001, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein attacked and occupied Kuwait, a monarchy. At that time, four monarchies (Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE) participated for the first and only time (together with two more experienced others) in a war, uniting almost all monarchies in the region to liberate their fellow monarchy. Two other monarchies (Egypt and Iraq in their monarchic periods)³ also only participated in a war once, while the same is true for just three republics: Iran, Lebanon, and Libya (Lebanon, however, was embroiled in an intense civil war for 15 years). Libya, North Yemen, and Iran (in their monarchic periods) and Bahrain, four monarchies altogether, have not participated in an international war since 1945, a balance only three republics (Algeria, Tunisia, and South Yemen) can produce (two of which once again were preoccupied with civil or colonial war during a large part of their existence). Republics are overrepresented in most of the relevant categories concerning war, although because of the rarity of war, these differences are not statistically significant.

Table 1.2 MENA Wars and Monarchy Involvement 1945–2003¹

Total 11 interstate wars		Monarchy		Republic
Arab-Israeli War 1948 Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria	Participation/overall^2 Initiation/initiator ally Share	50%/50% Yes (Jordan)/50% 66.7% (6 out of 9)		50%/100% No /33.3% 33.3% (3 out of 9)
Suez War 1956 Egypt, FR, Israel, UK	Participation/overall Initiation/initiator ally Share	0%/0% No/0% 58.3% (7 out of 12)		100%/16.7% Yes/100% 41.7% (5 out of 12)
Ifni War 1957–1958 FR, Morocco, ES	Participation/overall Initiation/initiator ally Share	33.3%/14.3% Yes/33.3% 58.3% (7 out of 12)		66,7%/0% No/0% 41.7% (5 out of 12)
Six-Day War 1967 Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria	Participation/overall Initiation/initiator ally Share	25%/16.7% No/0% 42.8% (6 out of 14)		75%/37.5% Yes/25% 57% (8 out of 14)
War of Attrition 1969–1970 Egypt, Israel	Participation/overall Initiation/initiator ally Share	0%/0% No/0% 40% (6 out of 15)		100%/22.2% Yes/50% 60% (9 out of 15)
Yom Kippur War 1973 Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria, K...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of tables and figures
• List of abbreviations and glossary
• 1 Introduction: explaining the dynamics of “monarchic peace”
• 2 Moving beyond democratic exceptionalism: the peace among similar political systems
• 3 Middle East monarchies from the Arab Cold War to the Arab Spring
• 4 When monarchies collide: case studies of “near misses” of monarchic war
• 5 From monarchy to republic – from peace to war?: “Quasi-experiments” of collapsed monarchic couples
• 6 The limits of SPSP: deviant cases?
• 7 Conclusion: toward a peace among similar political systems
• Index