As a consequence Saudi Arabia and UAE have sought to re-calibrate relations with the United States. On the diplomatic and economic aspects of their security ties they are seeking to forge a more independent path – this by its nature requires diversification. Yet like Australia they suffer from the challenge of having China as their major trading partner and the United States as their major security partner. Unlike Australia though, they do not have the shared history, links, and liberal democratic values that make such a choice relatively straightforward. Abu Dhabi, in particular, hates the idea of having to choose.
The conflict in Ukraine has brought the issue to a head. Washington has sought to build a united front against Russia and to punish it economically via sanctions, diplomatically with isolation, and militarily through the provision of weapons and intelligence support to Ukraine. But the UAE abstained on a Security Council vote condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (although did change its vote when the issue came to the General Assembly). The Emirati foreign minister visited Moscow last week calling for a diplomatic solution to the fighting in Ukraine and said that he looked forward to “diversifying the areas of interdependence” between the citizens, institutions and governments of UAE and Russia. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has rebuffed US entreaties to increase oil production to keep domestic oil prices down in lieu of banned Russian oil imports.
These are relatively small divergences in the context of broader bilateral ties, although notable for once close partners. The United States can no longer assume diplomatic support from Saudi Arabia or UAE as a given. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed relationships that have been under pressure for some time.
Neither Saudi Arabia nor UAE are as reliant on the United States for weaponry as they used to be. Meanwhile, Russia and China are traditionally far less interested in domestic political considerations and end-user agreements for its weapons, so present as viable elements of a diversified security policy, even if the United States remains the preferred partner. Riyadh has undertaken a joint drone-making venture with Beijing and has reportedly had support from China to develop a missile capability. Abu Dhabi also recently announced a deal to buy Chinese jet trainers for its air force. And Russia is always keen to exploit opportunities for selling its equipment in the region.
Yet there are always costs to be kept in mind, particularly when diversification involves forging closer relationships with Washington’s rivals. The UAE’s plan to buy F-35 fighter jets from the United States has stalled, in part due to technology transfer concerns given Abu Dhabi’s relations with Beijing.
The White House is also aware that Vladimir Putin’s poorly conceived and executed invasion of Ukraine may give Abu Dhabi and Riyadh pause for thought. The invasion has shown the limitations of the Russian military after its small but successful intervention in Syria served to hide the poor state of its training and preparedness for broader conflict. The events over recent weeks should also raise questions about the Chinese military, having engaged in a significant build-up and modernisation but remaining operationally untested. Are either Russia or China really alternate security partners for the future?
Perhaps more importantly, the ability of Washington to assemble a largely united front of other Western liberal democracies to isolate Russia will have served as a wakeup call to some in the Middle East that while China may be an economic powerhouse, it isn’t capable of exhibiting the type of global security coalition-building that Washington can.
Security diversification is all well and good, as long as you don’t dilute your own security in the process.
Rodger Shanahan