Saudi arabia

The rise of Qatar has been one of the most remarkable developments in the recent history of the Middle East. How this small, oil-rich Gulf state built Al Jazeera and parleyed the TV station's influence into a diplomatic role across the region is an insufficiently explored issue. The list of the monarchy's achievements is impressive, even putting aside how they secured the football World Cup for 2022. Qatari diplomats have mediated in Lebanon, helped rejuvenate the Arab League, led condemnation of Bashir al-Assad and joined the fight against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi. In a way, Qatar has become one of the region's lynchpins, second only to Saudi Arabia as the West's go-to country.

Following on from Daniel’s post this morning about a more inward looking America, Daniel Yergin has a very interesting essay in the Washington Post about how the changing balance of the US’s energy supplies are going to change its geo-strategic priorities. Yergin makes the point that by 2020, Canada could be a bigger oil producer than Iran and Brazil could be producing more than half of what Saudi Arabia is currently pumping out. Put these developments together with increased domestic energy production in the States itself and the fact that China is on its way to overtaking the US as the world’s largest oil consumer, and the geo-politics of energy begins to look very different.

Since last week’s attack on Yemen’s President Saleh and his subsequent flight, Sana’a has been on the cusp of anarchy. Perhaps as many 400 people were killed in riots last week and the killing continues. Western diplomatic services fear for the safety of their citizens in Yemen. The MoD has been preparing contingencies. Forces and materiel deployed in the Libya are moving east. Two fleet auxiliary ships, equipped with helicopters and landing craft, and 80 Royal Marines have been stationed off the Yemeni coast. Should the 800 or so British nationals in Yemen need to be evacuated, the marines will secure a bridgehead. A further detachment, currently on exercises in Albania, is poised to join the task force.

The Bahraini regime will not yield peaceably before protest, as Hosni Mubarak did. This morning, Bahraini police opened fire on demonstrators with live rounds; four people were killed. There were also reports that Saudi Arabian troops were involved, which would mark a clear change in the Arab establishment's tactics following Mubarak's fall. In the uncertain atmosphere, Twitter resounded to claims that Shiites were seeking reprisals and that the military was ‘taking control of parts of the capital’. The agony of choice: a military coup or a religious massacre?   This morning's news has forced Western powers to drop their hesitant approach.

When in power, authoritarian regimes can look immovable - even when, in hindsight, they turn out to have been brittle. This seems to have been the case with Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's Tunisian regime. Weeks ago, nobody would have believed that the Tunisian strongman, who has held power for more than 23 years, could have been chased from office so quickly. A diplomat friend who served in Tunis marvelled at the dictatorship, where information was so restricted that he depended on information from colleagues stationed elsewhere in the region. Ben Ali's rule was apparently total; the opposition was comprehensively suppressed and the population had little scope for expression or assembly.

Like everyone else, I have poured over the latest cache of Wikileaks - the publication of which I find irresponsible and destructive. There are several pieces of information now in the public domain that will cause the US diplomatic embarrassment or worse may even help the regimes in Tehran, Pyongyang and Moscow. Just ask yourself a few questions. Will the West be safer if the Saudi leader cannot trust that a conversation he has with a US envoy will remain secret? Will that help or hinder Iran's nuclear prpgramme? Will US-German links be improved by the knowledge that US diplomats are sceptical of Angela Merkel's policies? Will that aid G20 coordination or hamper it?

All eminent barristers have their specialism, Lord Goldsmith’s is changing his mind. Scholarly integrity is to blame – he likes to give both sides of the argument. His two thrillingly different Iraq war advices are, of course, his crowning achievement; but he’s playing devil’s advocate again today. He writes in the Guardian: ‘I applaud Richard Alderman, director of the Serious Fraud Office for his vigour in pursuing corruption cases in Africa and eastern Europe against BAE. Reports are that he had put an ultimatum to BAE to reach a plea agreement or suffer the full weight of prosecutions. He is right to do so.’ Now, the general sentiment expressed is somewhat at variance with his position on the BAE/al-Yamamah scandal in.