1 Örebro University
School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences Political science
Abrahamic brothers – for better and for worse?
A qualitative study of the ideas in the Abraham accords
Political science, Second Cycle
Independent project, 30 credits, 2021
Author: William Kihlberg
2
Abstract
A normalization agreement between Israel and Bahrain became the starting point for a number of accords to be signed, promoting peace, normalization and cooperation – all based upon the idea of the prophet Abraham being the common ancestor of Jews and Muslims. Since then, United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan has joined the Abraham accords as well. But upon what grounds is this peace plan based? Which ideas are presented, how can we interpret them, and what role does the mediator play? Most of all, how is the concepts trust, security and cooperation presented?
With the help of a qualitative text analysis investigating ideas and ideological content, this thesis analyses the ideas of Abraham accords from two different theoretical perspectives – neorealism and commercial liberalism. The peace treaties that Israel signed with Egypt in 1979, and with Jordan in 1994, are subject to the same analysis, which allows a comparison between the agreements.
The results show that even though many of the ideas in the Abraham accords are similar to those presented in the peace treaties, there seem to be a stronger commercial liberalist influence in the former. The role of the mediator is also stronger in the Abraham accords, where the earlier peace treaties rely more upon international law and security council resolutions. Even though trust, security and cooperation appear to be important in all the agreements, the views and methods seem to differ.
3 Index Abstract ... 2 1. Background ... 5 2. Introduction ... 6 2.1 Introduction ... 6 2.2 Research problem ... 7
3. Purpose and research questions ... 7
4. Literature review ... 8
4.1 Purpose and process ... 8
4.2 Abraham accords ... 9
4.3 Peace and normalization in the Middle East ... 9
4.4 The American role ... 12
5. Theoretical approach ... 13
5.1 Liberalism and realism ... 13
5.2 Neorealism... 14
5.3 Commercial liberalism ... 15
5.4 Neorealist and commercial liberalist views on the concepts of trust, cooperation and security . 16 5.4.1 Neorealist views on trust, cooperation and security ... 16
5.4.2 Commercial liberalist views on trust, cooperation and security ... 17
6. Method ... 18
6.1 Qualitative analysis of ideas and ideological content ... 18
6.2 How to execute the study ... 21
6.3 Methodological discussion ... 22
6.4 Empirical material and limitations ... 23
7. Results ... 24
7.1 The Abraham accords declaration ... 24
7.2 Israel-Bahrain agreement... 27
7.3 Israel-Morocco agreement ... 30
7.4 Israel-UAE agreement ... 32
7.5 Sudan ... 38
7.6 Israel- Egypt peace treaty ... 40
7.7 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty ... 42
8. Analysis ... 47
8.1 Comparing the Abraham accords and the peace treaties ... 47
4
8.3 Cooperation ... 53
8.4 Security ... 55
9. Conclusion and discussion ... 56
9.1 Conclusion ... 56
9.2 Discussion ... 58
References ... 60
5
1. Background
Since the exclamation of the state of Israel in 1947, they have only been able to reach two peace deals: With Egypt in 1979 (BBC, 1979) and with Jordan in 1994 (Haberman, 1994). Now Israel have signed four normalization agreements in less than six months. An agreement with Bahrain was followed by United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan. USA has acted as mediator in all cases. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
International conflicts have had a major impact on the area for thousands of years, and any attempt to do a complete description of what has led up to the current situation would, without any doubt, be an impossible task. The influence that the “Sykes-Picot line”, the deal between the British diplomat and colonel Sir Mark Sykes and his French colleague Francois Georges-Picot, has had is one way of looking at it. It was a plan to split the Middle east into two spheres of influence after World War I, in case the Triple Entent conquered the Ottoman Empire. They drew a line on a map, which affected the way we look at the area today. Before that, the Middle East did not consist of states as we know it. But this way of viewing the situation is far from the only one – and probably not sufficient on its own. (Marshall, 2018)
Looking at the perspective of the establishment of the state of Israel is another way. Jews have lived in the area that today is Israel for thousands of years, but have – because of numerous reasons – spread out all over the world throughout history. In 1948, when the state of Israel was recognized, Arabic Muslims and Christians had been in majority for over a thousand years. The founding of the Israel led to Palestinian refugees in neighbouring countries in the Middle East, which has also led to countries like Egypt, Syria and Jordan, being hesitant in their support for the founding of a Palestinian state. (Marshall, 2018)
The Six-day war in 1967 redrew the map once again as Israel took control over Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, of which the later one they left in 2005. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has maybe been the major interest in the Middle East for a long time. Not only for the people and politicians in the area, but also from the West. However, that situation is starting to change as Iran is posing as a bigger threat to the entire area with nuclear facilities, a fear that is shared by states that used to be enemies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Matters such as the Kurdish aim to form a state, the Turkish president Erdogan’s change of direction, the Syrian civil war and American and Russian involvement are also factors that makes the situation in the area more complicated than a bilateral conflict. (Marshall, 2018)
6 The Abraham accords is the first establishment of diplomatic connections between the
involved states. It also reckons as the recognition of Israel by Sudan, Morocco, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates – something that those countries formerly had not gone through with. (Lee, 2020)
The deals have also been criticised from Palestinian direction, and described as a betrayal against a “longstanding consensus in the Arab world” that there should be an independent Palestinian state before establishing relations with Israel. (Associated Press, 2020)
Jared Kushner, who acted as senior advisor for the American president Donald Trump, has had a role as negotiator in the Abraham accords (Holland, 2021). In total, there are five signed treaties connected to the accords: One general declaration, and one for each country that accedes to the deal – in many cases with further obligations, individual for each bilateral deal. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
2. Introduction
2.1 Introduction“In this spirit, we warmly welcome and are encouraged by the progress already made in establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbours in the region under the principles of the Abraham Accords. We are encouraged by the ongoing efforts to consolidate
and expand such friendly relations based on shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future.”
(“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 8th paragraph) The quote above is from the general declaration of the Abraham accords, signed 15th of September 2020. The words are preceded by several goals and wishes that they hope the accords will make possible. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
In September 2020, Israel and Bahrain signed the first treaty of the Abraham Accords (Plett-Usher, 2020), a declaration of peace, cooperation and constructive diplomatic and friendly relations between the two countries. During the autumn and winter 2020, United Arab
Emirates, Morocco and Sudan joined the accords. (U.S. Department of State, 2020) The name “Abraham accords” was given to emphasise the belief in the prophet Abraham as religious ancestor, a belief shared by both Jews and Muslims. (Tamhizian Meuze, 2020)
Of what ideas does these documents, which seemed to arise out of nowhere in such complex areas as the Middle East and Northern Africa, consist? By analysing the official documents of
7 the Abraham Accords, this thesis will investigate the ideas of trust, security and cooperation, and how these concepts are displayed and discussed in the accords, along with the role of USA as a mediator. This study will also be looking at the former peace treaties Israel has signed, as a comparison to the latest treaties.
I will be using one realist and one liberalist approach as my theoretical framework, which will allow an analysis based on two perspectives, as well as a discussion on what kind of peace makers the involved policy makers are. Can the accords be described as the result of a shift in a bipolar environment, or do they act out of economic self-interest with a willingness to maximize the profit? And is the role of the mediator traceable in the accords through the eyes of any theoretical framework? The theories will also provide a way to view the concepts of trust, security and cooperation, as these are the key ideas that are to be investigated.
Previous research show that the liberalist approach within peace-making in the Middle East has only led to a cold peace (Miller, 2010). And even though there are former successful peace treaties, there may be reasons to discuss if the regular citizen can look away from years of conflict and be cooperative once the deal is signed. What might we expect from the
Abraham accords? A question like that can only be answered with the passing of time, but this study may give us some insight into which approach that is viewed as the best to create peace between sworn enemies in the Middle East – and whether that course of action has changed or not.
2.2 Research problem
The research problem that this study is aiming to investigate is the factors that has made normalization of relationships possible in this area, at least according to what is written in the Abraham accords. Most of all, the usage and perception of trust, security and cooperation is of interest. The same applies to the views of the mediator role, and the analysis concerning the existing peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan. Hopefully, this can give us an opportunity to investigate the policy makers views on how we are able to form normal relationships between nations in conflict.
3. Purpose and research questions
The purpose of this study is to investigate ideas and how trust, security, cooperation and the role of the mediator is displayed in the Abraham accords, and to compare the findings with the peace deals Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan.
8 This will be investigated with help of the following research questions:
How does the Abraham accords display the concepts of trust, security, cooperation and the role of the involved mediator, and how does that differ from the Israeli/Egyptian deal in 1979, and the Israeli/Jordanian deal in 1994?
Which ideas does the Abraham accords present, and how does that differ from the Israeli/Egyptian deal in 1979, and the Israeli/Jordanian deal in 1994?
4. Literature review
4.1 Purpose and processWith this literature review, my ambition is to provide a part of the current state of research concerning peace processes – successful and unsuccessful, ongoing and from the past – in the Middle East. Focus in on research that is empirically alike this thesis. The literature review shows how different events can change the power balance in different parts of the Middle East, how normalization processes can work, how previous peace treaties have affected – and not affected – relationships, and how American foreign policy might affect the Middle East. We also find one study concerning the Abraham accords directly. However, this is one of the weaknesses in this literature review. As mentioned, there have not been enough time since the signing of the accords for research to be published in a wider scale, and therefore, the
literature review lacks research concerning this area. This is the research gap I am aiming to contribute to filling with this study. More literature concerning the power relations in the Middle East could always be added, but it is close to impossible to give a complete picture of the scientific views of the area. With the help of my systematic literature search, I have been aiming to bring in as many perspectives as possible – but it can never be complete.
I have conducted the literature search in a systematic way, in accordance with the factors presented in A1 of the appendix. I have worked with three shorter search strings. This has been supplemented by a snowball method, where I include relevant references in the articles found in my literature review. The search strings are based upon three major interests that I would like the literature review to discuss. We have the American role as a mediator in the Middle East, we have the Abraham accords themselves, and we have peace treaties or normalization processes in the Middle East. These three areas will guide the structure of this literature review.
9 4.2 Abraham accords
Since the first document linked to the Abraham accords was not signed until the autumn of 2020, and therefore is quite a new phenomenon, not much research has been conducted linked to this specific process. However, Güney and Korkmaz (2021) has investigated what they call the “new cold war of the Middle East”, and what the Abraham accords has had for a
consequence for the security and power balance in the region. According to the authors, a new cold war has risen between USA, China and Russia. With that comes the forming of axes of alliances in the Middle East, where the Abraham accords are described as the third axis. (Güney and Korkmaz, 2021)
The authors talk about the importance of connectivity in the Middle East such as gas pipelines, electric and internet cables, water pipelines, and commercial sea transportation from East to West. The American involvement in the accords is described as an American attempt of taking control of the connectivity, by reshaping the geopolitics in the area. It is stated that this is the beginning of a new era of peace in the Middle East. However, they say that it cannot be viewed as a complete peace deal, since the Israel-Palestine conflict is not brought up, along with two of the states in the accords never being engaged in any direct conflict with Israel. Also, it is said that Israel seems to be shifting focus towards new Arab states to ally with, compared to former strategies. It is also described as a way for USA to regain hegemony in the area. One major conclusion is that several states in the region are left out, which creates a risk of polarization. (Güney and Korkmaz, 2021)
4.3 Peace and normalization in the Middle East
If we want to investigate the consequences of peace treaties in this area, we may examine research dealing with former successful peace negotiations. That allows us to get an idea on how similar processes has developed, and what happened afterwards. Research investigating the treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994 seek to find what have happened with the policy entrepreneurship since the treaty was signed, with the help of interviews with people in the area. They find that cross-border cooperation has not yet been fully legitimized. Most initiatives are private and made in the interest of maximizing self-dividends. Even though there are a lot of cooperation at state level, this does not concern policy making and entrepreneurship between the countries. (Arieli and Cohen, 2013)
One reason for the lack of development in cooperation between the countries is said to be a mistrust that has been built up over a long time of conflict between the states. Also, Israelis are claimed to be the more profitable side of bilateral affairs, and the Jordanians therefore has
10 less interest in developing such a relationship. They are not initiating, they are just
responding, as the authors claim. (Arieli and Cohen, 2013)
The peace deal between Israel and Jordan has also been subject to trial by the foreign policy of the Trump administration, according to Köprülü (2021). He claims that the American actions in the Israel-Palestine conflict in later years has changed the situation between Israel and Jordan from 25 years of warm peace, into becoming a cold peace. One of the reasons being that Jordan may be viewed as a potential second homeland for the Palestinians. (Köprülü, 2021)
However, unlike the treaties in 1973 and 1994, the Abraham accords are not presented as peace treaties, but normalization agreements (U.S. Department of State, 2020). Biegon (2020) investigates the normalization process that was initiated between USA and Cuba during the Barack Obama administration, which might give us an insight into American foreign policy concerning normalization. He claims that the normalization policy presented by Obama was somewhat reversed by Donald Trump, as he became more reverse in his approach towards Cuba and Latin America. He opposes against what he calls the “emerging scholarly
proposition” that American international relations have crossed a “posthegemonic threshold”. Instead, he suggests that the American policy against Cuba is a representation of a “strategic shift in a broader process of hegemonic reconstitution”. (Biegon, 2020)
Israel also has earlier experience from normalization agreements, such as one with India – a far from uncomplicated relationship. After voting against the foundation in Israel in 1947, India recognized the state in 1950. However, they kept declining diplomatic normalizations with Israel for 40 years. India was dealing with a Muslim population, relations with Arabic countries and great-power politics, which made the process complicated. The real diplomatic normalization came in 1992 and has led to arms trade and cooperation in counter terrorism. Now Israel is India’s third largest weapon supplier, and they cooperate in areas such as development and innovation. Still, this has not led to full acceptance of the state of Israel within the Indian population. A major reason is the Muslim population’s views of Israel as an occupier and human rights violator. The relationship is, however, developing and has become important for India, mainly from a military point of view. Further cooperation might lead to public acceptance of the relations. (Roy, 2019)
We are actually able to follow up on this from another angle. Kumaraswamy (2020) asks the question whether normalization has changed anything between Israel and India or not. He
11 presents a frequently used quote in Indian foreign policy, where Mahatma Gandhi in 1938 said that “Palestine belongs to the Arabs”. This has affected the Indian way of perceiving Israel. His conclusion is that the quote has not lost its relevance in India, even though the policy towards Israel has changed since 1992. The words are often used today as well, and Kumaraswamy says that Gandhi’s words and the deal from 1992 “operate independently and in a disjointed fashion”. (Kumaraswamy, 2020)
We have more examples of external circumstances that can either complicate or improve bi-literal relationships. Goren (2012) and Ataman (2012) are two examples of that. Goren (2012) analyses the Israeli discourse connected to the Arabic spring. As Turkey took an active part in the process concerning the uprisings, Israel was more passive, which harmed the possible budding improvement in the relationship between the countries. (Goren, 2012)
Ataman (2012), on the other hand, find that the uprisings helped to improve the relationships between Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Both countries were supportive of the new Islamic groups that aimed for governing the newly liberated areas. This common interest improved their relationship. So did the common grounds of good contacts with the western world and the fact that Iran was a common enemy. Even though there were differences in their regional policies, the factors above brought the countries closer together. (Ataman, 2012)
Fürtig (ed. 2014) hands us another perspective on the power balance in the Middle East, in connection to the same uprisings. In the first chapter, written by Martin Beck (2014), we learn that when discussing regional powers in the Middle East, there are no such thing. There are only potential regional powers, and the only real one is USA. He argues that the states with the most power capabilities in the area are Iraq in the 1980’s, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. (Beck, 2014)
Since Israel is the only one of the states involved in all of the Abraham accords, I would like to focus in on that chapter from Fürtig (ed. 2014) – written by Kappel (2014). He states that Israel would not be able to manage the regional order in the role of a regional power.
However, from an economic perspective they seem to be a potential regional power. He also claims that Israel in one of few stabilizers in the region, but that they do not, and are not, capable of seeking the role as a regional leader. (Kappel, 2014)
Another important actor in the area, though not a part of the Abraham accords, is Iran. Mousavian and Chitsazian (2020) analyses the role that Iran plays in the Middle East. Since the Islamic revolution, they state, Iran has had two parallel strategies. By cooperating with
12 Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Hashd al‐Shaabi, they seek to expand their influence. At the same time, they must balance their enemies. Here, USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel is mentioned. They do so by internal and external capabilities, such as missile arsenals and drones. (Mousavian and Chitsazian, 2020)
4.4 The American role
One of the things that are to be investigated in this thesis is the presence and role of USA. We can, however, not yet say what the consequences for foreign policy will be with Joe Biden replacing Donald Trump as president. But we might find some suggestions in Alzawawy (2021) who, through analysis of content of Biden’s speeches and rhetoric, is trying to predict what his foreign policy plan is. He claims that there might be a strong domestic focus at first, and that the Middle East might not be Biden’s primary focus in foreign policy. If he threatens Turkey with economic sanctions, which is expected, that might lead to a grand re-shaping of alliances in the Middle East for years to come, Alzawawy writes. At the same time, USA should have an interest in maintaining their power in the region, as the Middle East has become of greater interest for Russia. (Alzawawy, 2021)
Something that might also have changed the power balance in the area is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more widely known as the Nuclear Deal. Even though, according to Kahan (2016), it could fill its purpose of disarming the Iranian nuclear ambition, it might also decrease the sense of security in the Gulf states. Kahan concludes by saying that USA needs to make security assurances towards the Gulf states, which are important allies. And the Gulf states must find these assurances as politically binding as possible. (Kahan, 2016)
So what about the relationships between the Gulf states and Israel? Guzansky (2015) detects a shift in how the Gulf states consider the relationship to Israel, and it is not an uncomplicated affair. Factors that affect the relationship, and that the Gulf states need to balance between, is their position in the Arab world, the public, often hostile, relationship with Israel, fundamental religiosity – and now, the balance between supporting Palestine, and the maintenance of a “tacit relationship” with Israel because of the common enemy Iran. Guzansky argues that this might open for an improved relationship between Israel and the Gulf, even though the
challenges and factors that could prevent such an improvement are many. He also argues that is could influence the Israeli-Palestinian situation, as it might – possibly with the Gulf
13 though Israeli policy makers appear hesitant towards a uniform GCC policy, the situation with Iran poses a strong argument for closer cooperation. (Guzansky, 2015)
5. Theoretical approach
5.1 Liberalism and realismFor this study, I am using a combination of the liberalist and the realist approach as the theoretical starting point. That is because I want to investigate the matter from two different perspectives, with the possibility of finding two possible explanations or ways of looking at the issue as a whole, and at the concepts trust, cooperation and security, which will be central in the analysis. (Williams and McDonald, 2018)
Liberalism can be traces back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant. With his pamphlet Perceptual Peace, he presented a peace plan which may very well be viewed as the first contribution to the liberal paradigm. Kant emphasizes the importance of republican
constitution within peace making. The area has then been elaborated throughout the years and consists of several paradigms. Kant refuted the idea that power balance would act as a
peacekeeper, which was a point of view which separated him from the realist approach. Kant viewed the republican state as a model for a good state, even as the only justifiable form of government. The republican state abided laws, no matter the power you possessed, and acted as peace producers in the world. According to the Kantian liberalism, trade was something that could cause conflicts. Other paradigms, such as commercial liberalism, opposes strongly to that point of view. The state itself, however, is not viewed as an actor within liberalism. Instead, it is a subject which is affected by capture, recapture, construction and reconstruction by “coalitions of social actors”. (Williams and McDonald, 2018)
The debate between realists and liberalists escalated after World War II. Up until the war, liberalism seems to have been the dominating power within security studies. But the
publication of The Twenty Year’s crisis, by Edward Hallet Carr, would act as the birth point of classical realism. The publication was then followed up by several works developing and investigating realism, and as it often stands in sharp contrast to the liberalist approaches, a divide between the two major paradigms has become a natural consequence. The realist approach has had an enormous impact on security studies. Focus lies on power, fear and anarchy to explain events such as armed conflict and war. Even though there are differences within the several existing paradigms of realism, more or less all realists agree that the
14 patterns. They talk about a flawed human nature or an anarchic international system as the driving force of state behaviour. There is a somewhat pessimistic view within realism. (Williams and McDonald, 2018)
Conflicts and peace negotiations may very well be viewed from one or both perspectives, something Miller (2010) embraces. He argues that the shift from realism to liberalism is the foundation for conflict resolution. The realist approach led to what he calls a “cold peace” in Europe, a problem solved by the embracing of the liberalist approach. On the other hand, he describes a contrasting situation in the Middle East, where the realist approaches entered the stage after the Yom Kippur-war in 1973. After the Cold war and the Gulf war in 1991, realism approached on a broader level in the area. He concludes by stating that, even though liberal approaches have been tried out even in the Middle East, the necessary conditions for such a solution are missing today. This has led only to a cold peace in the area, which can only partially be explained by the fact that the realist mechanisms are relatively weaker, compared to the Cold war Europe. (Miller, 2010)
5.2 Neorealism
As stated earlier, there are several paradigms within the two approaches. For the sake of clarity, this study is going to focus on one realist and one liberalist approach. When it comes to realism, this study will focus on the neorealist approach. It was first presented in 1979 by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics, and differs from the classical realism in many ways. (Williams and McDonald, 2018) Waltz found a repetitive pattern in international politics, where the same tragic events seemed to happen repeatedly, even if there were
considerable differences in domestic political systems and national history. Neorealism is therefore a way to explain how systems with different structures seem to end up with the same outcome. (Waltz, 1979)
For neorealists, political structures can be described as the result of three different elements: Either the anarchic or the hierarchical ordering principle, functionally alike or differentiated units, and the character of the units. The international system is described as consisting of poles. The multipolar system is described as less stable than the bipolar systems. Hegemony by a single part, however, is described as unlikely or impossible. Neorealists also view international politics as tragic, rather than the result of aggressive behaviour from revisionist states. Unintended consequences and nonlinear relationships matter a great deal within international politics. The behaviour of one or several state’s actions, and the direct
15 consequences of those, is not necessarily the most important factor. Unintended outcomes and consequences matter too. (Waltz, 1979)
Palmer and Morgan (2007) describes neorealism as a theory defined by simplicity. They compare that to their own two-good theory and finds that the simplicity is the only advantage neorealism has on the TGT. They claim that the views of neorealism have lacking empirical support, and that it does not allow us to draw any complex conclusions. The simplicity, they say, leads to few generated hypotheses, and that the hypotheses presented are badly
supported. (Palmer and Morgan, 2007)
Freire (2019), however, says that neorealism was never presented as a deterministic theory, and therefore much of the critique aimed towards the approach is flawed. He states that there are two common types of critique against neorealism: those who opposes on the grounds of situations where neorealist predictions concerning balance did not occur, and those who opposes strong claims against structural features. But since Freire claims that the
interpretation of neorealism being deterministic theory is false, his conclusion is that this critique comes up short. (Freire, 2019)
5.3 Commercial liberalism
Within the liberal theory, I will be using the douce commerce, or commercial liberalist, approach. Within this perspective, economic incentives play a big role. Just as stated earlier, that separates the paradigm from Immanuel Kant’s “original” liberalism, which found trade to be a possible threat towards peace. The focus in commercial liberalism lies upon opportunities of trans-border economic transactions and what incentives that creates. The strict economic perspective of commercial liberalism claims that freedom of trade and less mercantilism would benefit all involved actors, and has been argued for by economists as Adam Smith and David Hume. From an international relationships point of view this will, by extension, lead to a civilization of a nation’s citizens, peaceful coexistence and it would incline nations to peace, according to physiocrats that believes in commercial liberalism. (Williams and McDonald, 2018)
The importance for economic freedom when it comes to peace processes origins from at least two reasons: Unstable free markets might frighten possible investors and affect economic conditions on a domestic level. This, along with outflow of capital, is often associated with the usage of force abroad. The second reason is that occupation of foreign territory is less
16 likely when a country’s economy is based upon intellectual and financial capital. (Gartzke, 2005)
Commercial liberalism has also been subject for criticism. As we will see later, there is doubt in whether or not a smaller state would trust a stronger one, which is more likely to benefit from economic cooperation. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) Schneider (2014) argues that
commercial liberalism mainly relies upon opportunity costs arguments. He also says that it does not provide any explanation to why capitalist economies will lead to more peaceful interactions. He argues that economic liberalism should separate level- and change-effects of globalization and capitalism (Schneider, 2014) McDonald (2004) opposes against this description and claims that free trade, instead of just trade, has an important role in peace-making. Among other factors, he argues that protective barriers benefit the domestic power for groups in society that is more likely to support war. He also refers to statistical tests, which demonstrates that higher levels of free trade reduces military conflict between states. (McDonald, 2004)
5.4 Neorealist and commercial liberalist views on the concepts of trust, cooperation and security
5.4.1 Neorealist views on trust, cooperation and security
When it comes to neorealism and trust, we can learn a lot from Waltz (1979) discussion concerning interdependence and integration. He talks about how the political significance differs whether the “realm” is organized or formally unorganized. In an organized society, interdependence, and thereby trust, is built upon a system where parties can specialize and pursue their own interests. It is viewed as a good and wished for development, and to break the bond to another part might be very costly for the one breaking it. The difference in tasks and specialities makes persons and institutions depend on each other. Consequently, in the unorganized state or system, this interdependence does not work. The pursuing of self-interest cannot be trusted. Self-help systems worry about their own survival and, as Waltz put it, “they are compelled to ask not ‘Will both of us gain?’ but ‘Who will gain more?’”, when it comes to the possible mutual gain of a cooperation. (Waltz, 1979)
This view on trust spills over on how neorealists view the concept of cooperation as well. Even though cooperation is not impossible, an anarchic structure limits the possibilities of cooperating. There is a risk of unequal distribution of cooperative gains, this point of view also prevents cooperation that require interdependence and trade. The neorealist’s binary view
17 on international relations, however, allows them to think that the anarchic state is not able to cooperate. (Chatterjee, 2003)
Security is, off course, closely linked to both of the above standing concepts when it comes to the neorealists perception of it. Self-interest dominates, and security is based on every state’s strive to survive. In this anarchial environment, states are looking out for their own security to create some sort of stability, since their survival is always under threat. Other states are viewed as threats, and that means you must look out for your own security. (Chatterjee, 2003)
5.4.2 Commercial liberalist views on trust, cooperation and security
Within commercial liberalism, where resources and trade are important factors, these
components are also important when it comes to the discussion about trust. Where realists see the cooperation between old enemies as difficult, since there would always be a concern that the gain for the other part is greater, liberalists – and commercial liberalists – view good economic cooperation as the first step towards the establishment of cooperation concerning political and security issues. This is, however, one of the most common points of critique towards liberalism: How can a smaller state trust a stronger state, which is more likely to gain from economic cooperation? But there are possible solutions to this problem. The stronger state can offer an uneven bargain, which will gain the pacifying process more than the economic interests of the own state. Foreign aid to the weaker state is also an option, so is involving a third part. The cooperation may also focus on economic cooperation in areas where both, or only the stronger side, finds its’ weaknesses. (Press-Barnathan, 2006)
Considering cooperation, it is the economic cooperation which is in focus for the commercial liberalists. Press-Barnathan (2006) suggests three of hypothesises surrounding economic cooperation and peace, the first one being that “economic cooperation can become an effective pacifying tool when it gains the support of strong domestic players in the target state”. The second one is claiming that economic cooperation is more difficult between former enemies. Because the gap in economic power is bigger, it will be much harder to advocate such a cooperation. There is a third hypothesis which can make economic
cooperation between enemies possible, and that is if a third part is involved. That is possible if that third part can make additional economic or political gains to one or both parties involved, as a consequence of the cooperation. (Press-Barnathan, 2006)
Finally, we have security. This concept if, off course, also linked to economy from the commercial liberalist point of view – but from a different perspective than the other two
18 concepts discussed. Security and economic gains are viewed as opposing interests, and the balance between these two must be decided based on the leaders’ own beliefs. The strict commercial liberalist therefore considers the maximizing of welfare more important to focus on, rather than security. But, as the commercial liberalist also want to maximize all gains, we might view good security as a possible gain too. That still does not change the perception of welfare and security as two opposing interests, which must be balances to gain profit. (Barbieri, 2002)
6. Method
6.1 Qualitative analysis of ideas and ideological content
For this study, a qualitative text analysis that focuses on ideas and ideological content will be used. This method relates best to the research questions and purpose, since these are
formulated with the intention of investigating ideas presented in the documents. I am going to use the model presented by Mats Lindberg in Boréus and Bergström (Ed. 2017). This theory can be traced back to three different strands of social science: first, we have the general social theory, and Max Weber’s views that society is made up of meaningful actions and their action-guiding thoughts. Secondly, we have associated empirical studies in sociology that hands us the concepts of action-guiding values, beliefs, attitudes and norms in political culture, public opinion and electoral behaviour. Finally, we have studies concerning political ideologies in political science and historical studies. (Lindberg, 2017)
Lindberg describes ideas as consisting of three different dimensions: The value dimension (V), the descriptive dimension (D) and the prescriptive dimension (P). The combination of these three ideas adds up to what Lindberg calls the action motivating, orienting and -directing forces in a text or a spoken discourse – also called ideological content. First, we need to find the value dimension, it is the cornerstone for further analysis. As displayed in table 1.2, these dimensions can be seen from two different levels: the fundamental level and the operative level. Where the fundamental level focuses on values, the operative level’s focus lies on concrete goals. When we have found the value dimension in the documents, we are to look for the descriptive and prescriptive dimensions. Sometimes the dimensions are clearly stated, sometimes not. In the latter case, we need to interpret what we read to find what is really implied. If needed when interpreting, we might use other sources or documents by the same author or agent. As displayed in table 1.2, the operative level provides two types of descriptions. There are Dsit, concrete descriptive or evaluative accounts of the situation or
19 object, and Dme, which focuses on the means-ends mechanisms or methods. When we have found all three dimensions, we have discovered what Lindberg calls a “V-D-P-triad”, and those are presented in the results part. (Lindberg, 2017)
There are also five different types of investigation and analysis (See table 1.1) in the study of ideas: Idea analysis, idea criticism, normative suggestions, historical and empirical studies and ideology critique. In this study, only the idea analysis will be used since it focuses on ideological content in discourse and language. Or, which I find more relevant for this particular study: the social or political meaning. As Lindberg point out, the five types of investigation are ideal types – an investigation can use one or several in a study. Therefore, all internal aspects of ideas might come to use in the analysis, it depends on what the idea
analysis shows. If the accords or treaties are contradictory to what theories claim, that will open up for an analysis based on idea criticism – maybe even a normative suggestion, if the theory hand us one. (Lindberg, 2017)
When analysing the peace treaties from 1979 and 1994 included in this study, the perspective of historical and empirical studies could have been relevant. Investigating the effects of ideas, in combination with the comparative analysis with the Abraham accords, could possibly point out a possible future direction for the more recent treaties. However, the treaties give us no information that would allow such an investigation. A study such as that would demand a discourse analysis that stretches from 1974 and 1994, all the way up until today. These are resources that would not be possible to put into this study. Therefore, I will leave that perspective be. The same applies to ideology critique. Instead, the idea analysis will be used to analyse the earlier treaties as well, since the main interest in these documents is based upon comparison with the Abraham accords. The important part of table 1.1 would therefore be item 1: idea analysis, at least for this study. (Lindberg, 2017)
20
Table 1.1:
Descriptive mode Idea mode Normative mode
Internal aspect of ideas (Content orientated theoretical perspective) 1. Idea analysis of the ideological content in discourse and language, or the social or political
meaning
in social or public debate; in messages from opinion-forming agents and think-tanks; in messages from literature, film and art; in messages from social movements, political parties or public bodies
2. Idea criticism
of the logical, moral or factual rigour of ideas in discourse of the propagandistic or rhetorical aspects critical assessment of values or goals, problem-formulations, concepts, descriptions and prescriptions systematic policy assessments and evaluation 3. Normative suggestions regarding fundamental social change regarding specific policy areas
Regarding the choice of fundamental values or operative goals External aspect of ideas (Function/explanation-orientated theoretical perspective) 4. Historical and empirical studies of the effects of specific ideas
of the social origins of specific ideas
of the actual social function of specific ideas
of the social, ethnic, gender or regional spread of ideas
5. Ideology critique
Power orientated: of
the social role of seemingly neutral ideas and ideologies legitimizing power and power relations
Psychological: of
actual drives behind actions, unknown to the agent
Strategic: of the actual
causes of strategic action, sometimes unknown to the agent themselves, or known but not openly displayed
6. ––––––––––––––
21 6.2 How to execute the study
The process of analysing the texts will begin by choosing the best suited type of investigation according to table 1.1. The texts will be read carefully three times each to make sure nothing relevant is left out. The analysis will be made with help of the structure presented in table 1.2, the two-level analytical scheme. When reading the text, I am going to look for the three factors Lindberg uses in the analytical scheme: values, descriptions and prescriptions, and see whether or not they are presented in the documents. If not, are there underlying descriptions that needs to be interpreted? When a value is found in the documents, it will be placed into one of the levels in table 1.2. Each of the documents will be presented in one table for the sake of clarity. Then we will start the search for descriptions and prescriptions, which – if found – will also be presented in a model based on table 1.2. The prescriptions will be collected from the two theoretical approaches in this study. First, the neorealist perspective (NR), followed by the commercial liberalist perspective (CL). These findings will then be analysed with the help of my two theories of choice and through the eyes of the study’s research question, purpose and research problem. (Lindberg, 2017)
Table 1.2
Values Descriptions Prescriptions
Fundamental level Moral, social, cultural or political values (V)
a) Philosophical assumptions of human nature, history or society, held to be true (D)
b) High level descriptive
generalizations of the state or the market, or other general
institutional complexes (D) (held to be true or valid)
General principles of social and political action (P)
(as suggested in the traditions of social and political philosophy, theory and ideology) (held to be valid or appropriate)
Operative level Concrete situation-specific or problem-specific goals (G) Concrete descriptive or evaluative accounts of the (imagined) situation or of the objects of the situation, or of the (imagined) issues, problems or possibilities of the Concrete, situation-specific or problem-specific or means-ends specific prescriptions for action (P) (held to be valid or
22 situation (Dsit), or of the means-ends mechanisms or methods in it (Dme) (held to be true or valid)
Notes: The two-level analytical scheme, as presented by Lindberg (2017). This is the model that will be used for the presentation of my results later on.
To summarise, we will go through a checklist, freely based on Lindberg’s (2017) summary on how to go about when conducting a study with this method.
• We have chosen the type of investigation from table 1.1. We are interested in the internal aspect of ideas and will therefore be using idea analysis. If possible and needed, idea criticism and maybe even normative suggestions will be used.
• We have specified the field. We are investigating the Abraham accords, the peace deal between Israel and Egypt, and the peace deal between Israel and Jordan. Section 6.1, empirical material and limitations, will hand further details concerning the field. • We will read the text three times and take help of the two-dimensional analytical
scheme.
• The next step is to start the search for values, descriptions and prescriptions, and try to find full V-D-P-triads. (Lindberg, 2017)
6.3 Methodological discussion
The method itself is not subject to any ethical considerations. The material, however, must be handled in accordance with good research practice. The material should be subject to
systematic and critical analysis. By describing how I go about as thoroughly as possible, my ambition is to be transparent, and for the study to be replicable. With the concluding
discussion, I will clearly state what can, and what cannot, be concluded from this study. Conclusions will be considered thoroughly, in order to not make any unsubstantiated conclusions. (Swedish research council, 2017)
According to Lindberg (2017) there are three main limitations and difficulties with this
method, the first one being idealism. With idealism, Lindberg points to the mistake of viewing culture, language or ideology as self-sufficient ultimate reality in human society, or the
ultimate casual factor. But, as Lindberg points out, there is no such thing in social science. The second difficulty with this method is that it requires us not to be vague about, or
mistaking, the agent. In this study, our limitations will help us bridge much of this problem, the agents of the treaties are clearly stated. But it must be taken into consideration if we
23 involve other sources when collecting the material. The last thing that must be taken into consideration is the one of holism. What this study shows might not be, and probably is not, the only answer to the questions asked throughout the study. This will be handled further in the final discussion. (Lindberg, 2017)
6.4 Empirical material and limitations
The Abraham accords refers to the original declaration of the Abraham accords, along with additional agreements for states joining the accords. This means the documents named “Declaration” (or “The Abraham accords declaration”), “Bahrain agreement”, Israel-Morocco agreement”, “Israel-UAE agreement” and “Sudan”. For this study, all countries that have joined the accords up until the first of May 2021 are included, since potential further additions would be presented after this study was conducted. The documents are collected from the U.S. Department of State website. No further documents, such as statements from the parties, are included in the analysis. This decision was made based upon the research problem and purpose. I want to investigate which ideas that are presented in the accords or treaties, not how the actors view the accords or treaties. This could have been brought in as a part of the study, but it would make the research much too comprehensible with two parallel investigations of different material.
The “Israel-UAE agreement” is the only document in the Abraham accords that consists of an annex. The annex can be used to find descriptions and investigate prescriptions, but not values. Since this is the only document of the Abraham accords that consists of an appendix, the analysis would be uneven, as many of the parts of the appendix is handled in further documents and agreements by the other parts. I could have included further documents and agreements that the other parts have reached, but decided to leave it out due to the difficulty in judging whether or not an additional agreement is directly connected to the Abraham accords or not.
The peace deal between Israel and Egypt refers to the document signed 26 March 1979 named “Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt”. Annexes and appendices can be used to find
descriptions and investigate prescriptions, but not values. The document is collected from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. No further documents, such as statements from the parties, are included in the analysis. This limitation is based upon the same arguments as with the Abraham accords, that I want to investigate which ideas that are presented in the accords or treaties, not how the actors view the accords or treaties.
24 The peace deal between Israel and Jordan refers to the document signed 26 October 1994 named “Treaty of peace between the state of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”. Annexes and appendices can be used to find descriptions and investigate prescriptions, but not values. The document is collected from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. No further documents, such as statements from the parties, are included in the analysis. I could have included further documents and agreements that the other parts have reached, but decided to leave it out due to the difficulty in judging whether or not an additional agreement is directly connected to the Abraham accords or not.
The Abraham accords declaration and the “Sudan” document consists of the same writing. These will, however, be treated as two separate documents, as they may be interpreted in different ways depending on who is signing it.
7. Results
7.1 The Abraham accords declaration
In this part, the results from the Abraham accords declaration will be presented in a table such as the one shown in table 1.2. The findings of the Abraham accords declaration are presented in table 2.1, and will be discussed in relation to the other documents in the analysis part, section 8.
Table 2.1
Values Descriptions Prescriptions
Fundamental level “Advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.” (“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 2nd paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
Using the common grounds, history and culture within the Abrahamic religions can provide opportunities for a culture of peace. Promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue. (U.S. Department of State, 2020) NR: Interdependence is a fundament in the organized state. Unintended outcomes and consequences have a big impact. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Good economic cooperation is the first step towards peace. (Press-Barnathan, 2006)
25 “Make this
world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity” (“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 4th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020) The prescriptive factors can arise from the spirit of the Abraham accords.
With tolerance and respect.
(U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: Interdependence is a fundament in the organized state. Unintended outcomes and consequences have a big impact. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Good economic cooperation is the first step towards peace. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) “Inspire humankind, maximize human potential and bring nations closer together.”(“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 5th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
The Abraham accords should handle and include necessary support. By supporting science, art, medicine, and commerce. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: Risk of unequal distribution in anarchial systems.
(Chatterjee, 2003)
CL: Economic cooperation and stable free markets are key. Occupation of foreign territory is less likely when a countries economy is based upon
intellectual and financial capital. (Gartzke, 2005; Williams and McDonald, 2018) “Provide all children a better future.” (“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 6th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
The Abraham accords should seek solutions to problems such as radicalization and conflict.
(U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: No matter system, tragic events are repetitive. Bipolar systems are the most stable. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Security and economic gains are opposing interests, which must be balanced. (Barbieri, 2002)
26 “Consolidate and expand (…) friendly relations.” (“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 8th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
These processes have already been initiated and are encouraged by the Abraham accords.
Shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future is the fundament for these processes. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: Neither the multipolar system or hegemony would benefit friendly relations. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Shared interests should be built on economic incentives and cooperation. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) Operative level “Peace, security and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world.” (“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 7th paragraph) Peace is important, both maintaining and strengthening. The Abraham accords pursues the vision of peace, security and prosperity. (Dsit)
This work will be guided by the standards established in the Abraham accords. (Dme) (U.S. Department of State, 2020) NR: Interdependence is a fundament in the organized state. Unintended outcomes and consequences have a big impact. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Good economic cooperation is the first step towards peace. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) “End radicalization and conflict.” (“The Abraham Accords Declaration,” 2020, 6th paragraph) Radicalization and conflict affect children in a negative way. (Dsit)
This work will be guided by the standards established in the Abraham accords. (Dme) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: No matter system, tragic events are repetitive. Bipolar systems are the most stable. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Security and economic gains are opposing interests, which must be balanced. (Barbieri, 2002)
Notes: Here, the values, descriptions and prescriptions of the Abraham accords declaration is presented. We find five fundamental values, and two operative values.
27 7.2 Israel-Bahrain agreement
In this part, the results from the Israel-Bahrain agreement will be presented in a table such as the one shown in table 1.2. The findings of the Israel-Bahrain agreement are presented in table 2.2, and will be discussed in relation to the other documents in the analysis part, section 8.
Table 2.2
Values Descriptions Prescriptions
Fundamental level A peaceful, stable, secure, cooperative and prosperous Middle East. (U.S. Department of State, 2020) A process facilitated by Donald Trump efforts and pragmatic approach, USA and the Abraham accords. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
The Middle East would gain from peace, as all people could live together “in the spirit of
cooperation and enjoy peace and prosperity where states focus on shared interests and building a better future”. (“Israel-Bahrain Agreement,” 2020, 1st paragraph)
This work will be guided by the standards established in the Abraham accords. (U.S. Department of State, 2020) NR: Interdependence is a fundament in the organized state. Unintended outcomes and consequences have a big impact. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: Good economic cooperation is the first step towards peace. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) Lasting security and peace. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
Embracing the vision of the Abraham accords.
A just,
comprehensive, and
NR: Self-interest is the dominating force in security questions. States look out for their own security to create stability. (Chatterjee, 2003)
28 enduring resolution of
the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
Recognizing each State’s right to
sovereignty and to live in peace and security (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
CL: Economic and security interests must be balanced against one another. (Barbieri, 2002) “Advance coexistence and a culture of peace.” (“Israel-Bahrain Agreement,” 2020, 3rd paragraph) Seek agreements regarding investment, tourism, direct flights, security,
telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, and other areas of mutual benefit.
Reciprocal opening of embassies.
Agreements to come will be the symbol for a new chapter in the state’s relationship. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: An anarchic structure would have difficulties
cooperating, since there is a risk of unequal cooperative gains. Interdependence is important for maintenance of peace and structure. (Chatterjee, 2003; Waltz, 1979)
CL: Economic cooperation is key for peace making, but equal gains might be a problem. This can be solved through less gains for the stronger state, if it helps the peace process, foreign aid, cooperation in areas where the stronger part is weaker and involvement of a third part. The words “areas of mutual benefit” might suggest one or several of these solutions. Economic cooperation between former enemies is, however, harder to achieve. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) Bahrain’s and Israel’s responsibility for a “more secure and prosperous future for Recognition of the responsibility is of importance.
The signing of the Abraham accords is the recognition of that responsibility.
NR: Every state must look out for its’ own security in the anarchial environment, other states are threats. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: If the parties are aiming for both security and prosperity, these two must be balanced in
29 generations to come in their respective countries and in the region”. (“Israel-Bahrain Agreement,” 2020, 4th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
order to maximize the gain. (Barbieri, 2002, p. 4) Operative level “Establish full diplomatic relations.” (“Israel-Bahrain Agreement,” 2020, 3rd paragraph)
With the vision presented in the Abraham accords. (Dme) Reciprocal opening of embassies. (Dme) (U.S. Department of State, 2020) “Eschew threats and the use of force.” (“Israel-Bahrain Agreement,” 2020, 3rd paragraph) Agreements regarding investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, and other areas of mutual benefit. (Dme) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: An anarchic structure would have difficulties
cooperating, since there is a risk of unequal cooperative gains. Trust is far from obvious if we view this as an anarchical environment. Interdependence is important for maintenance of peace and structure. (Chatterjee, 2003; Waltz, 1979)
CL: Economic cooperation is key for peace making, but equal gains might be a problem. This can be solved through less gains for the stronger state, if it helps the peace process, foreign aid, cooperation in areas where the stronger part is weaker and involvement of a third part. The words “areas of mutual benefit” might suggest one or several of these solutions. Economic cooperation between former enemies is, however, harder to
30 achieve. (Press-Barnathan,
2006)
Notes: Here, the values, descriptions and prescriptions of the Israel-Bahrain agreement is presented. We find four fundamental values, and two operative values.
7.3 Israel-Morocco agreement
In this part, the results from the Israel-Morocco agreement will be presented in a table such as the one shown in table 1.2. The findings of the Israel-Morocco agreement are presented in table 2.3, and will be discussed in relation to the other documents in the analysis part, section 8.
Table 2.3
Values Descriptions Prescriptions
Fundamental level American encouragement of economic and social development with Morocco, including in the Western Sahara territory. (U.S. Department of State, 2020) Open a consulate in the Western Sahara territory, in Dakhla, to promote
economic and business
opportunities for the region. In accordance with the proclamation “Recognizing the Sovereignty of the Kingdom of Morocco Over the Western Sahara” (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: We might view this as a bipolar relationship, with USA and Morocco as the actors. We may also view this as a hegemony where USA is the controlling power over West Sahara. It could also be a question of trust and what self-interest USA has in this question. (Waltz, 1979) How we choose to interpret that is more of a geopolitical question, than a scientifical one.
CL: The commercial liberalist would focus in on the economic incentives and cooperation that is mentioned. The proclamation mentioned is not the most urgent process, since it does not cover economy or trade. (Federal register, 2020; Press-Barnathan, 2006) In the relationship between USA, Morocco and Israel,
however, there seems to be a solid ground in this idea. Economy and business is in focus and there is a strong involvement of a third part. (Press-Barnathan, 2006)
Preserving the “special status of the sacred
From the position of the Moroccan king’s
NR: From the perspective of Morocco, there seems to be a strong self-interest in this
31 city of
Jerusalem for the three monotheistic religions”. (“Israel-Morocco Agreement,” 2020, page 1, 6th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020) capacity as Chairman of the Al-Quds Committee. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
question, where the king has a personal interest in the preserving of Jerusalem’s status through his role as chairman. We might even sense self-interest from the Israeli part as all three monotheistic religions are included. There are no descriptive factors here though. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: We might interpret this as a security question, as a part of a concession from the Israelis for being the more favourable part in economic negotiations. (Barbieri, 2002; Press-Barnathan, 2006) “Establishment of full diplomatic, peaceful and friendly relations is in the common interest of both countries” (“Israel-Morocco Agreement,” 2020, page 1, 8th paragraph) (U.S. Department of State, 2020) Grant authorizations for direct flights between Morocco and Israel, including by Israeli and Moroccan airline companies, as well as grant rights of overflight; Immediately resume full official contacts between Israeli and Moroccan counterparts and establish full diplomatic, peaceful and friendly relations; Promote a dynamic and innovative economic bilateral cooperation; Pursue cooperation on trade; finance and investment;
innovation and technology;
civil aviation; visas and consular
NR: Here we touch upon both trust and cooperation. We might suspect that there would be difficulties cooperating since there is a risk of unequal gains, and a possible lack of trust. Interdependence must be established in order to make the cooperation work. We might also suspect that the two parties act out of self-interest. (Chatterjee, 2003; Waltz, 1979)
CL: Here we find a lot of economic cooperation and incentives, something that might allow us to view this as a
successful idea. However, it is once again a matter of unequal gains, which must be balanced in order for the cooperation to be successful. As the role of USA is premiered we have a strong third part here that could act as a good incentive for that.
32 services; tourism;
water, agriculture, and food security; development; energy and
telecommunications; and other sectors as may be agreed; Reopen the liaison offices in Rabat and Tel Aviv. (“Israel-Morocco Agreement,” 2020, paragraph 10-14) (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
With the opportunity created through the “extraordinary efforts and leadership” of the United States. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
Notes: Here, the values, descriptions and prescriptions of the Israel-Morocco agreement is presented. We find three fundamental values, and no operative values.
7.4 Israel-UAE agreement
In this part, the results from the Israel-UAE agreement will be presented in a table such as the one shown in table 1.2. The findings of the Israel-UAE agreement are presented in table 2.4, and will be discussed in relation to the other documents in the analysis part, section 8.
Table 2.4
Values Descriptions Prescriptions
Fundamental level A stable, secure, cooperative and prosperous Middle East with lasting peace. (U.S. With determination to ensure that.
With USA: s “profound contribution”.
A negotiated solution to the
Israeli-NR: Security enables stability. States act out of self-interest and the determination would therefore be based on that same self-interest. The possibilities of cooperation is better in an hierarchical structure. (Chatterjee, 2003)
33 Department of
State, 2020)
Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
CL: Cooperation is linked to economy, and economic gains and security must be balanced. The involvement of a third part might see to equal balance of potential gains. (Barbieri, 2002; Press-Barnathan, 2006) Full normalization of ties between Israel’s and UAE’s peoples. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
In accordance with the treaty, which consists of the following areas: Establishment of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Normalization, General Principles, Establishment of Embassies, Peace and Stability, Cooperation and Agreements in Other Spheres, Mutual Understanding and Co-existence, Strategic Agenda for the Middle East, Other Rights and Obligations, Respect for Obligations, Ratification and Entry into Force, Settlement of Disputes and Registration.
(U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: Here we are dealing with both trust and cooperation. What must be weighed in is that this concerns the people of the two states. This must therefore be interpreted as a multipolar system, thereby less stable. Interdependence, cooperation and trust between the state’s people might be hard to establish. (Chatterjee, 2003; Waltz, 1979)
CL: Economic cooperation and incentives are found and might suggest that this as a successful idea. The problem of unequal gains must be balanced in order for the cooperation to be successful. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) “to foster in the Middle East, a reality in which Muslims, Jews, Christians and peoples of all faiths, denominations, beliefs and nationalities live in, and are
Recognizing that the Arab and Jewish peoples are descendants of a common ancestor, Abraham. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
NR: The neorealist could maybe see this as a way of consolidating an anarchial system, by brining old enemies closer together with a common ancestor. If successful, this would increase trust. (Waltz, 1979)
CL: This idea has no elements of commercial liberalism, as this is not the proper way to
34 committed to, a spirit of coexistence, mutual understanding and mutual respect.” (“Israel-UAE Agreement,” 2020, page 1, 9th paragraph)
build trust. (Press-Barnathan, 2006) Mutual understanding, cooperation and coordination. (U.S. Department of State, 2020)
Undertake to take the “necessary steps to prevent any terrorist or hostile activities
against each other on or from their respective territories. Deny any support for such activities abroad, or allowing such support on or from their respective territories. Recognizing the new era of peace and friendly relations between them, as well as the centrality of stability to the well-being of their
respective peoples and of the region.
Undertake
to consider and discuss these matters regularly, and to conclude detailed agreements and arrangements on coordination and cooperation.” (“Israel-UAE Agreement,” 2020, page 2, 7th paragraph) NR: A matter of cooperation and trust, but there are
incentives for both parties and a possible equal gain, as terrorist and hostile activities are discussed. As other states are viewed as threats, this may be a reason not to trust the other part, or maybe a security for the states as they will work together against hostile threats. (Chatterjee, 2003; Waltz, 1979)
CL: Once again it is a matter of balancing between security and economic incentives. This may work as a compensatory factor related to the risk of unequal gains. (Barbieri, 2002; Press-Barnathan, 2006)
