RP 145 Prova 03 1 - Nato Defense College Foundation

R ESEARCH PAPERResearch Division – NATO Defense College, Rome – No. 145 – March 2018New Armies for a New EraDecrypting post-2011 Arab Military Reform TrendsEleonora Ardemagni and Umberto Profazio1The Research Division (RD) of the NATO Defense College provides NATO’s senior leaders withsound and timely analyses and recommendationson current issues of particular concern for the Alliance. Papers produced by the Research Divisionconvey NATO’s positions to the wider audienceof the international strategic community and contribute to strengthening the Transatlantic Link.The RD’s civil and military researchers come froma variety of disciplines and interests covering abroad spectrum of security-related issues. Theyconduct research on topics which are of interest tothe political and military decision-making bodiesof the Alliance and its member states.The opinions expressed are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the opinions of theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization or the NATODefense College.Printed copies of this paper can be obtained bycontacting Mary Di Martino atm.dimartino@ndc.nato.intResearch PaperISSN 2076 – 0949(Res. Div. NATO Def. Coll., Print)ISSN 2076 – 0957(Res. Div. NATO Def. Coll., Online)Research DivisionJeffrey A. Larsen, PhD, Division HeadNATO Defense CollegeVia Giorgio Pelosi, 100143 Rome – Italywebsite: www.ndc.nato.intFollow us on Twitter and Facebookat https://twitter.com/NDC Researchat https://facebook.com/NDC ResearchPrinted and bound byDeBooks ItaliaV.le G. Mazzini 41, 00195 Rome, Italywww.debooks.usPortions of this work may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standardsource credit line is included. The Research Division would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints.Please direct all enquiries to:m.dimartino@ndc.nato.intThe NATO Defense Collegeapplies the Creative ” (CC BY-NC-ND)The reaction of the Arab armies to the 2011 uprisings is a subjectthat has been frequently examined, but the evolution and reform ofArab armies is a neglected topic.2 In times of global interdependence,the Atlantic Alliance must be ready to understand and interact witha changing Middle East, since NATO Arab partners’ security is moreand more NATO’s security, in terms of shared objectives, commonthreats and cooperative security. Arab armies have entered a newera: traditional obstacles to military reform, mostly due to theirpoliticization, persist; other variables emerge from the interaction ofdomestic, foreign and transnational threats.Drawing upon multidisciplinary literature and day-by-day analysis, thispaper examines the debate on the state of the Arab armies, decryptingtrends in military reforms with a specific focus on two different, butprominent case studies: Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).Both of these countries implemented military reform starting fromdifferent contexts and ambitions. Our aim is to shift the focus on howArab security forces, in particular Arab armies, have been changing,1Eleonora Ardemagni is Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean Analyst, NDCF, Associate Research Fellowat the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI). Umberto Profazio is Maghreb Analyst,NDCF, ACD Analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This is a revised versionof a previous working paper, published by the NATO Defense College Foundation with the title “NewArmies for a New Era. Decrypting post-2011 Arab Military Reforms: Trends from Tunisia and the UnitedArab Emirates.” The views expressed belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions ofthe NATO Defense College or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.2Two remarkable exceptions, both prior to the uprisings, are Oren Barak-David Assaf, “The Arab Security Sector: A New Research Agenda for a Neglected Topic,” Armed Forces & Society 36 (5), pp. 804824, 2010; and Yezid Sayigh, “Security Sector Reform in the Arab Region: Challenges to Developing anIndigenous Agenda,” Arab Reform Initiative, Thematic Paper, 1 December 2007.1

Research PaperNo. 145 – March 2018coping with emerging dynamics and actors. Beyondthe theoretical debate on “democratization” and“authoritarian resilience,” the concept of militaryreform is here the lens of investigation to framecurrent empirical trends in Arab armies. First ofall, the paper highlights the post-uprisings contextand the most important variables of change forthe military. Then it isolates traditional and newobstacles to military reform in Arab states, providinginsights from the cases of Tunisia and the UnitedArab Emirates. The last section synthesizes themain analytical findings, introducing the concept of“patchwork security.”as well as the first factor of change. If the managementof security becomes a “regional matter,” regionalpowers will enhance efforts to impose their ownsecurity agenda on neighboring territories, therebyfueling counter-alignments, arms races and intraregional conflict. As a result of these developments,the military regains center stage. Regionalization ofsecurity has a deep impact on Arab armies, modifyingrequested tasks and expertise: but since it is theopposite of multilateralism, it increasingly servessecurity apparatus’ national goals. What occurredamong the Arab Gulf states is a perfect example ofthis kind of regionalization, which also masks risingnationalism in the Gulf region.In March 2011, the intervention in Bahrain bySaudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates policeanticipated this trend, which was then openly unveiledby the 2015 Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.In 2017, the Saudis and the Emiratis also opened thediplomatic crisis against Qatar. The Middle Easternorder is in fragments, shaken by the collapse of states,civil wars and unsustainable social pacts. The Arabuprisings emphasized the crisis of the Arab state,3 thesecond factor of change. Sovereignty is constantlyeroded, as state legitimacy is not only challengedby sub-/transnational actors but also weakened bystates’ persistent ineffectiveness. This contributes toa reduction in armies’ available financial and humanresources, while contesting agencies undermine theircoherence and esprit de corps. The fragmentation ofthe social fabric affects many countries and allowsfor the resurgence of tribalism, as in Iraq and Libya.The Middle East’s disorder and the widening ofthe nation-state crisis have bolstered new powerArmies’ New Context. Post-2011 variablesof changeThe current international system is characterizedby multiple centers of power: besides the UnitedStates, Russia and China, different regional powersare becoming more actively engaged, leaving roomfor ad hoc cooperation as well as for indirect, proxyconfrontation in many regions, including the MiddleEast. Barack Obama’s “lead from behind” postureand then Donald Trump’s “America first” rhetorichave geopolitically isolated the United States, endingglobal governance aspirations. As a matter of fact,security vacuums have been quickly filled by otherstate/non-state actors, willing to set their ownparameters of security: this is why global securityremains a positive-sum game, but is even moredifficult to translate into policies than before. In thisframework, regionalization of security is, at the sametime, the product of a reshaped international system,3Yezid Sayigh, “Militaries, Civilians and the Crisis of the Arab State,” The Washington Post, The Monkey Cage Blog, 8 December 2014 -the-arab-state/?utm term .fb04e0c39fd02

No. 145 – March 2018Research Paperrelations and inter-state realignments, strengtheningthe competition for regional power and hegemony.The “Cold war” between Saudi Arabia and Iran,4 aswell as the intra-Sunni rivalry between Saudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates and Qatar have reshapedregional dynamics and given external actors (Russiain particular) room for maneuver, altering thebalance of power in conflict-torn countries (Syria).The crisis of the Arab state model fosters polarizationand sectarianism, also exacerbated by intra-regionalstruggles: it represents the third factor of change.Since material and immaterial national boundariesweaken, identity politics prevails and systemicallybecomes a tool of power politics: this paves theway for transnational threats, which are the fourthfactor of change. Subnational, often regional-basedloyalties, such as kinship and tribal lineages, acquire aprominent role, putting the proliferation of informalactors and alternative security providers into starkrelief. Patron-client relations, also on a transnationalbasis, are able to spin regional events, consolidatingasymmetric interdependence among states/non-stateactors.armies, whether or not they are engaged in militaryreform. The growth of transnational threats suchas jihadism also offers the opportunity for militaryreform in the Arab world, since Arab governmentsare faced with the problem of preventing and copingwith these phenomena. The case of Tunisia providesan example of these dynamics. For Saudi Arabia andthe United Arab Emirates, the regionalization ofsecurity is also a driver of military reform: Riyadh andAbu Dhabi increasingly perceive themselves as actorswith military responsibilities (security providers)and regional ambitions (power projection). Such ageopolitical role requires a reshaped military.Defying Arab Armies’ Role. Traditionaland New Obstacles to Military ReformAccording to standard definitions of Security SectorReform5 (SSR), there are two core dimensions tosuch processes: effectiveness and efficiency; democratization and civilian control.Moreover, political marginalization has affecteddisenfranchised populations, in particular ethnicand religious minorities already excluded by states’social pacts, leading to increased instability. Tribaland ethnic affiliations question both the usefulnessof the colonial borders and the creation of new stateentities (Kurdistan). In this vacuum, jihadism hasproliferated, taking advantage of state fragmentationand making border areas in the Middle Eastand North Africa ungovernable. As a result, thisredesigned context poses new challenges to the Arab4However, these very requirements are known to bethe limitations of Arab armies, in republics as well asin monarchies: civil-military relations in the MiddleEast are characterized by undefined boundaries, andit is also more appropriate to talk about civil-securityrelations, given the variety of security providers.Following these coordinates, it is possible to isolatetraditional and new obstacles to military reformin Arab Armies, shedding light on what impedesarmies’ effective adaptation to post-2011 challenges.Gregory F. Gause III, “Beyond Sectarianism: The New Middle East Cold War,” The Brookings Institution, Brookings Doha Center, Analysis paper, n. 11, July 2014.Timothy Edmunds, “Security Sector Reform: Concepts and Implementation,” in Timothy Edmunds-Wilhem N. Germann (eds.), Towards SSR in Post-Cold WarEurope: a Framework for Assessment, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003.53