On May 25, 1997, I sent a letter to the editor of Foreign Affairs in response to an article it had just published on Oman. Foreign Affairs, though, did not publish my letter (or even acknowledge receiving it), and I did not publish it anywhere else. I recently rediscovered it in my computer files, and decided to post it here on my blog now:
To the Editor:
Judith Miller’s commentary preceding her interview with Sultan Qaboos (“Creating Modern Oman,” May/June 1997) states that “he intends to move toward representative government and the rule of law.” This process, however, has largely been a sham. As a result, tensions are building up in this strategically located country which will have very negative consequences for the West if they boil over.
Those who argue that Oman is successfully democratizing point to its new parliament, the “majlis al-shura.” But citizens are not allowed to elect its members directly. In the first selection process held in 1991, citizens in each district could nominate three candidates to represent them, but final selection was made by the Sultan. In 1994, they could nominate two candidates, but again the Sultan made the final selection.
In addition, the royal decree establishing the majlis only allows it to deal with nine specifically listed fields such as social and economic legislation, development plans, and the like. It cannot consider issues relating to Oman’s foreign relations, defense policy, or broader political structure.
Furthermore, the majlis’s “internal regulations” forbid members from “leaking out any informations [sic] relating to the discussions at the majlis” or “allowing non-majlis members to peruse the minutes of meetings.” But any member who wanted to leak information to the Omani press would not succeed anyway since it is all strictly controlled by the Ministry of Information. Article 31 of the new Basic Law issued by the Sultan in November 1996 guarantees freedom of the press, but only “according to the terms and conditions specified by the Law. Anything leading to discord…is prohibited.”
Oman may not seem any less democratic than the other Gulf monarchies. Indeed, Oman allows a greater degree of popular participation in politics than neighboring Saudi Arabia does. But this is not saying much. And there is evidence that the Sultan faces growing internal opposition.
During 1994, an “Islamic conspiracy” against the Sultan’s regime was discovered. Several hundred were arrested and many were detained for over a year. Although “released” toward the end of 1995, the activities of most of the detainees have been closely restricted ever since, according to Omani sources. What was especially noteworthy was that those detained included many prominent members of Omani society, including an ambassador, undersecretaries at two ministries, a commander of a naval vessel, members of the wealthy al-Ghazali family, and a member of the majlis.
Although widely covered in the Arab press and some Arab groups based in the West, these events went virtually unnoticed in the Western press. What little coverage the country does receive in the West tends to be laudatory and uncritical of the Omani government, as was Judith Miller’s article. (How does Miller know that things are going so well in Oman? Why, the Sultan himself told her so! She did not bother to cite any dissident Omanis.)
But Miller is hardly alone in portraying a glowing image of Oman. At a symposium on Oman held by the Washington-based Middle East Policy Council in October 1995, speaker after speaker waxed eloquent on what a paradise Oman has become, thanks to the all-wise policies of the Sultan. Yet, unlike previous seminars on Oman I have attended in Washington, there were signs at this one of growing concern within the foreign policy community over Oman’s internal stability. In a conversation with a small group of us after the symposium, one of the speakers who had lauded the Sultan’s regime in his public comments predicted that it would be overthrown within the next ten years.
A young Omani present in the audience was a brother of one of those arrested in 1994. Far from loving their Sultan, he told me that most Omanis consider sultanic rule to be illegitimate since it has relied on the British to protect it against the population for over a century now. He reminded me that there were rebellions against sultanic rule in the mid-1950s and from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. Omanis have a rebellious spirit, he noted, and this spirit may be about to burst forth again.
The downfall of the Sultan’s regime would cause serious problems for America and the West. Oman occupies a strategic location at the southern end of the Straits of Hormuz; Iran is at the northern end. All tanker traffic to and from the Persian Gulf must pass through these narrow straits. If there were a hostile Oman as well as a hostile Iran on both sides of the Straits, Western access to Gulf oil could become less secure and oil prices could shoot up dramatically. America and the West thus have a strong interest in preserving a friendly regime in Oman in order to avoid even the possibility of this scenario arising.
But we are unlikely to succeed in preserving a pro-Western regime in Oman if we refuse to acknowledge that there are some very serious problems in this country. It seems highly doubtful that the sham democracy the Sultan has created will please the Omani people for long. He has raised their expectations, but has not fulfilled them.
Simply to protect our own interests there, America and Britain should encourage the Sultan’s regime to undertake three steps. First, the Sultan needs to get rid of many of his long-time ministers and advisers, and replace them with more educated and capable younger people. In its generally laudatory report on political development in Oman issued in 1995, the International Republican Institute acknowledged that a “source of frustration in the country is the powerful position of some of the Sultan’s informal advisers.”
Second, the Sultan needs to end his reliance on his many highly paid British and American advisers and replace virtually all of these people with Omanis. This may be the single most important source of tension in the country. Even Omanis who will say nothing critical of the Sultan complain bitterly about the thousands of British and American advisers occupying positions they feel Omanis should have.
Third, and most importantly, the Sultan should be encouraged to institute real democratization, including complete freedom of the press. Washington and London should urge him to do this sooner rather than later. For if democratic change does not come about soon, the prospects for revolutionary change in Oman are likely to grow.
Mark N. Katz
George Mason University
Did Foreign Affairs do right to ignore my letter back in 1997? In that Sultan Qaboos is still in power, it would seem that Miller’s 1997 analysis was closer to the mark than my own. Unrest, though, has continued sporadically in Oman since then–especially since the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in 2011. However unwelcome discussing it might be to the Sultan’s government and its Western supporters, the possibility as well as the implications of further unrest in Oman should not be ignored. Not discussing problems does not make them disappear.
For information about recent developments there, see the Oman section on the Jadaliyya website: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/Oman