Approaches In Qatar'S Foreign Policy
Let us assume that Qatar has achieved the highest degree of strength, as a number of researchers believe. From one perspective, we expect a more balanced policy towards the regional superpowers (Saudi Arabia and Iran). From another perspective, soft power, normative activity and brand, are essential values in high-rated cases in Qatar's foreign policy.
This leads us to say that there is a need for a more rigorous approach to Qatar's foreign policy. As we have said above, the classical approaches of small States' policies are entrenched either in the eyes of States as the security issue is magnified, or in the eyes of small States as a model. This division lies in the complex motivations behind most humanitarian actions, and hence the different causes of certain foreign policies. In the following two chapters, we will provide two alternatives that are partially overlapping to understand the actions of the state. But this does not mean that these understandings will override interests and ideals. For example, it would be illogical to say that the survival of the regional and the national unity has nothing to do with Qatar's foreign policy, and these two perspectives reinforce our understanding of the policy of small countries.
In traditional calculations, protection of systems was usually seen as a superpower task. However, as Newman recently pointed out, small nations may in fact have more interests in maintaining the system, as a result they are more willing to maintain it. For example, small European countries, such as Norway, have benefited enormously from a multilateral system with a consistent interaction in which treaties are respected in most cases, where important decisions are taken on the basis of the concept of equality underpinning the law. For example, Norway was ready to participate in mediation efforts anywhere in the world. It should be noted, however, that during the 1930s, small European countries were only interested in maintaining peace within the European regional system.
Like the small Western countries, Qatar has been well served by the current international system. The survival of the Qatari State depends largely on the export of a single commodity and is located in the vicinity of much larger states and on the basis of respect for State sovereignty throughout the system and depends on the country's ability to influence the world around it. However, Qatar is in a much more troublesome area than the small Western States, and should therefore be assumed to be more concerned with the maintenance of the regional system. This is the system that keeps Americans in Iran and Saudi Arabia balanced and potentially new leaders positively towards Qatar. It is noteworthy that Qatar has not participated in any attempts to mediate outside the Greater Middle East. As Kayaglu points out, it is impossible to fully understand Qatar's foreign policy without recognizing how Islam has established Qatar’s identity. Thus, Islam forms global perspectives and foreign policy measures. Qatar's interest in maintaining a regional system of followers of common religions may bring to mind the actions of European countries during the sixteenth century.
But there is more to maintenance systems. At least before the active participation in the war in Libya, Qatar has repeatedly asserted relatively honest mediation and continued diplomatic relations with actors that most similar-minded countries avoid. Thus, we can see that Qatar maintains that the most basic method of interaction - diplomatic. Maintaining the channels of communication open to all parties and not rejecting anyone is the traditional feature of diplomacy. The maintenance of qualified diplomacy is one of the ways in which States gain and maintain their status in the current international order.
