UAE

The Ras al-Khaima Succession Crisis

It was something of a two-day wonder, the brief succession crisis in the United Arab Emirates emirate of Ras al-Khaima (Ras al-Khaimah) in mid-June, but it deserves attention at a time when many of the smaller Gulf states are experimenting with parliamentary life, a gamble not yet ventured by the UAE’s seven traditional sheikhdoms.

Ras al-Khaima’s ruler, Sheikh Saqr bin Muhammad al-Qasimi, is said to be the longest-sitting ruler in the world, having held the rulership since 1948. Sheikh Saqr is about 86, some suggest even older, and since 1999 had left the day-to-day management of the emirate to his heir apparent, Sheikh Khalid. Ras al-Khaima is not one of the richer emirates; it lacks the oil of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, or Sharja — ruled by another branch of the Qasimi family — but is strategically located as the northernmost UAE emirate, adjacent to Omani territory in the Musandam Peninsula on the Strait of Hormuz. Sheikh Saqr has long been known, among other things, for his insistence on recovering the lost islands of the Greater and Lesser Tumb (Tunb), seized by Iran in 1971. (The third disputed island, Abu Musa, was divided between Iran and Sharja at that time.)

After a visit to Abu Dhabi and a meeting with UAE President and Abu Dhabi Ruler Sheikh Zayid Al Nahayan, Sheikh Saqr issued a decree on June 14 announcing that while Sheikh Khalid would retain the title of Deputy Ruler, the title of Crown Prince (and with it, the de facto rule, given Sheikh Saqr’s frail health) would go to Sheikh Sa‘ud, one of the younger of his seven sons.

Announced on a Saturday — the beginning of the work week in the UAE — the announcement provoked a brief crisis when Sheikh Khalid resisted, suggesting that his father was no longer in full possession of his faculties and that after years of faithful service (he had been Crown Prince for 40 years), he should not be dismissed so cavalierly. Supporters of Sheikh Khalid took to the streets and were met by police with water cannon; at least one policeman was injured, and eventually security forces, including armored vehicles, were brought in from Abu Dhabi to restore order. Though the uproar quickly subsided, the unusual disorder in the generally placid UAE drew considerable attention in the region.

Sheikh Khalid was reported to have left for Oman at the invitation of Sultan Qabus of that country, but within a few days, at least, he had returned to Ras al-Khaima. Sheikh Sa‘ud, the newly designated Crown Prince, told Gulf News that the succession change had been approved by UAE President Sheikh Zayid, thus claiming federal support for the change.

Sheikh Zayid, like all the UAE rulers, naturally supports the traditional right of any ruler to name his own successor (primogeniture is not the norm in the Gulf), but as analysts have sought to examine the reasons for the change, there have been suggestions that the federal government’s support was motivated by more than just protection of the Ruler’s right to choose his own heir.

Sheikh Sa‘ud, the new heir, was already Ras al-Khaima’s most prominent business figure. Among several different readings which have been offered for the change, one is a disagreement among the sons about the best approach to development. Economically, Sheikh Khalid had concentrated on oil and gas exploration, continuing long-disappointed hopes of finding significant hydrocarbons for Ras al-Khaima. Sheikh Sa‘ud has reportedly favored economic diversification and encouragement of foreign investment.

But by most accounts, the primary disagreements between Sheikh Khalid and his father had little to do with econmics. Sheikh Khalid, if somewhat conservative on economic development issues, was considerably more liberal-minded in two areas: political reform and women’s rights. He has also been a critic of US policy in Iraq.

One focus of controversy has been Sheikh Khalid’s wife, Sheikha Fawqai, who is a well-known playwright in her own right, founder of an organization for women which has sought to assist in solving women’s problems, and a campaigner for women’s rights. Most of the early analyses of the crisis pointed to the role of the sheikha as a catalyzing force in the deposition of Khalid (though the Daily Telegraph’s “Emirates Prince Ousted in Women’s Rights Row” may have overstated the case). Some reports have suggested that Sheikh Saqr and the other six sons all met with Sheikh Khalid and demanded that he ban his wife from Ras al-Khaima and, when he refused, he was replaced.

This does not seem to be the only element involved, however. Sheikh Khalid has also been outspoken in support of the idea of political liberalization. He has openly suggested that UAE citizens might vote for the members of the Federal National Council, the federal body from the seven emirates which functions as a sort of UAE legislature: its members are currently appointed. In addition, in recent comments to a local think tank, he emphasized that women should have the right to vote if such elections were held.

At a time when Bahrain and Qatar are joining Kuwait in creating parliamentary systems and Oman has opened up its political process somewhat, the UAE remains fully traditional in its political structures. Though Sheikh Sa‘ud has advocated more liberal approaches to the economy, he has not seemed to share his brother’s enthusiasm for political reform.

Finally, Sheikh Khalid has pursued his father’s single-minded devotion to the recovery of the lost islands, but in recent years the federal government has sought to play down the issue somewhat in order to find a modus vivendi with Iran. While by no means abandoning the UAE Federal claim to the islands, Sheikh Zayid and the federal government may have feared that Sheikh Khalid was too adamant on the issue. And while the UAE allowed the US to use bases there in the war with Iraq, Sheikh Khalid led a demonstration in Ras al-Khaima against the US war. This may have also been a factor.

Some combination of all these factors — women’s rights, political reform, foreign policy, economics — may well have combined to lead to the ouster of Sheikh Khalid. In addition, various motives may have motivated various players. Sheikh Saqr’s reasons for ousting his son may well have been his discomfort with Sheikha Fawqai’s women’s rights activism. The Federal Government may have been glad to see Khalid go for quite different reasons, including foreign policy and the islands issue. And Sheikh Sa‘ud now has an opportunity to pursue his development policies.

What has attracted attention to the mini-crisis (it now seems to have settled into a new status quo, with the business community quick to pay homage to the new heir) is that succession disputes in the UAE have been rare in the years since the country achieved its independence in 1971. Although most of the ruling families have a history of bloodshed in succession issues from the pre-1971 period, there has been little of that since. The sons of Sheikh Rashid of Dubai had divided up responsibilities and the succession during the late Sheikh Rashid’s long illness, and Sheikh Zayid has allocated various duties to his own sons in Abu Dhabi, though a number of questions may arise when Zayid passes from the scene. An attempted coup in Sharja was put down with Federal forces.

But this is also a time of considerable ferment in the Gulf. The reforms in Bahrain and Qatar and even the first faint traces of calls for reform in Saudi Arabia (combined with the uncertainties set in motion by the US occupation of Iraq) suggest that, if not winds of change, at least faint breezes may be blowing in the Gulf. While the Ras al-Khaima change of succession is a case of a traditional Ruler exercising a traditional prerogative, the suggestions that issues of reform and women’s rights were involved make it worthy of at least a note.

Home

Current Issue

About Us

Back Issues

Resources

Subscribe