Regional Security Threats and the United Arab Emirates

Regional Security Threats and the United Arab Emirates1 ` Table of Contents Introduction 4 1.1 The Emergence of the UAE as a Regional Leader in the MENA Region 4 1.2 Balanced Foreign Policy and UAE’s Regional Objectives 7 1.3 Regional Security Threats and the UAE 8 1.4 The Theoretical Framework of the Study 12 1.5 Problem Statement and Research Objectives 14 1.6 Research Gap 15 1.7 Contribution of the Study to the Academic Field 16 Literature review 17 2.1 Theoretical Framework – Waever’s Securitisation Theory and the Copenhagen School’s Approach to Foreign Relations 17 2.3 UAE’s Diplomatic Approach: Historical Perspective and Future Developments 21 Methodology 25 3.1 Research Strategy 25 3.2 Research Design and data Collection 26 3.2.1 Data Collection through Interviews 28 3.2.2 Data Collection from Policy Speeches 29 3.3 Sampling 30 3.4 Data Analysis 31 3.5 Study Limitations 32 3.6 Ethical Considerations 33 References 35 2 ` Introduction 1.1 The Emergence of the UAE as a Regional Leader in the MENA Region Security is a universal issue affecting all countries in the world, therefore allocating human and material resources to deal with the emerging threats in a rapidly mutating global environment in an enormous challenge. Threats at the beginning of the twenty-first century include, among others, terrorism, cyber security, famine, human migration, and environmental degradation. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is no exception to this phenomenon. Even within the region momentous challenges have occurred recently since Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar in the worst diplomatic crisis to hit Gulf Arab states in decades. The emergence of the UAE as an independent and cohesive political actor after the declaration of its independence in 1971 marked a major geopolitical shift in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region as the small Emirates quickly claimed the status of a key international political player (Kelly, 2008). Indeed, the abundant availability of fossil fuels upon which the UAE centred its export industry, the stability of its internal federal political arrangements and the prudent economic policies employed by the regime ensured domestic stability that has remained unprecedented throughout the region (Almezaini, 2013). Despite the monarchic structure of UAE institutions and relative exclusivity when it comes to the appointment of senior public officials that might cause power vacuums when power is transferred to royal successors, internal political struggles have never materialised (Kelly 2008; Almezaini, 2013). In fact, the death of the UAE’s founder His Highness Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, who passed away in 2004, was followed by the successful and peaceful transition of power to his son Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan who undertook civil reforms and introduced indirectly elected officials within the presidential advisory body, the Federal National Council, thus paving the way for greater accountability and transparency to the federation’s executive institutions (Akbarzadeh, 2013). As a result of domestic stability and careful management of natural oil reserves, the UAE has not only managed to achieve a significant trade surplus, but 3 ` to increase its GDP by 46% in the period from 2000 to 2016, with its GDP in 2015 being evaluated at 370.3 billion US dollars, making the UAE one of the most prosperous states in the region, despite its small size and population (IMF, 2016). What is more, the UAE has successfully managed to diversify its economy through establishing state owned public institutions, namely Sovereign Wealth Funds. The Wealth Funds have been tasked with reinvesting the accumulated surplus capital in order to ensure a greater degree of economic sustainability, so the that state will be able to resist both the potential depletion of the UAE’s natural resources and fossil fuel price shocks on the international markets (Tuma, 2014). However, many of these economic successes have been achieved in the context of a volatile and turbulent region which experienced a significant number of conflicts for the better half of the 20th century. The conflicts did not end with the beginning of the new millennium, but have permeated throughout the beginning of 21st century (Chatham House, 2015). Given the strategic importance of its geopolitical location and the abundance of oil, its greatest natural resource, the UAE has faced a number of security challenges. Leading these challenges have been dealing with the Iraqi aggression in 1990s, the Second War in Iraq during the Bush administration, the Iranian hostility towards the Gulf Sunni monarchies, the turmoil of the Arab Spring in the 2010 and the on-going civil wars in Syria and Yemen (Binhuwaidin, 2015). Nevertheless, the UAE has not only managed to address those security threats but has strengthened its reputation as a regional leader and a key political actor as a consequence of the careful diplomatic practice the UAE has employed (Binhuwaidin, 2015). In order to augment its international profile, the UAE has utilised a number of policy tools, including its soft power capabilities, diplomatic standing with both regional and international actors, its membership in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and its adequate domestic policies which are aimed at lowering fallout from regional political shocks (Sadjapour, 2013). However, while a wide range of academic literature and studies exists exploring the specific policies the UAE has employed to address the regional security threats; the manner in which such policies have been justified and legitimised through diplomatic effort has been largely neglected. (Korany and Dessouki, 2010), for example, point out that the UAE’s successes in its foreign affairs can be attributed to the consistency of its policy 4 ` approach. (Almezaini, 2013) agrees with assertion that the UAE’s reliability and “constructive” approach have attempted to ensure regional actors who are seeking cooperation with UAE’s policy-makers that discussion is not only possible, but also desirable. (Kelly, 2008) and (Ghareeb, 1977) elaborate further on these arguments by pointing out factors that have helped the Emirates to establish strategically significant regional alliances. These factors include the deeply entrenched Muslim identity that the UAE projects in its dealings with neighbouring States and the federative foreign policy model that allows each individual Emirati to pursue limited foreign policy objectives. (Al Mashat, 2010) and (Nonneman,1988), however, highlighted that the UAE’s policy successes can be attributed to “hard” foreign and internal policy which endeavours to navigate through the many internal and external policy constrains the Emirates is facing. (Ghareeb and Al-Abed, 1997) point out that similar arguments can indeed be considered as a good explanation behind the UAE’s regional influence, given both the access to large quantities to fossil fuel and the strategic geographical location of the country. (Al-Motiary, 2011) on the other hand, argues that natural resources have in fact made the UAE vulnerable to foreign aggression and that its success in maintaining both prosperity and internal stability must be considered in light of its membership in the GCC which has contributed significantly to the Emirates’ ability to deter aggressive political actors. Nevertheless, the UAE government has not only managed to deal with external threats, such as regional sectarian violence and the wave of civil unrest that engulfed MENA region following the 2010 Arab Spring, but has strengthened its geopolitical position by taking more assertive action in the regional conflicts, such as with Bahrain, Yemen and Qatar. The focus of this study will be to seek and explore the political regional context of the UAE, identify emerging security issues in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and analyse the manner in which the UAE has managed to address them. More significantly, however, the study will focus on the UAE diplomatic practice by examining both official diplomatic efforts and the public diplomacy strategy of the Emirates in response to actors such as the GCC, Iraq and Iran. The study will thus analyse the way in which the UAE has managed to garner support for its foreign policy initiative and has handled criticism towards its policies such as its involvement in Bahrain and Yemen in 2013 and 2015 respectively. Finally, the study will focus on analysing the manner in which non-state actors, such 5 ` as ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Houthi militias in Yemen have changed the political dynamics of the region, will examine the implications for UAE’s foreign policy and will analyse the measures implemented by the Emirates government in addressing these threats. Since the study will utilise securitisation theory as its theoretical framework, it will provide a significant insight in the political discourse that is put forward by UAE policy-makers and will examine its geopolitical impact on the region as a whole. 1.2 Balanced Foreign Policy and UAE’s Regional Objectives The UAE has managed to meet regional security challenges through conducting a “balanced” foreign policy, which was introduced and implemented by the founder of the country, His Highness Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (Kelly, 2008). The core assumptions of this policy lie in recognising the territorial and population limitations of the UAE coupled with a growing awareness of the geopolitical situation of the region (Almezaini, 2013). Given external and internal vulnerabilities and the limited resources the federation has, UAE policy-makers have decided to base their foreign policy around the ideas of non-interference, diplomatic resolutions and establishing cooperative relations with their neighbours through the Arab League and the GCC. In fact, as Korany and Dessouki (2010) argued, the UAE has been active in seeking peaceful resolutions for regional conflicts through the UN Security Council, encouraging dialogue and compromise between belligerent nations. The implementation of a “balanced” approach towards their foreign policy in a consistent manner has contributed significantly to the way in which other nations perceive the UAE, namely as a stable and reliable partner (Korany and Dessouki, 2010). Furthermore, as Almezaini (2013) observes, the federal nature of the UAE is predisposed to supporting a foreign policy centred on the idea of seeking a compromise. In this sense, the “balanced” foreign policy essentially reflects the internal political arrangements of the UAE and thus is well-grounded in the UAE’s own political tradition. However, other scholars have pointed out that the UAE has not bluntly relied on a balanced foreign policy to maintain the status quo in the MENA region, but instead has used a combination of balancing bandwagoning and hedging strategy for addressing external challenges (Guzansky, 2015). Indeed, small region actors that face complex geopolitical externalities may seek to employ a broader policy strategy that incorporates elements of distinct approaches to offset their structural limitations 6 ` (Guzansky, 2015). In the case of the UAE, Guzansky (2015) argues that faced with a large regional hegemony in the face of Iran, the UAE has sought to establish strong regional alliances with other small states under the GCC framework. On the other hand, given the different strategic objectives of its allies, and more specifically Saudi Arabia, the UAE has sought to bandwagon with external hegemons, such as the US, essentially providing the latter with regional support in exchange for security guarantees. Nevertheless, such behaviour may represent a move by a specific actor towards increasing its political influence; yet it may also be a simple matter of state survival. However, all GCC states have resorted to such behaviour in essentially seeking to strengthen their ties with the US. Both explanations seem to focus on the fact that UAE policy-makers are able to recognise the political realities of the region and to utilise adequate policy tools to increase UAE’s domestic and international security. However, the manner in which this has been achieved has often been a point of disagreement between scholars studying about the region. 1.3 Regional Security Threats and the UAE Regardless of its domestic stability and economic prosperity, the UAE has faced a number of security challenges since the onset of its establishment. A good example of this is the refusal of Saudi Arabia to acknowledge and recognise the legitimacy of the newly created state in 1972 due to a border dispute with Abu Dhabi (Anthony, 1981). Furthermore, the militant and aggressive nature of the Iranian regime, under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, who openly declared hostility towards the UAE, casted doubt on the ability of the Emirates to survive and flourish as a regional actor. The significant differences between Iran and the UAE have been caused by the deep inter-state cultural and religious differences and the Iranian’s ambition of becoming a regional hegemony in the Gulf thus gaining access to both valuable resources and control over strategic sea routes (Anderson, 2013). As Almezaini (2013) asserted, the breakdown of political relations between the UAE and Iran has been further exacerbated by the on-going dispute over the ownership of the Tunb islands, which are currently under Iranian administration. In fact, attempts in seeking a resolution at the International Court of Justice and through bilateral talks over the issue have failed to produce any results (Almezaini, 2013). 7 ` Furthermore, Iranian support for the regimes, such as Syria’s Assad, and the non-state actors, such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon, along with the Shia militias groups across the region have been a major source of concern for UAE policy makers because the Shia-inspired insurgency can directly threaten the sustainability of the regime (Edmund, 2017). Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme and armaments additionally puts the Emirates at a geopolitical disadvantage and creates the unfortunate possibility that its foreign policy options in the region will be significantly limited by its hard power capabilities (Anderson, 2013). Furthermore, the removal of the Saddam regime during the second Gulf War reshaped the regional balance of power in the Gulf. While Saddam was mistrusted by the UAE government, especially in the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait in the early 90s, his regime had been instrumental for the UAE foreign and diplomatic initiatives. First, Saddam’s regime, even though predominantly secular at its very core, was nevertheless essentially of ethnically Sunni composition. The latter means that Saddam’s Iraq was naturally repressive towards the Shia population and actively countervailed against the Iranian’s power or ambitions. The removal of the Saddam regime, however, meant that Iraq was no longer a regional power and thus could not serve as an obstacle for Iranian foreign policy. What is more, the collapse of the Sunni-led government in Iraq also resulted in the rise in sectarian violence and the creation of an Iraqi Shia government. Thus, the US’s “war on terror” essentially served to undermine the political power arrangements in the Gulf region, while also removing a major buffering state. The 2010s decade, however, introduced different security challenges, with the outbreak of major public revolts, known as the ‘Arab Spring’. The Arab Spring fuelled by major discontent amongst the citizens of Arab states, which transformed into civil wars that threatened the existence of well-established political regimes. Even though the threat of a major uprising in the UAE never materialised, the breakdown of political stability in the region defied the initial expectations that the Arab Spring movements may represent a move towards democratisation and liberalisation in the region. In fact, the on-going civil war in Syria and the rise of ISIS as a regional non- state actor represents major security concerns amongst the UAE political elite for several reasons. First, Assad’s regime has been a key ally of Iran in the Gulf region and the direct support that the Syrian government has received throughout the 8 ` conflict represents an Iranian attempt to further increase its influence in the region. Second, the outright hostility of the extremist militants of ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front towards the UAE is a direct threat to the Emirates domestic security, especially considering the terrorist tactics employed by these non-state actors. Even though the UAE has not been attacked by ISIS directly, the dangers of radical political Islamist ideologies undermining the political stability of the country cannot be overlooked. The possibility of imported terrorism, especially amongst expatriate workers, has been a source of major concern for UAE policy-makers. In fact, in 2015 the UAE authorities apprehended 41 individuals, many of whom were foreigners, charged of plotting to commit a series of terrorist attacks and destabilise the federal government. The role of Muslim Brotherhood in incitement of the Arab Spring and their decisive role in the toppling of the Egyptian regime had further alarmed the UAE government of the need to revise its regional policy. Initially, the Muslim Brotherhood was well-received in the UAE and was established using the name ‘Islah’. Thus, Islah managed to quickly gain prominence as one of the major advocates of traditional Arab values, fervently attacking both nationalist and communist ideologies through its publications in the UAE. Members of the organisation initially included students who had gone to neighbouring states and upon return took posts at public institutions and educational establishments. Members of the organisation essentially managed to establish what (Freer, 2016) refers to as a “state within a state”. During the early 90s, however, the UAE monarchy became increasingly concerned with the continuous politicisation of Islah’s activities. The crackdown of Egyptian authorities on the Muslim Brotherhood, who claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood was involved in financing Egyptian jihadi militants, served to further convince UAE policy-makers that Islah may represent an internal political challenge (Freer, 2016) In addition to the civil war in Bahrain and the recent diplomatic conflict with Qatar has further served to undermine political stability in the Gulf region. In fact, Bahrain represents a significant shift away from the previously “balanced” foreign policy approach of the UAE, as the Emirates essentially joined the rest of the GCC member states in a military intervention against protesters aiming to topple the regime (Ulrichsen, 2012). The major fear amongst GCC member states and the UAE in particular was that similar protests can occur within their own boundaries. 9 ` However, more importantly, a large part of the protesters were in fact members of the Shia minority in Bahrain, who demanded greater political inclusion. Such developments sparked concerns amongst UAE policy-makers that the protests might have been instigated through the support of Iran. Given the political situation in Iraq, such an opportunity was deemed unacceptable. Therefore, with the on-going political unrest in the neighbouring states, combined with the threat of a Shia government in Iraq, backed by the Iranian regime, it can be safely argued that the UAE today faces numerous security challenges that need to be tackled properly. Nevertheless, the UAE has managed to survive earlier crises and recent events have not undermined the internal security of the federation. As (Ibish,2017) points out, the internal arrangements of the UAE when it comes to political stability and cohesive institutions, combined with the prudent economic policy of the UAE’s authorities has had a significant impact on the ability of the Emirates to attract foreign investments and to project “soft power” on an international scene. Furthermore, the wide network of political partnerships that the UAE has established across the world have been instrumental in the preservation of the federation through increased security cooperation with external actors and increased perception of the legitimacy of the UAE government. However, the UAE has also methodically sought to develop its hard power by investing in the production of highly sophisticated and technologically advanced military forces, especially centring on its air force potential and specialised weaponry as a response to recent regional development (Ibish, 2017). The development of a technologically advanced military force also points out to the fact that the UAE has recognised its limitations when it comes to developing a large military force due to its low population and has instead sought to invest in a capable fighting force that can provide both determent, preventative capabilities and can also allow the Emirates to play a more vital role in the GCC (Ibish, 2017). Indeed, the UAE’s involvement in the civil war of Bahrain serves to mark a move away from the pursuit of a “balanced” foreign policy towards playing a more active role in the region. Scholars, such as (Lengrenzi, 2011) and (Almezaini, 2013) pointed out that this can be attributed to disillusionment of UAE policy-makers with its external allies. The failure of the US and its allies to accomplish a long-lasting peace solution in Iraq has served to raise concerns amongst UAE policy-makers about the ability of the US 10 ` to remain a regional hegemony in the MENA region and to deter Iran from making further political gains in both Syria and Iraq. 1.4 The Theoretical Framework of the Study In order to put the policy response of the UAE to regional security challenges, the research will utilise the theory of securitisation as a theoretical framework. The theory of securitisation which was initially put forward by the Copenhagen School posits that security is intersubjective or in other words that everything can be perceived as a threat, if it is socially constructed as such. The idea of securitisation goes beyond the traditional state-centric approach proposed by realists and even neoliberal scholars, and instead assumes that security issues are a result of complex interaction between social actors that construct security threats through influencing the perceptions of various stakeholders. (Buzan and de Wilde, 1998) pointed out that the initiation of security policy is dependent on the idea of “speech”, i.e. presenting a specific phenomenon as an issue of security to an audience by securitising actors. The latter shape the contextual setting and craft threat images that may not be an objective reflection of the status quo. In this sense, securitising a particular manner allows the securitising actor to take action and implement policies in order to address the threat image directly. The framework of securitisation is deeply grounded in the constructivist tradition of International Relations (IR) and essentially is detached from the more positivist-oriented neorealism, focusing on the perceptions and social construction of various political actors. In essence, securitisation theory has four key components, namely the existence of a potential threat, the securitising actor, the object that need to be protected by policy and the audience, which must be influenced in order to legitimise and pursue specific policy goals. These components, however, also imply that the threat does not need to be objective but rather that a social actor has identified it as being a security issue. Furthermore, the theoretical framework of securitisation does not indicate the specific policy field that can securitise but assumes that every political decision can be introduced as a form of a security issue. A good example of this, according to (Abulof, 2014) can be found in the Israeli society, whereby a significant portion of social issues are presented and perceived as threats that endanger the very existence of the nation state. Therefore, securitisation as a policy framework can be applied throughout a wide range of issues, including diplomacy. In 11 ` this regard, as (Brown and Gravingholt,2016) pointed out securitisation has been utilised in a wide variety of policy fields, including foreign aid, where major donors and recipients have both engaged in complex diplomatic negotiations seeking to shape the perceptions of social actors. The latter implies that securitisation can be applied when it comes to conducting effective public diplomacy, essentially presenting the need to engage with foreign societies as a security priority. (Wells, 2007) argues that this approach can be referred to as “securitised public diplomacy” and that developed states have exploited it on a number of occasions. A good example of this is the US Department of Defence’s programme in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion that aimed at engaging with international audiences on the US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan (Johnstone 2004). Other researchers had acknowledged that globalisation and economic integration had moved the scope of diplomacy away from the conventional use of hard power for the attainment of foreign objectives. As a consequence of such development, transformational public diplomacy approach suggests that contemporary diplomats have to seek for new sources of advocacy and soft power, to be able to forge alliances with across a wide range of actors operating on the public sphere (Copeland 2009). Thus, “As a contact broker, network-builder and knowledge worker, the transformational public diplomat becomes an agile agent with access to critical information sources, connecting directly with populations and navigating pathways of influence that others cannot chart or manoeuvre through”(Copeland 2009:102) Whilst more traditional international relations theories, such as liberalism and realism may provide a more familiar framework, securitisation allows for the research to examine the perceptions of social actors and how the intersubjective meaning they attribute to sources of “threat” shape the political outlook of the region. Furthermore, given that the research will seek to analyse public diplomacy efforts of the UAE government and its diplomatic engagement with foreign leaders, securitisation theory provides an excellent framework for understanding how the Gulf federation has sought to influence their decisions, and vice-versa. In this regard, securitisation theory will allow the study to provide a comprehensive analysis of the diplomatic efforts and discourse of UAE policy-makers, allowing the research to focus on the contributions of individual UAE policy-makers and how their perceptions of security have shaped the manner in which they implement specific foreign 12 ` policies. Since the theory itself is deeply grounded in constructivism, it provides significantly better tools for examining the way in which social perceptions lead to specific policy implementation than the more traditional theories of international relations. In fact, while liberalism and realism may excel in providing an analytical framework for examining state behaviour and explaining regional dynamics, they fall short when it comes to analysing how diplomacy and discourse can shape the tone of international negotiations and justify specific foreign policy initiatives. Therefore, utilising securitisation as a research framework will allow the study to accomplish several objectives. First of all, it will allow the research to develop deeper into the manner in which UAE policy makers are securitising regional social processes in their diplomatic efforts and will reveal whether this action has had any impact on the effectiveness of their responses to external threats. Furthermore, the theoretical framework will allow the study to examine the manner in which the UAE central authorities have handled issues such as the war in Syria and the Arab Spring domestically and whether they have employed securitisation techniques in shaping the perceptions of foreign leaders and audiences alike on regional security issues. The UAE efforts in the diplomatic arena are also supported by an active humanitarian and foreign aid policy. The country had been among the top 5 key donors of humanitarian aid in the past decade and the biggest humanitarian donor in 2013 (IFRC 2015) with the bulk of aid being channelled to fellow Arab and Asian regimes, including struggling countries like Sudan and Egypt (GHA 2013). However, scholars had observed that the UAE humanitarian assistance has a dual purpose: on the one hand, it is epitome of the Muslim solidary and on the other hand, it is used to support the friendly regimes in the neighbouring countries (Bergamaschi et al. 2017). Furthermore, a change in the volume and type of humanitarian assistance is often used by the UAE regime to punish rival ideological groups which come to power in the neighbouring countries such as Muslim brotherhood in Egypt (Bergamaschi et al. 2017).). The political nature behind the UAE humanitarian aid program also suggest that the country could face new security challenges as a results of its humanitarian program, an issue that the present project will also explore. 1.5 Problem Statement and Research Objectives Given the implications caused by the current geopolitical situation in the MENA region, the research will seek to uncover the manner in which the UAE has 13 ` addressed recent security challenges and has managed to justify its foreign policy in the diplomatic arena. The research will seek to prove that the success of the UAE cannot be attributed only to its overall political strategy, namely “balanced” foreign policy and hedging. Instead, the research will propose that the achievements of UAE policy-makers can be attributed to their prudent approach towards diplomacy and their ability to adapt to the geopolitical environment within the Gulf Region by applying securitisation techniques and conducting efficient public diplomacy, aimed at winning the public support abroad. The research will specifically seek to uncover whether recent policy responses to these issues represent a significant policy shift in comparison to previous diplomatic and military efforts of the UAE. 1.6 Research questions 1. What are the evolving security threats in the Gulf region in the aftermath of Qatar crisis? 2. What challenges if any does these pose to the geopolitical setting of the United Arab Emirates? 3. How does the United Arab Emirates has successfully tackled security challenges in region of the Middle East and North Africa in post-Arab spring times? 4. What roles are played by the United Arab Emirates’ diplomatic practice in managing the evolving security threats to the Gulf region? 5. Can the securitisation theory be tested with regards to United Arab Emirates’ diplomatic and security policies pertaining changing security situation of the Gulf region? 1.8 Research objectives: 6. To examine the manner in which in the UAE has managed to tackle regional security threats in the aftermath of the Arab Spring; 7. To analyse current and emerging security threats in the Gulf region including the recent diplomatic rift with Qatar and to assess their impact on the geopolitical situation of the UAE; 8. To review and evaluate UAE’s public diplomacy efforts and their role in tackling regional security threats; and 14 ` 9. To test the validity of securitisation theory in the UAE context and to provide a comprehensive critique on its applicability in similar geopolitical contexts. 1.9 Research Gap There is a fragmented research on the manner in which the UAE has managed to address earlier regional security threats such as Iranian territorial assertiveness and the First Gulf War, along with policies dealing with security cooperation with external security actors. In fact, academic literature has gradually delved to a significant degree in the specific policy style of UAE policy makers, with scholars such as (Sadjadpour, 2011) and (Hellyer, 2011), who referred to it as a “balanced” approach to diplomacy and international relations. Given the political instability and volatility of the MENA area, regional actors are often forced to adapt to the ever-changing political realities and adopt a new policy approach. However, the diplomatic and political response of the UAE to these events remains poorly researched and scholars that have contributed to the field are often in disagreement. For example, while the increase of public spending following the Arab Spring is often perceived as an attempt to address public discontent, scholars such as (Forstenlechner, 2012) pointed out that these developments were the result of business activities rather than political motivations. Other scholars, such as (Matthiesen,2013) argued that the UAE took a more active approach to these issues by forgoing its “balanced” foreign policy and seeking to strengthen its regional alliances through the GCC framework. Finally, scholars have failed to account for the manner in which these recent security threats have been securitised by the UAE government both domestically and internationally. Therefore, this research will seek to address the existing research gap by focusing on the manner in which the UAE authorities have securitised regional security threats and the impact this action has had on diplomatic engagement with other local security actors. Therefore, the research will shed more light on current and emerging security issues that the UAE faces and will seek to analyse whether recent policy response represent a diplomatic and policy evolution for the Emirates. 15 ` 1.10 Contribution of the Study to the Academic Field Securitisation theory has been extensively applied in a Western context by a number of scholars, who have focused on the way politicians in developed countries engage with their relevant public in order to craft, legitimise and justify the implementation of a given security policy. Given the research gap in regards to the impact of recent events on UAE’s foreign policy and the geopolitical situation, the research will seek to apply securitisation theory to UAE’s international efforts. Therefore, the study represents a unique opportunity to gain further insight on how the UAE has sought and engaged with international audiences to convince foreign political elites on addressing regional security threats. The study will thus conduct a comprehensive analysis on past, present and future security threats and will evaluate the manner in which the UAE authorities have planned to address them. What is more, given the implications of securitisation theory, namely its focus on public engagement and the act of speech, the study will provide an analysis of the discourse of UAE policy-makers. This can serve to shed light on the applicability of the theory in a non-Western context and thus provide more insight on its validity in a country that has a completely different set of political values, form of government and faces a unique set of external challenges as a result of its humanitarian foreign policy. Given this fact, this study could be perceived as a way to test the validity of securitisation theory in a non-Western context and provide a critique of Waever’s theories. In fact, scholars such as Hansen (2000) have argued that Waever’s theory of securitisation seems to be solely focused on Europe and the US, and thus cannot be perceived as an encompassing theory of international relations but rather should be regarded as a “curious observation.” By examining the factors that have shaped UAE decision making and examining the diplomatic efforts of the Emirates through the prism of securitisation theory, the study will thus seek to address Hansen’s (2000) criticism. Therefore, the research will contribute to the existing body of academic literature by both seeking to provide a comprehensive analysis on recent developments in the region and elaborating on the future challenges that the UAE is likely to face. 16 ` Literature review 2.1 Theoretical Framework – Waever’s Securitisation Theory and the Copenhagen School’s Approach to securitisation and Foreign Relations The concept of securitisation emerged in the mid-1990s, with the term itself having been coined by Ole Weaver, and developed by scholars of the Copenhagen Schools in the tradition of constructivism (Watson, 2012). Right from its onset the theory has become somewhat contentious in its focus on the notion of security as being represented by a speech act (Watson, 2012). Securitisation as a concept implies a departure from the notion that individual human beings cannot be considered to be a unit for analysis in the field of security studies, as advocated by more traditional international relations theories, such as realism and liberalism. Regardless of that, securitisation has been employed as a research framework providing empirical method of analysing the actions of individual political actors and how they shape the security agenda. As (Weaver 1995) pointed out, securitisation essentially represents the analysis of how threat perceptions are constructed through discourse and framing of political issues through a speech act. As (Balzac, 2011) pointed out, it implies that security threats cannot be perceived as being objective, but are rather socially constructed through the intersubjective meaning that social actors attribute to real-world social phenomenon. (Buzan, Weaver and de Wilde, 1998) pointed out that traditionally the notion of security is understood as being a matter of “military” threats in a state-oriented context. However, if one is to leave this dichotomy, the issue of security can be expanded to include a wide variety of political issues. In essence, (Buzan, Weaver and de Wilde, 1998) question what constitutes a security issue and assert that security as a notion should be understood as being about survival, or in other words, an issue that is presented as posing a significant and essentially existential threat to a designated object. Therefore, as (Buzan, Weaver and de Wilde, 1998) pointed out that such an issue requires the implementation of extraordinary measures to be addressed. Thus, the identification of security sectors that differ from the traditional military paradigm allow for the existence of other referent objects that are distinctively different from state institutions and imply the existence of other security 17 ` threats. Therefore, the Copenhagen School of Security Studies conceptualises security as being a matter of social construction that is a product of the social meaning that actors attribute to social phenomenon, social values and culture, and the self-interest of said actors. What is more, as (Weaver, 1995) pointed out, security must then be understood as an object of constructivist analysis that does not exist independently from the perceptions and understanding of social actors. Since ideas and language are thus a way to express and shape reality, the existence of speech and “in this usage, security is not of interest as a sign that refers to something more real; the utterance itself is the act. By saying the word, something is done.” (Weaver, 1995: 55). Therefore, security cannot be seen as something existing independently from the social constructions that political actors craft and instead is the product of language and speech. By implying that an issue becomes a security threat simply by the utterance of the fact that it is a threat, the objective and subjective definition of security becomes blurred. In fact, such arguments fall well within (Buzan’s, 1983, 1991) previous work and his assertion that the notion of security must be broadened to reflect the complexity of modern-day political processes. (Buzan, 1991) thus argues that security should be divided into five categories, namely: military security, political security, social security, economic security and environmental security. It must, however, be pointed out that (Buzan,1991) does acknowledge the fact that often those sectors overlap and providing a comprehensive analysis on existing threats must take this into account. Instead, these sectors signify the field in which a social actor may seek to securitise the issue. (Buzan’s, 1991) broadening of the notion of security thus fits well with the wider implications of securitisation by moving the field away from the traditionally static and materialistic perception of security threats. Furthermore, this also means that according to the securitisation framework, social groups, individuals and institutions can also play a significant role in shaping the security agenda (Balzacq, 2011). (Hansen,2000), however, argues that the assumption of securitisation made by scholars about the power of interactions between governments and the public can only be applied in a Western context, where the government needs to legitimise its foreign policy initiatives. (Wilkinson,2007) elaborated more on this point by arguing that the different cultural and social values of societies across the globe means that in some political contexts individuals and even public figures do not have the luxury to engage with the public or international actors through security speech act. (Bilgin,2011) argued that since 18 ` securitisation is too narrowly focused on state-society dynamics, essentially failing to recognise the dynamics of relations between states and thus becoming applicable in a Eurocentric context only. (Weaver, 2000) pointed out that security is a matter of political choice that is actualised through political discourse and framing, and is applicable in a broad political context as governments need to legitimise their actions both domestically and internationally prior to implementing “extraordinary” policy responses. Thus (Buzan, Weaver and de Wilde,1998) argued that securitisation depends on the continuous engagement between the securitisation actor and the selected audience, with the former putting a specific issue on the agenda and the latter choosing whether to acknowledge the issue as a threat or to refuse to accept the proposed agenda. Securitisation thus cannot be simply imposed, but must rather be sanctioned by the audience based upon its own perceptions and social values, and the manner in which the securitisation actor has shaped the threat proposal through the speech act. However, the theory does not specify who these actors are, instead arguing that any social actor can become the securitisation entity or the audience. (Weaver, 2000), however, does point out that the securitising actor must possess political authority and thus be able to foster a degree of political support. The concept of the audience is also not specified and is politically related to the securitising actor. Therefore, the audience can be composed of the domestic public, international audience, the political or business elite or various social groups. In this regards, (Weaver, 2000) pointed out that what is crucial for securitisation is that the strategy of political engagement is accepted by both the securitising actor and the audience. Critics of securitisation theory, however, argue that the notion of the audience lacks any precision and clarity, suggesting that the audience must be perceived as separate entities that need to be convinced through various public relations strategies (Leonard and Kaunert, 2011). (Roe, 2008) argued that this diminishes the validity of the theory as it simplifies the roles of social actors in an otherwise complex social process. (Taurcek, 2006) agrees with (Waever’s,2000) assertion that a securitisation act can only be accomplished by actors, who have accumulated significant political and economic power, and can successfully engage with wide audiences. According to (Taurcek,2006), securitisation does not need to define the notion of “audiences”, 19 ` as it recognises that essentially any social actor can fill that role. Instead, securitising actors adopt strategies that would help them garner the largest amount of support by engaging with the more influential social group (Taurcek, 2006). The latter, according to (Taurcek,2006) can be attributed to the fact that securitisation implies adopting significant changes in the specific policy line of the securitising actor and thus calls for moving beyond already established rules, and political practices. In this respect, (Sarikakis, 2012) further elaborates that legitimacy can be perceived as a crucial aspect of securitisation and that the audience must acknowledge the right of the securitisation actor to engage in the creation of a social construct. (Taurcek,2006) argued that securitisation must be accomplished through three steps, namely identifying a potentially dangerous exogenous social process, calling for emergency action and seeking to influence policy-making through the establishment of “inter-unit” relation between the social actors involved in the securitisation act. (Buzan, 1998) specifically pointed out that the latter usually rests on a rather simple narrative, namely that the issue must be represented as a threat that must be dealt urgently through an expedient policy change. (Weaver,1998), however, is quite cautious about the idea of employing securitisation, pointing out that while a wide range of political issues can be securitised, the act itself should be perceived as a failure to address a certain issue through already established political tools. The latter also implies that securitising actors who misuse the securitisation strategy may in fact lose legitimacy and credibility (Weaver, 1998). This is why, (Weaver,1998) argued that securitisation actors must also consider the opposite process, namely “desecuritisation”, which involves the transfer of a perceived threat to the realm of “normal politics” where it can be tackled through the utilisation of already established political processes and institutions. Critics of securitisation, however, point out that there are several issues with these arguments. For (Aradau, 2004), securitisation poses a significant normative dilemma, in the sense that the theory seems to describe a tool for social manipulation rather than a theory that explains international relations. (Balzacq, 2004) argued that as such, securitisation represents an interesting social observation and it is in fact quite useful to analyse how certain policies are legitimised. However, the theory’s focus on individual actors fails to account for the larger geopolitical implications of international relations, such 20 ` as states’ interests, accumulation of power and influence on the international arena and the behaviour of international institutions (Balzacq, 2004). In the context of this study, however, securitisation represents a useful analytical tool, regardless of the fact that it strays away from more traditional units of analysis by already well-established international relations theories, such as liberalism and realism. In fact, securitisation can explain how social perceptions in the Gulf have influenced the overall state of security in the region, and the UAE in particular. As (Weaver,2000) pointed out, utilising securitisation theory as an analytical tool allows one to examine how security concerns of both audiences and securitising actors have served to shape the political dynamics of a specific region. In fact, (Weaver,2000) further elaborated that moral and normative concerns about the theory hold little sway over its validity, and that “dubious” instruments of securitisation have often been utilised by social actors in an attempt to produce “security structures”. Such statements have led some to conclude that (Weaver, 2006) is in fact a “post-structural realist”, as his arguments do not necessarily come into collision with realist assumptions of states’ self-interests, but rather serve to compliment and expand upon classical realist thinking by focusing on how state behaviour is shaped and the manner in which security policies are achieved (Taurcek, 2006). 2.3 UAE’s Diplomatic Approach: Historical Perspective and Future Developments The UAE’s diplomatic approach towards foreign politics was established by its very founder, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, who sought to embed the principles of strict adherence to international law and pursuit of regional cooperation within the wider policy programme of the UAE government (Korany and Dessouki, 2010). According to (Sadjapour,2011), the UAE’s strategy and guiding principles involve several crucial cornerstones that include focus on respect of the sovereignty of the nation state, maintaining good regional relations and seeking to achieve peaceful resolutions to conflicts through diplomatic means. Scholars, such as (Akim, 1989), however, pointed out that a major aspect of UAE’s foreign policy is the notion of its Islamic identity. In fact, Korany and Dessouki (2010) also conceded this point, 21 ` arguing that while the UAE’s foreign policy principles seem deeply rooted in traditionally liberal approach to international relations, the UAE’s Sunni Islamic identity has been a considerable driver behind its dealing with its neighbouring states. In other words, the Sunni identity of the Emirates, according to (Sadjapour, 2011), has been instrumental in its ability to quickly establish close diplomatic ties with other neighbouring states, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, (Sadjapour, 2011) pointed out that the combination of Islamic identity with the country’s strong adherence to international norms and law has also meant that the UAE and had been looked on favourably by more secular regimes in the MENA region, such as Mubarak’s Egypt. As (Korany and Dessouki, 2010) elaborated however, that the UAE’s cultural identity had put the Emirates at odds with Iran and its allies in the region, more specifically Assad’s regime in Syria and Hezbollah. Abdullah (2014) argued that the notion of “balanced” foreign policy has also been applied when it comes to the internal institutional arrangements of the Emirates as well. Essentially, the UAE represents a federation of seven monarchies that are given significant amounts of flexibility and sovereignty when it comes to the conduct of their foreign and domestic policies (Abdullah, 2014). According to (Korany and Dessouki, 2010), in order for the federal government to maintain a cohesive policy approach, UAE policy-makers have tasked the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs with coordinating and taking into account the interests of all federal units and providing an overall strategy for the Emirates international affairs. Furthermore, (Korany and Dessouki, 2010) pointed out that the UAE has managed to successfully utilise its foreign policy strategy by remaining surprisingly consistent to its principles, which has contributed to its being perceived as a stable regional partner by most of its neighbours. Scholars, such as (Almezaini, 2013) pointed out that the reason behind this is Sheikh Zayed’s efforts in creating a cohesive foreign policy through the principles of federalism and compromise that has successfully been projected onto the international arena. Furthermore, the “federalist” arrangements of the UAE has managed to foster a feeling of solidarity amongst the oil-rich emirates that has significantly contributed to the Emirates philosophy of applying both flexible and moderate approaches to its dealings with other states. Ghareeb and Al-Abed, (1997) and Al-Mashat, (2010) argued that while the UAE’s foreign policy seems to stem from traditional interpretations of Islam that are 22 ` based on notions such as solidarity and peacefulness towards one’s neighbour, the Emirates overall strategy is in fact a product of a prudently and rationally crafted approach that accounts for the numerous geopolitical complexities of the region. (Ghareeb and Al-Abed,1997) further elaborate on this argument by pointing out that the presence of regional hegemons, such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria and the much-demanded oil resources that the UAE possesses, have in fact been instrumental in the federal government’s desire to seek to establish close ties with its neighbours. Guzansky, (2015) agreed with such conclusions, and argued that the UAE seems to be engaged in both balancing and bandwagoning behaviour, which he refers to as “hedging”. According to Guzansky, (2015), such a strategy is a result of the necessity for a small country to navigate through a complex regional climate and ensure its survival in the face of much stronger regional actors. (Al-Mashat, 2010) seemed to agree with Guzansky, (2015) argument by elaborating how the UAE has managed to establish a strong partnership with the US, both in terms of security issues and economic relations, while at the same time successfully integrating itself into regional organisations, such as the Arab League and the GCC, thus establishing close cooperative relations with political actors in its immediate geographical proximity. Al-Mashat, (2010), however, disagreed with Ghareeb and Al- Abed (1997) assertion that the UAE’s access to oil and its location represent a vulnerability, instead pointing out that in fact these two factors have been fundamental to the success of the Emirates foreign policy. In other words, intervening in the UAE’s affairs may result in a destabilisation of the regional power dynamics due to the geopolitical advantages of the otherwise small state (Al-Mashat, 2010). (Rug, 1996) on the other hand, pointed out that the UAE’s access to oil has often been used as an incentive when dealing with other nations. (Rug, 1996) also pointed out that the precarious situation of the UAE and the inherent political instability in the MENA region has shaped its policy-makers’ focus on maintaining international law and the principles of sovereignty. Furthermore, its lack of considerable military capabilities has led the UAE to bandwagon with external non- regional actors such as the US, the UK and even Japan in an attempt to deter any threating foreign policy-objectives on behalf of its neighbours (Sandjapour, 2012). (Young, 2013), however, suggested that UAE’s balanced policy may be a thing of the past and that in fact the Emirates seems to be moving in a direction of 23 ` becoming a “regional interventionist”. Such a policy represents a stark move away from the traditional policy approach utilised by the UAE and signifies what Buzan (2000) referred to as “extraordinary” policy measures. According to (Young, 2013) the UAE in 2009 had become the fourth largest importer of arms and military equipment through several major purchases in the period of 2008-9. According to the Sunlight Foundation, (2010) this was achieved through significant diplomatic and lobby effort on behalf of the UAE authorities, who engaged with the US government in attempt to obtain prestige and maintain the continued militarisation of its services. The Sunlight Foundation (2013) argued that the UAE spent 5.3 million in advisory fees alone to lobby directly to US officials for an increased access to nuclear technology. Evidence suggests that such a transformation of foreign policy might be facing a growing criticism from the Emirate civil society. There is evidence that the UAE youth had underestimated the threat of Muslim brotherhood of undermining the sustainability of the regime and might hold views in support of the organisation as a consequence of the latter continues support to the higher education in the Emirates (al-Noqaidan 2014). In the same line, the generous UAE humanitarian policy that takes 1.3% of the Gross national income of the Emirate might be opposed by the public which experience a cut of welfare benefits as a consequence of the low oil prices in the last couple of years (IFRC 2015; Gengler and Lambert 2016). This indicates that the process of convincing the target audience on the rising security threats might be more challenging than the regime had expected. 24 ` Research Methodology 3.1 Research Strategy According to Stake (1995, p.xi), employing a case study as the research strategy is typically done to explore a data-abundant and complex phenomenon, with the purpose of investigating and unravelling the “detail of interaction with its contexts”. Yin (2009, p.18) agrees with and emphasises this assessment, adding that the case study should be utilised “especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clear”, arguing that these abilities represent the main benefits of the strategy. Nevertheless, the main disadvantage of the case study rests with its wrongfully perceived ability of providing “rigour and objectivity” (Rowley, 2002, p.16), as it seems to have an “unscientific feel” (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p.147). However, as Rowley (2002) explains, these detriments may be easily avoided if the research design is carefully thought out, and if the implementation of the research is carried out in a systematic and thorough manner. In addition, although typically considered a strategy which favours the qualitative collection of data, mainly for the previously explained reasons by Rowley (2002), According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009, p.144), the survey is a strategy employed to explore “who, what, where, how much and how many questions”, and as such is optimal for deductive research. Surveys typically consist of collecting and analysing quantitative data through questionnaires, structured observations or structured interviews, each of the processes being more straightforward and accessible than their qualitative counterparts, due to plethora of data analysis and computing software, which allows the researchers to quickly identify the problems through variables (Travers, 2001, p.vi; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, pp.144-145). However, the data that needs to be gathered for a survey strategy to excel must be abundant, while the quantitative data analysis process, albeit easier to portray and interpret than the qualitative one, is lengthy and requires a systematic approach to data categorisation (Dul and Hak, 2008; Schutt, 2012). Choosing the survey as a research strategy would benefit the current study in terms of reliability and generalisability, the survey would not be capable of providing the entirety of the data required for exploring the selected phenomena. 25 ` All things considered, the researcher chose the case study as the research strategy, and has selected UAE’s foreign policy as the case study, to fulfil the aim of investigating the means through which the country constructs its foreign policy about the country’s external threats. The reasoning behind the decision stems from the idea that the research is intended to provide a thorough analysis of UAE’s threat response. To emphasise, unlike the survey, which - according to Yin (2003) - may be unsuited to portray a thorough discussion for both the phenomena explored and the context within which said phenomena is explored due to the extensive number of variables, the case study allows the researcher to portray each element surrounding the phenomena. The case study will allow the researcher to engage in both how the phenomena is created, but also to attempt to grasp the reasons behind the phenomena. Furthermore, according to Yin (2009, p.4), the case study may be employed to examine any “individual, group, organizational, social, political” phenomena, and is commonly employed in political science research, as it allows the researcher to examine and comprehend the “holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events”, thus making it suitable for the current study. 3.2 Research Design and data Collection When deciding the research design, Creswell (2014, p.3) explains that an important choice the researcher must make is to decide whether the study should be qualitative, quantitative, or a mixture of both. Quantitative research favours numbers to test theories by “examining the relationship among variables”, while qualitative favours words to examine and comprehend the significance that people assign to a situation (Creswell, 2014, p.4). When deciding the research design, the researcher considered examining the geopolitical implications in the UAE through a quantitative lens, yet reached the conclusion that this approach would hinder the objective of grasping the perceptions and interpretations of Emirati experts. More specifically, quantitative research is typically employed to gather generalised quantifiable data to test an existing hypothesis (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p. 125), or to examine the cause and effect relation between variables (Ritchie et al., 2013, p.29-30). Adopting a quantitative approach would therefore not allow the researcher to extensively explore how threat construction and the securitisation theory affects the beliefs of the Emirati population, but would rather just prove whether the population’s beliefs are 26 ` influenced by these issues, which would offer a limited understanding of the geopolitical context in the UAE. Furthermore, having decided on an inductive research approach, herein to reach an understanding of the geopolitical context in the UAE without first establishing a hypothesis, a quantitative research design would not only be inefficient, but would also not fit the narrative of the study. Therefore, the researcher chose to conduct a qualitative research instead of a quantitative one. More specifically, the study employs a qualitative, multi method design, as it combines both interviews with diplomats and scholars, as well as the analysis of policy speeches, to illustrate how UAE’s foreign policy has evolved in relation to the external threat, and more specifically to examine securitisation in the UAE. For the present study, this signifies that the researcher will be able to employ a qualitative design to offer an explanation as to why the changes in foreign policy have happened, rather than simply verifying if the changes occurred or not (Kara, 2017, p.18). As Blaikie (2010, p.207) points out, some methods associated with qualitative research, with regards to the interview, allows the researcher to amass an in-depth understanding of “the social actors’ meanings and interpretations, to their accounts of the social interaction in which they have been involved”. Similarly, Creswell (2014, p.4) explains that the aim of qualitative research is to explore “the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”, thus personal opinions, beliefs and insights are paramount to the construction of a veritable qualitative study. However, qualitative research also has some disadvantages. For instance, some potential disadvantage of conducting qualitative research refer to the necessity of possessing a penchant for knowing not only how to conduct an interview - if such is the selected method, but also recognising the importance of the cooperation between researcher and participant, and even further, being capable of correctly interpreting the gathered data (Mey, 2007; Houser, 2015; Wengraf, 2001). Mey (2007, p.59) refer to this knowledge as the “principle of communication”, and argue that it is the “characteristic that most prominently differentiates qualitative and quantitative research”, and explain that the lack of this principle may undermine the ability of producing valuable results. The potential and value of conducting qualitative research in international relations are limitless, especially when investigating phenomena that lacks extensive research, or analysing new developments (Sprinz 27 ` and Wolinsky-Nahmias, 2004; Odell, 2004; Lamont, 2015; Klotz and Prakash, 2008; Harrison and Callan, 2013). 3.2.1 Data Collection through Interviews According to Blaikie (p.207), a benefit of the qualitative interview is that it “can get close to the social actors’ meanings and interpretations, to their accounts of the social interaction in which they have been involved”. Therefore, the participants are able to offer an extensive perspective of their opinions regarding any subject, as they are granted the freedom of addressing questions in whichever manner best suits them, thus revealing the “subtleties of different viewpoints” (Oliver, 2010, p.10). Interviews can be structured, semi-structured or unstructured. On the one hand, in structured interviews, the researcher establishes a list of questions prior to meeting the participants, and adheres to the set of questions, which guides the discussion in its entirety (Taylor, Sinha and Ghoshal, 2006, p.76; Hair et al., 2011, p.191Therefore, structured interviews are mostly associated with quantitative research, as they consist of largely closed-ended questions, although the interviewer might ask for further clarifications on a question (Dahlberg and McCaig, 2010; Creswell, 2014). On the other hand, the unstructured interviews are “shaped by the interactions between interviewer and interviewee, evolving as the relationship and the substance of the dialogue progress” (Tappen, 2011, p.238). Out of the three choices, unstructured interviews are the ones that most resemble a discussion, as the interviewer presents a broader topic, through open-ended questions, to the participants and allows them to discuss said topics without any previously- established direction (Wengraf, 2001; Creswell, 2014). Finally, semi-structured interviews are, in a sense, a mixture between structured and unstructured interviews, and thus are more flexible, as they employ both closed-ended and open-ended questions (Lamont, 2015, p.83; Smith and Davies, 2010, p.119). The interviewer typically creates an interview guide prior to the start of the meetings, which is a list of subjects that need to be discussed, or even potential questions to ask (Gorard, 2013, p.37). However, unlike the structured variant, in semi-structured interviews the researcher might exclude certain questions or add others based on the participants’ responses, could even vary the order in 28 ` which the questions are addressed (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2010). Therefore, as Creswell (2014, p.202) argues, the flexibility of the semi-structured interview allows the researcher to further explore the intended phenomena, by allowing participants to clarify and expand upon their answers. The semi-structured interview is a method best suited for conducting research regarding less explored issues, as it allows the research to verify existing knowledge, while also exploring new perspectives (Dahlberg and McCaig, 2010, p.119-120). For the current study, the researcher aims to conduct twelve interviews with various Emirati policy experts. The interviews will be semi-structured, and the researcher will carry a list of potential topics and questions during all the interviews, to not lose sight of the study’s aim and objectives. When deciding on the type of interview to conduct, the researcher kept in mind the argument presented by Dul and Hak (2008, p.263), who argue that “the more structured a qualitative interview is [...], the more reliable will be the data generated”. Therefore, the semi-structured aspect of the interviews will allow the researcher to both gather and verify data based on initial presumptions, as well as allow the participants to expand upon any topics that might surface in the discussions, thus enhancing the probability of collecting a vast amount of knowledge regarding UAE’s geopolitical situation. 3.2.2 Data Collection from Policy Speeches The purpose of collecting and examining policy speeches in the present study is to understand the manners in which UAE officials present security threats, and thus to illustrate how threat is constructed in the country. The perspective offered by the policy speeches will be crucial to the object of the study, which tries to investigate how the foreign policy of the UAE is formed in relation to external threat, by employing securitisation theory. As the current study is a longitudinal one, the researcher will collect and analyse various documents that have been issued following the Arab Spring, starting from 2011 and until 2017. More specifically, the researcher will gather and analyse policy speeches that address the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Islamic or other terrorist groups in the region apart from ISIS, Shia extremism, the civil war in Bahrain and the recent conflict with Qatar. 29 ` 3.3 Sampling Convenience sampling is a commonly employed method in social research, which implies the researcher selecting participants mainly based on the criteria of geographic convenience, availability and willingness to participate (Gravetter and Forzano, 2012, p.151; Hutson and Kolbe, 2010, p.142; Etikan, Musa and Alkassim, 2016, p.2). The main advantages of convenience sampling are that it requires little to no preparations beforehand, it is inexpensive and simple to employ (Ellison, Barwick and Farrant, 2009; Gravetter and Forzano, 2012; Salkind, 2010). In addition, convenience sampling is mainly employed in qualitative studies, where the sample size is small, as it offers the researcher fast and simple options for individuals to partake in interviewing (Creswell, 2014; Macnee and McCabe, 2008, p.121). However, the main deficit of convenience sampling is that, even if the sample is generated in a manner that aims to represent an entire population (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p.241), it typically fails in being representative (Bigsby, 2017; Gravetter and Forzano, 2012; Littell and Corcoran, 2010; Etikan, Musa and Alkassim, 2016). Therefore, as Litell and Corcoran (2010, p.324) suggest, “a variety of sources and strategies are needed” to “capture the full range of relevant research findings”. The researcher will attempt to ensure the study’s generalisability by interviewing people that are both directly involved in UAE’s foreign policy, as well as people who are experts in the field, but who do not work for the Emirati government, as explained below. This will ensure that the sample is not strongly biased, as well as that it is representative of the opinions of Emirati policy experts. In addition to this, the researcher will further examine and interpret perspectives presented in official policy speeches, and the triangulation of the data will thus significantly decrease the method’s deficiency. Furthermore, to provide a representative perspective on the study’s geopolitical context, the researcher will interview individuals who had at least 3 years’ knowledge in and/or experience with UAE’s foreign policy. Thus, the preferred sample size of the current research will thus consist of 12 people, out of which 6 will be diplomats from UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MoFAIC), and another 6 will be scholars, mainly policy experts in UAE diplomacy. The choice of selecting individuals from two different groups would thus allow the 30 ` researcher to better triangulate the findings, to ensure that the research is generalisable and valid. 3.4 Data Analysis The process of coding refers to the systematisation of data into themes and patterns, to better understand the gathered data (Creswell, 2014; King and Horrocks, 2011; Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2010; Luton, 2010; Tappen, 2011; Weiss, 1994). More specifically, analysing the data gathered through coding does not only consist of identifying the recurring themes, but also to comparing, combining and even forming new themes from existing patterns (Luton, 2010, p.43). Creswell (2014, p.199) argues that the coding process may be used to “generate a description of the setting or people as well as categories or themes for analysis”, where the description refers to providing a detailed account of the studied phenomena. For the current study, this implies that through coding, the researcher will be able to also offer a broad perspective of UAE’s geopolitical stage, as well as of the actors who influence it. Furthermore, Menard (2008, p.297) argues that analysing qualitative data through coding is particularly suited for longitudinal research, as it allows the researcher to not only categorise the data, but also to compare data gathered from different time periods, in the attempt of identifying differences and understanding the underlying causes of said changes. For this study, as the interviews with UAE experts and diplomats will be conducted in Arabic, the coding process will be done by the researcher, and not with the use of a computer program. Although this option is more tedious, as it takes a lot of time (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2010), by dedicating the time to categorise and interpret the data, the researcher will be able to grasp a better insight of the participants’ interpretations of the phenomena. Therefore, the researcher believes that manual coding will thus promote a comprehensive understanding of the variables, as well as of the individual perspectives of the participants. As pointed out by Morris (2017, p.1782), the central benefits of employing triangulation is that it acknowledges that respondent bias is a threat to a study that examines data from solely one perspective. This implies that choosing to collect data from individuals with different mind-sets, as well as deciding to use several data collection methods will increase the reliability, generalisability and validity of a study 31 ` (Creswell, 2014; Lamont, 2015; Johnson and Christensen, 2012; Dahlberg and McCaig, 2010; Farquhar, 2012; Swanborn, 2010; Blaikie, 2010; Maxwell, 2013). Nevertheless, the process of triangulation also has some deficits, its main disadvantage being that it requires a significant amount of data to be successfully implemented, and this may be strenuous on the researcher, who needs to dedicate time and effort to conduct a comprehensive triangulation of the data gathered (Morris, 2017, p.1782). However, employing triangulation in a study will allow the researcher to achieve a greater understanding of the phenomena and topics explored in the thesis (Pierce, 2008, p.91). 3.5 Study Limitations Similarly to other studies, and with regards to qualitative studies, the main limitations regard the generalisability, validity and reliability of the research findings (Babbie, 2008; Franklin, Cody and Ballan, 2010; Tappen, 2011). Even more so, as previously mentioned, studies that employ convenience sampling tend to be even more exposed to lacking the ability of being representative (Bigsby, 2017; Gravetter and Forzano, 2012; Littell and Corcoran, 2010; Etikan, Musa and Alkassim, 2016). To minimise these potential limitations, the researcher will employ several strategies. First and foremost, the researcher aims to gather primary data through interviews conducted with two separate groups of individuals, to ensure that the sample does not exhibit a strong bias, as well as to reduce potential duplication in the answers (Litell and Corcoran, 2010, p.324). This approach will enhance the study’s generalisability. To continue, the researcher will not only collect primary data from interviews, but will also examine policy speeches, to offer a diverse perspective on the discussed phenomena. By first conducting separate analyses for both interviews and documents, and later triangulating the data gathered, the researcher will reinforce the validity of the data (Creswell, 2014; Dul and Hak, 2008; Farquhar, 2012; Swanborn, 2010; Yin, 2009). Lastly, as the study is longitudinal in nature, the examination and re-examination of data over a longer period will allow the researcher to ensure the reliability of the findings (Babbie, 2008, p.158). 32 ` 3.6 Ethical Considerations The researcher will clearly outline the rights and responsibilities for all the potential participants in the interviews, regardless of whether they accept or refuse to partake in the study. To guarantee that the participants understand both their rights and their responsibilities, the researcher will provide them with an exhaustive participant information sheet, which will explain the goal and details of the study, will present the importance of the study, along with the reasons for why they have been selected, what they could expect from partaking in the interviews, the benefits and disadvantages of choosing to take part in the study, and will reinforce the fact that sensitive information will be kept confidential, in addition to providing details for contacting both the researchers and the university. The participant information sheets will be provided on paper, to be signed by each of the participants. After providing the participant information sheet, the participants will be encouraged to pose questions related to the study, to clear any misunderstandings. Furthermore, to ensure that everyone understands their rights and responsibilities in their entirety, a consent form will be provided to each person Although the aim of this form is to gather the consent of a participant, it will also feature additional valuable information, such as the confirmation that the participant understands the confidentiality of their data, the voluntary feature of partaking in the research, as well as the admission that the participant understands their responsibilities. Both the participant information sheets and the consent forms will not feature any names, addresses, phone number, email addresses, identifiable titles or positions, as they will only be labeled with a participant number. Each participant will be allotted a unique participant number. To continue, the researcher will explain to the interview respondents that participation in the study is voluntary when they will be initially contacted, and will then again remind them of this important aspect both prior to commencing the interview, and after the interview has been concluded. As participation in the interviews is voluntary, all individuals may choose to withdraw at any stage of the study, except for when the study has already been submitted for verification. Thus, any individual may refuse to partake in the study, may stop during the interview and deny the researcher to use the information already discussed, or may even contact the researcher later to withdraw from the study. The participants may choose to withdraw without offering prior indication and without explaining the reasons for their 33 ` withdrawal. To withdraw from the study after the data has been collected, a participant need only provide the researcher with their assigned participant number, and the researcher will immediately nullify the data associated with the given number. 34  ` Oct Jan Apr Aug Oct Jan Apr July Sept. Oct 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 Introduction Literature Review Research Methodology Ethical approval Conducting interviews Collecting information speeches Data Analysis and findings chapter Conclusion & Recommendations References Section Implementing the feedback received Proof-checking & implementing feedback 35 ` Indicative References Abulof, U. (2014) "Deep Securitisation And Israel's “Demographic Demon”". International Political Sociology 8 (4), 396-415 Akbarzadeh, S. (2013) American Democracy Promotion In The Changing Middle East. 1st edn. London: Routledge Akbarzadeh, S. (2013) American Democracy Promotion In The Changing Middle East. 1st edn. London: Routledge Albayrakoglu, P. (2014) ‘Gulf Integration in Post-Arab Spring: Deepening or Decaying’. Security Strategies Journal 10 (19), 1-30 Albayrakoglu, P. (2014) ‘Gulf Integration in Post-Arab Spring: Deepening or Decaying’. Security Strategies Journal 10 (19), 1-30 al-Hamad, T. (1997) 'Will The Gulf Monarchies Work Together?'. Middle East Quarterly 45, 47-53 al-Hamad, T. (1997) Will The Gulf Monarchies Work Together?. Middle East Quarterly 45, pp.47-53 Al-Khawaja, M. (2014) 'Crackdown: The Harsh Realities Of Nonviolent Protests In The Bahraini Civil Conflict'. Journal of International Affairs 68 (1) Almezaini, K (2013) The UAE and Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid, Identities and Interests; London: Routledge Almezaini, K (2013) The UAE and Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid, Identities and Interests; London: Routledge Almezaini, K. and Rickli, J. (2016) The Small Gulf States. 1st edn. Florence: Taylor and Francis Almezaini, K. and Rickli, J. (2016) The Small Gulf States. 1st edn. Florence: Taylor and Francis Al-Motairy, S. (2011) The Gulf Cooperation Council and the challenges of establishing an integrated capability for upholding security. 1st ed. Monterey” Naval Postgraduate School 36 ` Al-Motairy, S. (2011) The Gulf Cooperation Council and the challenges of establishing an integrated capability for upholding security. 1st ed. Monterey, Calif.: Naval Postgraduate School al-Noqaidan, M. (2012). Muslim Brotherhood in UAE Expansion & Decline. Abu Dhabi: Al-Mesbar Centre center for Studies and Reports. Althani, M. (2012). The Arab Spring & the Gulf States. London: Profile Books. Altmann, M.P. (2011) Contextual Development Economics: A Holistic Approach to the Understanding of Economic Activity in Low-Income Countries. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. al-Zo’by, M. and Başkan, B. (2014). Discourse and oppositionality in the Arab Spring: The case of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UAE. International Sociology, 30(4), pp.401-417. Anderson, V. (2004) Research Methods in Human Resource Management. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Ang, S.H. (2014) Research Design for Business & Management. London: Sage. Babbie, E. (2008) The Basics of Social Research. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education. Balzacq, T. (2010) Securitisation Theory. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis Balzacq, T. (2011) Securitisation Theory: How Society Problems Emerge and Dissolve. Abingdon: Routledge. Balzacq, T. (2011). Securitisation theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Bernstein, S., Lebow, R.N., Stein, J.G. and Weber, S. (2007) Social Science as Case-Based Diagnostics, in Lebow, R.N. and Lichbach, M.I. (Eds.) Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.229-260. Binhuwaidin, M. (2015) ‘Essential Threats to the Security of the GCC Countries in the Post Arab Spring Era’. Digest of Middle East Studies 24(1), 1-25. Binhuwaidin, M. (2015) ‘Essential Threats to the Security of the GCC Countries in the Post Arab Spring Era’. Digest of Middle East Studies 24(1), 1-25. 37 ` Binhuwaidin, M. (2015) ‘Essential Threats to the Security of the GCC Countries in the Post Arab Spring Era’. Digest of Middle East Studies 24(1), 1-25. Binhuwaidin, M. (2015) ‘Essential Threats to the Security of the GCC Countries in the Post Arab Spring Era’. Digest of Middle East Studies 24(1), 1-25. Black-Branch, J. and Fleck, D. (2016). Nuclear non-proliferation in international law. New York: Splinger. Blaikie, N. (2007) Approaches to Social Enquiry: Advancing Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press. Blaikie, N. (2010) Designing Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brewer, J.D. (2003) Positivism, in Miller, R.L. and Brewer, J.D. (Eds.) The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts. London: Sage, pp.235-237. Brown, L. (2006). Diplomacy in the Middle East. London: I.B. Tauris. Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods. 4th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015) Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and Wilde, J. (1998) Security. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers Çakmak, C. (2014). The Arab Spring, civil society, and innovative activism. New York: Springer. Cameron, S. and Price, D. (2009) Business Research Methods: A Practical Approach. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Chatham House (2015) Future Trends in the Gulf. London: The Royal Institute of International Affair Chatham House (2015) Future Trends in the Gulf. London: The Royal Institute of International Affair Cibangu, S.K. (2012) Qualitative Research: The Toolkit of Theories in the Social Sciences, in Asuncion, L.-V. (Ed.) Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to 38 ` Social Sciences and Knowledge Management. InTech, pp.95-126. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/books/theoretical-and-methodological-approaches-to- social-sciences-and-knowledge-management (Accessed: 4 August 2017). Clemons, R.S. and McBeth, M.K. (2017) Public Policy Praxis: A Case Approach for Understanding Policy and Analysis. New York: Routledge. Cline, P.A. (2011) The Meaning of Life, Perception of Truth. Pittsburgh: RoseDog Books. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2013) Research Methods in Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Copeland, D. (2009) "Transformational Public Diplomacy: Rethinking Advocacy For The Globalisation Age". Place Branding And Public Diplomacy 5 (2), 97-102 Cordesman, H. and Peacock, N ., (2014). Iran, Evolving Threats and Strategic Partnership in the Gulf. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1-192. Cordesman, H. and Peacock, T. (2014) Iran, Evolving Threats and Strategic Partnership in the Gulf. New York: CSIS. pp. 1-192. Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2017) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage. Cummings, C.L. (2017) Cross-Sectional Design, in Allen, M. (Ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.314- 317. Curran, J. (2006) The Power of Speech: Australian Prime Ministers Defining the National Image. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Dahlberg, L. and McCaig, C. (2010) Practical Research and Evaluation: A Start-to- finish Guide for Practitioners. London: Sage. Davidson, C. M.(2009) Dubai and the United Arab Emirates: security threats. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 36 (3), 431-447. 39 ` Davidson, M (2009) Dubai and the United Arab Emirates: security threats. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 36 (3), 431-447. De Vaus, D.A. (2001) Research Design in Social Research. London: Sage. Decrema, E. (2013). New emerging balances in the post-Arab Spring: the Muslim Brotherhood and the Gulf monarchies. Milano: ISPI. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Dul, J. and Hak, T. (2008) Case Study Methodology in Business Research. Oxford: Elsevier. Dunn Cavelty, M. (2008) Cyber-security and threat politics: US efforts to secure the information age. London: Routledge. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp.532-550. Ellin, N. (1997) Architecture of Fear. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Ellison, S.L.R., Farrant, T.J. and Barwick, V. (2009) Practical Statistics for the Analytical Scientist: A Bench Guide. Cambridge: RSC Publishing. Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S. (2016) “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling”, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), pp.1-4. Farquhar, J.D. (2012) Case Study Research for Business. London: Sage. Farrington, D.P. (1991) “Longitudinal research strategies: advantages, problems, and prospects”, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(3), pp.369-374. Floyd, R. (2011). Can securitisation theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitisation theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), pp.427-439. Forstenlechner, I., Rutledge, E. and Alnuaimi, R. (2012). The UAE, the “Arab Spring” and Different Types of Dissent. Middle East Policy, 19(4), pp.54-67. Franklin, C.S., Cody, P.A. and Ballan, M. () Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, in Thyer, B. (Ed.) The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.355-373. 40 ` Friedman, B. (2012) 'Battle For Bahrain: What One Uprising Meant For The Gulf States And Iran'.Worlds Affairs Gagnon, Y.-C. (2010) The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook. Québec: Presses de L'Université du Québec. Ghareeb, E and I, Al-Abed (1997) Perspectives on the United Arab Emirates; London: Trident Press Ghareeb, E and I, Al-Abed (eds.) (1997) Perspectives on the United Arab Emirates; London: Trident Press Gorard, S. (2013) Research Design: Creating Robust Approaches for the Social Sciences. London: Sage. Gravetter, F.J. and Forzano, L.-A.B. (2012) Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. 4th Edn. Belmont: Wadsworth. Guzansky, J. (2010) Beyond The Nuclear And Terror Threats: The Conventional Military Balance In The Gulf. Strategic Assessment 13 (1). Guzansky, Y. (2014). The Arab Gulf States and Reform in the Middle East: Between Iran and the "Arab Spring". New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Guzansky, Y. (2015). The Foreign-Policy Tools of Small Powers: Strategic Hedging in the Persian Gulf. Middle East Policy, 22(1), pp.112-122. Haas, M. and Lesch, D. (2015). The Arab Spring. London: Routledge. Hair, J.F., Celsi, M.W., Money, A.H., Samouel, P. and Page, M.J. (2011) Essentials of Business Research Methods. 2nd Edn. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Hannay, A. (Ed.) (2014) The Concept of Anxiety: A simple Psychologically Oriented Deliberation in View of the Dogmatic Problem of Hereditary Sin. New York: Liveright Publishing. Harrison, L. and Callan, T. (2013) Key Research Concepts in Politics and International Relations. London: Sage. Hastings, S.L. (2010) Triangulation, in Salkind, N.J. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.1537-1540. Hayes, N. (2000) Foundations of Psychology. 3rd Edn. London: Thomson Learning. 41 ` Heit, E. (2007) What Is Induction and Why Study It?, in Feeney, A. and Heit, E. (Eds.) Inductive Reasoning: Experimental, Developmental, and Computational Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hellyer, P. (2001). United Arab Emirates: A New Perspective. In: I. Abed and P. Hellyer, ed., The Evolution of UAE Foreign Policy. New York: Trident Press. Hinnebusch, R. and Ehteshami, A. (2014) The Foreign Policies Of Middle East States. Boulder (Colo.): Lynne Rienner publ. Hoque, Z., Parker, L.D., Covaleski, M.A. and Haynes, K. (2017) The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods. Abingdon: Routledge. Houser, R.A. (2015) Counseling and Educational Research: Evaluation and Application. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Husserl, E. (1965) Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Hussey, J. and Hussey, R. (1997) Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Post-Graduate Students. London: MacMillan. Hutson, R.A. and Kolbe, A.R. (2010) Survey Studies, in Thyer, B. (Ed.) The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.131-148. IEP (2015) Global Terrorism Index. available at <http://economicsandpeace.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf> [22 July 2017] Islmael, T. (2015). Iraq in the Twenty-First Century: Regime Change and the Making of a Failed State. London: Routledge. Jamrozik, A. and Nocella, L. (1998) The Sociology of Social Problems: Theoretical Perspectives and Methods of Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jervis, R. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Johnson (2016) ‘Realism and Constructivism in the Middle East’. New York: Exit Option Paper. Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2012) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 42 ` Johnson, C. (2011) The Neoliberal Deluge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Jones, S. (2017). Rolling back the Islamic State. Washington: Rand. Junker, B.H. (2004) The Field Work Situation: Social Roles for Observation, in Seale, C. (Ed.) Social Research Methods: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp.221-226. Kamrava, M. (2011) International politics of the Persian Gulf. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Kaplan, B. and Maxwell, J.A. (1994) Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems, in Anderson, J.G., Aydin, C.E. and Jay, S.J. (Eds.) Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.45-68. Kara, H. (2017) Research and Evaluation for Busy Students and Practitioners: A Time Saving Guide. Bristol: Policy Press. Katzman, K. (2004) The Persian Gulf States. New York: Novinka Books Katzman, K. (2015) The Gulf Cooperation Council Camp David Summit: Any Results? Washington: Congressional Research Service. available from https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-the-gulf-cooperation- council-camp-david-summit-any-results/ [10 July 2017] Katzman, K. (2015) The Gulf Cooperation Council Camp David Summit: Any Results?” [online] CRS Report. Washington: Congressional Research Service. available from <http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20150709/103726/HHRG- 114-FA13-Wstate-KatzmanK-20150709.pdf> [13 August 2015] Kelly, J (2008) UAE at a Glance; London: Trident Press Ltd Khondker, H. (2011). Role of the New Media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations, 8(5), pp.675-679. King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010) Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Klotz, A. and Prakash, D. (Eds.) (2008) Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Korany, B. and Dessouki, A. (2010) The Foreign Policies Of Arab States: The Challenge Of Globalization. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press Series 43 ` Korany, B. and Dessouki, A. (2010) The Foreign Policies Of Arab States: The Challenge Of Globalization. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press Series Kumar, A. (2002) Research Methodology in Social Science. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. Lamont, C. (2015) Research Methods in International Relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Laz, E. (2014) "Sustainable Democracy And The Paradox Of The Arab Spring: The Egypt Experience". Alternatives: Turkish Journal Of International Relations 13 (1&2) Litell, J.H. and Corcoran, J. (2010) Systematic Reviews, in Thyer, B. (Ed.) The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.313-337. Lodico, M.G., Spaulding, D.T. and Voegtle, K.H. (2010) Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Long, D. and Reich, B. (2002). The government and politics of the Middle East and North Africa. Boulder: Westview Press. Lukka, K. and Modell, S. (2017) Interpretive research in accounting: Past, present and future, in Hoque, Z., Parker, L.D., Covaleski, M.A. and Haynes, K. (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Accounting Research Methods. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.36-54. Luton, L.S. (2010) Qualitative Research Approaches for Public Administration. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Lyng, S. and Franks, D.D. (2002) Sociology and the Real World. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Mabon, S. (2012) 'The Battle For Bahrain: Iranian-Saudi Rivalry'. Middle East Policy 19 (2), 84-97 Macnee, C.L. and McCabe, S. (2008) Understanding Nursing Research: Using Research in Evidence-based Practice. 2nd Edn. philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Mattair, T. (2007). Mutual Threat Perceptions in the Arab/Persian Gulf: GCC Perceptions. Middle East Policy, 14(2), pp.133-140. 44 ` Matthiesen, T. (2013). Sectarian Gulf: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab Spring That Wasn't. Stanford, California: Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press. Maxwell, J.A. (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. McCabe, J.A. (2017) Cross-Sectional Research Design, in Wenzel, A. (Ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.914-916. McCarthy, G.E. (2001) Objectivity and the silence of reason: Weber, Habermas, and the methodological disputes in German sociology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. McNabb, D.E. (2015) Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. 3rd Edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Menard, S. (2008) Introduction: Longitudinal research design and analysis, in Menard, S. (Ed.) Handbook of Longitudinal Research: Design, Measurement, and Analysis. London: Elsevier, pp.3-12. Mey, G. (2007) Qualitative Research on “Adolescence, Identity, Narration”: Programmatic and Empirical Examples, in Watzlawik, M. and Born, A. (Eds.) Capturing Identity: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. Lanham: University Press of America, pp.53-70. Midgley, G. (2000) Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology and Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic. Miller, R.L. and Brewer, J.D. (2003) The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts. London: Sage. Mkansi, M. and Acheampong, E. A. (2012) “Research Philosophy Debates and Classifications: Students’ Dilemma”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10(2), pp. 132-140. Morris, P.L. (2017) Triangulation, in Allen, M. (Ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.1781-1784. 45 ` Nonneman, G (1988) Development, Administration and Aid in the Middle East; London: Routledge Nonneman, G (1988) Development, Administration and Aid in the Middle East; London: Routledge Odell, J.S. (2004) Case Study Methods in International Political Economy, in Sprinz, D.F. and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (Eds.) Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Michigan: University of Michigan, pp.56-80. Oliver, P. (2010) Understanding the Research Process. London: Sage. Page, C. (2006) The Roles of Public Opinion Research in Canadian Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Perri 6 and Bellamy, C. (2012) Principles of Methodology: Research Design in Social Sciences. London: Sage. Pierce, R. (2008) Research Methods in Politics. London: Sage. Pinfari, M (2009) Nothing but failure?: the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council as mediators in Middle Eastern conflicts. London: Crisis States Research Centre. Ragab, E. (2017). Beyond Money and Diplomacy: Regional Policies of Saudi Arabia and UAE after the Arab Spring. The International Spectator, 52(2), pp.37-53. Rasheed, A. (2017) ‘Group Smuggled Weapons Into UAE’ available at <http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/courts/group-smuggled-weapons-into-uae- 1.1620936> [16 June 2017] Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998) Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: Sage. Ridder, H.G. (2009) The Theoretical Contribution of Case Study Research to the Field of Strategy and Management, in Bergh, D.D. and Ketchen, D.J. (Eds.) Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, vol. 5. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp.137-175. Robson, C. and McCartan, K. (2015) Real World Research. 4th Edn. London: John Wiley & Sons. 46 ` Roeckelein, J.E. (2006) Social Perception and the Social Class-Mental Illness Relationship: New Research or Beating a Dead Horse?, in Zebrowski, J.A. (Ed.) New Research on Social Perception. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp.127- 159. Ross, M. (2001). Does Oil Hinder Democracy?. World Politics, 53(03), pp.325-361. Rousseau, D.L. and Garcia-Retamero, R. (2007) “Identity, Power, and Threat Perception: A Cross-National Experimental Study”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(5), pp.744-771. Rowley, J. (2002) “Using Case Studies in Research”, Management Research News, 25(1), pp.16-27. Rudinger, G. and Wood, P.K. (1990) N’s, times, and number of variables in longitudinal research, in Magnusson, D. and Bergman, L.R. (Eds.) Data Quality in Longitudinal Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.157-180. Ruspini, E. (2002) An Introduction to Longitudinal Research. London: Routledge. Sadjapour, K. (2013). ‘The Battle of Dubai The United Arab Emirates and the U.S.- Iran Cold War. The Carnegie Papers. Carnegie. Salkind, N.J. (2010) Convenience Sampling, in Salkind, N.J. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Research Design, Vol.1. Thousand Oaks: Sage, p.254. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students. 5th Edn. Harlow: Pearson Education. Schaffer, F.C. (2014) Elucidating Social Science Concepts: An Interpretivist Guide. Abingdon: Routledge. Schutt, R.K. (2012) Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Sharp, P. (2009). Diplomatic theory of international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Siegel, S. (2017) The Rationality of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Solomon, P. and Draine, J. (2010) An Overview of Quantitative Research Methods, in Thyer, B. (Ed.) The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.26-36. 47 ` Sprinz, D.F. and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2004) Introduction: Methodology in International Relations Research, in Sprinz, D.F. and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (Eds.) Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Michigan: University of Michigan, pp.1-16. Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Starman, A.B. (2013) “The Case Study as a Type of Qualitative Research”, Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 1, pp.28-43. Stritzel, H. (2007). Towards a Theory of Securitisation: Copenhagen and Beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 13(3), pp.357-383. Stritzel, H. (2014) Security in Translation: Securitisation Theory and the Localization of Threat. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Swanborn, P.G. (2010) Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: Sage. Szalai, M. (2017). Between Accommodation and Opportunism: Explaining the Growing Influence of Small Gulf States in the Middle East. The International Spectator, 52(2), pp.3-18. Tappen, R.M. (2011) Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Taylor, B., Sinha, G. and Ghostal, T. (2006) Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers in Management and Social Sciences. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall. The Changing Islamist Landscape Of The Gulf Arab States (2016) The Arab Gulf State Institute of Washington. available from <http://www.agsiw.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/Freer_ONLINE-1.pdf> [12 August 2017] Tok, E., Calleja, R. and El-Ghaish, H. (2014). Arab Development Aid and the New Dynamics of Multilateralism: Towards better Governance. European Scientific Journal, 14(1). Travers, M. (2001) Qualitative Research through Case Studies. London: Sage. Tulmets, E. (2014) East Central European Foreign Policy Identity in Perspective: Back to Europe and the EU’s Neighbourhood. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tuma, E. (2014). Economic and political change in the Middle East. Palo, Calif.: Routledge. 48 ` Vaughn, J. (2009) ‘The unlikely securitiser: Humanitarian organizations and the securitisation of indistinctiveness’. Security Dialogue, 40(3). Pp.263-85. Wastnidge, E. (2017). Iran and Syria: An Enduring Axis. Middle East Policy, 24(2), pp.148-159. Weiss, R.S. (1994) Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press. Wengraf, T. (2001) Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage. Whitley, R. (1984) “The Scientific Status of Management Research as a Practically- Oriented Social Science”, Journal of Management Studies, 21, pp.369-390. Wong, P.T.P. and Wong, L.C.J. (2006) Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping. Yeşiltaş, M. and Kardas, T. (2017) Non-State Armed Actors In The Middle East. Yeşiltaş, M. and Kardas, T. (2017). Non-state armed actors in the Middle East. New York: Splinger. Yin, R.K. (2003) Applications of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 49