As world leaders gathered in Munich, Germany, for Europe’s top annual security conference, placating, pleasing, and managing US President Donald Trump stood as a top agenda. Trump’s phone call to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, US Vice-President J.D. Vance’s disruptive speech challenging Europe, and, by association, the very nature of trans-Atlantic alliances, and demands to end the Ukraine conflict, has led to a mad rush to host such a process, in the Gulf. The question that perhaps comes immediately to mind, even though the conflict in Gaza remains a major global flashpoint, is, why?

The Meeting Between Rubio And Lavrov

Russia and the US are preparing to start initial consultations on Ukraine following an ice-breaking meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh. For Saudi Arabia and its powerful heir-apparent, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, this is a moment of both regional and global reckoning. Gulf powers in the Middle East have now been for a while re-positioning and re-posturing their geopolitics. This process started much before Trump’s return to the White House—arguably, prior to even the Russian war against Ukraine. The roots of this shift lie in two main realities. First, a change in the construct of global power contestation, that is, a bi-polar competition between the US and China and a demand for multipolarity by a host of middle powers looking to secure their own interests and not get caught in the Washington-Beijing dynamics. The second reality relates to a general idea of the US becoming increasingly unwilling to mobilise militarily power to protect its allies.

Reconsidering America’s Role

Regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are evaluating the very fundamentals of the decades-long American hegemony, which has provided security blankets in the region. This also provides them with an opportunity to build their own geopolitical repertoire as middle powers with their own agency, instead of being viewed as client states, a tag that has plagued many of them for decades. The UAE as well has thrown its hat into the ring, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy landed in Abu Dhabi, mere hours after both Russia and the US eluded to excluding Kyiv from talks regarding Ukraine’s own future (Zelenskyy later cancelled a planned visit to Saudi). While this position by the Trump administration delivered tremors across European capitals, it has also played into an increasingly constrained space between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi for regional influence. And peace diplomacy, or mediation, is the flavour of the day.

However, the proverbial gold-rush to host Ukraine talks has more solid foundations in regional competition than an international one. For long, Oman has been the state that has consistently pitched itself as the main mediator, playing the role of ‘Switzerland of the Middle East’, where Muscat seemingly prioritises neutrality and offers a common ground for warring parties, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Houthi militia, or even the US and Iran, to talk.

The Qatar Question

Saudi Arabia and the UAE installed a blockade against Qatar between 2017 and 2021 for what they saw as Doha not aligning and punching above its weight, and, more specifically, for its support for Political Islam. But the Qatari leadership had another trick up its sleeve to ratchet its power quotient. In February 2020, under Trump’s first tenure, the Taliban in Afghanistan and the US signed a historic agreement for the latter’s exit from a two-decade long war in the country. Doha hosted the political office for the Taliban, and managed Kabul, to deliver this outcome to a president who, more than anything else, adores deals. This “success” gained Qatar the title of becoming America’s first and preferred ‘major non-NATO ally’ in the region. Today, Qatar also hosts America’s largest military base in the Middle East. For others, such as the UAE, the meteoric rise of Qatar’s influence in Washington was seen as a challenge. Within Abu Dhabi, questions were raised with Emirati diplomats in the US on why the Taliban’s office was not hosted in either Abu Dhabi or Dubai.

Saudi And UAE Have Bigger Goals

For Saudi Arabia, despite its functional relations with Russia and China alike, a security relationship with the US remains paramount. The same strategic aim is consistent for the UAE as well, one of the few Arab states that normalised relations with Israel as part of the Trump-brokered Abraham Accords and which continues to have functional relations with Iran. Despite continuing pressures on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to help deliver lasting solutions to the Israel-Palestine crisis and the Israel-Hamas war, both have broader, long-term aims with regard to their positions as poles-of-power within a multipolar framework. Both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi share this world view with the likes of India, but American power projection is infinitely more critical to political structures in the Middle East. This is truer today after the experience of the Arab Spring, and, more recently, the collapse of the Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria at the hands of a self-styled ‘lapsed’ jihadist group, the Hay’at Tahrir Al Sham (HTS).

Is This The Future Of Mediation?

The Saudis are not stopping just at giving space to the US and Russia to debate Ukraine. As per reports, Riyadh is also open to hosting talks between Iran and the US over the former’s nuclear programme. The Saudi-Iran détente was achieved in March 2023 with the help of China, the main competitor to the US, and a state that has unreservedly supported Arab positions in Gaza. Beijing, meanwhile, also remains open to mediating and helping to bridge political gaps across the region. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visits to the region have been welcomed with gusto by Saudi Arabia and the UAE alike, both as a function of being the world’s second-largest economic power and using this position to hedge risk with Western partners. The future of mediation between the Riyadh-Abu Dhabi-Doha trifecta is a cat and mouse game within the Arab construct. External powers such as the US, Russia, and China, are part of the utility kit. This push for one-upmanship will have a tremendous impact on regional politics where in the coming years economic and political competition is only expected to increase.

(Kabir Taneja is Deputy Director and Fellow, Strategic Studies Programme, Observer Research Foundation)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Years ago, during my one and only trip to Pakistan to report on the 50th anniversary of independence for a Western media outlet, I had the pleasure of meeting some bright, articulate students at the famed Government College in Lahore. Feeling magnanimous (and admittedly swept by their genuine warmth), I decided to drop a bombshell of an idea: why not reunite India and Pakistan? Should we not right the wrongs of Partition, restore the subcontinent to its undivided glory, and perhaps save on visa fees?

Their reaction shook me up no end. Polite smiles laced with a palpable ‘what-is-this-guy-talking-about?’. Most of them agreed that Partition was a disaster—but, they were quick to add, not their disaster. The blame, they insisted, lay squarely with the Urdu-speaking folks, many of whom had fled to Karachi and now live as ‘muhajir‘ (immigrants). One student practically bristled at my proposal and said my suggestion reeked of a “typical Indian response” from the post-Partition generation, which was a rather diplomatic way of calling me naïve. I get it.

From their post-Partition Pakistani perspective, the students argued, reunification was a no-go. Sure, their country wasn’t perfect—admittedly not on a par with India—but it was their own. Sovereign, independent, and, crucially, theirs to nurture or mess up, without unsolicited advice from nostalgic neighbours across the border. The message was clear: the idea of negating Partition, no matter how silly they thought it was, wasn’t up for debate. Period. 

It was a perspective that had never crossed my Indian-bred mind. It reminded me of the shock Canadians are feeling at President Donald Trump’s latest shenanigan—his not-so-casual declaration that he would like to annex Canada and turn it into America’s 51st state. Last week, Trump, always a fan of the spotlight, used an international platform to float the idea. Addressing the Davos economic forum via video link, he coolly tossed out the notion to an audience of CEOs and business honchos. Predictably, gasps echoed through the room. And somewhere in Ottawa, I imagine, jaws hit the floor.

What’s surprising isn’t just the audacity of Trump’s suggestion but the sheer persistence of it. His rhetorical swipes at Canada’s independence have become so frequent that one wonders if he is genuinely serious or just bored with his neighbours.

The US-Canada overlap is everywhere—from culture to sports to shared traditions. Neighbours for sure, but they are more like squabbling siblings. In 2023, the US-Canada trade hit over a trillion dollars, with $2.8 billion crossing their border every single day. They are each other’s biggest trade partners, with Canada sending 78% of its goods and services to the US every year, and over 4,00,000 people moving across their shared 5,525-mile border daily.

‘No, Thanks’

The reactions to Trump’s comments range from polite Canadian indignation to outright laughter. Meanwhile, Americans seem split between “Wait, can we actually do that?” and “Why would we even want to?”. Let’s unpack these views:

Recently, BuzzFeed ran an article that asked Canadians about their thoughts on Trump’s eyebrow-raising proposal to annex Canada as America’s 51st state. Unsurprisingly, the responses were a mixed bag, though they leaned heavily towards a polite but firm “No, thanks”. Here’s what some of them had to say: 

• “I do not want to be American. No one I know wants to be American. I am not giving up my free healthcare and strict gun laws. And I am definitely not giving up my right to choose as a woman.”
• “I would rather take my son on a vacation to Europe for fear of our safety in the US. Your lax gun laws make me afraid that we could be shot while vacationing in any part of your country.” 
• “We are not America. We never will be. In fact, I think America would benefit from a more Canadian viewpoint.” 
• “Americans would be better off joining Canada than Canadians would be joining the USA.”

And then, of course, there were those I would call ‘dissenters’. Their voices often stemmed from frustration with their own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, rather than an overwhelming love for Trump’s America. A few highlights:

• “Ask me 15 years ago, and I would have been ready to take up arms against any US threat; now, I’m not sure. The Liberal government, led by Trudeau, has divided and nearly destroyed our culture with ‘woke ideology’.”
• “I would be the first one to vote to become part of the United States.”
• “I would be over the moon to become an American. The US is the greatest country in the world. Canada has been riding their coattails for years. To be annexed into the US would be a dream come true.”

Their enthusiasm must be appreciated. Sure, they might get Florida, but they are also signing up for the ‘Florida Man’. And they are happy with it. However, in the end, while some Canadians may be open to the idea of annexation, the overwhelming sentiment seems to be, “Thanks, but we’re good.” 

The American public, it seems, isn’t exactly rolling out the red carpet for Trump’s latest brainwave. Surveys by The Wall Street Journal, Reuters-Ipsos and The Economist-YouGov—all conducted in recent days—indicate that the idea of annexing Canada is about as popular as a snowstorm in July. So, we must keep in mind that Trump’s land of the free isn’t exactly clamouring for a new northern star on its flag after all.

A Rare Precedent

Annexing a nation without a war is a rare feat, but history offers a few eyebrow-raising precedents that might bolster Trump’s audacious ambitions. Consider Texas in 1845: the Republic of Texas willingly joined the United States after breaking free from Mexico. Then there was Hawaii in 1898, annexed through a joint resolution of Congress following the not-so-gentle overthrow of its monarchy. Both cases, of course, were dripping with controversy and tangled in political gymnastics.

If President Trump were to actually chase his dream of annexing Canada as the 51st state, he would be plunging into a legal and political minefield. For starters, Canada’s Constitution is as silent as a winter morning on how a province—or the entire nation, for that matter—could secede and join another country. On the flip side, the US Constitution does allow for new states to join with Congressional approval, but annexing a fully sovereign country is uncharted territory, legally speaking.

Then there’s the political and populist angle. Agreed that Trump’s statement might strike a chord with certain populist audiences. But the logistics of such an annexation are a Herculean challenge. The deeply entrenched national identities and legal frameworks on both sides of the border make this idea more rhetorical than realistic.

Into Trump’s Mind

Trump himself drops plenty of hints about how he views his annexation dream. “Are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada?” a reporter asked him recently. “No. Economic force,” he said promptly. “Canada and the United States, that would really be something. You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security. Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada.”

Justin Trudeau, who is stepping down as Canada’s prime minister, didn’t hold back on X, retorting: “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.” Elon Musk on the other hand, ever eager to stir the pot, responded sarcastically: “Girl, you’re not the governor of Canada anymore, so doesn’t matter what you say.”

The banter may be entertaining, but the stakes of such a suggestion are no laughing matter. This is the kind of rhetoric that can tiptoe dangerously close to turning political theatre into a real diplomatic crisis.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author