Turkey and Qatar are significant diplomatic actors in some of the world’s protracted conflicts. In today’s world, where regional and international politics are broadly defined by polarization, the role of neutral actors is increasingly critical. Qatar and Turkey are examples of how middle powers can use the tool of diplomacy to help negotiate strained geopolitics. Foreign policies of these actors indicate that neutrality is not just a moral stance but a lever for strategic reasons and survival.

Mediation used as a strategic tool:

Situated in the geopolitically volatile region of the Gulf and the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Qatar and Turkey face risks of being drawn into complex regional discords. Mediation efforts act as a shield against their involvement in the conflicts while remaining crucial to international and regional diplomacy.

Qatar is situated between ideological rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran. Its geographic vulnerability and smaller population force it to adopt a more holistic foreign policy approach based on diplomacy, soft power, and impartiality. Qatar has invested in media platforms like Al Jazeera and institutions like the Qatar Foundation to increase its international image. Its hosting of US and Taliban talks in Doha (called the Doha Agreement in 2021) made it an important global actor, serving as a bridge between the two adversaries.

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has adopted a more assertive stance in global politics. Ankara has positioned itself as an influential regional leader and mediator in the Muslim world, as seen by its mediation efforts for the Black Sea Grain deal between Russia and Ukraine. Turkey presents itself as an influential leader rather than a subordinate ally of the West.

Perceived Bias

Turkey and Qatar have been misperceived despite their efforts to remain neutral. Globally, neutrality is seen not just as an intent but as the perception of others. How are one state’s actions perceived by the other? If a mediator is seen as biased, it immediately poses a big question mark on its credibility.  For instance, Qatar’s aid for Gaza’s catastrophe was viewed as support for Hamas, although Qatar justifies it as humanitarian assistance. During the 2023 Israel-Gaza war, Qatar’s efforts to mediate a ceasefire were criticized by some because of its ties with Hamas. ,

Turkey is on the verge of similar criticism. Its involvement in conflicts in Syria, Libya and the eastern Mediterranean, along with its backing of Islamist movements has fuelled distrust among its neighbors. Turkey’s strategic and ideological inclination often conflicts with its claim of being a neutral actor and credibility as a mediator.

Drawbacks of mediation:

Engaging in high-stakes mediation processes often comes with certain risks including economic setbacks, diplomatic isolations, and blockades. For example, in the 2017 Gulf crisis, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain imposed economic and diplomatic blockades on Qatar, perceived as having ties with hostile actors.

Turkey has been exposed to terrorism due to its military involvement in regional conflicts. Military operations that Turkey carried out in Northern Syria have invited retaliatory attacks in Turkish territory and contributed to regional instability. Turkey’s influential position abroad has been questioned and criticised domestically.

Neutrality in the polarised world:

Today’s global order views neutrality with skepticism. Great powers ask for alignment, while conflicting parties quickly disregard the mediation efforts that seem aligned with their rivals. However, Turkey and Qatar are operating in an environment where impartiality is considered vulnerable more than valuable.

Nevertheless, their mediation efforts act on merit. Sometimes the situation demands an actor to whom both conflicting sides are approachable. When dialogues take place among two adversaries, the third party mediator becomes vital even if imperfect. These challenges demand efforts to maintain perception, align competing interests of both sides, and maintain trust.

Israel strikes Qatar: A threat to its sovereignty and neutrality:

The recent Israeli strikes on Qatar clearly breached its sovereignty. Israel claimed that it targeted Hamas hideouts. Qatar, as a sovereign state, has full rights to maintain an independent foreign policy, including the framework for international mediation. Israel’s action not only violated international law but also violated Qatar’s role as an impartial diplomatic actor. The action undermined the setup of modern conflict resolution, messaging to the world that “impartiality comes with zero protection”. This demotivates other states from taking up the roles of mediators in the international arena, strains the trust in diplomatic efforts, and forces the global world order towards more polarization.

The attack not only harmed Qatar but the global system, which heavily relies on neutral actors to step into conflict resolution rather than using force.

Conclusion:

The neutrality of Qatar and Turkey demonstrates that mediation efforts are used as strategic tools but often come with dangers. While it leads them to influence diplomatic efforts, it exposes them to external and internal pressures. As the need for credible intermediaries grows, these two states showcase that impartiality is not a shield but a delicate balancing act in the increasingly polarized world.

Zara Farooq is enrolled in the Bachelor's program of International Relations in Bahria University E9, Islamabad.