19
Conclusion: Hegemony or Resistance
It is still necessary to assess how Qatar operates between the countervailing poles
of globalization—indigenous empowerment vs. U.S. hegemony. In terms of power
preservation and national prosperity, the implementation of transparency through the
various political and economic reforms within Qatar constitutes a successful and coherent
program. At the level of regional influence, the intent and impact of Qatari reforms is
contestable. From the perspective of regional governments, the upheaval in public
discourse attributed to Al Jazeera could be viewed as a basis for instability, although a
defense of MENA elites in the name of indigenous integrity is laughable. However, if Al
Jazeera’s destabilization of political regimes only sets the table for the international
financial elites to wield more influence, there is potentially a perilous long-term cost for
the short-term freedoms. Considering the connection between Qatar’s media reforms and
its allegiance to the Washington Consensus, it is not unreasonable to see Al Jazeera as a
vehicle to promote United States led economic development. The crucial question that
remains, however, is whether or not the U.S. exerts a hegemonic influence over Qatar, or
whether this tiny nation has empowered itself with the fissures of globalization.
Anti-globalization activists assume that free trade and Anglo-American capitalism
are universally antagonistic to the interests of developing countries and their indigenous
values. In the case of the MENA region, the anti-globalization perspective does not
suffice. Among the most prominent indigenous values to cover the entire MENA region
is Islam. Aside from a strictly interest-free approach to finance, Islamic theories of
economics are mostly compatible with capitalism (Warde, 2000). In many cases,
information-shy regimes in the MENA are more concerned with preservation of their
Convention