
Gulf investments: A sovereign right impervious to critices
Do critics have the right to question the Gulf states' investments in thriving global economies? What truly drives these criticisms?
The complex interplay of economic and political dynamics reveals a clear truth: such critiques often lack objective grounding, rooted instead in dubious political or ideological motives, tinged with envy and resentment toward the Gulf's remarkable achievements.
Statistics and historical data confirm that, since their founding, Gulf states have pursued a balanced strategy for managing their wealth. They blend domestic development, generous foreign aid, and strategic investments in stable, advanced economies. This thoughtful approach has proven successful over decades, enabling Gulf states to preserve and grow their wealth for future generations while setting a global standard for generosity and support for those in need.
An unbiased observer can see that critics who brand Gulf investments in robust global economies as 'plunder' or 'waste' often hail from corrupt authoritarian regimes, terror groups, or factions pushing extremist ideologies hostile to prosperity and stability. These detractors deliberately ignore the Gulf states' sovereign right to manage their wealth and investments in line with their national interests.
History clearly documents the Gulf's generosity, with hundreds of billions of dollars in aid extended to Arab, Islamic, and developing countries over decades.
For example, Saudi Arabia's aid from 1975 to 2024 totaledapproximately 498.54 billion riyals (132.94 billion USD). From 1976 to 1987, its international development aid reached 49 billion USD, second only to the United States.
The United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, has consistently surpassed the United Nations' goal of allocating 0.7% of gross national income to official development assistance, reaching 1.17% in 2014. In several years, the UAE exceeded this target, earning acclaim in reports from the OECD's Development Assistance Committee as the top donor relative to its economy's size. The UAE's deep commitment to humanitarian and developmental responsibilities has been driven by a vision that sees fostering progress in developing countries as a foundation for global stability, not just a diplomatic gesture.
When viewed with clarity and fairness, it is evident that Gulf states have never leveraged their aid to exert political pressure or meddle in the affairs of recipient countries. Their assistance springs from genuine humanitarian, moral, and religious values, setting it apart from the often conditional aid of some major powers, which is typically tied to political or economic agendas.
The Gulf's decision to channel financial surpluses into strong global economies, notably the United States, is not impulsive but a carefully crafted strategy grounded in a deep understanding of global markets and the need for secure, profitable investments.
The U.S. economy, accounting for over 40% of global investments, is a natural choice for countries with surplus funds aiming to maximize returns while minimizing risks. Its vast scale, relative stability, and diverse sectors offer a safe and dynamic investment, unlike the volatility of emerging or unstable markets.
Gulf investments in the U.S. serve not only economic purposes but also strategic ones, safeguarding political and security interests. Given their geopolitical position and oil wealth, Gulf states face complex security and political challenges, requiring powerful allies to provide protection and support against regional threats. Investments in economies like the U.S. strengthen strategic partnerships, creating shared interests that bolster regional stability and security.
Advanced economies attract Gulf investments due to their political and economic stability, robust legal frameworks, diverse opportunities, technological innovation, and ease of market entry and exit.
Calling Gulf investments in thriving global economies 'plunder' is a misguided and misleading label, betraying a lack of understanding of global economic dynamics and international investment principles.
Investment is a mutually beneficial exchange, not exploitation. Gulf states gain financial returns and strategic benefits, while host economies benefit from capital inflows that fund projects, create jobs, and fuel economic growth.
Since their inception, Gulf states have embraced a governance model built on wisdom, transparency, and long-term planning. Recognizing the finite nature of oil wealth, they understood early on that over-reliance on it threatens future generations.
Their strategy hinges on three pillars: domestic development, foreign aid, and global market investments.
Openness and coexistence define Gulf societies, setting them apart from those under authoritarian regimes or extremist influence. These states have fostered inclusive, tolerant communities where diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities thrive in mutual respect and cooperation. Millions of expatriates from around the world live and work in the Gulf with freedom and dignity, practicing their religious and cultural traditions without restriction or harassment.
To be sure, Gulf investments in strong global economies come from a place of prudent wealth management and a forward-thinking vision to ensure a prosperous, sustainable future for generations to come. Critics who challenge these investments lack credible evidence or rigorous economic analysis, driven instead by questionable political and ideological motives, revealing envy and resentment toward the Gulf region's success in wisely stewarding its wealth and investments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arab News
14 hours ago
- Arab News
Mixed outlook for the UN on its 80th birthday
The UN celebrated its 80th birthday on Thursday. But Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used the occasion to warn that its founding charter is under assault like never before. The organization was created out of the trauma of the Second World War, with the UN Charter inked by an initial 50 states on June 26, 1945. It came into force later that year with the aim of trying to prevent future wars, while also upholding human dignity and equal rights. Guterres warned on Thursday that 'we see an all-too-familiar pattern: follow when the charter suits, ignore when it does not. The Charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an a la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations.' Of course, countries regularly accuse each other of violating the charter. In recent years, Russia and Israel have been cited by the General Assembly for violating it in Ukraine and Gaza, respectively. Earlier this month, Iran accused the US of breaching the charter with its strikes on three of its nuclear facilities. Yet, as many challenges as the world body now faces, its 80th birthday underlines that it continues to have resilience and legitimacy. This is despite growing concerns over its relevance in an increasingly contentious, fragmented world. There is still widespread recognition that global challenges can best be tackled through international, coordinated action, often led by the UN. And despite the deep decay of the post-1945 order, the remaining postwar international institutions — with the UN at their heart — continue to have major relevance almost a century after their birth. While these bodies are imperfect and in need of significant reform, they have generally enabled international prosperity and security, especially with the two most powerful countries in the world today, China and the US, both being permanent members of the Security Council. The UN's continuing relevance underlines the wisdom of the critical mass of nations that decided, at that time, to try to change the course of history by committing to work together for peace. In the decades since the signing of the charter, the world body has worked unwaveringly for peace, dialogue and cooperation to promote human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development, as well as fighting climate change. Given the overall success of the UN after three-quarters of a century, one of the many ironies of the current political era is the sea change in view of the US administration. The UN and fellow multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were key parts of the postwar settlement championed by American presidents in the 1940s and which were subsequently cultivated on a bipartisan basis by successors of every stripe to bolster US global leadership during the Cold War and beyond. There is still widespread recognition that global challenges can best be tackled through international, coordinated action. Andrew Hammond Yet, today's administration is widely viewed to be hastening the collapse of that same postwar order. This surprises many across the world, given that the post-1945 system has generally been so beneficial for Washington in terms of both soft and hard power. President Donald Trump, unlike all his postwar predecessors in the White House, has disowned many of the US-led institutions and alliances, promising instead an 'America First' platform. On his first day back in power in January, for instance, he signed an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization. The UN is also concerned about the expected outcome of a US review of its participation in the UN and other multilateral institutions, which was ordered by Trump and is expected in August. More than 60 UN offices, agencies and operations that get money from the organization's regular operating budget are already facing job cuts of about 20 percent — part of reforms made by Guterres due to the White House's already-announced funding cuts and wider developments. But dismantlement is one thing — building something new is another. Thus far, the administration is yet to forge any comprehensive new doctrine centered on its core vision. Indeed, there has often been policy incoherence, reflecting the president's transactional style of governing. However, it is not just the vacuum caused by a lack of US leadership in the UN that is contributing to the uncertainty surrounding both it and the wider erosion of the post-Second World War settlement in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous landscape of 2025. For there is also growing geopolitical angst, as shown by the current tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine, not to mention other conflicts such as those in Sudan, eastern Congo, Haiti and Myanmar. What makes this so worrying for the UN and other proponents of international peace and security is that it comes on top of layers of previous turbulence in the international landscape. The multiple challenges now confronting the international order include the fact that Washington's relations with China are at one of their lowest points in decades. A fundamental driver of whether the UN will thrive, not just survive, in the coming years is the direction of the ties between the US and China, the two most powerful members of the UNSC. With the US exiting the WHO and cutting its funding to other UN agencies, China's influence will increase. Right now, the US-China relationship seems set for growing bilateral rivalry and what some see as a new cold war that could see international cooperation erode, including over technology and wider trade issues. Military tensions are also increasing, from the South China Sea outward. However, there may still be unexpected potential for partnership at the UN and beyond. Bilateral cooperation, possibly in the era after the Trump presidency, is most likely if stronger partnerships can be embedded on issues like climate change, as during the Barack Obama and Joe Biden years, which may enable more effective ways of resolving hard power disputes.


Al Arabiya
18 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Iran demands UN recognize Israel, US ‘responsibility' for war
Iran demanded that the United Nations recognize Israel and the United States as being to blame for their recent 12-day war, in a letter to the secretary-general published on Sunday. 'We officially request hereby that the Security Council recognize the Israeli regime and the United States as the initiators of the act of aggression and acknowledge their subsequent responsibility, including the payment of compensation and reparations,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in the letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Developing


Arab News
a day ago
- Arab News
G7 agrees to exempt US multinationals from global minimum tax
OTTAWA: The Group of Seven nations said Saturday they have agreed to exempt US multinational companies from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries — a win for President Donald Trump's government, which pushed hard for the compromise. The deal will see US companies benefit from a 'side-by-side' solution under which they will only be taxed at home, on both domestic and foreign profits, the G7 said in a statement released by Canada, which holds the group's rotating presidency. The agreement was reached in part due to 'recently proposed changes to the US international tax system' included in Trump's signature domestic policy bill, which is still being debated in Congress, the statement said. The side-by-side system could 'provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward,' it added. Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinational companies, an agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That agreement, deeply criticized by Trump, includes two 'pillars,' the second of which sets a minimum global tax rate of 15 percent. The OECD must ultimately decide to exempt the US companies from that tax — or not. The G7 said it looked forward to 'expeditiously reaching a solution that is acceptable and implementable to all.' On Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had signaled that a 'joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests' was in the works. He also asked US lawmakers to 'to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill' — Trump's policy mega-bill. Section 899 has been dubbed a 'revenge tax,' allowing the government to impose levies on firms with foreign owners and on investors from countries deemed to impose unfair taxes on US businesses. The clause sparked concern that it would inhibit foreign companies from investing in the United States.