Islamic

World’s Safest Banks 2025: Islamic Banks In GCC

GCC banking institutions display the importance of growing open banking.

The evolution of Islamic banking in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is accelerating as new products and regulatory developments shape the industry. For the institutions cited in our ranking of the Safest Islamic Banks in the GCC, an important area of growth is open banking, which allows bank customers to securely share financial data with third-party providers. This represents a significant opportunity to capture new business with commercial clients, particularly in the small to midsized enterprise segment.

Embedded Shariah-compliant products enable a range of services for real-time cash management, collections, and payments. To speed this development, Islamic banks are expanding partnerships with fintechs. GCC countries have made this area a high priority. The Saudi Central Bank has launched an open banking platform, establishing frameworks for corporate APIs: an important component of the bank’s fintech strategy related to the government’s Saudi Vision 2030 initiative.

The sukuk market is growing steadily—S&P estimates $200 billion in issuance during 2025, up 4% year over year—but the market must adapt to maintain growth as heightened regulation is on the horizon. Under evaluation is a new guideline (Standard 62) from the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) that alters the dynamics of the sukuk market. According to S&P, the new standard will mean  “a market shift from structures in which contractual obligations of sukuk sponsors underpin repayment to structures where the underlying assets have a more prominent role. This could change the nature of sukuk as an instrument, exposing investors to higher risk, and increase market fragmentation.”

A new leader has emerged in our 2025 ranking of the Safest Islamic Banks in the GCC. Al Rajhi Bank, the largest Islamic bank globally, has claimed the top spot thanks to a Moody’s upgrade to Aa3 after the agency raised Saudi Arabia’s sovereign rating to the same level last November.

table visualization

Source link

Trump’s Gaza peace plan welcomed by Arab and Islamic countries, the West | Israel-Palestine conflict News

United States President Donald Trump has proposed a 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza after holding talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who welcomed the proposal.

The new proposal, which calls for the disarmament of Hamas, has been welcomed by the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs in the occupied West Bank, along with some regional Arab countries.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Hamas says that it is studying the US proposal “in good faith”, while the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group says that the plan is a “recipe to blow up the region”.

Below are the reactions from regional and Western countries.

Palestine

The PA said that it welcomes the “sincere and tireless efforts to end the war on Gaza, and affirms its confidence in his ability to find a path to peace”.

“It reiterates its shared commitment to working with the United States, regional countries, and partners to end the war on Gaza through a comprehensive agreement that guarantees the delivery of adequate humanitarian aid to Gaza, the release of hostages and prisoners,” it said in a statement published by the Palestinian afa news agency.

It also called for the “establishment of mechanisms that protect the Palestinian people, ensure respect for the ceasefire and security for both parties, prevent the annexation of land and the displacement of Palestinians, halt unilateral actions that violate international law, release Palestinian tax funds, lead to a full Israeli withdrawal, and unify Palestinian land and institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” it said.

“It also ends the occupation and paves the way for a just peace based on the two-state solution, with an independent and sovereign State of Palestine living side by side with the State of Israel in security, peace, and good neighborliness, in accordance with international law,” the statement added.

The PIJ, a Palestinian armed group fighting alongside Hamas, called Trump’s plan a “recipe for continued aggression against the Palestinian people. Through this, Israel is attempting – via the United States – to impose what it could not achieve through war,” the group said in a statement.

“Therefore, we consider the American-Israeli declaration a formula for igniting the region.”

Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye UAE

The foreign ministers of the above countries released a joint statement welcoming Trump’s “sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza, and assert their confidence in his ability to find a path to peace”.

“Along these lines, the ministers welcome the announcement by President Trump regarding his proposal to end the war, rebuild Gaza, prevent the displacement of the Palestinian people and advance a comprehensive peace, as well as his announcement that he will not allow the annexation of the West Bank,” the statement added.

The statement went on to say that the countries are willing to work with the “United States to end the war in Gaza through a comprehensive deal that ensures unrestricted delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid to Gaza, no displacement of the Palestinians, the release of hostages, a security mechanism that guarantees the security of all sides, full Israeli withdrawal, rebuilds Gaza and creates a path for a just peace on the basis of the two state solution, under which Gaza is fully integrated with the West Bank in a Palestinian state in accordance with international law as key to achieving regional stability and security”.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Erdogan has hailed Trump for his efforts to broker a ceasefire.

“I commend US President Donald Trump’s efforts and leadership aimed at halting the bloodshed in Gaza and achieving a ceasefire,” Erdogan said in a statement.

He added that Turkiye would continue to support the diplomatic process, and is committed to helping establish “a just and lasting peace acceptable to all parties”.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif

Sharif posted on X that he welcomed the plan.

“I am also convinced that durable peace between the Palestinian people and Israel would be essential in bringing political stability and economic growth to the region,” he wrote.

“It is also my firm belief that President Trump is fully prepared to assist in whatever way necessary to make this extremely important and urgent understanding to become a reality.

“I laud President Trump’s leadership and the vital role played by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff in bringing an end to this war.”

He added: “I also strongly believe that the implementation of the two state proposal is essential to ensure lasting peace in the region.”

Israeli opposition politician Benny Gantz

Gantz said on X: “I laud President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to secure a hostage deal and safeguard Israeli security. Now is the time for initiative.”

“President Trump’s plan must be implemented, our hostages brought home, Israel’s operational freedom maintained, Hamas’ terror regime in Gaza replaced and moderate Arab States instated instead as I proposed a year and a half ago.

“We must not miss out on the opportunity to bring back the hostages, safeguard our security and catalyse a ‘Strategic Flip’ expanding the circles of regional normalisation,” he added.

France

“I expect Israel to engage resolutely on this basis. Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan,” French President Emmanuel Macron said in a statement on X.

“These elements must pave the way for in-depth discussions with all relevant partners to build a lasting peace in the region, based on the two-state solution and on the principles endorsed by 142 UN member states, at the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia.”

United Kingdom

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “We call on all sides to come together and to work with the US Administration to finalise this agreement and bring it into reality. Hamas should now agree to the plan and end the misery, by laying down their arms and releasing all remaining hostages.”

The controversial former prime minister, Tony Blair, called the plan “bold and intelligent”, adding that it “can end the war, bring immediate relief to Gaza, the chance of a brighter and better future for its people, whilst ensuring Israel’s absolute and enduring security and the release of all hostages”.

Blair used to be an international envoy for the Middle East and was named by Trump as a member of his “board of peace” for Gaza.

Italy

Italy welcomed the proposal in a statement, saying that it “could mark a turning point, enabling a permanent cessation of hostilities, the immediate release of all hostages, and full and secure humanitarian access for the civilian population”.

Hamas, it added, “now has the opportunity to end it [war] by releasing the hostages, agreeing to have no role in Gaza’s future, and fully disarming”.

Spain

Spain, one of the most vocal critics of Israeli genocide in Gaza, has also welcomed Trump’s peace proposal.

“We must put an end to so much suffering,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said in a post on X.

“It is time for the violence to cease, for the immediate release of all the hostages to take place, and for humanitarian aid to be provided to the civilian population.

“The two-State solution, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only possible one.”

Source link

Who are the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation? | Israel-Palestine conflict News

Leaders from across the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have gathered in Doha for an Arab-Islamic summit to forge a unified stance on Israel following its attack on a Hamas office in Qatar’s capital on September 9 that killed six people.

The emergency summit of the Arab League and OIC began on Monday, following a closed-door meeting of foreign ministers in Doha, where a draft resolution outlining concrete measures against Israel was prepared.

“It’s time for the international community to abandon dual standards and to hold Israel accountable for all the crimes it has committed,” Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said before the meeting, adding that the attack must be met with “fierce” and “firm” measures.

This handout image provided by Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs shows Qatar's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani chairing a preparatory meeting in Doha on September 14, 2025, ahead of an Arab Islamic summit.
Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani chairs a preparatory meeting in Doha on September 14, 2025, before the Arab-Islamic summit [Handout image from Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs via AFP]

 

The Qatari leader also chided Israel’s continuous derailment of Gaza ceasefire talks, stating: “Israel must know that the continuous genocidal war against the Palestinian people, aiming at forcibly transferring them outside their homeland, cannot succeed, no matter what false justification is provided.”

Israel’s attack on Qatar was part of a broader wave of strikes extending beyond its borders, marking the sixth country Israel had targeted in 72 hours and the seventh since the start of this year.

REVISED_Interactive_Israel_attacks_nations_Sept10_2025
[Al Jazeera]

Who are the 22 members of the Arab League?

Among the attendees are representatives from the Arab League, a group of 22 member nations stretching from North Africa to the Gulf and representing primarily Arab-majority states, with a combined population of nearly 500 million — about six percent of the world’s population.

Officially known as the League of Arab States, the Arab League was established in Cairo on March 22, 1945, by seven founding members: Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (now Jordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. Its creation reflected the shared desire of Arab countries emerging from colonial rule to coordinate their political stances, promote regional solidarity and safeguard their sovereignty and independence.

Over the decades, membership grew to 22 states, stretching from North Africa to the Gulf. Egypt was suspended in 1979 after signing a peace treaty with Israel, but its membership was reinstated in 1989. Libya was suspended during the 2011 uprising but readmitted later that year. Syria was suspended in 2011 amid its civil war and reinstated in 2023.

INTERACTIVE - Who is part of the Arab league - SEPTEMBER 14, 2025-1757941753
[Al Jazeera]

The group accounts for about 3.25 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP), with several members ranked among the world’s leading oil producers.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, and Algeria are also part of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and hold some of the largest proven oil reserves. Collectively, Arab League members produce about a quarter of the world’s oil.

All Arab League members are also part of the 57-member OIC.

Who are the 57 members of the OIC?

The OIC, which was formed in 1969 in response to an arson attack on Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, brings together 57 countries with significant Muslim populations across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas.

In September 1969, Muslim leaders met in Rabat, Morocco, to establish a body that would safeguard Islamic holy sites, protect shared political and economic interests, and promote solidarity among Muslim-majority nations on the global stage.

Over time, its membership expanded from 30 to 57 states, reflecting its growing reach. Today, the OIC represents more than 2.1 billion people — about 26 percent of the world’s population and 8 percent of the world’s GDP.

INTERACTIVE - Who is part of the OIC - SEPTEMBER 14, 2025-1757941778
[Al Jazeera]

In its early years, the OIC had loose membership rules. Its original charter allowed any Muslim state to join with the approval of two-thirds of existing members, which opened the door for countries without Muslim majorities but with significant Muslim populations. These include Gabon, the Maldives, Mauritania, Uganda, Mozambique, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, the Ivory Coast and Guinea-Bissau.

In the Americas, Guyana and Suriname joined despite having relatively small Muslim communities.

The 2008 charter revision made membership stricter. Now, a country must be a United Nations member (with Palestine as the exception), have a Muslim-majority population, abide by the charter and apply formally. Even then, admission requires consensus among all 57 members — a difficult task.

Albania is the only European state in the OIC.

The organisation has maintained a consistent and forceful stance against Israeli actions, particularly regarding occupation and military offensives in Palestine.

Over the past three years, the OIC has convened several emergency summits and ministerial meetings — most notably in Riyadh, Jeddah and Istanbul – to condemn Israeli attacks on Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and, more recently, strikes involving Iran and Qatar.

The group has repeatedly called for immediate ceasefires, protection of Palestinian civilians and international accountability for what it describes as “Israeli crimes”.

Source link

Arab, Islamic countries condemn Netanyahu’s ‘Greater Israel’ remark | Israel-Palestine conflict News

A statement issued by the countries says the Israeli prime minister’s comments constitutes a direct threat to Arab national security and peace.

A coalition of Arab and Muslim nations has condemned “in the strongest terms” statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding his vision for a “Greater Israel”.

When interviewer Sharon Gal with the Israeli i24NEWS channel asked Netanyahu if he subscribed to a “vision” for a “Greater Israel”, Netanyahu said “absolutely”. Asked during the interview aired on Tuesday if he felt connected to the “Greater Israel” vision, Netanyahu said: “Very much.”

The “Greater Israel” concept supported by ultranationalist Israelis is understood to refer to an expansionist vision that lays claim to the occupied West Bank, Gaza, parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

“These statements represent a grave disregard for, and a blatant and dangerous violation of, the rules of international law and the foundations of stable international relations,” said a joint statement by a coalition of 31 Arab and Islamic countries and the Arab League.

“They also constitute a direct threat to Arab national security, to the sovereignty of states, and to regional and international peace and security,” the statement released on Friday said.

The signatories of the statement included the secretaries-general of the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The Arab and Islamic nations also condemned Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s announcement on Thursday to push ahead with settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.

The statement said the move is “a blatant violation of international law and a flagrant assault on the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to realise their independent, sovereign state on the lines of June 4, 1967, with Occupied Jerusalem as its capital”.

The statement added that Israel has no sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territory.

Smotrich said he would approve thousands of housing units in a long-delayed illegal settlement project in the West Bank, saying the move “buries the idea of a Palestinian state”.

Last September, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months.

The resolution backed an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the UN’s top court – which found that Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories is unlawful and must end. In January 2024, the ICJ said Israel was “plausibly committing genocide”. The top UN court has yet to announce its verdict in the case brought by South Africa.

Netanyahu and Smotrich made the remarks during Israel’s devastating 22-month war on Gaza, which has killed at least 61,827 people and wounded 155,275 people in the enclave.

Last week, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved Netanyahu’s plan to fully occupy Gaza City, and in Tuesday’s interview, Netanyahu also revived calls to “allow” Palestinians to leave Gaza, telling i24NEWS: “We are not pushing them out, but we are allowing them to leave.”

Campaigners said Netanyahu’s use of the word “leave” was a euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza – home to 2.1 million people, most of whom are refugees and their descendants from the 1948 Nakba when more than 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from what became the state of Israel.

Past calls to resettle people from Gaza outside the war-battered territory, including from United States President Donald Trump, have sparked fears of forced displacement among Palestinians and condemnation from the international community.

In their statement on Saturday, the Islamic countries reiterated their “rejection and condemnation of Israel’s crimes of aggression, genocide, and ethnic cleansing” in Gaza and highlighted the need for a ceasefire in the enclave while “ensuring unconditional access to humanitarian aid to halt the systematic starvation policy used by Israel as a weapon of genocide”.

They also reaffirmed their “complete and absolute rejection of the displacement of the Palestinian people in any form and under any pretext” and called on the international community to pressure Israel to halt its aggression and fully withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

Source link

Between Principles and Profits: Dutch Foreign Policy Toward the Islamic World

The Netherlands’ relationship with the Islamic world has developed over the centuries, starting from the era of colonialism when the Dutch controlled the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), where the majority of the population is Muslim. This colonial legacy not only left a historical trace but also influenced the political and economic dynamics of the Netherlands in relation to Islamic countries. In addition, after World War II, the Netherlands received waves of migration from Muslim countries such as Turkey and Morocco, as well as from its former colonies, including Indonesia and Suriname. This led to a significant growth of the Muslim community in the Netherlands, which in turn created complex domestic social and political dynamics.

As a country that upholds the principles of liberal democracy and human rights, the Netherlands actively promotes these values in its foreign policy. This attitude often creates tensions in relations with Islamic countries, especially in issues related to religious freedom, women’s rights, and freedom of expression. For example, the debate over the ban on the burqa and criticism of sharia law in some Islamic countries show a clash between the principles of Dutch liberal democracy and the social norms of Islamic countries. However, on the other hand, the Netherlands also has great economic interests with Islamic countries, particularly in the field of trade and energy investment. Many Islamic countries, especially in the Middle East, are the Netherlands’ main trading partners, both in exports of agricultural products and in energy imports such as oil and gas.

The dilemma arose when the Netherlands had to balance between liberal democratic idealism and economic pragmatism. Criticism of human rights abuses in Islamic countries can risk disrupting trade and investment relations. For example, the diplomatic crisis with Turkey in 2017, in which the Netherlands banned Turkish ministers from campaigning in Rotterdam, reflected the tension between liberal democratic principles and political and economic interests. In addition, the Netherlands’ relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are often colored by contradictions, where on the one hand the Netherlands denounces their authoritarian policies, but on the other hand maintains close economic cooperation.

This research becomes relevant in understanding how the Netherlands navigates its foreign relations with Islamic countries in the midst of the dilemma between liberal democratic values and economic interests. This study not only contributes to the study of international relations but also provides insight for policymakers in formulating a balanced strategy between the promotion of democratic values and national interests in the context of relations with the Islamic world. Thus, this study aims to examine the dynamics of Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world, identify the factors that influence its political decisions, and analyze the impact of the approach used by the Netherlands in maintaining a balance between liberal democracy and economic interests.

The relationship between the Netherlands and the Islamic world has a long history that has been shaped through various political, economic, and social dynamics. Since the 17th century, when the Netherlands became one of the largest maritime and colonial powers, interaction with the Islamic world has occurred, especially through trade and colonial activities in Muslim regions, such as Indonesia. In the 16th century, the Netherlands (which at that time was still part of the Spanish Empire) began to engage in the spice trade with the Islamic world, mainly by sea. Dutch traders explored trade routes controlled by Muslim traders and began to establish relationships with various kingdoms and sultanates in Southeast Asia, such as Aceh, Banten, and Makassar. There were conflicts and rivalries between the Dutch and the Muslim powers, despite favorable trade relations. One example is the Aceh War, which lasted ten years, in which the Dutch sought to control the Muslim sultanate of Aceh, which was very powerful in Sumatra. The history of relations between the Netherlands and the Islamic world is very complicated and full of conflicts. This relationship shows how two different societies interact with each other and shape each other. In addition to conflicts and difficulties, there is cooperation and mutual understanding. To build a better and more peaceful relationship in the future, it is important to understand our history.

The history of relations between the Netherlands and the Islamic world, particularly in Indonesia, reflects complex dynamics involving political, social, and cultural interactions. This relationship began with the arrival of the Dutch at the end of the 16th century and continued until the colonial period, which lasted more than three centuries. The arrival of the Dutch in Indonesia in 1596 was marked by the main goal of controlling the spice trade. Over time, they began to realize the growing power of Islam in the archipelago, especially through the influence of clerics and a strong social network among the Muslim community. The Dutch’s fear of potential resistance from Muslims, especially those connected to the Ottoman Caliphate, prompted them to develop a more strategic policy in dealing with Islam (Amalsyah, 2013).

During the colonial period, the Dutch controlled the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), where the majority of the population was Muslim. The Dutch colonial policy towards Islam was ambivalent—on the one hand, the colonial government sought to control and limit the influence of Islam in the nationalist movement, but on the other hand, they also worked closely with the local Muslim elite to maintain the stability of the colonial government. This colonial experience still has an impact on Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world to this day. In the modern era, the Netherlands’ relations with the Islamic world are growing, especially in economic and diplomatic aspects. The Netherlands has established trade relations with Islamic countries, especially in the energy and infrastructure sectors. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey are major trading partners, while relations with Iran remain complex due to geopolitical factors and international sanctions. 

In many cases, Dutch foreign policy faces a dilemma between economic interests and liberal democratic values. This is especially true in relations with developing countries such as Indonesia. The interaction between past and modern practices demonstrates this dynamic. The Round Table Conference (KMB) in 1949 was an attempt by the Netherlands to strengthen its economic dominance in Indonesia. It regulates Dutch company ownership in strategic areas such as banking and transportation. However, Indonesia’s nationalization policies in 1958, such as the State Commercial Bank and Garuda Indonesia, made the Dutch reconsider their strategy; they shifted from colonial control to economic diplomacy based on equality. Dutch policies combine development aid and trade promotion. For example, the development assistance budget was reduced from 0.7% of GDP to below the international threshold, and the budget was allocated to subsidize SME exports and military operations. This method has been criticized for undermining principles (Bieckmann, 2013).

The Netherlands implemented various policies to supervise and control the lives of Muslims. One of the first steps was the establishment of institutions such as the Priesterraden in 1882 to supervise the religious activities of Muslims. In 1905, strict regulations were enacted requiring permission from the colonial government to teach Islam. Snouck Hurgronje, a Dutch orientalist, played a key role in formulating this policy. He suggested that the government be neutral on the religious aspects of Islam but wary of its political potential. Snouck classifies Islam into two categories: religious and political, with a focus on controlling political aspects that are considered to have the potential to cause rebellion (Effendi, 2013).

In addition to bilateral relations with Muslim countries, domestic dynamics also play an important role. The Netherlands has a significant Muslim population, mainly of Turkish and Moroccan immigrant descent. The presence of this Muslim community is often a domestic political issue, especially in debates about integration, multiculturalism, and immigration policy. Political parties’ attitudes towards Islam at home often influence Dutch foreign policy towards Islamic countries. Against this historical background and contemporary dynamics, Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world continues to develop within the framework of a balance between economic interests, liberal democratic values, and domestic and global political dynamics.

The Netherlands faces a dilemma in carrying out its foreign policy towards Islamic countries, where the values of liberal democracy that are upheld often conflict with economic interests. As a country that actively promotes human rights, freedom of opinion, and democracy, the Netherlands has consistently criticized human rights violations in Islamic countries, especially regarding political freedom, women’s rights, and religious freedom. However, on the other hand, economic relations with Islamic countries, especially in the trade, investment, and energy sectors, remain a top priority. The Netherlands is a liberal democracy that strongly defends values such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. However, as a country with an open economy that relies heavily on foreign investment and international trade, liberal democratic values often conflict with economic interests in foreign policy.

This tension is evident in various diplomatic situations. One prime example is the Netherlands’ relationship with Turkey, which has experienced ups and downs due to differences in political views. When the Netherlands criticized President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s authoritarian policies and restricted Turkey’s political campaigns in Europe, bilateral relations between the two countries briefly deteriorated. However, economic cooperation continues due to the great trade interests between the two countries. Another case that reflects this dilemma is the relationship between the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia. The Netherlands has often criticized Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, especially regarding freedom of opinion and its treatment of political opposition. However, because Saudi Arabia is one of the Netherlands’ main trading partners in the energy and infrastructure sectors, the Dutch government maintains close economic ties. Even as the Dutch Parliament passed a resolution condemning Saudi Arabia’s involvement in human rights abuses, the government continued to look for ways to maintain a balance between political criticism and economic interests. 

This dilemma is also seen in the Dutch policy towards Iran. International sanctions against Iran, backed by the Netherlands, often collide with the desire of Dutch businessmen to expand trade with the country. The Netherlands must play a cautious diplomatic role in order to remain compliant with the norms of liberal democracy without harming its economic interests. Overall, Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world shows the tension between idealism and pragmatism. Although the Netherlands wants to maintain its image as a democratic country that defends human rights, economic interests remain a dominant factor in foreign policy decisions. Therefore, the Netherlands continues to seek balance in its approach by implementing a flexible diplomacy strategy so as not to lose both political influence and economic advantages in the Islamic world. In its foreign policy, the Netherlands has always faced a dilemma between economic interests and liberal democracy. There are no easy solutions, and the Dutch government must continue to strive to find ways to balance the country’s economic interests and its values. The Netherlands can maintain its economic advantages while supporting democracy, human rights, and sustainable development around the world by using innovative and responsible approaches.

The dilemma between liberal democracy and economic interests in Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world has various implications, both in bilateral relations, domestic dynamics, and the Netherlands’ position in the international arena. Dutch foreign policy has major consequences at the regional (European) and global levels. These affected areas include the economy, security, environment, and human rights. It is essential to understand these consequences in order to assess how effective the policies are and to plan a better plan for future use. The Netherlands’ free trade policy abroad has increased Dutch exports and investment around the world. This has boosted Dutch economic growth and created more jobs. However, there are risks associated with these policies, such as dependence on certain markets and the possible exploitation of workers in developing countries.

The Netherlands’ foreign policy, which often criticizes democratic and human rights issues in Islamic countries, has the potential to strain diplomatic relations. The case of tensions with Turkey and Saudi Arabia shows that Dutch criticism of political policies in Islamic countries can trigger a harsh response, such as ambassadorial withdrawals or trade restrictions. However, on the other hand, economic pragmatism encourages the Netherlands to maintain trade relations, especially in the energy and infrastructure sectors. 

The Netherlands’ foreign policy towards the Islamic world is also closely related to domestic political dynamics. The growing Muslim population in the Netherlands, especially of Turkish and Moroccan descent, has sparked debates about integration and national identity. The Netherlands is a NATO member that supports global climate action and is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Netherlands also actively participates in NATO military operations and supports the improvement of European defense capabilities. The Netherlands also invests in renewable energy and supports international agreements on climate change. The Netherlands strongly supports human rights. This includes development assistance, diplomacy, and support for civil society institutions that fight for human rights. Political parties with a hardline stance towards Islam often exploit this issue in their political campaigns, which can then influence Dutch foreign policy towards Islamic countries. This attitude also has an effect on immigration policy, where the Netherlands is increasingly selective in accepting immigrants from Islamic countries, especially regarding security issues and social values.

As a member of the European Union, the Netherlands often follows European foreign policy as a whole in dealing with Islamic countries. However, in some cases, the Netherlands has taken a firmer stance than other European countries in criticizing human rights violations. This attitude could strengthen the Netherlands’ position as a country that upholds democratic values but also risks reducing economic access to the markets of Islamic countries. In addition, in international organizations such as the United Nations and the WTO, the Netherlands must maintain a balance between national interests and its commitment to multilateral policies. 

In the future, the Netherlands needs to develop a more flexible foreign policy strategy to manage relations with the Islamic world. Economic diplomacy that maintains democratic principles but with a more pragmatic and dialogical approach can be a solution in avoiding unnecessary diplomatic conflicts. In addition, increased cooperation in the fields of education, culture, and technology can be an alternative way to strengthen relations with Islamic countries without getting too caught up in political conflicts. Taking into account these various aspects, Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world will continue to be a challenge that requires a balance between political idealism and economic reality. Economic, security, environmental, and human rights are heavily influenced by Dutch international policies. The Netherlands must adapt its foreign policy to global trends and emerging problems if it wants to meet challenges and seize future opportunities. The Netherlands has the ability to contribute to the development of a safer, more prosperous, and more sustainable world by enhancing partnerships with like-minded countries, increasing investment in diplomacy, supporting international organizations, and protecting human rights.

Dutch foreign policy towards the Islamic world is in tension between liberal democracy and economic interests. As a country that upholds human rights and democratic freedoms, the Netherlands often criticizes political policies in Islamic countries, especially regarding freedom of opinion, women’s rights, and the system of government. However, on the other hand, economic relations with Islamic countries, especially in the trade and energy sectors, remain a top priority. This dilemma is reflected in various dynamics of bilateral relations, such as tensions with Turkey and Saudi Arabia due to differences in political views, but the establishment of close economic cooperation. In addition, domestic dynamics, including immigration issues and the integration of the Muslim community in the Netherlands, also play a role in shaping the country’s foreign policy. As part of the European Union, the Netherlands must balance its stance between the broader European foreign policy and its own national interests. In the future, the Netherlands needs to adopt a more flexible approach to establishing relations with Islamic countries, prioritizing economic diplomacy that remains based on democratic values but with a more pragmatic strategy to avoid unnecessary conflicts. With this balance, the Netherlands can maintain its position as a strong democratic country while maintaining the stability of economic relations with the Islamic world.

Source link