The strong point of view expressed by Emirati leaders, and the clarity with which they pronounce on regional matters, often leads to a sense that Abu Dhabi is working from some form of master plan formulated by the Bani Fatima – i.e. that its policies are shaped by a long-term strategic vision. Yet this may be misleading, or at least conflates a broad vision for the region with a carefully defined strategy.
From the full set of interviews with UAE officials, foreigners who have worked for the UAE government, analysts, diplomats and other foreign officials with experience of working in the UAE, a picture of MbZ’s governing style has emerged in the research process for this paper. The crown prince relies on a small inner circle of trusted advisers – about a dozen people in total, in many accounts – to provide him with policy options and to make the case for their individual points of view. This process includes input from diplomats working abroad – who can give a sense of the likely impact of decisions in foreign capitals – and research and analysis commissioned from UAE ministries and the constellation of consultancies, think-tanks and research centres that have taken root in the UAE over the past decade.
Most prominent among these advisers are four of MbZ’s full brothers: the ministers of foreign affairs (Abdullah) and presidential affairs (Mansour), national security adviser (Tahnoun) and intelligence chief (Hazza). Hamdan, the eldest of the Bani Fatima who was once seen as the de facto leader of the group, has been somewhat marginalized since the mid-2000s for reasons that remain opaque and are the subject of wide speculation. Members of the Bani Mouza – the sons of another of Sheikh Zayed’s wives – also hold key roles both at the federal level and within the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. Particularly influential are Saif bin Zayed, the interior minister, and Hamed, the managing director of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. The rise of the Bani Fatima has coincided with an easing-out of the old guard from key ministries – many of them tied to Sheikh Khalifa – and the recruitment of a new cadre of civil servants whose outlook transcends tribalism and political loyalty. One UAE official commented:
The priority for MbZ is to have competent individuals in key positions. ‘Sheikh Mohammed invests in individuals who can achieve impact as much he does institutions that can implement,’ according to one formerly UAE-based consultant who cited as examples Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador to the US, along with figures like Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, the CEO and managing director of Mubadala Investment Company, Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, and chairman of City Group, the holding company for Manchester City and other football clubs, which has become an important instrument of the UAE’s ‘soft’ power. Ali al-Shamsi, the UAE’s intelligence chief, also plays an important role. Some observers argue, however, that there is a distinction between the relative influence of the Bani Fatima, other royals and the so-called muwathafeen, or ‘employees’ of the al-Nahyan.
The UAE also relies on external talent to fill capacity gaps of the kind that are common in young and fast-developing countries. The higher reaches of the UAE military include Mike Hindmarsh, the commander of the UAE Presidential Guard (which includes the country’s Special Forces, which have played a key role in military operations abroad). In the economic field, Maurizio La Noce, the former CEO of the oil and gas division of Mubadala, is said to be an important confidant of the crown prince. Furthermore, the Bani Fatima have come to rely on a number of ‘fixers’, as described by one former consultant: individuals with ties to influential figures and groups abroad. Perhaps most prominent among these is Mohammed Dahlan, the former security chief of Gaza, who is now an ‘adviser’ to MbZ. As one Western official put it, Dahlan is ‘seemingly everywhere right now’, from Gaza, Egypt and Libya to Serbia and Somalia.
Diplomats, UAE officials and others have all observed that a core challenge for Abu Dhabi is that the number of people involved in decision-making is very small and thus at times overstretched: a consensus figure is that around 10–20 people are positioned to propose and debate policy with MbZ, who is in practice the ultimate decision-maker. ‘The decision-makers don’t get much sleep,’ in the words of one UAE official. This can create policy vacuums, and a sense of disconnect among civil servants whose job it is to work on research, analysis and policy formulation. Particularly when Abu Dhabi is dealing with multiple crises, its way of operating tends to become more tactical and reactive.
There can be drift, too, on some issues. In Libya, for instance, UAE ally Khalifa Haftar’s advance on Tripoli in mid-2019 may have come as a result of Saudi and US encouragement, and Abu Dhabi was, by multiple accounts, caught somewhat unawares. On other matters there has been overreaction. For example, when the Somali authorities impounded UAE funds in Mogadishu in April 2018, the UAE effectively pulled out of the country and doubled down on its relationships with the breakaway provinces. With hindsight, many Emirati officials now reportedly concede that this was an overreaction, and one that handed the advantage to the UAE’s rival, Qatar.