Rethinking Middle East Security
The first years of this 21st century have seen a systematic assault on Arab sovereignty and independence. The assault has been direct, physical, and neo-colonial, inviting comparison with the restructuring of the region and the imposition of western Mandates after the First World War. As in the 1920s, the language today is of "redrawing" the geo-political map of the Middle East, of protecting western access to oil, and of imposing "democracy" by force of arms. Some 90 years ago, Britain and France were the major powers which conspired to subdue and reorder the region to suit their interests. Today, they have been replaced by a new imperial partnership of the United States and Israel, equally intent to take control of the Arabs and their resources. Europe has been virtually barred from the political affairs of the region, or has chosen to remain on the sidelines, although Britain continues to play a minor local role as America's "poodle".
The new imperialists are paying a heavy price for their arrogant overreach. Iraq is proving the graveyard of the US army, and also the graveyard of US-Arab relations. Israel, in turn, has been brutalised by its occupation, turning it into a racist, quasi-fascist state, in the grip of religious fanatics. But the problems which the oppressors have brought upon themselves offer little consolation to their Arab victims.
Future historians will debate the causes of the Iraqi and Palestinian catastrophes of this century. Why have the Arabs not managed to defend themselves better? Does the reason lie in the divisions of the Arab world, and in the petty rivalries of its insecure and unrepresentative regimes? Is the root cause of Arab vulnerability the implosion of the Soviet Union 15 years ago, and with it any semblance of balance in international affairs? The Soviet collapse also led, as is sometimes forgotten, to the emigration of more than a million Russian Jews to Israel - more than 30 per cent of them university graduates - greatly strengthening the scientific, industrial and military potential of the Jewish state, and thereby encouraging it to disregard the feelings and interests of its neighbours.
Another possible cause of the woes from which the Arabs suffer has been the capture of American foreign policy by pro-Israeli ideologues - the so-called Washington neo-conservatives - who pressed for war against Iraq and who encouraged Israel to continue seizing and settling Palestinian territory, regardless of the disastrous impact of this policy on the so-called peace process. Yet another cause of the present chaos has been the rise of various brands of militant fundamentalism - Christian in America, Jewish in Israel, and Islamic in the Arab and Muslim world - each making its contribution to hatred, violence and extremism in the world.
Shift in power
All these factors, and no doubt many others, have resulted in important changes in the internal Arab balance of power. There has been a shift over the last decade and more away from these traditional centres of Arab power towards new fast-growing poles of wealth, influence and modernity in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
For much of the past 35 years, ever since Britain withdrew from its bases "east of Suez" in 1967-1971, the Gulf has looked to the United States for protection. But America's invasion of Iraq and its tolerance of Israeli expansion have aroused fierce anti-Americanism throughout the region. At the same time, the ancient US-Saudi relationship, formerly based on confidence and mutual interests, has come under great strain, largely because of the role played by Saudis in the September 11 attacks.
In 1990-1991, several Arab states and much of the industrialised world joined the United States in expelling Iraq from Kuwait. In great contrast to that war, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been widely condemned as unjustified and illegal. The radical change in the political climate from one Gulf war to the next has been striking. Some of these developments were reflected in a fresh vision of Gulf security set out in a major speech by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal in Manama, Bahrain, on December 5. The Gulf States Newsletter, an influential bi-monthly published in Britain (www.gulfstatesnews.com) described it as "potentially one of the most important international policy speeches by a senior Arab government figure in years".
In his speech, the Prince challenged the relevance and credibility of the western security blanket for the Gulf states, which has tended to take the form of bilateral agreements between western powers and regional states. Instead, he argued in favour of bringing Iraq, Iran and Yemen into partnership with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council in order to build a new regional security structure. The GCC, he said, should itself seek to achieve "a strong, coherent and unified front not affected by trivial disputes or minor misunderstandings".
Perhaps his most radical recommendation was that the United Nations Security Council, rather than the United States, should act as the formal guarantor of Gulf security arrangements. "International guarantees cannot be provided unilaterally even by the only superpower in the world. They can only be provided by the collective will of the international community through a unanimous declaration of the Security Council guaranteeing the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all the countries of the Gulf and promising to act forcefully against any external threats," Prince Saud said.
These bold ideas, suggesting that Saudi Arabia is rethinking Gulf security, are bound to cause some unease in Washington. The speech is, in fact, the second major diplomatic initiative by the Saudi kingdom. The first was Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz's offer to Israel of peace and normalisation if it withdrew to its 1967 borders. Israel rejected it out of hand. As 2005 dawns, what seems clear is that the Arabs will need to close ranks if they are to protect themselves against the ambitions and aggressions of the new imperialists.
Patrick Seale is an eminent commentator and the author of several books on Middle East affairs. The writer can be contacted at: pseale@gulfnews.com
Copyright. Gulf News.
The new imperialists are paying a heavy price for their arrogant overreach. Iraq is proving the graveyard of the US army, and also the graveyard of US-Arab relations. Israel, in turn, has been brutalised by its occupation, turning it into a racist, quasi-fascist state, in the grip of religious fanatics. But the problems which the oppressors have brought upon themselves offer little consolation to their Arab victims.
Future historians will debate the causes of the Iraqi and Palestinian catastrophes of this century. Why have the Arabs not managed to defend themselves better? Does the reason lie in the divisions of the Arab world, and in the petty rivalries of its insecure and unrepresentative regimes? Is the root cause of Arab vulnerability the implosion of the Soviet Union 15 years ago, and with it any semblance of balance in international affairs? The Soviet collapse also led, as is sometimes forgotten, to the emigration of more than a million Russian Jews to Israel - more than 30 per cent of them university graduates - greatly strengthening the scientific, industrial and military potential of the Jewish state, and thereby encouraging it to disregard the feelings and interests of its neighbours.
Another possible cause of the woes from which the Arabs suffer has been the capture of American foreign policy by pro-Israeli ideologues - the so-called Washington neo-conservatives - who pressed for war against Iraq and who encouraged Israel to continue seizing and settling Palestinian territory, regardless of the disastrous impact of this policy on the so-called peace process. Yet another cause of the present chaos has been the rise of various brands of militant fundamentalism - Christian in America, Jewish in Israel, and Islamic in the Arab and Muslim world - each making its contribution to hatred, violence and extremism in the world.
Shift in power
All these factors, and no doubt many others, have resulted in important changes in the internal Arab balance of power. There has been a shift over the last decade and more away from these traditional centres of Arab power towards new fast-growing poles of wealth, influence and modernity in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
For much of the past 35 years, ever since Britain withdrew from its bases "east of Suez" in 1967-1971, the Gulf has looked to the United States for protection. But America's invasion of Iraq and its tolerance of Israeli expansion have aroused fierce anti-Americanism throughout the region. At the same time, the ancient US-Saudi relationship, formerly based on confidence and mutual interests, has come under great strain, largely because of the role played by Saudis in the September 11 attacks.
In 1990-1991, several Arab states and much of the industrialised world joined the United States in expelling Iraq from Kuwait. In great contrast to that war, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been widely condemned as unjustified and illegal. The radical change in the political climate from one Gulf war to the next has been striking. Some of these developments were reflected in a fresh vision of Gulf security set out in a major speech by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal in Manama, Bahrain, on December 5. The Gulf States Newsletter, an influential bi-monthly published in Britain (www.gulfstatesnews.com) described it as "potentially one of the most important international policy speeches by a senior Arab government figure in years".
In his speech, the Prince challenged the relevance and credibility of the western security blanket for the Gulf states, which has tended to take the form of bilateral agreements between western powers and regional states. Instead, he argued in favour of bringing Iraq, Iran and Yemen into partnership with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council in order to build a new regional security structure. The GCC, he said, should itself seek to achieve "a strong, coherent and unified front not affected by trivial disputes or minor misunderstandings".
Perhaps his most radical recommendation was that the United Nations Security Council, rather than the United States, should act as the formal guarantor of Gulf security arrangements. "International guarantees cannot be provided unilaterally even by the only superpower in the world. They can only be provided by the collective will of the international community through a unanimous declaration of the Security Council guaranteeing the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all the countries of the Gulf and promising to act forcefully against any external threats," Prince Saud said.
These bold ideas, suggesting that Saudi Arabia is rethinking Gulf security, are bound to cause some unease in Washington. The speech is, in fact, the second major diplomatic initiative by the Saudi kingdom. The first was Crown Prince Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz's offer to Israel of peace and normalisation if it withdrew to its 1967 borders. Israel rejected it out of hand. As 2005 dawns, what seems clear is that the Arabs will need to close ranks if they are to protect themselves against the ambitions and aggressions of the new imperialists.
Patrick Seale is an eminent commentator and the author of several books on Middle East affairs. The writer can be contacted at: pseale@gulfnews.com
Copyright. Gulf News.
posted by R7 | 1/06/2005 05:57:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home