Introduction
It can be noted that the study of international relations and the scope of Middle East research are often regarded as worlds apart, with minimal uniting factor between them. In this current age, this definition is too stark. However, it is correct to suggest that more effort needs to be put to bring the different side together and most importantly to bring the region of the Middle East to the core of international relations development (Sasley, 2011).
The most influential theory in international relations and predominantly used in the United States from the end of the Second World War was realism. This is a perspective that is based on the intellectual foundations in conservative political and social ideology. To get a better understanding of realism as a perspective in the study of international relations, there is a need to recognize its conservative roots.
Although it is conservative like many other theories, realism has an abundant and complex network of thoughts created over centuries. In addition, to avoid the risk of explaining a theory in just a few pages, looks at the critical areas of the realism theory (Hobson, 2005).
Realism Theory
The first essential element of the realism theory is that it has pacifistic perceptions about human nature. In the conservative world, people are viewed as imperfect, imperceptible and flawed beings. In essence, human nature is a combination of bad and good attributes, and the former cannot be absolutely eliminated. Conservatives who are largely inclined to religion argue that the notion of the first sin can be traced to the biblical stories.
This is found in the book of Genesis about how man fell from grace with his creator. This is the reason why all Christians pray for forgiveness every time they attend church. The general assumption is that all in attendance could have at one time in the past week committed a sin. In general, the Christian theological views regard all human as carrying the original sin and by extension regarded as flawed creatures (Sasley, 2011).
The second important element of realism theory is a perception of people as social beings. This signifies the fact that people are driven, and have an underlying need to be recognized and belong to a certain social community. The individual does not want to be left in isolation to become unattached creatures. Human beings are not individualist. In this case, they derive an essential sense of belonging, satisfaction, and comfort from their association within social groups.
The only difficulty is that group recognition encompasses both inclusion and exclusion from the group. In essence, society groups are recognized by the individuals within, as well as those outside the groups. If everyone belonged to the same group, the group would cease to exist as it would not provide a sense of belonging (Steele, 2008).
The third important aspect of related to the conservatism theory or ideology is the belief that social conflict is inevitable. Why is it suggested that conflicts are inevitable? Conflicts are known to be both rational and irrational at the same time. Collective and group egoism is said to be one of the causes of conflict.
When a certain group perceives itself as not only being different from the rest, but better or more deserving than the rest, it leads to social conflict. However, conflict does not only result from irrational perspectives. Thus, conflict also results from the lack of establishing of a clear political, social and economic order that can be beneficial to all the groups.
It can be noted that proponents of realism view conflict as an important aspect in the study and evaluation of international relations theory. According to Shimko (n.d.), the roots of political life known as conflict group’s human beings will fight each other primarily as members of certain groups and not as independent persons.
In the international scene, the parent group is formed by the nation state itself. Realists argue that in the current international relations conflict is about the interaction and struggles between and amongst individual nation states (Steele, 2008).
Another theory that can be used to understand the international relation is colonialism and post colonialism theories. Colonialism should not just be regarded as a historical occurrence, but instead, it should be viewed in light as a valuable theoretical ideology too. In recent studies, it has been engulfed under the wider rubric of post colonial surveys.
Thus, colonialism should be understood beyond the realm of physical control. In general, it is about the nature of thought, and explores the nature of thinking about the Middle East and how these thoughts shape certain activities.
Notably, the term Orient was coined by the Europeans. It was formulated as an approach towards the Middle Eastern region. As the Europeans made reference to the Middle East in their own perceptions, the study of the orient became inextricably aligned to western and European policies directed towards the region.
Therefore, if the Europeans viewed the Middle Eastern region as being backward or primitive, then the duty of European policies towards the Middles East was made easier. It is argued that Orientalism as a mode of thought encourages the Europeans to occupy the Middle East thereby imposing rules on its people.
If the perception of the Middle East was that it was irrational, weak and cowardly, then it will be justified for the Europeans to govern the region. This will not be welcome as it will deny the people their sovereign nationhood and statehood that the European powers possessed for their own benefit (Steele, 2008).
Where blame is directed, it has critical implications on the course of the effects and solutions needed to rectify the situation. The colonialist approach will solely direct responsibility at the doorsteps of European colonialists. If France, the United Kingdom and the United States are liable, the remedies to these challenges solely lie in the hands of these external nations.
This translates to more considerations regarding the balance of trade and security provision arrangements, waving of debts and much more. On the other hand, if the Arab nations are responsible, then the solutions would be a transformation of ideology from within the region itself, which may even include the abolishment of these nations. This was a conclusion that was propounded by the Bush administration leading to the self assertion of the United States as the sole democracy advocate in the region.
Post colonialist is concerned with the political aspects (Hobson, 2005). It is an activist approach to provide certain remedies to resolve the existing power struggles in the Middle East. It lays emphasis on the dominant structures of the world system. This is in regard to how it is formulated or created by the western powers, and how they determine and influence non western players and regions to the latter’s ultimate detriment (Sasley, 2011).
At the pivot of the study of international relations is the paradigm of the security dilemma. This paradigm can be structured in two complementary ways. First and foremost, it implies that, in a state of chaotic environment, nations and governments enjoy no obvious, disruptive path to peace.
Therefore, the steps that a nation take or employs to intensify its own security prompts other countries to counter by taking measures that worsen the situation. At times, this leaves the country in a worse position than it the case was before the security dilemma. Unfortunately, the phrase security dilemma is usually used in loose or simplistic fashion.
Researchers in world politics usually refer to a security dilemma as a substitute security challenge or problems. In this case, they do not focus on the evaluation of the dynamics of the dilemmas to be solved by the respective states in anarchy.
The security dilemma in the gulf can be defined as complex and dynamic set of interrelations among the extra regional and regional nations that exhibits a range of daunting obstacles on the path to lasting regional peace (Adib-Moghaddam, 2006).
The Security Dilemma in the Persian Gulf
The security dilemma in the Persian Gulf sheds a lot of light on the important dynamics of international politics and relations of the contemporary states in the Persian Gulf. There are four major dilemmas that the states face in the Persian Gulf. The first dilemma can be referred to as the classic security dilemma.
In this scenario, governments are faced with the dilemma of whether to invest in projects that would enhance their overall security compared to other nations. The second dilemma involves a scenario in which various states come together to form agreements on how to cooperate in the provision of security to member states against their adversaries. The third option involves trading off.
Here, the nations are faced with the challenge whether to hold the status quo and maintain internal political stability or whether to depend on external forces or powers for security. Lastly, the Gulf nations encounter a paradoxical decision to make between forming strategic partnerships with external powers as patron or leaving the region insulated from universal disputes and rivalries (Adib-Moghaddam, 2006).
The various nations in the Persian Gulf are faced with critical choices of whether or not to implement what is referred to as security producing programs. The individual Gulf States are forced to put their interests first considering the chaotic nature of the region. In this case, there are no overarching powers that exist which can provide security whether for the individual countries or for the entire region as a whole.
However, it is not yet clear how the Gulf nations can appropriately secure their interests vis-à-vis the interest of each other. For as long as there is no physical threat from any neighboring country or nation, it would be prudent to forego any investments in equipping the nation with armory and other equipment for defense against external aggression.
Such resources can be put to good use in other sectors of the economy such as education and health care. However, this is clearly a risky venture as a state can never be certain about the intentions of its potential and actual adversaries (Adib-Moghaddam, 2006). Neither can they be certain how the volatility or strategy in the region may change in the near future. Subsequently, nations are presented with a strong obligation to be prepared for the worst at any time.
This is achieved by making sure that they have armed themselves despite not possessing any aggressive intentions. However, if one nation happens to go ahead with security producing projects with a view of protecting its interests, other nations might find themselves in a compromised situation. In this case, the other nations may even go as far as interpreting the action of such a state as an act of aggression.
The rest of the nations will at least be expected to initiate security producing projects of their own to counter what the other nation has done. It is evident that none of the Persian Gulf nations have been able to avoid investing in the armory and establishing its military. This is a clear sign that they are faced with the classical security dilemma.
In addition, the states in the Persian Gulf are also faced with a critical dilemma on how to relate simultaneously with their allies and adversaries. If the country acts belligerently towards an adversary state, its allies become reassured of the ongoing significance and unity of the alliance and are thus enticed to implement risky foreign policy programs that may pull the state into unexpected and unwanted conflict.
This scenario has been referred to as a dynamic entrapment. In this case, trying to be loyal to one’s allies might land a state into a conflict in which it has or bares no interest. On the other hand, if a state makes initiative to embrace or reconcile with an adversary, its allies will be greatly concerned that they are attempting to change alliances.
In this regard, the other allies will also be inclined to make similar overtures at the adversary as well which eventually leads to a preemptive realignment. Alternatively, the other allies may send overtures to other prospective allies and abandon the state which will leave it exposed to its adversary.
The third dilemma is best illustrated by the actions and decisions taken by the Saudi government during and after the second Gulf War. The Saudi government was faced with a difficult decision on whether to mount up it own defense forces or to rely on the protection of its allies. Eventually, the government decided to rely on the protection provided by its allies lead by the United States.
This was because the cost of establishing its own army would have been enormous could have taken a considerably long time to assemble and may have destabilized the domestic status quo by empowering or strengthening the military (Abdulla, 1998). Although by overtly depending on the United States military, the internal sovereignty of the nation and the legitimacy of the political administration were put into question.
This meant that the nation found itself far less secure after the Gulf War than it was at the beginning. These Gulf States face a fourth dilemma in the nature of the relation they foster with extra regional powers. The Persian Gulf states should refrain from making any partnerships with other powerful states outside the region. In this way, this region is likely to avoid the hustles and bustles associated with disputes and rivalries in the global scenario (Almeziani, 2012).
Conclusion
The theory of realism is critical in understanding the international relations in the world today. The Gulf States are faced with various security dilemmas. In this case, the various states are confused on how to come with strategies that will ensure the security of the region. The theory of realism can be used to understand the security situation of the Gulf States.
References
Abdulla, A. K. (1998). The Gulf Cooperation Council : Origin and Process. London. Tauris & Co. Ltd.
Adib-Moghaddam, A. (2006). The International Politics of the Persian Gulf: A cultural genealogy. New York: Routledge.
Almeziani, K.S. (2012). The UAE and Foreign Policy: Foreign aid, identities and interests. New York. Routledge.
Hobson, C. (2005). A Forward Strategy of Freedom in the Middle East: US Democracy Promotion and the ‘War on Terror’. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 59 (1): 39-53.
Sasley, B. E. (2011). Studying Middle Eastern International Relations Through IR Theory, Ortadoğu Etütleri, 2 (2): 9-32.
Shimko, K. L. (n.d.). International Relations: perspectives, controversies & readings. US. Wadsworth Cengage learning.
Steele, B. J. (2008). Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. New York: Routledge.