Conflict in the Middle East
A section of scholars and some global leaders argue that oil is the main cause of conflict in the Middle East. However, oil is not the primary reason why the conflict in the Middle East has persisted for years despite the socio-political and economic changes that have been witnessed in the region over the recent past. For one to understand the conflict in the Middle East, it is important to first understand how the region was governed during the Ottoman Empire and what happened when the rule of the sultanate officially ended in 1922. It is believed that the Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299 (McCarthy, 2001). The modern-day Middle East was part of the empire and it was governed as regional states. However, just like many other great empires before it, the Ottoman Empire started declining with the rise of European powers. In 1922, the rule of the sultanate of the empire officially came to an end, and scholars who understand this region know that it was at this point that the conflict began. A study by Diwan and Galal (2016) shows that oil is not the primary reason for the stability of the region, arguing that the leadership provided by the Sultanate of Oman was the glue that helped in unifying the region. The following are clear examples of forces other than oil in the region that led to the current conflicts common in the Middle East.
The Collapse of Unifying Regional Leadership as Cause of Conflict in the Middle East
According to Gingeras (2016), the current conflicts in the Middle East may be attributed to conflicting political interests in the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The leadership of this empire knew that the region was highly diversified in terms of race, religion, and other demographical factors. Although the rulers themselves and the majority of the population were Muslims, there was also a significant population of minority Christians, Jews, and other religious groups (Rogan, 2015). As the kingdom expanded to Europe, it conquered Christian nations. Instead of forcing them to become Muslims, the rulers gave them the right to exercise their faith, something that many historians considered very noble. The Jews in the Middle East were also allowed to practice their faith without interferences. The rulers embraced some sort of democracy when it came to religion in the region. The rulers were just a symbol of unity in the region, but people were granted permission to practice their faith (Gingeras, 2016). This was an example of exemplary leadership demonstrated by the rules that promoted unity in the region. The army of the empire was also diversified, giving little significance to race or religion when recruiting soldiers. When this regional leadership collapsed, the diversity in the region became a cause of conflict. These socio-political conflicts, such as the tension between Israel and Palestine, are not primarily caused by oil.
Socio-Religious Forces as a Cause of Conflict in the Middle East
According to Diwan and Galal (2016), following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, regional kingdoms emerged based on the religious and social alignment of members of the community. Societies started relying more on their religious teachings to define how they relate with others in the region. They also started relying more on the historical facts to justify their territorial borders. Some of these social and religious justifications led to conflicting interests. For instance, the Jews argued claimed parts of Palestine as shown in their religious books, a move that was heavily criticized by other Islamic states (Gingeras, 2016). It is important to note that the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine is not based on the desire to acquire rich oil reserves. A good example is the West Bank and Gaza Strip which has been the main cause of conflict between Israel and Palestine. These two territories do not have rich oil reserves but have led to the deaths of many Israelis and Palestinians for decades. It is a clear indication that the Middle East Conflict is not primarily caused by oil.
Other Regional Forces Causing Conflict in the Middle East
According to Rogan (2015), one should take into consideration the history of the region to understand the current conflicts instead of assuming that oil is the primary cause of the conflict. Understanding the region’s history makes it possible to understand regional forces, other than oil, that is responsible for the current conflicts. Diwan and Galal (2016) argue that the region enjoyed unified leadership under the Ottoman Empire. However, when it collapsed the emerging smaller kingdoms tried to build new regional power, resulting in direct conflict of interest. For instance, Iran tried to make aggressive attempts to take control of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and other territories (Rogan, 2015). It created deep-rooted suspicion that almost led to armed conflicts. On the other hand, Iraq under the leadership of Sadam Hussein tried to take control of Kuwait using military force (Gingeras, 2016). The territorial expansion attempts were not primarily caused by the need to have more oil reserves.
Oil is one of the most important resources in the region. Most of the Middle East countries rely on oil as the backbone of their economy (Rogan, 2015). However, the war in the region is not primarily caused by oil. As a major resource, it may be a useful tool for factions in the region that still fight for power. For instance, ISIS still believes that they can still take full control of Syria, Iraq, and many other regional states (Rogan, 2015). They are not fighting to control oil fields but to take over power in the region. Oil, in this case, is just a tool that helps them in their war.
State Identity by GCC Citizens
It is very important to understand why GCC citizens living in the region prefer to identify themselves with their sole state other than a supra-Arab identity. According to Diwan and Galal (2016), Arabs living abroad, especially in North America often embrace pan-Arabism. When a Palestinian American is unfairly treated by the security instruments of the country, an Emirati American feels hurt and is ready to help (Rogan, 2015). There is a unique cohesion among Arabs staying in North America and Europe where they are the minority. However, a study by Masters (2013) most of the citizens of the countries in GCC living within the region identify strongly with their state instead of supra-national, pan-Arab identity. The unity that is common when they are in other countries is lacking at the local level. Saudi Arabia living in GCC would prefer to identify with his state other than pan-Arabism. Several factors can be attributed to this seeming lack of common identity at the regional level.
According to a study by Gingeras (2016), one of the main reasons why pan-Arabism is not common among GCC countries is the rivalry that is still common in the region. Arabs who migrate to Europe or North America can embrace pan-Arabism because state-level conflicts become less meaningful to them (Rogan, 2015). However, the citizens living in GCC still feel the impact of the conflict hence there is still a sense of resentment. For instance, Iran has always been viewed as a major threat to regional peace and security. As such, it is not easy for a Bahraini citizen to identify himself or herself with pan-Arabism if such identify will put them in the same class as Iranians (Gingeras, 2016). It is easy for one to assume that such regional conflicts may not matter to individual citizens when it comes to embracing a pan-Arabism. However, the resentments created by these political forces make individual citizens embrace nationalism more than they are willing to embrace pan-Arabism. The feeling that the sovereignty of their nations may be threatened by fellow Arabians causes regional mistrust that makes it difficult for these citizens to embrace pan-Arabism.
The practice is more common among the citizens of GCC countries. One possible reason why citizens of the GCC countries prefer identifying with their states other than pan- Arabism is the uniqueness of these nations. For instance, Saudi Arabia is believed to be the cradle land of the Islamic religion. The holy city of Mecca is believed to be the place where Prophet Mohammed started his ministry. As such, citizens of this country feel that they are in a way more special than Arabs from other countries from the religious perspective (Ehteshami & Wright, 2012). The fact that Muslims from all over the world are keen on traveling to their country regularly for pilgrimage in the holy city of Mecca creates a sense of pride among them. It makes them want to identify more with their country than with pan-Arabism. There is also the feeling that Saudi Arabia is the powerhouse in the GCC and the Larger Middle East and North Africa regions. According to Rogan (2015), countries such as United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Qatar, Bahrain, Somali, and Djibouti were quick to announce their support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni war. Saudi Arabia has also been seen to be leading the region proxy war against Iran. Such a sense of leadership creates a spirit of nationalism among the citizens instead of pan-Arabism.
Choosing identity-based on one’s state instead of the region is also partly caused by economic reasons. Most of the GCC member states are performing better economically than many other Arab states, creating the feeling that they are in a way special. According to a report by Rogan (2015), with a GDP per capita of USD 98,814, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world, beating developed countries such as Germany, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. The living standards of the Qataris are very high and finding well paying jobs for the locals is not a problem. This is another good example of what makes citizens in this region to identify themselves based on their nationality instead of pan-Arabism.
Saudi Arabia may be unique politically and from a religious point of view, but Qatar is more unique economically. Sometimes the local Qataris feel that embracing pan-Arabism may lead to a mass influx of people from another impoverished Arab world into their country, a move they believe may cause economic problems. Currently, Arabians are forced out of their homes in Yemen and Iraq because of the ongoing conflicts. Most of the affected families are Arabs. The spirit of pan-Arabism would demand citizens from other Arabic nations where there is political stability to host the Arabian refugees. However, most of them are forced to travel to Europe, Australia, Canada, and the United States as refugees. GCC countries have indeed helped thousands of refugees, but most of them prefer traveling to Western countries because of the lack of spirit of pan-Arabism in the region. Most of the citizens look at themselves as Qatari, Emirati, or Saudi nationals instead of Arabs.
Guns, Oil, Money, and Population Size in the Middle East
According to Yarshater (2013), the contemporary Middle East can be classified into oil-rich and oil-poor states. Some countries in this region such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are richly endowed with oil reserves while others lack this important mineral. Oil reserves offer an opportunity for economic growth. Some of the richest countries in the Middle East owe their economic success to the huge opportunity brought about by the availability of rich oil reserves within their borders. Currently, the city of Dubai is one of the world’s top business hubs and tourists’ destination. Qatar is another nation that has experienced massive success due to its ability to export large volumes of oil in the international markets. The Middle East region has also been known for its lack of peace. Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria are some of the nations that have experienced a long period of political instability. When analyzing this region, one of the emerging questions is whether the oil is more important than guns. The existing literature based on empirical studies strongly suggests that oil is indeed more important than guns. The researcher holds the same view that in modern society, oil is critical for development than guns.
According to Diwan and Galal (2016), Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatari are good examples of countries where oil has proven to be more important than guns. Since gaining its independence in 1971, Qatar has enjoyed a long period of political stability. The government has been able to provide leadership that has suppressed any form of armed rebellion. Some of the neighboring countries have been experiencing political turmoil for years. The country’s success is largely attributed to its rich oil reserves. Being in a desert where agriculture cannot be sustained by natural rainfall, oil has been used to transform the country’s economy. The proceeds from oil have been used to develop various sectors of the economy. Currently, Qatar is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita (Gingeras, 2016). Its economy is also getting diversified because of the income generated from the exportation of oil and gas.
Iraq is another good example that demonstrates than oil is more important than guns. According to Diwan and Galal (2016), Iraq is one of the Arab countries that can be used as a case study when trying to determine whether the oil is more important than guns. It gained its independence from Britain in 1932 when most of the Arab countries were still colonies of Western powers. In 1958, Brigadier Abd al-Karim Qasim led a bloody coup d’état that forced King Faysal II out of power. Five years later in 1963, Abd was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif (Jamali & Sidani, 2012). Ba’ath Party militarily took power in 1968 and by 1979 General Sadam Hussein took control of the country. Since then, the country has known no peace. Sadam was able to rule the country by the gun, thwarting any form of rebellion with military force. When the United States led a military campaign that forced Sadam out of power, the country became ungovernable. To this day Iraq has not known peace and is currently one of the main bases of ISIS. It is important to note that the country has over 12% of the world’s total oil reserves that it can use to transform its economy. However, people are dying of hunger and lack of other basic needs because the gun is allowed to rule. These two cases show that indeed oil is more important than guns. Allowing guns to rule over oil only causes political instability, economic problems, and social disunity.
According to Yarshater (2013), the population size and availability of money (wealth of a nation) also comes out when trying to determine the socio-economic and political progress of a country. Indeed as Fawcett (2013) says it is not possible to equate the life of a human being to monetary value. In this case, however, the focus is to determine whether money is more or less important than the population size when determining a country’s progress. The researcher strongly believes that money is more important than population size in terms of socio-economic and political development. According to Diwan and Galal (2016), Qatari and Afghanistan are two perfect examples. Qatar is home to about 2,576,181 people while Afghanistan’s population is 33,332,025 people. It means that the population size of Afghanistan is over 13 times that of Qatar. Naturally, it would be expected that the GDP of Afghanistan is 13 times bigger if the productivity of people in the two countries were to be the same. However, that is not the case. The total GDP of Afghanistan is $65,295 billion while that of Qatar is $333,936 billion (Lust, 2014). Statistically, the gross domestic product of Qatar is five times bigger than that of Afghanistan. The complete opposite of what was expected when basing a country’s economic progress on its population was realized.
Afghanistan, which has a population 13 times bigger than Qatar has a GDP that is 5 times less. It is a clear indication that money is more important than population size. A country may have a huge population, but if it lacks resources that can be tapped to generate money, then such a country’s economic progress may face problems. Kadercan (2014) says that rich oil reserves in Qatar make it possible for a country to earn foreign exchange and to generate other related economic activities. Afghanistan is not richly endowed with oil reserves compared to other regional countries. It is one of the largest countries in the region in terms of population size. However, the population size has not been translated into economic progress. Qatar, a very small country in terms of population, is currently the world’s richest nation in terms of GDP per capita. On the other hand, Afghanistan, with such a considerably huge population, is currently ranked as one of the poorest nations in the world.
References
Diwan, I., & Galal, A. (2016). The Middle East economies in times of transition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ehteshami, A., & Wright, S. M. (2012). Reform in the Middle East oil monarchies. Reading, UK: Ithaca Press.
Fawcett, L. (2013). International relations of the Middle East. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gingeras, R. (2016). Fall of the sultanate: The Great War and the end of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1922. New York, NY: Springer.
Jamali, D., & Sidani, Y. (2012). CSR in the Middle East: Fresh perspectives. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kadercan, B. (2014) Strong armies, slow adaptation: Civil-military relations and diffusion of military power. International Security, 38(3), 117-152. Web.
Lust, E. (2014). The Middle East. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons Publishers.
Masters, B. A. (2013). The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, 1516-1918: A social and cultural history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. (2001). The Ottoman peoples and the end of empire. London, UK: Arnold.
Rogan, E. L. (2015). The fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Yarshater, E. (2013). The oil kings: How the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Reviews, 12(4), 834-837. Web.