DOHA, Qatar — The small emirate of Qatar where I spent last weekend attending a gathering of NATO parliamentarians with officials, scholars and activists from the Arab Gulf states is well known for three things, and is trying to generate a reputation for a fourth. Its three attributes to date are its immense natural gas reserves, which lead to its second reality of being the main base for the American armed forces in the Gulf region. It is also known (and widely respected in most places, except the impetuous United States) as being the home of Al-Jazeera television.
For the past few years Qatar also has been busy developing a reputation as an open intellectual, educational and political meeting place in the Gulf region, where the best universities in the world open branches and people can freely discuss any public issue of concern. So it was no surprise to hear the honest, deep dialogue that took place last weekend in Doha during the two-day gathering sponsored by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, in collaboration with the Consultative Assembly of Qatar.
The theme of the gathering was the role of parliamentarians in relations between NATO and the ‘broader Middle East’, meaning everything between Morocco and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, most Arab parliaments and lesser cousins, such as appointed advisory, Islamic shura or consultative councils, neither accurately represent their citizenries nor play a true checks-and-balances function vis-à-vis the all-powerful executive and security sectors of society. This is why throughout the broader Middle East parliaments are also broadly lacking in credibility and impact.
Nevertheless, a very fine and honest discussion took place among the 60 participants, who were mostly non-parliamentarians from the Arab side. Three main themes emerged that should interest anyone who studies the Gulf states and their evolution: the importance for stability in the entire region of solving the Arab-Israeli conflict fairly; the enormous impact that ultimate conditions in Iraq will have on the entire region; and, the great dilemma that defines the smaller Gulf states and Saudi Arabia — they have no alternative to American military support for their security, but also suffer the destabilizing, terror-promoting consequence of having U.S. troops in their country.
The oil- and gas-fuelled Gulf states are not, as often perceived abroad, little wonderlands, basking in their bountiful revenues and able to get on with developing their societies, sometimes in fantastic and flamboyant ways. The reality is that there is great concern and even some fear of an existential nature here. This is because of their historic vulnerabilities to nearby Iran and Iraq, and the current contradiction between their immense natural wealth, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, their inability to protect themselves from political tensions in the region (both Arab and Iranian) or even from the possibility of turning into a battleground of competition for energy among the world’s current (U.S., Europe, Japan) and looming powers (China, India).
The combination of ongoing injustices and occupation in Palestine and the turbulent, violent situation in nearby Iraq, including the perhaps permanent presence of American troops, generates popular anger and angst throughout the Arab Gulf region. In some cases this meshes with home-grown anger at official policies, and at sometimes wasteful or corrupt use of the indigenous oil and gas income, leading a few disgruntled citizens to respond by joining Osama Bin Laden’s cohort of urban terrorists, targeting the Gulf Arab societies and regimes as well as their foreign protectors.
It is important to recognize that many astute members of these wealthy Gulf societies acknowledge their very real security dilemma. They know they cannot protect themselves and their coveted resources against traditional local powers like Iran and Iraq, and must rely on foreign protection (the British before 1971, the Americans since). Yet American military forces in Saudi Arabia after 1990 and in Iraq today are the main instigators of anti-American sentiments throughout the region, and the primary magnets that attract hundreds of young Arabs to fight in Iraq against the U.S. presence and what they see as an American-installed puppet government. This is a cruel but deep dilemma: their main source of security — foreign troops — is also the main reason for their insecurity in the face of homegrown terrorism.
There are no other realistic alternatives today to foreign security assistance and reliance today, most analysts and officials in the Gulf seem to agree, yet more effective new policies are required to deal with the consequences of such reliance. As the respected director of the Gulf Studies Center at the University of Qatar, Dr. Hassan al-Ansari, told the gathering, it is difficult to deal with terror only by force or by trying to fight it militarily from outside the region (i.e., Anglo-American armadas). What is needed also is a domestic Arab response that includes government reform, anti-corruption actions, and moves toward more participatory democracy. Until then, he said, the small, energy-wealthy emirates of the Gulf will choose to continue to rely on American and other foreign security protection, because their very survival may be at stake.
The former Information Minister of Kuwait, Saad bin Tifla al Ajami, offered a very succinct perception of the possible threats or positive repercussions from Iraq. He outlined four scenarios, as seen from the perspective of Kuwait and other small Gulf emirates. “Containable chaos” was the first one, in which Iraqis would engage in a protracted and bloody civil war without the interference of neighbors. The second was “uncontainable chaos”, where civil war in Iraq spills over into neighboring lands, of which there are six countries with conflicting agendas (Turkey, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan). The third scenario is Iraq splitting into three entities run by warlords, which would probably prompt regional confrontations, at least with Turkey, Syria and Iran. The fourth is a positive scenario — “a dream”, in his words — of Iraq emerging from its current condition as a united, democratic, prosperous and stable country.
There is no way to know today which scenario will prevail, because there are good reasons for both optimism and pessimism on Iraq. His conclusion for Gulf security in the long run, and his suggestion to NATO parliamentarians, is to get more actively involved in finding a fair solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict while a two-state solution was still possible. He also recommended that Gulf countries themselves confront the potential threat from Iran by working to strengthen civil society and democracy inside Iraq. Otherwise, he noted, Iraq will continue to promote the “Afghanization” of Salafi jihadi terrorists, who are radicalized and trained in military resistance and terrorism in Iraq and then go to attack other Arab countries.
Qatar does a real service to itself and all others in its neighborhood by continuing to promote this sort of honest public debate, which is starting to become one of its hallmarks and is badly needed throughout the region.
Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune.
Copyright ©2005 Rami G. Khouri
—————-
Released: 29 November 2005
Word Count: 1,138
——————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606