In Qatar, a frank look at the dilemmas of Gulf security

THE DAILY STAR –Lebanon: Wednesday, November 30, 2005

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 are its immense natural gas reserves, which lead to the second reality of its being the main base for American armed forces in the Gulf. 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, one 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 deep dialogue that took place last weekend in Doha during a 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-a-vis the all-powerful executive and security sectors of society. That is why throughout the broader Middle East parliaments are also broadly lacking in credibility and impact.

Nevertheless, a very honest discussion took place among the 60 participants - mostly non-parliamentarians on 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 region of resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict fairly; the enormous impact that Iraq's future will have on the 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 American troops in their country.

The oil- and gas-fueled Gulf states are not, as is often perceived abroad, little wonderlands, basking in bountiful revenues, able to get on with developing their societies, sometimes in flamboyant ways. Instead, there is great concern, and even some existential fear, because of the states' vulnerabilities to nearby Iran and Iraq, and the current contradiction between their immense natural wealth, on the one hand, and, on the other, their inability to protect themselves from political tensions in the region. They also fear the possibility of turning into a battleground of competition for energy among the world's current and looming economic powers.

The combination of ongoing injustice and occupation in Palestine and the turbulent situation in nearby Iraq, including the perhaps permanent presence of American troops, generates popular anger and angst throughout the Gulf region. In some cases this meshes with homegrown anger with official policies, and with sometimes wasteful or corrupt use of indigenous oil and gas income, leading a few disgruntled citizens to respond by joining Osama bin Laden's cohort of terrorists, targeting Gulf Arab societies and regimes as well as their foreign protectors.

It is important to recognize that astute members of these wealthy Gulf societies acknowledge their 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 then). Yet American military forces in Saudi Arabia after 1990 and in Iraq today are the main instigators of anti-American sentiment throughout the region, and the primary magnets attracting 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.

There are no other realistic alternatives today to foreign security assistance, most analysts and officials in the Gulf seem to agree. However, more effective 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, Hassan al-Ansari told the gathering, it is difficult to deal with terrorism only by force or by trying to fight it militarily from outside the region. What is needed also is a domestic Arab response that includes government reform, anti-corruption actions, and moves toward participatory democracy. Until then, he said, the small, energy-wealthy emirates of the Gulf will 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 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 countries, of which there are six 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 involving 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. Saad bin Tifla's conclusions for Gulf security in the long run, and his suggestion to NATO parliamentarians, was to get more actively involved in finding a fair solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict while a two-state solution is still possible. He also recommended that Gulf countries confront the potential threat from Iran by working to strengthen civil society and democracy inside Iraq. Otherwise, he noted, Iraq would continue to promote the "Afghanization" of Salafi jihadi terrorists, who are radicalized and trained in resistance and terrorism in Iraq, before attacking 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. It is badly needed throughout the region.

Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.