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.
|