The Middle East & International Relations - Essay Example

The Middle East & International Relations The status of the Middle East as a territory of perpetual conflict has been well documented and some commentators have argued that central to the continued instability in the region is the contrast between the concept of Arabism and state nationalism particularly in the contemporary regional political environment as a result of the Israel issue and complex cultural units falling under the “Arab” aegis (Hinnesbuch & Ehteshami, 2002, p.115). For example, Dawisha posits that the 1967 Six Day War with Israel operated as the seminal turning point in Arab state nationalism, moving towards a regional preference for “Arabism” (2003, p.252). On the other hand, Efraim and Karsh comment that the debate regarding Arab nationalism as a model of homogenous states bound by common language, religion and history has “dominated Middle Eastern political discourse for the most part of this century” (1996). However, they highlight that regardless of the concept of Arab nationalism in academic rhetoric; Arab nationalism has not succeeded in achieving the goal of unifying the “Arab” nation under a model of pan-Arabism. Moreover, Biersteker and Weber highlight that in terms of Arab nationalism the central issue in Arab states is “whether Arab nationalism was or was not consistent with state sovereignty and the territorial legacy” (1996, p149). Additionally, Biersteker and Weber refer to the argument that 1967’s turning point led to Arab recognition of state sovereignty, thereby dispelling pan-Arabism and replacing the state versus nation conflict (1996,p.149). In turn, the fragmentation of various ethno-cultural groups within these states has led to a dichotomy between political state identity and national identity. For example, Rinawi refers to the example of Operation Iraqi Freedom as crystallising the distinction between sovereignty and pan Arabism, whereby with “this event the divide between the pan-Arabic and specific localised Arab agendas became apparent” (2006, p.xxi). This is further evidenced by the growing role and influence of Iran in the area as a result of the destabilisation of Iraq under Operation Iraqi Freedom, which has been of increasing concern to the US and Europe (Potemski, 2007). Accordingly, it is submitted that the central issues relating to the Middle East in context of the contemporary framework of international relations is the complex relationship between nationalism and identity in the Arab states, the terrorism phenomenon and the growing influence of Iran in the area. Directly correlated to this is the growing concern of US and the EU at the growth of Iran as a power, the nuclear issue and the fact that the difficulty of distinguishing between state and non-state sponsored terrorism in the Middle East has led to a political standoff between the US and Europe on how best to deal with the conflict in the Middle East. This proposition is further supported by the complex issues of national identity at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; the failures of the US in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the complexity of distinguishing between state and non state terrorism within Arab territories under the growing reality of the global terrorism phenomenon (Shimko, 2009, p.315). Indeed, this is reinforced by the arguments of Dawisha that the central distinction within the nationalism paradigm in a post Israel Middle East is Arabism and not Arab nationalism on grounds that 1967 did not signify Arab nationalism’s “last stand”. To this end, Dawisha asserts that: “Arabism was not lost as an identity; it continued to set general parameters Arab regimes would be loath to transgress…. What continued to live on was Arabism, not Arab nationalism” (2003, p.252). However, it is precisely the complex concepts of national identity within the Arab states that has rendered it intrinsically difficult to fight the war on terror. In turn, the US foreign policy objectives in the area post September 11 have only served to perpetuate conflict and resentment towards the US in the area and the growing influence of Iran has meant the continued need for US observation of the area for the foreseeable future. The immediate aftermath of September 11 and the Bush administration’s foreign policy initiatives moved the US foreign policy towards unilateralism where national security was of prime importance over a multilateral approach (Fuss, 2004). The events of September 11 triggered a shift in US focus towards Iraq where Bush brandished Iraq as one of the three states that “axis of evil” and that Iraq posed a “grave and growing danger” (Fuss, 2004). Not only did this rhetoric provide a significant trigger for the US military action in Iraq; Operation Iraqi Freedom was further distinct in signalling US unilateralist behaviour in contemporary execution of foreign policy objectives (Larres, 2003). However, the recent insights into Iraq through Operation Iraqi Freedom has exposed the tribal conflicts of the peoples within this territory with conflicts between the Sunnis and Shiis and the previous history of conflict with the Kurds, who also have their own concepts of “national identity” (Stroheimer, 2003). These very differences again reinforce the intrinsic complexity of applying the European state nationalism model to the Middle East Region and have arguably backfired on the US in attempting to fight the war on terror and bring stability to the region. For example, the failure to understand the complex ethnonational dynamic of the Middle East has only served to increase unease at US presence (Donnelly, 2004). In turn, reports indicate that Iran has been able to exploit this unease as from a tactical perspective the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime coupled with the growing resentment in the region towards US presence in Iraq also has provided Iran with the perfect opportunity to ensure that Iraq is no longer a threat to Iran, which clearly operates to serve Iran’s interests (Donnelly, 2004). Furthermore, Iran has sought to exploit investment opportunities in Iraq with a growing market for Iranian products (Gonzalez, 2007, p.38). There are also reports that Iran is furthering its interested by supporting pro-Iranian factions in Iraq and creating divides between political leaders in order to increase power and build economic ties. In particular, the US is concerned about the Iran’s support for the Shiite factions in Iraq and therefore there is clearly a risk of increasing Iran power that has arguably been facilitated by Operation Iraqi freedom (Gonzalez, 2007). This is further supported by the fact that many of Iraq’s current leaders were in exile in Iran and whilst in the March 2010 elections the Iranian campaign suffered setbacks, there is still significant Iranian influence on political blocs in Iraq, which again has significant long term repercussions for the US in terms of increasing Iranian power after the US forces leave (Gonzalez, 2007). Therefore, the complex socio-cultural backdrop of Iraq has provided a significant challenge for conventional military strategy and led to a US presence in the country far longer than originally planned and is now a central issue for the US with regard to its interest in the Middle East going forward. This is reinforced by the oil issue as currently US military presence in the Middle East also serves to protect the secure passage of oil supplies to the West (Gonzalez, 2007 ). Therefore any risk to the stability of oil supply in the region further renders international observation of the area necessary (Gonzalez, 2007). Additionally, another seminal issue pertaining to Western interests and the Middle East is the nuclear issue particularly with Iran (Gonzalez, 2007). For example, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had “failed to meet its obligations under its safeguards agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities where the material was stored and processed” (www.iaea.org accessed December 2010). The 2003 report highlighted the fact that Iran has concealed or failed to declare examples of nuclear activity, which clearly raises concerns at international level, particularly in light of Iran’s alleged increasing role in global terrorism (Potemski, 2007). Whilst Iran’s nuclear programme was theoretically suspended in 1979, since the Iran/Iraq war, the efforts to advance nuclear capabilities have redoubled and many argue that alongside ostensibly “legitimate” efforts to expand Iran’s nuclear power generation industry, there has been a parallel development of a covert nuclear weapons proliferation programme (Walton & Gray, 2007). The central problem however lies in ascertaining the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities due to lack of cogent evidence (Potemski, 2007; Walton & Gray, 2007). The uncertainty regarding the extent of Iran’s nuclear capabilities further fuels concerns regarding Iran’s funding of Hamas and other alleged terrorist groups (Potemski, 2007). Moreover, in “Deterring a Nuclear Iran”, Zaborski proposes a hypothetical scenario in the Gulf where American, Russian and Iranian interests conflict and asserts that “a rogue state that actually has a nuclear capability commits an act of aggression in a key region, and then threatens to employ its nuclear weapons to deter retaliation by the United States, Russia or other external actors” (Zaborski, 2005). The potential ramifications to international relations remain cogent as Iran has never acknowledged Israel as a state. Whilst Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has resumed development of uranium enrichment program as part of its civilian nuclear energy program. Whilst this is permitted under Article IV of the NPT in 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement in an unusual non-consensus decision, after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment (www.iaea.org). However, this appears to politically driven by US controlled UN drive to maintain the international security order (Potemski, 2007). Notwithstanding the 2003 report and temporary standoff from Iran, the country resumed its enrichment program in 2007 with the US concluding that Iran was in violation of Article III of the NPT (www.iaea.org). Therefore, Iran’s actions suggest a distinct national objective towards increasing its power and role on the international stage, which clearly has long term implications for stability in international affairs in the long term, particularly in light of Iran’s ability to exploit the destabilisation of Iraq in order to increase its power in the Middle East. Accordingly, the above analysis demonstrates that the complexity regarding constructs of national identity within Arab states particularly as a result of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has created sub-groups within states in the Middle East. For example, arguably it is the Western definitions of sovereign territory and nationalism that is intrinsically flawed when applied to the complex nature of the Arab territories particularly when considered against the territorial and historical backdrop of the Middle East (Tibi, 1997,p.1). This argument is further reinforced by Tibi’s argument that the modern Western concept of nationalism in context of Arab nationalism must always be considered in context and that as such, “Nation, nationalism and nation states are phenomena strange to Islamic history” (Tibi, 1997, p.1). Furthermore, the complex concepts of identity and interests within these sub-groups have created problems for the US and EU when dealing with conflict in the Middle East, and the growing problem of global terrorism (Anderson, 2005). For example, in undertaking a contextual study of Jordan and the Palestinians Anderson highlights the central point that national identity is intrinsically dependent on the development of “day to day events and relationships” (2005, p12). In reinforcing this argument, Anderson refers to Chattarjee’s model of the “domains of national identity”, which “give structure and meaning to new state institutions and feelings of shared experiences” (2005, p.12). For example, Anderson refers to the Jordan and Palestine as being examples of the inner and outer domains as a result of political activity and the reshaping of the international world order and model for international relations (Anderson, 2005, p.13) As such, the political dimension was co-existent and directly impacts the status of national identity from a subjective perspective (Anderson, 2005, p.13). In supporting this argument Anderson opines that: “Nationalism became a passion for political activists of all stripes whether for those in Palestine fighting against the British, or for others in Jordan fighting against the Hashemites, because nationalism became equated with political freedom. Everywhere people sang nationalist songs and recited poetry extolling past Arab glories” (2005, p.14). This in turn shaped the parameters of not only national identity but the concept of “nations”; hence the inner and outer domain model. For example, Anderson highlights how in the aftermath of Israel’s inception, “institutions constructed by the British, the Hashemites, and the Palestinians began slowly to define the two nations”; which again underlines the essential point that concepts of national identity are inherently subjective. Indeed, particularly in the contemporary international framework there are clearly different models of Arab nationalism as “Arab nationalism refers to the political divisions and economic and social problems” (Anderson, 2005, p.15) In turn the failure to understand these complexities has been perpetuated by a US foreign policy increasingly focused on national interests and unilateralism particularly in light of September 11. However, the knee jerk reaction of the US in the wake of increased national vulnerability has created problems in Operation Iraqi Freedom and only served to increase the power of Iran. In turn, this has fuelled concerns over oil and the nuclear issue whilst failing to address the complex realities of the contemporary global terrorism paradigm. Accordingly, it is submitted that the current issues impacting the Middle East will necessitate a continued role of the US in the Middle East to protect national interests, however as evidenced by the EU opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom(Larres, 2003); this could in turn lead to a continued political standoff with Europe within the international relations framework going forward. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson,B., (2005) National voice in Jordan : the street and the state ,Austin: University of Texas. Biersteker, T. J. & Weber, C. (1996) State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge University Press. Dawisha, A. I. (2003). Arab nationalism in the twentieth century: from triumph to despair. Princeton University Press Donnelly, T. (2004). Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Strategic Assessment. American Enterprise Institute Efraim,K.and Karsh,I., Reflections on Arab nationalism. Middle East Studies,Vol.32,no.4,October 1996,pp:367-392. Tony Fuss (2004). Germany’s Opposition to the Iraq War and Its effect on US-German Relations. Social Education Volume 68 p.285 May-June 2004. Available online at www.eric.ed.gov accessed December 2010. Hinnebusch,R.,and Ehteshami ,A.(2002)The foreign policies of Middle East states, London :Lynne Rienner. Gonzalez, N. (2007). Engaging Iran: the rise of the Middle East powerhouse and America Greenwood Publishing Group. Klause Larres (2003). Mutual Incomprehension: US –German Value Gaps beyond Iraq. The Washington Quarterly, Volume 26: pp.23-42. Milton-Edwards, B. (2008). The Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Taylor and Francis. Potemski, P. “State Sponsored Nuclear Terrorism: A new deterrence challenge?” (2007) Online at www.ndc.nato.int/download/publications accessed December 2010 Rinawi,K., (2006) Instant Nationalism : McArabism. al Jazeera and Transnational Media in the Arab World, Lanham :University press of America. Shimko, K. (2009). International Relations: Perspectives and Controversies. Cengage Learning Stroheimer, M., (2003),Crucial Images of Kurdish National Identity :heroes and patriots, traitors and foes, Boston:Brill. Tibi, B., (1997) Arab Nationalism :between Islam and the nation -state 3rd ed., London: Macmillan. Walton, C.D. & Gray, C.S. The Second Nuclear Age: Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty-First Century. In Strategy and Contemporary World, edited by John Baylis, (2007) Zaborski, J. “Deterring a Nuclear Iran”, (2005), The Washington Quarterly: 153-167. Websites The International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Data centre at www.iaea.org accessed December 2010. Read More