The Sept. 11 terror attacks against the US traumatized the world with visions of death and violence in a way that could not be forgotten. But the reactions to these terror attacks such as the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, breaches of civil rights and Abu Ghraib abuses were just as traumatizing and disturbing to those directly affected and to the people around the world. While other similar vicious attacks terrorized Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco, Spain and Saudi Arabia one wonders what future vision do we have and how and when will these traumas end. In the midst of this troubled world are two sides, the US and Islamic fundamentalism.
The complexity of the matter lies within the image that each side has of the other. With the demise of the Soviet Union the dream of a global economic and political hegemony became the dominant element in Washington’s foreign policy. This entailed the control of global energy resources and significant strategic geopolitical areas concentrated mainly in the Gulf region. For the US, the time was right for such a move with an economically crippled Russia, a politically isolated China and a European Union economically strong but militarily weak.
Since the ’70s, the US policy toward the region resided in the guarantee of a steady flow of Gulf oil to Western industrialized states at low prices in return for the protection of the Gulf region against outside aggression. This strategy was put in place as the crude oil price quadrupled and as the Gulf oil producing countries took control of their natural resources by determining the price of oil and production ceilings inside OPEC meetings.
To promote its policy, the US convinced some of the Gulf governments that imminent threats were plausible from either neighbors ignited by border disagreements or by regional hegemony or from Soviet expansion within the context of the Cold War. In view of this, the US engaged the region in an arms race that provided benefits to the US economy with the steady recycling of petrodollars for almost two decades. America then kept the region in turmoil through a series of intimidating foreign policies leading to the eventual deployment of US armed forces on Arab soil. In every dispute, the US assisted one side against the other while weakening the regional organizations that might be able to mediate and resolve or contain such regional conflicts. In line with this strategy, the US supported Israeli insurgencies against the Palestinians, leaving the Arabs and Muslims with a sense of helplessness and weakness.
At the turn of the 21st century, America set forth its policy for the coming decade, in compliance with the US Energy Plan of 2000 and the prospects of increased US need for Gulf oil in 2015, namely, the control of oil resources around the world. The stirring of turmoil in Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran and Syria serves to show what are US policy objectives. The Gulf oil producing countries felt threatened with the persisting turmoil in the region. In an attempt to minimize the causes of instability in the area, they decided to solve conflicting issues between them. In the ’90s, the Arab Gulf states intensified their efforts and succeeded in resolving all border disagreements and established good neighborly relations with Iran after they were strained with the rise of the Islamic Republic and its intended export of the revolution. This stood in the way of the US enforcing its control over the region and increasing its military presence.
As for the Islamic fundamentalists, who originated from various Arab, Islamic, European and Asian countries, the US objectives were neither acceptable nor permissible. With a determination to resist the US objectives and renounce American military presence in the Gulf, the Islamic fundamentalists, converted the popular feelings against so-called anti-Arab and anti-Muslim policies into vicious acts of terror against the United States. They were a real problem to the US in being invisible, militant and suicidal ready to kill and to be killed for their cause, the type that no superpower can follow or declare victory against.
The US strategy toward the Gulf region does not change with the change of party in power. The attacks and the counterattacks will increase with no hope of a solution. The paradox of this peculiar conflict is that the majority of the Arabs and Muslims believe that the US foreign policies have been the cause of their miseries and the reasons behind increased global terror whereas a lot of Americans believe that acts of terror are responsible for their military intervention.
The question that needs to be asked is what is the US gains and losses and where is it taking us. America has succeeded in extending its military bases to various Asian countries encircling major oil producing countries. It has succeeded in invading two sovereign states unilaterally without a justified reason or international cover. It has succeeded in strengthening its borders from further terror attacks. However, America has not succeeded in bringing its EU allies to assist it in its wars except for a few. It has not succeeded in building the peace in Afghanistan or Iraq. It has lost its credibility. At home there is increased political division and economic corruption. Its reputation as an ideal democratic country has been ruined.
Anti-American sentiments have increased, particularly in the Middle East and religious fundamentalism has grown. As a result, America will slowly drift toward isolation. Ironically, this isolation would also threaten global peace and stability. It is uncertain where the US is taking us in the coming years. One thing is certain: The US will not attain its goals with military occupation. Iraq is a clear example of the resistance that the US is bound to invite.
Today, most regional states believe that the US threatens their security and sovereignty. America’s foreign policies inflame Arab and Islamic passions. The presence of US armed forces in the region, continued US presence in Iraq, its abuse of Iraqi resources, and its illusions that it can dictate Western democracy to the Middle East — all this creates tension and turmoil. The perception is that with increased US violence and military activity in the area, the Islamic fundamentalism is bound to grow.
With this concept in mind, rational thinking should be intensified by Arab and Muslim states to face hostilities from both conflicting sides. On the one hand, the Middle East area and the Gulf region should direct their relations eastward instead of westward. The strengthening of the Organization of the Islamic Conference should be considered. The OIC can be a significant instrument for coordinating the Muslim states’ policies on global issues and problems. On the other hand, oil-producing countries inside and outside OPEC should seriously and collectively study the benefits of formulating a security arrangement that would serve to protect their natural resources. Today, NATO refuses to join the US in their military endeavor; however, tomorrow this might change. The initiation of local and regional centers for political research and strategic studies should be intensified. Such measures are needed to uphold threats coming from conflicting sides.
If the US is to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim people, they need to secure their energy needs from the oil producing states based on negotiations according to acceptable economic grounds. Anti-Americanism is not an expression of hate toward the American people but rather against their government’s policies. The Americans must work on renewing their credibility based on a new version and change of foreign policies. They must concentrate on building a relationship based on respect for the sovereignty of states, free trade and noninterference. Screening faces at US airports will not be sufficient for America’s security. For the US to forcefully seek Gulf oil can only be seen as an imperialist move whereas Gulf states’ defense of their oil resources is a moral duty.
— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from Canberra University in Australia.
