Gulf Union: When going gets tough, the tough get going

Change is a norm of life. Change would happen in a way we like it or not. So, it is prudent to accept change as a fact of life and be malleable enough to adapt to it. It is even better to include change as a primary factor in our future plans.
The conventional wisdom says, “Adapt to change or perish.” This can be the fate of an individual or a country. However, the effect of change varies in degree and scope. The effect of good or bad change that happens in our family life, work, social and economic sphere is restricted to a particular unit(s) of the society, while in the case of a state it is overwhelming and unlimited with domestic and international dimensions.
Moreover, the nature of change could be a giant step in all aspects of life, bettering peoples’ quality of life or deteriorating it. At any rate, there is a correlation between the quality of domestic change (good/bad) and a state’s status in the international political arena.
The positive change, especially in the areas of human development, economy, and science and technology, enhances a state’s status regionally and internationally by strengthening its credibility, and its political clout in world’s affairs. A negative change, however, would put a state’s internal affairs on a rollercoaster, and consequently the government would be totally engaged in putting them on a steady track, at the same time losing grounds in the international arena. Hence, the phrase “All politics is local” is partially true.
The existing Arab Gulf countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, gradually got their independence from Britain between 1960s and 1970s. Soon, the governments of these countries, almost collectively, realized the need for positive change. Development plans were formulated and implemented. Consequently, they succeeded in achieving acceptable levels of development thus becoming modern societies.
The most critical development, which is creating basic structures, started right after 1973 with the phenomenal boom in oil prices and continued until early 1980s. Thus, the completion of the basic infrastructure took over a decade, specifically from 1970s to 1980s. The entire Arab Gulf countries were a world-workshop of giant projects constructed by international companies from almost every part of this world.
Most of us today, still, remember what every single Arab Gulf country was like only 30 years ago — the comparison between yesterday and today is staggering. Two observations can be made on this story of development. Firstly, the transformation of the GCC from simple societies to modern ones practically took a decade. It started with Egypt-Israel war in 1973 and tremendously slowed down with Iraq-Iran war in 1980.
Secondly, those critical developments occurred at a time when the world’s affairs were balanced by the state of bipolar politics of the United States and the former Soviet Union. This political situation created for most Third World countries (developing and underdeveloped), including the GCC, a stable political atmosphere to embark on giant projects and complete them in a noticeably short time.
World’s affairs had entirely changed since the 1980s, with the demise of the former Soviet Union and the subsequent secession of many of its republics to become independent sovereign states; transformation of many Eastern-bloc countries to free market economy; the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and the rise of China as an active player in international affairs.
In addition to these changing geopolitical situations, Russia, today, is adamant on retaining the status of the former Soviet Union as a superpower by asserting itself politically in several hot spots around the world, specifically in Syria. The reported presence of Russian warships in the Mediterranean, in and around Syria, is sending a clear message that it is still a major player in international politics, especially in the Middle East.
These serious events are taking place in the proximity of the Arab Gulf countries. The situation can be aggravated by the desire of Russia and China to be major players in world politics by taking stances that are not in the interest of GCC states.
On the other hand, Iran is flagrantly interfering in most of Arab countries, especially the GCC.
In the meantime, the United States is recovering from its economic crisis and the US Army is overstretched, and this situation could delay it to respond to exigent situation on time.
Both the US economy and army may take several years to regain strength that could enable Washington to take military action supported by a vital economy. Nevertheless, time is critical and major events could happen unexpectedly.
All these factors coupled with the emergence of strong theocratic and ethnic elements as determinants of foreign policy and international relations — which is a reality but has been absent from the decision making process of the GCC — might not help the Arab Gulf states. Oil has been the main element of international relationship between the GCC and Western and non-Western countries. Hence, it could potentially be the focal point of struggle between the existing and rising superpowers.
The GCC countries don’t have much of cultural commonalty with those existing or rising superpowers that could influence their foreign policy decisions in GCC’s favor. Unless the GCC countries come together as one political unity, with vital economy, they don’t have something to give to those superpower countries to work with in forming their political relationship with them.
Most of GCC countries are not comparable with superpower states in terms of the geographical size and military might, and they would be dealt with individually. The proposed unity among the GCC countries has become a matter of survival that requires compromises from every party involved.

Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Zuhayyan is a Saudi academician based in Riyadh.