Has the U.S.-Arab Marriage Gone Sour?

Some would describe the relationship between the United States and the Arab world as a marriage of convenience gone sour. Some would describe the relationship between the United States and the Arab world as a marriage of convenience gone sour. In the past both sides were happy to put up with the other’s antics. But then came September 11, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. It looked as if things would never be the same again. The events of 9/11 and its aftermath have no doubt altered the bond between the Western superpower and countries in the Middle East. But can they rise above their differences and the growing popular opposition each population harbors towards the other? In the current circumstances, can the U.S. forge genuine alliances in the Middle East? The Gulf Energy Hub The Sunni Gulf countries still maintain good relations with the U.S. Bahrain hosts significant U.S. naval forces and the region has considerable energy resources to offer. But developments over the past six years cannot be overlooked. “The fact that 17 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from the Gulf countries put a strain on these relations,” says Christian Koch, director of international studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. The U.S. became more aware of financial and ideological support for terrorism within the Gulf countries following the attacks. There was also a reassessment of these relations within the Gulf region, which became increasingly frustrated with the U.S.’s actions in Iraq and its tightening of immigration policies. “An event like 9/11 wasn’t going to cause a complete rift in the relationship because there are still a lot of mutual interests at play,” Koch says. “The Gulf states very much depend on U.S. military protection. It’s a very volatile region security-wise.” Paradoxically, relations between Bahrain and the U.S. are better now than they were before 9/11, says Jalal Fairooz, a Bahraini lawmaker and a member of the parliament’s Foreign Affairs, Defense and National Security Committee. The war on Iraq has affected the way the general public view the U.S., but it did not affect the official view, he says. Due to the volatility of the region, the Bahraini government feels that the American presence offers an assurance of stability to the regime, Fairooz says. Fairooz is satisfied with the degree of economic relations between Bahrain and the U.S., but feels there is room for improvement on the political level. “We think the U.S. can do more to encourage more democracy and human rights in Bahrain for the best of Washington’s national interests,” he says. The Gulf’s status as a dominant energy player means its stability is a top priority for the U.S. But the war in Iraq prompted states in the region to question the real motive of Washington’s policies. There is general agreement in Gulf capitals that Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but they also felt his regime was largely contained and posed no immediate threat to his neighbors, Koch says. “There’s a lot of skepticism about whether the U.S. can be trusted to do the right thing in Iraq and bring about stability,” he says. “At the same time there are concerns the U.S. will prematurely leave and then the region will be left to deal with the issue on its doorstep.” Gulf states feel the real threat is looming not from Iraq but from Iran. However, having the U.S. bogged down in Iraq makes it even more difficult to resolve the Iranian issue, since its military is stretched thin and its options are limited. “Iran has moved into this vacuum that the U.S. has created,” Koch says. The U.S. has rediscovered the value of the Gulf states over the past year or so, especially since the Iranian issue has become more acute. The most active player is Saudi Arabia, which has emerged as a major power broker in helping settle regional disputes. These states are also developing strategic economic and defense relations with other states and are not maintaining an exclusive reliance on the U.S. as they cannot be sure that such a dependence will guarantee the security they seek. However, it is clear that the U.S. will continue to play a dominant role in the region’s security. The Power Brokers – Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are often referred to as the moderate players in the Arab world. The U.S. is keen to maintain good relations with them because of their key mediation roles in regional conflicts. If U.S. President George W. Bush wants to leave a legacy of peace in the Middle East, he will have to rely heavily on these local brokers to pave the way. Saudi Arabia felt the heat after 9/11 as most of the perpetrators of the attacks were from the Saudi kingdom. “However, that was eased when Saudi Arabia itself was targeted several times by Al-Qa’ida,” says Dr. Muhammad Al-Ma’sri, a political scientist at the Center for Strategic Studies in Jordan. All three have aligned themselves with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism, not only because they feel it to be an advantageous strategy, but also due to their becoming targets of Jihadi terrorism themselves. They have strengthened their ties with the U.S. since 9/11, but continue to draw criticism regarding sluggishness on domestic reform. Al-Qa’ida attacks in Jordan, Egypt and the Saudi kingdom made it easier for the regimes to appeal to their people after 9/11 and persuade them that joining the American strategy was right. “In many ways I think the relationship is better,” says Robert W. Jordan, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Jordan began his term just one month after 9/11, and found his Saudi peers in a state of shock. Six years later, he feels they have made considerable steps in Washington’s direction. “I think there is more of an attitude of a common goal to defeat Al-Qa’ida, to defeat extremism and to defeat terrorism, which we frankly didn’t have in 2001,” he says. There are still tensions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia regarding the Palestinians and Iraq, but the former ambassador maintains there are still enough common interests to preserve an alliance. When the war in Iraq began, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan did not overtly oppose the invasion, but they are now unable to support the new order in Iraq because it is so unstable. “They have a dilemma,” Al-Ma’sri explains. “On the one hand they are trying to legitimize their position in the eyes of the Americans, but they can’t defend this position as well as they could in 2003 and 2004, when the situation in Iraq was more promising than it is today.” On the other hand, the failure of the U.S. to set up a democratic model in Iraq has also proven useful for these countries. When confronted by the Americans to incorporate more reforms or democratization, they can use the failure in Iraq as ammunition to defend their position, claiming it did not work in Iraq and, therefore, there is no reason to think it would work in their own countries. “They are exploiting the American failure in Iraq to push their own agendas,” Al-Ma’sri says. The reliance of the U.S. on Saudi Arabia is noticeable in the $20-billion arms deal the U.S. has proposed to ink with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and its continuing aid to Egypt. The U.S. is keen on seeing Saudi participation in the American Middle East conference in Washington scheduled for this November. It has been suggested that the package was meant as an incentive to ensure Saudi attendance, which is critical for the Bush administration. Syria - Axis of Evil or Desired Partner? Relations between the U.S. and Syria deteriorated rapidly after the war in Iraq. The U.S. accused Damascus of supporting terrorism and helping groups infiltrate through its borders into Iraq to fight U.S. forces. Damascus has also been implicated in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri in February 2005. But even in the current tense climate, the two parties recognize it is not in their best interests to be on bad terms. “The U.S. still has a very tense relationship with Syria on the administration level but on other levels things are going in a different direction,” says Nadim Shehadi, a researcher at London’s Chatham House. “It’s practically only George Bush who wants to boycott Syria. There are lots of moves in the U.S. from politicians and media people to engage with Syria.” Shehadi says relations with Syria are not inherently important to the U.S. However, their significance lies in the fact that Syria has a part to play in every conflict in the region. “It has influence in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Palestine and in Iran,” Shehadi says, “So it puts itself in a pivotal role.” “I think these relations are going through a grey period where lots of things are undecided,” says Dr. Samir Al-Taqi, director of the Damascus-based Orient Center for Studies who is considered to be close to the Syrian government. “The main issue here is that the U.S. administration is crippled. It can no longer pursue its old approach to the problems in the region,” Al-Taqi says. “But we understand the necessity of having common interests.” “Syria is extremely interested in a rapprochement with the U.S. but in the context of a conciliatory approach to the problems in the region,” he says. It is worth noting that Syria does not hold vast resources of energy. Economically, the U.S. does not have the same energy interests in Syria as it has in the Gulf, so it is less reliant on Syria. However, this could prove to be a double-edged sword, because any future U.S. sanctions on Damascus will not bite hard. The Iranian Factor The standoff with Iran is becoming a determining factor in the U.S.’s relations with countries in the Middle East. Western countries, and especially the U.S., are just as concerned that Iran’s controversial nuclear program is being used to covertly manufacture nuclear weapons, a claim that Tehran denies. Tension is mounting in the Persian Gulf, where U.S. forces are accumulating, giving rise to speculation of a possible military showdown to paralyze Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Sunni Muslim countries, and especially Iran’s neighbors in the Gulf, are as concerned as the West about the ascension of a nuclear-capable Shi’ite superpower in the region. “The Saudis are definitely afraid of a military strike on Iran,” former ambassador Jordan says. “They believe they will be the first in the line of fire if there were retaliation. And they would be right.” This is an issue that places many of these countries on the side of the U.S. However, an alliance with Washington against Iran is not a given. Koch says the prevailing feeling among Gulf officialdom is that the U.S. has a one-dimensional mindset, that it has abandoned diplomatic strategies and has resolved to use muscle to pursue its interests in the region. They feel that if the U.S. pursues a strategy similar to its actions in Iraq, it will prove to be more damaging than beneficial. “The main stand of the government and the people of Bahrain is that any military action against Iran can result in a dangerous situation in the region,” Bahraini MP Fairooz says. “All the governments here in the region, including Bahrain, are trying to push for a peaceful dialogue and a resolution that will avoid military action.” With regard to the relations between the Jordanian-Saudi-Egyptian axis and the U.S., Al-Ma’sri maintains the future of these ties depends heavily on how things play out with Iran and with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Al-Ma’sri sees a direct relationship between these two processes. “If the Americans pressure the Israelis for more compromise, these three countries will do more to support American policies in Iran or even in Iraq,” he says. “There is a correlation and it is expressed repeatedly by these countries. If the Americans don’t do more to get rewards from the Israelis concerning the Palestinian issue, they will tell the Americans they won’t go full board with them.” Dr. Samer Shehata, an assistant professor of Arab politics at the Center for Contemporary Studies at Georgetown University, notes a discrepancy in the attitudes of officialdom and that of the man in the Arab street with regards to Iran. While local regimes are not interested in a nuclear powerful Iran, Arab public opinion views the U.S. as holding a double standard with regard to the nuclear issue, because it is common knowledge that Israel has a nuclear program, but the U.S. is focusing its pressure on Iran. With American troops lining Iran’s borders in Afghanistan and in Iraq, Iran is viewed as being under the threat of a Western bully. “Many people in the Arab world have sympathy towards Iran precisely because it has an antagonistic relationship with the United States,” Shehata says. Straddling a Fine Line – Terrorism and Reform The U.S. is currently walking a fine line between its willingness to promote democracy and broker peace in the Middle East, on the one hand, and to continue its relentless fight against terror. This has brought about some curious policies in the Middle East as it tries to straddle this line and maintain both objectives. Washington needs the help of Arab countries to fight terrorists seeking a safe haven on their soil, while at the same time criticizes these countries’ sluggish pace of domestic reform, their poor performance on human rights and lack of democratic procedures. This paradox is evident in the U.S.’s relations with Sudan, where more than 200,000 people have been killed in the Darfur region over the past four years. The Sudanese government is being accused of backing violent armed organizations to carry out what the U.S. has itself described as genocide. But news reports indicate there is still a close alliance between Washington and Khartoum. “We see a far closer working relationship between the two than what we perhaps would assume from the megaphone diplomacy that’s coming out of the Darfur crisis,” says Maryam Bibi Jooma, a researcher on Sudan at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria. The Sudanese security services are providing the U.S. with information to help with the war on terror, and in a way is allowing protection of the Darfur crisis, she says. “We have a strange situation where Sudan is both a sponsor of terrorism, according to the U.S., and also a key ally against terrorism.” “The U.S.’s entire foreign policy in the Horn of Africa is being motivated by its domestic concern over the war on terror and very little to do with the internal contradiction of democratic transformation.” But are these contradictory policies successful in bettering relations with the Arab world? Many think not. “I think when it comes to actual policies there is a grand discrepancy between America’s claim to want better relations with the Arab world and the actual policies that it implements,” Georgetown University’s Shehata says. Washington, he maintains, is not doing enough to safeguard these ties. “I think the administration is misguided on a number of issues and this has disastrous consequences for U.S.-Arab relations.” Former ambassador Jordan says the U.S. has not emphasized its relationships with the Arab world over the past five or six years in a way that it could have. “There’s a sense that Washington has simply not had relations with the Arab world on its agenda,” he says. However, he believes there will be more efforts on the part of Bush and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to make a mark and set an agenda before Bush’s current term of office is up. Whether the relations of the U.S. with the Arab world can remain strong depends on many factors. The repercussions of the confrontation with Iran, the U.S.’s achievements on the Israeli-Palestinian front, developments in the energy market and the outcome of the Al-Hariri trial are some of the events that will shape these relations.

Copyright © 2007 The Media Line. All Rights Reserved.