We can address, again, the repercussions of the international crises on the Arab region, politically, economically and security. Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, we have witnessed this same scenario in terms of economy and food security. Accordingly, this paper seeks to discuss the reasons for this imbalance and the ways to fix it in order to align with Arab interests and the most beneficial and least damaging options.

With every new crisis the world experiences, we Arabs find that we have fallen victim to it before anyone else. This scenario has not changed for more than a century. The world is full of hot and cold wars, political and economic crises in the East or the West every few years, and they all end with a huge bill paid by the Arabs.

Is the reason for this permanent weakness and irreparable defect in the political awareness of the regimes that have been ruling the Arab countries since the beginning of the twentieth century? Or are they wrong bets, alliances and covenants that are misplaced and made with the wrong people?

Today, we are facing a crisis that threatens to draw a new global political map. Will the Arabs experience bitter disappointments again? Will history continue its same course and threaten them? Alternatively, will we benefit from our experiences and adopt less costly and most beneficial options? This question deserves to be taken into serious consideration today.

“Let us die for them, Arabs!”

At first, it may be useful to recall part of those experiences and disappointments we have lived through in our Arab region. When the Ottoman Empire began to weaken at the beginning of the twentieth century, the first glimmer of hope for liberation from its occupation appeared when calls for resistance rose within the wide presence of the Arab national feeling of belonging. The first Ottoman response was the execution of a number of patriot fighters in Syria and Lebanon on May 6, 1916, commemorated in both countries as Martyrs’ Day.

When the news of the execution reached Prince Faisal bin Sharif Hussein, he threw his keffiyeh (a traditional headdress) on the ground and shouted , “Let us die for them, Arabs!” That cry was the beginning of our liberation from the Ottoman domination. Unfortunately, it ended in a sore disappointment that was manifested in the division of the Ottoman Empire after World War I in 1918, in addition to the fall of Arab lands that were considered an “Ottoman legacy” under the French, British and Italian mandates in the “Sykes-Picot Agreement”, that, in the words of a well-known Syrian/Lebanese proverb, moved Arabs “from the place under the tap to the place under the gutter.”

This division prevented the newly formed countries from completing the building of their foundations, leaving Arabs in a state of permanent weakness that forced them to seek help from world powers in every calamity they or those around them experienced. Thus, during the Cold War in the middle of the twentieth century after gaining their independence, Arab countries found themselves victim of the tensions between the Eastern (Soviet Union) and Western (America and Europe) camps.

Depending on the two camps has been repeated in various forms since then, deepening the rift between the Arab countries and leaving the Arabs as the first victim in every dispute that erupts between the two great powers, where they gain nothing from the conflict except a new disappointment that is added to the previous ones and paves the way for the next. As a result, their political and economic weakness increases, their division becomes entrenched, and their causes and peoples lost.

Most of the Arab regimes and governments that have ruled in this region bear a large part of the responsibility for consolidating this dependency and linking the destiny of their countries to the decisions and wills of superpowers and external parties.

These regimes have, almost always, failed in being a major driver in the succession of events around them or even those that pertain to them. Rather, the internal political decisions of most Arab countries were transformed by their ruling regimes into creating a reality that is in line primarily with the projects and interests of external forces. Arab lands have also been turned into arenas for groups and parties working in favor of an expansionist state that robs Arab countries of their political will and power.

The Geopolitics of Neutrality

And here is the world today in a new crisis after the Russian president declared war on Ukraine last February. Once again, the Arab countries find that they are in the midst of a conflict of influence and interests between East and West due to their geographical location and strategic ties with this or that party.

Accordingly, Arab governments are in a state of apprehension since most of them are unable to take a negative stance against Russia. On the one hand, they look with concern toward Iran, which is preparing to sign a nuclear agreement that will allow it to proceed with its expansion projects in the region. On the other hand, they also look with concern towards America whose behavior in the region no longer inspires confidence.

Therefore, the current situation poses several challenges for Arab leaders that require a high level of political mobilization from everyone, as it is no longer acceptable to be dragged behind any international party without starting from our self-interest first. Here, we do not mean the individual interest of each country separately; experiences have proven the failure of this policy.

No matter how huge the divisions and distances between regimes, geopolitics still imposes its conditions with force, creating effects and repercussions of every storm striking one country in the region on its neighbors sooner or later, so it leaves destructive effects everywhere that can no longer be foreseen or preparations made to ward off its dangers.

The Russian war on Ukraine creates a probable food crisis for most of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. According to reports, a third of Arab wheat and barley imports is imported from Russia and Ukraine. Libya, Egypt and Algeria depend on these two countries for half of their wheat needs, which raises the possibility of what several UN reports describe as a “food nightmare” in 2023 if the war continues, paving the way for new forms of turmoil and political instability to be added to the suffering of most Arab countries.

Politically, the Ukrainian crisis has created a state of extreme polarization worldwide. The West has taken very strict measures towards Russia, and similar steps will be probably taken against everyone who supports Russia, as it is clear that President Joe Biden insists that anyone who does not stand with America today is against it.

However, the Arabs have not yet reached the place where they can stand against America, and, at the same time, they are exposed to many dangers if they stand with it, especially since the United States does not make enough efforts to support them, consolidate their positions, or preserve their interests even in the Middle East itself.

For example, if the oil-rich Arab countries increased their oil production levels to cover the deficit caused by the Western boycott of Russia, can America protect the Arabs from any retaliatory reactions by Moscow? Could America prevent Russia from expanding its support to Iran, increasing the Iranian interventions in many Arab countries, and providing more support to its proxies, including militias in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and other factions in Iraq and other countries in the region?

The Costs of Neutrality

Do Americans realize the amount of losses the Arabs will incur, and the tension and chaos that will affect their shaky stability when they support America wholeheartedly?

If we compare the position of the United States regarding the aggression against Ukraine with its positions on the many attacks that Arab countries have been subjected to over the past decade in particular, we can only say that America does not consider Arabs as allies or even true friends, but rather mere oil deposits and spaces to maneuver in its geopolitical chess game with Russia?

America left them within the range of Iran’s missiles and its affiliated militias. Houthi missiles have reached Riyadh and Abu Dhabi without Washington feeling that it has to react or even declare its condemnation and denunciation. The Houthis, for instance, are still not listed on the U.S. terrorism list, Western concessions are still being made to Iran to bring it back to the nuclear agreement, and even the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will be removed from the blacklist.

It seems that America considers its allies in the region to be second-class allies not linked to any considerations regarding their geopolitical weight. This is unacceptable in international relations as it implies the use of multiple standards. Since the United States has abandoned the Arabs, especially its allies, how can it demand today that they fully and absolutely stand by its side and explicitly condemn Moscow?

This hostility against Russia perhaps entails hostility against China as well, although the latter may in the coming short term be an important economic partner for the Arab countries, both rich and poor.

America left all the countries it invaded to face their fate alone, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt following the events of the so-called "Arab Spring." Moreover, to this day, the United States is still vetoing Syria’s return to the Arab League.

Caught Between the American Hammer and the Russian Anvil

In this context, I want to shed light on the Iranian problem once again. The majority of Arab governments adopted a neutral position between the Russian and Western sides in the Ukrainian crisis because Arab leaders chose to instead serve the interests of their countries and the security of their people by avoiding the pressures on them from the two axes. Meanwhile, what truly threatens their interests in maintaining their neutrality is the growth of Iranian power, which has been based on Tehran’s rejection of international laws, charters, and resolutions. 

Today, Iran is the victorious force, especially after the nuclear negotiations that will free it from remaining restrictions and allow it to interfere in many Middle East issues, leading to the obstruction of projects in one country, inciting conflict in another, and threatening stability elsewhere to achieve its expansionist ambitions.

There is no better evidence for this than Iran’s recent objection to the agreement reached by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in March on the development of the Al-Durra field for natural gas, as the Iranians claim to have a stake in this field.

The crisis of this false claim comes in light of the escalating tension between Tehran and most of the capitals of the Gulf Cooperation Council because of several issues, the most important of which is Yemen, not to mention the international situation that led to the global crisis in the energy field as a result of the Ukrainian war.

Based on the assertion that opportunities are born from the heart of crises, and since the Arabs today are caught between the American hammer and the Russian anvil, one can add the fact that the interests and the stability of their countries fall under the Iranian control, which will not hesitate to disintegrate and weaken all the Arab countries it can reach, and to achieve sectarian division and strife. The Arabs, in return, should strive to find opportunities that correspond to the size of these crises and the obstacles surrounding them on all sides.

Despite the disappointments, Arabs have suffered historically because of external interference and the arrogance of major powers, in addition to the blatant interference of regional powers in their affairs.

Window of Opportunity

Today, there is a window of opportunity for this whole situation to change, especially since the world is witnessing a decisive and transitional phase in which all political cards are now shuffled, marking the start of a completely new distribution of influence, alliances, and alignments.

In addition, the old international relations that currently exist today are also subject to rethinking and evaluation, and the Arabs are no exception. However, what is feared is that they are still not making the required effort to protect themselves, guarantee their rights, and enhance their power in the territory.

Despite that, the intentions are there to engage in this matter, and in recent days we have witnessed a wide and comprehensive diplomatic movement that included many Arab countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia as well as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel.

These countries and their position regarding the Russian war on Ukraine suggest that they are aware of the need not to fall into the same series of previous mistakes. Pragmatic caution will make them avoid the adoption of the positions of any major country without guaranteeing it will preserve and support their interests, and perhaps allow them to obtain inducements.

In the face of this Arab rejection, America must establish new relations with the Arabs based on mutual interests. I do not think that the Arab countries today are about to miss the opportunity offered by this unprecedented confrontation between Russia and the West.

In addition, I rule out that the intention of the current Arab diplomatic movement is to announce the war in the region. On the contrary, it is a kind of preparation for the consequences of what is happening at the global level and the possible in the region should Iran return to the nuclear agreement. Arab leaders must be alert to the advantages and strength to be gained at the economic, military, and, most importantly, political level.

A unified Arab regional position in the face of the Iranian threat is not limited to military preparation. The diplomatic option remains the first, the best and the most preferred one. Arab hands will be extended to Iran, but they will not be separate this time. Rather, they are united on a clear vision of peace in the region and a firm position on all factors affecting the future of their countries and peoples, positive or negative.

Therefore, in international and regional relations as well, I find that the Arab countries that have chosen neutrality between Russianand Western forces will not abandon their non-alignment, which serves their interests and may serve the possibility of their ability to help find a solution to the raging international crisis.

Although this is an unenviable position for the Arabs in terms of difficulties and challenges, they share this position with most countries around the world. However, what distinguishes the Arabs in this regard is the wide scope available to them in movement and maneuverability. If they can harness this strength, all the threats surrounding them will turn into opportunities and their disappointments will turn into the long-awaited bright and secure future.

 

 

 

Author: Hasan Ismaik STRATEGIECS Chairman