Major Political and Social Issues in the Middle East - Essay Example

Sur December 6, Major political and social issues in the Middle East The Middle East has always been a very fertile region that has fueled the rise and the expansion of many great civilizations. However, given its rich resources, the Middle East did not escape the interest of the great political powers and empires. At first, to fight the powerful Ottoman Empire and keep the Muslim influence out of Europe, then, to take advantage of the vast territories of arable land and key resources such as oil, past and current superpowers, such as France, Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union have tried to gain control over this region by supporting numerous undemocratic regimes such as dictatorships and monarchies. Still, besides the malefic constant interest from outside, which has set backwards the economic and political development of the Middle East countries, the region faces a problem of its own: water shortages. This issue has caused much trouble among the local countries, which are fighting over fresh water resources. Nowadays, the Middle East faces a couple of major problems, but I chose to analyze in my essay only two of them. The first one is a very traditionally discussed problem, which is the interest that the great powers have developed in the Middle East’s resources and the way the Iraq war, the and the war in Afghanistan connect to it. The second problem, which is the problem of the water-shortages, is more untraditional, but I believe, it is very important and very actual. Please note that even if I did not choose to analyze the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I still consider it a very important issue in the Middle East nowadays. The conflict between Arabs and Israelites has deep religious, cultural interferences and I consider it tremendously vast and I cannot fully cover it in this single paper. The interest, carried out by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, for Iraqi oil is not a secret. Following a major unrest for resources, mainly oil, which has unofficially triggered the Gulf War and the bombings of 1998, the US, supported by Britain, decided to invade Iraq in 2003. A prior motivation to these actions was the claim that Iraq possessed of weapons of mass-destruction; however, an investigation lead by the United Nations uncovered no evidence of such weapons. Ironically, during the Gulf War, the United States itself shipped biological and chemical weapons to Iraq, to use in the war against Iran; moreover, “Saddam Husseins use of chemical weapons on his own people, which we are always reminded of, occurred during the time that Hussein was an ally of the United States, and was armed by the U.S” (Shah). The official goals of the invasion were: to put an end the cruel regime instituted by Saddam Hussein, to remove eventual weapons of mass destruction, to capture Islamist militants, to offer humanitarian aid and pursue the instauration of a democratic government and the last, but not the least, to protect the petroleum infrastructure in Iraq. Still, these humanitarian, peace bringing troupes were not welcomed by the Iraqi forces, not only by the military forces, but also by other religious groups that did not tolerate a foreign invasion which would end up in the occupation of the country. Even if Saddam Hussein was overthrown and captured later, along with many of his adepts, the Iraqi opposition did not cut loose, which lead to tremendous loss on both sides. “Since the bombing campaign ended and Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the expected quick democracy, peace, and gratitude to the US quickly became a nightmare and disaster as major religious and ethnic factions started fighting each other and the US/UK occupation forces.” (Shah) I would like say that, if we look at this whole situation from an outsider’s perspective, this war was not based on solid reasons and did not have precise and strong enough goals, besides the one referring to the petroleum infrastructure. As a superpower, the United States, backed by Britain and no one else on the international stage, wouldn’t engage in an unnecessary war and would not play the humanitarian act on the international stage, even when it turned out to be a complete disaster, if not of a serious reason based on strategic politics. Massive oil resources are a strategic key-point in the United States politics and I believe this is the reason that the war in Iraq started in the first place. Obviously, the situation escalated to tragic proportions that it was very hard for the United States to back out, until recently, when Barack Obama announced, on the 1st of September, 2010 that America should “turn the page”. (MacAskill). With a new prime minister elected and a new president of the parliament invested on November 11, Iraq seems to reach an agreement among its own political groups and military forces, remaining however a very important current issue in the Middle East, the 50 000 American troupes left behind on Iraqi territory standing as argument for this statement. However, if the war in Iraq is trying to reach an end, a new war, in Afghanistan, escalates involving the same international players. One can say that the United States is moving in a pattern: from one country rich in oil to another. Still, the way President Obama sees it, is that Afghanistan is in need of military, political and economic help to fight the Taliban forces that have seized control of more that 70 percent of the country. They disrupted the 2009 (August 20) democratic elections, resorting to fraud and intimidation. This way, the new president would have very little political power or the country would split up into partisan lines, which would end up in a Civil War or the acceptance of the Taliban rule. The war conducted by the US forces announces itself to be a very expensive one, already starting to lose popularity among US citizens. Many voices at this point are trying to suggest the fact that the war in Afghanistan has a hidden reason, which, after all, it is not a surprising one: the resource hunt, given the fact that Afghanistan is rich in oil and soil minerals. Obviously, American policymakers understand the fact that the Middle East is a region full of very important strategic resources and that controlling it is of major significance to contemporary US policy: “If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. […] Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was a stupendous resource of strategic power, one of the greatest material prizes in the world” (Richman). Therefore, all the US interventions in the area have been driven by the need to posses this “material prize” and to rule over the oil industry, after all, many American oil companies have “camped” in the area. Still, the United States’ access in the area was endangered by Arab nationalism, which threatened to take over the political regimes in the Middle East countries. This is where all those “war” goals are driven: the democratization of the country, the capture of Islamic militants and extremists, and the establishment of a reasonable government- they all represent US’ intentions to create favorable conditions that would grant them access to the main resources that the Middle East has to offer. I believe that this fight over resources will remain an actual issue in the future, as well as it is in the present, because the major powers will not want to let go easily of such a promising and resourceful region like the Middle East. Another current issue in the Middle East is the problem of water scarcity. The irony of the situation is that the Middle East is indeed one of the most critical areas in what concerns water shortages, that the same fertile region that put the basis of many inspiring ancient civilizations. The Middle East happens to be one of the most arid zones on the face of the Earth, because rain occurs on an irregular basis and it is definitely insufficient for the actual support of agriculture, since serious irrigation is needed. Not only the agricultural sector is in need of serious water supplies, the growing population rate encountered during the past decades has increased the water demand from the population as well. The problem, however, stands in the way boundaries are traced among the states in the Middle East; some of the states are actually forced to share the same water suppliers and therefore, the rivers have to be shared among the countries in the region. As a result, the countries become dependent on water supplies that come from beyond their boundaries. Obviously, something that is scarce, but has to be shared will naturally cause disputes. In case of the water disputes though, they intertwine with political and economic issues in the area that are very hard to solve without the intervention of outer forces, like the United Nations. Israel and Jordan have been fighting over the River Jordan for more than 40 years until they came to a compromise. Both of these countries are highly dependent on the water that the River Jordan provides: in Israel, Jordan represents the only large, natural and clean river that has a permanent flow all around the year, while water seemed to be an integral part of territory and a crucial resource for development; for the state of Jordan, the river provides more than three quarters of its needs. The absolute need for water and the ongoing hostile relations between Israel and the surrounding Arab states has made the Jordan River a very important object of disagreement, since Israel’s establishment in 1948 ( the Arab countries considered the State of Israel to be illegitimate). As the population of Israel grew, the reliance on water provided by the Jordan River increased rapidly. The Jordan River came to provide more than half of the needed water resources for the population alone. This is why, in the early 1950s, Israel built the National Water Carrier to transport water from the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee to the Negev desert. This way, water reached new portions of desert land, which ultimately could be cultivated. However, the Arab nations considered the National Water Carrier to be sign of Israels aggressive expansionist ambitions. This is why, in 1955, the Israeli construction team was attacked by the Syrian artillery units. The conflict lasted for six days, but in the end, the countries could not reach any other compromise but a cease fire. The conflict broke out again after 10 years, when the Syrian government tried to divert the normal flow of one of the rivers main tributaries inside its territory, which triggered Israeli attacks (Grunfeld). As the conflict continued, each country found independent alternatives in order to provide fresh water to their population, but they turned out to be very expensive. So they both realized that there was a need of cooperation in order to solve the water problems efficiently, which brought them at the negotiation table in 1994. Even if a compromise has been reached, given the political and economic implications of this issue, I believe that a conflict will burst out again in the future. National water security is a very important, I daresay, vital issue that, when threatened, can lead to major conflicts. Since the geographical position of the Middle East forces an unfavorable climate on its countries, the conflicts around water supplies will always be actual and closely monitored by local states and international authorities. After all, neither the United States, nor the European countries want any additional conflicts in the area. In conclusion, I would like to state the fact that the Middle East will always remain on the political agenda of the major powers, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and some other European countries like France and Germany. The United States doesn’t consider the Middle East as a good region, nor as a bad region; it considers it as a very profitable area, with a lot of useful resources and as any superpower would do, it wants to assure its full access to those resources. In reference to the future expectations of the people in the Middle East, I would say that without a severe implication of the United Nations, that would restrict any military interventions in the area and foreign control over resources, the countries in the Middle East might face the problem of poverty induced by the deportation of their key-resources. After all, this is what the great political powers are after and it could happen in the future. Still, as long as the countries will have a good diplomatic elite that will manage to negotiate with the countries like US or UK and reach a compromise in sharing those resources, the future may look bright for the “Middle East-erns”. However, I do not believe that the European countries consider competing with the United States for hegemony in the area; it is too radical to oppose the United States at this moment especially that they have already started wars in the region without international support. Nonetheless, I see an alliance of European and American forces for the stabilization of the political situation in the Middle East and a certain collaboration in dividing the resources in the area. Works Cited and consulted: Donaldson, Gary A. The Making of Modern America. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Grunfeld, Lilach. "Jordan River Dispute." 1997. ICE Case Studies. 5 December 2010 . MacAskill, Ewen. "Barack Obama ends the war in Iraq." 1 September 2010. The Guardian. 4 December 2010 . Richman, Sheldon L. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 159:"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since the World War II and the Folly of Intervention." 16 August 1991. Cato Institute. 3 December 2010 . Shah, Anup. "Building the Case for a New War on Iraq." 30 March 2003. Global Issues. 5 December 2010 . Read More