NATO and the Middle East

Mohammed Moustafa Orfy

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781136905094
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Politics & International Relations
• Sous-sujet: National Security

Despite having been active in the region since the mid-1990s, the role of NATO in the Middle East has attracted particular attention since the events of 11th September 2001. This book analyses the limits of NATO's role in the Middle East region and examines whether or not the Alliance is able to help in improving the fragile regional security environment through cooperative links with select Middle Eastern partners.

The author reviews the strategic importance of the region from a Western perspective and why it has become a source of instability in world politics, looks at US and international initiatives to counteract this instability, and charts the development of NATO in this context. He also examines NATO's role with regard to two pressing Middle Eastern crises, Iraq and Darfur, assessing whether or not this role has been consistent with, if not an expression of, US strategic interests.

A comprehensive examination of the impacts of 9-11 events on world security and the development of NATO's role in the Middle East, this book will be an important addition to the existing literature on security and strategic affairs, US foreign policy, Middle Eastern politics, European politics, and terrorism studies.

1
Western interests and stability in the Middle East

After identifying the ‘perceived’ boundaries of the ‘Middle East’, according to the context of this study, this chapter highlights the reasons for the strategic importance of the Middle East from a Western perspective, before and after 9/11. It also reveals differences in perception between the United States and Western European countries – the twin pillars of the North Atlantic Alliance – with regards to the necessity of internal stability in the Middle East. Thereafter, focus is given to tracing the causes of instability in the Middle East region that has produced one of the most violent acts of terrorism in modern history. To reach this end, the chapter reviews recent international and regional studies that indicate a lack of proper development and adequate modernisation in the Middle East region.

The concept of the Middle East

Despite the fact that the Middle East region has been the main concern of recent world politics in general, and in the post-9/11 years in particular, the label of ‘the Middle East’ has not been given clear definition or its boundaries established. This ambiguity has increased, perhaps doubled, with the introduction of the concept of ‘the Greater Middle East’ coined simultaneously with the launching of the American initiative for the Middle East that is analysed and discussed in this chapter. What was understood, although not confirmed, by this concept is a vast area stretching from Afghanistan to Morocco, although the Middle East region is, undoubtedly, full of contradictions and diversity. Certainly, the only tie that can bind these countries is that the majority of their populations belong to Islam. Not surprisingly, the issue of defining the boundaries of the Middle East region, whether it is ‘Greater’ or not, has been open to debate in recent years.

To start with, the Encyclopaedia Britannica¹ defines the Middle East as ‘The lands around the Southern and Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, extending from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula and Iran and sometimes beyond. The central part of this general area was formerly called the Near East’.

Wikipedia² outlines that:

The Middle East is a historical and political region of Africa and Euro-Asia with no clear boundaries. The term ‘Middle East’ was popularised around 1900 in Britain, and has been criticised for its loose definition. The Middle East traditionally includes countries and regions in Southwest Asia and parts of North Africa. The history of the Middle East dates back to ancient times, and throughout its history the Middle East has been a major centre of world affairs.

Hansen clarifies that:

The concept of the Middle East has undergone some changes. The former Soviet republics from Azerbaijan in the West to Tajikistan in the East have enlarged the sub-system; and Turkey in the northeast is becoming a much more active Middle Eastern power rather than in the bipolar period. On the other hand, the Maghreb states are strengthening their mutual relations as a group which disentangles itself from the Middle East in favour of Europe, especially the Mediterranean EU countries, and the Soviet attempt to include the Horn of Africa into Middle Eastern politics is history. The size and stretch of the political Middle East have changed.³

He further explains that ‘Uni-polarity is not a static state of affairs, and the continuously changing sub-systemic relations of strength as well as the changes in the US agenda and priorities may have affects on pattern of conflict and cooperation, and issues in the Middle East’.⁴

Abi-Aad and Grenon define the Middle East as ‘Stretching from Egypt to Iran and from Turkey to Yemen; specifically, this includes, in addition to these four border countries, Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates’.⁵

Kamrava indicates that:

[The Middle East] extends from Iran in the East to Turkey, Iraq, the Arabian peninsula, the Levant (Lebanon and Syria) and North Africa, including the Maghreb, in the west. Although, there are vast differences between and within the histories, cultures, traditions, and politics of each of these regions within the Middle East, equally important and compelling shared characteristics unify the region. By far the most important of these are language, ethnicity, and religion.⁶

Choueiri explains that:

Initially, both the Near and Middle East tended to coincide geographically, embracing the core countries of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Greater Syria, Egypt, Sudan and Libya. With the passage of time and the emergence of the Arab world as a political block of states grouped under the umbrella of the Arab League, the designation widened to include North Africa as a whole.⁷

Hoddad indicates that:

The term Middle East was designed by colonial powers. Its geographic reach has always been elastic and flexible determined by Western interests. In earlier times, it had included Iran, Turkey, and Cyprus, but the Greater Middle East had an even larger reach. To Islamists, its goal appears to be the eradication of Arab identity.⁸

This long-standing debate has become more complicated with the emergence of the concept of the ‘Broader’ or ‘Greater’ Middle East. Kemp and Harkavy define the ‘Greater Middle East’ as the region that includes four major conflicts: the Arab–Israeli conflict, conflict in the Persian Gulf, conflict in the Caspian Basin, and conflict in South Asia.⁹

Hubel and Kaim underline that:

The concept of the ‘Greater Middle East’ might serve to better understand the implications of the old and new security externalities affecting states and relevant non-state actors in the political security space. This is to include the Near-East, encompassing the actors of the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Gulf region, defined by the precarious triangular power relationship between Iran, Iraq and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Southern Caucasus as an emerging new region, characterised by common post-Soviet legacies and mutual conflicts and rivalries, Central Asia as a potential new region with common post-Soviet legacies and mutual rivalries, and south Asia, defined by the Indo-Pakistani conflict. In addition, there are now two major transnational security factors linking these regional security complexities and these are constituting a specific ‘security–political’ space: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and transnational terrorism inspired by political Islam.¹⁰

Fouskas and Gokay argue that:

Broadly speaking, the ‘Greater Middle East’ project has been presented as an extension of trade benefits to a wider Middle Eastern area, programs of technology and know-how transfer, WTO involvement, financial incentives and assistance to small businesses and individuals (particularly women), legal aid, encouragement of an independent media initiative, and educational exchange programs. It is believed that this sort of activity will lead to the modernisation and democratisation of the Greater Middle East, which includes Turkey, Afghanistan and northeast Africa, but not Iran and Syria, and the eradication of terrorism from the region.¹¹

Finally, Russell summaries the current debate, mentioning that ‘The region of the world that encompasses the Middle East and South Asia is more easily captured by the concept of the Greater Middle East region, even if the concept is debatable by geographers’.¹² He further explains, ‘The Greater Middle East is arguably the most politically and militarily volatile of the world. The region is periodically swept with convulsions of war. The fallout from these conflicts affects the security of major states, Russia, China, and the United States that lie outside the region’.¹³

Within this context, it is noticeable that the terms ‘Broader’, ‘Wider’, or even ‘Greater’ Middle East have appeared in various statements and declarations issued by the successive summits of the North Atlantic Alliance. All these statements have carried a clear message confirming the utmost importance of the Middle East for calculations regarding the stability and security of Euro-Atlantic territories. Importantly, and perhaps interestingly, the North Atlantic Alliance itself does not propose a clear definition of what is meant exactly by ‘the Middle East’.

In this regard, Bin in interview admits that:

There have been standing differences between the allies about what should or should not be included in the Middle East region. That is why it was agreed to identify or decide about each case on its own merits and circumstances … whether or not it is ‘Middle Eastern’, according to the common consensus and understanding between the allies.¹⁴

Having reviewed all these arguments and definitions about the Middle East, the conclusion could be reached that there are various, perhaps contradicting, views about what is meant exactly by the term ‘Middle East’. These differences about drawing its real or imaginary boundaries, with inclusion and/or exclusion of some countries according to political visions, confirm that the ‘term’ has long been politicised, especially post-9/11. The Middle East is no longer a mere geographical identity, but a political concept that encompasses various pressing security concerns. These security concerns are being identified or perceived by the great powers and they are still an area of contention. Understandably, NATO has preferred to use this term in an ambiguous formula in its recent documents, for instance, the declaration of the 2004 Istanbul Summit, to overcome or hide existing differences among allies.

This book holds the view that the Middle East region extends from Morocco in the West to the Gulf States in the East. More clearly, it encompasses the Arab countries and Israel. The reasoning is that NATO has shown, in practice, more interest in the Middle East region and these boundaries. After analysing its documents, one could recognise that the Middle East, in NATO’s literature, includes three main areas: first, the group of South Mediterranean countries, or what is commonly known as North Africa countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania); second, the group that consists of Jordan, Israel and Egypt; and finally, the group that encompasses the Gulf areas. Sometimes Iran is included because of tensions regarding its nuclear programme and its possible repercussions for the region. However, as is clarified by this research, NATO has no role regarding this crisis, at least for the time being. Likewise, NATO’s current role in Afghanistan is sometimes perceived as an integral part of NATO’s involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, although this mission is not connected, by any means, to NATO’s current endeavour in this specific area, which is the main theme of this research, as is explained below.

What is more, it is noticeable that the majority of literature that has emerged in recent years on the Middle East has been focused on Arab countries. For example, Makiya writes, ‘We must keep in mind that those attacks, i.e. the events of 9/11, were conceived and executed by Arabs, not by Afghans, Pakistanis, or Muslims in general. Arabs constitute less than 20 per cent of the world’s Muslim population. Yet some would tar the whole Muslim world with the problems of its Arab components’.¹⁵

The argument of Makiya, who was among the proponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shows how influential the hostile perception towards ‘the Arab component’ of the Muslim world has had its effects on the post-9/11 US policy, which is reviewed in Chapter 5.

Even if the ‘new’ Middle East means the Arab world, with the exception of the State of Israel, generalisation and ignoring the specificities of each country could be misleading. Factually, each country in the Middle East region has its own peculiarities, circumstances and calculations. Consequently, the national interest of one country may sometimes differ or contradict with the other’s interests. In this regard, Halliday argues that:

The Middle East is not unique in the incidence of dictatorship, or of states created by colonialism, or of conspiracy theory; but possibly in the content of the myths that are propagated about it, from within and without … The political, economic, social, cultural activities of the people of the region have their peculiarities and differences as much between each other as in terms of one Middle East contrasted with the outside world.¹⁶

Previously, the same scholar warned that generalisation about the region is more risky if it is linked to hopes, or anticipation, of a new era, advising that ‘we should long ago have abandoned any temptation to see the region as a single political or socio-economic whole, etc’.¹⁷ Rabasa also stresses that the Arab world is by no means monolithic, for example, ‘Egyptian sensibilities, rooted in the tradition of one of the world’s oldest civilisat...