IFIMES – The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies in Ljubljana has been regularly analyzing the events in the Middle East and Balkans. The most interesting sections of the analysis »The Middle-Eastern Region - The Beginning of a Third Phase?« are given below:
With the removal of the intolerant and radical Taliban movement the ideology of terrorism is far from being removed. This can be clearly shown by the suicide attacks in Israel. Totalitarian regimes that possess weapons for mass destruction or have knowledge and technology for its production are very dangerous. Their danger lies foremost in the fact that they are or may become a hotbed for radical or terrorist thinking. Even if the countries do not include terrorism in their programs and even if they are consciously not encouraging it, they by activities within their own country, by trampling basic human rights combined with bad economic results and by allowing religious fanaticisms assist and encourage the terrorism.
The only present global superpower bears the responsibility to react to such, evidently very dangerous, phenomena. The 11th of September was only one form of terrorism; its most visible and resounding reflection. Nevertheless, this terrorism can start with destruction of oil springs, hindering oil routes, destruction of gas-pipes and can in its final phase bring the world economy into an extremely serious situation.
In Iraq it was therefore necessary to achieve the abolition of the regime that is oppressing the population, which can quite easily find consolation in radicalism, if not solely in religious, perhaps in such that is based on the hatred towards the developed world. Such radicalism can with its fanatical activities through terrorist actions paralyze the supply of oil and thus shake the global economic system. It could also become an example for other oppressed masses of people in this region, a development that would only further shake the global political equilibrium. In Iraq it is therefore necessary to establish a regime, which would in a more contemporary and more democratic manner offer its population more freedom, more perspectives for a better life and would by thus be reducing the power of destructive ideologies.
Of course, Iraq cannot be the only goal. It is necessary to establish a proper situation also in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but in smaller Gulf States as well. This does not mean that it will be necessary to use the military power again. Perhaps other ways will suffice; perhaps also some regimes will be commencing the processes of deconstruction by themselves and will by thus enable a less violent transition into a more normal situation. By all means it must be clear to us that the settlement of conditions in only one (Iraq) or rather two (Afghanistan as well) countries does not suffice. The critical mass of democracy in this explicitly non-democratic area is with these two democratizations far from being met.
The whole region of the Middle East produces around 25 million barrels of oil per day, which represents approximately a third of the world production. Saudi Arabia is of special importance since the country is with 8,2 million barrels of daily produced oil its main world producer, while at the same time serves as the main Islamic religious center, a fact that can by many terrorist elements be abused for their own evil purposes. Iran is with 3,7 million of daily produced oil on the second place among the OPEC members, while the country possesses huge reserves of natural gas. With this, especially interesting for the terrorist activities would be the Strait of Hormuz, through which travel all the tankers from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and of course Iran, which represents around two fifths (ca. 13,6 million barrels daily) of the world production. The terrorists can on this geographical spot cause an immediate oil crisis of global dimensions without any need for modern sophisticated weaponry. The pipelines would represent important terrorist targets, as for example the Saudi east-west pipeline, the Iraq-Turkey pipeline (from Kirkuk) and the pipeline though Syria.
It is also important to mention the Caspian reserves of oil and natural gas, since according to the estimates they account for around 15% of world reserves and the transport routes are or will be in large part passing through territories, where the conditions for the terrorist activities are relatively convenient.
The international community desires for the situation in the countries in the Persian Gulf and its vicinity to change. The community obviously desires an establishment of such a condition, where the power would be in the hands of as democratic as possible regimes, which would in some manner be loyal to the global economic system and would at the same time establish a domestic climate, which would not be suitable for the activities of terrorist organizations. Strategically is this whole region far too important to be left to chance and complete obstinacy, the whole economic stability depends far too much on this region and the investments into this region have been far too large, as well.
Besides the democratization and the reduction of a possibility for terrorist activity, a goal is also to reduce a possibility of such measures that would destabilize the presently relatively stable world oil economy. Namely, Iraq had been in connection to oil sales leaning towards relinquishing the American dollar, which is momentarily the only currency in oil trade, and wished to trade with other currencies, most probably with euros. This action would threaten the American dollar as the only world reserve currency and would shake the current world economic system.
Some reached the conclusions that the main goals of the Iraqi crisis are the establishment of the U.S.A. as the only global hegemony, its domination over the energy and therefore immense influence on the global economy. A more serious analysis cannot provide support for such a thesis. The U.S.A. is even now strong and influential enough to act alone and to enforce its hegemony policy even more expressively. Despite the fact that the States are strong and influential enough, they were intensively talking to the United Nations, were seeking coalitions of support and were tuning in with the diplomatic interests of countries that are not members of the Security Council. It is a fact, despite the many opposing opinions, that the U.S.A. has been respecting the other members of the international community far more than it in fact had to. Actually, the U.S.A. was found in front of a dilemma: whether to respect the multilateral legal arrangements and by thus risk shaking of the global economic and political system (including the security component) or to act unilaterally with a support of coalition partners and by thus sustain the stable global economic situation. In rational terms, they decided correctly.
After the Second World War relatively strong and stable regimes were being established in the Middle East. Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were solid states, which were progressing and gaining strength relatively successfully. In the beginning of the 1970’s they felt that they became strong enough to blackmail, even though their wealth wasn’t based not on their knowledge nor on their investments and of course neither on their internal markets. OPEC has with blackmailing the new oil prices caused an oil crisis; the world economic system was slightly shaken, though the consequences weren’t too harsh, but the signal that something has to be done was clear enough.
The second phase, the phase of the internal instability of the Gulf States has commenced, even though the phase hasn’t commenced just by itself. It was or encouraged or at least permitted by the great powers. Not just the U.S.A. permitted this, but more or less quietly all the important countries of the world agreed to the situation, while less stable countries of the Gulf region, which have besides their internal political also economic problems can in any case not influence the global economy and possess no power to repeat such blackmail. In Iran the revolution was allowed (the leader was operating from the Western Europe, from where he triumphantly reached Iran) and the revolution by rule always brings a period of instability and economic weakness. The Iran-Iraq war was not prevented and that further weakened both countries. Iraq was still showing signs of stability, but was after the attack in 1991 on its knees, though the regime of Saddam was according to the strategy of supporting the weak and instable regimes in this region, not completely crushed. If Saddam fell at that time, the West would have no option but to establish a democratic, stable and solid regime, which would not be in compliance with then prevailing strategy. Instability in the third important country, the Saudi Arabia, has been constantly growing. Dissatisfaction of the masses of people due to a total lack of respect for human rights and the tremendous differences in wealth do not exactly represent stabilizers for this with oil extremely rich country.
According to the data of OPEC, the average growth rates of the real national product of its members stood in the year 2001 at the level of 2,7%, in the year 2002 at 1,6%, while it is predicted to be at 1,4% for the year 2003, which is under the world average, which is estimated at 2,9% for the year 2003. The GNP growth in these countries is falling in addition to the already low basis, while the growth of the national product in OECD countries, i.e. in the developed world with approximately fifteen times higher GNP per person, has in the same period grown from 0,8% to 1,7%. Of course, the regimes in these countries do not blame their dictatorial and outdated form of government for their poor economic results, but rather the developed western countries, especially the United States, with which these regimes only encourage the terrorism.
We have to know that the weapons for mass destruction is only one of the reasons, even perhaps more of an excuse or a good presentation for the urgency of the military strike in Iraq. It is not the main reason and not the main motif. We could be talking of settling the internal political relations in a strategically important region. Saying bluntly, a sort of a third phase started, a period with a strategic goal of establishing such regimes in the region that will offer more perspectives to the people, more democracy and where the desperate and from the negative propaganda blinded inhabitants will not be seeking refuge in terrorism as a method that in its final phase enables the dictatorial regimes to stay in power. At the same time the newly established regimes should not be disloyal to the current globalization processes and would in connection to the oil not be accepting or encouraging such decisions, which could weaken the currently relatively stable world economic situation.
The military chapter of the Iraqi crisis is over. The process of internal consolidation, democratization and establishment of the system has begun, in which the basic needs of the masses of people will be met at least in some manner and will be at the same time under such efficient supervision, as to make the danger of internal destabilization, appearance of terrorism (or not ceasing of it where it already exists) and its »export« minimal. Simultaneously it is expected from the newly established democratic regime not to make any decisions that would be changing the status quo in the area of the oil trade system.
The International Institute IFIMES believes that the processes of transforming the unstable and radical regimes, where the human masses represent an explosive mixture and where hidden aspirations appear for the change in system in the oil area, will occur more spontaneously. Radical military interventions will not come into consideration. The contours of the strategic goal of the great powers are more and more expressive, more perceivable and with this do not represent only the interests of the strongest great power the U.S.A. If the regimes of this region comprehend this basic truth and find at least a bit of internal strength to assist this process, the processes of stabilizing the region will continue in a less dramatic manner. IFIMES believes that there is a small probability for these regimes to be able to see the situation and that due to the internal stiffness of these regimes, because of which they are even less capable to react, most probably the stabilization process of this region will even after the end of the Iraqi episode be encountering dramatic moments.
