Energy Security Paradigm for Persian Gulf Region in 21st Century

Former COAS, Gen (Retd) MIRZA ASLAM BEG Chairman FRIENDS talks about building a better climate of security in the Persian Gulf Region in the 21st Century

For centuries, there is a lingering legacy of mercantilist school of thought that for maximizing economic benefits, threats of violent coercion and even use of force were necessary. Economics and conflicts, therefore, were deemed necessary adjuncts to each other. This deterministic view was also shared by the Marxists, who went to the extent of justifying conquests with a view to expanding economic activity abroad. This was particularly considered necessary so that pressures at home could be released, which were effects of unjust economic system and limited resources. Acquisition of others' wealth and raw materials were, thus considered necessary to ward off internal economic and political crises, which otherwise would be difficult to contain.

In his book, The Tragedy of American diplomacy, William Appleman has argued that 'US foreign policy has sought to expand markets abroad, gain access to raw materials and so on, to avoid the need to address serious issues of social and economic inequity at home. Aggression and war, therefore were conceived to flow from economic factors. Such pernicious a view thus promoted a paradigm of dominance, which has had its sway in international relations, culminating into a Hobbsian world of exploitation and rendering it a dangerous abode for humanity. Arms race, increasing sophistication in killing propensity of the state-of-art conventional weapons, and accumulation of nuclear arsenal are logical outcomes of this paradigm. Threat has therefore to be met with counter threat, and as dominance and control are the mechanism to fortify against haunting insecurity, arms production has become a booming enterprise, harnessing science and technology towards this nefarious end. Creative potentials when mobilized for destructive pursuits, war and dread of war become inevitable human predicament. Armament industry, therefore creates markets as new conflicts are contrived. Clash of civilization thesis, dispassionately viewed, is a scholarly cover to facilitate building up a climate of threat and insecurity, eventually for the arms producers to find new markets. An alternative view holds that economic relationships do not promote conflicts and in fact, they serve as their dissolvent. When nations participate and are bound together in accelerating economic progress, there develops a sense of togetherness and interdependence, which in turn, paves conditions for amicably settling disputes. In other words, it is intrinsically inherent in the cooperation paradigm that prejudices, through contacts dissipate and the threshold of violence is lowered. The question, naturally arises, which of the two views, is closer to truth? According to Dumas: 'Whether international economic relationships tend to raise or lower the probability of war depends on their nature, not just their extent. Broadly speaking, exploitative relationships - those in which the flow of benefit overwhelmingly is in one direction, tend to increase the number and severity of conflicts. Whereas mutually beneficial relationships, those in which the flow of benefit is more or less balanced, tend to reduce the likelihood and intensity of conflict'.

Building balanced relationship is the recipe to bring peace and harmony in this otherwise tormented world. The emergence of European Economic Community (EEC - the Common market) is an operational manifestation of liberation from the dominance paradigm, which led to countless wars among the European countries. These very nations are now interwoven into a community of achievers, tuned to removing all barriers and road-blocks towards their collective progress and prosperity. War, to these people would now appear anachronistic. Military alliances, may contribute to reduction of armed conflicts, but not always. USA and USSR were allies in World War-II, but they became worst antagonists thereafter. What is intended to convey is that economic bond is relatively more durable and less likely to break than the military pacts.

Implicit in the sharing model is the assumption that economic pie is not a fixed entity which must be grabbed at any cost, and that others be deprived of it. On the other hand, through balanced relationship, gains are not only mutual but benefits tend to increase in a linear fashion as incentive for collective efforts are maximized. The exploitative relationship, on the other hand is inherently geared to short- term benefits, as the exploited inwardly resents and over a period of time, antagonism tends to accentuate, resulting in defiance and even open rebellion. The cost of control is exceedingly high, and consequently counter productive in the long run. Cooperation, therefore is inherently superior to confrontation.

Viewed in this light, the Persian Gulf region is terribly enmeshed into an exploitative paradigm, which has stifled its potentials for growth and its enormous oil wealth is being mercilessly squandered in the name of so-called security. The region is brewing with tension, which by and large is contrived and manipulated to accentuate a sense of insecurity. This provides a leverage to exploitative forces, to tighten their grip over the littoral states of the region, who provide the lubricant of power - the oil. Keeping the tradition of the family lineage, the Persian Gulf region was inherited by USA from the British - when its forces withdrew from areas east of Suez in 1971, as a sequel to the process of dismantling of the empire. USA assumed the responsibility of providing defence and security to the region, which progressively has resulted in assuming total control, through stationing of US forces, in the sensitive areas of the Gulf.

The Persian Gulf region's strategic location itself renders it vulnerable and even volatile. Its proximity with former Soviet Union, the Central Asian countries, the South Asian subcontinent, Africa and the Arab heartland has provided it a mixed package of blessings as well as conflict-prone sensitivities. As it is the dividing line between the two great traditions of Islam - the Arab and the Ajam - it is being exploited on sectarian, ethnic and linguistic differences through divisive propaganda to rip apart the unity and cohesiveness of the region. It has also been the hot arena of polemical ideological battles between the two super powers in the Cold War era. Prior to the Islamic Iranian revolution, the major threat to security of the Persian Gulf region emanated from the former Soviet Union, which was predisposed towards supporting any government of the littoral states, if it nourished anti-west feelings. Radical Iraq and South Yemen, became the bastions of Soviet influence, which USA considered a major threat to its strategic ambitions in the region. Military bases were established to neutralize the Communist influence, the most important one being Diego Garcia, from where naval and air operations could be instantaneously launched in the Persian Gulf and Arabian sea regions. To ensure an effective security system against Soviet aggression, USA established a full fledged Command and Control System in the Middle East for the Centcom. The overriding concern was that USA must exercise full control over the region so that supply of oil is maintained at the cheapest possible price and with no interruptions.

Due to fierce super power rivalries, the region was ideologically polarized, with the result that till today there is no strategic consensus in the region, and no common orientation to weld the states in a collective paradigm of security. In other words, the Cold War Syndrome still continues to linger. The differences between states of the region and particularly with respect to their boundaries were never attempted to be resolved by the British in the hey days of Pax Britannica, as those served the interests of the arbiter to intervene if and when deemed necessary. It was rationalized that 'had it not been for the British, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates and Oman, would not have survived into the 20th Century, and similarly it is now being maintained that without America's protective role, 'these same states, along with Saudi Arabia, will not survive into the 21st century'. Inter-state tensions, therefore over the period have accentuated creating antipathy and mistrust against each other, and which in turn is the major impediment to promoting a culture of peace, amity and understanding.

The geo-economic interest of USA was spelt out in the Carter Doctrine in 1980, which 'announced to the world that Americans would not allow any outside power - the Soviet Union - to threaten west's oil supplies.' Nixon was quite explicit on this issue: 'The west has a vital interest in maintaining access to Persian Gulf oil. Europe depends on the Gulf for over 75 percent of its oil, Japan for over 90 percent, while the United States receives only 6 percent of its oil from the region; the ripple effect of an oil cut-off from the Persian Gulf would cripple US industry. Such a cut off would be fatal to the industries of our allies in western Europe and Japan. As long as the west remains so dependent on Gulf oil, we must maintain the capability to defend our friends in the Persian Gulf region.'

In the Post-Cold-War era, when the threat of Russia's intervention in the Persian Gulf markedly subsided, Iran emerged as a conscientious objector to USA's hegemonistic designs in the Persian Gulf region. It is particularly critical of 20,000 American troops stationed at the military bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman. To intimidate Iran, USA conducts regular military exercises, in which air, land and air forces of its allies take part. It signals a message by USA to Iran, that any interference in the affairs of the region would be thwarted through military might of USA and its allies. It is not in Iran's nature to succumb to pressures or display of force. Besides protesting against such uncalled for provocations. Iran also conducted regular military exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman in a massive way to demonstrate its operational preparedness. The periodic display of military might vitiates the security environments of the region, besides fanning mistrust between the states who view USA's presence an insurance against insecurity, and those like Iran who are critical on moral grounds, that no outside power would meddle into the security affairs of the region.

It is indeed ironical that the same Iran under the authoritarian rule of Shah, enjoyed the status along with Saudi Arabia, the status of policeman of the region, under what was termed twin-pillar-strategy. Now Iran is an eye-sore to USA, to be maligned and subjected to sanctions, after it metamorphosed into a democratic polity under the charismatic leadership of Imam Khomeni. It is a paradox that USA being champion of so- called liberal and democratic values, should be doing good business with authoritarian leaders and discard those who represent the popular will. The formation of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) comprising Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman was essentially aimed at pitting these states against Iran, who was projected as a rogue state - a villain of peace, so to say. The image tarnishing of Iran was with a purpose, so that, for the smaller littoral states of the Persian Gulf region, through manipulated dread, USA could remain the only saviour and guarantor of security. Nixon identified the radical regimes in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Libya, as threats to the security of the Persian Gulf. He was in favour of containing Iran more firmly than even Iraq. 'Because it launched the Persian Gulf war, but Iran is by far the greater long-term threat. Iraq's threat is only military. Its secular philosophy has no approach beyond its border. Iran's threat is both military and religious.' It was a strategic blunder to have excluded Iran from GCC, as it collapsed, and failed to prevent the Iraqi invasion against Kuwait in 1990. The Gulf War of 1991 was ostensibly projected on moral grounds that it was to free Kuwait, from the aggression of Iraq. But George Bush, made no secret of it by saying that it was for the preservation of American values. Ming Chan - a Chinese scholar in Hong Kong characterized this war an 'oil war not unlike the opium wars of last century, conducted for motives of naked interests.'

Power propels nations to prosperity. Wood was the main source of energy as late as 1900 as it used to meet almost 30 percent of the world's need. Coal substituted wood to a great extent and did well till 1960s. Thereafter petroleum assumed the energy leadership, which is not finding very effective contenders yet. Natural gas and atomic energy are of course late comers, and so is solar energy. The ocean tide and geo-thermal power are, also being harnessed. Alternative sources of energy are being tapped, but till 2015, there is no likelihood that oil's demand would diminish. It is estimated that 60 percent would be its share among the energy sources, whereas nuclear, hydro and solar would have around 20 percent. Human ingenuity will ofcourse discover lasting sources of energy. Coal, petroleum and natural gas are non-renewable resources. It is being estimated that petroleum and natural gas will last for 100 more years and coal for around three to four hundred years. Atomic energy, whose raw material is uranium, which is again non-renewable but it is in abundance to last for several centuries. But the snag is, that, it is much too expensive for developing countries, notwithstanding its environmental hazards, unless fool-proof safety measures are invented. Solar energy would be a great boon for the developing world. But during the next few decades petroleum, to a great extent would determine the parameters of geo-economic world order.

Oil is a magnet of conflict, according to Linger and Woolsey. 'The problem', they say, 'is simple - everyone needs energy but the success of the world's transportation fuel are concentrated in relatively few countries, well over two-thirds of the world's remaining oil reserves lie in the Middle East and the Caspian region.'

Interdependence and self-sufficiency are the two main components which define the security parameters of vulnerability and strength. China's requirement as compared to 1995 consumption, would be 12 times more in 2015 and most of it will be met by imports from the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. For North America, similarly the total requirement will be 50 percent more, out of which the import from the Gulf would increase by 100 percent. In case of industrialised Asia, Australia, Japan and Newzealand, the requirement will increase by about 50 percent, which will mainly be from the Gulf. This implies that the importance of the Gulf region for supply of oil will continue till year 2015. The vital interests of the oil importing powers, therefore have created a state of conflict and tension in the oil producing region of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, assuming different profiles through out the period of Cold War and is continuing to date. It is this vested interest, due to which various strategies have been implemented to enable military, economic and political influences over the oil producing region. However, it may be considered that the vital interest of the oil importing countries can be met without observing the strategies of war, conflict and tension.

The Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea Region therefore need to be strategically linked together to harness maximum benefits. Iran can play a coordinating role. Oil and gas reserves in the Caspian and Central Asian region, must be exploited with a greater degree of urgency, and pipelines developed to transport these to other regions who lack such sources of energy. A number of such gas and oil pipelines are planned, but for one reason or the other, the work has yet not started. From the Caspian basin, the existing pipeline from the Azeri capital Baku, passing through Georgia, to the Black Sea port of Supsa, needs to be revived. The plan to build a multi-billion dollar pipeline across Georgia, and south through Turkey to Ceyhan on the Mediterranean, is very much on the anvil. The routes north, through Russia to the Black Sea port of Novorossisk are presently disrupted because of problems in Chechnya and Dagistan. To the south, Iran wants a route for Caspian exports, but continued US-backed sanctions are the main hurdle. Turkmenistan plans to build both oil and gas pipelines across Afghanistan to the markets in Pakistan and India, yet there are hurdles, which need to be overcome. The huge pipeline being built from the Tengiz fields in Kazakhstan across Russia to Novorossisk, via Stavropol and Kalmykia, and linking it up with the gigantic pipeline passing through China, and to the Pacific coast is of great importance, as the prospects of oil and gas from this region, meeting the ever increasing demands of China and the Pacific Ocean rim countries are high.

The Persian Gulf region has to make a radical shift from the prevailing paradigm of domination and confrontation to that of cooperation to ensure balanced relationships among the states of the region. Kenneth Boulding, propounded what he calls the Chalk theory of war and peace. A piece of chalk, he contends, 'breaks when the strain applied to it is greater than its strength, i.e., its ability to resist that strain... The establishment of stable peace, thus requires that strains be reduced, that strength be increased or both. A combination of strain reducing and strength enhancing strategies would therefore, serve as curative measures to infuse new dynamism in the region, which has unfortunately remained under a debilitating climate of morbidity and mistrust. The Persian Gulf, has therefore experienced mounting tension, and Nixon rightly characterized it a tinder-box that could catch fire at any moment. For fire fighting, the sources of tensions, the border disputes need to be resolved through a region-based institutionalized system of resolving conflicts. If this existed, the region could have averted the interference of extra regional powers, who capitalized on these conflicts to their fullest advantage.

Iran has taken initiative through unilateral measures to improve relations with the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. While bilateral relations must improve there is also a need to have a regional arrangement so that conflicts are resolved much before they accentuate to unmanageable propositions. For strength enhancing strategies, regional economic cooperation be facilitated to its optimum, particularly for building up infrastructure to facilitate extraction and transportation of oil to different parts of world. This is the sincerest way of not only accelerating economic growth, but also for building a better climate of security for the region. There is also a need to develop strategic consensus among the states on the basis of common interests, so that a collective orientation is mobilized to cope up with the threats and challenges that the region may encounter from time to time.

Vision for the future can not remain hostage to the stark realities that depict a frustrating picture of disarray among the nations of the Gulf region. Sagacity must transcend the cob-web of animosities and frictions woven around them. Despite congruence of beliefs and central values and a common orientation towards life's meaning and purpose, the region is miserably fragmented and balkanized. The divisiveness is by design. It is to dilute their cohesive force and relegate them to the backwaters of history. To live in the afterglow of past civilizational glory and the reminiscences of the manifold achievements, that our forebearers gifted to the world, may provide some ego gratification, but will not equip us to face the challenges and ordeals of the future. A realistic appraisal of the present, therefore, is essential to steer the course for the future. Forging unity among all nations of the region is the vital imperative, no matter, how arduous the task seemingly may appear to be.

In their essay Preventing Deadly Conflict, Hambury and Hall have made very pertinent observation: 'During the next century human survival may well depend on our ability to learn a new form of adaptation, one in which inter-group competition is largely replaced by mutual understanding and human cooperation, curiously, a vital part of human experience - learning to live together - has been badly neglected... Indeed, the immense human capacity for adaptation should make it possible for us to learn to minimize harsh and hateful distinctions'.