The US and the EU Geostrategy on the Middle East - Coursework Example

 Geostrategy: EU and the Middle East Abstract Following the invasion of Iraq by the U.S, the then Bush government tried all means to provide justifications as to why it had deployed military in this country. Among the reasons provided were the need to liberate the people of Iraq who were believed to be languishing under the hostile dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and elimination of the lethal weapons supposedly possessed by Saddam’s administration (Dodge, Giacomo and Litzenberger, 2004). The U.S then set up a strategic plan called the Great Middle East Initiative which aimed at carrying out a major overhaul of the region (The Middle East, 2003). This paper aims at looking at how the European Union will position itself in the Middle East which has been selected by the U.S government to carry out key socio-political reformations. Geostrategy: EU and the Middle East The Greater Middle East (GME) region is beneficial due to its rich economic resources and strategic location that provides a link between Europe, Africa and Asia. The GME has an outstanding geo-economic importance as well as geostrategic value hence; the region is considered the heart of global politics in the present times. According to The Middle East (2003), GME holds the world’s largest oil and gas deposits with 75% of the total world oil production being generated from the thirteen countries of the GME. The GME is diverse hence making it a lively economic area (Al-Maeena, 2002). Despite this, the region is faced by a number of problems that make the region unpredictable or rather unstable. They include political instability of the region with the capacity to collapse and disintegrate the whole geopolitical system thus harming the whole world in general; huge levels of outmigration due to rapid population growth, unemployment, slow economic growth and development, poverty, inequalities in income distribution as well as ethnic conflicts etc. Furthermore, other challenges like lack of appropriate schemes of economic integration, lack of a collective defense force and/or lack of a system to control arms adversely affect the stability of the GME. In most of these nations, there are unstable political institutions due to the economic and social tensions in the region. Most governments are authoritarian and refuse to share power or ensure the rule of law prevails as well as disregard for human rights. Some countries in the region are characterized by underdevelopment of the state and the civil society owing to rampant corruption (Baroudi, 2002). These countries happen to have enormous mineral ores (oil) which mean they can have huge income per capita if well managed (DOE, 2003). They include Qatar, Kuwait and The United Arab Emirates (UAE). The GME region is also full of military equipment with a rise in new nuclear states expected in the near future. Furthermore, some parts of the GME region are believed to be world leaders in drug trafficking. More research has been provided that links drug trafficking to terrorism thus making the problem much bigger. The European Union (EU) and the Greater Middle East (GME) The principal interests of the European Union (EU) in the GME are economic stability of the region, and controlling the threat of mass migration. The economic interests include easing access to sources of energy (DOE, 2003) while regional stability entails the prevention and controlling of possible threats that could spread to the EU region for instance, religious radicalism, the propagation of ammunitions and other weapons of mass destruction, trafficking of drugs and international terrorism (Al-Maeena, 2002); and via the resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflicts (Federov, Menotti and Allin, 2003). In terms of controlling the potential threat of mass migration, it aims at reducing the levels of migration from the GME region to the EU member nations since the two regions are geographically close. Despite the fact that the EU’s interests can remain to be economic and regional security, Salama (2002) asserts that a new idea has started to emanate, shaping the increasingly rising interest of the EU in the GME region. The idea is that a modus Vivendi with the Islamic people is not just possible but it is required (Everts, 2003). As a result, the EU came to face a number of challenges including the conflicts ongoing in the region (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iraqi turmoil), the fight against terrorist groups and organizations that are based in the GME region and the possible states that sponsor them (international terrorism), and the support for social, economic and political reshaping of the region. The EU has developed a set of tools to deal with these challenges, for instance, the Common Strategy for the Mediterranean Region and the New Neighborhood Policy whose aims are to extend the associations of the region with the majority countries in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership including Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other neighboring nations like Moldova, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (Salem, 2004). These associations are aligned with the objectives specified by the European Security Strategy which includes the resolution of the conflicts between Arabs and Israelites; promote development via partnership of a general zone of peace, success and growth and a long term sustainable commitment as well as strengthening the political relationships between the EU and the GME region. Another issue of huge concern of the Middle East policy put forward by the EU is the Peace Process of the Middle East. Furthermore, the EU has come into agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which is made up of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman (Salama, 2002). A number of factors hinder the active performance of the EU in the GME region. The lack of a common foreign and security policy (CFSP) at the EU level, the complicatedness in adopting and implementing common grounds wane the EU’s credibility and cohesion in the GME region. Each member state has its national interests; hence individual nations have differences they exhibit naturally. Consequently, bilateral associations emanate and become more significant than the relation with the EU as a whole. Another weakness of the EU in the GME region can be attributed to the frustration of Arab nations with the EU (Everts, 2003). During the Cold War, many Arab Nations looked at the EU as a third alternative plus the other two geopolitical choices made up of the United States and the Soviet Union. However, the 1990s saw Arab nations develop different approaches where the EU was now regarded as the only alternative to the United States’ dominance and/or control in the GME region. As a result of this changed perception, the expectations of the Arab states from the EU grew beyond what EU could provide or meet owing to the uniqueness of the EU structure as well as the interplay between several actors in the GME region. The EU still allocates limited resources to foreign activities; hence, Federov, Menotti and Allin (2003) affirm that it is obligated to make a priority list regarding which regions and what activities to consider. Many member states have grown immense suspicions over each other thereby developing disagreements. As a result, these states are unwilling to provide necessary funds to the Union. These incapacitate the abilities of the EU to function effectively and be lively in the region in terms of stimulating growth. It is only but until after September 11 that the GME region was made a priority by the EU as its main focus was its growth i.e. growing larger and deeper (Soros, 2004). Conclusion The September 11 incident triggered a radical shift in the strategic perceptions in the U.S. It also aided in developing a chance for the U.S and the EU to form cooperation in the Great Middle East (Crossick, 2004). There is a wide difference on issues like the Iraqi turmoil and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts yet the interest, strategies and tools of the U.S and the EU in the GME region can still be regarded as compatible despite the fact that they are not necessarily identical. According to Burghardt (2004), the turning point to the U.S-EU cooperation in the GME region is whether the U.S will be able to respect the previous efforts made by the EU in the region, determining Iraq’s future, as well as its willingness to provide a solution to the persisting Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This region poses common threats to the international community; hence there is, and will, always be a hope that joint efforts can be made to promote security and stability in the region based on feasible and realistic opportunities. References Al-Maeena, K. (2002). A report which should open Arab eyes. Arab News. Baroudi, S. E. (2002). The 2002 Arab human development report: Implications for Democracy. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2012 at http://www.mepc.org.public_asp/journal_vol11/0403_baroudi.asp Burghardt, G. (2004). EU-US relations after summit, European Policy Centre. Cordesman, A. H., & Arleigh, A. B. (2002). The role of Europe in the Middle East: An American perspective. IISS/CEPS European Security Forum, Brussels. Crossick, S. (2004). The US Greater Middle East Initiative. European Policy Centre. Dodge, T., Giacomo, L., & Litzenberger, L. (2004). An EU strategy for Iraq. European Policy Centre. DOE/EIA (2003). Energy Information Agency: International energy outlook. Washington, 184-186. Everts, S. (2003). Difficult but necessary: A transatlantic strategy for the greater Middle East. Paper prepared for the GMF conference, Washington DC. Federov, Y., Menotti, R., & Allin, D.H (2003). European security strategy: is it for real? European Security Forum Working Paper. Gerd, N. (1992). The Gulf: background assessment in the Middle East and Europe-An integrated appraisal. Federal Trust for Education and Research, 55-57. Salama, A. S. (2002). Facing up to unpleasant facts. Al-Ahram Weekly. Salem, M. M. (2004). Where the Great Middle East plan went awry. Arab News. Soros, G. (2004). Global governance-are the American and European visions compatible?, European Policy Centre Dialogues. The Middle East Initiative (2003). Fact sheet. US Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern affairs, Washington, DC. Read More