(MENAFN- Gulf Times) In a now widely discredited 1990s-era theory of international relations, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman advanced the argument that no two countries with a McDonald's would go to war with one another.
The logic behind the so-called 'Golden Arches Theory suggested that states with economies that were strong and stable enough to support investment by multinational corporations like McDonald's would be constrained from launching destructive conflicts against one another. The theory was roundly criticised and disproved with numerous examples, including wars between India and Pakistan, Israel and Lebanon, and Russia's military interventions in neighbouring countries.
The ongoing crisis between Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) states has seemingly posed a new version of the same question: whether wealthy states with major economic disincentives could nevertheless engage in a debilitating conflict with each other. In looking at the Saudi-led group's isolation of Qatar, a reinvigorated Friedman may even suggest that no two countries with a Four Seasons have ever gone to war.
But what such 'end-of-history style arguments have frequently missed is that the triumph of neoliberal economic expansion has not resulted in the capitalist peace that was promised. Rather, as has become apparent from the recent adventurism by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, states that enjoy considerable wealth can afford to endure untold economic losses in the pursuit of their ideological or political goals.
After sponsoring the 2013 military coup that toppled the presidency of the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi in Egypt, the Saudi and Emirati governments offered a staggering $23bn to keep the regime of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi afloat during its turbulent first 18 months. The $1.7bn in aid that the United States provides Egypt each year, which is so often invoked as a lever of influence on Egypt's rulers, pales in comparison to the unprecedented level of assistance provided by Sisi's Gulf sponsors. Predictably, Egypt was the first non-GCC country to join the boycott of Qatar.
Similarly, the first year of the disastrous war in Yemen cost $5.3bn, contributing to Saudi Arabia's first budget deficit in decades in 2015 - not to mention the unspeakable devastation it wrought on the citizens of one of the most impoverished countries in the world.
Saudi and Emirati leaders have also devoted billions of dollars towards influencing the outcome of Tunisia's political transition and backing local forces in the destructive civil conflicts in Libya and Syria.
When they withdrew their ambassadors and cut economic ties with Qatar in June in an attempt to rein in their neighbour's foreign policy, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain were not expected to allow the crisis to drag on. After all, Qatar conducts $9.5bn in trade annually with the three countries and provides the UAE with a third of its natural gas.
But this is not the first time that these governments have placed their political agenda above their economic interests. In responding to the global collapse in the price of oil in 2014, Saudi Arabia made the calculated decision not to cut its production levels, though that would mean diminished revenues.
Although the policy emerged largely out of an attempt to challenge the growing American shale oil sector, it also consciously targeted Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival for regional supremacy. Maintaining production levels despite falling prices was sure to harm Saudi state income in a country with a growing poverty rate, but because it also undercut Iran's oil revenues, it was deemed necessary.
Estimates have put the collective losses in oil revenue by Gulf states at $890bn since 2015, leading Saudi Arabia and other countries to cut subsidies, introduce taxes and seek international loans for the first time in their recent history. Meanwhile, defence spending has risen sharply in recent years, even before accounting for the mammoth $110bn deal that US President Donald Trump coaxed from the Saudi regime during his May visit to Riyadh.
Perhaps these regimes simply look upon these policies as sunk costs in a battle to impose a singular vision for the future of the Arab region. Or maybe they are part of a long-term investment strategy expected to reap future rewards when neighbouring states come into the fold of Saudi hegemony. In either case, the longer that this crisis drags on, the less likely it is that the economic arrangements that have long defined relations within the GCC can be restored.
For its part, Qatar has already reoriented its trade towards other countries, from whom it has begun to import goods that once came through Saudi Arabia.
Qatar resumed development of its gas field last April after a 12-year freeze, a move that was undoubtedly viewed with some degree of suspicion on the part of neighbouring oil producers.
The gradual shift in global energy demand from oil to natural gas and the diverging foreign policies were bound to create a state of rivalry between Qatar and the rest of the GCC states. But the actions of Saudi Arabia and its allies have transformed that rift into a chasm and have done so in spectacularly
short order.
Judging by the harsh punitive measures awaiting Saudi, Emirati and Bahraini citizens for public displays of sympathy with Qatar - or even expressions of doubt as to the efficacy of the blockade - it would appear that these governments believe that large swaths of their populations do not support their actions.
That is likely because the maximalist demands that these states have put forward as a precondition to ending the stalemate, from suppressing opposition groups to shutting down media organisations, aim to cement the repressive political conditions that have long defined their rule. The high cost of the recent escalations has shown that they are willing to mortgage the future of their citizens to do so.
(Abdullah al-Arian is assistant professor of history at Georgetown University, School of
Foreign Service in Qatar.)
MENAFN3107201700670000ID1095677513
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.