While I have numerous problems with this article, I will focus only on a few. To begin with, despite being an expert in the Middle East, Cordesman refers to the Persian Gulf as “the Gulf” almost one hundred times in this article. I understand that leaders in Saudi Arabia or other Arab nations may have the finances to purchase the expertise of individuals. Historical facts, however, are not for sale. The correct term for the body of water on the south of Iran, southeast of Iraq, east of Kuwait, northeast of Saudi Arabia, and north of Bahrain, Qatar, and the U.A.E. has always been the Persian Gulf. The Gulf of Oman will not be called the Gulf of India or the Gulf of Pakistan merely because India or Pakistan may be more wealthy, powerful, or prestigious. The Gulf of Mexico has not become the Gulf of America simply because the United States is a more militarily or economically powerful nation. The Persian Gulf will thus not become the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf merely because Arab leaders or those in their pockets refer to it with the wrong name. If I may suggest, the finances spent on lobbying individuals to refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf will be put to better use if they are spent on geography classes for those unfamiliar with the region and names in the Middle East.
While I am at it, I might as well take issue with the rest of the article. In my view, when developing his arguments, Cordesman is biased, is very selective in taking history into account, and when he does, he has a very short-term view of history. For instance, Cordesman begins the paper by stating “No one has ever been able to travel to the Gulf without discovering just how different the perspectives and values of the West and the Middle East can be.” First, I don’t believe that the values of the Middle East are homogenous. In fact, I would say that no one has ever been able to travel to the Persian Gulf without discovering just how different the perspectives and values of all the countries in the Middle East are not just from one another, but also within each individual country. Moreover, this difference in values and perspectives is no different than in the United States where the states in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West all have varying identities and values. Finally, even if one was to conclude that the “Middle East” as a whole had certain identifiable values, I believe those values would be no different than the values of anywhere else. There are, undoubtedly, extremist and radical elements in the Middle East. Nonetheless, these elements are a minority. Just like any other people, the majority of the people of the Middle East are diverse, intelligent, and in the pursuit of happiness.
In his discussion of the Arab Spring, Cordesman argues that “Many in the West still see the political upheavals in the region as the prelude to some kind of viable democratic transition…The reality in the Gulf is very different.” Here, I would argue that in addition to geography, Mr. Cordesman has also forgotten his European and U.S. history. The English Civil War started in 1642 and lasted more or less until the 1660s. During these two decades, there was a constant state of upheaval, war, and anarchy in England. After two decades of upheavals, however, the authoritarian institution of monarchy was destroyed, and the “monarch” ruled only with the consent of the Parliament. Similarly, after the French Revolution of 1789, France experienced decades of political and social instability, the eventual outcome of which was the abolition of French monarchy and the establishment of a secular state based on the rule of law. In the United States, slavery was prevalent until the Civil War, lasting for four years and resulting in over 600,000 deaths, put an end to the institution and paved the way for a democratic transition in the ensuing decades. The reasons why the Arab Spring is occurring centuries later than the English or the French Revolutions, or the American Civil War, are beyond the scope of this post. Historically, however, a transition to democracy, whether in the East or West, has always been accompanied by periods of political and societal upheaval. Hence, to dismiss the possibility that the current upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa cannot be a prelude to a transition to democracy is naïve, and this view perhaps explains why Cordesman claims the Middle East and the West have different perspectives and values.
The article also states that Arab nations in the Persian Gulf “can argue that they were far better at meeting popular needs with their oil wealth than any of the Arab states with titular presidents and pseudo democracies.” Prior to the 1979 Revolution, the Shah used Iran’s oil money to modernize Iran, and “meet the popular needs.” The people, however, wanted more than a government that met their material needs. They wanted a government that met their democratic needs and provided them freedom. While the result of the 1979 Revolution was not exactly as the people had hoped, one can see that using oil wealth to meet the popular needs may not be a sufficient reason to keep a government in power.
As he continues to discuss the Arab Spring, Cordesman states “Whatever hopes outsiders may have in the eventual triumph of modernization, democracy, and development, it is far from clear why anyone in their right minds would want to live through any of the examples of such transitions to date.” This statement is not only offensive, but is also opposed to American ideals. People in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, did not simply make the choice to “live through” the Arab Spring. Many of them had no other options. Further, this is yet another example that those in the Middle East and the West share the same ideals. The Arab Spring started because people believed their rulers were tyrannical and unjust. They believed that democracy was worth fighting for, and worth dying for, so they stayed and fought their undemocratic rulers who had oppressed them for decades. The immediate result has been the political upheavals of the last few years; the outcome, however, is yet unknown. After many decades of tyranny, the people of the Middle East and North Africa are revolting and overthrowing their leaders. The revolutions have just begun and there will undoubtedly be periods of instability and upheavals. It will take time for opposition groups, moderate and radical, to develop and mature. That is, however, the price to pay for democracy. Democracy will never be bestowed on the people by their rulers, it is a privilege which must be fought for and earned.