Dimensions of Insecurity: Mena

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Past Reasons for Insecurity in MENA
Immediate and Current Reasons for Insecurity
Globalization and Development in the MENA Region
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Every country and region has its political and historical aspects that influence security and relationships with other nations. The Middle East is defined as “A geographic territory extending from Iran in the east to Turkey, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula, the Levant (Lebanon and Syria), and North Africa, including the Maghreb, in the west” (Kamrava 2013, 1). This region is also referred to as MENA, which stands for the Middle East and North Africa. North Africa is included in this category because it shares several characteristics with the Middle East, such as the Arabic language, Islam’s supremacy, and Arab ethnicity. The current MENA’s political challenges are firmly entrenched in past historical and political events. Past events, notably the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and World War I, have significantly impacted security within the region, limited globalization, and hindered democracy in the area due to varying reasons among the states.

Past Reasons for Insecurity in MENA

Although many historical events shaped MENA’s political landscape, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and World War I played the most significant roles and are the basis of this discussion. According to Kamrava (2013), the Ottoman Empire rose in the 13th century and underwent various changes over the centuries that followed. It is worth noting that the empire was dominated by Turkic peoples and customs, as opposed to the Arab civilizations and the previous political supremacy. Another important consideration is the Ottoman Empire’s location: it was situated between East and West, both literally and symbolically. The empire formed the link between the Western, majorly Christian, population and the Muslim community of the Middle East. These groups have significant differences in religion and world perspectives.

The Ottoman Empire was centered in modern-day Turkey and controlled territory in Asia and Europe. Internally, the kingdom was extraordinarily diverse, with people from all major religions. The Ottoman Empire was in recession and decreasing by the early twentieth century (the 1900s), and many of its regions had successfully achieved independence or been acquired by European rivals (it had already been dubbed the “sick man of Europe” in the nineteenth century). The Balkans, Egypt, the Crimean Peninsula, and Greece were among the empire’s lands lost (Kamrava 2013). Colonization created internal rifts in the region, contributing to the eruption of the First World War, which aggravated insecurity in the MENA region.

World War I is by far the most critical event in world history as it influences local and regional peace and development. At the beginning of World War I in Europe, the Ottoman Sultan initially remained neutral but changed on November 14th, 1914, when he joined the Central Powers, declaring war (jihad) on France, England, and Russia (Kamrava 2013). The introduction of the term jihad to describe the Ottoman Empire’s involvement in the war was a deliberate propaganda maneuver by Berlin. A German diplomat and archaeologist, Max von Oppenheim, devised a propaganda campaign inciting Muslims in British, French, and Russian territories to wage holy war against the Allies. Parts of the empire were whittled away by Russian and British forces as the war proceeded. At the same time, the Ottoman authorities carried out major genocides against minorities within the empire as part of ethnic cleansing and mass deportations (Kamrava 2013). This instance reveals that insecurity in the MENA took both political and religious dimensions.

By 1916, Britain had seized a large portion of the region, including what is now Iraq, Palestine (and what would eventually be known as Israel), Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. According to Kamrava (2013), the empire had become the region’s most potent force while T. E. Lawrence and the British urged the Arabs to rise against the Turks and recover Arab dominance. The revolts effectively dismantled the Ottoman Empire, but they also exacerbated existing conflicts. Promises of money and independence were given to the Arabs, but the British did not fulfill the expectations. Insecurity in the MENA region has been associated with divisions in lines of religious and political power, as demonstrated in the two major historical events: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and World War I.

Immediate and Current Reasons for Insecurity

Throughout history, the causes of insecurity have differed among states and pose a wide range of challenges to individual nations and regions. Authoritarianism is one of the after-war concepts that shaped countries’ political systems and has continued impacting sociopolitical development and security. In the reading on the Arab Spring, Darwisheh (2014) shows that countries reacted differently to the post-war. Despite their shared resistance to authoritarian leadership at the outset, the consequences varied from country to country.

Transitioning from authoritarian control created diverse outcomes for representative democracy in Tunisia and Egypt. In Libya and Syria, uprisings sparked an armed revolt, but unlike Gaddafi, Asad was not deposed (Darwisheh 2014). Furthermore, the government’s lack of ideological or political affiliation with the state resulted in a relative detachment of the military from the regime. To some extent, this division permitted Egypt’s and Tunisia’s protests to conclude quickly with the removal of their respective leaders when governmental institutions, particularly the army, deserted Mubarak and Ben Ali (Darwisheh 2014). Authoritarianism was a primary cause of insecurity in MENA and continues to impact states differently.

Sectarianism is the second fundamental cause of insecurity in the MENA region with immediate and current effects. According to Cheterian (2021), sectarianism has played a significant role in influencing state and regional security in the different MENA states. The US invasion and annexation of Iraq in 2003 sparked an internal instability in the Middle East that was unprecedented in its scope and severity in prior decades: Sunni-Shia warfare. As the Arab revolutions of 2011 morphed into domestic battles a decade later, sectarianism emerged as the dominant conflict philosophy (Cheterian 2021). In order to maintain the al-Asad dynasty’s rule, Syria’s ruling regime did not hesitate to turn an internal problem into regional sectarian strife. It is clear that the sectarian framework in the modern Middle East, particularly the rift within Islam, is shifting, dictating attitudes and geopolitical events. Within Islam, sectarianism has never been more mobilized than it is now, tearing communities apart and creating religious and political rifts.

Competition for regional dominance is another factor that significantly contributes to insecurity in the MENA states. The class reading by Kamrava (2013) revealed that the struggle to dominate the region had been going on at various levels in MENA states since the end of the Second World War. Since the beginning of the century, influential local actors have revived their aggressiveness in order to gain control in their own districts. While Russia’s and China’s expansionist actions have gotten a lot of scholarly and public attention recently, others have gotten far less (Honig and Arsenault 2020). During Syria’s civil war, Turkey attempted to expand its influence and strengthen its control over the Kurdish northeast, as shown by Honig and Arsenault (2020). MENA states have been fighting to control the region, an issue that has resulted in insecurity.

Electoral and constitutional transitions are essential elements that determine individual states’ growth and development and democracy. MENA states have been struggling between dictatorship and democracy, with most countries expressing dictatorial leadership (Kamrava 2013). The limitations on civil liberty have been a major cause of unrest and insecurity within the region. Arabs discovered a force they didn’t realize they had in the Arab Spring upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia (Erdoğan 2020). These revolutions, like others before them, conveyed a tale of collective strength and safety. There was no need to follow a strict timeline—economic transformation came first, then democracy—or complete a comprehensive list of requirements. According to Kamrava (2013), the involvement of the middle and lower classes is critical to any democracy; without their continued political participation, democracy is devoid of meaning. Different perceptions of democracy and the motivation to fight for civil liberties in the region have been major sources of conflict.

Tunisia and Egypt became the two nations that generated hope after taking encouraging steps toward democracy shortly after authoritarian regimes fell. Many similarities exist between the two: relatively homogeneous populations, comparable former governments as well as roots of uprisings, military decisions to team with protesters, and election successes for Islamist groups during the first free elections. Philosophical polarization between Religious extremists and secularists afflicted their constitutional-drafting procedures in 2012–13 (Erdoğan 2020). Their transitions, however, resulted in very different outcomes. While Tunisia has become a symbol of optimism for the region, Egypt has returned to military-bureaucratic rule, as shown by Erdoğan (2020). The dispute in Tunisia and Egypt was about whether to hold elections or establish the constitution first.

Given that the past constitutions were structured to maintain the status quo, there was substantial worry that national elections under them would favor the vestiges of the old governments. On the one hand, Tunisian elections were independently conducted and well-timed, a factor that contributed to the successful power transition in Tunisia. On the other hand, elections in Egypt were characterized by friction among political parties, numerous protests, and ambiguity (Erdoğan 2020). Following the different constitutional transitions, Tunisia has been more secure than Egypt and represents the positive impact of states’ focus on effective electoral processes.

Globalization and Development in the MENA Region

A states’ leadership structure plays a crucial role in influencing globalization and development. This implies a close association between democracy, political power, and economic development. The political economies of MENA states affected social interactions and communication of ideas, impacting global outcomes (Abed and Davoodi 2003). The MENA region is economically diversified, with countries sharing a common background, a wide range of per capita incomes, and a common set of issues. Many countries’ reliance on oil wealth, as well as a legacy of centralized planning in others, have played key roles in determining the region’s development plans in the past. Kamrava (2013) shows how Algeria, Egypt, and Iran have followed “statism” and monopolized economic activities, limiting globalization and economic development in the region. Essentially, the interplay between political and economic growth in the MENA region has greatly influenced globalization.

Conclusion

In conclusion, MENA comprises the Middle East and North Africa, a region characterized by religious and economic diversity. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the First World War were the most significant events that led to insecurity in the region. Over the years, different approaches to democracy, governance, globalization, and constitutional transitions have led to different outcomes among the MENA states. Authoritarianism, sectarianism, and the struggle for regional dominance have led to conflicts, limiting economic development and globalization.

References

Abed, George T. and Hamid R. Davoodi. 2003. Challenges of Growth and Globalization in the Middle East and North Africa. International Monetary Fund.

Cheterian, Vicken. 2021. “Framing Sectarianism in the Middle East.” Journal of Historical Sociology 34 (1): 186-201. doi:10.1111/johs.12306.

Darwisheh, Housam. 2014. Trajectories and Outcomes of the ‘Arab Spring’: Comparing Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. IDE Discussion Paper no. 456. Institute for Developing Economies. Web.

Erdoğan, Ayfer. 2020. “Electoral and Constitutional Transitions: Tunisia and Egypt.” Middle East Policy 27 (2): 53-68. doi:10.1111/mepo.12494.

Honig, Or Arthur, and Joshua T. Arsenault. 2020. “Who Succeeds In The Competition For Regional Dominance In The Contemporary Middle East?” Middle East Policy 27 (4): 30-47. doi:10.1111/mepo.12525.

Kamrava, Mehran. 2013. Modern Middle East: A History since the First World War. 3rd ed. University of California Press.

Click Here To Order Now!