Posted By Geoffrey Kemp Share

The United States has become accustomed to its hegemonic military presence in the greater Middle East. The U.S.-led international coalition against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 led to a massive increase in America's direct military presence in the Gulf. Its military presence accelerated after the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, U.S. forces are deployed all the way from the Sinai desert through the Arabian Peninsula, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, as well as Afghanistan. While the U.S. has come to take its unchallenged military primacy in the Middle East for granted, key Asian countries -- especially India, China, Japan and South Korea -- have also increased their Middle East presence. The U.S. shouldn't view this as a threat but rather an opportunity for greater cooperation on a wide spectrum of growing security concerns.

The signs of Asia's push into the Gulf can be seen everywhere. All around the Arabian Gulf, hotels, banks, schools, and shopping centers are managed by Asian expatriate workers, who also provide most of the region's manual labor. Without Asian labor, the oil-rich economies of the Gulf would collapse. Many of the vast construction projects in Doha, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and other city-states are supervised by South Korean companies. Most of the automobiles and trucks on the street are Japanese or Korean. The endless procession of tankers that sail from the huge ports of the Gulf carrying oil and liquefied natural gas is destined increasingly for the Asian market. Infrastructure projects, including new roads, railways, seaports, airports, gas and oil pipelines, and undersea communication lines, are expanding in both the Middle East and Central Asia, making access between the two regions easier and cheaper. These trends suggest that, absent a protracted global recession, the Asian presence in the Middle East will continue to grow significantly over the coming decade.

Over the next 30 years, the economies of India and China are expected to surpass that of the United States in size (although as a result of population growth, their per capita GDP will remain relatively low), giving their governments increased regional and global clout. As India and China grow, Japan will be left behind. Nonetheless, Japan is likely to remain a key Asian power, given its close ties to the United States. Moreover, Japan's energy needs will keep it tied to the Gulf. Similarly, South Korea, while smaller than Japan, is already deeply engaged in the Middle East, especially in the energy sphere. Lacking domestic oil reserves, South Korea is the world's fifth-largest importer of oil and the eleventh-largest importer of liquefied natural gas. In addition, South Korean construction companies have been hired to build oil refineries, petrochemical plants, offices, and infrastructure across the Middle East.

India is an under-appreciated player in this new Asian Middle East. The Indian subcontinent has had close commercial ties with the Gulf for centuries, and India today has managed to cultivate good working relationships with all the countries in the Middle East, including Israel. While economic interests have provided the basis for many of those relationships, India has also taken on a modest military role. The Indian government has participated in Middle East peacekeeping operations since 1956. In addition, India has been increasing its bilateral military ties with all of the small countries in the Gulf. India is likely to establish a stronger, more assertive presence in the Gulf over the coming decades.

It is China, of course, which gets most of the attention. For a short period in the fifteenth century, China was the dominant power in the Indian Ocean, but over the centuries that followed, it had little to do with the Middle East. After the Communist Revolution in 1949, China tried to cultivate close relationships with revolutionary groups in the Arab world, but its efforts were violently opposed by Arab nationalists. In the wake of the Sino-Soviet split and China's eventual rapprochement with the United States in 1972, China changed course and sought instead to establish cordial relations with Middle Eastern governments. In particular, it became more directly involved in the geopolitics of the region through arms sales, notably to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, during the 1980s. More recently China has followed India's example by becoming engaged in Mideast peacekeeping. China's participation in United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) began officially on April 9, 2006.

Considerable uncertainty remains regarding China's future presence in the region, particularly in the military arena. China is a long way from the Gulf, but if its permanent maritime reach eventually expands into the Indian Ocean and its overland reach grows through Central Asia and Pakistan, it, too, could become a major strategic player in the Middle East. The attention paid to China's voice in the debate over sanctions on Iran offers a stark contrast to its limited role in the debate over sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s.

It is easy to see the growing doubts about how long the United States can sustain its presence in the region and remain the policeman of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Two wars have drained American resources. The financial crisis also diminished U.S. prestige by calling into question the validity of its economic model, which had been eagerly pursued on the Arabian Peninsula, the richest part of the Middle East. If all these factors coalesced to bring about a slow U.S. retreat from the region, would any Asian powers fill the vacuum? 

On this point, there is no consensus. Some acknowledge the importance of Asia's economic and cultural expansion into the Middle East but argue that domestic factors in India and China will limit their ability to play the role now held by the United States. Others maintain that, to the contrary, China is likely to take a more aggressive approach to the Middle East and develop close relationships with countries like Syria and Iran. Still others focus on the growing relationship between India and the United States, arguing that it may serve to counterbalance Chinese ambitions. The new dynamics must take into account not only growing ideological challenges to the West, but also the reemergence of more traditional balance-of-power politics as the Asian nations become world players and the sense that Americans may eventually grow tired of protecting the assets of "free loaders."

In many ways an increased growing Asian presence in the Middle East will bring a breath of fresh air to a region left with the bitter historic legacies of European dominance and characterized by contemporary antagonism toward the hegemonic role of the United States. The major Asian players in the Middle East have not been colonizers or occupiers and they have far less of an emotional stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the one hand, that means that they approach political issues and unresolved conflicts with what some would argue is a cynical, laissez-faire attitude, perhaps exemplified by China's initial indifference to human rights abuses in Sudan. However, the upside is that the Asians do not interfere directly in Middle East politics and therefore enjoy good relations with most states. How long they can sustain their hands-off approach is questionable if, by virtue of their economic dominance and their own strategic stakes in the region, they get drawn into the messiness of Middle East politics at a time when the United States becomes disillusioned by the burdens of hegemony.

In the meantime, it is very much in the interests of both the U.S. and the Asian countries to reach common agreements on the importance of preventing further conflict in the region and jointly assuring the security of the increased maritime traffic across the Indian Ocean. Cooperation on meeting the piracy challenge off the coast of Somalia is an early test of this new strategic reality.

Geoffrey Kemp is the Director of Regional Strategic Programs at the Nixon Center. This article summarizes some of the key themes in his latest book The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia's Growing Presence in the Middle East (Brookings Institution Press 2010).

AFP/Getty Images

 

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

10:17 PM ET

July 7, 2010

An excuse for the U.S. to disengage

As China and India's population grows, so too will its energy demands. More people require more electricity and fuel, not only to heat homes and maintain a decent quality of life but also too power the businesses that have propelled both states to semi-great power status. And what better place to get these energy resources than the Middle East; a region that is taking money wherever they can find it?

The question is whether countries like China and India will still be able to meet their demand for energy resources when a conflict starts to break out. Middle Eastern politics is full of cataclysmic situations where violence always seems to be one step away. Political turmoil between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, the improvement of Iran's nuclear program, and the continued frustration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may eventually threaten the oil market that Beijing relies so heavily upon for future growth. If the oil market is volatile, or if regional tensions somehow stop the oil from flowing at a relatively low cost, China or India may need to get involved in a much more aggressive fashion. One of the reasons why the United States decided to establish military bases across the Middle East (despite preserving a balance of power among the Middle Eastern states) was to protect oil interests and ensure that a conflict doesn't get out of control. China and India (and perhaps Japan) may need to act in much the same way.

In any case, China and India's rise should be applauded in the U.S. Most Americans are sick and tired of acting as the world's policemen, and some simply want to withdraw all together. Being the world's policemen requires lots of manpower and lots of taxpayer money, and after three decades of taking on that role, Americans want to cut their losses and stop spending money on hopeless ventures (like the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, although I don't personally agree with this).

A resurgent China and India in perhaps just the excuse Americans are looking for to finally cut back their forces and disengage militarily from the region. The United States will no longer feel the pressure of going it alone on some of the most important issues.

Whether this is what Washington is thinking is a whole other story. Lawmakers probably view a strong China as a threat to U.S. interests, and they may be right in some areas. But they should also remember that the U.S. has the strongest and most technologically advanced military in the world...not to mention the ability to influence countries through billions in economic assistance. A few Chinese soldiers won't change that fact.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

 

NORBOOSE

10:38 PM ET

July 7, 2010

I must take issue with one thing

The impact on the US from Indian actions is fundamentally different from the impact from Chinese actions. India's and the US's long term interests align in far more places than they conflict. Though we may politically and economically compete with them, (like we do with Japan), when push comes to shove, they will always be a strategic ally. China will always be more of an opponent than a partner as long as the US is halfway democratic and China is run by the CPC.

 

BOBCHEN

3:39 PM ET

July 8, 2010

Norboose, Did you type that

Norboose,

Did you type that post on a computer? Because chances are have parts that were manufactured in China. And chances are you use products that were made in China.

The prime reason China even goes to these third world countries is to secure the raw resources, which are used to manufacture stuff, which we as Americans consume (and boy do we consume). This isn't China's bid for world domination. This is China's bid to keep the material inflow running so they can keeping making the iPhones and the flat screen TVs and the various cheap crap for us that we really don't need. This sounds like a partnership to me, or maybe a loveless marriage. After all, it's not like the US hasn't been BFFs with authoritarian governments past or present.

This arrangement is supported by every administration since Nixon, American corporations, and American consumers. The electronic devices you use to post your message on FP contains solid-state parts, which contain rare earth metals, which were most likely mined from some morally-dubious middle-African country by Chinese middle-men to be sold as finished products by Apple, Microsoft, Dell, etc. But you don't question that, your typical American consumer wouldn't either. Just like the crackhead won't think about how his $100-a-day habit is funding paramilitary groups in South America.

To say that me or you, or US as a whole, is not complicit in Chinese actions abroad is utterly disingenuous. This IS a partnership, and we play our role in it. In fact, we got a pretty sweet deal on our end: China get the bad press, we get the iPhones.

 

ALEXBC

1:20 AM ET

July 8, 2010

A Gap In Leadership

China, and especially India, may have growing economies, but their ideas of international leadership are sorely underdeveloped. At this stage, if the U.S. doesn't take the lead in Middle East (or anywhere else, really), then there isn't much leadership to be had. China has no vision for the world other than securing resources abroad and propping up states like North Korea. India has enough issues in its own backyard (Kashmir, Pakistan, Maoists, China) to keep its hands tied.

Geopolitically, neither country has the massive maritime strength and the internal security that have allowed both the former British Empire and now the United States to serve as international policemen. The litany of issues I mentioned regarding India is fair testimony to this point. China, too, is more or less a land power hemmed in by a host of volatile neighbors. If anything, these countries will have to amass an even more impressive array of military, political, and cultural strength than those two hegemons, just to overcome their inherent challenges.

Also, hasn't the United States been "disillusioned by the burdens of hegemony" for decades (Korea, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, etc.)? I think it would be more useful to accept that, in order for a hegemonic power to step aside, someone else must fill the void, or at least have pretense to do so. This article doesn't even mention Turkey, which is already assuming some of the same leadership responsibilities in the Middle East as the United States; it would fill the potential vacuum much more readily than any East Asian would-be power.

 

PUBLICUS

10:26 AM ET

July 8, 2010

Future Shock

The shocks coming to all societies over the next 30+ years will be great and immeasurable as oil supplies dwindle and economies transition in much turmoil to other predicates of energy.

In the shorter term, the next ten to 15 years, the United States will remain intimately engaged in the Middle East while the developing East Asian countries identified in the article will compete increasingly for the favor of the Sheiks who who sit on the remaining oil.

India and the PRC haven't any common interests between them. Likewise as to the PRC and Russia, India and Russia; Iran offers nothing to anyone except headaches. The region has a hundred rat's nests of irreconcilable religious fanatics and extremists that neither the PRC nor India want to become entangled with - the US isn't too excited about having to deal with them either.

The average US citizen consumes 25 barrels of oil per year as opposed to
the average Chinese who consumes 2 barrels per year; it's even less in India than in the PRC. While the number of barrels per Chinese and per Indian definitely will increase, it's easy to see that the US will continue to be heavily engaged in the ME for decades to come.

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

2:55 PM ET

July 8, 2010

China vs America

Well, quite frankly, I personally would much rather Chinese infuence be more prevalent in the region than American influence. China doesn't have a population who blindly supports Israel due to their inane belief that doing so will bring about the return of Jesus. China doesn't have an obsession with spreading their form of government. This might change, but from what I've observed, the Chinese could care less whether or not a country is communist. Many in the US however have a jihadist-like mentality towards democracy; they'll try to spread it no matter how much death and destruction it causes. I doubt the Chinese would mind if many of these states starting enforcing aspects of the Shariah within their countries (which is what most of the people want). China has shown itself to be quite reserved in its foreign policy; hell, if they haven't invaded Taiwan yet, I really doubt they're going to start a bunch of wars of attrition in order to "spread the glories of communism."

 

MIDPOINT

12:52 PM ET

July 9, 2010

What a great world it would be...

if only China could have the hegemonic power that the US has had for the last thirty years. I am sure that unlike the rapacious Americans, the Chinese would have used, or will use, their unilateral power to grow flowers I everyone's backyards and distribute poodles to every house.

You must be out of your mind! The United States is no paragon of visrtue, but I am pretty confident a world under Chinese authoritarian control these last thrity years would have been a far bloodier place. There are constraints on American leaders and businesses that simply don't exist in China. I can imagine how many would have been crushed as they throw their weight around.

Regarding Israel/Palestine, I suspect they would have decided to support one or the other and simply endorsed the destruction of the other. I am sure I can tell where your preferences would be, but it may not have gone your way. The Chinese might well have decided to side with Israel in its heyday and support a true destruction of Palestine. And I am talking about the kind of populations transfers that happen in other places like the 2 million Khurisani Kurds deported by Persia in the 17th century, the millions of Armenians killed or deported after WWI, or the wholesale repopulation of East Prussia by ethnic Russians after WWII. The occupation of Palestine by an Israel restrained by its own and US politics is nothing on that scale.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

TULAYIM

6:42 PM ET

July 8, 2010

 

TULAYIM

6:43 PM ET

July 8, 2010

 

TULAYIM

6:44 PM ET

July 8, 2010

 

TULAYIM

6:45 PM ET

July 8, 2010

 

BUYNFLSHOP

2:59 AM ET

July 20, 2010

buynflshop

Wholesale NFL Jerseys
Cheap NFL Jerseys
NFL Jerseys
NFL Football Jerseys
Women NFL Jerseys
Kid NFL Jerseys
Super Bowl Jerseys
Super Bowl NFL Jerseys
Throwback Jerseys
Throwback NFL Jerseys
Cheap Throwback Jerseys
Wholesale Throwback Jerseys
Cheap Super Bowl Jerseys
Wholesale Super Bowl Jerseys
youth nfl jerseys wholesale
youth nfl jerseys cheap
nfl youth jerseys
Baltimore Ravens Jerseys
Chicago Bears Jerseys
Cincinnati Bengals Jerseys
Denver Broncos Jerseys
Dallas Cowboys Jerseys
Green Bay Packers Jerseys
Indianapolis Colts Jerseys
Minnesota Vikings Jerseys
New England Patriots Jerseys
New Orleans Saints Jerseys
New York Jets Jerseys
Arizona Cardinals Jerseys
Buffalo Bills Jerseys
Atlanta Falcons Jerseys
Carolina Panthers Jerseys
Cleveland Browns Jerseys
Houston Texans Jerseys
Detroit Lions Jerseys
Jacksonville Jaguars Jerseys
Kansas City Chiefs Jerseys
Miami Dolphins Jerseys
New York Giants Jerseys
Philadelphia Eagles Jerseys
San Francisco 49ers Jerseys
Oakland Raiders Jerseys
Seattle Seahawks Jerseys
Pittsburgh Steelers Jerseys
St Louis Rams Jerseys
San Diego Chargers Jerseys
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jerseys
Tennessee Titans Jerseys
Washington Redskins Jerseys
Ray Lewis Jerseys
Ed Reed Jerseys
Joe Flacco Jerseys
Terrell Suggs Jerseys
Dick Butkus Jerseys
Greg Olsen Jerseys
Matt Forte Jerseys
Devin Hester Jerseys
Walter Payton Jerseys
Brian Urlacher Jerseys
Lance Briggs Jerseys
Jay Cutler Jerseys
Carson Palmer Jerseys
Rey Maualuga Jerseys
Chad Johnson Jerseys
Demarcus Ware Jerseys
Jason Witten Jerseys
Terrell Owens Jerseys
Felix Jones Jerseys
Marion Barber Navy Jerseys
Marion Barber Jerseys
Emmitt Smith Jerseys
Miles Austin Jerseys
Roger Staubach Jerseys
Troy Aikman Jerseys
Tony Romo Jerseys
Eddie Royal Jerseys
Brandon Marshall Jerseys
Aaron Rodgers Jerseys
A.J. Hawk Jerseys
Donald Driver Jerseys
Greg Jennings Jerseys
Peyton Manning Jerseys
Dallas Clark Jerseys
Robert Mathis Jerseys
Marvin Harrison Jerseys
Drew Brees Jerseys
Marques Colston Jerseys
Pierre Thomas Jerseys
Reggie Bush Jerseys
Jeremy Shockey Jerseys
Tarvaris Jackson Jerseys
Adrian Peterson Jerseys
Jared Allen Jerseys
Mark Sanchez Jerseys
Thomas Jones Jerseys
Leon Washington Jerseys
Brett Favre Jerseys

 

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.

Read More

Enter your email address to get twice-weekly updates from the Mideast Channel:

Delivered by Constant Contact