BE OUR GUEST: THE MIDDLE EAST CRISIS: A PERSPECTIVE

Gilbert Degenhardt works as a business counselor in conjunction with the Small Business Administration adn the Small Business Development Center at Southeast Missouri State University. He also teaches a business course at the Cape Vocational-Technical School.

Almost all of the national borders in the Middle East have been very fluid and are of artificial constructions, which have undergone periodic adjustment since biblical times. Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and Arabia have gone through continuing shifting of allegiances and alliances. Samuel Grant, an associate professor of historical studies at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, says that the nations that grew out of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire could be described as "tribes with flags." Hence, few states in the Middle East, except Egypt, Iran (Persia), Turkey and Israel have any history as nations. Most of the other states were put together from pieces of the Ottoman Empire, which was carved up by England and France after WWI. As a result, people in the Middle East have different sentiments toward their states. The "nation" that most Arabs recognize is the Muslim nation.

A vital element to weave into this fabric of history is the establishment and rise of Mohammedanism (Islam) in the 6th and 7th century. It welded Arab tribes, inspired by a militant religious faith, into a single power reaching from China and India to Spain and North Africa. After being buffeted by the Crusades and Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan from the 11th to the 13th century, a new Islamic power arose in the 14th century, when the Ottoman Turks founded a Moslem state in Asia Minor. At its height, the Ottoman Empire extended from the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf to Algeria in North Africa to Vienna and the Adriatic Sea, including the Black Sea and a part of Southern Russia. The relative decline of the Ottoman Empire began in the 17th century, when the once backward Europe surpassed it in all the arts of civilization and European powers created colonial empires in Moslem lands from North Africa to the Far East. Today, there continues to be an undercurrent of resentment toward the European and Western nations that are responsible for most of the present geographical borders.

In 1899, the reigning sheik of Kuwait asked for and obtained British protection. In 1914, Britain reaffirmed its protective role and militarily aided Kuwait from Saudi Arabian sheik attacks. Oil was discovered in 1938 and the Anglo-American Kuwait Oil Company began full-scale exploitation of the reserves in 1946. Under the provisions of a 1951 agreement, the sheik shares equally in the profits of the company.

During WWI, the British promised Arab leaders independence for their help against the Turks (Ottoman Empire), who had allied themselves with the German Empire. After a stormy relationship with Britain, Iraq became a kingdom in 1921, ultimately establishing a permanent form of government in 1923. In 1931, exploitation of oil reserves in Iraq began by the Iraq Petroleum, a consortium of Royal Dutch Shell, Anglo-Persian Oil Co., French oil companies and Standard Oil Companies of U.S. The oil from Iraq aided Britain substantially during WWII and Iraq served as an important supply center for British and American forces operating in the Middle East. Iraq declared war on the Axis in 1943. Relationships with Western countries as well as other Arabs have been varied and rocky to the present time.

Saddam Hussein, then General of the Armies, became president in 1979, when all outside interests in the oil industry were terminated and compensated. Presently, Kuwait and Iraq sit atop a pool of oil crossed by the boundary between them. Kuwait has been tapping the oil, which Iraq contends is depleting its share of the wealth. Iraq wants to readjust the borders to get control of the oil and wants to acquire two islands off Kuwait's coast on the Persian Gulf. These claims may be understandable, but Iraq's claim to Kuwait territory cannot be justified in the light of history ... Iraq had not even existed as a nation at the time of the establishment of the present Kuwait boundary.

Saddam blames the British for setting up Kuwait ... but Britain also set up Iraq. When Britain reaffirmed Kuwait's independence in 1961, Iraq did not recognize it immediately and prepared to invade. Iraq balked when the popular Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, joined Britain to protect Kuwait. Like today, Egyptian leaders did not want to see Iraq gain too much power, inasmuch as Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad have competed as power centers since biblical times.

The Kingdom of Iraq had collapsed after a revolution in 1958. The socialist Ba'ath Party has ruled the country to this time with, of course, Saddam Hussein as the current leader.

Even though there has been varying strife and conflict among the Arabs themselves, the one thing that unites them is their indignation at the Western world's intrusion into their tribal and Islamic culture, notwithstanding the material benefits they have derived. Saddam Hussein is rallying Muslims to his side by using language that has symbolic impact and circulating promises to recreate biblical Iraq ... Mesopotamia. He envisions himself as the messiah of modern Islam. Islam, with its cry for social justice and its desire for a better world, could become the rallying point for the world's dispossessed ... the have-nots determined that the riches of this world are forcibly redistributed. However, what other Arab nations fear is that if Saddam can topple one of the current monarchies as an "illegitimate" creation of Western imperialism ... why couldn't he topple others?

Saddam is going for broke! Sanctions applied to the point of an air-tight siege probably will not cause him to relinquish his position. He has no concern for the welfare of his people ... he has only the vision of his destiny. At that, reports are that the section line is very porous ... too much is getting through. Unfortunately, Saddam will probably "stay his course," even to the point of bringing his house down around himself.

Saddam's introduction of the Palestine issue into the present arena poses serious difficulty for the United States and other nations in the "coalition." He has openly stated if he is attacked, he will immediately attack Israel. This will bring the fierce, devastating, retaliatory acumen of Israel to the side of the coalition, but it will severely strain the "glue" that holds the other Arab nations in the coalition. Our use of force against Saddam can make him the hero to the large group of people already alienated by Western actions.

As for fighting for oil, among other important things ... it is no shame to be honest. WWI established oil as the central game of nations. The internal combustion engine became the queen of transportation and, subsequently, battle. Tanks, airplanes and fleets of supply trucks rapidly replaced horse cavalry and coal-fired rail heads. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, coveting the oil of the Caucasus. A U.S. embargo prompted Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, while she reached for the soil riches of the East Indies, U.S. oil fueled much of the allied effort in WWII, depleting a good part of its supply.

Oil transformed the map of America, dispersing cities into the suburbs and leaving their cores to rot. It is how we get to work and travel and get convenient energy. It coats us in plastic. By now, life as we know it hangs by a tenuous thread to the Persian Gulf. The U.S. is the biggest consumer of oil ... we now import over half of what we guzzle. World oil reserves are up 50 percent since 1985, but 70 percent of today's total is in the Persian Gulf. That's why ... unless Saddam backs down ... we will send our fighting forces into battle. There's nothing noble about any of this. But until we develop alternative energy sources, we have no choice. We are trapped in an oil society fashioned by ourselves.