In Theory: Conflict against Iraq and world clash of interests

With the launch of the military operations that have taken a long time to prepare for, the United States has fired shots at the United Nations, ending more than 50 years of a global multilateral system that was created in the wake of the Yalta Conference following the Second World War.

There have been many calculations for the war and the Middle East to lay the groundwork for a new world order with various forms of conflicts and for the launch of globalisation that is totally different from the Cold War era that witnessed the struggle between two superpowers.

This leads us to attempt to understand the philosophy of the next struggle and the order that will decide international relations in the early decades of this century.

Before the war and during the attempts to issue a second Security Council resolution concerning the situation in Iraq, new forces emerged on the international political scene.

On the one hand, there was the United States backed by a number of countries and, on the other, there was the European Union supported by the Russian Federation, while in the Far East there was China and other major countries such as Japan and India.

Given the making up of such major and influential powers, the conclusion that can be reached about the nature of the forthcoming conflict is that it will probably confirm the theories that have recently emerged about such conflicts and at the same time deny the validity of other theories.

On top of these theories there are two other theories, the first of which is advocated by Samuel Huntington concerning the conflict of cultures and rebuilding of the new world order.

Basically, the primary reference focuses on the conflict between the Western Christian culture and Arab Islamic culture.

The other theory is advocated by the prominent economist, Lester Thoreau, concerning the next conflict between the United States and Europe and Japan as a representative of Asia, the world's biggest continent in terms of area and population.

Apart from the economic, political and strategic effects that will arise from the raging war, this war may resolve the differences between the two theories in favour of the second theory, for a certain phase, that is upheld by Prof. Thoreau. The struggle for economic interests that has been emphasised by Thoreau in his book Head to Head clearly refers to this concept without ambiguity.

With such conflicting interests, there was a deep rift between the United States on the one side and both Europe and China on the other. Christian Europe stood with an unprecedented firmness against the war planned to be waged against a Muslim country that has in its territories huge natural resources, including oil wealth. It should be noted that the Western governments that backed the war faced fierce opposition from their own people who felt that it was in their interest to stand in the camp of peace. It is possible for the governments of these nations to review their position in the future.

Perhaps the war could end at the speed planned by those who launched it and it is also possible that it could drag on or be shorter than expected. However, the struggle for interests between the major and influential powers will continue for many years to come and will certainly create global groupings whose nature will be decided by economic interests, not ethnic or racial origins.

In the age of globalisation and open markets, the movement of capital will not know small nations that cannot absorb its enormous resources and capabilities.

Within a short span of time, the Euro replaced several well-established European currencies to rival the position of the U.S. dollar with all the significant economic and political implications of such a development.

Does that mean that the American war against Iraq has created serious doubts over the validity of Huntington's theory concerning the conflict of cultures and has given a strong boost to Thoreau's theory about the struggle of economic interests?

It is likely that this conclusion sounds quite logical and valid. It is not in the interest of Arabs and Muslims to adopt the theory of the conflict of cultures since it could involve them in a global conflict in which the balance of power is seriously tipped in favour of the other side

It should be noted that global struggles throughout history usually take place between two equal sides or powers.

In addition, this theory lacks the simplest human values. An ethnic or cultural identity for a certain nation or group of people cannot at all serve as a cause for offending those people or others. Indeed, scientific and cultural achievements that the modern world is enjoying now are, in their most simple forms, the accumulation of creative efforts of successive human civilisations, including the Arab and Islamic civilisation.

As for the conflict or difference of interests, it is a state that has been parallel to human development since the creation of human life and this is particularly true within the framework of a single society and a single state and also between the leading powers of one and the same culture, as proved by successive historical events.

In this context, reference can be made to the fact that the nature and acuteness of the conflict of interests vary and differ between one historical era and another.

The war that is currently taking place prepares for a new stage of the conflict of interests whose distinctive features will emerge following the end of the war. Europe, Japan, China and India will become increasingly dependent upon Gulf oil supplies in the next few decades. During the coming period, Iraq's oil output will reach record levels estimated at 8-10 million barrels daily (Iraq's current oil production ranges between 2 – 2.5 million barrels daily). Such oil production will be controlled by U.S. companies that will seek to dictate their conditions in their defence of their interests, especially meeting the growing needs for energy resources in the United States.

Most specialised energy studies and reports point to the fact that the U.S. oil imports will double by the end of this decade to reach 15 million barrels daily, which equals more than one half of the present Opec output. This is a direct result of the rise in oil consumption at a time when crude production in the United States is constantly on the decline.

Such developments related to the super power conflict of interests do not support the fragile make up of the Huntington theory of an arrogant nature. The logic behind the events of the war and the differences that emerged before the flare up of hostilities clearly show that interests are interests regardless of ethnic or racial origins. This serves as a reminder of Churchill's famous words more than half a century ago that there are no permanent friends but there are permanent interests.

There is no doubt that the consequences of war will be considerable and serious and its ramifications will not only involve the Middle East but the whole world. There is a radical change in the region's oil map and the shift in the centre of gravity in this part of the world. There will be a change in the geopolitical and strategic stru