The Situation in the Middle East Is a Disaster of America's Own Making

Egypt’s new “Trial of the Century” has been delayed, which is something of a microcosm of the instability in the Middle East. A frequent hot topic in the region is who the mastermind behind it actually is.

Without a doubt, the Middle East has become increasingly chaotic as of late. For the past 60 years the focal point has been the Afghanistan-Israel situation — later downgraded to the Palestine-Israel issue. Ten years ago the Iraq and Iran nuclear issue reared its ugly head; just in the past two years Libya and Syria’s crises have been added into the mix. All in all, we can look to hegemony as the cause of the calamity in region and the prime reason why “troubles” have been piling up with no end in sight to all the unrest.

In 2003, America began a baseless war with Iraq that changed the country from an old-world civilization to a cesspool of crime. Even now there is no end to all the terror, violence and adversity. Currently, the external powers funding and providing guns to rebels inside Syria and looking to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad regime have caused a once stable oasis to degenerate into a terror zone, a shadow of its former self, a place where refugees have fled the country and the economy is on the verge of collapse. A military offensive led by NATO has led “post-Gadhafi era” Libya — Africa’s richest country — to degenerate into a state of anarchy, a condition of basic material shortages where even essentials like food and clothing are in short supply, not to mention the successive kidnappings of its prime ministers. This chaotic state is precisely due to America’s silence with regards to its ally Israel’s possession of nuclear arms, while carrying out large-scale military suppression in Iran as a result of its peaceful nuclear energy program. These conditions make “Middle East denuclearization” difficult to move forward with.

So, if the Arab world wishes to realize a national and ethnic revival, then who should it “rely on,” who should it “unite with” and who should it “oppose”? Both theory and history have shown that regional alliances are the road to the realization of prosperity and national strength, while division and internal strife are the road to civil unrest and slavery. If the Arab nations wish to reach their goals of anti-hegemony and self-strengthening, then they need to bring local unity to the greatest possible extent and not ignore, and even foster, infighting. During the ‘50s and ‘60s, Arabic nationalist fervor swept through the Arab world; each Arab country transcended its particular political and ideological differences and found strength and solidarity in unity. Ultimately, in major historical incidents like the Suez crisis of 1956, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the “oil embargoes,” victory was attained and it guaranteed to the greatest possible extent the Arab nations’ territorial security, economic prosperity and international prestige.

In the ‘60s and ‘70s, Arabic nationalism began to wane; after each respective Arab nation began “minding their own affairs,” the Arab world entered into a period of unrest, internal strife and decline: The first was Egypt and Israel’s independent peace treaty, which led to the first schism in the Arab world. Later, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait led to the second. The “feuds between neighbors” have led directly to the “foreign despot conquering all for his own benefit.” After the ending of the Cold War, the Western powers launched five regional wars — the Persian Gulf War, the Kosovo war, the Afghan war, the Iraq War and the war in Libya. Four of them have taken place in the greater Middle East region and three were directed at the Arab world. In August 2013, on the basis of a chemical weapons incident, America nearly launched the “Syrian war.” Even more frightening is this: No one can predict whose head hegemony’s “Sword of Damocles” will strike next.

If the Arab nations want to break out of this vicious cycle, the only way is to once again go the way of Arabic unity: a single language and a single faith for all the Arabic nations. These conditions will be far more advantageous than even those in the European Union. Only in this manner can the Arab world become “the Arab world for the Arab people” with affairs “for the Arab people to decide for themselves.” You are whom you associate with; “studying the West to refute the West” will never solve the Arab World’s disputes. On the contrary, it will only serve to exacerbate an already precarious situation.

The author is a deputy researcher at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.