It is not only states that go to war; international systems are also part of the competition. The Russian-Ukrainian war is not a conflict between two states, but between two systems. That is why the Europeans and the Americans, especially under President Joe Biden, support Kyiv, while the Chinese and North Koreans support Moscow.
Historically, the Americans supported the Europeans in their war against Nazism. They helped their European allies defeat the Axis powers because Hitler’s victory would have meant the defeat of the US. The Americans benefited from the free-trade system established by the British Empire without paying a heavy price. Their country was far away and their neighbors were peaceful, but Hitler emerging victorious would have meant the end of the liberal order, the disruption of shipping routes, and obstructions to trade. They quickly entered the war and they did not leave Europe after it ended.
They put Europe back on its feet economically, through the Marshall Plan, and militarily, through NATO. They did not allow another fascist Germany to rise, clipping its claws and integrating it into the new democratic capitalist system, so much so that it has now become pillars of this system.
Why are the Americans and the West worried about China? Because of economic competition? Yes. Because of Taiwan? Certainly. Their ultimate fear, however, is that China might create an international system that undermines, or even dismantles, the global order they had built after World War II. States clash and compete not because they hate one another, but because they seek to impose political and economic systems that serve their interests.
In our region, Saddam Hussein tried to impose a new order through his invasion of Kuwait. He was supported by and aligned with states that shared his interests and ideas. He hoped the world would accept the reality on the ground that he had imposed. King Fahd’s historic and courageous decision stood in his way, preserving the Gulf’s stability, cohesion, and its own system, which contradicted Saddam’s vision and ambitions.
The Iranians, through the framework of their strategy of exporting the revolution, militias, and proxies, sought to establish a system that would underpin their interests and influence. Hassan Nasrallah, Qassem Soleimani, and Ali Tabatabai were loyal soldiers of this project. Erdogan has, earlier in his term, tried to impose his own system, combining Muslim Brotherhood ideology and neo-Ottomanism.
The Gulf states have also formed their own regional system, which is one of the most successful systems in the troubled Arab region. It has no extreme nationalist and religious ideologies or separatist entities. It is politically stable, economically prosperous, religiously tolerant, and culturally open. The Gulf system has engendered prosperity and drawn investment and global talent, with people from across the globe coming to regard the Gulf as their home. It maintains strategic relations and political and economic interests with major powers.
The Gulf order has withstood difficult tests; it has gone through severe crises and overcome them. This was not achieved by chance. This system was built on shared interests, similar forms of governance, common values, and common enemies. The adversaries of this Gulf system seek to break and dismantle it, replacing it with an alternative better suited to their aims. The end or weakening of the Gulf order would serve their interests and would constitute a victory for them, and so they strive to undermine its legitimacy, sabotage its international relationships, target its interests, and undermine its unity.
The Gulf summit in Bahrain affirms that this regional system remains strong and cohesive in a turbulent world and a fractured region. Preserving it is a political and strategic duty needed to safeguard the Gulf’s stability and future in the face of attempts at infiltration. Let us not forget that weakness and fragmentation whet the appetites of the wicked.
