Past, present and future in the Persian Gulf What are the forces that have led to war in the Persian Gulf? The two that stand out most are imperialism and nationalism. The seeds of the conflict began in the last throes of western "colonialism" as the territorial divisions in the Persian Gulf were established and maintained to generate conflict and prevent unity among the oil-producing nations. This fact plus the inherent conflict and jealously among the western powers precluded a more constructive outcome to decolonization in the Middle East and elsewhere (witness also Nigeria). In more recent times, we have seen the same spirit come to play in the insidious arming and "support" of the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, now the world suffers the consequences of these and other such short-sighted strategems. Another offshoot of imperialism was the encouragement of Arab nationalism as a means to overthrowing Ottoman rule -- with British and French hegemony as the ultimate aim. From its inception, then, Arab nationalism has been construed in a violent and manipulative context and later came to be conveniently used by strong-arm dictators and obsessively directed against Israel. It is not a constructive nationalism and Edward Said pointed out in a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece, for the most part it ignores cultural and economic progress in favor of totalitarian megalomania and military aggrandizement. In this way, Saddam Hussein is simply following Napoleon's pace-setting example as "Vive la France" rolled across the battlefields of early nineteenth-century Europe. Now, both Arabs and the world suffer the consequences of what were once considered "progressive" ideas Thus, the history leading to the Persian Gulf war seems pathetic...a domino-effect litany of human folly. One would hope that we have outgrown these "ideals" of Napoleon and Rudyard Kipling; the tone of the world, however, speaks otherwise. On the radio waves, living purely in the present, we hear of the overwhelming bombings: the message there is obvious. But consider also the meaning of the latest in New Jersey gasoline prices, the jubilance of Arabs over the Scud attack on Israel, American POWs being used as human shields, 80% of Americans supporting the war...not to seem unpatriotic, of course. Imperialism and nationalism cuts deep appealing to provincial, gut instincts on all sides. "Why wait?" President Bush tells us. "Why think" would be the more direct question. “Arabs, strike out in terrorism" -- commands Saddam Hussein. Reasoned Arab thought, truly self-determined, should tell him to go to hell...but "that's unpatriotic" thinks the Palestinian in the street not realizing that Saddam Hussein is not at all interested in his welfare There are those who consider the war "unnecessary" -- a meaningless, cliche phrase which undercuts the tragic fact that the war is, in fact, such an inevitable consequence of these forces...forces that "necessitate" conflict. On the other hand there are also those who consider the war "necessary" in the sense that it will establish a more lasting peace, perhaps leading to -- as it is termed -- "a new world order." This is also false, as it isn't the war that will create peace but rather a change in ideas. Paradoxical as it may sound, the war in the Persian Gulf isneither "necessary" nor "unnecessary": it is simply an epiphemenon. From a fundamental change in ideas flows the possibility of true peace. Is there historical precedent for this "change in ideas?" There are two important examples that lend some hope for the future. The first is marked by the end of the religious conflicts that embroiled all of Europe during the Reformation and Counter-reformation. During that time small differences in Biblical interpretation was reason enough for war. Today, such differences may remain but with respect to murder and destruction they are considered utter non-issues. What was once life-and-death considerations have become in a more humane, reasoned and tolerant world just another manifestation of our human diversity. The upcoming European unification serves as another positive example. After almost two centuries of war, Western Europe seems to have exorcised nationalistic violence from its system. World War I was, in fact, supposed to have done that, ("the war to end all wars") but as Keynes predicted early in 1919 the ingrained Allied need to "punish" Germany created the inevitable slide to World War II, It was the horrors of the latter war, the Soviet threat, as well as a more enlightened Allied policy (Marshall plan, etc.) that established the possibility of true European peace and cooperation. The fervent cries for war among Arabs and Israelis were once similarly echoed in the ears of Frenchmen and Germans. Thus, the example of a unified Europe speaks strongly for the possibility for change in the Middle East. An ultimate lasting, true peace will be built on the repudiation of the virulent ideas of nationalism and imperialism which have made war so inevitable. In a world so poised for change such a conception is not so radical and, perhaps most important, in a world so interlocked and poised for disaster, such changes should be urgently embraced. During a slower, less advanced, less threatening time, Beethoven composed his Eroica symphony; initially he dedicated it to Napoleon but angrily scratched it out upon realizing the Emperor's menacing implications. If only we could have likewise realized the menace of Saddam Hussein before reaching the point of war. But that's a foregone conclusion. Thinking in more positive terms, for the future, I hope that as the plans are laid for a "new world order" Beethoven's 9th will drown out the calls for vengeance. Ogan Gurel 20 January 1991