Introduction

There is a general consensus among many scholars and analysts, that the Gulf area has been beset by what (neo) realist theoreticians of world politics term “international anarchy”. This is defined in the mainstream literature as a situation of endemic insecurity, the constant threat of all-out wars, a “kill or be killed mentality”, and the absence of an arbitrary body that could mitigate such conflicts. This is the view of many decision-makers in the region too, which is why they tend to premise their foreign policies on zero-sum calculations – the winner takes it all. Yet, such interpretations of the absence of regional security are based on a misperception of regional relations and the flawed idea that security in the region can be guaranteed through exclusion. This approach has been pursued for the past few decades and it has largely failed in providing a deeper understanding of the international politics in the region and bringing about an inclusive security architecture in the Gulf and beyond.

The following criticism of the predominant view that the Gulf area is endemically prone to conflict is informed by three questions that are set as signposts for the first section of this paper: First, what are the dominant political norms, institutions, values, identities and other cultural artefacts at a given period of time? Two, how are they invented, changed, reified and transcended by dominant political actors, most notably the state? Three, how do cultural artefacts condition the appearance of power and interest and how do they manifest themselves in strategic preferences? I am pursuing these questions in order to dispel the myth that identity is primordial and to emphasise that states invent what they are in order to legitimate their role domestically and in international affairs. At the same time a critical approach like this which focuses on the constructedness of culture/ identity opens up avenues for change, and reveals the rigidity of theories such as neo-realism which are premised on a pessimistic view of world politics.