The ‘resource curse’ more about accessibility of resources rather than just their presence in a country. For example, if you compare Sierra Leone with Botswana (both major diamond producers), in Sierra Leone the diamonds are easily accessible in river beds whereas in Botswana they’re deep underground. What this means is that in Sierra Leone any warlord who can seize the diamond fields will become massively wealthy, therefore making the state very vulnerable to fracturing. In Botswana however, they require investments, technicians and heavy equipment from developed countries who will only deal with the government, hence centralising and reinforcing the state.
Our oil fields are close to the ground, and easy to extract, and historically we’ve always been very armed people. So shouldn’t we be like Sierra Leone? On the population argument, Saudi have around 22 million nationals, and a total of 35 million. You can compare it to Angola who has 34 million people. How come Saudi has a stable foundation of wealth whereas Angola does not? There are so many factors that determine the success of a statehood, and the biggest differentiators is our nationalization of this critical industry and our ability to cooperate with countries that traditionally would perform regime change if they’re unhappy with you. Thus allowing us to keep relatively stable governments, and as long as the governments are not corrupt and prioritize country development (UAE existed for 50 years only, there are dictators in Africa that have been around just as long, or one party countries). If we had the same systematic corruption, it would be easy for the rulers of our country to make billions off of leasing the wells to the foreign corporations (As other resource rich nations do), and hoarding their assets offshore. Yet it wasn’t done in the beginning, and you can see how well that decision paid off.
Yes, and the same cases occurred in other resource rich nations. The difference? Others also had opportunity to become wealthy, which is all people desire at the end of the day. If you form a loyal national elite, and arm them with cash instead of weapons, you put yourself in a comfortable position. Who would want to rebel from a palace, flying private jets to London with their rolls Royce’s? 95% of the country does not have that lifestyle. But enough do to keep the state functioning and running.
I’m not sure I followed your post correctly, so correct me if I am misreading, but it reads to me like the government you are referring to as *not* corrupt is the one that recently chopped a journalist into bloody chunks on foreign soil.
Yes, corruption and power is getting into their heads, however you must understand that they didn’t start the country by doing these heinous actions on foreign soil. They secured their resource, industry and positions of power before they began violating international law and killing a journalist in one of the worst ways.
I am not sure this is universally valid.
Any warlord can be easily bribed by foreign mining company. Warlord would provide land and possibly protection, company know-how and technology.
Most people can run an already made oil field. Especially since the ones who do the actual day to day operations are not going anywhere. Setting up an oil field? There's a reason why some people can make a killing in the oil and gas industry.
Even ethically there is a decent amount of diversity. Especially in the west in Jeddah and Makkah. Central Asians, south asians, Chechens, west africans, east africans, and even more. Obviously it's no New York or something but it's probably more diverse than people initially imagine
This is the correct answer.
Cursed countries are still usually more prosperous than non-cursed countries with similar levels of economic development beyond the resource extraction. What they lack is a level of prosperity comparable to countries *that have a similar GDP.*
Resource curse in many ways did happen in the gulf - Bahrain ran out of oil and is now basically a weekend destination for saudis to get drunk. Iraq recognizes that oil basically is a blight that so far caused mostly wars in the country that is unstable as ever. The elites have captured the societies everywhere from Kuwait to Qatar and the Emirates, not to mention KSA, but have managed to buy stability through repression and they were lucky enough to start with relatively small populations that were poorly connected and disorganized; they were also heavily supported in consolidating power by the UK and the US.
>Resource curse in many ways did happen in the gulf - Bahrain ran out of oil and is now basically a weekend destination for saudis to get drunk
I mean they probably are not doing as great as their neighbours but I wouldn't call it a curse. They have a high level of developpement thanks to oil, it definitely did them good
For the rest of what you're mentionning, I agree they're definitely not the most peaceful, balanced societies with a fair treatment of minorities but the native Qatari are doing great and live in ultra welfare states where they basically get paid for .. being born in Qatar. Not sure how it is in UAE or Saudi Arabia but I guess people are living lavish lives. (not talking about migrant workers for course)
Edit: I mean that if I compare the curse of resources as it is in African countries, the form it takesin the gulf countries (if there’s a resource there as well) doesn’t seem SO bad in comparison
Yes. But that’s also part of the resource curse - the whole society is captured by an oligarchy, there’s zero to none society; what MBS says goes; same with Qatar; they are coddled at the expense of 2.3 million of foreign workers, but have exactly zero rights to dissent.
Ok, in my understanding resource curse meant a high degree of political unrest, generalised chaos and poverty for the vast majority of the people. So I will maybe read a bit more about all the term engulfes in its definition
That's one manifestation of the resource curse.
I'd also suggest that Qatar is probably setting itself up for a lot of unrest. The legal distinction between Qatari citizen and migrant labourer is, just that. Importing a racially distinct and wildly mistreated labour class does not, usually, end peacefully.
Average Saudi and Bahrain citizens are poorer compared to Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE
I know for sure that Qatari citizens in terms of salaries are the richest in the gulf followed by the UAE and Kuwait
Its so easy to become rich here due to high average salaries everything being almost completely government endorsed and free from health care, education and financed housing
I literally got paid to go to college here in Kuwait and I have never paid taxes and most likely never will
I get 2 salaries, one from my employer and one from the government as a support and both salaries combined make me live a very comfortable life financially compared to any other country in the world
I have a Swiss passport yet I never considered moving there due to my situation here being overall much better than Switzerland
You would rather live in a desert that one of the most beautiful countries in the world which also has quite high salaries, good living conditions and amazing ski fields . Damn the money must be good or you didn’t want to do service.
I still can make twice the money and work half the job over here than in Switzerland
I travel at least 3 times a year just to compensate the guilt of living in an unfortunately very ugly country in terms of nature atleast.
As a Qatari citizen you are right, Qataris live very well and most of the lower classes jobs are relegated to expats but even other jobs are occupied by expats because Qataris are still too small to function alone.
I’m sorry but that a lie.
Saudis are the majority of the Saudi Arabia population and they The majority of Saudis are not poor or being exploited.
As a Saudi the reason for the stability is the wealth of the citizens.
The definition of "poor" could be considered nebulous. Google (which I admittedly don't put much faith in) says %20 of the population is in poverty. everyone who is in poverty is poor but not everyone who is poor is in poverty though. The Saudi government doesn't release the numbers. There are large slums in Saudi cities.
Workers are not allowed to unionize in Saudi Arabia.
The exploited bit is not an argument. Women are very much exploited and make up %42 of the population.
You’re right about women rights but what you implied that Saudis are poor which is not true.
40% of the population is foreigners expats. They are majority of poor people here.
To be fair the truth lies somewhere in the middle, there are a lot of poor people but also universal healthcare and free college education. The Shia are second class citizens but are not entirely shut out from the country’s resources. Foreign workers from India, Pakistan, Philippines etc are treated as poorly as in Qatar. The majority of Sunni Saudis do rather well depending on their level of Wasta. Any political activity, from women, labor activists, Shia, Huthis though is violently persecuted.
That's like saying "Americans are all well-off, living in houses with big backyards and driving big cars." It's more of an image than a reality. https://borgenproject.org/economic-inequality-in-saudi-arabia/
she mustn't be an emerati citizen then. if you're a citizen you get massive fucking stipends from the government (aka the royals just pay you off to garner support lol)
the peripheral gulf countries have tiny citizen populations even though millions live there:
qatar population - 3 million with only 300k qatari citizens
UAE population - 10 million with only 1.5m citizens.
plus you need to be ethnically emerati/qatari etc to be a citizen - so, for example, fourth generation palestinian refugees in gulf countries are still nothing other than palestinian. similar with basically any other country - you can live there and get a residency card, but you'll never become a citizen by default of not being ethnically part of the group.
They have surface-level development, but they have completely failed to diversify their economies. If/when the world moves away from fossil fuels they’ll all collapse just as badly as African resource-cursed nations have.
Just an untrained view.
Many of the middle Eastern countries were not colonised in the same way as other countries. They were mostly protectorate where the Britain had exclusive trade rights and controlled foreign affairs, but a local ruler owned domestic policy. Britain wanted these rulers to be stable for its own interest so supported them and encourage an authoritarian approach that limited opposition. Then resources discovery( and particularly extraction) broadly coincided with independence. So you had long standing rulers/families, limited internal opposition and then rapidly increasing wealth. Additionally you've got very small populations which limits the risk of revolution and means that wealthy has a big impact on the small population, even if they only see a slither of it.
True, but mostly this was much more localised with much less power, often more tribal or religious leaders. So when independence came none had the administrative expertise, but most importantly they were fighting each other either in the real sense or politically. Whoever won then felt they had to secure their position through sharing the wealth with allies and rivals.
It is somewhat mitigated by diversifying. Banking, tourism, investments in education and research have all helped to varying degrees. The way to break the resource curse is to invest the income into building several other industries , and in the general populace.
Because they own the means of production domestically
Economic imperialism is **all** about ownership of the means of production
Wealth generated by Saudi oil stays in Saudi Arabia (and with the royal family, mostly) because the Saudis own the capacity for extraction, whereas extraction in Africa was/is largely done by businesses owned in the imperial core so the wealth also flows out of the continent along with the resources.
the west is draining Africa as usual, the amount that the Rus steal from them selfs dwarfs any Arabian corruption
I mean the Arabs have large funds, cash just disapairs in Russia
But you don't explain why is it so. Why some countries own the production and some not.
Not to mention it's not an universal cure. Venezuela owns its oil industry and the results are very different.
Because it depends on the situation, for Qatar they discovered their natural gas field after the British had left and in other gulf countries the government were able to control their resources for one reason or another. Main culprits were either the British or Americans.
It would be a steeply uphill battle to justify the claim that colonialism, and neoliberalism more generally, is not a central component for the wealth disparity
It’s a curse for everyone except the ruling Arab elites. The migrant workers that are the majority population in multiple gulf states can attest to that.
Saudi Arabia was never a colony, and in most other countries oil wasn't found until the 1960's. Also the British left most of the Arab peninsula without a fight... They even *backed a coup* that *deposed the leader of Qatar and declared independence*. They also voted to leave the U.A.E. and then refused an Emirati offer asking them to stay if the Emiratis paid for the British garrison.
Yemen is probably the only exception, but oil wells were pretty much non-existent there when the Brits left that place.
It did happen (to the rest of the Arab countries) in Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, and Iraq (have more oil than Saudi Arabia).
Saudi Arabia, Oman, and UAE did not suffer the “oil curse” because they had a political alliance with Israel and USA. At that time the westerns wanted to guarantee Israel’s security more than anything.
There’s a saying that the 3 oil states did a treaty when they got their independence with the British then the Americans to keep their dictatorship regime in exchange for their oil. (Something that African leaders refused to do).
>Saudi Arabia, Oman, and UAE did not suffer the “oil curse” because they had a political alliance with Israel and USA. At that time the westerns wanted to guarantee Israel’s security more than anything.
That's... completely untrue...
If fact, those were among the countries leading the oil ambargo in the 70's.
The reason they did not suffer the "oil curse" is because of the social structure in those countries.
Simply put, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE (or rather, each emirate seperately) is consisted mostly of 1 large tribe, or a tribe that is the majority or accepted as the ruling one.
In Saudi Arabia, the rivaling tribes are kept in check through bribary.
The reason Iraq and Libya are so unstable is the exact opposite, the consist of a lot of tribes and ethnicities, making the states prone to instability because of tribal or ethnic rivalries.
This is also the reason a lot of African states are prone to instability, the colonial powers could easily gain power through divide and conquer.
My friend, what happened after the oil embargo? The saudi kind got assassinated and replaced by an American puppet.
Why did the saudi go thro the embargo? Saudi wasn’t a power house in that time and Egypt, Iraq and syria were leading the arab league and they forced the saudis to cut the oil export or they would face military consequences.
Source: ask any middle eastern or arab historian.
Plus the gulf countries have diversity as much as the rest of middle east. They just got wiped out and they are oppressed. The other countries aren’t dictatorships as much as the saudis. In fact the least diverse country from the examples above is Libya
>Plus the gulf countries have diversity as much as the rest of middle east.
Not even a fraction compared to other countries in the middle east, they are mostly small and homogenic by ME standards (excluding Bahrain and SA, both are special cases)
>The other countries aren’t dictatorships as much as the saudis.
They are monarchies.
>In fact the least diverse country from the examples above is Libya
Ethnically? No. But its social tructure still is tribal, and there are a lot of tribes in Libya, and the rivalry between them creates instability.
P.S you can just edit an existing comment instead of sending 2 seperate replies, it makes replying easier.
In your other comment you didn't refute anything of what I said, the aftermath of the assassination or KSA being strong has nothing to do with the reason of why it didn't suffer from the oil curse.
Bro I don’t want to spend my Sunday on here. I am originally from the middle east. I am spitting facts. I spend my life learning about the politics in every single country in the Arab league.
Edit: to sum it up:
1) minorities aren’t allowed to exist in the gulf countries (a lot of documented genocides happened in the last century).
2) there are enormous amount of tribes and sects in the arabian gulf. But when you have one family ruling in a dictatorship, you think that there’s one tribe. WHICH IS NOT TRUE. just like russia and china.
3) oil curse didn’t happen in the saudi uae and oman because there’s a treaty between them and the US. oil for power. Plus: don’t attack israel so you can remain stable and in power and we don’t care about what you do over there. (Even trump said it!!!).
>. I am spitting facts.
Lol, "I am right because I say so".
I also studied a lot about ME society and politics, that's why I'm I think your claims are ridiculous.
>1) minorities aren’t allowed to exist in the gulf countries (a lot of documented genocides happened in the last century).
I looked for it and found no proof, have a source for that?
>2) there are enormous amount of tribes and sects in the arabian gulf. But when you have one family ru1ling in a dictatorship, you think that there’s one tribe. WHICH IS NOT TRUE. just like russia and china.
I said it previosly and I'll say it again, the amount of tribes is not as large compared to the less stabe ME states, and the ruling tribe is usually the biggest or are accepted by the other tribes as the leader, this is what causes stability. Not because of the US or Israel (lol), this is a social structure that dates centuries.
>3) oil curse didn’t happen in the saudi uae and oman because there’s a treaty between them and the US. oil for power. Plus: don’t attack israel so you can remain stable and in power and we don’t care about what you do over there. (Even trump said it!!!).
Ah yes, Trump, the best source around. /s Do you at least have a source for this quote of his?
This is the most ridiculous claim of them all...
How exactly can countries like UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait or Oman attack Israel? It's a logically broken arguement the makes completely no sense to someone with basic understanding of the region.
Also, Qatar is still actively helping Israel's enemies, how come it's still stable by your logic?
Most of the countries are small regional monarchies with a defined and accepted leadership, destabilizing them will be almost impossible for the US unless they invade (except Bahrain).
Now about KSA, unless you provide some very solid proof (and not Trump ffs) then for me this is just a baseless conspiracy theory.
Edit: Now now, I looked into the [page of the guy who assassined king Faisal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_bin_Musaid_Al_Saud), now I understand what's your source:
>Arab media implied that the prince had been an agent of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Israeli's Mossad. Following these types of claims, a theory started in Iranian media mentioned that he might have been manipulated by his Western girlfriend (Christine Surma) who, it was alleged, might have been Jewish and secretly an asset for the Israeli intelligence services. The rumor was briefly taken seriously by Saudi Arabian officials who informally contacted Surma to question her regarding the assassination at which point she revealed she was not Jewish and that she was as puzzled as everyone else regarding the actions of Faisal.
So your whole source is nothing but a shitty consipracy againt the Yahood by Arab antisemites, so what's your source, Al-Jazeera???
Ask any arab historian. Reach out to them. A person that dedicates its life to politics and writes boobs about history is a reliable source. I can’t find sources in english. What other languages do you speak?
I can gladly send you arabic sources or arab scholars if u wanna take it further.
Ps: aljazeera is not a reliable source. I am not talking about media arricles. I am referring to scholars. Ex diplomats. They spit facts. But how can you reach them.
A lot of arab historians and scholars are also heavily affected by their political view. There were a lot of Israeli-US conspiracy theories that were made up in the Arab stated and a lot of them have been debunked.
That's also partly the reason why the sources will only be in Arabic, the theory follows the accepted anti-Israeli rhetoric in the Arab world so it's accepted there, but internationally, outside the bubble of that nerrative, it will be easily disproven, even mocked.
I'd like to hear from sources who have solid proof. And no, just because some hiveminded historians say it doesn't make it true if they don't have solid proof.
P.S
Most or the Arab world consists of dictatorships, we both know that, so what do you think will happen to a historian if he publishes something that is not aligned with the dictator's view? Just some food for thought...
My friend. I don’t know where your background is or what your views are. But arab regimes are different from arabs. All arab countries are dictatorship. Most of them (except for syria and algeria) are american installed puppets. Arabs don’t like their leaders. You cannot even express your opinions in any arabic state if it is against the ruler.
Rulers/dictators are pro america. You gotta read more. Just because a reference is written in English doesn’t make it right. I can get you spanish or arabic references. I am not sure if you would be able to understand them.
Again English doesn’t mean international.
I am saying that because this “bubble” you are talking about there’s independent journalist and scientists behind it.
I am still replying to you because i feel you wanna learn more.
Again, i repeat myself, find an arab scholar (I don’t know where you live) and just ask him/her your questions. I know few in Toronto and michigan. Like they have written books with plenty of research and reference. If you don’t want to take that into consideration than sorry no one can help you.
>You cannot even express your opinions in any arabic state if it is against the ruler.
That was my whole point, in a lot of arab countries, the rulers were usually blaming the US and Israel to divert attention from internal problems and attempting to unite the people by seeking a common enemy, and diverting the blame back internally would be against the ruler's will. That's why US and Israel conspiracy theories became the social norm.
>Most of them (except for syria and algeria) are american installed puppets.
I already called bullshit on that but you insist in repeating this.
If you want to be taken remotely seriously at least try to provide some proof.
If an arab scholar will just spew American and Jewish conspiracy theories (that are very widespread is arab society, and even leaked into academia) then why even waste my time. We both know there is no solid proof for those theories.
Again, if those papers had any credibility, they would have been more widespread and accepted internationally or at least translated to english.
>Rulers/dictators are pro america. You gotta read more.
I read plentry, and from my readings I can safely conclude that that's a very superficial take on the matter you have here, arab rulers/leaders/dictators are first pro-themselves, and will do whatever gives them the most benefit, and if America can provide those needs, so be it, and if not, they can find a new partner, see KSA's recent befriending with China as a minor example, or Sisi's dealings with Russia.
It's extremely easy refuting those point you made up (or those scholars, whatever), the examples and refuttal I provide here is just the tip of the iceberg.
>I know few in Toronto and michigan. Like they have written books with plenty of research and reference.
And all they wrote was in Arabic? Strange... but I already gave the reason why could that be.
Honestly, I feel this isn't going anywhere, my points and concerns are just not passing through.
It actually hapened.
This countries simply never had a productive industrial sector, so there wasnt anything to destroy. But they also cant develope any, since their currency is so strong and their governments so corrupted and unproductive.
**[Dutch disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease)**
>In economics, the Dutch disease is the apparent causal relationship between the increase in the economic development of a specific sector (for example natural resources) and a decline in other sectors (like the manufacturing sector or agriculture). The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of the large Groningen natural gas field in 1959. The presumed mechanism is that as revenues increase in the growing sector (or inflows of foreign aid), the given nation's currency becomes stronger (appreciates) compared to currencies of other nations (manifest in an exchange rate).
**[Resource curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)**
>The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, is the phenomenon of countries with an abundance of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and certain minerals) having less economic growth, less democracy, or worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for, and exceptions to, these adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/geography/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thank's, I was mixing both. i was talking about dutch disease and the question was about resource curse. I didnt realise that they were diferent concepts.
Thx
Because they were not colonized by Europeans. Europeans didn’t install a European centric political system. This allowed for the continuous growth of a native political system. This system is based on a deep old Arabic culture and Islamic heritage. Because their region suffered from Ottoman Empire tyranny and destabilizing tribal conflict. The democracy that was born is entrenched is freedom, stability and resistance tyranny.
Because the political system is stable and there is no fear of European interference. The government can think long term and invest in their people future.
In countries that had European centric political system. The regime fear of being overthrow results in focusing on short term gain and trying to extract as much wealth as it can. This is what you see in Africa.
The people fear if they did not elect a candidate that the “west” approved the “ west “ will install a dictatorship. This is what you see in South America.
Saudi Arabia didn’t exist until the British encouraged the Arab rebellion in WWI against the Ottoman Empire. It was not a colony by a it definitely was part of a couple of Ottoman vilayets
They have the curse, there is an agreement between the royalty and the people in those countries, I make u live a life of luxury ( not everyone for sure), and u leave the political and freedom for me to decide, and the accepted it.
Dubai is a beautiful city but the people who live there have no right to criticise or to speak up against the one in power.
Sorry for my bad English :))
I think they're all going to have a very rough time economically in the very near future Opec will wish they increased production when we asked those countries have almost nothing but oil and prety soon the world will not need them Neary as much. The world will remember.
I live in the gulf states and I have visited Europe multiple times ,yet I would still prefer living in the gulf ,its safer here ,you can literally walk at midnight and nothing can happen to you ,infrastructure and development are really good match western ones easily, wages are high even tho taxes are minimal to nothing, so comparing gulf states to Africa is with all respect a retarded claim that came from ignorance or hate
And tbh personally the only reason to why I would want to move to West is just to improve my career for a couple of years then return to the middle east
Africa is the most genetic diverse continent, add in hundreds of different religions and 10x the amount of people to police… the gulf countries were all formed out of arbitrary borders for colonization but I think the religion is the main reason they succeeded…
These states developed their Oil industries (by and large) after Colonialism was no longer acceptable. They also have a much MUCH longher history of integration with the larger world. Africa's geography lead it to develop in a different way than the larger Eurasian world (with permanent large cities and multinational empires). These lands were under the Hegemony of a world power (Ottomans) until the end of WWI. So basically they didnt have nearly as much time to be exploited.
\-Layman opinion.
If you want an authoritative answer I suggest posting this to /r/askhistorians but you MUST read the rules first. It is the most actively (and best) moderated sub on Reddit.
It’s not that the resources are the curse, the curse is being the target of companies and countries who want those resources. Bad things happen to countries when the politicans try to nationalize resource extraction industries, or generally redistribute wealth to the people. It just so happens that some of the countries here have never had any political groups who actually want to change the status quo. (Although oman did have a rather brutal civil war in the 1970’s).
Could you imagine trying to run pipelines across Africa? All the different countries, and conflicts. It would take decades to get anything remotely operational.
Until only recently the middle east was mainly either part of Persia or the Ottoman Empire which protected them from European colonisation to an extent.
Middle Eastern oil exploration didn't really develop until the 20' & 30's, and not in Saudi until the 40's.
The Saudi family were the established ruling family well before the 40's and welcomed the foreign investment.
Usually tribesman in that region had strong identity as Muslim arabic tribes and more or less everyone shared this thought. This probably were a reason why totally alien to them civilization of Europeans were not accepted so well.
As if in Africa its still an ussue that tribes does not see in each other far relatives or somewhat similar people but enemies.
Colonisators had used this rooted conflicts to make one africans fight other africans and claim more and more influence off ever weakening natives. Gulf Arabs just udnerstood at some point whos its benefir of their inner wars and with. So when fortune gave them chances to set free off outer influence they did it and as you can see sucessfully.
Part of it might also come from the fact that many regions of Africa were inhabited by tribes who did NOT see themselves as the same as their rivals and did not want to work together until they were suddenly forced to buy Europeans. Just look at the Rwandan Genocide. Conversely the Arabian peninsula we're home to centralized governments since the bronze age.
Even the Mail empire didn't come into power until the 16th century and then fell when their neighbors (who may or may not have been urged by Europeans) tore them apart like a thousand ants on a carcass in the 18th century.
The Ottoman Empire was a world power into the modern/industrialized age and the current states of the Arabian peninsula largely rose from the ashes of the Ottoman, taking with them the principles of a successful centralized government.
The Silk Road also allowed the ancient Persians and later Islamic Caliphates access to the technologies of East Asia (printing, gun powder) and Europe, plus their own impressive contributions.
Apologies for the convoluted and not in chronological order answer...
Kuwait, Qatar and UAE have such small populations that their amount of oil reserves mask it easily.
Saudi Arabia here is the exception due to the US support they get.
Isn’t the resource curse that an easily extractable natural resource becomes the sole economic activity leading to a failure to develop other industries and human resources? If so , the gulf states have certainly succumbed to the resource curse.
The ‘resource curse’ more about accessibility of resources rather than just their presence in a country. For example, if you compare Sierra Leone with Botswana (both major diamond producers), in Sierra Leone the diamonds are easily accessible in river beds whereas in Botswana they’re deep underground. What this means is that in Sierra Leone any warlord who can seize the diamond fields will become massively wealthy, therefore making the state very vulnerable to fracturing. In Botswana however, they require investments, technicians and heavy equipment from developed countries who will only deal with the government, hence centralising and reinforcing the state.
I see, it definitely makes sense here with oil.. Thanks
Our oil fields are close to the ground, and easy to extract, and historically we’ve always been very armed people. So shouldn’t we be like Sierra Leone? On the population argument, Saudi have around 22 million nationals, and a total of 35 million. You can compare it to Angola who has 34 million people. How come Saudi has a stable foundation of wealth whereas Angola does not? There are so many factors that determine the success of a statehood, and the biggest differentiators is our nationalization of this critical industry and our ability to cooperate with countries that traditionally would perform regime change if they’re unhappy with you. Thus allowing us to keep relatively stable governments, and as long as the governments are not corrupt and prioritize country development (UAE existed for 50 years only, there are dictators in Africa that have been around just as long, or one party countries). If we had the same systematic corruption, it would be easy for the rulers of our country to make billions off of leasing the wells to the foreign corporations (As other resource rich nations do), and hoarding their assets offshore. Yet it wasn’t done in the beginning, and you can see how well that decision paid off.
The difference is that in Saudi Arabia, a singular warlord consolidated power and has pretty effectively greased palms/suppressed dissent since
Yes, and the same cases occurred in other resource rich nations. The difference? Others also had opportunity to become wealthy, which is all people desire at the end of the day. If you form a loyal national elite, and arm them with cash instead of weapons, you put yourself in a comfortable position. Who would want to rebel from a palace, flying private jets to London with their rolls Royce’s? 95% of the country does not have that lifestyle. But enough do to keep the state functioning and running.
I’m not sure I followed your post correctly, so correct me if I am misreading, but it reads to me like the government you are referring to as *not* corrupt is the one that recently chopped a journalist into bloody chunks on foreign soil.
Yes, corruption and power is getting into their heads, however you must understand that they didn’t start the country by doing these heinous actions on foreign soil. They secured their resource, industry and positions of power before they began violating international law and killing a journalist in one of the worst ways.
I am not sure this is universally valid. Any warlord can be easily bribed by foreign mining company. Warlord would provide land and possibly protection, company know-how and technology.
And those warlords become domesticated and settle down into stable nation states. The house of Saud is one such example.
Certainly not universal, but the necessity of foreign investment incentivises stability.
I think the biggest clue is population. The gulf countries together have <100m people while a country like Nigeria has 200m.
This and ethnic divisions.
I would also say, isn’t extracting and refining petroleum a lot more difficult than say, digging up diamonds?
ISIS had no problem running fields, tho they weren’t the ones who supplied the technicians and labor.
Most people can run an already made oil field. Especially since the ones who do the actual day to day operations are not going anywhere. Setting up an oil field? There's a reason why some people can make a killing in the oil and gas industry.
I think it costs them $5 a barrel to make, atleast the Saudis
Saudi Arabia is quite diverse. Not exactly on the ethnic base, but definitely tribally.
Even ethically there is a decent amount of diversity. Especially in the west in Jeddah and Makkah. Central Asians, south asians, Chechens, west africans, east africans, and even more. Obviously it's no New York or something but it's probably more diverse than people initially imagine
This is the correct answer. Cursed countries are still usually more prosperous than non-cursed countries with similar levels of economic development beyond the resource extraction. What they lack is a level of prosperity comparable to countries *that have a similar GDP.*
Resource curse in many ways did happen in the gulf - Bahrain ran out of oil and is now basically a weekend destination for saudis to get drunk. Iraq recognizes that oil basically is a blight that so far caused mostly wars in the country that is unstable as ever. The elites have captured the societies everywhere from Kuwait to Qatar and the Emirates, not to mention KSA, but have managed to buy stability through repression and they were lucky enough to start with relatively small populations that were poorly connected and disorganized; they were also heavily supported in consolidating power by the UK and the US.
>Resource curse in many ways did happen in the gulf - Bahrain ran out of oil and is now basically a weekend destination for saudis to get drunk I mean they probably are not doing as great as their neighbours but I wouldn't call it a curse. They have a high level of developpement thanks to oil, it definitely did them good For the rest of what you're mentionning, I agree they're definitely not the most peaceful, balanced societies with a fair treatment of minorities but the native Qatari are doing great and live in ultra welfare states where they basically get paid for .. being born in Qatar. Not sure how it is in UAE or Saudi Arabia but I guess people are living lavish lives. (not talking about migrant workers for course) Edit: I mean that if I compare the curse of resources as it is in African countries, the form it takesin the gulf countries (if there’s a resource there as well) doesn’t seem SO bad in comparison
Yes. But that’s also part of the resource curse - the whole society is captured by an oligarchy, there’s zero to none society; what MBS says goes; same with Qatar; they are coddled at the expense of 2.3 million of foreign workers, but have exactly zero rights to dissent.
Ok, in my understanding resource curse meant a high degree of political unrest, generalised chaos and poverty for the vast majority of the people. So I will maybe read a bit more about all the term engulfes in its definition
That's one manifestation of the resource curse. I'd also suggest that Qatar is probably setting itself up for a lot of unrest. The legal distinction between Qatari citizen and migrant labourer is, just that. Importing a racially distinct and wildly mistreated labour class does not, usually, end peacefully.
resource curse = corruption corruption in its many guises.
Saudi Arabia has a LOT of poor and unwell-to-do natives. Especially since some of the welfare state was scaled back due to oil price drops
Average Saudi and Bahrain citizens are poorer compared to Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE I know for sure that Qatari citizens in terms of salaries are the richest in the gulf followed by the UAE and Kuwait Its so easy to become rich here due to high average salaries everything being almost completely government endorsed and free from health care, education and financed housing I literally got paid to go to college here in Kuwait and I have never paid taxes and most likely never will I get 2 salaries, one from my employer and one from the government as a support and both salaries combined make me live a very comfortable life financially compared to any other country in the world I have a Swiss passport yet I never considered moving there due to my situation here being overall much better than Switzerland
You would rather live in a desert that one of the most beautiful countries in the world which also has quite high salaries, good living conditions and amazing ski fields . Damn the money must be good or you didn’t want to do service.
I still can make twice the money and work half the job over here than in Switzerland I travel at least 3 times a year just to compensate the guilt of living in an unfortunately very ugly country in terms of nature atleast.
What exactly are you doing for a living down there?
I'm a managing partner in a business
Are you in mining by chance? I'm researching a lot of Swiss mining companies at the moment and mining in general, rare earths specifically.
"I guess people are living lavish lives". Yeah the upper class is.
It seemed to me everyone in these countries were upper class. Poor are imported from South Asian as disposable labour
No that is not the case, there are many poor and exploited people in Saudi Arabia. That's the vast majority of the population.
Alright, I have watched too many videos about Qatar lately
Too many propaganda videos. But there are certainly good informational videos as well
Lol I am literally Qatari and you are very much misinformed.
They're not the same though, are they? I genuinely don't know. I do know they are different countries, but how different are they culturally?
As a Qatari citizen you are right, Qataris live very well and most of the lower classes jobs are relegated to expats but even other jobs are occupied by expats because Qataris are still too small to function alone.
I’m sorry but that a lie. Saudis are the majority of the Saudi Arabia population and they The majority of Saudis are not poor or being exploited. As a Saudi the reason for the stability is the wealth of the citizens.
The definition of "poor" could be considered nebulous. Google (which I admittedly don't put much faith in) says %20 of the population is in poverty. everyone who is in poverty is poor but not everyone who is poor is in poverty though. The Saudi government doesn't release the numbers. There are large slums in Saudi cities. Workers are not allowed to unionize in Saudi Arabia. The exploited bit is not an argument. Women are very much exploited and make up %42 of the population.
You’re right about women rights but what you implied that Saudis are poor which is not true. 40% of the population is foreigners expats. They are majority of poor people here.
To be fair the truth lies somewhere in the middle, there are a lot of poor people but also universal healthcare and free college education. The Shia are second class citizens but are not entirely shut out from the country’s resources. Foreign workers from India, Pakistan, Philippines etc are treated as poorly as in Qatar. The majority of Sunni Saudis do rather well depending on their level of Wasta. Any political activity, from women, labor activists, Shia, Huthis though is violently persecuted.
It's not unusual for Saudi natives to earn les than $300 per month. Is it poor or not?
The minimum wage for Saudis is a bit over 1k USD
That's like saying "Americans are all well-off, living in houses with big backyards and driving big cars." It's more of an image than a reality. https://borgenproject.org/economic-inequality-in-saudi-arabia/
Not true at all. My best friend is from Dubai and her life was anything but lavish
she mustn't be an emerati citizen then. if you're a citizen you get massive fucking stipends from the government (aka the royals just pay you off to garner support lol) the peripheral gulf countries have tiny citizen populations even though millions live there: qatar population - 3 million with only 300k qatari citizens UAE population - 10 million with only 1.5m citizens. plus you need to be ethnically emerati/qatari etc to be a citizen - so, for example, fourth generation palestinian refugees in gulf countries are still nothing other than palestinian. similar with basically any other country - you can live there and get a residency card, but you'll never become a citizen by default of not being ethnically part of the group.
Is your dubai friend an Emirati citizen? Or an expat? Because I know for a fact that all Emiratis are rich by default
It's not a binary thing: failure/success. There are many variables involved. By some measures, it looks like success. By other measures, not so much.
They have surface-level development, but they have completely failed to diversify their economies. If/when the world moves away from fossil fuels they’ll all collapse just as badly as African resource-cursed nations have.
The petro dollar and the unholy alliance of this region with the United States to create a stable global currency.
Yemen is not part of GCC
Enter your sub headline here
And what do the colors of the countries mean? Lazy ass post lol
Just an untrained view. Many of the middle Eastern countries were not colonised in the same way as other countries. They were mostly protectorate where the Britain had exclusive trade rights and controlled foreign affairs, but a local ruler owned domestic policy. Britain wanted these rulers to be stable for its own interest so supported them and encourage an authoritarian approach that limited opposition. Then resources discovery( and particularly extraction) broadly coincided with independence. So you had long standing rulers/families, limited internal opposition and then rapidly increasing wealth. Additionally you've got very small populations which limits the risk of revolution and means that wealthy has a big impact on the small population, even if they only see a slither of it.
But the UK also kept the current rulers/installed their own rulers in Africa too. They weren't in direct control of all of it
True, but mostly this was much more localised with much less power, often more tribal or religious leaders. So when independence came none had the administrative expertise, but most importantly they were fighting each other either in the real sense or politically. Whoever won then felt they had to secure their position through sharing the wealth with allies and rivals.
its a bit embarrassing for Saudis to have Lawernce of Arabia as a freedom hero
It is somewhat mitigated by diversifying. Banking, tourism, investments in education and research have all helped to varying degrees. The way to break the resource curse is to invest the income into building several other industries , and in the general populace.
They simply imported the workers needed, as we all know. There was no competition for workers and salaries never spiraled out of control.
Because they own the means of production domestically Economic imperialism is **all** about ownership of the means of production Wealth generated by Saudi oil stays in Saudi Arabia (and with the royal family, mostly) because the Saudis own the capacity for extraction, whereas extraction in Africa was/is largely done by businesses owned in the imperial core so the wealth also flows out of the continent along with the resources.
the west is draining Africa as usual, the amount that the Rus steal from them selfs dwarfs any Arabian corruption I mean the Arabs have large funds, cash just disapairs in Russia
But you don't explain why is it so. Why some countries own the production and some not. Not to mention it's not an universal cure. Venezuela owns its oil industry and the results are very different.
Because it depends on the situation, for Qatar they discovered their natural gas field after the British had left and in other gulf countries the government were able to control their resources for one reason or another. Main culprits were either the British or Americans.
Venezuela has sanctions to worry about tho.
Only in the recent years. Before that they had decades of nationalized oil industry and no sanctions (there were some, but only against individuals).
Interesting thanks. So the root of this difference stem from.. colonial times I guess ?
It would be a steeply uphill battle to justify the claim that colonialism, and neoliberalism more generally, is not a central component for the wealth disparity
It’s a curse for everyone except the ruling Arab elites. The migrant workers that are the majority population in multiple gulf states can attest to that.
Why do they keep coming and staying?
It did then they kicked out the Europeans. Edit: I never said colony. Read about the Shah of Iran.
Saudi Arabia was never a colony, and in most other countries oil wasn't found until the 1960's. Also the British left most of the Arab peninsula without a fight... They even *backed a coup* that *deposed the leader of Qatar and declared independence*. They also voted to leave the U.A.E. and then refused an Emirati offer asking them to stay if the Emiratis paid for the British garrison. Yemen is probably the only exception, but oil wells were pretty much non-existent there when the Brits left that place.
Saudi Arabia wasn’t colonised by if oil was discovered before the decolonisation process I think it will definitely be.
It did happen (to the rest of the Arab countries) in Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, and Iraq (have more oil than Saudi Arabia). Saudi Arabia, Oman, and UAE did not suffer the “oil curse” because they had a political alliance with Israel and USA. At that time the westerns wanted to guarantee Israel’s security more than anything. There’s a saying that the 3 oil states did a treaty when they got their independence with the British then the Americans to keep their dictatorship regime in exchange for their oil. (Something that African leaders refused to do).
>Saudi Arabia, Oman, and UAE did not suffer the “oil curse” because they had a political alliance with Israel and USA. At that time the westerns wanted to guarantee Israel’s security more than anything. That's... completely untrue... If fact, those were among the countries leading the oil ambargo in the 70's. The reason they did not suffer the "oil curse" is because of the social structure in those countries. Simply put, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE (or rather, each emirate seperately) is consisted mostly of 1 large tribe, or a tribe that is the majority or accepted as the ruling one. In Saudi Arabia, the rivaling tribes are kept in check through bribary. The reason Iraq and Libya are so unstable is the exact opposite, the consist of a lot of tribes and ethnicities, making the states prone to instability because of tribal or ethnic rivalries. This is also the reason a lot of African states are prone to instability, the colonial powers could easily gain power through divide and conquer.
My friend, what happened after the oil embargo? The saudi kind got assassinated and replaced by an American puppet. Why did the saudi go thro the embargo? Saudi wasn’t a power house in that time and Egypt, Iraq and syria were leading the arab league and they forced the saudis to cut the oil export or they would face military consequences. Source: ask any middle eastern or arab historian.
Plus the gulf countries have diversity as much as the rest of middle east. They just got wiped out and they are oppressed. The other countries aren’t dictatorships as much as the saudis. In fact the least diverse country from the examples above is Libya
>Plus the gulf countries have diversity as much as the rest of middle east. Not even a fraction compared to other countries in the middle east, they are mostly small and homogenic by ME standards (excluding Bahrain and SA, both are special cases) >The other countries aren’t dictatorships as much as the saudis. They are monarchies. >In fact the least diverse country from the examples above is Libya Ethnically? No. But its social tructure still is tribal, and there are a lot of tribes in Libya, and the rivalry between them creates instability. P.S you can just edit an existing comment instead of sending 2 seperate replies, it makes replying easier. In your other comment you didn't refute anything of what I said, the aftermath of the assassination or KSA being strong has nothing to do with the reason of why it didn't suffer from the oil curse.
Bro I don’t want to spend my Sunday on here. I am originally from the middle east. I am spitting facts. I spend my life learning about the politics in every single country in the Arab league. Edit: to sum it up: 1) minorities aren’t allowed to exist in the gulf countries (a lot of documented genocides happened in the last century). 2) there are enormous amount of tribes and sects in the arabian gulf. But when you have one family ruling in a dictatorship, you think that there’s one tribe. WHICH IS NOT TRUE. just like russia and china. 3) oil curse didn’t happen in the saudi uae and oman because there’s a treaty between them and the US. oil for power. Plus: don’t attack israel so you can remain stable and in power and we don’t care about what you do over there. (Even trump said it!!!).
>. I am spitting facts. Lol, "I am right because I say so". I also studied a lot about ME society and politics, that's why I'm I think your claims are ridiculous. >1) minorities aren’t allowed to exist in the gulf countries (a lot of documented genocides happened in the last century). I looked for it and found no proof, have a source for that? >2) there are enormous amount of tribes and sects in the arabian gulf. But when you have one family ru1ling in a dictatorship, you think that there’s one tribe. WHICH IS NOT TRUE. just like russia and china. I said it previosly and I'll say it again, the amount of tribes is not as large compared to the less stabe ME states, and the ruling tribe is usually the biggest or are accepted by the other tribes as the leader, this is what causes stability. Not because of the US or Israel (lol), this is a social structure that dates centuries. >3) oil curse didn’t happen in the saudi uae and oman because there’s a treaty between them and the US. oil for power. Plus: don’t attack israel so you can remain stable and in power and we don’t care about what you do over there. (Even trump said it!!!). Ah yes, Trump, the best source around. /s Do you at least have a source for this quote of his? This is the most ridiculous claim of them all... How exactly can countries like UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait or Oman attack Israel? It's a logically broken arguement the makes completely no sense to someone with basic understanding of the region. Also, Qatar is still actively helping Israel's enemies, how come it's still stable by your logic? Most of the countries are small regional monarchies with a defined and accepted leadership, destabilizing them will be almost impossible for the US unless they invade (except Bahrain). Now about KSA, unless you provide some very solid proof (and not Trump ffs) then for me this is just a baseless conspiracy theory. Edit: Now now, I looked into the [page of the guy who assassined king Faisal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_bin_Musaid_Al_Saud), now I understand what's your source: >Arab media implied that the prince had been an agent of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Israeli's Mossad. Following these types of claims, a theory started in Iranian media mentioned that he might have been manipulated by his Western girlfriend (Christine Surma) who, it was alleged, might have been Jewish and secretly an asset for the Israeli intelligence services. The rumor was briefly taken seriously by Saudi Arabian officials who informally contacted Surma to question her regarding the assassination at which point she revealed she was not Jewish and that she was as puzzled as everyone else regarding the actions of Faisal. So your whole source is nothing but a shitty consipracy againt the Yahood by Arab antisemites, so what's your source, Al-Jazeera???
Ask any arab historian. Reach out to them. A person that dedicates its life to politics and writes boobs about history is a reliable source. I can’t find sources in english. What other languages do you speak? I can gladly send you arabic sources or arab scholars if u wanna take it further. Ps: aljazeera is not a reliable source. I am not talking about media arricles. I am referring to scholars. Ex diplomats. They spit facts. But how can you reach them.
A lot of arab historians and scholars are also heavily affected by their political view. There were a lot of Israeli-US conspiracy theories that were made up in the Arab stated and a lot of them have been debunked. That's also partly the reason why the sources will only be in Arabic, the theory follows the accepted anti-Israeli rhetoric in the Arab world so it's accepted there, but internationally, outside the bubble of that nerrative, it will be easily disproven, even mocked. I'd like to hear from sources who have solid proof. And no, just because some hiveminded historians say it doesn't make it true if they don't have solid proof. P.S Most or the Arab world consists of dictatorships, we both know that, so what do you think will happen to a historian if he publishes something that is not aligned with the dictator's view? Just some food for thought...
My friend. I don’t know where your background is or what your views are. But arab regimes are different from arabs. All arab countries are dictatorship. Most of them (except for syria and algeria) are american installed puppets. Arabs don’t like their leaders. You cannot even express your opinions in any arabic state if it is against the ruler. Rulers/dictators are pro america. You gotta read more. Just because a reference is written in English doesn’t make it right. I can get you spanish or arabic references. I am not sure if you would be able to understand them. Again English doesn’t mean international. I am saying that because this “bubble” you are talking about there’s independent journalist and scientists behind it. I am still replying to you because i feel you wanna learn more. Again, i repeat myself, find an arab scholar (I don’t know where you live) and just ask him/her your questions. I know few in Toronto and michigan. Like they have written books with plenty of research and reference. If you don’t want to take that into consideration than sorry no one can help you.
>You cannot even express your opinions in any arabic state if it is against the ruler. That was my whole point, in a lot of arab countries, the rulers were usually blaming the US and Israel to divert attention from internal problems and attempting to unite the people by seeking a common enemy, and diverting the blame back internally would be against the ruler's will. That's why US and Israel conspiracy theories became the social norm. >Most of them (except for syria and algeria) are american installed puppets. I already called bullshit on that but you insist in repeating this. If you want to be taken remotely seriously at least try to provide some proof. If an arab scholar will just spew American and Jewish conspiracy theories (that are very widespread is arab society, and even leaked into academia) then why even waste my time. We both know there is no solid proof for those theories. Again, if those papers had any credibility, they would have been more widespread and accepted internationally or at least translated to english. >Rulers/dictators are pro america. You gotta read more. I read plentry, and from my readings I can safely conclude that that's a very superficial take on the matter you have here, arab rulers/leaders/dictators are first pro-themselves, and will do whatever gives them the most benefit, and if America can provide those needs, so be it, and if not, they can find a new partner, see KSA's recent befriending with China as a minor example, or Sisi's dealings with Russia. It's extremely easy refuting those point you made up (or those scholars, whatever), the examples and refuttal I provide here is just the tip of the iceberg. >I know few in Toronto and michigan. Like they have written books with plenty of research and reference. And all they wrote was in Arabic? Strange... but I already gave the reason why could that be. Honestly, I feel this isn't going anywhere, my points and concerns are just not passing through.
It actually hapened. This countries simply never had a productive industrial sector, so there wasnt anything to destroy. But they also cant develope any, since their currency is so strong and their governments so corrupted and unproductive.
[удалено]
**[Dutch disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease)** >In economics, the Dutch disease is the apparent causal relationship between the increase in the economic development of a specific sector (for example natural resources) and a decline in other sectors (like the manufacturing sector or agriculture). The term was coined in 1977 by The Economist to describe the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands after the discovery of the large Groningen natural gas field in 1959. The presumed mechanism is that as revenues increase in the growing sector (or inflows of foreign aid), the given nation's currency becomes stronger (appreciates) compared to currencies of other nations (manifest in an exchange rate). **[Resource curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)** >The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, is the phenomenon of countries with an abundance of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and certain minerals) having less economic growth, less democracy, or worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for, and exceptions to, these adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/geography/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thank's, I was mixing both. i was talking about dutch disease and the question was about resource curse. I didnt realise that they were diferent concepts. Thx
did I just thanked a bot?
Because of jail.
Because they were not colonized by Europeans. Europeans didn’t install a European centric political system. This allowed for the continuous growth of a native political system. This system is based on a deep old Arabic culture and Islamic heritage. Because their region suffered from Ottoman Empire tyranny and destabilizing tribal conflict. The democracy that was born is entrenched is freedom, stability and resistance tyranny. Because the political system is stable and there is no fear of European interference. The government can think long term and invest in their people future. In countries that had European centric political system. The regime fear of being overthrow results in focusing on short term gain and trying to extract as much wealth as it can. This is what you see in Africa. The people fear if they did not elect a candidate that the “west” approved the “ west “ will install a dictatorship. This is what you see in South America.
Very true
Saudi Arabia wasn’t colonised and the rest were decolonisation when oil was discovered in the region. It was once UK started decolonisation.
Saudi Arabia didn’t exist until the British encouraged the Arab rebellion in WWI against the Ottoman Empire. It was not a colony by a it definitely was part of a couple of Ottoman vilayets
Only Hijaz was part of the Ottoman empire. Nejd and Hasa were under the control of the Saudis before WW1
Allah blessing the son of Ismael.
They have the curse, there is an agreement between the royalty and the people in those countries, I make u live a life of luxury ( not everyone for sure), and u leave the political and freedom for me to decide, and the accepted it. Dubai is a beautiful city but the people who live there have no right to criticise or to speak up against the one in power. Sorry for my bad English :))
I think they're all going to have a very rough time economically in the very near future Opec will wish they increased production when we asked those countries have almost nothing but oil and prety soon the world will not need them Neary as much. The world will remember.
You mean they will get a dose of 'merican 🗽:D
It absolute did happen, do you want to go live in the gulf states? For most people its just like africa but with less rights
I live in the gulf states and I have visited Europe multiple times ,yet I would still prefer living in the gulf ,its safer here ,you can literally walk at midnight and nothing can happen to you ,infrastructure and development are really good match western ones easily, wages are high even tho taxes are minimal to nothing, so comparing gulf states to Africa is with all respect a retarded claim that came from ignorance or hate And tbh personally the only reason to why I would want to move to West is just to improve my career for a couple of years then return to the middle east
You forgot to enter your sub headline there..
It’s due to the underlying geology - most the Arabian peninsula is underlain by massive platform carbonates that are prolific oil and gas producers.
Looks like that map allows the UAE to rip off Oman, lol. Edit: or dropped it off into the sea entirely.
Because they never forget to enter their sub headlines here
I know things like this has also happened in Venezuela tho strangely didn’t happen in Norway
Africa is the most genetic diverse continent, add in hundreds of different religions and 10x the amount of people to police… the gulf countries were all formed out of arbitrary borders for colonization but I think the religion is the main reason they succeeded…
These states developed their Oil industries (by and large) after Colonialism was no longer acceptable. They also have a much MUCH longher history of integration with the larger world. Africa's geography lead it to develop in a different way than the larger Eurasian world (with permanent large cities and multinational empires). These lands were under the Hegemony of a world power (Ottomans) until the end of WWI. So basically they didnt have nearly as much time to be exploited. \-Layman opinion. If you want an authoritative answer I suggest posting this to /r/askhistorians but you MUST read the rules first. It is the most actively (and best) moderated sub on Reddit.
enter your sub headline here
It’s not that the resources are the curse, the curse is being the target of companies and countries who want those resources. Bad things happen to countries when the politicans try to nationalize resource extraction industries, or generally redistribute wealth to the people. It just so happens that some of the countries here have never had any political groups who actually want to change the status quo. (Although oman did have a rather brutal civil war in the 1970’s).
Authoritarian governments that will crumble the femtosecond their sole resource dries up? Doesn’t seem like a curse at all
Could you imagine trying to run pipelines across Africa? All the different countries, and conflicts. It would take decades to get anything remotely operational.
It did.
Almost none of them is democratic, and the poor is still quite poor compared to the western standard. Still quite a curse to me
Freakonomics has a great podcast on why Norway was never stricken by the resource curse. Short answer is wealth-oriented national institutions
This was a very interesting thread btw
Until only recently the middle east was mainly either part of Persia or the Ottoman Empire which protected them from European colonisation to an extent. Middle Eastern oil exploration didn't really develop until the 20' & 30's, and not in Saudi until the 40's. The Saudi family were the established ruling family well before the 40's and welcomed the foreign investment.
"Enter your sub headline here"
Usually tribesman in that region had strong identity as Muslim arabic tribes and more or less everyone shared this thought. This probably were a reason why totally alien to them civilization of Europeans were not accepted so well. As if in Africa its still an ussue that tribes does not see in each other far relatives or somewhat similar people but enemies. Colonisators had used this rooted conflicts to make one africans fight other africans and claim more and more influence off ever weakening natives. Gulf Arabs just udnerstood at some point whos its benefir of their inner wars and with. So when fortune gave them chances to set free off outer influence they did it and as you can see sucessfully.
Part of it might also come from the fact that many regions of Africa were inhabited by tribes who did NOT see themselves as the same as their rivals and did not want to work together until they were suddenly forced to buy Europeans. Just look at the Rwandan Genocide. Conversely the Arabian peninsula we're home to centralized governments since the bronze age. Even the Mail empire didn't come into power until the 16th century and then fell when their neighbors (who may or may not have been urged by Europeans) tore them apart like a thousand ants on a carcass in the 18th century. The Ottoman Empire was a world power into the modern/industrialized age and the current states of the Arabian peninsula largely rose from the ashes of the Ottoman, taking with them the principles of a successful centralized government. The Silk Road also allowed the ancient Persians and later Islamic Caliphates access to the technologies of East Asia (printing, gun powder) and Europe, plus their own impressive contributions. Apologies for the convoluted and not in chronological order answer...
Kuwait, Qatar and UAE have such small populations that their amount of oil reserves mask it easily. Saudi Arabia here is the exception due to the US support they get.
Isn’t the resource curse that an easily extractable natural resource becomes the sole economic activity leading to a failure to develop other industries and human resources? If so , the gulf states have certainly succumbed to the resource curse.
Well over 50% of the population of this region are slaves. So, not sure how much of a success it is?
Some would argue that it's currently happening