By Tom Fowdy
This week, it was announced that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has announced its intention to leave the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or best known as OPEC. OPEC, founded in 1960, consists of 12 core members and 12 "plus" members who together constitute 38% of global oil production, as well as 78% of its proven reserves. The group's collective goal is to enforce their national interests by affirming national sovereignty over oil production and maximising their profits by collectively coordinating output.
In 1973, OPEC famously imposed an oil embargo over the Yom Kippur War between Egypt and Israel, causing shortages and an energy crisis in the Western world. Dominated by the wealthy Gulf States, OPEC subsequently represents a form of multilateralism and intergovernmentalism, and an important bulwark against Western attempts to dominate the global oil supply, even if its members have been periodically have been subjected to regime changes by the United States, which of course opposes such an organisation.
Given the importance of the OPEC group, why is the UAE willing to quit? The answer is because the Middle East has been struck by an oil output crisis so severe, owing to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, that Abu Dhabi believes there is more money to be made by going independent and maximising its own production than holding back. However, behind it all, lies a broader and more geopolitical reason: That is, the United States operates a foreign policy of which is actively devoted to tearing up "multilateralism" and asserting its own national interests through both unilateral and bilateral means.
The United States, as a general rule of its foreign policy, does not like multilateral institutions if it cannot control them, if they do not follow its will, and the given institution imposes limits on the American national interest through groups of countries collaborating together to weaken the US position. While Democratic Presidents, such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, are somewhat willing to exert diplomatic capital to work through institutions, the Trump administration has total contempt for all international institutions, which are seen as a blanket negation of American interests.
Hence, Trump has withdrawn from the World Health Organisation, UNESCO, amongst others, has intentionally paralysed the World Trade Organisation and voices vocal opposition to NATO and the European Union. Because of this, the Trump administration actively works to undermine the collective bargaining power of multilateral organisations by resorting to unilateral (singular, forcing will on a country) and bilateral (working directly with individual countries) and thus playing a game of divide and rule. Unilateral diplomacy may involve forcing the US will on certain countries, regardless of its legality, such as Venezuela, whereas bilateral diplomacy involves making deals with countries designed to deliberately undercut the institutions.
For example, in the Middle East, both Trump administrations have sought to break Arab unity by "buying" off various states and encouraging them to recognise Israel without Tel-Aviv giving any concessions towards peace. For example, the US got Morocco to recognise Israel by recognising its sovereignty over the Western Sahara. On the other hand, the US also got the UAE to recognise too, showing that Abu Dhabi can be bought off to break ranks with other Arab States. In this case, however, the United States specifically wants to break up OPEC because it sees the grouping as a huge obstacle to Trump's strategic ambition to dominate the world's oil supply (the US is the largest singular producer) and gain geopolitical leverage over it. This, after all, is the very reason he engaged in a regime change in Venezuela in the first place and then failed to do so Iran. However, even if he has failed to topple the Iranian regime, Trump has invertedly succeeded in ripping up the OPEC status quo by bringing about a global energy crisis and putting the Gulf States under immense political pressure.
So how can the UAE, its oil imports for now having been squeezed by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and its depiction of Dubai as a luxurious destination in tatters, gain the favour of the United States? And likewise capitalise on the situation? The answer is "everyman for himself" and to leave OPEC. This gives the United States more leverage in directly engaging the UAE individually regarding oil, rather than having to confront OPEC as a group, and thus, Washington's influence increases.
The US, after all has been turning the screws on the UAE for a long time, leveraging its defence cooperation and contracts, demanding they cut off China in various areas, something Abu Dhabi has largely resisted, seeking good relations with Beijing, who unlike the US is a massive customer. However, the Iran war has left the UAE vulnerable, so something has to "give" diplomatically, and seemingly Abu Dhabi's conclusion is to shun its neighbours and think for itself. It can have more money and US weapons too for the privilege.
Expect Trump to continue to undermine multilateral institutions in any way he can as his term goes on. The slogan is America first, he means it.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The spineless British appeasement of Donald Trump
Comment