MENA Neutrality in Response to Putin’s Invasion

Two months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we gradually grasp a clearer view of the global impact of the war. Middle Eastern states’ hesitant and fearsome response to the invasion can be explained by the region’s vulnerability caused by extensive trade ties with both parties involved and Russia’s regional power in the area. Policy experts delineate a grim image of the possible impact of the war in Ukraine, which might partly explain an apparently cynical and pragmatic response from countries with a strong collective memory of the horrors of war.

Middle East/North Africa (MENA) states have found themselves in a crunch. Russia is an important trade partner for most of them. Egypt, Maghreb, and Gulf countries depend heavily on Russian wheat exports. Ukraine is also a large exporter of wheat, but besides trade, involvement in the war presents political power imbalances. The UAE can allow itself to anger Ukraine. Russia, not so much. However, it is not Ukraine itself that puts the regional states in an awkward limbo of not supporting, but not condemning. The same states that depend on Russia for imports entertain strong relations with the United States. USA’s unconditional support for Ukraine is what makes MENA states want to appease both sides. Unsurprisingly, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Morocco either abstained or were absent from the UN vote on the condemnation of the Russian invasion. Earlier, on the 27th of February, perhaps thrown off-guard, UAE abstained from the condemnation vote within the Security Council.

The primary danger for the governments and populations in the region is the disturbance of wheat imports. Russia and Ukraine are respectively the largest and fifth-largest exporters of wheat in the world. Egypt, the largest wheat buyer in the world, imports 80% of its wheat supply from Russia and Ukraine. The war caused unsubsidized bread price rise of around 50%. Subsidizing bread, which has been an untouchable constant in Egypt since immemorial times, is now going to become significantly more costly. As indicated by the Fondation Méditerranéenne d’Etudes Stratégiques and the Economist, this may lead to social unrest and riots. Rising bread prices have already been a trigger for upheaval in Egypt, like in 1977.

Besides Egypt, countries that are particularly vulnerable are those that suffer from an unfortunate combination of lack of hydrocarbon resources and heavy dependence on Russia and Ukraine for agricultural products. Among them is Palestine, which, while sharing the economic hardships brought upon Israel by the war, will be the only entity responsible for its population’s food security. These countries are joined by states already suffering severe crises, like Lebanon, where the Beirut Explosion has destroyed the main grain silos, Syria and Yemen.

Interestingly, Israel is similarly cautious with many Arab states in its diplomacy. States such as Egypt have been flirting with Russian protection for years now, hosting annual ministers’ meetings. However, Israel is the iron ally of the United States, and its unequivocal support has at times dictated American foreign policy. To America’s regret, Israel had been slow to accuse Russia of its crimes, rejected Ukraine’s appeal for equipment support, and offered to act as a mediator. Israel itself is in an uncomfortable position following the invasion.

However, there are actors that aim to emerge as winners of the current situation. First of all, the OPEC member states. Oil prices have hit their 10-year high. The countries that are going to benefit from this the most are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq and the UAE. Algeria in particular is looking to move its alliance network in the direction of the West by delivering cheap gas in return for infrastructural investments by countries like Germany. Its pipelines to Italy and Spain will help in that. Furthermore, since the eyes of the international community are focused on Ukraine, regional powers might be looking to advance their interests. Up until now, Turkish President Erdogan has been getting closer with NATO, although still maintaining decent relations with Putin.

Duality on this scale is unthought of in Europe, where one must, at least symbolically, pick a side. This limbo, however, might be actually a calming factor: by avoiding contradictory declarations with neighboring states, MENA states are preventing further rise of tension in an already heated region of the world.