Arab Nationalism, a romantic concept that
moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately
organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at
the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman
Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under
western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival
and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence
and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area.
Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend
geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same
language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites
reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why
did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under the Arab banner? What
about the Berber speaking Moroccans? And most importantly, after much struggle
for Arab unity revival, why did Arab states, after achieving independence in
the thirties and forties, insist on the concept of national sovereignty and
respect of frontiers in the Arab League Charter?
It is important to study the very root of
this notion of Arab unity to understand what and why the Arab nationalists were
(some still are) fighting for. How can a Bedouin in Iraq claim to share the same
cultural background and traditions with a Carthagian? What are the grounds of this
strong Arab identification? Is it language? Peruvians do not feel Spanish just
because they speak Spanish. IS it religion? Then Indonesia might just as well
be part of the much aspired Arab bloc. Is it both? Then how would the Christians
in this geographic bloc feel? And if that were the case anyhow, why are these
very states that want to unite (popular demand and not regime’s interest at
all) facing the constant threat of getting divided themselves? Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Sudan and Libya all have internal differences that led and might lead
to internal divisions. If these countries cannot conserve internal integrity,
how can they possible unite 200 million Arabs?
The pan-arabists dream of unification
under one Arab bloc failed miserably, confronted and defeated by regimes’
clinging to national sovereignty, islamists rejection of the notion of Arab
nationalism, internal rivalries and animosities, constant defeats before
Israel, Egypt’s treason to the cause in the seventies and to the realization
that language, history and some cultural aspects link those who call themselves
Arab in loose ties that untangle easily against national interests.
The fragmentation of the Arab bloc into
geographic zonings such as the eastern and western Arab blocs, the Fertile
Crescent, Greater Syria and the Gulf Region is a strong indication of the
personal interests of those who are behind such geographic zonings. What could
not (logically) be achieved in pan-Arab unity was substituted by more modest
attempts and terminology for dreams of unions that always failed. Starting from
Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, then Egypt’s union with Syria in
1958 and the decision of Iraq to annex Kuwait as part of a plan to initiate
Arab unification in the nineties were all rejected and condemned by the countries
involved in these processes. This dream of unity disappeared after being fought
for and against for the past century. Now, a new form of unity seems to be
appearing in the horizon.
The
Middle East unity. What is that Middle East to start with? The term "Middle East" first
appeared 1902 by American naval officer Alfred T. Mahan, who, writing for
London's National Review, used the new term
in calling for the British to strengthen their naval power in the Persian Gulf.
Mahan’s Middle East “was an indeterminate area guarding a part of the sea route
from Suez to Singapore”. It should be noted that the entire area was given
different names over different times, where the terminology almost always
depended on Europe’s interests in the region and its definition of its location
accordingly, whether Far East, Near East or now Middle East.
In general, the Middle East included parts
of Africa, Greater Syria, Gulf countries a number of central Asian countries
(at some point) as well as Turkey and Iran. The extension and membership in
this region have changed constantly throughout the years but have recently
taken a more fixed shape after the 2001 attacks in the USA.
Since then, the
Bush administration came up with reform plans for the region: the Greater
Middle East Initiative which was then replaced by the Broader Middle East initiative.
Coincidently, the EU also started intensifying its plans for the southern Mediterranean,
founding in 2004 the European Neighbourhood Policy (which builds on 1995 the
Euro-Med partnership). These initiatives plan to enhance dialogue and
cooperation amongst the neighbours in that region in an effort to create a
peaceful bloc that act as a buffer against any threat that may filter into the west
via southern and eastern European borders. Examining the members of these countries,
one notices that they are not made up entirely of Arab states; actually they do
not encompass all Arab states. They include Israel, Turkey, Ukraine and
other non-Arab nations. The objective behind this geographic grouping is to stimulate
cooperation, and perhaps establish some sort of union in the far future amongst
these states via joint projects and programmes that foster peace and prosperity.
What was once an Arab dream of union is now being replaced by a more strategic union
plan drawn by the west. The concept of Arab unity is longer enforced on Arabs
who may choose to team up with a Turk or an Armenian or an Israeli, with whom
they do not share racial, linguistic or religious parents, but do share a
historic cousin (in the majority of cases[1]), and strategically build a new economic
bloc with social diversity similar to the EU.
A beautiful idea? Yes indeed. Does it come at
the expense of Arab nationalists (and islamists) dream? Yes again. The point is
the following: Arabs need to d- romanticize
their history and start planning strategically. I admire and defend the celebration
of identity and champion solidarity between nations that have much in common.
Arabs share religion, history, language, culture and ardent dreams of union and
liberty from their very own selves and tyrants. Nonetheless, the dream never
came through and every attempt failed tremendously. What remains are fragmented
patches that have nothing and everything in common at the same time, a region
of self-contradictory realities. A nation where its mini-sovereign nations
witness internal conflicts, with sectarian, religious and ethnic differences
further dissecting them into smaller organs within an already fragmented state.
Yes, I would rather have Morocco feel closer to the EU and Iraq closer to Iran
and Jordan closer to Turkey if that means achieving prosperity, development and
democracy. It seems that in the end, Arab nationalists will always have to pick up the tab.
[1] Example:
Belarus is part of the ENP but it does not share the same historic background of
the majority of the members.
Comments
Post a Comment