The idea of ‘Arab Unity’ has always been something remote from reality. Whether it was a pious fraud or an ideal, it never existed and likely never will. The simple fact is, the Arab nations put their own interests before the interests of other nations, Arab or otherwise. That’s the way nationalism works and there is no reason to suggest that Arabs are immune to this particular reality. In denial, perhaps, but not immune.
The crisis of Gaza has brought this fact to the fore. In this The New York Times piece, it’s spelled out that there is a definite rift between the so-called ‘moderate’ state—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, with Kuwait a putative member for reasons of its own antipathy toward Palestinians—and countries like Syria and Lebanon, both strongly influenced by non-Arab Iran.
The problems come when governments, looking at the long-term interests of their own states, conflict with popular opinion fueled by atrocious media imagery.
Why the Arabs Splinter Over Gaza
Robert F WorthBEIRUT, Lebanon — On Thursday, nearly three weeks into Israel’s war on Hamas, reporters gathered here to ask whether the Lebanese president would be attending a proposed Arab summit meeting to address the issue.
The answer, delivered by the Lebanese information minister, Tarek Mitri, was that Lebanon would follow “Arab consensus” in deciding whether to attend.
No one laughed, but the comment could have passed for black humor. Arab leaders remain cripplingly divided on how to respond to the crisis, which has left more than 1,100 dead in Gaza. Despite a rush of diplomatic meetings — two simultaneous ones on Friday in Qatar and Kuwait, and two more expected next week — there was still no agreement on convening the Arab League, the body that is meant to bring Arabs together on issues of mutual concern.
In the end, the Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman — having struggled to find a balance between the conflicting demands of his country’s own factions — attended the meeting in Doha, Qatar, on Friday. But leaders of three of the most important Arab countries — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — refused to attend, and so the meeting did not qualify as a league summit and only underscored the region’s divisions.
…
In this editorial from Asharq Alawsat, Editor-in-Chief Tariq Alhomayed points to the same phenomenon, expressing the Saudi attitude toward the rift.
The Doha Theatre Show
Tariq AlhomayedWith every crisis that afflicts us Arabs, we never say that we have learnt our lesson; we say that we have hit rock bottom. But then we discover that worse is yet to come, and of course what’s worse than hitting rock bottom is hitting lower than rock bottom. This is what we are witnessing today in light of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, and the Arab divide.
We watched the show as it took place in the sister nation of Qatar. We listened to those in attendance including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Syrian President [Bashar al Assad], Khaled Mishal and others. The most important question remains however; what effect did this have on the Gaza crisis and the distraught people of Gaza? The answer is none whatsoever!
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
January:18:2009 - 14:26
Arab perfect unity is not a realistic reality, but that should not obscure the many deep ties that unite us.
Just as francophonie is not united, and yet there are many deep ties, so, too, Arab nations are united in some ways, yets are separate in others.
We must recall that our unity is expressed in a common set of cultural and social values, notwithstanding the notion that we also have separate cultures and societies.
We are thus both united and separated simultaneously.
I imagine that something similar to this exists among other groups, and I have read of the 19th century dream of Simon Bolivar to create a unified South America.
January:18:2009 - 16:11
My post is not to deny the fact of group identities, in the Arab case, assabiya. Rather, it is intended to suggest that putting maximum effort into an ideal leaves little to fulfill more pressing needs, like feeding, sheltering, and providing a future for members of the group. I’m hard pressed to think of anything significant accomplished by, say, the Arab League whose actions are all taken under the name of ‘Arab unity’. The problem is that politics, from the tribal to state levels, gets in the way of any larger group.
The Francophone world indeed does have ties. But it does not work together politically, only a little economically, and most successfully, culturally. That’s worth a lot, but not as much as other things might be, IMO…
January:18:2009 - 18:44
I agree that organisations such as the Arab League are feckless.
I do not, however, see it as a problem that politics gets in the way of a pan-arab national government.
Just as we have many deep cultural similarities, there would necessarily be deep differences between myself and someone in the Maghreb, with a very different set of ecpnomic, geographic and historical realities and goals.
I would offer the thought that it is indeed a positive fact for individual citizens that there is no pan-Arab government, because it allows for governmental policies better suited to our individual needs.
Of course, a deep problem remains that many governments do not optimally at all times govern us.
However, even with that limitation, we as citizens are still in a superior position.
January:18:2009 - 22:39
Again, I agree. That’s why I think people should simply give up on the idea of a grand political union and save their money, time, energy, emotions, and hopes on something more worthwhile.
How many millions have been wasted on the Arab League, to what benefit? Has the OIC fared any better?
When you have vastly different groups, trying to jam them into one ‘identity’ is indeed feckless. It’s also hugely disrespectful of people and the putative idea behind the organization and barely more than cynical manipulation.
January:19:2009 - 08:26
The points you make seem to all support my contention that groups like this would better serve our people were they to focus on support for cultural and social activities.
There is insufficient in the way of interesting live performances in our nation, impoverished as we are without creditable theatrical or symphonic orchestral venues.
Literature and cinematic productions are similarly unsupported.
Rather than devoting great sums of fund to utopian political ideas, would it not be better to make available quality arts organisations in all areas?
Would not the funding of quality scientific and cultural efforts yield greater results than all these risible political efforts?
January:19:2009 - 13:37
Having worked as a Cultural Attache, I’m aware that ‘culture’ covers a pretty broad expanse. A lot of it is not worth supporting, actually. For a government to pick and choose which things its finds worthy, though, is to open another can of worms.
I’d rather that the money be spent on cultural studies in the classroom, exposing young students to the varieties of culture in the world and why it is important to them. I’d certainly include Saudi culture as I think there is a lot there to be valued and retained.
The government needs more to not be a hindrance to cultural expression than an active supporter of it, I think. And, as a corollary, I do not think the USG should be spending much on cultural activities. The arts seem to thrive in the US. I would support efforts to preserve those things that are dying out due to development and population shifts and the preservation of historic buildings, but that’s about it. I do support, to some degree, the use of Public Diplomacy to introduce smaller and less known parts of American culture to the world at large, but not government subsidies of films for export and the like. Especially with global Internet access, most popular things are available to those who seek them out.
January:19:2009 - 17:50
I am familiar with the efforts of Japan and the Nordic nations to encourage the arts, and I have found them to be worthwhile.
I believe that governmental support of the arts has proven historically to be quite useful. One need only examine the wonder arts in Istanbul that were supported by the government there throughout the centuries, or the arts in Japan to see similar success.
I have no views on America and the arts. America’s connection to the arts seems to be somewhat sui generis when compared with other nations.
January:19:2009 - 18:15
Many countries strongly believe in subsidizing their arts. France, for instance, funded the Comedie Francaise with a budget higher than the entire US public diplomacy budget in the 80s and 90s.
It’s a matter of my politics that pushes me away from it: I think arts and artists will find their supporters and patrons in the private sector. Private funding, too, avoids debacles like the ‘Piss Christ’ piece that received federal funding for exhibition. While I might support one’s right to make offensive art (and yes, ‘offensive’ is in the eye of the beholder), I do not support spending my taxes on offensive art.
Thus, no governmental spending on arts, as I am not the sole judge of what is or is not offensive.
January:19:2009 - 19:40
Your viewpoint seems one strongly based on American history, and I have no views on whether your views are appropriate for America.
But, in the world as a whole, I believe that governmental support for the arts, whether it is the creation of Versailles in France, the many ancient achievements in Egypt, Greece, or Roma, and the brilliant achievements of a Islamic leader of the Taj Mahal, are examples that show that governmental support of the arts can be highly positive.
Many of Syria’s arts are governmentally funded, and are quite impressive, I have found.
January:19:2009 - 22:40
More than a matter of ‘American’ vs. other politics, it’s a matter of conservative vs. liberal. Conservatives believe the role of the state should be limited to necessities. Smaller government, in conservative belief, is more effective, more efficient, and does not create self-perpetuating bureaucracies. I’m not hardline. I do think that some social services are within the proper ambit of government, but not most of what are now proliferating, including in the US.
I think you get into a gray area if you start including things like Versaille or the Taj Mahal as ‘state art projects’. In those examples, you’re dealing with rulers for whom, in the words of Louis IV, ‘L’Etat est Moi’. These were more the product of individual vanity than an effort to subsidize the arts. Egypt (depending on which particular monument is being discussed), is more a matter of a priesthood building temples or Kings building their own tombs. The driving force was either to express the greater glory of God or simple egotism, and likely a combination of the two. You can include the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel in this group as well as places like Angor Wat and the Mayan temples.
Greece, and Rome are more interesting from the ‘subsidizing art’ point of view, as in addition to religious structures, artistic attention was paid to secular building and art. But even here, you had private patrons supporting art through the commissioning of sculpture. Even 2,500 years ago, the tension existed between the individual and society as the dominant indicator of the culture.
January:20:2009 - 07:56
These terms of yours as you mean them — “conservative” and “liberal” — are unique to America.
In Britain the terms are not used in that fashion, nor in India.
Conservative is an individual who views himself as conserving some traditional values. In India, the BJP views itself as conservatives, while here tribal values are “conservative.”
In Britain, conservatives generally support the traditional role of the British Queen and of the Church of England.
America is rather sui generis, inasmuch as the individual rather than the community seems [to an outsider] to be paramount.
Other societies are constructed on a different basis.
January:20:2009 - 08:19
In the US, too, the point is to conserve traditional values… that’s why you often see American conservatives take up the banner for ‘family values’. But the politics I described earlier, are also considered traditional values, where individuals worked to achieve their goals, not depend on the state to provide them.
I do realize that politics play out differently in different countries, but in the broad view, conservatism and liberalism are still identifiable in all the ‘Anglosphere’* countries as distinctly different from one another in their view of the proper role of the government.
That US conservatism focuses more on individual rather than community freedoms than the others is quite true, but relative within the group.
* A term heard to describe the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.