Why was Arab Unity so difficult to achieve? There has always existed and inherent ideological weakness in the case for Arab unity.

Authors Avatar

Why was Arab Unity so difficult to achieve?

The Arab world is a loose but complex amalgamation of twenty-two countries in which a pan Arab identity is the proclaimed ideal.  This philosophy was reinstated in the Arab psyche in the nineteenth century as a direct reaction to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, it “came to fill the gap made by the Ottoman Caliphate”.  However upon witnessing the break up of the Arab world into separate states, its descent into separate dictatorships, the nakba or catastrophe that is used to describe the establishment of the state of Israel can be applied to the concept of Arab unity as a whole.  It has been a recurring feature of the modern history of the region.  On the eve of Monday the 3rd of July 2006 Western Diplomats informed Hamas leaders of Israel's intention to work towards their assassination if the kidnapped Corporal Shalitt was not returned to Israeli forces.  The world gazed upon yet another bullying and pugnacious threat from Israel, which highlighted, if only marginally, the vacuum for strong leadership to utilise the inexhaustible potential of the Arab people en masse.  To the historian studying this issue the main point is not to get too wrapped up in dates, per se, but to look at the main themes affecting the successes/failings of Arab unity projects.  The reasons for this failure are extensive but can be loosely grouped; essentially the diversity of the Arab world, the establishment of Israel, foreign interference and the splintering of Arab political movements have all contributed to making Arab unity difficult to achieve.

There has always existed and inherent ideological weakness in the case for Arab unity.  At its commencement it was the extremism of the ottomans that led to Arab Christians on a search for alternative political principles.  Thus it was born out of a minority view, in that Arabism appealed to them as a way to an equal coexistence with the Arab world’s Muslim majority.   Furthermore it was a principle based on language; this was flawed as language is only a component of identity of civilisation.  The idea of nahda was also propounded, a state based on secularism. This was believed by the minority whereas others saw Islam as the crux of the state, “If a state is not based on religion it will be dismantled and lay open to external influences”.  This highlights the interchange between the issue of unity and the minorities of the Arab world which was profound particularly in its early phases.  Most Arab countries have minorities, either ethnic like the Berbers or Kurds or religious like the Jews, Shi’ah and Coptic and Maronite Christians.  In essence though the status of minorities is not contradictory with Arab unity, Arab unity does not necessarily mean a centralised state, it does not necessarily mean making people all Arabs and Muslims but  as stated by once of the foremost analysts of Arab Unity, Dr Fawaz Traboulsi, “one can definitely say one of the failures of Arab unity, one of the obstacles has been the failure to address the problem of the minorities.” .  Thus this highlights the dilemma for nahda intellectuals, who were trying to reconcile the differences in the region while trying to build a single identity and single nation.

However the role of the minorities must not be dwelled upon.  There have been successive studies into the role of them in a wider a Arab unified world in which their role would be that of “a privileged few” which seem credible to the historian.  But the essential problem with Arab unity which has been reflected in its political history is that Arab unity has meant different things to different people at different times.  To Sharif Hussain of Mecca at the beginning of the century it was to a rallying point to oust colonialists,  to Gamal Abdel Nasser it was to rid of foreign control of oil and resources,  to create one Arab state and to defeat Israel.  To compound this Islamic revival has led to the harking back to a collective success, where Islamic unity as opposed to an Arab racio-cultural one would hold precedence.  During the Fist World War while ideas of self governance and national identity were taking form they were full of contradictions of cultural, religious and political identities and minority interests.  This fits in with the school that argues Arab unity has failed because, - “Arab nationalism is a vehicle for Arab demands, addressed to Europe as the dominant power”- it had a purpose which is now outmoded. Arabism before 1916 stood for an increased awareness of Arab history and language asking for change within the ottoman system and not necessarily political independence.  But Turkish demands on institutions as Turkish as language of courts and schools, requirements over religious endowments, led to the adoption of Arabism as the expression of opposition to secularisation and Turkish rule.  This transformed with Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi, a Syrian poet , who made the connection that Arabism underlay Islam which formed the first political community for Arabs.  He saw the solidarity, resilience, generosity, courage and loyalty in their system which he felt was respectful of democratic exchange and equal rights.  His take on Arab nationalism thus called on a leader with religious and political qualifications.  He also like Arabs now and then harked for strong leadership, like the Arab hero Abu Zaid al Hilali, the 10th century Arab leader, who conquered to North Africa, who “personifies the Arab leader whom the nation looks up to and is looking for to unite it during crises and periods of danger".  This made Arab unity difficult to achieve taking it from reality and placing hope in a dream from a by-gone era. 

Join now!

Thus as the promises of the past receded and the sense of fragmentation increased Arabs began to turn to new political ideologies, charting a new path for the Arab nation. The1920s and 1930s saw the rise of communism and socialism and it is at this time saw the rise of political movements.  Michel Aflaq, Antoun Saade and and  were at the forefront of competing major nationalist movements.  Pan Arabism of Alflaq dismissed new Arab states as artificial, Saade’s local nationalism saw the importance of new state defending their sovereignty, and Bitar’s saw regional unity of the Gulf, North Africa ...

This is a preview of the whole essay