The impulse to unity may have been sidetracked but that does not mean it was wrong, argues Galal Nassar

December 13, 2009

A debate over Arab nationalism and its continued relevance, if any, was an inevitable corollary to the skirmishes between rival football fans in Om Durman. Some took the events in Sudan as a sign that Arab nationalism was over. Others said that Arab nationalism would survive all obstacles, presenting it as an immutable historical fact. There were still others who argued that it was time to pause and reconsider existing bonds without necessarily discounting the validity of pan-Arabism.

There are those who continue to advocate Arab nationalism for reasons that are no longer comprehensible to the great majority of people in the region. To clarify the matter, I will review some of the ideas that paved the path to Arab nationalism.

Many of you may agree that progress doesn't always follow a steady curve, but takes place through scientific revolutions that impel us to abandon earlier assumptions in favour of new models. This, in a way, is the story of how across the region people came to aspire to unity and progress.

The pan-Arab project began taking shape in the mid- 19th century. Some 160 years later it has yet to achieve its goals. All around us Arab states are on the verge of disintegration. Perhaps this is a good time for us to reconsider pan-Arab thinking and re-evaluate its course.

Ours is an age of major alliances and continental entities. It is also an age of zealous nationalism. So we cannot simply abandon our principles and turn our back on the idea of unity. But a careful consideration of our history may encourage us to support projects of Arab revival rather than discount them as outdated.

The first thing one notices when contemplating the pan- Arab project is that it originated in the eastern part of the Arab world. The discourse of unity was influenced by the power play of the early 20th century. Pan-Arabism started out as a reaction to Turkish attempts to suppress Arab identity. Later it became a reaction to the colonialist onslaught. Arab nationalists expressed not only a desire for independence but also a distaste for imperial market forces. This was the objective context that gave birth to the Arab liberation movement.

The pan-Arab project was influenced by two main events. One was the signing of the Sykes-Picot agreement and the other was the Balfour Declaration. Shocked by the colonialist dismembering of the region Arab nationalists took a hostile stand presaged on the basis of the nation state. In fact, the nation state acted as the guardian of Arab identity. In Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, to mention just a few, this is patently clear.

As pan-Arab advocates in the eastern part of the Arab world weighed the consequences of French, British and Zionist incursions on their region their vision of renaissance became twisted. Their reactions became emotional and their initiative was impaired.

It would be interesting to compare the European and Arab projects of revival. In Europe revival was the result of a historical process that found sustainable nourishment. The outcome of WWII favoured the European project, with nation states opting, through the European Common Market, to engage in integration that was to culminate in the creation of the European Union. Dreams of unity that started in Western Europe became, decades later, a reality for the entire continent.

The European project rested on two pillars. One was the Marshall Plan, which laid down the basis of Europe's post-war economic revival. The other is NATO, which became a joint defence outfit.

In a nutshell, WWII laid down the cornerstone for a project of European unity, whereas WWI and WWII suppressed Arab dreams of freedom and unity.

The international scene, with its many machinations, was never kind to the project of Arab unity. As it turned out, colonialism, Zionist ambitions and flaws in the Arab social fabric conspired to strangle pan-Arabism.

Arab aspirations for unity came after a long hiatus. Not since the Mogul invasion and the destruction of Baghdad had such sentiments been so strong. And yet the desire for renaissance, for progress in leaps and bounds, for a cultural breakthrough, was soon nipped in the bud. The project for an Arab renaissance stumbled as it ran into one obstacle after another.

Mohamed Ali aimed high but had to trim down his ambitions because of European intervention. The British crushed the Orabi revolt within months of the insurgence in Egypt. The 1936 treaty between Egypt and Britain was just as damning. And no one knew how to stop the waves of Jewish immigration that flooded Palestine from the 1920s onwards. As a result the Zionist entity was created and the Arabs were left wondering what hit them.

Following WWI, the Arab world came face to face with a colonialism that looked down on the civilisations of the nations it had conquered. The colonialists saw the Arabs as backward and barbaric, ruled them by brute military force, and discounted their history, culture and heritage.

It was during the confrontation with the colonialists that Arab identity took shape. And as the tide of imperialism turned, national liberation movements found a voice. This was a seismic shift in the history of the 20th century.

The Arabs once again aspired to create one nation. Geography, culture and a common language encouraged many to hope for a shared future. The Arabs, many argued, had a common density, shaped around hostility to colonialism and its offspring, Israel.

A momentum had been created from the depth of national feelings, its goal to gather Arab wealth and resources together and use them in the battle for freedom and progress. Many argued that this goal could not be achieved by individual Arab states. Economic sovereignty had to be wrested from the hand of the colonialists, a task that demanded unity.

Ideas of social justice became popular among swathes of intellectuals in the mid-war period, ideas that lent further momentum to the idea of Arab unity. As unity became a requisite for social and economic development the goal shifted. Old social structures were deemed unhelpful. Clan loyalties and feudal systems were blamed for the stagnation of the region. Many called for economic planning and a state-run economy to meet the basic needs of the nation. Development in the Arab world, the argument went, could no longer be left in the hands of market forces.

The state taking control of the means of production, distributing income fairly, taxing the rich and protecting the poor: that was how many saw the course of economic development. The region needed a complete makeover, and for that makeover to succeed the Arabs needed to pool their wealth, skills and resources. One Arab country might be short of specific resources, but together the Arabs have what it takes. To achieve their goals Arab countries needed to have harmonious, if not necessarily identical, political and social systems.

Such assumptions gained currency in the Arab world from the end of WWII till the defeat of 1967. The defeat set off a new phase in which self-flagellation became common. The ideas that dominated the 1950s and 1960s began to recede without anyone undertaking a critical revision of pan-Arab discourse.

A new phase began after 1967, a phase that so far has been as emotional and erratic as its predecessor. But it is not too late for pan-Arabism. We don't need to reproduce Arab nationalism in its original form, but we can create an updated and more pertinent version.