Arab nationalism dies

Forty-four years after the breakup of the United Arab Republic, union among Arab countries proved to be a colossal failure

DAMASCUS - Anonymous

BEIRUT - Salem Mazloum

BAGHDAD - Sami Orfali

March 2005

The Unfolding events in the Middle East, the Arab and international pressure on Syria and its consequent withdrawal from Lebanon, demonstrations and counter demonstrations in Damascus and Beirut and the rapid democratization in other Arab countries highlight one indicator: that Arab nationalism has died.

The origins of Arab nationalism cannot be traced to a single thinker or era of Arab history. It is safe to assume, however, that this kind of chauvinistic feeling was mostly styled after European fascist thought and witnessed a surge by the mid 20th century.

It was endorsed by the most popular Arab figure, late Egyptian president Gamal Abdul-Nasser as well as by a handful of Syrian thinkers, the most prominent of them was Michel Aflaq the founder of the Baath Party, which through its both Iraqi and Syrian rival wings, dominated Iraq for more than three decades and still dominates Syria until the date of the writing of these lines.

Pan-Arab experiments reached their climax when Syria and Egypt merged into a union in 1958, which came to be known as the United Arab Republic. Arabs at the time welcomed the union largely viewing it as a first step toward the greater union of all Arab peoples.

But the union was far from improving the lives of Syrians, let alone all of the Arabs since Nasser had no plan to lead Syria to prosperity. Instead he installed military leaders, such as Abdul-Hamid Sarraj and later his most corrupt crony General Abdul-Hakim Amer, as its rulers.

The military rule in Syria led to the tightening of the military grip around its citizens. The Syrians – on top of them the Baath Party and its founders – were not willing to compromise their freedom and in 1961, they broke the union.

Reassessing the worthiness of the UAR experience is not possible in this brief article. Yet, the UAR was enough of an indicator that pan-Arabism was far from being a tool for the unity and prosperity of Arabs. Instead, it proved to be a tool and an empty slogan under which the different Arab dictators meddled in the affairs of other Arab countries.

Fifteen years after the breakup of the UAR, the Baathists who had been ruling Syria with an iron fist for some years, decided to invade Lebanon under the pretext of bringing back peace and stability to a country, which was being shredded by a civil war. The Syrian stay in Lebanon extended between 1976 and two weeks ago, 14 years after the conclusion of the Lebanese war in 1990. The pretext for their stay, as announced by the Syrians and their Lebanese cronies, was “the common destiny and the good relations between two Arab countries.”

But in the same manner that Nasser’s regime abused friendly relations with Syria for the benefit of a handful of military and intelligence officers, the Syrians also took advantage of Lebanon making the Lebanese, even those of them who had always advocated pan-Arabism, ask the Syrians to leave and let Lebanon alone.

The Lebanese divorce of their Syrian masters some 30 years after the Syrians first entered Lebanon, the Lebanese demand that Syrians don’t meddle in their affairs, the ongoing demand of Iraqi officials that neighboring Arab countries cease to interfere in their affairs through supporting insurgents, the Palestinian decision to go to talks with Israelis regardless of what the Syrians or other pan-Arabists say, are all indications that the Arabs have reached the point where every nation of the different 22 Arab countries has been fed up with the obsolete notion of pan-Arabism. It is an indication that after half a century of failing experiences and the rule of tyrant rulers claiming to be Arab nationalists, it is high time that every Arab people looks after its own affairs, and take care of its own well being, development and democratization.