Al-Ahram Weekly | 1952 - 2002

		18 - 24 July 2002 Issue No. 595 Special	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

Neo-Pan-Arabism
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa tells Dina Ezzat that Pan-Arabism, a fundamental target of the July Revolution, is still on the agenda, but not in the same sense as before or after 1952

Click to view caption
Abdel-Nasser at the UN General Assembly; and, his last photo, bidding the Prince of Kuwait farewell on 28 September 1970, minutes before he collapsed
50 years ago, the July Revolution stressed the need for closer Arab ties as the basis for the security and stability of all Arab countries. Today, this objective is still unattained. In fact, it seems that the concept of Pan- Arabism has receded a great deal. Is Pan-Arabism something from the past?
First of all, I believe that it would be misleading to suggest that Pan-Arabism was only introduced with the July Revolution. It is true that with the July Revolution Pan- Arabism was stressed and highlighted; however, Pan- Arabism was on the agenda years before the Revolution. Arab intellectuals and politicians, such as Sati' Al-Hossari and Michel Aflaq, stressed the need for Arab unity way before the Revolution. King Farouk convened the first Arab summit in the 1940s.
Indeed, years before the revolution, in 1945, the Arab League was established. Moreover, the importance attached to close Arab relations is as obviously necessary today as it was in 1952, and before. Arab states have every reason to fortify their relations. All Arab countries share similar strategic interests and worries. They have an obvious interest in seeing a peaceful and fair end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, so as to allow for more regional stability. They have an interest in boosting economic cooperation, so as to increase development rates. All Arab countries have an interest in combating the negative image that is being circulated about Arabs in the West, particularly since the events of 11 September. Indeed, all Arab countries have an interest in fostering ties and cooperation with Africa and Europe, the Arab World's immediate neighbour, as well as with the US, the world's only superpower.
But to go back to your question, I have to admit that today we are not talking about Pan-Arabism in the sense of the early years of the July Revolution. That would be somewhat unrealistic. What we are seriously talking about now are common Arab interests.
However yes, you are right, Pan-Arabism has not been attained. Actually, every time someone talks to me about Arab unity I always say that we are not yet in a position to talk of unity. We are currently pursuing a step-by-step approach to building common Arab interests and providing a common strategy for the future of the Middle East. Arab unity may be a long-term objective, but it is certainly not the focus of immediate attention. A solid basis for integrated Arab cooperation has to be built first.
And what is the Arab League doing in this respect?
Establishing closer and more profound Arab relations is the objective of our efforts. The world is moving towards creating and strengthening regional groupings. Regionalism is the on-going global trend. Arab countries cannot afford to be the exception to the rule.
That said, as we seek to build closer Arab ties we need to take stock of past experiences. Previous attempts to establish 'Arab Unity' did not succeed since they were not based on solid common interests. Again, this is what we are trying to work on now. We are working on establishing an Arab Free Trade Area. We are working on connecting Arab electricity grids and gas pipelines. We are talking seriously about connecting roads and railways, joint ventures and the like. This is the way forward. The Moroccans, for example, have to see clearly the benefit they get from their relations with their Arab brethren in the Gulf and the Horn of Africa. The same should go for Egyptians in relation to their brethren in Lebanon, and so on.
We are also working on encouraging Arab cultural cooperation. Only a few days ago I was in Jordan to celebrate Amman as the "Cultural Capital of the Arab World" for the year 2002. Kuwait City was the Arab Cultural Capital of 2001, and Rabat will be the capital for 2003. So, this is the line we are following.
Building common interests was the vehicle through which Europeans reached their unity, and many commentators in the Arab World refer to this as an example to be followed.
But what about the political aspect of Arab relations? Has this been forgotten?
Who says this has been forgotten?
Some commentators argue that even when it comes to the Palestinian cause the Arabs fail to agree.
I am not sure I would agree with this argument. No, in fact I disagree. It is true that Arab states may differ on the approach that should be taken towards ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and establishing a fair and just peace, but there is no disagreement at all among the Arab States about the parameters for peace-making or the ultimate objective of any political process. This was reflected in the Arab peace initiative that was adopted unanimously at the summit level in Beirut last March.
We all agree that there has to be a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. We all agree that a just and comprehensive peace cannot be established unless a settlement is reached on all tracks, the Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese. We all agree that electing the Palestinian leadership is something for the Palestinians to decide. So, I disagree with those who argue that the Arab States fail to agree on the Palestinian issue.
But in practice, in, say, your meetings with the Arab foreign ministers, agreement has not always been easily reached, if it has been reached at all, on the diplomatic moves to be taken by Arab States on the collective front.
This is not entirely true. There is always a debate, but such is the situation in all regional groupings. You cannot expect 22 states to see eye to eye on everything. And, yes, there are at times different views as to what steps should be taken and when and how they should be taken, but this is not unusual in any way.

"The July Revolution did play its role at the time. Now, it is our responsibility to follow an evolution that is positive, determined, and future-oriented"

Is there an Arab consensus to leave Arafat to fight his own battles? You would agree with me that, in the 1950s and even in the 1960s, it would have been practically impossible for the Arab States to leave an Arab leader to face Israeli brutality and American bias on his own as is the case now?
The problem is much more complicated. We have a situation of foreign military occupation and re-occupation of Arab territories. There is a denial of Arab rights. Arafat is not left to face anything on his own. The Arab States have been very clear in stressing their support of the Palestinian people and of the Palestinian leadership. Only a few days ago, President Mubarak gave an important interview to Al- Ahram, where he stressed the fact that it is only for the Palestinian people to elect their leadership. He also said that he stressed this point in his talks with President Bush a few weeks ago. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the monarch of Jordan, King Abdullah, as well as other Arab leaders, have been talking along the same lines.
President Arafat is leading his people in their struggle towards independence. Nobody ever expected the struggle to be a walk in a park. But you have to realise that, for obvious reasons, the international situation is not supportive of the Arab position on this issue. We are sailing on extremely troubled waters.
What about what is happening in Iraq? Threats of military action against Iraq have become very common, and we even read stories about the intention of the US to use some Arab states, including Jordan and Kuwait, as launching pads for the strike against Iraq. Don't you find this a sad state of Arab relations and an indication of the difficulties you have to deal with as you promote better Arab relations?
As far as the Arab position is concerned, you know very well that all Arab countries have clearly stated their opposition to any military action against any Arab country, Iraq included.
The file on Iraq-Kuwait relations is not an easy one. A few days ago I was in Jordan, and I met with Jordanian Prime Minister Ali Abul-Raghab who reconfirmed that Jordan will not serve as a launching pad for any strikes against Iraq. Similar statements were made by high-level Kuwaiti officials. We are currently working on dealing with this file. The situation requires the maximum application of quiet diplomacy. But here again I should warn that we are dealing with an international situation that is not very safe, sane or fair. And you know there is on-going dialogue between Iraq and the UN. We hope that this dialogue will lead to positive results.
The Arab League is very committed to promoting the cause of better Arab relations. There is no question about this. The road may not be easy, but we are determined to do everything that has to be done.
So you are satisfied with the overall state of Arab relations?
Of course not. I believe we still have a long way to go. And, as I told you, this is what we are working on.
If we examine relations between the Arab countries and the rest of the world, the July Revolution, which is perceived as the inspiration for all independence movements in the Arab World and beyond, preached closer ties with Third World countries and cautious ties with the 'Imperial' states. Is such a stand still valid?
Let us be realistic. There is a huge difference between the international scene of 1952 and that of today, 50 years later. We are living today in the so-called New World Order with the US as the only superpower. Imperialism is not a real concern, as such, to many countries any more. Globalisation is what we have to face, deal with and try to benefit from. We should not be courted out of globalisation. Furthermore, the concerns of today have to do more with human development and equitable trade than they do with imperialism. The agenda of international foreign policy has changed a great deal since 1952. Today, the world is talking about human rights, the knowledge society, international trade, information and communication technology. So we cannot apply the political and economic mores of the past to a new world.
Even when you want to talk about relations among Third World countries, these are not the same as they were in 1952. You go to the World Trade Organisation and you find that countries that are technically labelled "Third World" actually share common interests with countries that were once labelled imperialist powers. The criteria of national interests have evolved a great deal, so things are not as black and white as Third World versus First World. We are living in an increasingly globalised world, and we have to link up with "them". We have to defy the attempt to promote the erroneous notion that there is "the world" and then there is "the Arab World". It would be extremely unhealthy if this notion were to prevail or if it were to be given any recognition. We have to be part of the world, which is making huge progress on many fronts. We should not be excluded from it.
The July Revolution did play its role at the time. Now, it is our responsibility to follow an evolution that is positive, determined, and future-oriented.

Send a letter to the Editor Recommend this page

ARCHIVES
Letter from the Editor
Editorial Board
Subscription
Advertise!

WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly
Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time
weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg

Al-Ahram Organisation