Eroding links
Both Europeans and Arabs are about to find out that friendship is not what it used to be, says Gamil Mattar
A recent statement by German Chancellor Schroeder has triggered a heated debate in Europe and the United States. Schroeder called on Europe to pursue a policy of "emancipation" vis-a-vis the United States. As expected, this statement irritated the Americans, for at least two reasons. For one thing, it was a firm rejection of America's programme to monopolise power and decision-making. The Germans and the French are not the only people in Europe who react to American haughtiness with derision and consider their trans- Atlantic partner's behaviour to be both reckless and immature. Germany wants to free the United Nations from US domination; it would also like to see Europe take on a global role commensurate with its growing economic, political, and military power.
But there was another, linguistic reason why Schroeder's statement was not well received in Washington and beyond. the Americans associate the word "emancipation" with the end of slavery. So for them, any reference to this concept in another context can only be a subtle, or not so subtle, hint that the United States is still enslaving others, albeit in new forms. The techniques first perfected on the plantations of the deep South are now being applied to nations that are not necessarily black and to governments that are not necessarily hostile.
This is not, however, what Schroeder meant. He was only saying that Germany and other countries in Europe should free themselves from some of the restrictions presently placed on them by the western alliance. In his view, though NATO decisions may be the result of a majority vote, that is no guarantee that they truly reflect European interests.
In slavery, the master appropriates the free will of his slaves. Slaves in pre-civil war America had no human rights to speak of, no will, no freedom, no past. Their white masters took care to sever all the links their slaves might have had with their original home, creeds, and memory. It was not until the civil rights movement in the 1960s that the sons and daughters of those who had been sold and bought like goods were able to reappropriate their own history, in the process renaming themselves African Americans.
Emancipation, in the language of Schroeder and of many people today, both Europeans and non-Europeans, means something slightly different. They use the term to refer to the restoration of the old continent's will, the reinstatement of its right to remain influential within the existing international order. Emancipation, in this case, is not necessarily a revolt against that order, but simply the recovery of those specific rights and freedoms which the US is trying to confiscate.
Of course, international relations can occasionally slip into patterns which are akin to slavery. This is what happens when a strong state succeeds in undermining the will of another state either fully or partially, thus robbing it of its rightful say in international affairs. This situation does not necessarily arise through direct occupation. Much of the slavery that exists today in international politics has been created through bilateral agreements, extensive pressure, economic blockades, or even the formation of alliances. The war against terror is only one example of such a mechanism. Today, a number of new alliances are being forged outside the UN framework, and beyond the pale of international legitimacy. All of these have overtones of slavery.
In this context, it is hardly surprising to hear nations speak of emancipation from relations that are often superficially cordial, solid, and profound. To please their stronger partners, weak states will often sacrifice their independent will in return for economic gains -- even if only a small section of the nation in question enjoys these gains. The current controversy in the United Kingdom is pertinent here, where recent remarks by Clare Short, the former minister of international development in Tony Blair's government, echo some of the misgivings felt in Germany.
Having virtually surrendered British free will to the United States, Tony Blair is now encountering growing opposition. Blair's opponents point to his failure to secure a significant role for the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq, as he had promised he would. They also recall how the prime minister used false evidence to win public support for the war against Iraq.
Meanwhile in the Middle East a different kind of slave's revolt is brewing. Now that chaos has replaced dictatorship in Iraq, a rebellion of Arab states against the Arab League would seem to be on the cards. Perhaps the League's detractors only want "emancipation" from some of their commitments to the League, particularly those commitments which are in conflict with their ties to the United States. Or maybe they are seeking emancipation from Arabism, and to some extent from Islam, in order to pursue greener pastures elsewhere.
It is true that most member states do not implement Arab League decisions and that some are not even particularly keen to see the League survive. Membership of the Arab League carries with it certain formal obligations, at the very least, and such obligations can be embarrassing and uncomfortable at times. One solution, obviously, would be to get rid of the League altogether.
There are Arab politicians who openly admit that certain bilateral agreements, particularly those involving military alliances, military bases, and long-term economic and political cooperation, effectively limit their freedom of action. This may be why they are now looking for emancipation in one form or another.
History provides many examples of cases of this type. German politicians took a definite disliking to the Versailles Treaty following World War I. More recently, Ariel Sharon has dragged the various accords signed in Oslo, Wadi Araba, and Camp David through the mud. Arab public opinion, for its part, has long been in favour of "emancipation" from such arrangements. If Arab governments have mostly honoured their obligations so far, it has been largely out of fear that the alternatives would prove worse.
"Special ties" and "friendship" are often just a euphemism for more sinister bonds. Such intimate ties can easily shackle a state's free will in matters of domestic as well as foreign policy. I recall, for example, the state of Egyptian policy in the mid-1970s. At that time, certain intellectuals and decision makers assumed that the close relations which bound Egyptian leaders to their Arab counterparts would limit their freedom of action in peace talks with Israel. They were, of course, proved wrong, as Egyptian policy makers eventually ditched their commitments and alienated old friends in order to pursue a controversial new policy.
In my opinion, what we are witnessing now is a new phase of emancipation for certain Arab countries -- particularly those who want to forge closer ties with the United States and Israel. The changes they plan to introduce in their domestic and foreign policy will require them to lighten up on their commitments vis-à-vis other Arab nations. A new global process is emerging, and some Arabs want to take part in that. Not only that, but they are now prepared to jettison some of their old obligations in order to be accepted. As a result, we stand on the brink of political changes in our region which are likely to be at least as momentous as those currently being considered by our neighbours in Europe.
The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 22 - 28 May 2003 (Issue No. 639)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/639/op12.htm