The Arab System - TO BE OR NOT TO BE
Ahmed Hany
December 17, 2008
The strategic challenges that threaten the Arab System reached a peak that they threaten its presence now. The Israeli expansionist project failed and Israel seeks safe borders in the historical land of Palestine. However, time between strategic changes and political decisions to accommodate these changes poses the risks of fluidity of situation especially when weak leaders cannot take proper decisions. This period carries all risks from freezing the status quo to eruption of wars. The Arab Peace Initiative reached the mind of Israeli strategists, but weak politicians cannot apply it. On the other hand, the weak Palestinian Authority cannot apply solutions because of the Iranian influence on Hamas. The presence of Israeli nuclear arms and the trials of Iran to go nuclear just leave the Arabs deprived from the deterrent shield of balance especially that the possibility of American-Iranian dialogue may give Iran an influence space in the Arab region. Minorities and separatists from Gulf to Morocco and from Levantine to Somalia erode the Arab influence in the Arab system homeland. Historically, the Arabs postponed all problems to confront Israel. This strategy led to the fact that Israel and other neighbors used these problems to weaken the Arab system. Therefore, the Arab System needs strategic revision to keep its influence over its homeland and to confront all strategic risks both on the short term and on the long range.
The Arab System created the Arab League, AL to be the official body that represents it. Since its creation, the AL served as a club for opinion exchange. The Arabs mixed strategic visions with tactics. When Arabs accepted the UN resolutions 224, 338 and 339 after 1973 war, then the Arab strategic goal had been changed from the three No(s) of Khartoum conference to peace. Then Sadat Peace Initiative did not violate the Arab strategy, but they decided to boycott Egypt. When Saddam sent his troops to occupy Kuwait, Iraq violated the Arab Defence Treaty. Astonishingly, some Arabs supported Saddam. When Syria signed military accords with Iran while the later occupies three Arab Lands, this is another violation of the Arab strategy. Even when Hamas allows Iran to use the Palestinian cause to serve its nuclear file, this is another violation of the Arab strategy. Then the Arabs have to redefine the AL. Is it a cultural club for Arab-Phones or is it a body for strategic planning? When Bahraini King proposed the idea of creating a security body that include Iran, Turkey and Israel, he asked for what it could be doubtfully possible after sincere peace with Israel and resolution of Gulf problems. In fact, cultural bodies could accommodate others if they have some background of this culture like the Francophone. One wonders why the Bahraini King did not ask for having Ethiopia in this security body. Relations with Ethiopia are too important for Egypt, Sudan and Somalia. This shows that Gulf strategist see security problem from the narrow Gulf security angle and not from the wider collective Arab security angle. Creating such a body now will be too risky as its definition of strategic security might not be identical to the present Arab definition and Arab concessions about security might be needed. Anyhow, this proves that the AL should stress on the fact that the collective Arab security is the umbrella under which membersī security plans are to be devised or disintegration of the system will be a matter of time.
The leadership problem in the system is another problem that harms it. It is supposed that each country plays a role equal to its weight. When Qatar tries to play a leadership role, it harms the system. Qatar is a monetary center and not even an economic center as it lives on exporting oil and gas without a real industrial base. The real power comes from economic base, demographic weight and military force. When Qatar tries to play a role heavier than its size, it imports power from an external force. What Qatar did in Lebanon was that it safeguarded Iranian influence. It tried to do the same thing with Hamas after the later withdrew from reconciliation dialogue. On the long term, Qatar gives parts of its own security to its powerful neighbor until it will be just a ploy. Even the Qatari trials will be harmful to the royal family there, as it will reach a point when either responds to Iranian requests or the Persian State will topple the regime and replace it with a Shiite one. Qatar should devise its strategy to serve at least its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council. It gave the American a military base while attacks them day and night in Al-Gizira satellite channel.
The use of Palestine to serve other interests is another problem. Syria asks Israel to resume their negotiations and Iran supported the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. This shows that both countries support peaceful agreement with Israel in principal. One wonder why Syria hosts Hamas leaders and Iran instigates them to ruin the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Qatar finances Hamas to buy a role. Both Qatar and Syria accepted the Arab Peace Initiative and blocked its application in the occupied Palestinian lands. Does Iran see the Syrian-Israeli talks in Turkey a preparatory phase to its talks with both the US and Israel so it keeps some cards in the Palestinian file? Does Qatar serve the Arab security or even the Gulf security by abetting Iran to do that? Moreover, could Qatar change its policy now and risk Iranīs anger? What if Iran reached an agreement with the Americans about its nuclear file and gave reconciliation about Syria and even Palestine to have an American approval for its expansionist project that would lead to creation of new Shiite States in Arab Peninsula and Levantine after setting disengagement measures between the Persian project and Israel? Everything is possible in policy and every risk should be explored.
The geopolitical facts of the Arab peninsula makes dependence upon Egyptian Military Machine necessary for Gulf security to balance the growing Iranian Military Machine there, whatsoever Gulf relations with countries and superpowers were. Superpowers may have different agendas. After Kuwait Liberation War the Gulf States withdrew from supposed military accords with Egypt responding to Iranian threats. The Saudis know that and both Egypt and Saudi Arabia develop their military relations continuously. Either Small Gulf countries should know that having military alliance with heavy weight countries that could show their teeth to save peace, or they will pay from their security and stability.
The previous discussion shows that all files are connected in this region. To deal with all files a holistic approach is needed. This is done through strategic dialogue with the US and other Superpowers. In fact, the Americans try to reach a formula that gathers Middle East countries to serve their presence in the Central Asia.
The last report about American-Islam reconciliation just shows the signs of the new American strategy. The Arabs should ask the Americans to define terrorism in a way that includes all types of terrorism like state terrorism that is practiced by Israel.
Arabs should be partners in the American-Iranian dialogue. Nuclear disarmament has to be applied on Israel. A consortium for enriched uranium production for all countries or international inspection for enriched uranium sites may solve the Iranian nuclear file. The US asked four Gulf States for 290 billion dollars loan and the British Premier asked them to cooperate in the monetary crisis. The future of Iraq should be discussed to ensure stability of the Gulf. The red lines for Arab security should be well defined and they should show the will to defend their security.
The Israeli role regressed in the region and the Arabs accepted its presence but it should exert a role equal to its size and not to behave like a regional superpower. The myth that Israel is the only democracy in the region is a big lie as Sephardim suffers there and the Arab-Israelis suffer more. About 75 % of the Israelis see their regime as corrupted regime. There is no a democracy that arrests children and its courts allows the use of torture to extract information from detainees. Occupation forces are responsible about facilitating life of people in occupied land according to the international laws that give the right to these people to resist this force.
At last, the monetary crisis proved that investing in the West is not less risky than investing in the Arab countries. In the next Arab Economic Conference the AL should be ready with accords to build the Arab economic force. This is the challenge for the future. Success or failure will be the answer to the question of existence of the Arab System.
The Arab System created the Arab League, AL to be the official body that represents it. Since its creation, the AL served as a club for opinion exchange. The Arabs mixed strategic visions with tactics. When Arabs accepted the UN resolutions 224, 338 and 339 after 1973 war, then the Arab strategic goal had been changed from the three No(s) of Khartoum conference to peace. Then Sadat Peace Initiative did not violate the Arab strategy, but they decided to boycott Egypt. When Saddam sent his troops to occupy Kuwait, Iraq violated the Arab Defence Treaty. Astonishingly, some Arabs supported Saddam. When Syria signed military accords with Iran while the later occupies three Arab Lands, this is another violation of the Arab strategy. Even when Hamas allows Iran to use the Palestinian cause to serve its nuclear file, this is another violation of the Arab strategy. Then the Arabs have to redefine the AL. Is it a cultural club for Arab-Phones or is it a body for strategic planning? When Bahraini King proposed the idea of creating a security body that include Iran, Turkey and Israel, he asked for what it could be doubtfully possible after sincere peace with Israel and resolution of Gulf problems. In fact, cultural bodies could accommodate others if they have some background of this culture like the Francophone. One wonders why the Bahraini King did not ask for having Ethiopia in this security body. Relations with Ethiopia are too important for Egypt, Sudan and Somalia. This shows that Gulf strategist see security problem from the narrow Gulf security angle and not from the wider collective Arab security angle. Creating such a body now will be too risky as its definition of strategic security might not be identical to the present Arab definition and Arab concessions about security might be needed. Anyhow, this proves that the AL should stress on the fact that the collective Arab security is the umbrella under which membersī security plans are to be devised or disintegration of the system will be a matter of time.
The leadership problem in the system is another problem that harms it. It is supposed that each country plays a role equal to its weight. When Qatar tries to play a leadership role, it harms the system. Qatar is a monetary center and not even an economic center as it lives on exporting oil and gas without a real industrial base. The real power comes from economic base, demographic weight and military force. When Qatar tries to play a role heavier than its size, it imports power from an external force. What Qatar did in Lebanon was that it safeguarded Iranian influence. It tried to do the same thing with Hamas after the later withdrew from reconciliation dialogue. On the long term, Qatar gives parts of its own security to its powerful neighbor until it will be just a ploy. Even the Qatari trials will be harmful to the royal family there, as it will reach a point when either responds to Iranian requests or the Persian State will topple the regime and replace it with a Shiite one. Qatar should devise its strategy to serve at least its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council. It gave the American a military base while attacks them day and night in Al-Gizira satellite channel.
The use of Palestine to serve other interests is another problem. Syria asks Israel to resume their negotiations and Iran supported the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. This shows that both countries support peaceful agreement with Israel in principal. One wonder why Syria hosts Hamas leaders and Iran instigates them to ruin the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Qatar finances Hamas to buy a role. Both Qatar and Syria accepted the Arab Peace Initiative and blocked its application in the occupied Palestinian lands. Does Iran see the Syrian-Israeli talks in Turkey a preparatory phase to its talks with both the US and Israel so it keeps some cards in the Palestinian file? Does Qatar serve the Arab security or even the Gulf security by abetting Iran to do that? Moreover, could Qatar change its policy now and risk Iranīs anger? What if Iran reached an agreement with the Americans about its nuclear file and gave reconciliation about Syria and even Palestine to have an American approval for its expansionist project that would lead to creation of new Shiite States in Arab Peninsula and Levantine after setting disengagement measures between the Persian project and Israel? Everything is possible in policy and every risk should be explored.
The geopolitical facts of the Arab peninsula makes dependence upon Egyptian Military Machine necessary for Gulf security to balance the growing Iranian Military Machine there, whatsoever Gulf relations with countries and superpowers were. Superpowers may have different agendas. After Kuwait Liberation War the Gulf States withdrew from supposed military accords with Egypt responding to Iranian threats. The Saudis know that and both Egypt and Saudi Arabia develop their military relations continuously. Either Small Gulf countries should know that having military alliance with heavy weight countries that could show their teeth to save peace, or they will pay from their security and stability.
The previous discussion shows that all files are connected in this region. To deal with all files a holistic approach is needed. This is done through strategic dialogue with the US and other Superpowers. In fact, the Americans try to reach a formula that gathers Middle East countries to serve their presence in the Central Asia.
The last report about American-Islam reconciliation just shows the signs of the new American strategy. The Arabs should ask the Americans to define terrorism in a way that includes all types of terrorism like state terrorism that is practiced by Israel.
Arabs should be partners in the American-Iranian dialogue. Nuclear disarmament has to be applied on Israel. A consortium for enriched uranium production for all countries or international inspection for enriched uranium sites may solve the Iranian nuclear file. The US asked four Gulf States for 290 billion dollars loan and the British Premier asked them to cooperate in the monetary crisis. The future of Iraq should be discussed to ensure stability of the Gulf. The red lines for Arab security should be well defined and they should show the will to defend their security.
The Israeli role regressed in the region and the Arabs accepted its presence but it should exert a role equal to its size and not to behave like a regional superpower. The myth that Israel is the only democracy in the region is a big lie as Sephardim suffers there and the Arab-Israelis suffer more. About 75 % of the Israelis see their regime as corrupted regime. There is no a democracy that arrests children and its courts allows the use of torture to extract information from detainees. Occupation forces are responsible about facilitating life of people in occupied land according to the international laws that give the right to these people to resist this force.
At last, the monetary crisis proved that investing in the West is not less risky than investing in the Arab countries. In the next Arab Economic Conference the AL should be ready with accords to build the Arab economic force. This is the challenge for the future. Success or failure will be the answer to the question of existence of the Arab System.
Print
Email
