The failure of Arab ministers to promote a common position on the Iraqi crisis has prompted some commentators in the Arab media into masochistic lamentation about “disunity”.
The spectacle of Arab ministers crossing diplomatic swords in public has shocked those who insist that dirty linen should never be washed in public. One commentator, feigning a broken heart as a result of the latest show of “disunity”, predicts “the end of the Arabs”.
He is wrong.
What if this public expression of “disunity” is a sign of political maturity, and thus good news for the Arabs? Is it not possible that we may be witnessing the beginning of a genuine debate about what the Arabs can and cannot do together?
Arabs have always been divided on most issues but seldom have had the courage to express disagreement in public, except in the form of periodical propaganda wars. What is new is that some Arab states are now prepared to behave in a normal way: That is to say express disagreement with this or that position in public without becoming involved in a campaign of hatred against those who hold other views.
This is a positive development, perhaps even a sign that the Arabs are entering the modern world. There are many examples of Arabs having harmed their interests in the name of an elusive unity that, even when achieved, was always a façade. In all such cases, reality was sacrificed at the altar of perception.
In 1948, while the Arab war cry was “Destroy Israel!”, Jordan and Syria were engaged in secret negotiations with the Jewish state, offering it strategic alliance. During the Iran-Iraq war, two Arab states, secretly helped Iran — then regarded as “the common Persian enemy” — by supplying intelligence and propaganda against Iraq.
The first Arab leader to have the courage to reject perception in favor of reality was the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He realized that his primary duty was to his nation by regaining its lost territory. He also knew what a price the Arabs had paid for rhetorical gimmicks of the kind his predecessor, Gamal Abdel Nasser, had specialized in for almost two decades.
There is no reason why Arab “disunity” should be regarded as a sickness while disunity in the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is seen as sign of dynamic pluralism.
Now that some Arab states are showing the courage to point to the nakedness of the emperor, so to speak, it is, perhaps, time to recall a few facts.
The idea that the 22 Arab states form a single national entity is a dangerous myth. These are different peoples with different historical experiences, interests and national ambitions. They do have a great deal in common that has to be emphasized, cherished, and enriched. But that does not mean that they should or could dissolve in an amorphous soup of Unitarian slogans.
Take one of the current causes of “disunity”. Kuwait has decided to be on the side of the United States if and when there is military action to topple Saddam Hussein. That position is understandable from the Kuwaiti point of view. But seen from Mauritania, for example, things may look different. There is no reason why Kuwait should commit national suicide to please those who are in no danger from Saddam Hussein.
What is interesting is that those who criticize Kuwait are not prepared to acknowledge the logical conclusion of their position and commit themselves to fighting to keep Saddam Hussein in power. All they are prepared to do is to vilify Kuwait, a soft target for demagogues.
The real issue is whether or not the Arabs should break with a regime that has caused two wars and, because of its adventurous policies, is provoking a third.
Each time there was unity the Arabs shot themselves in the foot. For half a century the Arabs suffered from uniformity without unity. It is time they reversed the process and worked for unity in diversity.
It is in the best interests of all Arabs if the rest of the world could trust their word. Formal and automatic unity was always a big lie masquerading as truth. The general assumption was that, communiqués notwithstanding, one could always take the Arabs aside and do a separate deal with them.
By accepting everyone’s right to diversity in the context of pluralist politics, the Arabs would no longer need to practice “kitman” (dissimulation), or to lie to one another, and to themselves and their peoples, or to sign to communiqués in which they do not believe.
Thanks to diversity and pluralism they would learn that the world is not divided between Arab and non-Arab but between right and wrong. They would learn that just being Arab does not give anyone the right to massacre opponents, gas women and children, invade neighbors, and plunge a whole region into conflict.
They would learn that it is better to be divided by truth and reason than united by lies and illusions.
Arab News Opinion 2 March 2003
