Tololy's Box

<p>the dream is always there, but frankly i think that arabs are amazing people that need a great and powerful leader to unite them and bring the best in them, Prophet Mohammed, and the great caliphs after him, Salahiddeen, and to certain extent (Jamal Abdulnasser). </p>
<p>this&nbsp;was the peoples-of-the-east’s way in general, so i think until someone with great potential and power shows up, the dream will still be a dream!</p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">I guess the old trick of accusing an Arabic man of fear so he reacts still works</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Arab unity dream, uc7’ unfortunately its dreams, dreams filled with an inner sense of superiority from each beholder. No one dreams about Arab unity anymore but rather of uniting the Arabs under his wing. People equally as guilty as leaders.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">
<p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Do not get me wrong, I love nothing more in people than their love of their home, family, country from their widest to narrowest of contexts. But unfortunately most Arabs now grow with equal level of distrust of their neighbours to their blind love of their own country. I am certainly guilty of the later and it took some cleansing to rid me of the former!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">
<p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">So I am afraid an Ideological dream is no more, bad be that or good. However there is plenty of room for mutual beneficial corporation, but that dose not sleep easy with back stabbing!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">
<p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">So I say lets hope to get some progress in achieving the mutually beneficial first, and maybe then we can talk of dreams again.</p>

<p>Part of the problem is that "Arabness" doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Every Arab has other identities (i.e., Sunni Muslim, Shiite Muslim,&nbsp;Christian, Libyan, Jordanian,&nbsp;economic class, etc). Each identity has its own agenda. IMHO, it is the clash of these identities that is the biggest of the obstacles facing Arab unity.</p>
<p>Another problem is the inherent fuzziness of the phrase "Arab Unity." What exactly are Arabs supposed to unite about? Political objectives? Cultural objectives? </p>
<p>Perhaps it would better to drop the phrase "Arab Unity" and use instead "The Arab Project." "Project" implies a specific objective, as opposed to the more general "unity." What would the Arab Project entail? I suggest the overarching goal to be the revitalization of the Arab World, specifically through educational, poltical, and economic development.</p>
<p>Yes, yes, &lt;eyes roll&gt; you say impatiently, this is nothing new. There are scattered enterprises like this all around the Arab world. But suppose there was a centralized organization that served as an umbrella for various groups pursuing separate objectives related to the overall project goal? And rather than be initiated by a government or by the UN, it was a true grassroots movement in the Arab world? The blogsphere has linked young Arabs across continents like never before–creating in cyberspace the one Arab world that never truly existed in the real world.&nbsp; Perhaps the former could help give birth to the latter.</p>
<p></p>

I am a true child of Nasserlite parents, and I am a true believer in arab unity. I think that we share so many things in common, and can work to build a federation that would in the end benefit us all. One only has to look at the Gulf Council, and how well it works, to see that we can do it. But we need to realise that instead of talking about how we share a common language-which in a way we don’t since there are so many accents and I for the life of me can’t understand the ones of north africa (other then egypt)-and how we share a common culture/religion whatever you want to call it, we need to look at economics. That is how the EU started, that is how the GC started. We would benefit each other a lot more, if we started trading with each other, if we didn’t need visa’s to go to each others countries, stuff like that will help in creating an Arab Union. I for one don’t want it based on religion, muslim nor christian, I want it based on the fact that in the end we would all be better off if we worked as a unit.

what happened to arab unity is a complex answer. first i guess when the europeans screwed us after the arab revolt and Israel came into the pictures a few years later, there was a small atmosphere of possibilities with nasser which of course quickly dissapeared.<br /><br />Jordan came up with that nationalistic slogan of Jordan First a few years ago. Truth is, every Arab country has had their own slogan for years and years, and we just started getting more seriously in to the game. <br /><br />The west has a vested interest in keeping us seperated and now enough time has passed for us to be brainwashed into thinking that there is a huuuuge difference between a syrian and an egyptian…or even worse…a jordanian and a palestinian. we’ve been convinced from everyone and everything of these differences and these assumptions become a wedge which seperate everyone.<br /><br />There’s nothing that&nbsp; I want more than to have this unity happen, but it’s like waking from a good dream and praying that it comes true. The odds are against you.<br /><br /><br />

The dream still dream.

Personally, I think the idea of "Arab unity" is about as nonsensical as the old idea of "African unity", "Asian unity", or "Caucasian unity," though, I suppose, in some ways it is not quite as loose a definition. At any rate, these "unity" movements seem to be, generally speaking, little more than ways to attempt to temporarily bring together people who in reality have almost nothing in common for use as a political tool against some "other." In 1916-18, for instance "Arab unity" was employed against "the Turks," despite a great deal of ill-will and mistrust between the various Arab actors in that movement. More recently, of course, Israel and the various components of "the West" have replaced the Ottoman Empire as objects of ire.<br /><br />On some level, of course, there is a bond — ethnic and linguistic similarities count for something. But from my distant vantage point, "pan-Arabism" is little more than a cynical political ploy to create a false sense of community in order to direct public ire away from internal problems that the state is unable or unwilling to address.<br /><br />Indeed, in many ways, you and I perhaps share more in common than either one of us do to the "average" Saudi or Yemeni. Then again, I could be mistaken. As I said, my vantage point is distant, and the civic nature of the United States, to say nothing of its extremely mixed racial makeup tends to shrink the shadow that specifically ethnic nationalism casts over my life.<br /><br />Final thought: do you think a "pan-Islamic" movement — one which includes, African, Persian, European, and especially Asian Muslims — is perhaps a more potent "-ism" in this "globalized" world of ours than the old "pan-Arabism"?<br />

Peter S.’s comment, of course, mentioned a point which I, embarrassingly, overlooked. I should make clear, especially in light of my "final thought" that I did not mean to equate "Arab" with "Muslim."<br /><br />I think, though, that my larger point stands.<br />

<p>Like Lulwa said, the Europeans did it, now why can’t we? Personally, I see that the Arab world has more in common than in contrast. We have somewhat common cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds. Add to that the endless economic benefits we would reap from exchanging capitals and experts etc., and political power in this disturbed region of ours. Imagine being heard, really heard, in this world that decides for you.</p>
<p>Too good to be true. That’s what most dreams are.</p>
<p>What does the EU have? currency, political influence in the first and third worlds, cultural programs, and an open market. They speak a multitude of languages but communicate in one or two (think Standard Arabic for the paper work), and they have a zillion religions and many many trends. Yet they pulled it off. Arabs can’t because, possibly, the vast majority of them have a me-against-the-system syndrome or serious issues with misplaced loyalties. It could also be&nbsp;something to do with the common mentality. </p>

<span class="commentBody" style="font-style: italic;"><span id="comment-1886">What does the EU have? currency, political influence in the
first and third worlds, cultural programs, and an open market.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">&nbsp;<br /></span></span></span><span class="commentBody"><span id="comment-1886">V</span></span>ery true. If this is the sort of unity you’re talking about, I think it is very achievable. In fact, two organizations already have the kernel of such a union: the Arab League and, for all intents and purposes, OPEC (which, I am aware, includes non-Arabs, but I think you see my point).<br /><br />The EU, however, experienced a great wave of initial enthusiasm from the core states and a second wave of enthusiasm from former Eastern Bloc states who wanted a piece of the economic action. <span class="commentBody"><span id="comment-1886">Peel back the next layer, however, and I think you’ll begin to see a deeply troubled organization that is bogged down in a labyrinthine constitution, a titanic bureaucracy, and a growing concern from newer members that big, prosperous states like France and Germany feel free to flout the rules at will, to the detriment of newer, less wealthy states such as Poland.<br /><br />It is my personal opinion that we are going to begin to see some major crises in the European Union within the next decade, related not only to defense, but to un-assimilated minorities, massive unemployment, shrinking populations, and a slowing economy. Basically, take a look at Russia today.<br /><br />And don’t even get me started on the so-called "African Union."<br /><br />In answer to the question "the Europeans did it, so why can’t we?" I think the answer may, in fact, be "well</span></span>, the Europeans didn’t quite do it after all, did they?"<span class="commentBody"><span id="comment-1886" /></span>

tololy, first the europeans are political independent of american influence. second, perhaps its the fact that we have so much in common which gets in the way. look at the meetings of the arab league and how much they "accomplish"…they’re a joke

<p>Vincent, you have a point. I had had an insider look at some of the economic principles of the EU in the fields of standards and metrology, and they are well away from conformity. It made me wonder, really.</p>
<p>Perhaps the EU didn’t do it afterall, but that could be attributed to the many things the EU states had in contrast. Perhaps this makes me sound too romantic, but I honestly believe the Arab world has a solid basis to build some sort of unity. The Arab League, well, I think the average Arab citizen has lost any faith he’d previously had in this body. </p>
<p>And speaking of OPEC, or the oil-generating Arab states, they’re not doing something "tangible". If we are going to head to unity one day, then I’d assume the rich of us would help the poor. People are starving in Arabian Africa, and no body cares. One would think there would be much more efficient efforts put to help the people and such, but what is available is not satisfactory.</p>
<p>I agree with Nas, the "summit" meetings of the Arab League have no "summit-isque" appeal to them. Ask anyone on the street before any such an event takes place, and they would laugh at it&nbsp;with tears in their eyes. Citizens have little or no faith anymore.</p>
<p></p>

As I said in a different post, Tololy, I think "Arab potential" is constrained in large part by corrupt, un-democratic governments and the influence of extremly conservative fundamentalist religious parties, both of which are largely absent in European Union member states. The European Union may be inefficient and bloated, but it’s a long way from the club of gangsters and aristocrats that gather at the Arab League. It’s <span style="font-style: italic;">those</span> people who are the Arabs’ biggest problems. <br /><br />You talk, Tololy, about the massively uneven distribution of wealth in OPEC states, and you’re absolutely right. And you have only to look at the leaders of the Arab League to see who is ultimately responsible for the situation. It’s not Israel and it’s not the United States — they’d like people to think so, because it makes their jobs that much easier when popular anger is directed at someone else (which isn’t to say that Israel and the United States do not make it easier for that anger to be channeled in their direction…) — but when it comes right down to it, the Arab governments do not, I believe, have their peoples’ interests at heart.<br /><br />In closing, and in reply to nas’ point about "American influence," I’ll simply point out that without American dollars, the Egyptian government would likely collapse. I’ll also mention the fact that the moment the pipeline of American dollars to the Palestinian Authority was stopped in the wake Hamas’ electoral victory, people started crying foul. <br /><br />Does it not seem extremely strange that everyone in the world is more than happy to accept (expect?) American money and immediately proceeds complain about "American influence" the moment the check is cashed?<br /><br />You can’t have it both ways.<br />

<span style="font-weight: bold;">Vincent,</span> Notice that I said "American Influence"…this includes cash payments made to Arab regimes. Political, Economical, and Military influence. There is no denying that the American foreign policy has a vested interest in keeping the status quo of Arab unity (or lack there of) in tact.<br />

Does not the Arab world (or at least Arab governments) have a vested interest in keeping American dollars flowing in their direction?<br /><br />The power structure we’re discussing is not a unilateral power structure in which one party merely imposes its will upon the other, after all. The Palestinian Authority wants American dollars for the very simple reason that it cannot function at all without them. Civil servants cannot be paid, to say nothing of public works or any other such thing.<br /><br />My point is that "American influence", in the form of dollars, is critical to the survival of several Arab governments. One can decry this "influence," but one must be willing to face the consequences of its absence, as well. <br /><br />Here’s a thought experiment: Egypt, after Israel, is the second largest recipient of American aid money (although Iraq may have bumped it down to #3…). What do you think would happen if that "American influence" disappeared tomorrow? Would the short-term results be good? Or bad? How about the long-term results?<br /><br />Another thing to consider: If we’re agreed that "American influence" can also mean "American dollars," then you cannot rightly say that Europeans are independent of American influence, either. <br /><br />Furthermore, given the United States’ need for oil, it is unfair to say that the United States is itself free of "Arab influence," is it not?<br /><br />North Korea is the sad example of a state that has done its best to hermetically seal itself off from the "influence" of the rest of the world. I’m not sure that’s worked out real well for them.<br />

<p>Vincent: Very good ideas. </p>
<p>The issue of "American Influence" is more complex than we customarily think of it and it is indeed a two-way street. Yet underpinning the ability of America to have the final call in any situation is due to immense military power (Nuclear Diplomacy) and its PetroDollars. </p>
<p>If you look at the structure of the oil market, you will see that everything is traded in dollars. So for Jordan to buy Oil, it has first to exchange an asset/merchandise for the paper notes. The person on the end side of the deal has got their dollars too by exchanging an asset. Eventually, all the paper notes have been circulated when someone gave America an asset in return.</p>
<p>What does it cost America to print the dollars then? They cost less than toilet paper does. Yet this magical note can be exchanged for anything you ever dreamt of.</p>
<p>There is a catch, however. Oversupply of dollars causes a depreciation of its value, so you need to print dollars at an accelerating rate. Not very helpful for stability. You instead for the Arabs who are the sinks of your petrodollars (because the sell oil in billions annually) to keep those dollars off the market or to recycle them by doing massive re-investments in the USA. This way, there is no oversupply of petrodollars.</p>
<p>In effect, America’s oil is for free. Not only that, its military costs what the papernotes cost, because everyone else subsidizes Americas military by agreeing to the value of the the dollar that America "sets" (and the Fed does set it with a margin for oscillation) and agreeing to barter at Americas terms. </p>
<p>Why do people agree to barter on unfair terms? Complete is the circle now: because America has a mighty military and will whip you if you dont. How is the military mighty? Because it has an "infinite" supply of petrodollars.</p>
<p>So yes, Vincent, sometimes things are as simple as "America’s influence". But this influence is largely due to us accepting to hand over our necks to America, and refusing to believe that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Is time for us to curb America’s power?</p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Guys and Girls,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">In particular anyone following the root that we have so much in common ideologically it must be easier; if I may be blunt you are missing the point.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">
<p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">No union of any significance has ever been built on common ideology, in fact unions are initiated on one of two basis, either common interest, or lack of choice on the part of one party period. And anyone proposing otherwise I ask you this, give an example and remember we are talking about the start not how something is perceived after a while.</p>

<span class="commentTitle"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Vincent,</span> I can’t really reply without repeating anything Gafgafa has already said. But in addition, the lack of Arab unity stems from several to many reasons, ‘American influence’ being only one of them and the root cause of some of them. I don’t want to flatter anyone by assuming all our problems stem from the U.S. </span>

Well, I’ve been at work all day, so I haven’t had much time to reply, but I’ll simply point out that Gafaga’s theories of economics are woefully misguided.<br /><br />For instance, this passage:<br /><br /><span class="commentBody" style="font-style: italic;"><span id="comment-1908">Oversupply of dollars causes a
depreciation of its value, so you need to print dollars at an
accelerating rate.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;" /></span></span></span><span class="commentBody"><span id="comment-1908">It doesn’t work like that. When there is an over-supply of dollars, less money is put into circulation, not more. One does not respond to a glut of currency by printing even more currency. <br /><br />Is it even worth mentioning that oil deals are generally not brokered with "paper notes"?<br /><br />At any rate, this theory that the United States somehow gets oil "for free" from the Middle East, Canada, Venezuela, or anywhere else is, to put it bluntly, utterly wrong, to say nothing of this stuff about the American military "whipping" anyone for not trading with us on "unfair terms".</span></span><span class="commentBody" style="font-style: italic;"><span id="comment-1908"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;" /></span><br /></span></span>

Tololy,<br /><br />I think it’s very important to realize that our "Arabness" should not be the only thing that brings us together, there are bigger spheres of unity to talk about than just what’s in the word "Arab". There’s our humanity, and there’s also the religion that most Arabs believe in; Islam. There is always something that people no matter how different they are have in common, and I think our goal should be to realize that there is never a good reason not to leverage the common stuff from others and use it as a means for cooperation. So naturally, the concept of unity then gets achieved slowly and iteratively, starting with the smaller circles and growing out.<br /><br />Now, some people argue though that "Arabs can’t unite", and I tend to agree to a certain extent. There are multiple reasons I think. First, Arabs are still &lt;i&gt;mostly tribal people&lt;/i&gt;, they think and operate in the mode of the tribe and nothing but the tribe. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but definitely the majority and that makes it hard to come together. The Arab tribes in the past had many things in common, but they never managed to stop fighting. The tribes fail to see themselves in a context that is bigger than the geographical area that they are known to live in and "claim". What tribes need is a way of seeing themselves as part of a bigger world, and many people argue that that is what Islam gave the few Arab tribes that used to live in the penensula.<br /><br />Another reason is close to what Firas said. You see, there are always gonna be people like Firas (I’m not saying something bad about you Firas). There are always gonna be people like Firas who will have a good point; even though they speak Arabic they do not identify themselves as Arabs, and they honestly don’t have to. Many Arabs in the US don’t consider themselves Americans even though they were born there and speak the language and in many cases still don’t speak good Arabic, yet they still identify with being Arabs. So if we consider the fact that really what is the Arab world today is simply a mostly non Arab world that speaks Arabic, we realize that the scope of Arab unity gets even smaller, and that is kind of good because it means you have a smaller problem to fix, but it’s also bad because it adds confusion and creates hostilities if you decide that we’re only going to talk about Arab unity in the scope of the Arab penensula because there are about a dozen countries that will be left out of it and it won’t make them happy to be "treated that way".<br /><br />So what I’m trying to say is that the Arab context is not the best context to talk about unity in. The people that you want to unite half of them don’t even identify with being Arabs and more importantly lack the ability to identify with the rest of the group, and on the other hand even those who identify with being Arab and identify with other Arabs are still not guaranteed to fully cooperate simply because the majority of them still operate in a tribal mode that fails to see the big picture beyond the tribe.<br /><br />This is why I think, while having Arab unity is a good thing (whatever Arab means here), it’s probably not the best idea to invest &lt;i&gt;most of&lt;/i&gt; our time and effort in it.<br />