From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Arab U N I T Y
Summary: Response to Nabeel
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:07:46 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <nabeel.722116674@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul) writes:
>
>" You rule out race, language, and political stance.  I agree.  By similar 
>" arguments, I rule out religion (otherwise, we would have to include muslim
>" republics in the former USSR, muslims in Afghanistan, Bagladesh, India, 
>" Iran, ...). Do you agree?
>
>   I agree, but the main idea here is that a union based upon beliefs is
>more logical than one based upon race, language, or culture without common
>beliefs. There is no problem in including independent Muslim countries into
>than union as it is obvious. (Look at Brittain and the Folklands.) 
>
>   There can be one president and many governors, somehow like in the 
>States but with more cooperation (e.g. economical,  educational, etc.) 
>Those dependent counties as in India, China, or wherever they might be, 
>can be treated in the same sense that the Prophet (MPBUH) treated Muslims 
>of Mecca in the Hodaibia Pact, until matters can be straightened. 
>
>   But in this sense of a union any Muslim can return to the
>Muslim State, unlike now, when you have to get citizenships or pay for
>residence permits, etc.
>

O.k., so we form the Muslim State, and elect a president (an Egyptian, most
likely.. 55 million and counting..).  What powers do you propose to give
that president?  Give him an army? probably not.  Give him the power to
conduct foreign policy? again probably not.  Give him the power to conduct
economic policy? The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Libyans and others will scream so
loud he won't hear himself speak!  Strip away these powers, and you end up
with a mish-mash of the Arab League and the Organization for Islamic unity.
But we already have these.

>" I suggest that Arab unity, in the sense being discussed in this newsgroup,
>" is completely undesirable:  To me, the only kind of unity that makes sense
>
>   Undesirable by _who_ and _why_?
>
>" in today's world is Economic.  Of course, to have the sort of economic 
>" cooperation that is strong enough to be called 'unity', there are some
>" prerequisites.  For one, the parties involved should not lose by entering
>" into such a union.  That prerequisite alone should rule out any kind of
>" 'union' on an arab-world scale:  while the Saudis and Kuwaitis might find
>" that it is in their best interest to open their common border, and trade
>" freely, do not expect the Saudis to be happy about opening their border
>" and their markets completely to, say, Egypt.
>
>   That is true. So it is sort of a union for those who hardly need it.
>
>" I'm not implying that there is no room for Arab cooperation.  Clearly,
>" Arab countries can work out mutually beneficial cooperation agreements,
>" and they do!  For example, many oil-rich Arab countries find it beneficial
>" to employ relatively cheap white-collar labor from Egypt, and the Egyptians
>" are not complaining.  Ditto for Egyptian farmers in Iraq.
>
>   I.e. a union based on equality is out of question. 
>
>   But why? Because some Arabs think (by the most modest) that God created 
>them but other Arabs originally were monkies and donkies and probably 
>still are. Remember that this labor is treated like dirt, discriminated
>against in every sense and lives worse than any Xtians can claim about 
>living in a Muslim state. If you work in a firm you share the load (I
>mean with people like _you_) and others (natives) get the credit. If
>you are a teacher or professor, you have to give native A+'s or they'll
>find a way to expel you. If you have a car accident, you are the guilty
>no matter what, etc., etc., etc.
>

This is not why a union based on equality is out of the question.  It is
out of the question because the countries entering into that union *are*
unequal (in the Economic, not the monkey/donkey sense).  No sane Saudi
citizen would want a union with Egypt that would allow Egyptians free access
to Saudi labor markets.  Remember Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound"?
The Europeans can do it because they are mostly in similar stages of 
development and enjoy similar standards of living (the situation in
Europe is exactly the reverse: the rich countries, like Germany, England
France, Italy,..etc. are the *large* economies, and they can afford to
accomodate the smaller poorer economies)

Incidentally, your statement about how foreign labor is treated like dirt
in Arab countries is precisely the kind of problem that I advocate discussing
and analyzing on this newsgroup, or in any forum Arabs can have discussions.

 
>" So instead of making general statements about Arab Unity, I suggest 
>" posters point out specific situations where Arab cooperation would be
>" useful.
>
>   The first such suggestion is that Arabs start talking to each other.
>The second is to stop acting like little children. By the time this
>happens, I would have a few more suggestions.
>

Tamer Abdelgawad
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic