From: wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna)
Subject: Re: Arab Unity
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:07:31 GMT

In article <26219@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.235730.1278@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.214206.21065@trl.oz.au> a.Faris@trl.oz.au  writes:
>>>
>>>I do not think that Pan Arabism will solve any problems, and stand to create
>>>new ones. The Arabic people are not uniform in culture and geopraphically
>>>separated by deserts and seas.
>
>>I disagree.  Let me put it this way: the similarities between the Arab
>>people, IMO, far outweigh the differences which may exist in reality 
>>[... lotsa good points deleted ....]
>
>You make some very good points in rebuttal to his second sentence, Waleed.
>But what did you think of his first sentence?  

Faris' two sentences are related, with the second intended to explain 
his rationale behind the first.   At least, this is how I understand them.
I respectfully disagree with both.

To the extent that the second sentence (the supposed rationale) is 
unconvincing to say the least and false in my opinion, the first statement 
lacks any solid basis.   And even if one agrees with the second sentence,
that does not necessarily imply nor provide support for the first.  Look 
at the US and India, for example.  Diversity does not mean that peoples 
and states cannot all (over time) benefit enormously and derive a great 
deal of common strength from unity, gains that each cannot possibly 
achieve alone.

>What problems could
>Pan Arabism realistically hope to solve or lessen,

Political, economic and military weakness.  `Pan Arabism' is clearly no 
panacea, but there is strenghth in unity, and there are great things
that can be done collectively that cannot be done by any single existing
Arab state alone.   

I should note here that `Pan Arabism' has assumed some negative connotation 
here in the west, partly because tyrants such as Saddam have deceptively 
(but transparently to most Arabs) wrapped themselves with the flag of 
`Pan Arabism' and partly because of the typical knee jerk reaction
of many westren policy makers to every grass-roots popular movement in 
the third world.

This is most unfortunate since it, like the mainstream Islamic movements 
in various Arab countries, simply reflects the aspirations of the common 
people; it's pro people and not against the west.   So, rather than view 
such grass roots movements as a threat (when they are not) and respond in 
the typical bare-knuckled fashion, it behooves the west, particularly the 
United States, to draw the Arab people in a real dialogue, to take 
their fears and hopes seriously, and to treat them as they would like
to be treated or as they would treat any great people or culture, with 
at least some understanding and a sense of global community.

>and how could
>it achieve this?  

This is a tall order, and I wish I could give a complete answer.
In a nutshell, it has to be done democratically within some system 
of federalism (a la the US) or at least following the EC model.
When and how to get to the point where this is possible is difficult
to tell.  The important thing at this point, however, is for Arabs 
to purge from their minds the notion that this is not possible.

>Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu

Waleed Muhanna
-=-
"Throughout the history of mankind there have been murderers and
tyrants; and while it may seem momentarily that they have the upper
hand, they have always fallen. Always."
	- M.K. Gandhi, Lawyer, philosopher & peace activist.