(This is a translation from the original Arabic, offered so that my grandchildren, and others of their generation, may understand something of their history— a history they were denied when they were uprooted without choice.)
Where To: The Unified Arab State
In the previous instalment, I ended by asking: What is the shape of the desired Arab state?
When I discuss Arab unity with my friends, the most common objection comes from those who do not want it for reasons that are not the subject of this discussion. However, the objection usually boils down to one of the following points: that it is impossible to achieve because the people do not want it, or because international circumstances do not permit it, or because international law forbids it, or that the time has not yet come, and other similar weak excuses that have nothing to do with the principle or the essence of the idea.
Although I have previously written about the core belief in the unity of the Arab nation and the pursuit of its realization, I must reiterate it here—not only to affirm the unity of the nation in its linguistic, historical, and cultural ties but also to prove that the Arabs have no future in the medium to long term without their unity. Especially now, as the world moves rapidly toward the creation of large political, economic, and military blocs. Europe, which consists of countless ethnicities, languages, and cultures, has organized itself into such a bloc. The primary motivations for these groupings are military protection, security, and economic integration. Anyone who looks at the Arab world will not need much effort to recognize the need for such integration. Economic integration between the people of Egypt and the resources of wealth in the Arabian Peninsula is easy to understand, and the results would be fruitful for the entire Arab world. As for the need for military protection and how to meet it, this is as clear as daylight. Is it conceivable that any citizen in Kuwait or Abu Dhabi, for example, would be able to secure protection for themselves against a potential threat from a powerful state like Iran, no matter how many missiles or anti-aircraft systems they stockpile? When the veil of ignorance lifts, they will realize that the real protection they could have secured was through the army of Iraq, which they participated in destroying and dissolving—not through the uncertain Israeli presence, which is not guaranteed in its readiness to defend them or even in its longevity.
It is not difficult to understand why many people reject the idea of the desired unity, as it is natural for the privileged to feel that unity might diminish their material comforts, if shared with others. But the idea must be presented as one that seeks the future of the children and grandchildren of the privileged. It must show how this unity can be the only guarantee for their future. Unity may limit their material ambitions, although this will not necessarily happen. However, what they gain in return is an ongoing guarantee for a prosperous future for all generations to come.
Above all, the fate of nations cannot be decided by the interests of a group of people at any point in history. Historical evidence of this is abundant, and we need only look at the recent past. The United States of America, often cited by those who oppose Arab unity as a model of freedom and democracy, would not have become what it is today if it had not unified through a bloody civil war that forced the people of the South to accept that the nation’s interest required unification. The cost of that unification was an unparalleled loss of life. Similarly, modern Italy was made up of competing city-states and did not become the unified Italy we know today until the 19th century, after decades of struggle. Germany’s path to power and economic prosperity was also forged through force, as it was unified in the late 19th century, and did not achieve the dominance it had in Europe until after its unification. No one asked the people of China for their opinion about unifying the country when Mao Zedong led the liberation war, resulting in a country that has now become one of the most prosperous in the world and a leading nation in global growth, all within just seventy years.
What I aim to establish with this is a historical fact: that nations are forged through sacrifice, and what the Arab nation may need for its survival and future is a sacrifice that might require the use of force to achieve unity if persuasion fails. This is something that must be understood, explained, and taught to future generations of Arabs. If Americans had to sacrifice blood to build a strong America that ruled the world, perhaps the Arabs must do the same to build a unified Arab state that protects itself and its people, without the need to attack anyone.
The most common objection to the idea of unity is the claim that it is impossible because of the political borders drawn by colonial powers, which have now become internationally accepted and perhaps even enshrined in international law. This objection stems from a lack of understanding of international law, which is based on the belief that the Security Council creates law and that the borders drawn by colonizers are binding. These are illusions held by those ignorant of law and politics, but I will not delve into them here, as I have written extensively on this topic. Those who wish to learn more can find my writings on this matter.
What has happened in recent months has confirmed what I have previously written: the borders of states are not fixed laws; they are subject to change depending on how and under what circumstances those borders were drawn. Putin’s decision to alter the borders of Russia, which were drawn by the Communists during the Soviet Union era, is a case in point. This redistribution of land was done for reasons unrelated to the population distribution of those lands. This has led to some people believing that these new borders are sacred and cannot be altered, while others believe that these borders cannot last. Putin is merely a leader with the power to change the borders that divided the Russian people and scattered them across several countries. What Putin is doing today is nothing new in Europe or the world. No one keeps track of how many times European borders have been redrawn over the past three centuries, and anyone looking at the map of Europe in the 17th century would hardly recognize it as the Europe we know today.
What Putin is doing today reaffirms what I have repeatedly written about: the borders imposed by colonizers on our lands are not sacred, and altering them with our own hands is not only possible but necessary for the creation of a unified Arab state, especially since the colonizers never hid their intention to create marginal Arab states by drawing artificial borders.
I am not advocating for the creation of a state today based on the borders of the Abbasid state, which represented the greatest historical unity of the Arab lands. However, I do advocate for, at the very least, working to return the Arab lands to their state before the European invasion in the 19th and 20th centuries. I call for the reunification of Syria, as it was known for thousands of years as the Land of the Levant. I call for the political reunification of Iraq, as it was under the Ottoman Empire. I call for the reunification of Egypt and Sudan. I call for the unity of Morocco, including the Sahara and Mauritania, and for halting the destructive and futile calls for further division in the Maghreb.
This call represents the first phase of unifying the Arab nation, and from there, we will be able to see the validity of the goal and work towards incorporating these newly unified entities into a larger and broader Arab state that encompasses all Arab lands.
So, what political and economic system do I envision for these newly unified entities and the unified Arab state I hope for?
To be continued…