The Arab States in the Regional and International System:
I. Foundations of the Arab System
Dr. Bahgat Korany

In studying the Middle East, one can use two levels of analysis, namely macro or micro. The most effective kind of analysis would be a combination of the two, but we should be aware of the disadvantages of each.

Arab System 1945-1996

The Arab system, from 1945-1996, has been plagued by two ambiguities, which have not yet been dealt with. They are:

The conflict between the raison d’état, and the raison de la nation: the leaders speak in the name of an Arab nation but act in a territorial context, i.e., in the name of a state.
The debate over the Arab World versus the Middle East, i.e., two notions, one from inside and one from outside. The term ‘Middle East’ is used to describe a geographical entity, one that was intended to withstand a possible Soviet threat and that included both Arab and non-Arab countries (Iran and Turkey). The term ‘Arab World’ describes a solid entity - one nation with a common culture and heritage and with common interests and priorities. This debate reflects the fact that the question of how to define the region still exists.

Events have shown that, in the Arab World, history is cyclical rather than progressive. The Arab system is also characterized by the phenomena of Arabization and Islamization. Arabization came with colonialization, and was based on the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Started by Christians, it protected their Arab identity against the system of the Turkish Caliphate.

While Islamization and Arabization are two different trends, they do, in fact, have the following common components:

both are grass roots oriented;
both are easy to assimilate;
both have deep-rooted respect for authority and they both push one towards obedience;
both are group-oriented and stress the community, rather than the individual;
both clarify each other and glorify one’s own group;
both have the same goals, namely an autonomous region and protecting the regional identity.

Evolution of the Arab Regional System: Arab Dynamics 1945-1996

To understand the foreign policy of Arab states - or any states for that matter - it is necessary to specify beforehand the regional and international contexts (environment or system) within which a particular policy is implemented. We have thus to deal first with the evolution of the Arab/Middle East regional system. We will do this very briefly in order to know the general "forest" or main features before dealing with the individual "trees" (components or countries of the region and their foreign policies).

In order to help you understand this evolution I will divide this period (1945-1996) into nine periods or phases:

Dynastic statehood and its limits (1945-48)
Rise of a new governing elite and the militarization of the political system (1949-54)
Pan-Nationalist populism and its limits (1955-61)
The Arab Cold War and the all liability situation (1962-67)
Grouping after the second nakba (catastrophe) (1968-72)
The Arabs in power... but short lived (1973-77)
Lebanonization (fragmentation) of the Arab system (1978-86)
Competition for focus (1987-90) - (two issues - Palestine and the Iran/Iraq War)
Arab balance of weakness, and the new regional restructuring (1991-96)

Dynastic Statehood and its Limits (1945-48)

This period is characterized by three main events: the end of the British Mandate; the establishment of the Arab League; and the UN Partition Plan and the establishment of the state of Israel.

The establishment of the Arab League was a British idea, introduced in 1941 by Anthony Eden. Britain supported the establishment of a system that would regroup the Arabs for two main reasons: to establish a united front against the Germans, and to put an end to the dilemmas and inter-dynastic fighting amongst the Arabs. The Arab system inherited two influences from Europe: the structure of the state and the idea of the nation.

The idea of the Arab League was then adopted by Iraq’s Nour Essa’id, who saw it as a way to control Syria. He believed that Egypt would refuse to join, thus leaving a regional system with Iraq in the lead. Yet, Egypt did join and even took on the leadership. A protocol was established and formalized in 1944 with five signatories: Egypt, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Iraq and Syria. The following year, Saudi Arabia and Yemen joined the League.

The goal of the Arab League was basically to deepen cooperation among the Arab countries. Yet, while the League aimed at strengthening inter-Arab relations and was thought to be a step towards unity, the member countries were divided between unity and protecting individual territories and goals. For example, in Article 22, the word ‘state’ (i.e., territorial state) is mentioned 48 times. Article 2 states the aim "To protect the independence and sovereignty of each state," and Article 8 calls upon members "To respect the existing regimes of each state." Thus, the organization was not aimed at changing the status quo. It reflected, in reality, the politics of notables, rather than any expression of a popular mass movement.

The first period of the Arab League proved to be a failure. In order to meet the call for unity, the governments ignored their differences, and this produced a system that was weak from the start. Impotent and lacking credibility, the system failed in its first test: the 1948 war. In fact, the League came out of the war in a far worse condition than before, with inter-state tension and much less mutual trust than had previously existed. The Arab states went to the war in a state of fragmentation and improvisation. The result was a bitter defeat, usually codified by Arab historians and even political commentators as the first nakba.