There have been many attempts since the end of colonialism to establish a nation which would unify two or more Arab nations under one banner. There has been the United Arab States, Arab Federation, Federation of Arab Republics, and so on. None of these lasted very long. The challenge here is to get a successful union of two or more Arab countries, and what would be the results and repercussions of that?
AHC/WI: Successful Arab Union State
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
I think a federation of Egypt and Sudan, if it could've been brought about, would have been successful. Unlike with the UAR, they border each other, and Egypt is SO dominant demographically, that Sudan doesn't have the strength to leave the union if it tries. Again, I think that a problem was that the union states of OTL were too decentralised, i.e. there was an Egyptian govt. and a Syrian govt. if they were unitary states, it would be easier to prevent them from leaving.
Trying with Syria and Egypt would never work. Egypt and Sudan is possible. Them with Libya is also sort of possible but harder.
Egypt-Sudan could have been possible. In fact Sudan in OTL was ruled as an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. Me wonders why didn't Britain give it to Egypt upon the first's independence.
Well why not give South Sudan independence and give North Sudan to Egypt. In fact something tells me North Sudan might join Egypt in the future.
Because Britain didn't want a powerful Egypt. It's the same reason they supported the Muslim League in India for the Partition.
Not entirely. The Southern Sudanese were actually very surprised that the British ended up sticking them under the North Sudanese; a North Sudan under Egyptian control alongside an independent south would probably have made more sense than what ended up happening.
The 1922 Egyptian Declaration of Independence notably mentions Sudan (alongside foreign affairs, military affairs, and something else I don't remember right now. The Suez?) as being reserved under British power. From what I can tell this was due to Lloyd George being afraid of making the new Egyptian state too powerful (Egypt with Sudan would have controlled even more of the world's cotton supply, to start). From there ensued a long series of internal spats within the British colonial bureaucracy, basically between the Arab-supporters on the one side (typically from the London Foreign Office) and the black African-supporters on the other (more typically from other colonial postings in Africa).
From what I recall, the British spent the entire codominium developing the north and south along completely different lines, and the artifact of united Sudan basically happened because the first person to get into Sudanese nationalism happened by coincidence to be a [Muslim] from the largest ethnic group in the south. The northerners completely dominated the resulting government, and the rest is history.
In 1952 with the Egyptian revolution, the only way to get the British off their southern border Naguib and Nasser knew they had to give up their claim of sovereignty over Sudan. It was easier then because in part because the condominium was with respect to the King's reign, not their new regime. The claim was all or nothing, there was no precedent for Egyptian control for just Muslim Sudan.
And why would they want Muslim Sudan in '52-'55? South Sudan would remain under British control, allowing a perfect base of southern operations for interfering with Egyptian power in an alternate Suez crisis. Or they could get Sudan in the whole and be likely responsible for fighting a civil war that would last decades rather than a relatively unified state in just Egypt proper.
So beginning unified would likely prove poor for a continued Egypt-Sudan union and the goals they wanted to achieve. After the British are expelled from Sudan and their colonial motives embarrassingly tarnished by the Suez Crisis, then I believe Egyptian-Sudanese unity is more likely.
If Nasser tries first with the lesser powers of Libya and Sudan and don't bother with Syria (at first) then the next candidate is Northern Yemen.
Egyptian-Syrian unity is likely doomed for the same reasons Peru-Bolivia, Norway-Sweden, Austria-Hungry, and any nearly any other bipolar confederacy is going to fail - with only two, relatively equally powerful camps, which can be easily identified and are geographically removed from one another, there is no one to blame but the other group and eventually it passes a place of no return.
Wolfpaw
Banned
I am very dubious as to the viability of pan-Arab states, but Egypt-Libya may be doable. Egypt-Syria was a non-starter, ditto Egypt-Yemen and Egypt-Syria-Iraq.
So try Libya; a lightly populated neighbor with a monarch and oil. The Libyans will probably resist, but Egypt may be able to pull it off.
So try Libya; a lightly populated neighbor with a monarch and oil. The Libyans will probably resist, but Egypt may be able to pull it off.
Last edited:
I could see two starting unions.
1) Egypt + Libya + Sudan then admitting Algeria and Tunisia, then North Yemen and Oman, and going from there
2) Iraq + Syria + Lebanon, then South Yemen and Oman, then going from there. Keep the number odd and relatively balanced, although I think Morocco, Persia, and Pakistan are unlikely to join until much later while old Soviet Central Asia would bea hotbed for discussion.
1) Egypt + Libya + Sudan then admitting Algeria and Tunisia, then North Yemen and Oman, and going from there
2) Iraq + Syria + Lebanon, then South Yemen and Oman, then going from there. Keep the number odd and relatively balanced, although I think Morocco, Persia, and Pakistan are unlikely to join until much later while old Soviet Central Asia would bea hotbed for discussion.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Libya is probably, structurally, the easiest.
Sudan has a lot of problems, and given that there is already a major divide between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt (with regards to Lower Egypt being more developed and affluent with Upper Egypt generally seen as little more than a land of farmers and migrant laborers), throwing Sudan into the mix likely wouldn't do any great favors.
Libya is small, and depending on the timeframe has either already discovered its oil or it's about to. The problem of course would likely be a disparity in influence and population. Egypt is the wealthier, more populous, and all-around superior partner in a union between Egypt and Libya. It's not at all hard to imagine a situation where Libyan oil wealth is going into Egyptian pockets with very few returns for the Libyans themselves.
That said, out of the Egypt-Sudan union, which poses all kinds of issues for water use and wealth disparity, Egypt-Syria which is divided firstly by geography and later by culture and demographics, Egypt-Libya remains the most viable option, and even then it will take careful management to keep Cairo from being too much the superior to Tripoli.
Sudan has a lot of problems, and given that there is already a major divide between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt (with regards to Lower Egypt being more developed and affluent with Upper Egypt generally seen as little more than a land of farmers and migrant laborers), throwing Sudan into the mix likely wouldn't do any great favors.
Libya is small, and depending on the timeframe has either already discovered its oil or it's about to. The problem of course would likely be a disparity in influence and population. Egypt is the wealthier, more populous, and all-around superior partner in a union between Egypt and Libya. It's not at all hard to imagine a situation where Libyan oil wealth is going into Egyptian pockets with very few returns for the Libyans themselves.
That said, out of the Egypt-Sudan union, which poses all kinds of issues for water use and wealth disparity, Egypt-Syria which is divided firstly by geography and later by culture and demographics, Egypt-Libya remains the most viable option, and even then it will take careful management to keep Cairo from being too much the superior to Tripoli.
Incognito
Banned
Except for Morocco, none of the nations you named here are Arab.
Somalians are Arab?Here's a map of the Arab world.
Wolfpaw
Banned
Their culture has been highly influenced by that of Arabia. Remember that the Arab cultural sphere reached down to Zanzibar until not too long ago.Somalians are Arab?
Last edited:
Apart from a surviving Ottoman Empire (which I think is outside the OP), the mergers I remember are the UAR (Egypt and Syria) and a proposed Libya/Tunisia merger. Plus we have the successful (so far) example of North and South Yemen.
Would an Algeria/Tunisia merger be possible with an alternate Algerian War of independence?
Perhaps a looser federation of Arab states, along the lines of the UAE? Could this be extended to cover Oman and maybe even Saudi?
Regards
R
Would an Algeria/Tunisia merger be possible with an alternate Algerian War of independence?
Perhaps a looser federation of Arab states, along the lines of the UAE? Could this be extended to cover Oman and maybe even Saudi?
Regards
R