More successful pan-Arabism

How could the Nasser-type project of Arab unification have been successful - or, at least, MORE successful? I don't see ALL Arab states entering into a secular superstate, federation, confederation, "hard" alliance, etc., but maybe a lot of them. (A hard alliance is something like NATO or the Warsaw Pact.)

The objective would be a more unified world of Arab republics, strongly independent of both the United States and the Soviet Union. While there would probably be a pretty strong socialist character to this whole arrangement, neither the Soviets or the Chinese would be great allies.

And how does Israel do?
 
Israel? what Israel? :p
An Arab unification would certainly be deadly for them
But if the Arabs are taking the Soviet's side, it would be different, we would see Israel as a part of NATO

But then again, when is this?
 
How could the Nasser-type project of Arab unification have been successful - or, at least, MORE successful? I don't see ALL Arab states entering into a secular superstate, federation, confederation, "hard" alliance, etc., but maybe a lot of them. (A hard alliance is something like NATO or the Warsaw Pact.)

The objective would be a more unified world of Arab republics, strongly independent of both the United States and the Soviet Union. While there would probably be a pretty strong socialist character to this whole arrangement, neither the Soviets or the Chinese would be great allies.

And how does Israel do?

Big fish in small ponds do not like becoming mid-sized fish in larger ponds. The various dictators and absolute monarchs of the Middle East are unlikely to be enthused about becoming part of any one elses superstate, and as for federations, when you are talking dictators or presidents-for-life, such things last exactly as long as it takes one of them to throw a hissy fit. Note how OTL the federation of north Yemen with the UAR lasted all of three years.

Now, weak or unstable governments (a fear of Communist takeover was one element in Syria joining with Egypt), or democratic ones, might accept union in a larger state. But then there is the question of where the capital is, how the beaurocratic spoils are shared out, etc. Local elites are not likely to be happy with being pushed around by a distant government.

The only successful unification of two Arab states was that of North and South Yemen - and those were places with a good deal of shared history before colonization, and only kept together thanks to Northern forces winning when the south tried to break away again. Which, for me, argues one major prerequisite for Arab Union:

common borders

which allows for force projection, which Egypt does not have with Syria or Yemen. Unless you want to take on the hard task of democratizing the Arab world, any Arab super-state or federation will probably require force at some point to hold together. If we want Egypt as the core, union with Sudan and/or Libya might be workable (Quadhaffi was enthusiastic for a while about a Libyan-Egyptian merger. Hm. How much trouble could Quadhaffi get into as the dictator of united Egypt and Libya? :) )

Bruce
 
Top