Towards a third way for the Arab nation

Human memory is selective; we always try to block out painful experiences and recall joyful events. The ability to forget is a blessing, without which life would be difficult. Yet, tension and concern will always be with us.

The Arab dream of unity and liberation after the First and Second World Wars was characterised by an ambitious development programme, limitless optimism and an eagerness for freedom. This was the dream of many Arab intellectuals, such as Abdul Rahman Al Kawakebi, who wrote The Nature of Despotism, in which he outlined the type of liberation he desired for his nation.

The dream of unity faced many obstacles and challenges, and leaders and intellectuals were prosecuted and executed in Beirut and Damascus before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The Arabs were disappointed with the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was signed by France and Britain to divide and rule the Arab world. The dream seemed to be unachievable when Arabs saw French troops invading Beirut and Damascus, and the British troops occupying Jerusalem and Baghdad. The Arab nation found itself in an unviable position. Instead of unity there was division, and instead of freedom there was a foreign mandate.

Some Arab countries gained their independence after the Second World War and found themselves in a world divided between two camps - the East and the West. This apparently meant that it was prohibited for smaller nations to go beyond the limits set by major world powers.

Some thought that the dividing line between dreams and reality was imaginary and that the political powers were essentially idealistic.

What they did not know was that these powers had an agenda of their own that, by and large, did not take into account nationalistic considerations.

The same scenario was repeated when the US administration in the early 1990s succeeded in using an Arab leader to bring about changes to the political map of the world's most important region - home to oil and natural energy resources, which were in demand in the capitalist world.

Regretfully, this scenario was implemented by the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussain, who thought that he had become the next leader of the Arab nation after the death of Egyptian president Jamal Abdul Nasser, and the guardian of the eastern borders. He gave foreign powers the pretext to invade Iraq and establish a strong footing in the Arab region after he refused to listen to reason when the late Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, a wise Arab leader, advised him to step down.

The occupation of Iraq was a result of the 1991 Gulf War, in which Iraq paid dearly for Saddam's mistake.

Iraq became a model of corruption and backwardness, and the whole Gulf region is still paying for that war, which may be considered one of the worst in Arab history.

Leaders who only thought of their own countries, rather than the Arab nation, were also responsible. It had become normal to hear people say that their country, rather than the Arab nation, came first.

Only a few still believed that the Arab nation came first, because the nation is the structure that protects countries that cannot individually protect themselves.

Furthermore, this division between countries creates conflicts that may take priority over the main struggle with the real enemy.

The few people who still believed in the importance of the Arab nation as a whole were labelled the 'old guard' and their ideology was said to be outdated.

At that critical era of the Arab nation's history, many believed that lofty themes, such as unity, or the conflict between the left and the right, were used by the media to mislead people.

The conflict was seen as being between the rich and the poor in the Arab region, which made the Arab people follow blindly, not realising that the success of development in the Gulf region was the way to achieve the Arab dream of progress.

The question here is: What is the solution to this development problem? Is there a third way?

That third way was described by British sociologist Anthony Giddens, as a political position that transcends left-wing and right-wing politics by advocating a mix of some left-wing and right-wing policies and compromising between socialism and capitalism.

Despite the prevailing confusion, some dreamed of achieving integration between the oil fortune and human capital in the Arab nation. But principled people who were willing to give their lives were often sacrificed.

Among these was Faisal Al Sanie, who became a nationalist symbol when he refused to rule Kuwait under Saddam's government. Al Sanie sacrificed himself for his nation, without any consideration for personal interests.

Here, one may ask: What is the relation between the issue of nationalism and a nationalist symbol, like Al Sanie?

Al Sanie's story is proof that there will always be people who believe in their nations and know that democracy will prevail despite the temporary domination of undemocratic forces.

It also proves that the Arab nation will always have people who follow in the footsteps of Al Sanie, and dedicate their lives to their nation.

Dr Mohammad Abdullah Al Mutawa is a professor of Sociology at UAE University, Al Ain.