Comments on: First Salon entry: Arab Unity

By: Hamzeh N.

Hamzeh N. — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:50:51 +0000

Tololy,

I think it’s very important to realize that our "Arabness" should not be the only thing that brings us together, there are bigger spheres of unity to talk about than just what’s in the word "Arab". There’s our humanity, and there’s also the religion that most Arabs believe in; Islam. There is always something that people no matter how different they are have in common, and I think our goal should be to realize that there is never a good reason not to leverage the common stuff from others and use it as a means for cooperation. So naturally, the concept of unity then gets achieved slowly and iteratively, starting with the smaller circles and growing out.

Now, some people argue though that "Arabs can’t unite", and I tend to agree to a certain extent. There are multiple reasons I think. First, Arabs are still <i>mostly tribal people</i>, they think and operate in the mode of the tribe and nothing but the tribe. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but definitely the majority and that makes it hard to come together. The Arab tribes in the past had many things in common, but they never managed to stop fighting. The tribes fail to see themselves in a context that is bigger than the geographical area that they are known to live in and "claim". What tribes need is a way of seeing themselves as part of a bigger world, and many people argue that that is what Islam gave the few Arab tribes that used to live in the penensula.

Another reason is close to what Firas said. You see, there are always gonna be people like Firas :D (I’m not saying something bad about you Firas). There are always gonna be people like Firas who will have a good point; even though they speak Arabic they do not identify themselves as Arabs, and they honestly don’t have to. Many Arabs in the US don’t consider themselves Americans even though they were born there and speak the language and in many cases still don’t speak good Arabic, yet they still identify with being Arabs. So if we consider the fact that really what is the Arab world today is simply a mostly non Arab world that speaks Arabic, we realize that the scope of Arab unity gets even smaller, and that is kind of good because it means you have a smaller problem to fix, but it’s also bad because it adds confusion and creates hostilities if you decide that we’re only going to talk about Arab unity in the scope of the Arab penensula because there are about a dozen countries that will be left out of it and it won’t make them happy to be "treated that way".

So what I’m trying to say is that the Arab context is not the best context to talk about unity in. The people that you want to unite half of them don’t even identify with being Arabs and more importantly lack the ability to identify with the rest of the group, and on the other hand even those who identify with being Arab and identify with other Arabs are still not guaranteed to fully cooperate simply because the majority of them still operate in a tribal mode that fails to see the big picture beyond the tribe.

This is why I think, while having Arab unity is a good thing (whatever Arab means here), it’s probably not the best idea to invest <i>most of</i> our time and effort in it.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:09:53 +0000

Well, I’ve been at work all day, so I haven’t had much time to reply, but I’ll simply point out that Gafaga’s theories of economics are woefully misguided.

For instance, this passage:

Oversupply of dollars causes a
depreciation of its value, so you need to print dollars at an
accelerating rate.

It doesn’t work like that. When there is an over-supply of dollars, less money is put into circulation, not more. One does not respond to a glut of currency by printing even more currency.

Is it even worth mentioning that oil deals are generally not brokered with "paper notes"?

At any rate, this theory that the United States somehow gets oil "for free" from the Middle East, Canada, Venezuela, or anywhere else is, to put it bluntly, utterly wrong, to say nothing of this stuff about the American military "whipping" anyone for not trading with us on "unfair terms".

By: Nas

Nas — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:11:03 +0000

Vincent, I can’t really reply without repeating anything Gafgafa has already said. But in addition, the lack of Arab unity stems from several to many reasons, ‘American influence’ being only one of them and the root cause of some of them. I don’t want to flatter anyone by assuming all our problems stem from the U.S.

By: Nidal

Nidal — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:21:28 +0000

Guys and Girls,

In particular anyone following the root that we have so much in common ideologically it must be easier; if I may be blunt you are missing the point.

No union of any significance has ever been built on common ideology, in fact unions are initiated on one of two basis, either common interest, or lack of choice on the part of one party period. And anyone proposing otherwise I ask you this, give an example and remember we are talking about the start not how something is perceived after a while.

By: Gafgafa

Gafgafa — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:33:58 +0000

Vincent: Very good ideas.

The issue of "American Influence" is more complex than we customarily think of it and it is indeed a two-way street. Yet underpinning the ability of America to have the final call in any situation is due to immense military power (Nuclear Diplomacy) and its PetroDollars.

If you look at the structure of the oil market, you will see that everything is traded in dollars. So for Jordan to buy Oil, it has first to exchange an asset/merchandise for the paper notes. The person on the end side of the deal has got their dollars too by exchanging an asset. Eventually, all the paper notes have been circulated when someone gave America an asset in return.

What does it cost America to print the dollars then? They cost less than toilet paper does. Yet this magical note can be exchanged for anything you ever dreamt of.

There is a catch, however. Oversupply of dollars causes a depreciation of its value, so you need to print dollars at an accelerating rate. Not very helpful for stability. You instead for the Arabs who are the sinks of your petrodollars (because the sell oil in billions annually) to keep those dollars off the market or to recycle them by doing massive re-investments in the USA. This way, there is no oversupply of petrodollars.

In effect, America’s oil is for free. Not only that, its military costs what the papernotes cost, because everyone else subsidizes Americas military by agreeing to the value of the the dollar that America "sets" (and the Fed does set it with a margin for oscillation) and agreeing to barter at Americas terms.

Why do people agree to barter on unfair terms? Complete is the circle now: because America has a mighty military and will whip you if you dont. How is the military mighty? Because it has an "infinite" supply of petrodollars.

So yes, Vincent, sometimes things are as simple as "America’s influence". But this influence is largely due to us accepting to hand over our necks to America, and refusing to believe that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Is time for us to curb America’s power?

By: Vincent

Vincent — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:30:09 +0000

Does not the Arab world (or at least Arab governments) have a vested interest in keeping American dollars flowing in their direction?

The power structure we’re discussing is not a unilateral power structure in which one party merely imposes its will upon the other, after all. The Palestinian Authority wants American dollars for the very simple reason that it cannot function at all without them. Civil servants cannot be paid, to say nothing of public works or any other such thing.

My point is that "American influence", in the form of dollars, is critical to the survival of several Arab governments. One can decry this "influence," but one must be willing to face the consequences of its absence, as well.

Here’s a thought experiment: Egypt, after Israel, is the second largest recipient of American aid money (although Iraq may have bumped it down to #3…). What do you think would happen if that "American influence" disappeared tomorrow? Would the short-term results be good? Or bad? How about the long-term results?

Another thing to consider: If we’re agreed that "American influence" can also mean "American dollars," then you cannot rightly say that Europeans are independent of American influence, either.

Furthermore, given the United States’ need for oil, it is unfair to say that the United States is itself free of "Arab influence," is it not?

North Korea is the sad example of a state that has done its best to hermetically seal itself off from the "influence" of the rest of the world. I’m not sure that’s worked out real well for them.