Arab countries: bilateral relations or conflict [Archives:2005/836/Opinion]
By Prof. Abdulaziz al-Tarb
Inter-Arab relations have special characteristics, that can be seen from the Arab League through to the regional Arab councils. Bilateral bonds between geographically adjacent countries have been influenced by colonization.
The history of Iraqi-Kuwaiti relations is well-known, the present reality of Syrian-Lebanese relations is stark; Yemeni-Saudi relations have been governed by border demarcation treaties and agreements; the Egyptians and Sudanese are most often on good terms except when they tackle the “Harib” issue; and Algerian-Moroccan relations are characterized by sensitivity. Differences in opinion between Arab countries happen because of adjacency and political propositions.
In this week's article, I intend to point out that Arab disputes are mainly between adjacent countries with a few exceptions, such as the recent setback to Saudi-Libyan relations:
First: The Iraqi-Kuwaiti example is one of the most notable example. Kuwaitis have been going through hardships since their independence when Abdul-Karim Qasim tried to swallow the then new Gulf State on a historical basis, echoing what King Ghazi had claimed two decades earlier. Were it not for the Arab League and the nationalist Nasserite surge, the situation could have been different, although Kuwait's legal and international status was not a debated issue.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he meant to highlight the claim in the Iraqi subconscious and led his aids and followers into a losing battle. The endeavor ended with Kuwait being liberated by an overwhelming international coalition including forces from heavy-weight Arab countries such as Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Another failure was Saddam's attempt to manipulate the Palestinian cause or to orchestrate a confrontation with the US. The whole matter was settled by Kuwait restoring its complete territories.
Second: Syrian-Lebanese relations have become a historical obsession since independence. During the second half of the 20th Century, these relations were subjected to many tests. Charter 349 was an important station preceded by the implementation of Taif Treaty and redistribution of power among Lebanon's religious sects. The relations between the two countries had their special nature, which nobody tried to trespass. Even Abdul-Nasser, at the peak of his power and nationalism, talked on many occasions about Lebanon as a special case.
When Sadat came to power in Egypt, he coined the slogan “Lift your hands on Lebanon” in the turmoil of the Lebanese civil war. The organic connection between Syria and Lebanon, which have no mutual political representatives, is a unique and complex example. When UN Security Council's Resolution No. 1559 was issued, backed by France and approved by the US, many saw it as interference in the special Syrian-Lebanese relations. It also violated the concept of national sovereignty ensured for every UN member. The assassination of Rafik al-Hariri has unfairly been blamed on Syria and brought pressure on it, making the pullback from Lebanon a question of time not as much in submission to international pressures as it is in implementation of Taif Treaty.
Third: The history of Yemeni-Saudi relations was marked by conflict and sensitivity. A few years ago, the border issue hampered relations between Sana'a and Riyadh. Although King Abdulaziz the father signed with Yemeni Imams in the 1930s, the gap in living standards between the two neighbors after discovering oil in Saudi Arabia increased sensitivity and gave vent to tribal feuds. I may be wrong when I say that the US supported Yemeni unification and helped defeat the secessionists in order to stabilize Yemen and, consequently the Arabian Peninsula.
Fourth: Sudanese-Egyptian relations are distinctive. It is enough to remember that the 1952 Egyptian Revolution that overthrew the King of Egypt and Sudan brought an end to the two countries' one-king rule. Notwithstanding brotherly sentiments with the northern neighbor, the Sudanese have developed sensitivity fueled by past mutual governments and British practices based on the standard colonial practice of divide and rule.
Their relations have been seasonal, and the power struggle between Abdul-Nasser and Najib in mid 1950s provided a chance for the Sudanese national will to assert itself, replacing the “Unity of the Nile Valley” with independence on January 1, 1956.
When the United Arab Republic emerged in February 1958, hundreds of students at Alexandria University chanted “Sudan First,” directly criticizing the move eastward at the expense of unity with Sudan. Egyptian-Sudanese relations have now shaken off past sensitivities and have attained equal status, despite the current problems in Sudan. Egypt supports unity of Sudan's land, taking no sides in regard to the conflict in the southern part of the valley.
Fifth: Algerian-Moroccan relations are an example of inter-Arab relations in North Africa. The two countries share many characteristics of the so-called North African Arabs. However, relations have been affected by disputes over the Western Desert.
Although, Morocco backed the Algerian liberation revolution, sensitivity surfaced in early 1970s and has remained to the present. Their disputes hobble inter-Arab work and the solidarity of North-African countries.
This is a brief review of several relationships between a number of Arab countries. There may be examples of sensitivity-marked relations between other Arab countries such as Qatar and Bahrain, the issue of which has been settled by the International Justice Tribunal's resolution.
——
[archive-e:836-v:13-y:2005-d:2005-04-25-p:opinion]
