A problem with the world In a continuing series of articles, Abdel-Moneim Said argues that Arab regimes have fallen dangerously out of touch http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/613/op2.htm [for full piece]
The failure to come to terms with the changes that have occurred following the end of the Cold War is to a large extent responsible for the misunderstandings that characterised Arab reactions to 11 September. The experience of Arab ruling and non-ruling elites had been shaped by the Cold War division of the world, a situation that allowed Arab governments, both within and without the non-aligned movement, to play the bi-poles one against the other in order to win material and other gains.
It is surprising to find, when one turns back to the documents of the 1950s and 1960s, a general Arab dismay at the global division between East and West, socialism and capitalism, NATO and Warsaw Pact. The source of this dismay was that the Cold War had, in turn, divided the Arab world into socialists and capitalists, progressives and reactionaries, supporters of national liberation movements and colonialist agents. The American political scientist, Malcolm Kerr, was not exaggerating when, in The Arab Cold War, he portrayed the region as embroiled in an endless series of political crises, mutual antagonisms and media wars between Arab governments and leaders. During this so-called "glorious" era Arab countries fenced themselves off from other Arab countries despite the ubiquity of slogans and songs proclaiming Arab nationalism and unity.
Yet the Arabs have never stopped yearning for that epoch. And were it not for the continuing hope that the world will evolve into a multi-polar order that will increase the scope for manoeuvring, ducking and dodging and playing various ends against one another, the Cold War would remain the happiest of memories for the Arabs. In the closing years of the Cold War and afterwards the Arabs insistently asked the Japanese, Europeans and Chinese to pull together and form a global pole against the US. The question was posed so persistently because we could not shake our minds clear of the notion of a world founded on polarity, and because it was a comforting thought to be able to pass the onus of building an anti-US pole to others and then reap the fruit of those efforts. The Japanese, European and Chinese were surprised and, after the Cold War, dumbfounded, by the discovery that the Arabs did not know what was going on in the world, did not understand the changes in the relationships between these countries and the US and had failed to comprehend the meaning of polarisation and the nature of its responsibilities.
The fact is that beneath the surface of the Cold War profound changes were taking place in the international order as the result of developments in commerce, investment and the movement of capital. In short, there evolved a deep and complex dependency between the US and its potential rival poles. Europe could never have revived and flourished after World War II were it not for its transatlantic relationship. Japan could never have recovered its economic vitality were it not for US support for the yen and the boost given to Japanese industry and entrepreneurs during the US war in Korea. From at least 1978 the Chinese had realised that their only hope for development and the return of Hong Kong, Macao and even Taiwan resided in developing good relations with the US. In short, none of the poles that the Arabs want to emerge and take up the fight against the US on their behalf have the slightest desire to do so.
[snip]