A Tale of Two Visions

"If this war does not change us, what will?" That was the question posed by Lebanese sociologist and Al-Hayat newspaper columnist Dalal Al- Bizri in one of her post-war soul-searching tirades. Al-Bizri was not the first to ask -- she is just one of a chorus of Arab intellectuals who are struggling to come to terms with the whirlwind unleashed by the Iraqi crisis.

In the months leading up to the war on Iraq, and ever since the US-UK occupation of that country became a fact on the ground, an endless stream of writing by journalists, thinkers and political scientists from across the spectrum has deigned to assist in answering some of the tougher questions catalysed by the Iraqi crisis and the re-colonisation of an Arab capital for the first time in modern history. A heated debate regarding the region's future was soon evolving on the pages of the Egyptian as well as the Arab press. The emerging picture, however, was one of division, polarisation, charge and counter charge, and sometimes even slander. The argument over the path the Arab world should pursue was -- in some cases -- reduced to a war of words between "the Egyptian marines" or "the neo-liberal Arabs" on the one hand (as they were called by their opponents for their supposed complete acquiescence to US dictates in the region), versus "the Arab fascists, Stalinists and their Islamist substitutes" (as their opponents have termed them -- accusing them of the same empty rhetoric and outdated "isms" that have resulted in one historic Arab disaster after the other, with Iraq as its most recent manifestation), on the other.

Many observers saw the polarisation as an accurate reflection of the scope of the moral impasse that the Arab intelligentsia finds itself in as it attempts to come to grips with post-war realities. Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly, proponents of both arguments acknowledged that Arab intellectuals are clueless about the perils ahead, and have failed – thus far – to speak in a unified voice. According to Abdel-Moneim Said, the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic and Political Studies director who has often been at the centre of the debate, the polarisation is a reality that has been exacerbated by current events. "There are indeed two camps emerging -- our camp, which includes realists, democrats and liberals, and the other camp, which includes Nasserists, Islamists, radicals and nationalists," Said explained. The problem, in his view, was that even within such a debate, no real process of dialogue between the opposing parties was actually taking place. "The whole process is futile because even when some of the nationalist writers respond to what I write, they respond to arguments which have nothing to do with what I wrote," Said said.

Those in Said's camp have been accused of promoting American plans for the region under the pretext of democratic and human rights reform. Said ridiculed the charges. "They say that my writings justify American colonialism but this is not true," he insisted. "Our camp has been against the war on Iraq and I did not exclude the imperial argument from my assessment of the situation." Said, however, thinks the real questions are more along the lines of how to interpret the Iraqi events, and how the Iraqi regime collapsed so easily. "I am against the theories propagated by the neo- conservative coterie [in the States] but I also believe that they are not the only voice. Therefore, one has to engage with the US forcefully, like the rest of the world." The core of our argument, Said explained, is that the Arab world does not operate outside of history. "It is, rather, part of the historic evolution and has to be part of the global order by opening up culturally, politically and economically."

If anything, the debate highlights the role of the Arab intellectual in shaping the public response to post- war realities. Some observers believe that the genesis of the current problem began long before the Arabs became disillusioned with US policies in the region. The 1970s, they argue, witnessed the evolution of two paradigms, which shaped the way Arabs viewed the world and related to it. The first paradigm embraced liberalism, democracy, open media and a free market economy, while the other stood against all things Western, opposing the peace process with Israel and supporting the region's dictatorial regimes. Other intellectuals argued that using such binary categories smacks of reductionism, a simplistic approach to a very complicated situation. They contend that the debate comprises many shades of opinions, and that to divide these into just two categories only ignores reality or blatantly distorts it.

The most prominent of the so- called Arab neo-liberals, Al- Hayat's Hazem Saghiya, recently co-authored an article with Saleh Beshir arguing that "the Arab mind has kept itself away from reality, not moving beyond the rhetoric of condemnation of the political and cultural designs imposed on the region. There is a tendency to reject all things American and push the relationship with the United States to a point of confrontation rather than dialogue." At the same time, Saghiya's critique of the Arab condition does not prevent him from pouring scorn on this US administration's regional schemes. The American visions for the region, he once wrote, "are not good enough because they mix politics with ideology, as presented by the right wing groups taking over this administration". Speaking to the Weekly, Saghiya was critical of "the minority of Arab intellectuals" who naïvely believe in American intentions to spread democracy. "For them, what the US says is a given. They don't question it -- which goes against the very liberal traditions they claim to espouse." At the same time, Saghiya also thinks those on the side of Arab nationalism don't provide a valid alternative project. "They have nothing to say or argue about. All they can do is hedge their bets on an American failure." In Saghiya's view, the real problem is that Arab nationalists "still hold on to all the cold war (isms) that have proved their utter failure -- including pan- Arabism and its alternative movement, Islamism. They should learn to stop seeing the world through an ideological prism."

Saghiya and other neo- liberals argue that the Iraq crisis has proved that pan- Arabism and Islamism should be thrown into the dustbin of history, and that Arab countries should tend to their local and national interests instead. According to this view, the nationalist and Islamist ideologies have failed miserably to translate the aspirations of the Arab masses into any sort of tangible achievement.

That argument doesn't carry much weight for Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of pan-Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, and a staunch supporter of pan-Arabism. "I don't understand why we should give up our Arab identity, when -- for example -- Europe is heading towards unity." Atwan explained that the motive behind fervent attempts to do away with Arab nationalism could be traced back to the fact that pan-Arabism undermines American-Israeli schemes for the region. Atwan said the most recent manifestation of US attacks on pan-Arabism could be seen in the dissolving of the Ba'th Party, and the banning of its members from any role in future Iraqi politics. "The Ba'th Party has been targeted because its cornerstone is Arab nationalism," said Atwan, who was a staunch opponent of the Saddam Hussein regime. In comparison, "they have not even dissolved the communist parties in the Eastern bloc."

Said and other liberals find such viewpoints both irritating and unconvincing. "They say that the Arab countries are targeted by the US, and that America is bent on changing the map of the Middle East for Israel's sake, and that America went to war because of Iraqi oil," Said said. "But they never provide evidence to support all those arguments."

Meanwhile, there's Edward Said, a notable intellectual who cannot be described as a "traditional pan-Arab nationalist", but who has, all the same, lent credence to the fears and concerns of the Arab nationalist camp. In a recent article titled "The Arab condition", Said exposed both the US and Israel's deep-rooted loathing of Arab nationalism. "One of the most insidiously influential strands of thought in recent American and Israeli Orientalism, and evident in American and Israeli policy since the late 1940s, is a virulent, extremely deep-seated hostility to Arab nationalism and a political will to oppose and fight it in every possible way," argued Said. Unlike the neo-liberals, Edward Said still insists that "the American goal today is to redraw the map of the Arab world to suit American and not Arab interests. US policy," he pointed out, "thrives on Arab fragmentation, collective inaction and military and economic weakness."

Changing that dismal picture is the one issue that brings the opposing sides together. But while both parties agree on the need for political reform, at the same time each side has doubts about the other's intentions.

"Our top priorities," said Abdel-Moneim Said, "are internal issues and how to reform the stagnated political system. Their supreme value is not democracy, but resisting the West. Their democracy comes with numerous buts regarding minority and women's rights." Said thinks all Arab countries should heed their internal problems first and foremost. "I always say Palestine will be liberated when Egypt is liberated from poverty first. We have to pay attention to the inside, before addressing the external issues," he said. The other camp takes comments like that with a grain of salt, saying most neo-liberals are in fact part of the very establishment that they claim to be seeking to reform.

According to Gamal Fahmi, deputy editor-in- chief of Al-Arabi, the mouthpiece of the Nasserist Party, the Palestinian issue has not been a hindrance to the country's development. "Egypt has signed a peace treaty for almost three decades now. This means we have not had a war in 30 years and the Palestinian issue became secondary to other issues. What has happened, meanwhile, to the development rates and the economic prosperity in this time of peace? And what happened to the political reform?" asked Fahmi. "Our engagement with the Palestinian issue," he argued, "is not responsible for our shameful record in both economic development and political reform."

As the debate continues to brew, Said and others do not believe that a process of reconciliation between the two camps is imminent. He acknowledged, however, that the two currents would continue to coexist -- until further notice.

If anything, the arguments and counter arguments are serving to expose the fundamental Arab intelligentsia dilemma. On the one hand, there is an acute need to discuss, and attempt to implement, serious political and social reform in the region. On the other hand, the last thing political forces want to be seen doing is introducing political reform on an American ticket.