The Formation of Arab Nations

Much of the modern political Arab world was born at the end of World War I as outside powers divided up their shares of territories that were loyal to their regimes. Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon came to exist alongside the precarious state of Palestine, for example. By World War II, these states had begun to want independence, and the following decades would witness revolution, regime change, violence, and ultimately, a break from the grips of the Ottoman Empire and European powers (Provence). Today, the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings, ongoing now for several years, are in part a result of mid-20th-centry political rule and administration by outside powers.

In the early 20th century, the Arab world was composed primarily of nomadic pastoralists in the inland desert regions and urban dwellers along coastal regions occupying key trade outposts (Anderson). While populations shared commonalities, such as language and religion, they had little else in common. This distinction would come to represent a divisive issue after the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel. Prior to this, however, Ottoman officials and European powers, mainly the United Kingdom and France, sought political influence in the region (Provence).

Following World War I, countries that had expended enormous amounts of blood and treasure felt they had real incentive to involve themselves in peripheral regions and ensure that their political views were supported. For example, young Arab states tended to support Communist parties in their governments. The Ba’ath Party, an Arab party that exists to this day, is one example of this. Early Arab states also embraced the Ottoman Empire's political traditions, and this was occasionally seen as being in opposition to Western political traditions (Long).

European powers had deep involvement in inventing Arab political boundaries. They saw to it that Arab states were drawn to meet their political and colonial demands. Iraq and Jordan, for example, were British political projects born out of their involvement in early century conflicts. At the end of World War I, Brittan and France wanted to ensure they had an influence in that area in order to control trade and make economic gain (Long 8-9). With little or no regard for nomadic groups, tribal rivalries, or already established trade routes and urban hubs, the British in particular established national boundaries that continue to cause tension in the Arab world.

In 1921, two cousins from nomadic tribes, in what is now called Saudi Arabia, were chosen by the British to serve as the first rulers of the new Jordanian and Iraqi nations. As “foreigners” from tribes well south of that area, cousins Abdullah (in Jordan) and Faisal (in Iraq) had trouble establishing legitimacy early on among their new subjects (Long). British advisors urged the new Kings to form national armies and hoped that the promise of military service for pay would encourage nationalism and settlement of nomadic tribes (Fathi). While local tribes still saw their leaders as outsiders, they did settle and adopt the nationalism of their new countries, and military service was a significant part of that. Arab states outside of Africa had several years to develop their own identities, and by the time the Ottoman Empire, British, and French rule ended, states had armies, education systems, political structures, and populations who had grown accustomed to that form of rule (Anderson).

By the time World War II ended, the Arab world had experienced several significant political jolts. Withdraw of European and Ottoman powers, and the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel represented significant challenges to Arab power and political rule. Jordan, for example, was established in 1921, and by 1948 they had taken in so many people trying to avoid potential violence in Palestine that Jordanian nationalism was challenged by people with an unclear national allegiance (Bailey). By 1950, Jordan found itself involved in regional instability, and it annexed the West Bank. This land grab instantly doubled Jordan’s population. Perhaps more importantly, Jordan’s newest residents were Palestinians who potentially had no interest in being Jordanian (Anderson). That tension exists to this day, as Jordan continues to host large numbers of Palestinians (Anderson) as well as Iraqis and now Syrians looking to escape instability in those countries (IRIN).

Jordan continues to serve as the place of escape for Arabs fleeing unstable places. Refugees from Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and occasionally Egypt, live in Jordan. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq Jordan took about 100,000 Iraqis seeking temporary escape from the war in their country (IRIN). Jordan is a strong US ally and they were the second Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel after Egypt. This is an enormously contentious issue in Jordan where about half the residents are Palestinians who left their country between 1948 and 1967 (Anderson). When Jordan’s King Hussein signed the peace treaty it was a risky move. Jordan has no oil reserves, and the population tends to be pretty poor. Some Jordanians saw the treaty as an indication of further instability rather than development. Promises of US aid money and support helped prompt the deal, but Jordanians understand this agreement means that the US is required to continue support Jordan indefinitely (Anderson).

Other Arab countries experienced upheaval as well. Iraq, for example, has political boundaries that include two different and occasionally competing sects of Muslims, the Sunni and the Shia. While Jordan and Palestine were overwhelmingly Sunni, Iraq had about equal portions of Shia and Sunni Muslims, with a slight majority of Sunnis (Long). As with Jordan’s non-Jordanian residents, these religious differences would come to represent serious divisions after the establishment of the country. Decades after the 1921 invention of Iraq, a political coup toppled the monarchy and the political party that eventually brought about the rule of Saddam Hussein was installed. Hussein appears to have been uninterested in religion until the 1990 Gulf War. In a successful effort to gain the support of his citizens for the invasion of Kuwait, Hussein used religious reasons to construct his argument (Long 67). He added the phrase “God is Great” to the national flag, a key Islamic phrase (Long). By 2003, and the US invasion of Iraq, religion had become an integral part of Iraqi nationalism.

Egypt, perhaps the epitome of Arab nationalism, also experienced upheaval after the end of World War II. Egypt had a military coup in 1952, and by 1970 Egypt was ruled by president Anwar Sadat. President Sadat ended Egyptian support for the Soviet Union and became an ally to the United States. While Sadat’s policy was ostensibly to modernize Egypt, his choice to be the first Egyptian head of state to pay an official visit to Israel ultimately brought about a great deal of domestic push-back. Additionally, Sadat’s economic policies tended to favor the rich rather than middle classes (Wickham), and Egyptians grew increasingly wary of the purported benefits of secular rule. Jailed political activists formed groups who aimed to resist the Egyptian state through religious means. What eventually became The Muslim Brotherhood flourished under Sadat’s economic policies.

By 1979, Egypt became the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel. It is important to understand that while Arab states had divisive issues, such as religious sects, access to work, or participation in national militaries, they tended to be united over opposition to what they saw as a brutal occupation of Palestine. Additionally, many Arab leaders used this issue to rally support for nationalist issues (Anderson), which served to increase dislike of the Israeli state. Hence, when the head of the most populous Arab state made an official visit to Israel and signed a peace treaty, Sadat took an enormous political risk. This risk ultimately cost him his life, because he was assassinated by an Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood, energized by the removal of a secular leader, became a political force and worked to become a legitimate part of the Egyptian government. Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak made the party illegal, but it was not until 2011 when Mubarak was removed that the Muslim Brotherhood became a legal political party in Egypt.

The so-called “Arab Spring,” a series of revolutions and protests across the Arab world in 2011, continues to this day and shows little sign of ceasing. The Arab Spring is seen as having begun in the country of Tunisia when protestors forced President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down. Protests began when a young, impoverished man set himself on fire to violently protest policies that he believed kept him from making a decent living. What began as a protest against political policies that appear to have favored the rich has since transitioned into contests between conservative Islamists who seek to replace secular laws with strict religious laws. In both Tunisia and Egypt, Islamic political parties continue to clash with those they want to govern because citizens evidently think that Islamist governance is not as permissive as previous secular governance was (Sullivan). While they clearly disliked corrupt secular governance, the Islamist experiment thus far seems to have yielded few better results in Tunisia.

Syria followed the Tunisian example. Violence in that country has pushed people into Jordan and Lebanon in search of safety. Historically, Syria was a French colonial project. Syria gained its independence by 1946 and subsequently experienced numerous coups. The Syrian Ba’athist Party, headed by the Assad family, continues to control the country. Syria’s path to violence is paved in colonial resistance. Syrian leaders who ran the country after the end of colonialism have had to contend with a population seeking educational and economic opportunity with little development to support the employment demands. Additionally, Syria (as with Iraq) has sizable Shia and Sunni Muslim sects, and this has continued to stoke tensions in the country. The Assad family, who has run Syria since a coup in the 1960s, is a Shia family that adheres to a minority sect of Shia Islam. In other words, Syria is headed by a family that has little in common religiously with its population. This came to a head first in 1982 when Sunnis loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood in the city of Hama rose up against the Assad regime. President Hafiz Assad sent in the Syrian Army, and several tens of thousands of civilians were massacred (Provence).

Syria is again in crisis. While violence in 1982 was largely contained to Hama, today Syria is violent in most areas. Sunni strongholds continue to take the brunt of Syrian Army violence, however. What began as a political protest against President Bashar Assad’s repressive policies has transitioned into a sectarian conflict. For the last three years, Syria has been extremely violent, and little sign of resolution exists. At various points, it appeared that the opposition had control, and at other times it was clear that the Syrian regime was going to take control back just as it did in Hama in 1982.

Overall, Arab nations are products of a colonial past that ended only a few decades ago. While each country’s path to independence was different, each state still worked to remove European, Soviet, or US intervention. Revolution is one thing, but running a nation is quite another, and revolutionaries capable of rallying popular support are apparently not capable of sorting out economic problems, working on development, or stopping corruption any better than the men they replaced. Today, the Arab Spring seems to be about religious conflict, yet these movements began as protests against unfair economic conditions. Arab nations are relatively “young” to the extent that they have not been independent nations for very long. The Arab Spring may represent national growing pains. It may also betray the fact that these states have not had much time to establish what the best ways are to administer diverse countries with economic challenges.

Works Cited

Anderson, Betty S. Nationalist voices in Jordan: the street and the state. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2005. Print.

Bailey, Clinton. Jordan's Palestinian challenge, 1948-1983: a political history. Boulder: Westview Press, 1984. Print.

Fathi, Schirin H.. Jordan, an invented nation?: tribe state dynamics and the formation of national identity. Hamburg: Deutsches Orient-Institut, 1994. Print.

IRIN. "humanitarian news and analysis." IRINnews. n.p., 18 Feb. 2007. Web. 9 Feb. 2014. <http://www.irinnews.org/report/70244/iraq-jordan-counting-iraqis-to-allay-fears>.

Long, Jerry M.. Saddam's war of words: politics, religion, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. Print.

Provence, Michael. The great Syrian revolt and the rise of Arab nationalism. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005. Print.

Shryock, Andrew. Nationalism and the genealogical imagination oral history and textual authority in tribal Jordan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Print.

Sullivan, Kevin. "In Tunisia, Islamist government paralyzed by middle-class backlash and extremist violence." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 9 Feb. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-tunisia-islamist-government-paralyzed-by-middle-class-backlash-and-extremist-violence/2013/09/17/d3855b1e-1bcd-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html>.