Why is there no formal military alliance between all Arab countries?

[Corruptistan]

There is better than an Arab "NATO" .. It is called the Soul of Arabism.. it goes from Iraq to Morocco,, with a population mass of around 500 million people.. this is a fact, despite what external views are.. and don't get me wrong.. this mass will also mobilize if Islam is threatened.. because it is its key motivation of this Arabism.. in the first place..

I agree with this completely through my interactions with Arabs of all backgrounds. There is a very close bond people to people but this very close bond on all fronts is not always reflected in politics and how nation states interact. For instance when there was this crisis between some Arab states and Qatar it was never really about the people. Just politics. I think that it is a question of time and not a question of if the Arab League will evolve into a EU-like organization.

 

[Corruptistan]

What's the purpose of American bases in the region if the dynasties don't need any protection?

We live in an era of nationalism, pan-Arabism was something that was tried in the past with the unification of Syria and Egypt. It has lost popularity now. There will be no Arab Nato or Eu.

Political leverage, security against potential local uprisings against the rulers post Arab Spring. If the US did not have a large military base in Qatar (Al-Udeid), KSA could have invaded/annexed them.

Countries with United States military bases and facilities

List of American military installations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are talking about a small period in history where Arab socialism was tried in a few Arab countries led by populist leaders/dictators. That is not a proof of anything.

There is no contradiction between being a sovereign Arab state x or y and seeking closer ties with other fellow Arab states.

Anyway this thread of mine is actually a misnomer, as it appears (after further research) that there is a formal/informal Arab alliance already with most Arab states being a part of it.

As for Arab people, it is evident that the vast majority of them want further Arab integration. That was always the case.

 

[The SC]

I agree with this completely through my interactions with Arabs of all backgrounds. There is a very close bond people to people but this very close bond on all fronts is not always reflected in politics and how nation states interact. For instance when there was this crisis between some Arab states and Qatar it was never really about the people. Just politics. I think that it is a question of time and not a question of if the Arab League will evolve into a EU-like organization.

The stated purposes of the Arab League are to strengthen ties among the member states, coordinate their policies, and promote their common interests.

It is not an economic Zone.. Arabs need one Economic Zone of their own..of course.. but the Arab league is not it....it has more of a diplomatic role in general..

 

[The SC]

'in my heart' was the answer you weren't supposed to give, so 'my' in that statement is not me(ahaider97). Your romanticism doesnt correspond with any geopolitical reality. As an Arab you might have strong personal opinions on the political landscape of the Arab world, I'm just passing time here.

You are saying that you know nothing about this but still too arrogant to talk about the geopolitical landscape of the Arab world and its realities.. it is just pathetic to mix opinions with facts you ignore..

 

[Corruptistan]

The stated purposes of the Arab League are to strengthen ties among the member states, coordinate their policies, and promote their common interests.

It is not an economic Zone.. Arabs need one Economic Zone of their own..of course.. but the Arab league is not it....it has more of a diplomatic role in general..

Which is the point of this thread.

Why not develop the Arab League into not only a political body (The Arab League has not been very effective has it?) but an economic one like the EU? Add the security/military element as well naturally.

Nothing should prevent this from happening. The few political disagreements are all solvable. It is exactly this where outsiders look at Arabs/Arab World and all the immense potential, and wonder why such a thing was not done ages ago as that could have prevented many recent senseless conflicts.

If Arabs had united (I am talking about the leaders here) decades ago, they could have been a world power today.

Exactly the dynasties are being propped up by Americans once they're gone will be when the real spontaneous social movements will begin. Those will be interesting times.

I agree with this but it is more complicated tham this as most rulers (at least in the GCC) are very popular or at least enjoy majority support which is not surprising given the high living standards. The sentiments are vastly different in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Algeria and most Arab republics actually.

 

[The SC]

Which is the point of this thread.

Why not develop the Arab League into not only a political body (The Arab League has not been very effective has it?) but an economic one like the EU? Add the security/military element as well naturally.

Nothing should prevent this from happening. The few political disagreements are all solvable. It is exactly this where outsiders look at Arabs/Arab World and all the immense potential, and wonder why such a thing was not done ages ago as that could have prevented many recent senseless conflicts.

If Arabs had united (I am talking about the leaders here) decades ago, they could have been a world power today.



I agree with this but it is more complicated tha this as most rulers (at least in the GCC) are very popular or at least enjoy majority support which is not surprising given the high living standards. The sentiments are vastly different in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Algeria and most Arab republics actually.

Well, there is the small picture that the Arabs are every country is on its own due to national interests.. but there is a much bigger picture.. that not many people can see.. mostly outsiders to the Arab world.. there is the tip of the iceberg people can see and it is flawed some how.. but there is the real iceberg, clean and hidden..

Improve your comprehension skills.


@Khan2727 How can you be so sure when these dynasities are know for suppressing dissent? Plus when the Americans will leave everyone will start having ideas too. You sound too confident in your predictions about where things are headed. History rarely plays out the way we expect it to be.

Just swallow back your dumb words and get rid of your misplaced arrogance..

 

[Corruptistan]

How can you be so sure when these dynasities are know for suppressing dissent? Plus when the Americans will leave everyone will start having ideas too. You sound too confident in your predictions about where things are headed. History rarely plays out the way we expect it to be.

Because I lived in KSA and I am familiar with other GCC states as well. The rulers are local people who follow and protect local customs, traditions and Islamic traditions. They are generous and have developed their countries very well. Facts on the ground (lack of any uprisings or reasons for it due to very high living standards) also confirm this. In other words, I see no evidence of the majority being against them currently. If that was the case they would not have survived this long.

What the future holds none of us can say with certainty but it is a pretty well-established fact that most dissent within the Arab world occurs in Arab republics who overall also seem way worse off compared to the more stable and successful monarchies.

Well, there is the small picture that the Arabs are every country is on its own due to national interests.. but there is a much bigger picture.. that not many people can see.. mostly outsiders to the Arab world.. there is the tip of the iceberg people can see and it is flawed some how.. but there is the real iceberg, clean and hidden..


Just swallow back your dumb words and get rid of your misplaced arrogance..

Bro I agree with this completely but none of it really answers my legitimate (IMO) criticism. See post 40. I mean, Arabs themselves (those that I have talked with about this topic) agree with my sentiments. There have been many good Arab leaders in the modern period but probably more bad ones. It is what it is. Same story in Pakistan and the entire Muslim world.

The Arabs are just a special case due to the division into 20 nation states, the enormous unfulfilled potential and wealth, their historical greatness and the fact that they embody the state of the Muslim world in recent times for good and bad. For instance it is hard for outsiders to undertand why the GCC is not 1 country for example when there are countries in this world such as Pakistan India and many others that are 1000 times more diverse yet united (at least on paper).

This division suits nobody but enemies of Arabs. It is a fact, I am afraid. Just ponder for 1 minute what the potential could be if the Arab world united into 2-3 large federal states. Just take the GCC alone with Yemen and Jordan included (most realistic additions of today) and potentially Iraq. Just saying.

 

[The SC]

Political leverage, security against potential local uprisings against the rulers post Arab Spring. If the US did not have a large military base in Qatar (Al-Udeid), KSA could have invaded/annexed them.

View attachment 858983
Countries with United States military bases and facilities

List of American military installations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You are talking about a small period in history where Arab socialism was tried in a few Arab countries led by populist leaders/dictators. That is not a proof of anything.

There is no contradiction between being a sovereign Arab state x or y and seeking closer ties with other fellow Arab states.

Anyway this thread of mine is actually a misnomer, as it appears (after further research) that there is a formal/informal Arab alliance already with most Arab states being a part of it.

As for Arab people, it is evident that the vast majority of them want further Arab integration. That was always the case.

That map is totally false concerning US military bases in KSA.. the only time they were allowed and with a lot of difficulties was during the Iraqi invasion by the US and 40 allies.. and it came after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait..

 

[Corruptistan]

It's not just about dissent, once the Americans will leave there will most likely be power struggles, that's the biggest lesson from history and human nature. Don't interpret my words as if I want them to fight each other, I'm just disagreeing with your assessment that something like Arab EU or NATO is inevitable and waiting to happen.

Let us agree to disagree in this regard.

That map is totally false concerning US military bases in KSA.. the only time they were allowed and with a lot of difficulties was during the Iraqi invasion by the US and 40 allies.. and it came after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait..

I know that the US has no permanent military base in KSA. However the map says military bases and facilities. I am not sure what counts like facilities and which US facilities there are in KSA currently. You know that this is Wikipedia and anyone can edit it.

 

[Kedikesenfare2]

At first I was like: Why should there be such an organization? These are dozens of different states with differing interests.

Having said that, I just realized that NATO is basically a military alliance of white people covering effectively every single white nation in history on the planet.

Well.

 

[The SC]

Because I lived in KSA and I am familiar with other GCC states as well. The rulers are local people who follow and protect local customs, traditions and Islamic traditions. They are generous and have developed their countries very well. Facts on the ground (lack of any uprisings or reasons for it due to very high living standards) also confirm this. In other words, I see no evidence of the majority being against them currently. If that was the case they would not have survived this long.

What the future holds none of us can say with certainty but it is a pretty well-established fact that most dissent within the Arab world occurs in Arab republics who overall also seem way worse off compared to the more stable and successful monarchies.



Bro I agree with this completely but none of it really answers my legitimate (IMO) criticism. See post 40. I mean, Arabs themselves (those that I have talked with about this topic) agree with my sentiments. There have been many good Arab leaders in the modern period but probably more bad ones. It is what it is. Same story in Pakistan and the entire Muslim world.

The Arabs are just a special case due to the division into 20 nation states, the enormous unfulfilled potential and wealth, their historical greatness and the fact that they embody the state of the Muslim world in recent times for good and bad. For instance it is hard for outsiders to undertand why the GCC is not 1 country for example when there are countries in this world such as Pakistan India and many others that are 1000 times more diverse yet united (at least on paper).

This division suits nobody but enemies of Arabs. It is a fact, I am afraid. Just ponder for 1 minute what the potential could be if the Arab world united into 2-3 large federal states. Just take the GCC alone with Yemen and Jordan included (most realistic additions of today) and potentially Iraq. Just saying.

The divisions show in the tip of the iceberg.. and as you stated rightly, they are mostly in republics.. they falsely reject monarchy.. because of their communist-socialist ideologies and that they don't have that stability of governance..

But the real iceberg is clean and united.. most of all the Arab populace in its majority.. leaders who don't really belong to it or are not populists disappear or will disappear eventually.. take a look at Egypt for example.. where the people's will rules.. and that came because president Sisi understands what stability means for a country.. hence his closeness with Arab monarchies..

Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and also Yemen were and are still destabilized by their leaders' policies to be against all but the leader even if he is bad! .. it backfired and we saw the results.. now they are all in the process of correcting that flaw.. and the people will succeed with the help of the rest of the Arab stable world.. we can see it starting everywhere..

 

[Corruptistan]

The divisions show in the tip of the iceberg.. and as you stated rightly, they are mostly in republics.. they falsely reject monarchy.. because they don't have that stability of governance..
But the real iceberg is clean and united.. most of all the Arab populace in its majority.. leaders who don;t really belong to it or are not populists,, disappear or will disappear eventually.. take a look at Egypt for example.. where the people's will rules.. and that came because president Sisi understands what stability means for a country.. hence his closeness with Arab monarchies..
Syria, Iraq, Yemen and lLibya and also Yemen were and are still destabilized by their leaders policies to be against all but the leader.. it backfired and we saw the results.. now they are all in the process of correcting that flaw.. and the people will succeed with the help of the rest of the Arab stable world.. we can see it starting everywhere..

This is all good and well my friend but even if there are political differences among leaderships (those in power) or even differences in governmental systems (similarly in the EU there are monarchies and republics, right-wing governments, left-wing governments, those in the middle, populist ones etc.), those relatively small differences should be put aside.

My theory is simply that Arab leaders have not learned from what disunity/horrific wars like the WW1 and WW2 can do to a continent/region. Maybe the post Arab Spring chaos have changed this for the better. Either that or they are not mature enough to leave aside silly differences. That and conflict + external meddling.

Anyway as I wrote, if the Arab League had evolved into a military/security/economic organization (effective at that too) it could have prevented senseless conflicts such as Syria, Libya and Yemen and if not prevented such conflicts, at least created a consensus policy in terms of policies and what to do. Instead, as seen in Syria for instance, we had many different Arab policies and priorities. Some supported Al-Assad, others opposed his regime, others were neutral etc. There was not really a common or majority view (maybe there was a majority view of wanting him gone) but you know what I mean.

Maybe I have unrealistic expectations, after all the EU did not stop internal European divisions, the Ukraine war being a great example of this, but after all EU is made up of 100's of different ethnic groups with often a very bloody history, long rivalries, very different cultures, languages etc. which is not exactly the case in the Arab world despite the internal diversity.

 

[WotTen]

What is the Azhar to you? IS it another mosque? Or the countless high level colleges in Egypt?

Personally, I only care about science and technology.: the research papers cited by others, the technological inventions, etc.

Arts oriented fields are also important to nurture but our greatest need in the 21st century is to join the rest of the world in science and technology.

By that metric, there is nothing in the Arab or Islamic that is even remotely competitive to the West, China, Japan, etc.

 

[The SC]

Let us agree to disagree in this regard.



I know that the US has no permanent military base in KSA. However the map says military bases and facilities. I am not sure what counts like facilities and which US facilities there are in KSA currently. You know that this is Wikipedia and anyone can edit it.

No facilities apart from the ones for US troops coming to train Saudis on use of new US procured weapons.. those are the only facilities that KSA provides the US military with.. and not permanent.. only to accomodate the trainers for their times in there..

 

[Corruptistan]

No facilities apart from the ones for US troops coming to train Saudis on use of new US procured weapons.. those are the only facilities that KSA provides the US military with.. and not permanent.. only to accomodate the trainers for their times in there..

Not surprised. There is a lot of propaganda/inaccurate information in regards to KSA online, I have noticed. I was surprised by the inclusion of KSA in that map as well.