What will replace the fiery rhetoric to which we have become accustomed over several decades, asks Mustafa El-Feki* Pan-Arab discourse can be deceptively anaemic or genuinely macho, unflinchingly rhetorical or pragmatically subdued. To question the future of pan-Arab discourse is to take stock of the pan-Arab tragedy, within which context two recent events appear significant. One has to do with Iraq, the other with what might be termed the Libyan revival. These two events are likely to influence the future shape of pan- Arabism. They have both attracted a great deal of commentary from the pan-Arab media and though there are important differences between what is happening in Libya and in Iraq it remains useful to examine both as part of a much broader picture. Iraq, a country blessed with abundant water and oil, fertile land and a well-trained labour force, became a place haunted by mass graves, torn by random killing, and which is now threatened by sectarianism and possible partition. At the heart of this tragedy was a dictatorial regime that abandoned any reason in its international relations, that turned its back on the spirit of the age and systematically failed to claim for Iraq its rightful place as one of the region's most advanced states. Over the past four decades Baghdad sponsored a particularly fiery brand of rhetoric, most notably with regards to Israel and US policy in the region. Baghdad also perverted the concept of Arab unity in an attempt to justify its invasion of a neighbouring state. As Iraq's leaders waxed on about the Arab nation and its historic mission, they governed their own people with an iron fist. Saddam Hussein's regime nonetheless managed to pose as the champion of resistance against the US and, for all its dictatorship and oppression, its demise has left a gaping hole in pan-Arab discourse. That hole needs to be filled, and in filling it we should promote a pan-Arab vision that incorporates democracy, respect for the law and human rights. There is no longer any room for intellectually- bankrupt and politically-uninspiring regimes to pose as symbols of pan- Arabism. The legitimacy of pan-Arab efforts can only be based on legitimate national endeavours. Repression is not, and could never be, the road to pan-Arab achievement. The recent Libyan announcement concerning weapons of mass destruction should not have come as a surprise. Libya's political discourse has been changing for a decade now, and it has had ramifications in the Lockerbie case, in African affairs and in Tripoli's quest to have sanctions lifted. Libya has even threatened to withdraw from the Arab League. In the past ten years Tripoli has been changing tack in a careful and well thought out manner as it seeks to refurbish its international image, readjust its regional policy, and forge a workable relation with the West. The Libyan leadership can hardly be blamed for wanting to move with the times. One might question, however, the intentions of the West towards Libya. Are they sincere, or simply an attempt to exhaust Libya financially, isolate it from its pan-Arab context and keep it isolated? Such possibilities cannot be ruled out whatever the statements emerging from London and Washington. Libya's new approach appears to have as much to do with the roles played by Gaddafi's sons as with Qaddafi's own disappointment with the Arab scene. Years ago, as Egypt's ambassador to Vienna, I met Seif Al-Islam Al- Gaddafi and was struck by his desire to learn and his eagerness to effect change. And I have no doubts that what I call the Libyan revival will have a lasting effect on pan-Arab discourse. Gaddafi, after all, has for many years voiced the frustration felt on the Arab street over the policies concocted by those in power. He was the guardian of Arab nationalism, the voice -- however flawed -- of the Arab conscience. What the Libyan leader said aloud often echoed the whispered sentiments of the nation. He amplified the murmurs of Arab discontent. His critics may have much to find fault with, but Gaddafi was often a breath of fresh air on the Arab scene. Pan-Arab discourse has been associated with the Libyan revolution since the death of Nasser, who saw in Gaddafi an image of his younger self. But times have changed. The revolutionary discourse that fuelled the region's imagination for so long is fast becoming a distant memory. I have no doubt that the pan-Arab scene will undergo unprecedented changes as a result of the events of the past five years. Some argue that it was Camp David that marked the beginning of the long road to regional fragmentation, while others will point to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as the final nail in the coffin of pan-Arabism. Yet others will argue that Arab unity was blown apart by the passivity of Arab officials in the face of Israel's repression of the Palestinians and that Iraq's demise was just the icing on the cake. The discourse emerging from Baghdad over the past three decades, and Tripoli's unionist vision since 1970 have, for better or worse, shaped the Arab scene, inspiring the nation with the rhetoric of rejection, feeding it with suspicion of western and US intentions. Now such discourse is fading, for reasons as different as the Libyan and Iraqi regimes were different. Meanwhile, Damascus faces immense pressure to alter the tone of its pan-Arab discourse and reconsider its regional policies. This will further marginalise the slogans of Arab nationalism to which we became accustomed following the 1952 Revolution in Egypt. I am not about to pass judgment on the old mode of discourse, the one that dominated the airwaves for decades. What interests me is what comes next. The Arab penchant for rhetorical abandon may be dying out, but Arabs still have much to discuss. For example, they need to restore a modicum of solidarity to their ranks, if only to coordinate their position vis-à-vis Israel. My guess is that pan-Arab nationalism, with its historical slogans and media rhetoric, will undergo a drastic change. Bombast is redundant. Egypt changed its policy and rhetoric in the region after Nasser's death since which time Israel has invaded Lebanon, Iraq has invaded Kuwait, Baghdad has fallen and Libya is undergoing a revival. I have no tears to shed over the dying rhetoric. Yet one cannot help but wonder about the perils this ebb in pan- Arab nationalism might bring. What happens when so many dreams go up in smoke? We are at a watershed. An entire genre of rhetoric is dying out, and a new one may soon be born. Hopefully it will be more reasoned, politically mature, and less sensationalist than its predecessor. * The writer is chairman of parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.
