The Arab Cold War - Regional Alliances and Bipolarity:

Past Questions: Since 2008 ---> 7 years

1. Arab Unity is as illusive in present times as it was at the height
of Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s. Discuss. (2008)
2. To what extent has the Cold War affected inter-Arab relations
(2008)
3. According to you, which international Relations (IR) paradigm
best explains the nature of Inter-Arab relations since 1945
(2010)
4. Critically reflect on one of the following determinants of interarab relations and its impact on patterns of conflict and
cooperation in the region: a) military procurement patterns
and the regional arms race
b) the discovery and exploitation of hydrocarbons (oil and gas)
c) the force of Arab nationalism <----- (2011)
5. Critically reflect on the role of the Cold War on the dynamics of
inter-Arab relations. (2013)
6. Realist theory fails to adequately explain the behaviour of
states during the Arab Cold war. Discuss. (2014)

Definition Bipolarity Wiki: Bipolarity is a distribution of power in

which two states have the majority of economic, military, and
cultural influence internationally or regionally. Often, spheres of
influence would develop.
Definition Wikipedia Arab Cold War: The Arab Cold War was a
series of conflicts in the Arab world between the new republics led
by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and espousing Arab
nationalism, Arab socialism, and Pan-Arabism, and the more
traditionalist kingdoms led by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The period
of conflict began following the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and the
rise to power of Nasser, and lasted until 1970, when he died,
although some think it lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.
Arab leaders and in the case of Nasser proclaimed his commitment
to Arab Nationalism and pan-Arabism but through his actions
demonstrated a greater commitment to himself

Definition of Realism

Categories of realism: shifting alliances, bids for leadership

and onset of war
Conflict attempt to maintain security & self interests
Game of Arab politics:
Social situation defined by distribution of power which leads
on to security and survival depending on aims and objectives
and those of other Arab leaders EX: Egypt in Yemen vs. Saudi
conservative
Choices are set/made/agreed by preferences and limitations,
therefore making alliances for personal gain rather than
whoever/whatever they are dealing with.
Walt argues three points
1. Balancing is far more common than bandwagoning. States
ally against threats rather than power alone.
2. Ideology is less powerful than balancing as a motive for
alignment. Ideological alignments a form of balancing.
Ideologies add confuse and cause disagreement. Same
ideologies compete for alliances as they differ under the same
one
3. Foreign aid and political penetration alone are not powerful
enough to cause alignment, more needs to be done to create
an alignment such as threat
States balance against threats not against power alone
Definition of Constructivism

Social constructions and history to shape relations and

alliances
Wendt: Structure of human association and security are
determined by:
1. Shared ideas rather than material forces
2. Shared ideas construct identities and interests
Example Iraq and Jordan against the UAR not a fear of military
power
Symbolic policies not military to enhance security and control
others F.P
Absence of an arms race- Nasser in 1967 war
Regional power doesnt correlate with the decline of panArabism but shifts in power explain to oil rich and decline of
Nasser
Problems of order is solved through social negotiations to
shape interests and therefore is the logic behind decisions and
interactions why so many failed negotiations

Stable correlation of military forces because of stable

expectations and shared norms why were there so many
wars, conflicts and need to threaten
Threat perceptions

The West
- After witnessing pre and post independence from the West
he fears their takeover/influence of control = reduce own and
affect alliances he would want to make, so through use of
military intimidation and competition of control he was able to
make these alliances and use them as a form self security
External sovereignty/National security
- Sovereign takeover & influence means pan-Arabism cannot
be exerted and therefore he would resort to balancing
alliances to keep control
Revisionist policies by regional rivals
- Isolation means little influence to impact upon the Arab
states, Egypt had to be key influence by military and political
means, geographic influence
Israel
- Military threat, Western threat, common enemy abused,
limited cooperation led to anarchy and self help/interests

Nasser exploited his prestige to contain or deter threats by

making alliances, this is often through ideology of panArabism. Though ideology is constructivist
Walt argues that even at the height of pan-Arabism states
made alliances that widely balanced each other out for or
against, this brings in the realist concepts of self help and
regime security, rather than a joint security and joint social
decision/ideas
Hinnebusch and Ehteshami constructivist and realist qualities
towards dealing with threats. They argue that some states
were consolidated earlier than others and could therefore
threaten and constrain others. An example of how Nasser
abused pan-Arabism against weaker regimes.
Geoghegan gives the impression that there is a thin line
between pan-Arabism and Nasserism. It often overlaps
according to his agenda.
Balancing Threats Alliances made
Arab solidarity pact: Egypt, Syria and S.A. against B. Pact, Yemen
joins with pressure and Jordan to appease Nasser.
Constructivist:
West could not be trusted and that the spirit of unification
appeared, sympathy for Nasser after Suez crisis, as a
response to B. Pact to bring together Arab countries

 Sign of bandwagoning from S.A. and Yemen which is a

Realist: trait as it is Egypt and Nasser doing the balancing,
Ideology dropped for support and power from conservative
states
Military threat of the UK, Fr and Iraq therefore regional
defense had been endorsed by the key players in Arab
politics.
Risk of isolation and loss of influence also pushed for him to
make this alliance.
Iraq posed a threat as enhancing their position and stance in
the Arab world.
Growing appetite masked with pan-Arabism and unification
Soviet Union and Egypt and Czech Arms deal: Egypt seeks
great power ally to counter B. Pact and Israel.
Constructivist:
Symbolic media attacks in Jordan, threatened Iraq etc. not
military
Symbolising doing without the West as a means of bringing
people together and securing them
Nasser was the leader of the Palestinian cause and wanted to
capture peoples minds and hearts
Realist:
Weapons and money for power and own security
Military and power threat from Iraq and Israel of
takeover/influence.
Competition for allies and therefore Nasser used this by
placing Iraq as non solidarity and attracted greater support.
Egypt was a leader of a broad Arab coalition.
Enhanced prestige to abuse
UAR: Egypt and Syria to stop communist takeover by S.A., Iraq,
Jordan and U.S intervention, it was a reaction to the kings alliance
which posed as a threat
Constructivist:
Following through with pan-Arab ideology
Under pan-Arabism it became synonymous with positive
neutrality and self reliance
Radical movements and forces were causing a detrimental
affect on pan-Arabism with their hunger for societal and elite
forces and territorial gain
Impression management not military calculations and
symbolic entrapment
Realist:
Although following through with pan-Arab ideology the
agreement was all on Nasser terms for example excluding the

Syrian military from politics so he could have further political

control and spheres of influence, taking advantage of a
weakened Syria, and its collapse was down to the fact he
refused to share power
Threat of S.A. who had US support trying to mediate therefore
he sent troops to defend and enhance popularity and prestige
But it was material gain as he saw the advantage
Had a knock on affect and Iraqi army overthrew monarchy.
They united for a short period of time military and economic
aid

Both interventions in Kuwait and Yemen I see as quite similar and for
similar reasons. Both were threats of sov takeover however slightly
ironic that S.A. was an ally in Kuwait but not in Yemen, which could
show the lack of ideological compassion and more for a competition
of power and influence
Arab League in Kuwait: Saudi, Jordan and Egypt send troops as
following their Arab League credential to protect independence and
Sov of Kuwait from Iraq
Constructivist:
A necessity of maintaining ideological purity whilst he was in
the for front of regional alliances
Challenging radical and conservative govs
Realist:
Unlikely allies showed a willingness to act together when their
interests were threatened.
Wanted to isolate Iraq and use military force to intimidate
Egypt & Yemen Republic: Part of Egypts campaign against Arab
reaction, Egypt intervenes to aid Yemeni revolutionaries fighting
against the royalist forces of Saudi
Constructivist:
His decision to support the RCC had little to do with military
politics and everything to do with symbolic politics.
He was the leader of Arab nationalism and therefore could not
reject the request for aid from RCC.
It was to recover his prestige after failure of UAR
Realist:
Military threat from North and tribal forces.
Chance to gain foothold in Arab peninsular.
Basically isolated by 1962 Syria and Iraq tried to enhance own
pan-Arabist credentials by negotiating a military and political
agreement
Jordan and S.A. took an offensive stance at him within the
Arab League. Wanted to threaten those forces so as to make
them bandwagon him

Which he did through this military campaign and then

furthering it with an ideological one to rally support so he
would not be isolated

1963 Tri unity pact:

a formal agreement to promote pan-Arabism doomed from the start
as Iraq and Syria were both going through military coups of Bath
regimes. Which for me questions where his ideology was at and
therefore leads me to other reasons and justifications for the
alliance
Constructivist:
Unification, reasserting his leadership over radical rivals.
Erasing UAR failure.
Symbolic exchanges and competition drove leaders to toss
their states into the unification ring Syria and Iraq to blame
for having wrong credentials
Realist:
But Nasser would have known of this and sought alliance only
to prevent union between Syria and Iraq that would exclude
Egypt
Ensure Egypt would dominate any union that occurs.
They agreed all on Egypts desires rather than rivals
Threat posed with a Syria and Iraqi alignment due to their
differing ideas of pan Arabism and military coups at the time
But this precautious move was unnecessary as Iraq an Syria
split.
By the end of 1963 the record of pan-Arabism was a dismal
one as yet again another attempt of Arab unity failed
Cairo Summit: Rapprochement between Egypt and Monarchies and
to isolate Syria and common policy vs Israel
Constructivist:
Argue that Nasser decided not to use military force as Syria
had called for armed response.
Instead he suggested a summit meeting using social
structures to try and create shared ideas and interests for the
future i.e. diversion of water
Hope of sov states to join pan-Arabist move
Jordan and Egypt resumed diplomatic relations and Hussein
recognised Yemen Republic.
Egypt and S.A. relations and Egypt and Iraq federal union.
Realist:
Created the PLO, couldnt afford war.
Success in isolating Syrians contain their military
Attempt to balance against Syrians or an effort by
conservative states to bandwagon with Egypt

Correlation between Nasser losing power by not being able or

willing to provide military and decline in pan-Arabism which
led him to improve relations and share influence with previous
rival countries such as S.A. and getting out of Yemen

The Arab Coalition, Alliance with Syria, blocking of Tiran

lead up to 6 day war:
Syrian Israeli clashes and inter Arab feuds, Egypt supports its
Syrian ally by blocking Straits of Tiran. Jordan bandwagons with
Egypt and Iraq and S.A. send token forces. Soviet support
Constructivist:

Other leaders were abusing each other in the name of Arab

Nationalism
Nasser was actually doing it in the name of Arabism.
All others that jumped to his side like Jordan was in the name
of Arabism.
But ideology was losing its meaning
Realist:
Syria accused him of hiding = threat to his name and
therefore had to stick to his Syrian-Egyptian alliance
reluctantly
Sent troops to Sinai and ordered UN forces withdraw
It was a 2 fold situation where if Nasser sent his troops and no
war occurred he demonstrated Arab solidarity and could retain
power and if war did and he lost his power reduced
Attempt to retain his leading role and restrain Syrian
provocations- didnt work.
It was so others would join his side against a common enemy
Nasser was relying on his charisma, Egypts primacy in the
Arab world and their size and stature which were mixtures of
reasons to making the alliance - each was defeated by
enemies and ideological allies started to feel uncomfortable
with Egypts leadership and therefore the downfall of panArabism and Nassers control
Egypt & Jordan: Maximize pressure on Israel to prevent PLO
domination of the diplomatic agenda/becoming too powerful
Constructivists:
Khartoum conference 67 socially sanctioned means where
shared ideals could be drawn up to confront the Israeli
problem. Other countries gave aid to Jordan and Egypt after
their losses in war of attrition
Defended through symbolic sanctions in the case of the
"Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no
negotiations with it."
what was taken by force cannot be retaken by force

Realists:
The aid and help given only spurred Jordan and Egypt on to
recover lost land and suppress the PLO threat not towards
harassing conservative states.
Making sure everybody knew they were the most powerful
and not the PLO.
Realpolitik over ideology a commitment to the status quo
rather than the revolution
Khartoum conference Nasser dropped his ideology and was
prepared to cooperate with all Arab states as equal and
becoming Israeli centered.
Eastern Command: Nasser heavily prods Syria, Iraq and Jordan to
join forces and aid Egypt during the War of Attrition. Level of
cooperation is limited

Shaky alliance due to bath radicalism and bitter ideological

rivalry between Syria and Iraq
Nassers rivals feared Egypts recovery just as much as they
fear Israel
Nasser was loosing support for his pan-Arabism as they could
now see that it was a tool for his power

Conclusion
Weakness of ideological factors as a cause of effective Arab
alliances. Although conservative and revolutionary regimes occur
side by side (Yemen) the progressive states were just as hostile to
each other (Egypt v Syria) and ready to cooperate with the forces of
Arab reaction when needed (summit talks)
Was as much as a source for division as it was a basis for
cooperation = collapse of UAR and Tri Unity agreement