Impact of Arab League on Political Integration Among Arab Countries (Research Paper Sample)

IMPACT OF ARAB LEAGUE ON POLITICAL INTEGRATION AMONG ARAB COUNTRIES
Student’s Name
Class
Date
The formation of the Arab’s League in 1945 was based on the need to foster economic growth and coordinate regional politics among the Arab Nations after decades of suppression by imperial powers. The amalgamation initially attracted six country members: Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Yemen and 15 other states (Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Palestine, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates) eventually joined the union, bringing total membership to 22. The novel merger led to the rebranding of the Arab League in 1965. Its primary goal was "drawing closer the relations between member states and coordinating collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries." In essence, the Arab League sought after political integration among the Arab countries. Badie et al. define political integration as the integration of political systems with economic, social, and other human systems; and the political processes by which social, economic, and political systems become integrated. In the past, integration has been labeled under rubrics such as “league”, “alliance”, or “federation”, but the underlying purpose of achieving peaceful unification of sovereign entities remains. Much emphasis is laid to the political component in integration, portraying the need for pre-existing political consensus for the continuation of integration. Comparatively, the Arab League positioned itself as a coordinator of politics, sovereignty, and economic growth in the region. However, an analysis of its 75-year existence signals that multiple obstacles have obstructed the union's ability to attain this goal. Its ineffectiveness in achieving political integration among Arab countries can be demonstrated through a lack of binding principles, incapacity to resolve majority of the conflicts and civil wars in Arab states, failure to attain inclusive citizenship for the Arabs, and an evident lack of independence in making critical decisions.[One World Nations. "Arab League." One World Nations. Last modified 2021, https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/arab_league.htm.] [One World Nations, "Arab League"] [Council on Foreign Relations. "The Arab League." Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified September 21, 2011, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/arab-league.] [Badie, Bertrand, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino. "Political Integration." In International Encyclopedia of Political Science, edited by Badie, Bertrand, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino, 1986-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2011] [Badie, Bertrand, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino. "Political Integration."]
Inability to Enforce Binding Resolutions to Member States
Part of the League's ineffectiveness in fostering political integration among Arab nations stems from an incompetent charter. According to Baidu et al., the analysis and description of the constitutions of political integrations is taken as a measure of political consensus among the integrating units. Ilievski highlights specific policies of decision making and making joint decisions as critical elements to the political integration process. Currently, the union’s charter grants it little power to enforce binding agreements among all member states. The Council of The Arab League holds that each member state has a single vote, and resolutions on substantive issues are only binding for the states that voted for them. The League can only collectively enforce a resolution if all members vote unanimously. Such an unbinding condition has led to a lack of commitment to collective action among states. The decision-making system is weakened by its charter principle, which restricts the League from intervening forcefully in settlement of disputes. Since the mediation and arbitration resolutions ought to be taken by a super-majority vote, such a loophole has led to a division of member states based on political interests, signifying a lack of cooperation needed for integration. For instance, the Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1990 caused deep rifts in the League, especially between the seemingly progressive and retro-hereditary states. In the Kuwaiti dispute, and several other critical conflicts involving war and terror, the League could not maintain the minimum level of consensus among its members, therefore, invoking no stern decision on the issue. Overall, the weak charter has failed to grant the League the political consensus or collective action and unity required for political integration, making it a fragile institution.[Badie, Bertrand, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino. "Political Integration." In International Encyclopedia of Political Science, edited by Badie, Bertrand, Dirk Berg-Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino, 1986-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2011] [Ilievski, Nikola Lj. "The concept of political integration: the perspectives of neofunctionalist theory." J. Liberty & Int'l Aff. 1 (2015): 38.] [Arab Center Washington DC (ACW). "Foreword: Conflict in the Arab World and the Way Forward." Arab Center Washington DC. Last modified June 1, 2019, https://arabcenterdc.org/publications/books/foreword-conflict-in-the-arab-world-and-the-way-forward/.] [Council on Foreign Relations, "The Arab League"] [Arab Center Washington DC (ACW), "Foreword: Conflict in the Arab World”] [ Abdelkader Zaoui, "The Arab League Stuck in Flawed, Ineffective Role," Majalla | Leading Arab Magazine - Majalla Magazine, last modified February 4, 2022]
Supporters of the League’s provision for conditionality argue that its laxity in binding agreements is a push for equanimity and equilibrium, which can be argued to be features promoting coordination and stability in the region. In particular, “a charter free of coercion has uniquely made it possible for Arab governments to share information and coordinate policies since its inception." However, at the best of times, it is very unlikely to reach a unanimous decision. Since its foundation, the League has faced divergent views due to the profound ideological differences that define inter-Arab relations. The states' incapacity to reach a political consensus on substantive issues led to the mantra ‘Arab states agree to disagree.’ For instance, in the isolated cases where the League unanimously agreed, they suspended Syria’s and Libya’s memberships and considered Iran a threat to Arab peace. Ultimately, the individual will of the states overpowers the League’s integrative foundation, rendering it powerless and ineffective in political and economic matters in a way that makes voting on resolutions futile. A more legally