“Who is the Levantine? The Levantine, defined by categorical transgression and restless mobility, is a “fishy” type inhabiting the shores of the Mediterranean since the early modern period. The name comes from a geographical region in Europe’s backyard and its frontier with the Muslim world; in popular culture it is first and foremost a stereotype which signifies more than a place. A discursive category of alterity, the Levantine, however, is not reducible to a geo-cultural fixation and a discourse of colonial domination. It does not represent the Oriental Other à la Said, but rather Mary Douglas’s ambivalent unclassifiable: its French sounds foreign, its Arabic is somewhat different, its Hebrew is from elsewhere.”
Abstract
This paper explores the historic region of the Levant, in the attempt of asserting if whether or nor it can be perceived as a Regional Security Complex. I will analyze the complex and dynamic relations of the system from a geographical and historical point of view, as well as the amities and enmities between the actors involved and the role that some regional organizations assumed.
These elements will be evaluated from a neo-realistic perspective, trying to determine the answer to the topic by scrutinizing the units involved – the states and the relations between them and if they are subjects to an anarchic subsystem or not, as well as the distribution of power in the area.
Keywords: balance of power, securitization, deterrence, bandwagoning
The term “Levant” has been adopted in recent past and present time to describe the area encompassing Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria.
The concept of “Levant” has rather historical than geographical connotations. It stems from the Italian word “levante” – to rise, referring to the sun, indicating the east. The common use of the term is associated with Venetian and other trading ventures and the establishment of commerce in the region as a result of the Crusades, and was applied to the coastlands of Asia Minor and Syria, extending from Greece to Egypt. It was also used as a synonym for Near East During the 16th and the 17th centuries, the term High Levant referring to the Far East. After World War I, the term “Levant states” referred to the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon.
An economic, more contemporary dimension of the term “Levant”, is used in reference to the countries of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and the Palestinian Territories, excluding Israel and Cyprus. “The New Levant” defines a sub-region comprising the countries mentioned above, with significant complementarities that are pointing at substantial gains from trade, investments and economic integration, due to their geographical proximity to major markets, while sharing similarities in the stages of their economic development.
The Levant region is a complex crucible of contradictions. In most of its territory, it’s a homogenous demographic ensemble, with historically-imposed interior boundaries, confronted in the same time by identity problems in regard to nationalism. Religion plays a key aspect, with a predominant Muslim majority in most parts, divided in various schools, sects and branches, conflicting with a Jewish minority in Israel, often violently.
The Ottoman Empire dominated the Arab World for more than half of century, until its complete collapse in November 1922. The longevity of the empire can be attributed to the high level of autonomy it granted to the territories in its area of influence. According to some scholars , its demise is a direct cause of the improper administration it was subject to in its final years and the maladjusted strategies and military tactics.
Anticipating the fall of the Ottoman Empire as a result of the First World War, France and Britain had already agreed upon the division of the territories that once belonged to the ottomans. According to a secret arrangement from 1916 , which was only partially implemented, the two powers defined their spheres of influence and control in the region. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, separated, with the help of a pencil and a ruler, using mostly straight lines, what was to become the modern-day Middle-East.
The agreement between the two powers divided the land that had been under Ottoman rule since the 16th century into new countries, relegating the new territories to their sphere of influence: Iraq, Transjordan (modern Jordan), and Palestine under British influence, and Syria and Lebanon under French influence. The borders of the Arab countries were not redrawn in North Africa, since Egypt was already under British rule and Maghreb was controlled by France. Geography and religion helped with the division of the Levant, as the agreement was conceived based on sectarian criteria: Lebanon was to be a safe haven for Christians, Palestine was intended for the Jewish community and Syria for the Sunni Muslims .
The exertion of influence became formal on the 28th of June 1919, through the provisions of the League of Nations, who authorized the two member nations to govern over the former Turkish territories.
”To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League” , and effective on the 29th of September 1923, with the confirmation, by the League of Nations, of the British mandate for Palestine: “The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. ”
During 1923-1949, both Britain and France exerted their dominance, directly and indirectly, limiting the political independence of the newly-formed states and of the entities within them, on all three levels of influence: the formal agreement amongst particular states on the creation of spheres of influence; control of their foreign policy and their domestic and political arrangements and lastly, using coercive, institutional and ideational power on the subordinate states.
Pan-Arabism, the early seed of securitization
The idea of pan-Arabism was firstly preached by Hussein bin Ali Al-Hashimi, the Sharif and Emir of Mecca. Based on an agreement with the British Government, he initiated the Arab Revolt at Mecca in 1916 against the Ottoman rule, with the aim of creating a single, unified, Arab state, supported and recognized by the British. After the Sykes-Picot agreement, and partitioning of the territory into mandates, the British refused to keep their commitments.
The ideology of a trans-territorial identity was reiterated by Hussein’s son, Emir Faisal: “We are a single people, which lives in a region bordered by the sea in the East, the South and the West and the Taurus mountains in the North. We are Arabs before being Muslims, and Mohamed is Arab before being Prophet” . Faisal tried to keep the flame of pan-Arabism lit, but his ideals were yet random and rudimentary. He was expelled from Syria and placed on Iraq`s throne. The peoples he was addressing were now divided by new national frontiers.
Consequently, two contrary trends stemmed after World War I following the partition of the Arab territories. First, developing territorial nationalism in the new national states and creating a national identity was an idea which was supported by the rivalries of the national leaders. Second, the aspiration towards an Arab unity based on a shared view by most of the Arabs, up to a point, that they had been artificially divided just to be easier kept under control .
What both Hussein and his son Faisal correctly concluded was the fact that the newly-born Arab states` sovereignties were to be constantly subject to debate by the Western powers. It would take years, however, for the pan-Arabism movement to exceed its incipient, inconclusive shape. However, the relevance of the pan-Arabic ideal and its continuity must be interlinked with the foundation of the state of Israel and the elements that contributed to it.
The formation of a Jewish state in the Palestinian land was an idea that was outlined way before 1948. During the years of WWI, the policy of the British became favorable to the idea of establishing a home for the Jews in Palestine.
The first political recognition of the aims of the Zionist movement consisted of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour, the foreign secretary, to Lord Rothschild, a prominent Zionist leader:
“Foreign office,
2 November 1917,
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour”.
It was not until 1948 that Israel proclaimed itself an independent state, after Britain withdrew its mandate of Palestine .
The events in Palestine were what united, in a somewhat shy manner, the Arabian conscience in what was necessary for both mutual defense and rebirth. Egypt, however, largely excluded itself from the pan-Arabism movement between 1920-1930. It had not adhered yet to the ideal of Islamic unity, mostly due to its patriotism as a traditional national state and the fact that Egypt was often considered as not part of the Arabic world, in respect to its geographical position in Northern Africa.
When the Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917, there were 85.000 Jews and a few hundred thousand Arabs living in Palestine. By 1947, during the British mandate, the Jewish population swelled to 650.000 . With the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, inter-state relations and the dynamic of the region became much more complex. Distinct patterns of amities and enmities begun to reveal themselves way clearer, as well as prospects of cooperation.
The negative end. Conflict formation. Enmities.
Since the internal dynamics of a security complex can be envisioned as a spectrum with two ends, where interdependence arises from fear, rivalry and mutual perceptions of threats, at the negative end and a pluralistic security community lies at the positive end, with security regimes in which states consider themselves potential threats, but engage in cooperation in the middle , we will try to determine in the following section whether or not it is possible to place the Levant on a specific segment of security or more.
It is self-implied that Israel constituted the apple of discord in the Levant region in the post-war period. After 1948, its relations to the neighboring countries became extremely volatile and the conflicts often materialized.
The patterns of enmity begin with the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. Tensions between the Arab states existed ever since the Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917, and a civil war had already begun in 1947 in Palestine between the Jews and Arabs. However, in 1948, when David ben Gurion signed the Proclamation of Independence of Israel on the 14th of May, large scale war broke out between the above state and the invading forces of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan, who entered Palestine.
The root of the problem which sparked the conflict was resolution 181 of the United nations General assembly , that divided Britain`s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948. The Palestinian Arabs refused to recognize the arrangement, who in their opinion was favorable to the Jews and unfavorable to the Arab population that was to remain in the Jewish controlled territory.
With the help of the other Arab countries, they hoped they would be able to block the Partition resolution and prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. There were two cease-fires brokered by the United Nations during the war, but fighting continued into 1949. Separate agreements signed by Israel and the neighboring countries helped formed armistice lines, which held until 1967 .
The rebirth of Arab nationalism took place with the help of Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt between 1956-1970. He continued the previous timid ideas of Arab nationalism of Hussein and Faisal and amplified them, bringing them to existence. His vision regarding Arab nationalism were however, compared to those of his earlier predecessors, more vocal and tangible, materializing in a challenge against Britain and France, with the help of the Soviet Union, in the meantime creating consequences for the United States` with both the Middle Eastern Countries and its European allies.
“Imperialism has tried by all possible means to undermine our Arab nationalism. He has tried to disperse and separate us and, for that, he created Israel, the work of imperialism. […]
Union with Syria
Today I proclaim that your brothers in Syria have announced their union with you, a union worthy for the consolidation of the principles of dignity and self-esteem and the bases of Arab nationalism. And I, today, say to your brothers in Syria, welcome; we are a part of the nation Arab. We will move forward, united, forming a single block, a single heart, a single hand to lay the foundations and principles of freedom, glory and dignity, and to achieve political independence and economic independence at the same time” .
On the 26th of July 1956, Nasser nationalized the British and the French owned Suez Canal Company which operated the Suez Crisis. The ensuing crisis threatened regional stability and a new conflict in the Levant region in the form of the Egypt-Israel war in Sinai in 1956. The Egyptian army was defeated by Israel, and the Straits of Tiran fell under Israeli strategic control.
The Suez conflict was a gamechanger in regard to the regional balance of power. For Nasser, it was a military defeat combined with status victory as the defender of Arab nationalism. Israel was ultimately compelled by the US and the Soviet Union to withdraw from the Egyptian territory. Britain and France lost influence, and that of the Soviet Union grew, especially in Syria, where it began to supply arms . Egypt`s union with Syria as the United Arab republic only lasted throughout 1958-1961.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Israel`s silent deterrence
By the end of the 1960`s, Israel acquired its nuclear option, but remained very cautious not to declare, test or make visible use of it. Since the 1970, it was accepted that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, with no Arab state able to equal their presumed capabilities, due to the efforts made by Israel to obtain nuclear monopoly in the region. It was even acknowledged that Israel`s undeclared deterrence helped stabilize the area.
The United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened for signature in 1968 and entered to force in 1970. It spelled out obligations for both nuclear-weapons states and non-nuclear-weapons-states, based on two general principles: one was that peaceful application of nuclear energy should be made universally available and the other that the spread of nuclear weapons undermines international security . Israel was the only country in the Levant region who refused to sign the NPT , creating further tensions in the area, and damaging Israel`s relations to the Arab world, especially those with Egypt, who were already at a critical point.
Amities. Arab League
The League of Arab States (or Arab League) was founded in March 1945 and is a confederation of twenty-two Arab nations whose broad mission is to improve coordination among its members on matters of common interest.
The founding members of the Arab League were: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Emirate of Transjordan, and Yemen. On October 7, 1944, the „Protocol of Alexandria” was signed, which the later League signed as a loose union. After elaborating the more detailed ideas, the Arab League was founded the following year on 11 May 1945. The headquarters of the Arab League has been in Cairo (Egypt) since the beginning.
The 22 member states are from Northern Africa and from the Arabian Peninsula, which geographically belongs to Asia and significant parts are desert regions such as the Sahara and the Rub al-Chali sand desert.
All member countries together cover an area of 13.15 million km² (8.7% of the world’s inhabitable area). The area is home to about 5.6% of the world population, with about 427.87 million inhabitants.
In the Second World War, large parts of the founding members were part of the Ottoman Empire. The aims of the Arab League were very similar to those of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The league was chartered in response to concerns about postwar colonial divisions of territory as well as strong opposition to the emergence of a Jewish state on Palestinian territory, but it has long been criticized for disunity and poor governance.
Its first competences were to strengthen the region in political, economic, cultural and social terms. At the end of the war, the region was to be stabilized and its independence secured. Egypt was the driving force and thus played a decisive role in its foundation.
Traditionally, it has been more representative of its various autocratic regimes than of Arab citizens.
The Arab League coordinated an economic boycott of Israel, which ran from 1948 to 1993. The confederation has been marked by numerous political and military conflicts in the region. In the immediate post-war period, the growing Jewish population in Palestine played a major role, which led to the division of Palestine in 1949 into a Jewish and an Arab state. In the 1980s, the Islamic Revolution led to further military conflicts with Iran and Iraq, which ultimately led to the first Gulf War. What animated the League more than any other factor is probably the Palestinian cause.
The Arab League emphasized the importance of the Palestinian cause in 1964 with the establishment of the Palestinian Liberation Order, whose charter states that “the liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty.”
The organization issued the Khartoum Resolution: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” The Arab League has maintained an official boycott of Israeli goods and companies since 1948.
Relations between member states were shaped by factors including individual territorial ambitions, evolving Cold War alliances, and inter-Arab rivalries.
The outbreak of civil war in Yemen in 1962 deteriorated into a disastrous eight-year proxy battle between Egyptian and Saudi-backed forces. Arab League members vied to assert control over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 was the most important event of the period. The crisis that took place after this convinced the Dwight David Eisenhower administration to pursue a proactive role in the Middle East, and primed the region for Cold War polarization.
The Levant – sub system of the Middle East
The Arab League plays a key role in demonstrating that the dynamics of the Levant area could not lead us to asses it as was a regional security complex, in the specific timeline that this paper examined. The major security perceptions of the regional actors were strongly interlinked and, indeed, their national security problems could not be analyzed apart from one another , apart from Cyprus, who seemingly only shared mostly geographical traits rather than security ones with the other countries.
However, the connections linking the countries with other middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen, the long legacy of post-colonial powers of France and Britain, their strong dependence to the bipolar system outlined at the end of World War II, all issues that were tackled above, are sufficient enough to ascertain that the Levant was not (and is not) a regional security complex. In fact, it constitutes a regional sub systemic compound integrated in a wider, more elaborate regional security complex, that of the Middle East.
Conclusions
The main endeavor of this paper was that of demonstrating that security in the Levant was centerpiece in understanding the dynamics of the region and that states often fought in order to achieve securitization, mostly because of the presence of Israel in the area, who was different in so many way compared to the other states.
The conflicts between the Arab states and Israel also lead to a polarization of the Levant zone, with Egypt and the newly formed Jewish state competing for supremacy and the surrounding countries often bandwagoning against Israel with Egypt.
Also, the fight for supremacy was the cause of the reignition of Arab nationalism, which was dormant until 1948.
Concentrating on conflicts, however, prevented a deeper understanding of the cooperation processes, cooperation that by all standards was scarce and was intended not for creating peaceful environment, instead as means of achieving ones` own security in the shadow of mutual threats of perceptions, mostly between the Arab world and Israel.
That is also the reason why some of the countries, like Lebanon and Cyprus were not thoroughly addressed in the paper, partly because of their lesser role or geographical location in the area, but mostly because adding extra indicators would have made the region more difficult to comprehend in the topic evaluated.