The Middle East region has experienced civil wars and internal wars for several decades. Disagreements emanating from political ideologies, nuclear war, Arab-Israeli war, and conflict of interests and the growth of new states are some of the factors that have contributed to the perpetual civil and internal battles in the region. Some of the notable wars that occurred in the area previously included the Gulf, Algerian, Lebanon, Yemen civil wars and the Iran-Iraq wars. The deteriorating situations and the conflicts led to the formation of the Arab League that was formed 1945 in with the hope of resolving the disputes. Despite the creation of the body, the continued conflicts in the region and the lack of co-operation among members indicate the league failed on its mandate. Although there was a common perception that the organization failed, some achievements were made.
Relationship between civil wars and internal wars
Maddy-Weitzman, (2000) writes that the civil and internal wars in the Middle East occurred because of differences in Pan-Arab ideology that promoted for the formation of a united Arab nation. In contrast, other countries favored the existence of autonomous states. The Arab-Israeli war further fueled the differences between the two factions. The war created unity among the Arab nations at the same time caused a rift within as some of the nations were accused of supporting Israel giving rise to the inter-Arab conflicts. Pinfari (2009) notes the civil war in the region occurred because of ethnic struggles. The underlying issues in both wars included political, economic, and social factors.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Arab League was explicitly created to resolve issues that led to both the civil wars and internal wars. However, the organization failed massively as more conflicts continued to be witnessed in the area. A chronology of civil and domestic wars illustrate the institution was unable to mitigate the disputes showing how ineffective the organization was since its inception. Despite the formation of the organization in 1945, about two million people died in the region, and close to a million were displaced from their homes in Lebanon, Yemen and Palestine (Pinfari, 2009). Although Yemen was one of the countries that joined the body early, the civil war that started in 1962 and ended in 1967 illustrates that the Arab League failed in its mandate.
Reasons why the Arab League Failed
Numerous incidences demonstrated how the Arab League was unwilling to help promote peace among the nations. The deliberate and consistent lack of intervention was seen in the Yemeni case and others that were witnessed later. Members of the League continued to observe the sovereignty of their countries weakening the influence of the organization. The League could not interfere with the internal affairs of the nations (Worrall, 2016). Evidence shows that from the 56 crises the League attempted to resolve, it only managed to intervene in 9 percent of the cases successfully (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009). The League managed to control only less than 25 civil wars (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009). General Hussain Hassouna who was the secretary general later admitted that the League could not interfere with the civil war in Yemen. On his part, the secretary claimed they had initiated bilateral talks between the warring factions and defended the approach. The claims indicated the League lacked legitimate powers to lead in mediation talks. Hence, its failure was attributed lack of enough powers to make decisions that would have helped stop the war (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009).
Empirical evidence indicates that the League participated directly in a few of the civil and internal wars. The institution was only involved in 20% in civil and internal wars were above 1000 deaths were reported in the Middle East since the organization was created (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009). Again the League was reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of the countries involved. However, the inability of the League to interfere with the independence of the countries could be justified but the institution failed to lobby to be given more powers. There is no concrete evidence to indicate that the leaders of the league made efforts to have more influence in the internal affairs of the countries especially when the wars had escalated, instead, the League remained non-committal in mediating leaving the responsibility to other institutions such as the United Nations (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009).
The Arab League was unable to control the conflicts in the region and also failed to promote political goodwill among the political class. Also, it failed to bring the nations together for economic agreements that could have helped people in the countries improve their living standards. The ineffectiveness of the League prompted some governments in the Middle East to form the Gulf Cooperation in 1981 (Worrall, 2016). The functions of the new body were more than those of the Arab League. Significant changes were achieved following the formation of the GCC. Cooperation between the member nations was extended to the military, job creation and other spheres which helped bring relative calm among the nations. Pinfari, (2009) claims that researchers are no longer interested in whether the League failed, instead they were concerned which strategies made the organization fail to achieve its mission.
Achievements of the Arab League
On the contrary, there are instances where the League intervened and managed to bring peace especially in areas where the UN had failed to bring peace. However, the achievements were insignificant because the cases were minor. At the same time, the League was accused of failing to co-operate with other institution such as the OAU when it mattered most. Despite the accusations that were made against the body, it managed to intervene in Kuwait and Lebanon wars after the UN refused to help in resolving the problem. Although relative success was achieved in areas the UN failed to intervene, the League relied on other established organization which had achieved remarkable success in bringing peace in many war zones. Critics suggest such actions were taken because of the failure on the League part which stood in a better position to handle the conflicts. All the parties involved in the conflicts were members of the Arab League. It could have been more comfortable for the League to lobby the fighting countries and bring them to a negotiating table than it would have been for an eternal body (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009).
Statistics indicate that in 20 minor conflicts that the League was involved in mediating 12 of the cases. By any given standards the achievements were remarkable. Moreover, it still initiated political processes to find solutions for conflicts relating to one League member. There is more evidence that indicates the body was involved in controlling local conflicts and prevented some of the wars from escalating to major wars. In most of the cases where the League failed to control the wars, its power was limited. Besides, it was necessary to safeguard the independence of the countries. The Arab League was supposed to be a neutral party in the conflict; hence the interference of the internal affairs of a state could have been interpreted as favoritism. Therefore, the lack of intervention in some war could as well been a well-thought action ( MacDonald, 2015).
The outcomes of the 1944 Alexandria conference were successful based on the impact it created in the following mediation teams. Aside from the Tindouf war that occurred in 1963 between Algeria and Morocco, the League was successful in lobbying participants of the conference that were involved in the Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon wars. A success rate of 79 percent was recorded for the negotiations that the League was actively engaged in finding solutions (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009). Also, the organization managed to truce a deal when Syria wanted to exit the United Arab Republic in 1962. The League managed to create a favorable environment for the discussion inviting the Arab media to make coverage of the proceedings. The involvement of the organization in the mediation talks indicated the willingness of the leadership to find solutions to problems that created the civil and internal wars in the Middle East (Maddy-Weitzman, 2009).
The civil and internal conflicts in the Middle East continue to be witnessed even in the present day. Differences in political, economic, religious and social issues have created sharp divisions in the region. Although efforts to stop the wars that started several decades were made through the formation of the Arab League, insignificant achievements were made. The League failed to prevent major wars in the religion that saw the death of many people. A lot of people were also displaced from their homes. The primary reason the Arab League was formed was to create a forum where conflicts between the member states would be addressed to avoid wars. In areas were wars had already started, it was the mandated to bring the parties together. The League managed to control minor wars although many people considered it an under-achievement. Numerous pieces of evidence indicate the Arab League failed to intervene in significant conflicts where many people lost their lives. Despite the massive failures, relative success was achieved in some parts of the Middle East, and therefore it would be plausible to conclude the League failed in every aspect.
References
Maddy-Weitzman, B. (2000). The Inter-Arab system and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Ripening for Resolution. Journal of International Affairs, 5(1).
MacDonald, R. W. (2015). The League of Arab States: A study in the dynamics of the regional organization.
Pinfari, M. (2009). Nothing but failure?: the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council as mediators in Middle Eastern conflicts. Crisis States Research Centre.
Worrall, J. (2016). International institutions of the Middle East: The GCC, Arab League, and Arab Maghreb Union. Oxon New York: Routledge.
