As I keep reading history, I try to learn or understand events, I analyze from my point of view but I do not clam it is error free or above criticism, I welcome any new points of view or alternative ideas. The reason is to learn from previous mistakes to avoid them in the future not to judge or condemn any person.
In today’s issue I’ll jump to more recent history, I lived some of its event but was too young to understand what really was going on, I recall the joy of the announcement of the creation of the new born United Arab Republic –Egypt & Syria- history tells me it was created 1957, but I do not really recall that date, I recall as well the sad day of separation and the death of that Union, but I have no recollection of the reasons that lead to it! However, from a recent Ramadan soap that is still going on and cannot be qualified as a historical review or source, I noticed myself historical errors –but it is not my point- I can see several facts about that period, or say the ex president R.I.P. Nasser and his regime first of all decisions were always single person’s decision. Yes, there were meetings and discussions, points of view coming up but no one would defend his point of view, like if he was afraid to upset the decision maker!
When it comes to actions based on making decisions, no one would act; all matters should be brought to the decision maker that was R.I.P. Nasser! Moreover, in spite of the lengthy discussions around any issue when it comes to the decision it was single made decision without discussions and to be executed!
Egypt 1800-1999
Before continue exploring this issue let us see what analysts said over the years up to year 2000, about that UAR-United Arab Republic-…
For a variety of conflicting reasons, the political leaders of Syria in January 1958 asked Nasser for a union between their two countries. Nasser was skeptical at first and then insisted on strict conditions for union, including a complete union rather than a federal state and the abolition of the Baath (Arab Socialist Resurrection) Party, then in power, and all other Syrian political parties. Because the Syrians believed that Nasser's ideas represented their own goals and that they would play a large role in the union, they agreed to the conditions. A plebiscite was held in both countries in 1958, and Nasser was elected president. Cairo was designated the capital of the United Arab Republic. Nasser then visited Damascus, where he received a tumultuous welcome. Arabs everywhere felt a new sense of pride.
Several Arab governments viewed Nasser with less enthusiasm, however. The conservative monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan saw his ideas as a potential threat to their own power. Nasser regarded these monarchs as reactionaries and as obstacles to Arab unity. The United States moved to strengthen these regimes as well as the government of Lebanon in an effort to offset the influence of Egypt.
The hastily conceived union of Syria and Egypt did not last long. There were too many problems to overcome: the two countries were not contiguous, their economies and populations were different, and the Syrian elite deeply resented being made subservient to Egyptian dictates. The deciding factor for the Syrian upper and middle classes came in July 1961 when Nasser issued the so-called "socialist decrees" that called for widespread nationalizations. This was followed by the elimination of local autonomy and a plan for the unification of Egyptian and Syrian currencies, a move that would deal the final blow to Syrian economic independence.
There was also resentment in the army that paralleled the resentment in civilian circles. On September 28, a group of army officers called the High Arab Revolutionary Command staged a successful coup and proclaimed the separation of Syria from Egypt. Nasser decided not to resist and ordered his troops to surrender. He blamed Syria's defection on "reactionaries" and "agents of imperialism."
This is what history tells us about that event, but it does not tell us why “The conservative monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan saw his ideas as a potential threat?” Well the answer is simple does not require much intelligence to see that R.I.P. Nasser and his officers –the free officers of the Egyptian Army- who revolted on the ruling monarchy of Egypt, blamed each and every economic, social, political or army problem to the ruling monarchy and took it down, forced the king to step down, then abolished monarchies and royal kingdom announcing the birth of a republic in Egypt.
With the regional unprecedented influence of this Egyptian 23rd. July 1952 revolution, lead by the Army’s Free Officers, and the developments of 1st ever Egyptian Republic, R.I.P. Nasser become a clear and present danger not only for imperialism, but nearby monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan!
The more dangerous the more enemies, on top of United Kingdom, French Government, United States, and the Soviet Union the all time Enemy of the United States, and many more regional countries, lots of conflicting interests become on the table and much more conspiracies, the natural outcome was that separation of the newly born Union which tried a complete union rather than a federal one!
Truly speaking if I was a Syrian I would had felt that Syria had been occupied by Egypt! Regardless of the popularity of R.I.P. Nasser, but let us see true matters, the Egyptian president becomes the Syrian President too, Egyptian laws enforced in Syria, Egyptian Parliament representing Syria, Damascus not any more the Syrian Capital, even Syrian Army been headed and controlled by the Egyptian High commander, this is an occupation not unity!
This is my own view and analysis, R.I.P. Nasser become a symbol, semi-god, no one would dare to say you are wrong! Each and every decision had to be his executable order, even the leading orders that lead to the catastrophic June 5th.1967 disaster, which I hope to discuss soon, as for now I wish you all a happy Ramadan, will resume my history reading and try to get the lessons, the lessons that one single person alone cannot forecast and see all hidden dangers whatever his genius level is, and this points clearly to DEMOCRACY is not a single person view or decision, running a country is not a chess game, where your strategy in this game leads to a winner, a game down a new game on, the loss in a country’s strategy, is a loss to the whole country not just the chess players there is a deference, huge deference, and no doubts R.I.P. was a good chess player, loyal Egyptian, but just human subject to errors lead to defeats, in Syrian Unity, then the 1967 war!
I rest my case at this point, talking in history is endless, and its lessons countless, we all need to review all our acts, all our decisions no one is error free, or genius to the point to cover all aspects of life; Being genius is on one single aspect of life not the whole of life only God has those unlimited powers and wisdom that we still learn some of it and the road is endless, may God keep blessing Egypt and Egyptians.
