I suggest that a political and economic unity be established between Egypt, Sudan and Libya. I will not choose those incomprehensible or ambiguous terms to describe this unity, and as such I will avoid naming it a federal, confederate, or integration unity. What I am saying here is that I want these three countries to be unified under a body that is more comprehensive than the European Union, and less exhaustive than the United States of America. In fact, if I had any political ideology when I was young, it would be that I believed in a unification of this kind. I have long believed in a loose Arab unity without ever belonging to a party, faction or flock. But I saw the dream of unity being realized and then ending in a nightmare that made repeating this experience prohibitive. Nonetheless, I remained a believer in unity but without dreams. I was pleased that the United Arab Emirates survived, when logic says that it will indeed endure because what unites the member Emirates is far greater than what divides them, added to the wisdom of Sheikh Zayed in avoiding a stifling unity that entraps its members, or a disintegrated one that only has its name to show for. Egypt, Sudan and Libya, meanwhile, are countries that economically complement each other. A unity among them led by Egypt would end Sudan's isolation, and the accusations of ethnic cleansing being carried out there. It will also help Sudan avoid facing the international war crimes tribunal, would end forty bad years of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's rule in Libya, and would certainly benefit the people of Egypt, and the long-suffering people of Libya... Am I dreaming again? We all know that the Colonel marched to Egypt in search of unity, but only to be rebuffed many times by the Presidents of Egypt. Also, I personally know that Egypt took the side of Field Marshal Omar al-Bashir in the dispute with Sheik Hassan al-Turabi, until the first won and ruled alone. Furthermore, if Egypt led this new unified state, it will give Libya a sense of rationality that it lacks today, and a sense of moderation that has been absent from the Sudanese rule in recent years. Since Egypt establishes diplomatic relations with Israel, the proposed unity practically means that two important Arab countries will leave the confrontation with Israel; this may be an adequate temptation that would remove any Israeli opposition, and subsequently the American opposition, to the idea. However, I suspect that the fascists in the Israeli government and the Jewish lobby and its followers and clients in the U.S. Congress, in addition to some European leaders who claim to be neutral, will not all bear the idea of an Arab country with about 142 million people and 5.2 million square kilometres of land rich in natural resources on the borders of Israel. Also, all three countries have oil (mostly in Libya), and possess skilled human workforce, mostly in Egypt, while Sudan has enough arable areas for everyone. I do not want to criticize the Libyan regime again, because I am rather trying to encourage it to seek this unity. But I want to remind this regime that 34 years after pursuing a certain policy, which included military adventures in Chad and other countries, Lockerbie and even a cafe in Berlin and the police officer Yvonne Fletcher in London, the regime turned against itself and flipped 180 degrees. It has now abandoned its fictional nuclear program, and then there was the hero's welcome given to a convicted terrorist in Libya, which proved that the regime did not, and cannot, change its spots. It should be mentioned here that Sudan was the scene of a terrible humanitarian disaster, and even if we accept the Field Marshal al-Bashir's insistence upon his innocence from any responsibility for the genocide in Darfur, he remains responsible in his capacity as the head of state. This is without getting into the details of any war or peace with the South, or the imposition of extremist religious rule on the country without a clear popular mandate. I believe that the unity of the Nile Valley and Libya will benefit all three countries, and Israel's security, in addition to the economies of all interested countries in the east and the west. Then I want to go back to saying that despite the obvious benefits for all parties, both apparent and hidden enemies will not welcome a successful Arab unity, since this would encourage its repetition in other Arab regions. The long-term interest of those enemies remains that Arabs should be disunited, backwards, in disagreement, ignorant and weak. We had a unique Arab political experience in Sudan, when Field Marshal Abdul Rahman Siwar al-Dahab voluntarily resigned from power after the 1985 uprising. With 40 years of ruling Libya, the Comrade Colonel should perhaps do the same, and start focusing on writing books, and publishing the manifesto of the new Arab unity, in poetry if he pleases. The problem, however, will be in Egypt, where the rule of President Mubarak has notably been very cautious in dealing with both friends and foes, avoiding adventures of any kind. However, the Egyptian President is in his eighties now, and all he wants is to leave a good legacy. As such, should he lead the popular march towards unity, he will find immediate support in every Arab country, not just in the three countries concerned. He would thus also pull the rug from under the feet of extremists, who are trying to lead the nation into the abyss. If President Mubarak initiated this, then he would regain his role as the commander of the Air Force in the war of crossing [1973], and the three countries would remain the same in name within the international community. They would continue to have local parliaments and laws like any U.S. state, but their foreign and economic policies would be unified and integrated, in a democratic rule for all. Should I also hope that the unity takes place in education as well, within a modern curriculum that meets the needs of the entire nation? I think that I am dreaming a lot, because that is the only thing left for us: dreams.
