Evaluate the interpretations in both of the passages below and explain which you think is the
more convincing explanation of Nasser’s motives for supporting, and his difficulties in
achieving, Arab unity.
Both interpretations agree that Nasser's motives for supporting Arab unity were to end
western control over the Middle East. Passage A suggests that Nasser's motivations were to
"advance his (own) interests". Whereas passage B highlights that his motivations came from
his "bitter rivalry with Nuri" (the Iraqi leader). Both interpretations fail to state how the
divisions between Arab states created difficulties explicitly, but passage B provides an
alternative argument suggesting that the rejection of Arab unity from leaders did. However,
passage A has the most convincing explanation as it explores the difficulties and Nasser's
motives in greater detail.
This is a good introduction. The opening briefly explains the views of the two
interpretations, and offers a view as to which is the more convincing. Great to see!
Passage A correctly identifies how Nasser was unenthusiastic towards Egypt and Syria's
union due to the difficulty of them having a "very distinct history". This is accurate because
some Arab governments, like Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, remained unsure in their
attitude towards Nasser's Egypt. The leaders of these three countries were suspicious of
Nasser's motives and felt that Nasser's Arab nationalism was a cover for Egyptian
imperialism. Which demonstrates how opposition from other Arab leaders existed and could
cause difficulty in creating Arab unity. The passage also accurately recognises Nasser's
motives to "secure his position as the unrivalled leader of the Arab world" and to
"demonstrate to the great powers" that Egypt shaped the new political order in the Middle
East. When the USA had persuaded Turkey to move troops to Syria's border, Nasser
unleashed propaganda against the USA and its reactionary allies—proving to the great
powers that he could defy them using his influence over Arab states. Especially because it led
to countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia who had adopted a pro-American position to
retreat and appear to swim with the Arab nationalist tide. However, this passage is limited in
its insight into the union with Syria, only referring to how "the union was popular among the
masses". It is valid as the union was initially popular among the Syrian people, but this was
only because of the insecure position that they felt to be in. Syria had no common border with
Egypt, and it had completely different political and economic systems. It was because of
more convincing explanation of Nasser’s motives for supporting, and his difficulties in
achieving, Arab unity.
Both interpretations agree that Nasser's motives for supporting Arab unity were to end
western control over the Middle East. Passage A suggests that Nasser's motivations were to
"advance his (own) interests". Whereas passage B highlights that his motivations came from
his "bitter rivalry with Nuri" (the Iraqi leader). Both interpretations fail to state how the
divisions between Arab states created difficulties explicitly, but passage B provides an
alternative argument suggesting that the rejection of Arab unity from leaders did. However,
passage A has the most convincing explanation as it explores the difficulties and Nasser's
motives in greater detail.
This is a good introduction. The opening briefly explains the views of the two
interpretations, and offers a view as to which is the more convincing. Great to see!
Passage A correctly identifies how Nasser was unenthusiastic towards Egypt and Syria's
union due to the difficulty of them having a "very distinct history". This is accurate because
some Arab governments, like Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, remained unsure in their
attitude towards Nasser's Egypt. The leaders of these three countries were suspicious of
Nasser's motives and felt that Nasser's Arab nationalism was a cover for Egyptian
imperialism. Which demonstrates how opposition from other Arab leaders existed and could
cause difficulty in creating Arab unity. The passage also accurately recognises Nasser's
motives to "secure his position as the unrivalled leader of the Arab world" and to
"demonstrate to the great powers" that Egypt shaped the new political order in the Middle
East. When the USA had persuaded Turkey to move troops to Syria's border, Nasser
unleashed propaganda against the USA and its reactionary allies—proving to the great
powers that he could defy them using his influence over Arab states. Especially because it led
to countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia who had adopted a pro-American position to
retreat and appear to swim with the Arab nationalist tide. However, this passage is limited in
its insight into the union with Syria, only referring to how "the union was popular among the
masses". It is valid as the union was initially popular among the Syrian people, but this was
only because of the insecure position that they felt to be in. Syria had no common border with
Egypt, and it had completely different political and economic systems. It was because of
