The Arab League's sudden involvement with the Syrian uprising has prompted two starkly contrasting articles about its significance. One argues that the league is emerging as a new voice for Arabism, the other that it is simply a tool of western imperialism.

According to Joseph Massad of Columbia University, in an article for al-Jazeera's website, the league's intervention means the Syrian revolution is already doomed. "In light of the new move by the Arab League, the US, and Europe," he says, "the struggle to overthrow Asad may very well succeed, but the struggle to bring about a democratic regime in Syria has been thoroughly defeated."

Considering that the Assad regime hasn't even gone yet and that there is almost universal uncertainty about what might follow, the defeat of democracy in Syria may seem a startlingly premature assumption but it fits Massad's general view of the world – a world in which the United States pulls all the strings and just about everyone else is a powerless victim of American machinations. (Russia and China are completely ignored in Massad's article.)

It follows from this, at least according to Massad, that in taking a stand against the Syrian regime (and earlier against the Gaddafi regime in Libya) the Arab League has done nothing more than act at American's bidding:

"In the cases of Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen ... the Arab League, under US instructions, made no move to intervene at all, while in the cases of Syria and Libya, following US instructions, the league moved swiftly."

Massad's problem – which he shares with others who detect the hand of western imperialism behind almost everything they disapprove of – is that he fails to see how the world is changing.

Certainly no one should underestimate the continuing power of the United States, but we shouldn't overestimate it either. All countries pursue their own interests to the extent that they are able and some – including the US – are better placed than others to do so. 

If there's one lesson to be drawn from the Arab Spring, though, it's that the old policies no longer work (even Henry Kissinger has said as much) and Washington's ability to influence events is steadily declining. 

Today, too, the idea that the US will always favour a pliant dictator over more democratic but perhaps less pliant alternatives is increasingly being challenged – though Massad doesn't seem to have noticed. 

"If you live in an Arab country whose dictator is a client of the Americans," he writes, "the US will do everything in its power to suppress your revolt." Well, that wasn't true in Tunisia where the Americans showed little hesitation in dumping Ben Ali once it became clear he was in serious trouble, or in Egypt where they abandoned Mubarak despite having invested billions of dollars over the years in keeping his regime afloat.

Pointing out that the CIA backed a coup in Syria 62 years ago (as Massad does) is really no guide to America's current intentions there.

Meanwhile in the Lebanese Daily Star, Rami Khouri interprets the Arab League's latest moves not as an American-inspired plot but as a case of reclaiming what had previously been surrendered to foreign powers – a "rebirth and reassertion of Arab sovereignty, will and influence within the Arab world".

The league, Khouri says, is trying to "pull back from the brink of irrelevance and play a meaningful political role that responds to the sentiments and values of the Arab people, whose sovereign will should and can shape state policies".

The key change, as he points out, is that the long-standing taboo on intervening (or meddling) in the internal affairs of other Arab states appears to have been broken – at least "when there is a clear moral or political reason to do so that reflects the sentiments of a majority of Arab public opinion".

He suggests that Arab regimes may now be "starting to pay attention to the sentiments and values of their people".

I would like to think that he is right, but it's probably still too early to be sure. After boldly calling for a no-fly zone over Libya, the league seemed to lose its nerve and started back-pedalling. It's also unclear whether the league's stand over Syria is attributable mainly to popular opinion or to Arab rulers' perceptions of their own interests.