Will there be an Arab summit or not? If it is held, will it be open to all Arab countries, or will there be one or two exceptions? Or is it to be a mini-summit? In that case, which countries will attend and what standards will determine inclusion or exclusion? And if a mini-summit is to be held, is it to constitute a prelude to a full-scale summit, or will it be an end in itself? Will the agenda include the full range of Arab issues, or will it be restricted to discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict? If the latter is the case, what is to be done about the many other issues that are of no less importance, such as the continued international blockade and sanctions against certain Arab countries, the tens of thousands of Algerians who have died in the country of a million martyrs, or the 300,000 Sudanese who may succumb to famine in the coming summer months? How long will the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait continue to be passed over on Arab summit agendas, and can we really convene another summit without ascertaining that the resolutions of previous meetings have been put into effect?
These are some of the many questions that have been put to Arab public opinion over the past weeks. The questions have yet to be met with clear answers. All the Arab regimes want to hold the summit, but beyond this there is not the slightest consensus over any of the details. Indeed, the tendency is to skip over these thorny issues and to reiterate the advantages of the summit as a venue where the Arabs can come together in unison so that we can rise as one to the enormous challenges that confront us all.
The familiar proclamation adds nothing to what we already know. The fact that the sun rises in the east every day means nothing unless we connect it with the succession of night and day, the course of the seasons and their implications in terms of sowing and harvesting, the provision of food and clothing, the ebb and flow of the tides, and the movement of airplanes in the sky and ships on the sea.
The fact is that the Arabs have made summits into an end in themselves, an institution unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Arab summits are the only events of which the convening is an aim in and of itself, because it is an indication that the pan-Arab nation still exists. Although it meets irregularly, every time it does meet all the problems of the Arab nation are thrust upon it in one go and it is expected to solve them all in the space of two days. As this is impossible, a single issue tends to dominate: the Palestinian cause. After dealing with that issue, every country is accorded a line or two in the closing statement in order to satisfy the participants' publicity demands. Then, since every Arab country has its particular strategic priorities, no sooner do the leaders return to their respective homes than they turn their attention to their own pressing concerns.
The Algerians want to end the strife that has gone on for too long, the Iraqis and Libyans manoeuvre to end the blockade imposed on their countries, the Sudanese are pressed by blockade, civil war and famine, the Kuwaitis want to ascertain that the events of 1990 will never repeat themselves, the people of the UAE want the islands usurped by Iran restored to them, the Qataris press their claims on the island disputed by the Bahrainis, and the Moroccans want to keep their hold on the Western Sahara. The discrepancy between the agenda of the summit and the strategic priorities of the member nations is what hampers its convening. If a summit meeting does take place, once the attendant media hype subsides, it dawns on all of us that we need another summit.
This phenomenon does not occur in the case of European summit meetings, the meetings of the G8, NATO summits or, for that matter, any other such high-level gathering in the world. That is because those meetings are backed by a highly efficient network of institutions and relationships that enable the various parties to voice, with the utmost candour, their diverse concerns and priorities. Then, after airing these, they engage in the process of filtering out those interests over which there is an element of agreement from those over which there are differences. Once the agenda is settled, they determine the time-frame for each of the parties to fulfill their allotted obligations and the capacities each country can contribute to achieving collective aims.
Intensive pre-summit networking enables the participants to reach a minimal level of consensus. Thus, when the summit is finally held, it can devote attention to capitalising on accomplishments and, from there, determining collective aims several years, or even decades, down the line.
This is the internationally recognised model for arranging summit meetings. I wonder if we will be able to learn from it.
*The writer is the director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
