22 - 28 March 2001
Issue No.526
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 22 - 28 March 2001 Issue No.526 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Borders and blood
A ruling, and a visit: these mark the parameters within which Arab leaders meeting in Amman must chart their course, writes Ibrahim Nafie
The last decade, which opened with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, cast into relief the need to mend the rifts in the Arab world so as to enhance the opportunities for collective action. There can be no doubt that a new level-headed realism has made considerable headway against the impulsive all-or-nothing mentality that has often thwarted efforts to realise effective bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Nevertheless, the current tensions in the Middle East make it all the more imperative that the Arabs reach a minimal level of cooperation and coordination, particularly when we bear in mind that Arab disunity has all too often given others the opening to play the Arabs off against one another and undermine Arab rights and interests.
Arab leaders, scheduled to meet in Amman on Tuesday for the first of the annual Arab summits, have many pressing issues to discuss. Two, however, loom foremost in my mind because of their immediate bearing on the formidable challenge of fostering constructive Arab cooperation and coordination. The first entails the landmark ruling of the International Court of Justice on the border dispute between Qatar and Bahrain, the second the recent election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister of Israel.
Border disputes are among the most intractable legacies European colonialism bequeathed the Third World. Although the majority of political and legal opinion in the Third World has resolved, in theory at least, to respect the borders inherited from the colonial era, theory has more often than not been unable to forestall the eruption of tensions over territorial claims. Disputing parties have sometimes been able to resolve such tensions through direct bilateral or mediated negotiations; others have resorted to force of arms. Few have sought recourse to the International Court of Justice.
In the Arab world, rife with unresolved border questions, it has always been felt that the common bonds of blood and language should facilitate a friendly solution to problems that arise. Nevertheless, while these factors were occasionally instrumental to producing official border treaties, many inter-Arab borders remain latent minefields. Why the Arabs have not, until recently, pursued the International Court of Justice as an alternative is difficult to say. Perhaps they lacked the political maturity to commit themselves to the idea of abiding by its arbitration, or perhaps they were simply reluctant to air their dirty laundry. Whatever the case, Qatar and Bahrain should be praised for their courageousness not only in submitting their age-old dispute to international arbitration, but for the resolve with which they have already begun to follow through on the court's ruling, a resolve manifested in last Tuesday's summit meeting between the Qatari and Bahraini emirs in Doha to explore the mechanisms necessary to achieve full normalisation between the two countries.
I believe that the forthcoming Arab summit should make a point of congratulating Bahrain and Qatar for their determination to bury the hatchet and usher in a new phase of bilateral cooperation. Praise should also be extended to the members of the GCC for their efforts in containing the tensions between the two countries and pushing them towards a peaceful resolution. Were all Arab nations to emulate this spirit of political maturity and responsibility, we would be able to put all our outstanding border disputes behind us, spare the Arab peoples exorbitant expenses and give a powerful boost to inter-Arab cooperation and joint action.
The summit will be convening less than a week after Ariel Sharon's visit to Washington. The purpose of Sharon's visit was not so much to ensure that the US renews its pledge to guarantee Israel's absolute military superiority over the Arabs, as that pledge was already in hand, but to sell to the new Bush administration and the American public his perspective on the situation in Palestine. If the participants in the Arab summit are to counter Sharon's designs they must be most astute and resourceful in coordinating their positions.
Sharon, with the backing of the powerful US Zionist lobby, of course, wants to persuade Washington that the responsibility for the violence in Palestine -- the Intifada -- resides with the PA, which he claims has become a "terrorist entity" that is jeopardising regional stability. Israel cannot resume negotiations when beleaguered by such violence, he insists, especially when Lebanon, too, is harboring terrorists and Syria is abetting it. But should negotiations resume, they should not aim at a peace agreement, but at realising a series of protracted interim accords, before exploring the final status issues.
Unfortunately, the new Bush administration appears more than willing to lend Sharon a ready ear. Washington has already announced that the Intifada must stop before Bush accepts to meet Arafat, and it is hardly encouraging that US Secretary of State Colin Powell has made references to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
It is thus all the more urgent that the summit deliver a clear message to both Sharon and the peace sponsor. The Arabs must state that while they are committed to peace they will not bow to Sharon and his tactics. Sharon is one of the most notorious war criminals of the 20th century, a fact virtually recognised by Bush Sr's administration, which refused to receive Sharon in Washington when he was minister of infrastructure under Shamir; indeed, then Secretary of State James Baker referred to Sharon personally as "an obstacle to peace."
It would do the Arab summit well to refresh the world's memory on the butcher's human rights record, and to alert Washington to the dangers his government poses to regional stability. This peril is very real, and has even been recognised in the Israeli press. Ha'aretz of 5 March remarked that Israel is the only country in the world that openly contemplates killing another people's leader, voted in by a large majority in internationally supervised democratic elections. Moreover, the Sharon government contains figures like the current minister of infrastructure, who have advocated bombing the High Dam and waging war on Lebanon and Iran.
The Arab summit should also take the opportunity to tell Washington that to cater unreservedly to Sharon's policies will be highly detrimental to its strategic and material interests in the Arab world. As they contemplate what actions to take on this issue, the participants in the Arab summit may consider US analyses of Powell's recent tour of the region. These reports observed that the policies of the Clinton administration had severely eroded Washington's status in the Arab world, and that the new Republican administration should contemplate placing Washington's interests before Israel's when dealing with the problems of this region.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page