17 - 23 January 2002
Issue No.569
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 17 - 23 January 2002 Issue No.569 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Holding the summit annually
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed asks whether the Arab states are ready to implement the resolution they adopted in Amman
A question on everyone's mind at this time is whether the forthcoming Arab summit conference will convene on schedule at the designated time and place -- that is, in Beirut, next March -- or whether it will be adjourned. In these turbulent times, it is more than usually difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy how the situation will evolve and what surprises the next few weeks may hold. In fact, we can expect surprises up to the eve of the conference, even in the last five minutes before it convenes.
Although Arab summits have become something of an institution, they remain whimsical affairs dependent solely on the individual will of the top decision-maker in each Arab country. They are unique in that they bring together heads of state who wield near-absolute power in their respective countries and are accountable to no one but themselves. Indeed, democracy in the Arab world as a whole has not reached a stage where rulers feel compelled to observe specific rules.
The only obligation Arab heads of state may consider binding is one they themselves unanimously agreed to assume at their last summit, where they passed a resolution to hold regular meetings on an annual basis. It was decided that the venue of the first such summit would be Beirut. But an unexpected hitch threatens to derail the planned meeting. Lebanon's Shi'ite party, Amal, recently announced that it will not allow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to set foot on Lebanese soil until the mystery surrounding the disappearance of their spiritual leader, Imam Moussa Al-Sadr, while on a visit to Libya two decades ago, is cleared up. Either Gaddafi comes to Lebanon with the imam, alive or dead (that is, with an explanation for his disappearance), or not at all. Another mystery is why this old story should be dredged up at this particular time: what new factor, related to events underway in the present, is behind the revival of this long dormant issue?
The Libyan authorities were quick to demand a change of venue, proposing that the summit be held at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. But a change of venue would open the way to a change of date, and we could wind up seeing the summit postponed indefinitely. In such a case, the "historic" resolution adopted by the Arab leaders at their previous summit in Amman last March will become just another lost opportunity to forge a united Arab stand.
Regularity of summit meetings introduces a new factor to the Arab political scene. When summits were held on a sporadic, ad hoc, basis, there was no mechanism by which to hold Arab states accountable for failing to implement resolutions their leaders had adopted or even to follow up the implementation of such resolutions. By committing themselves to annual meetings, Arab leaders have introduced an element of continuity that binds them to implement summit resolutions. In a way, they have created a new supra-state decision-making mechanism, transcending and, indeed, constraining, the sovereign prerogatives of the individual Arab states. However, instead of helping overcome the problems now souring inter-Arab relations, the new mechanism has, if anything, complicated them still further. Various indications seem to confirm that the Arabs are finding it more difficult than ever before to close ranks in the face of some of the more crucial problems.
Given their inability to reach a consensus on how to deal with these problems, Arab leaders might be excused for what seems to be their growing reluctance to hold a summit that will bind them to take concrete action in their regard. One way of avoiding coming to grips with the real problems facing the Arab world is to bring up old problems like the Moussa Al-Sadr affair. The problem with summit meetings is that they must come forward with a final statement at the end of their deliberations that reflects a consensus on the most crucial problems. It is over these that the Arab states differ to one extent or another. Thus, a summit presents difficulties not only in its holding, but also on the issues of substance it is required to tackle.
One such issue is terrorism, which is highly charged and controversial. For example, how to define terrorism? There is no generally accepted definition of the term. Differences over a definition exist not only between the US and different Arab states, but also among the Arab states themselves. More specifically, how to define the Intifada? Should it be classified as legitimate resistance against occupation, or as terrorism? Is Hizbullah a terrorist organisation as announced a few days ago by Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice? Is Hamas a terrorist organisation? Is Arafat himself a terrorist -- is he "the most dangerous terrorist in the Middle East" and the "Bin Laden of the Middle East" as he is referred to by Sharon?
The summit will have to adopt a stand on the Intifada. The US and Israel are demanding an end to the Intifada as a prerequisite for Arab states not to be accused of terrorism. For Arab public opinion, on the other hand, ending the Intifada means capitulating to Israel. Can the positive aspects of the Intifada be brought forward without exposing it to the danger of being accused of terrorism? What lessons could be drawn from the first Intifada in this respect?
If the Arab summit does convene in Beirut, organisations such as Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah will be required to toe the line adopted by the Arab states towards terrorism, not the opposite. In other words, we are unlikely in such a case to see the radicalisation of Arab regimes and their adoption of these organisations' understanding of terrorism. Conversely, if the summit is not held in Beirut, this would allow these organisations a greater margin for manoeuvre and lead to the adoption of resolutions that are not likely to please the Americans.
The most persuasive argument by which to refute the allegation that Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation is that its recourse to violence aims at restoring national territory still under Israeli occupation, a totally legitimate objective consistent with UN Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 325. However, the argument only stands if the Chebaa Farms still being held by Israel are Lebanese. If they belong to Syria, as Israel claims, Hizbullah cannot justify its resistance activities. This is just one of the awkward issues that will have to be addressed by the summit.
Another is the story of the Karine A, which was seized by Israel in the Red Sea en route from Iran to an unknown destination with 50 tons of weapons on board. Sharon claims the ship was transporting the weapons to terrorist Palestinian organisations, while Washington says intelligence reports indicate they were being sent to Hizbullah in Lebanon, thus exposing Iran as another player in the Middle East equation.
Can the Palestinian Authority afford to become embroiled in scandals of this nature at this particularly critical juncture? The episode represents a major embarrassment for Arafat and has seriously undermined his recent peace offensive. Statements on the enigma of the boat have been contradictory. American officials who spoke to Arafat after the scandal broke say that while he did not totally deny knowledge of the matter, his answer was unconvincing. Was the decision to hire the boat taken before Arafat's announcement to end all violence? If so, failing to give clear instructions to cancel the assignment would be an unforgivable mistake. Or is the whole issue a Sharon machination to wreck the opportunity that seemed available to resume the negotiations after more than a week of relative calm?
As to Hamas, it is a no less complex problem, if only because there exists a Palestinian Authority that is undertaking negotiations with Israel, even if, for the time being, negotiations are suspended. Can another Palestinian party engage in violent action against Israel while the Palestinian Authority is calling for the resumption of negotiations? Can the PA enjoy any real authority if forces attributing themselves to the national coalition of forces deal with it as if it were not worthy of recognition? Hamas and Jihad agreed to put an end to violent acts after Arafat called upon all Palestinian organisations to do so. But Sharon's inflexibility drove many of these organisations to resume their violent activities. How to interpret this behaviour? Can it be regarded as an implicit admission by these organisations that resorting to violence is of a tactical, not a strategic, nature?
Israel has been doing everything it can to undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority as a worthy partner in the negotiation process. And because even the Arab parties have divergent views over how to deal with Arafat, it is not easy to reach a common Arab stand on many fundamental questions. Is there any justification for Arab parties to relinquish violence at a time Sharon has reneged on the land for peace tradeoff, Arab land continues to be occupied and Resolution 242 has not been implemented?
Then there is the issue of Iraq, which many signals indicate will be the next target in America's war on terror. Can a common Arab stand be reached over how to deal with Saddam Hussein?
By proposing to hold annual summits, the Arab states took a significant step forward. But if they now fail to implement that step, the Arabs will have taken a dangerous step backwards. Will the decision to hold annual summits enhance the common Arab body and prove its ability to take collective steps, or will it precipitate the announcement of Arab bankruptcy and inability to rise to the challenges of the time?
© 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