From Arabism to regionalism
Does the Istanbul meeting on Iraq mean the end of Arabism and the beginning of regionalism? Dina Ezzat looks for an answer
Click to view caption |
REGIONAL PLAYER: Behind closed doors, Turkey's evolving role in the region is the subject of much Arab debate. (Top) US General Richard B Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, stands in front of a picture of Turkey's founding father, Ataturk, on Monday; (above) Turkish students protest against war in Iraq in Istanbul
|
Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will meet in Istanbul today to discuss, along with Turkey and Iran, the possibilities for a peaceful settlement in the standoff between Iraq and the United States.
The agenda of the meeting has been receiving much attention because of its hints and references to a potential peaceful and unforced exit of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Debates are ongoing, both in the media and diplomatic quarters, as to how these six states will tell the world -- not to mention an Iraqi president not renowned for his flexibility -- that they are willing to support a peaceful regime change in Iraq to ward off the evils of war.
The venue of the meeting, however, has not been subject of much debate. For many of those concerned about the state of collective Arab work, this is reason for serious concern. "Iraq is an Arab country. The future of Iraq and the Iraqi people is an Arab concern. A superimposed regime change in Iraq is something that will have consequences on Arab states. So how could it be that Turkey, and not any of the leading Arab states, takes the lead in dealing with this issue at this particular critical phase?" asked one of many concerned Arab intellectuals and politicians.
The concern seems particularly legitimate in view of the fact that Turkey is a NATO member who, just on Tuesday, gave the green light for a massive deployment of US troops on its soil in preparation for a potential US-led war against Iraq.
The Turkish initiative for a limited regional meeting on Iraq came in the wake of a successful tour to several Arab states by Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul. Discussed during this tour was the idea for holding a regional meeting, as well as Saddam's peaceful exit from Iraq. The initiative also came against a backdrop of extensive talks and exchange of messages between Ankara and Washington to ensure that the working paper for the Istanbul meeting was generally approved by the US. Indeed, not long after Ankara declared its intention to host this regional meeting, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and US Secretary of State Colin Powell were ready with statements suggesting that Saddam would be free to go without any bloodshed and that if he went he would not be prosecuted for war crimes.
This said, critics find no excuse for the failure of Arab countries, particularly the leading states, to take the lead in providing a scenario to avoid war. The argument goes that it is "very disappointing" that Arab countries which used to coordinate any answer to any question now have to wait to be invited by Turkey -- a country "who has a military alliance with Israel" -- to coordinate policies on Iraq. "Even if the Arab countries do not enjoy the kind of rapport with and support of the US that Turkey has, they should have worked out a plan and invited Turkey and Iran to join them, and not the other way round," commented one critic. He added, "today the initiative has been taken away from Arab countries."
Arab states, while going along with the meeting, are not particularly happy about the fact that it is Turkey who is taking the lead. Cairo, for once, insisted that it was out of the question to hold a summit-level meeting before foreign ministers had had a chance to meet and carefully examine the proposed Turkish paper to ensure it was acceptable to Arab states.
Egyptian efforts were successful. The meeting today is at foreign-minister level. Damascus took matters a step further when it sent its Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa to Ankara and Tehran to try to convince both capitals to agree to Syria hosting the ministerial meeting and allowing the chance for Turkey to host the summit when circumstances were right. Syria's request was deferred, although Damascus was promised that the next meeting for this regional grouping, if and when it happens, would be hosted in the Syrian capital.
Meanwhile, the Arab League, which had initiated diplomatic moves to allow for the resumption of dialogue between Baghdad and the UN and for the return of inspectors to Iraq, has been excluded from the meeting. Informed sources indicate that, while Turkey and Iran were willing to invite Arab League secretary- general "in his personal political capacity and in recognition of the important role he played in relation to the Iraq file during the past few months", the US insisted on an exclusion. "Americans are not particularly fond of Moussa or of his role. They are also opposed to the Arab League since they want Arabs to stop thinking in the 'Arab' mindset and to start thinking in the 'region' mindset", commented one Arab diplomatic source. He added that the inclusion of the Arab League, or for that matter its secretary-general, was subject to scepticism on the side of the participating Arab states. They were worried that the presence of Moussa would prompt other states to insist on being included in the talks.
Commentators are concerned about the exclusion of the Arab League from a meeting to debate an Arab issue, even though this particular issue has direct impact on other regional players. According to one commentator, "this is only a sign of the resurrection of the Baghdad Pact scenario which, is a very serious threat to the concept of Arabism."
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa does not seem to be upset that his organisation is excluded from the Istanbul meetings. "The Arab League is there to deal with Arab issues within the Arab framework and in cooperation with concerned neighbours, but the Istanbul meeting is not an Arab meeting."
The Arab League has had problems with this brief since the beginning of the Iraq- Kuwait crisis in 1991. At that time the Arab League, as well as its member states and concerned international powers, failed to convince Saddam to willingly end his occupation of neighbouring Kuwait. Following its liberation at the hands of US-led international forces, the Kuwaiti government felt it owed its freedom more to the Americans than the Arabs. Since that time, the Kuwaiti regime has been unwilling to allow the Arab League, or any Arab state, more than minimal involvement in the many issues relating to its relationship with Iraq. Regarding relations with Iraq and the entire Iraqi issue, Kuwaiti officials are always eager to state that this is "not an Arab affair but an international issue that could be dealt with through the UN".
In Istanbul today, participating Arab countries, joined by Turkey and Iran, will be working on a plan which the UN could take to Iraq to encourage the Iraqi president to reformulate his regime, thereby sparing his country the military aggression of the US.
The question now is, if the Istanbul meeting were to agree on a proposal which would require a demonstration of flexibility from Baghdad, who would take the proposals to the Iraqi president, an Arab delegation or a regional delegation? One Arab diplomatic source responded, "If Arabs went to Baghdad to suggest to its president that he has to consider ways to step down -- even if he does it within a somewhat constitutional frame -- it would be a declaration by Arabs that they allowed for the removal of an Arab head of state. If they allowed Turkey to do this, then Turkey would be seen as a mediator in an important Arab affair."
In statements made on Tuesday, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan expressed his country's disappointment over the way Arab countries have been dealing with Iraq. "The official Arab stance is unbecoming. If Arabs insist that there should be no war, then there will be no war provided they take the right position," Ramadan said.
This is an argument that supporters of the Istanbul conference use against its critics. As far as the supporters are concerned, Arabs alone cannot convince the US to pull back, but with a regional umbrella for an official anti-war sentiment, Washington will have to reconsider its plans. One source commented, "it is true that the initiative for a regional meeting should have come from an Arab state, but it simply didn't. After all, we know that we are not living the heydays of Arab political strength.
