Passing the buck
By
Salama A Salama
The Arab world is passing through a critical time that will test its leaders' ability to reach common ground.
A first step, perhaps, on the way to unity is the majority decision to hold an exceptional summit meeting -- a final attempt at declaring a unified Arab position on the Iraqi crisis and avoiding the war Washington is determined to wage. It need hardly be pointed out that this war will result in compromising the sovereignty of an Arab state, placing its future in the hands of external forces. This is not to mention the emergence of circumstances under which Israeli aggression will gain renewed force, threatening the security and stability of neighbouring countries and spreading Israel's economic and military influence throughout the Middle East.
The summit's participants will arrive in Sharm El- Sheikh in the shadow of a complicated set of regional and international conditions. Each leader bears the dual weight of enmity towards the Iraqi regime, or its President Saddam Hussein, and particular economic or military commitments to Washington and London. At least five Gulf countries, according to Donald Rumsfeld, are openly providing the American military with support. Other Arab countries prefer to keep their military relations with Washington secret, even if such secrets are widely known and circulated in newspaper reports. Arabs, without exception, do not endorse attacking Iraq, nor do they support their governments cooperation with Washington's military machine. And it is this separation between Arab regimes and Arab peoples that gives rise to extremist movements and terrorism.
Against this backdrop the Arab summit seems destined to fail, not only because it is a belated effort but because it post-dates the decision to wage war.
The Iraqi problem has developed in terms that make choosing sides necessary: Washington and London believe that the use of force is necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, remove the Iraqi regime and pave the way for reforms that will seep out of Iraq to its neighbours; France and Germany, on the other hand, voice the opinion of the world's majority, believing war is not the best means to resolve the crisis, and that it is the UN that should undertake the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
The question now is whether Arab states have enough time to adopt a position most conducive to the interests of the Arab nation, opposing any form of military intervention on any pretext. Or will states like Kuwait and Qatar, that have strong military affiliations with Washington, present obstacles to any unified position, using the Iraqi regime's threats as an excuse? Will the Arab nation prove capable of communicating a lucid and unequivocal message?
To the Iraqi regime it should declare its commitment to UN resolutions, to the Iraqi people, and to solving outstanding problems with neighbouring states, especially Kuwait. To the American administration it must say clearly that the entire Arab world is opposed to military intervention and calls both for resolving the problem through the UN and the establishing of the Middle East as a region entirely free of weapons of mass destruction. Such an outcome, though, is extremely unlikely. There are too many differences to be resolved in the few days left before the beginning of American operations.
Given the pressing nature of the timetable one cannot quite allay the suspicion that the summit is nothing but an exercise in passing the buck. It will have no effect because it is not intended to have one.
