Saying nothing at length
By
Salah Eissa
The statement issued by Arab foreign ministers disappointed those who had entertained the illusion that the upcoming Arab summit will adopt a clear position on the Iraq war. It revealed that not all Arab countries will oppose the military campaign targeting Iraq and that the decision to hold the summit was far from unanimous.
The statement made use of a formulation that clearly points to a difference in the position of several states vis-a-vis the Iraqi crisis. Perhaps the clearest example of these differences emerged in the decision to use ambivalent wording concerning the offering of logistical support to any military campaign. The statement recommended that member states "avoid", rather than the much less ambivalent "refrain from" such. This formulation permits Gulf countries affiliated to Washington to offer just such support should they deem circumstances necessitate it.
And even though this statement (especially if it is issued in the context of the summit itself) would be binding on countries that are signatories of the Arab League charter, the statement combined opposition to attacking Iraq with opposition to attacking Kuwait, thereby making it the task of the Arab summit to confront both eventualities rather than oppose the American military campaign against Iraq.
The statement thus managed to say everything and nothing. In doing so it provides an apt opening for the summit itself, which will say pretty much the same. Unless, of course, it manages to grasp the issues firmly in hand -- an unlikely occurrence -- realising that the Iraqi crisis is ultimately an Arab issue and that its resolution is the prerogative not of Washington but of Baghdad.
This week's Soapbox speaker is editor-in- chief of Al-Qahira
