Imploding boxes
By
Salama A Salama
A few days before the Arab summit I was in Dubai and then Beirut. Debate in the Gulf revolved around the feasibility of holding an Arab summit; why Egypt opposed the gathering at the beginning but later agreed to it and whether Arab countries -- some of them having already committed themselves to assisting American troops -- would be able to agree a unified stand.
The debate was intense, often culminating in the voicing of suspicions about the real reasons behind the timetabling of the summit. Differences were so deep that Iraq, with some other Arab countries, requested that the summit be postponed until the end of March -- a date well after the expected beginning of the conflict.
It appears that Egypt's change of heart over the summit came as a result of President Mubarak's visits to France and Germany, where it became apparent that the EU's stance on the Iraqi crisis was rather more pro- active than that of Arab countries, content to remain silent about Washington's determination to destroy Iraq and implement changes that would shake the very foundations of the region. Arab countries, it appeared, had not grasped the full extent of the storm about to sweep the region under the pretext of removing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The meekness of Arab opposition to the US attack encouraged the hawks in Washinton to push ahead with plans to control the whole region.
It took time for everyone -- including states that had placed territory at the service of the American military -- to realise that resolving the crisis peacefully was the only way to avoid region wide devastation. And this is what the Sharm El-Sheikh summit aimed to achieve, as can be seen in its final communiqué which underlines Arab opposition to any military action against Iraq, and any foreign interference aimed at changing Arab regimes under the pretence of facilitating development.
But what will happen next? Will the summit's communiqué succeed in covering the inter-Arab differences and disputes so obvious on camera? Are the words in the communiqué stressing non- participation in any military operation enough to save the face of those Arab countries that allow American bases, forces and weapons on their territories? Will the summit be able to convince those countries already providing logistical support for an American military operation to withdraw that assistance?
It is unlikely that the summit decisions in Sharm El- Sheikh will have a direct influence on the actions of the five Arab countries offering facilities to the US. Similar decisions emerged from the Beirut summit a year ago but no one complied by them, or even took them seriously. This is the ailment that has long plagued the body of Arab solidarity: they come, they meet, they talk, they eat and drink, they issues statements, then they go their separate ways as if nothing had taken place. As a consequence no one gives much weight or attention to these summit-level meetings, though the US secretary of state did send a message to the summiteers asking them to implement Washington's plan to convince Saddam Hussein to step down from power. And this, in fact, is what the United Arab Emirates did in its aborted initiative.
Colonel Gaddafi is wise to seek another bloc, on another continent, with another group of countries. When Arab countries, and the international community, have failed to prevent American military intervention in Iraq it will signal, too, a collapse on the Palestinian issue. The defeat could well be a harbinger of the collapse of the Arab order, and possibly spell the demise of the UN once Washinton ignores the Security Council and pushes ahead with war in the face of international opinion.
