The clashing of swords
Contrasting Arab with other international gatherings makes for some bleak conclusions, writes Gamil Mattar*
I have watched broadcasts of the UN Security Council session and listened to the statements made by the foreign ministers of Security Council members. One cannot help but compare this session and sessions at Arab meetings aired on Arab satellite channels, in terms of content, discussions and the verbal exchanges between members. It is a comparison that leads to several interesting conclusions.
I imagined the Security Council chamber transformed into an ancient Roman arena, where gladiators of varying weight, size and skill make their entry. The Security Council session convened to hear the senior UNMOVIC inspector's reports of progress in the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was one of the most important meetings held by the Security Council in 60 years. And if the supposed reason for the session was Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, the content and agendas that became apparent at the meeting told another story.
At least five, perhaps even seven, foreign ministers had arrived at the meeting to proclaim the new champion; others were there to sabotage the great gladiator's crowning with laurels.
The struggle was hardly suggested by the discussions and media campaigns which had preceded the session, or the military mobilisation that was taking place at the same time as the meeting and which would continue after it was over.
The session was a significant building block in the cementing of the New World Order. Some want this new order to be unipolar; others want a multipolar order that would permit countries other than the US some role in determining the contours of the new dispensation. And if the debate was not a brilliant show, at least in terms of argument, it did have the drama of veiled threats and warnings.
It was clear that the United States had come to the meeting with very little patience. Washington had imagined the road to the summit smoothly paved, any obstacles washed away by its show of determination to forge an international alliance in its war against terrorism in Afghanistan.
Colin Powell was disappointed by the positions of Russia and China, more so than with Germany. The calculations of Washington's policy-making apparatus, especially the National Security Council, had concluded that China would not enter into a head to head confrontation with the US in the Security Council, in any other international forum for that matter.
The political elite surrounding President Putin, however, believes that legitimising American hegemony will spell the end of Russia as an empire. Russia's security is dependent, perhaps more than ever before, on the vacuum present in Central Asia, from the borders of Xingjiang in the East to the Caspian Sea and Turkey in the West.
I quickly realised that during this session I would not see a thumbs down signal, the sign that would grant the US approval to destroy its adversaries once and for all. Nor, I also realised, would we see a thumbs up signal, the sign that the opponent was to be saved from what would otherwise have meant sure death. Instead, all the signs were that this session was merely the beginning of a lengthy contest that would continue in many other arenas, and occupy many years.
It became obvious to me that all the parties taking part in this meeting, particularly the main players, were perfectly aware that the US, once it achieves the targets it sets itself, would be merciless in dealing with those that had placed hurdles in its path, particularly during this particular session, the arena it had selected to publicly display the extent of its power and strength.
At this point I remembered what I watched and heard on the Arab satellite channels: another meeting was being held, though the only similarity with this one was in the packaging. There were no gladiators with any intention of fighting at the Arab gathering. What took place -- and many did perceive it to be some form of confrontation -- was nothing more than a display of frayed nerves, clouded vision and mutual suspicion. The aspirations of those attending the meeting did not go beyond agreeing on a wordy statement, strong on rhetoric, weak in content. What they wanted was a contradictory and restrained communiqué which, in a kinder world, might have been read as a parody of the Arab condition.
The priority at all Arab meetings is to avoid sensitive issues and to maintain the status quo. The status quo is to be maintained at all costs. Any steps or policies that aim to change it must be avoided at all costs. What clearer contrast could there be to European and international fora, such as the Security Council, where in meetings recently the focus was on changing the status quo not upholding it.
It is only fair to note that the Americans are not the only ones seeking to alter the world order and create a new model that will permit Washington's supremacy to go unchallenged. The Europeans, too, are seeking to change the status quo to serve their interests. The current state of affairs remains in flux, allowing the United States, more than any other player, to capitalise on the situation and impose a new reality. The Europeans want to curtail America's ambition by proving that the US is incapable of leading the world. Apparently, Europe wants to convince the US of the need for a multipolar system where leadership, rights and duties are shared, regardless of discrepancies in power and influence.
On the other hand we find the Arabs keen to shield themselves from all these international debates. They are unwilling to interact with international developments: their policies are muddled, contradictory and the gap continues to widen as they argue among themselves about the need to surrender or resist US demands to impose change on Arab regional systems, modes of operation and political beliefs.
The issue of Iraq may pave the way for a revolution, or should we say an evolution, at the core of the world order. Unintentionally, it may finally succeed in breaking Arab resistance to any change in the regional status quo. Whatever, Arab officials remain uneasy about the direction of international events. They want and don't want the removal of Saddam; they want and don't want a war on Iraq. The only thing they do not want is a new map in the Arab region. They oppose any new regional order, just as they oppose any speedy development in their political, legislative and social institutions.
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development & Futuristic Research
