Summit scenarios
Speculation over the next Arab summit is rife, Dina Ezzat reports
With the proposed date of the 2004 Arab summit approaching -- the highest-level and supposedly most comprehensive annual Arab meeting -- questions are still being asked about where and when the summit will convene. The uncertainties seem to stem from the ongoing lack of consensus over the proposed summit agenda and the Tunisian Minister of Foreign Affairs Al-Habibi Bin Yehia's reticence to play host to a meeting that may yield no positive outcome.
In Cairo last week for talks with top Egyptian officials and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, Bin Yehia -- whose country will chair the Arab summit -- made no concrete statements on whether Tunisia will adhere to the Arab League Charter protocol that gives leave to the chair to invite the summit meetings to its own capital if it wishes. The protocol, added to the Charter in 2000, provides that the Arab League headquarters should host the meeting if the chair does not exercise this privilege.
Following the talks in Cairo, Bin Yehia stressed, "What matters most is not the venue, but rather the content of the summit." Be that as it may, no decision was reached on location, fuelling speculations about whether or not the Tunisians are going to leave Egypt in charge of hosting the summit, as Bahrain did last year. What Moussa and Bin Yehia did say, however, was that the summit should convene during the third week of March. Whether it will or not is anybody's guess. None are unwilling to countenance a delay if Arab governments deem it necessary to hold further talks on the agenda and venue.
Bahrain's decision not to host the summit last year was due to the presence of US soldiers on Bahraini territory in preparation for the military assault on Iraq. In the end the summit was further moved from Cairo -- where the League maintains its headquarters -- to Sharm El-Sheikh, after Egyptian officials determined that hosting the meetings in the capital would be a security and traffic headache. Speaking on condition of anonymity, Egyptian sources told the Weekly that Cairo has offered Tunis assurances that it will take care of the venue if the Tunisians made the decision that they cannot host the summit.
Sharm El-Sheikh would seem again a probable location, were Tunisia to shy away from hosting the meetings. Not all agree, however, that this would be deemed acceptable. "It is not easy for Tunis to agree to go to Sharm El-Sheikh given that it offered an alternative headquarters to the Arab League when Arab countries voted Egypt out in the wake of the signing of the [Camp David] Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty," explained one Arab League source who served in Tunis during the headquarters-transfer period.
Further reasons for Tunisia's reticence are many. Speaking on condition of anonymity, Arab diplomatic sources explain that it would hurt Tunisian pride to host a summit that concludes with little concrete agreement or that highlights serious Arab disagreement over the proposed blueprint for Arab League reform presented by Moussa.
Sceptics of real Arab commitment to reform cite the case of the Arab League Economic and Social Council. In his reform proposal, Moussa suggested making the council the cornerstone of future inter-Arab cooperation while upgrading its representation to the level of prime ministers. This proposal was not passed. The rationale offered by opposing Arab capitals is that their prime ministers are too busy. Closer to the truth is that many Gulf countries politically oppose the idea of pan-Arab cooperation. They are not prepared, therefore, to endorse any serious Arab League reform.
"They are willing to pay money to maintain the League, but they do not want the headache that reform will bring," one source told the Weekly. Given that several Arab capitals dismiss the resolutions of the 2001 Arab summit (when Moussa became head on a ticket of reform), Tunis now has to secure an Arab consensus on the agenda of the next summit before it makes a final decision on whether or not to host it.
A trip that took Bin Yehia to a number of Gulf capitals in late January, before arriving in Cairo last Thursday, failed to garner the required assurances. Sources close to Bin Yehia say that the foreign minister's impression is that Moussa's reform package -- which includes proposals by Riyadh and Qatar -- is not going to pass in its entirety. Sources added that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are coming under pressure from other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain (the current chair of the Arab summit), Kuwait and Oman -- to water down their commitment to reform in a way that could be accepted by all GCC members.
The GCC is set to meet in Kuwait next week. Notably, as well as being the current chair of the GCC summit, Kuwait has been the most reluctant to accept proposed reforms. Many see this as retaliation against the diplomatic attempts of Moussa to avert the US war on Iraq. Several Kuwaiti commentators close to the government have said in recent months that the League is "dead and should be buried".
Moussa disagrees. And stalling on reform is not something he is going to accept. Moussa's close aides say that he accepted the job of Arab League secretary-general in 2001 on the understanding that he will be authorised to induce reform in the almost 60-year-old -- and some say defunct -- Arab organisation.
Some Arab capitals have ulterior motives for opposing change. Many, it seems, do not want to make waves, either with other more apprehensive Arab states or with Washington. The US has openly expressed concern over the role played by the League in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the making is a confrontation between some Arab states, especially Syria, who do not want to give up on their pro-resistance rhetoric, and others, notably Jordan, that denounce acts that endanger the lives of Israeli civilians.
"The fact of the matter is that despite the eloquent statements Arab leaders make regarding their commitment to reform the Arab League, many Arab countries do not really want the League to be overhauled. They just loved it when it was a mere uneventful organisation, and they dislike the fact that Moussa is trying to turn it into an influential regional power," one source told the Weekly. These Arab countries may still be making public statements in favour of reform but "when push comes to shove they will not hesitate to make enough problems to turn the summit into a failure," the source added.
Domestic issues are also rendering Tunisia's decision difficult, some Arab leaders say -- albeit behind closed doors. Were Tunisia to host the summit, authorities fear that resident Palestinians, who are angry at the failure of Arab regimes to demonstrate solid support of the Palestinian cause, might make the capital unsafe. In addition to Tunisia's past role as country of exile to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, public sentiment remains charged on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Some feel that Tunis also lacks the security apparatus available to Egypt. Such concerns suggest it is prudent for Tunis to pass responsibility to Cairo for hosting the event, even if the Arab heads of state end up meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh.
"This is not to mention, the squabbles among Arab leaders," commented one Arab diplomatic source. Tunisian diplomats say they do not want to host a summit that witness a new scene of the unpleasant encounter that took place during the last Arab summit between Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
On the other hand, it's not easy for the Tunisian head of state to declare that his country is not going to accommodate the key annual Arab congregation, especially one which will be convened at such a crucial time for the Arab world.
