Positive signs

The Tunis Arab summit was a fresh start in collective Arab diplomacy, writes Ibrahim Nafie

---

In spite of the criticisms and scepticism blazoned in the press and blaring over satellite channels, I believe that the Arab summit, which ended on Sunday, can be regarded as the summit that halted the decline of the Arab order. I have no doubt that if its resolutions are put into effect inter-Arab cooperation will be imbued with a new spirit. This is precisely what the Arab world has been looking forward to: effective cooperation with tangible results.

The Tunis summit marked an excellent beginning for this new spirit. The discussions that took place in the closed sessions were earnest, frank and constructive and, as such, they laid the foundations for a type of interaction that is guided by clarity of vision and objective treatment of the subjects at hand, as opposed to demagoguery, positioning and playing to the gallery.

In his opening address at the summit, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa set the desired tone for the conference admirably. "The Arab people have waited a long time for this meeting," he said. "They are frustrated and angry and they have pinned their hopes on a collective Arab position that will rise to the challenges of the present, avert the looming perils and unleash the energies of our peoples so that we can build a future of freedom, democracy, economic progress and social advancement. The meeting of this high-level conference at this unprecedented juncture in the history of international relations delivers an explicit message. This message is that the Arabs are determined to stand firm against attempts to encroach on Arab rights to their land and in their land, that they oppose occupation and refuse to assist the entrenchment of occupation wherever it exists, and that they are resolved to remain an indivisible and effective whole in the fabric of contemporary Arab civilisation."

In like manner, President Mubarak presented a comprehensive overview of the challenges currently facing the Arab world and the principles for the type of inter-Arab collaboration needed to address these challenges. "We stand today at an important crossroads in the history of our Arab nation," he said. "The challenges we face are formidable and we will not be able to overcome them unless we activate the mechanisms of collective action, set our course firmly towards reform and development, and work to end foreign occupation and to establish peace and stability. All this demands that we unite our word, strengthen our resolve and re- affirm our faith in justice, equality and fairness as the true bases of any humanitarian society."

The president also stressed that the Arab League must remain a solid edifice, not only for inter-Arab cooperation, but also for the preservation and promotion of Arab identity. "Egypt has submitted a number of proposals aimed at strengthening commitment to implementing decisions taken by that body, at activating existing crisis prevention mechanisms and at creating a more effective judicial or mediating means for settling disputes."

On reform in the Arab world, the president emphasised the extent to which efforts in this regard are integrally contingent upon the success of efforts to realise peace and stability in the entire region. Towards this end, he stressed the need to act upon the Arab peace initiative, "which aims to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories in Palestine, the Syrian Golan, Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, and to establish an independent Palestinian state."

Mubarak's address underscored the message that Amr Moussa had driven home to the summit participants in no uncertain terms. This was that the Arab League, like any regional or international organisation, is the sum product of the respective wills of its member states. If these members, or at least the majority of them, want a strong, effective Arab League that enjoys the respect of other countries in the region, and abroad, they have it in their power to create such a League. On the other hand, if the League is abandoned to become a paralysed hulk of empty structures, all will know that the fault for this lies at the doorstep of its member states.

It was apparent that the participants in Tunis heeded these words of caution, all the more so in light of the general apprehension at the magnitude of the challenges the Arab world faces at this time. There thus prevailed a sense that individually the Arab nations do not possess the capacity to confront these challenges, and that only collectively can the Arabs repel present dangers and defend their rights and interests.

This feeling was most evident in discussions on the question of US sanctions against Syria. It was perhaps only natural, therefore, that these deliberations produce a general consensus against the policy of sanctions. The members stressed that the Arabs are committed to a just, comprehensive and lasting peace, and that dialogue and understanding are the optimum means for reaching solutions acceptable to all sides, whereas sanctions are only counterproductive. On this basis, participants called for the fullest possible support for Syria and for Washington to abandon the logic of confrontation and opt instead for a rational, diplomatic approach.

Discussions on the Palestinian cause evinced a qualitative shift in approach that led, moreover, to concrete initiatives. Here, the tenor was set by President Arafat whose message to the summit, televised from his besieged headquarters in Ramallah, conveyed a poignant message to the world. The Palestinian people, he said, are waging a fight to liberate their occupied land -- a fight that is consistent with the principles and provisions of international law. Nevertheless, this people remains committed to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace on the basis of a full Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, as well as from the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon; the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and a just solution to the return of Palestinian refugees on the basis of Security Council Resolution 194 and the Arab peace initiative. At the same time, Arafat stressed, "we re-affirm to you [participants at the summit] and to the world our consistent and absolute objection to the targeting of civilians, whether Palestinians or Israelis, for this conflicts with the values, morals and principles of our humanitarian struggle, and with our firmly held religious convictions which abhor terrorism. We have declared our support for, and have responded positively to all initiatives and projects put forward by the international community, from Oslo through Sharm El-Sheikh, Camp David, Wye River, Taba, to the Mitchell recommendations and the Tenet understandings. We have agreed to the roadmap, sponsored by the Quartet Committee and approved by the Security Council, aimed at implementing President Bush's vision for creating a Palestinian state to exist side-by-side with Israel."

As for concrete initiatives, one was presented by UAE President Sheikh Zaid Bin Sultan Al- Nahyan, pledging that the UAE's Red Crescent would construct 400 housing units in Rafah for the inhabitants whose homes have been demolished by Israeli occupation forces. He also stated that he would launch a donation drive in the Emirates to support the Palestinian people.

On a less positive note, I found it curious that the summit participants did not explore the Egyptian proposal to create an Arab League mechanism for monitoring reform in the Arab world, in order to pre-empt the mechanism that the G-8 intends to adopt in their summit on 8 June. We need an Arab vision for reform, otherwise foreign powers will impose theirs upon us, using it as a means to intervene in our domestic affairs and to exert whatever pressures they deem necessary to suit the interests of non- Arab countries in the region. One would have thought it understood that such an Arab mechanism was not merely a question of form or process, but rather of the preservation of our identity and cultural specificity. The proposed G-8 mechanism is, after all, tailor made to serve that project of creating a so-called Greater Middle East, extending from Morocco to Afghanistan and including quite a few non-Arab countries, with the purpose of marginalising the Arab League and diluting Arab political, and perhaps cultural, influence into a large amorphous entity. Nonetheless, in spite of the obvious need for an Arab mechanism as part of our efforts to offset this trend, the summit chairman refused to hold the closed session for participating heads of state that had originally been scheduled to discuss this subject. His argument was that he did not want to undermine what had already been accomplished in the summit, even though it is doubtful that this would have been the case since, as I learned, Arab foreign ministers, in their meetings in advance of the summit, had already agreed upon the Egyptian proposal.

Naturally, a word, too, must be said about the scene pulled by Colonel Gaddafi who up and left the conference room in the middle of Moussa's opening address and then held a press conference, after first changing his clothes, in which he explained, essentially, that he had withdrawn from the summit in protest against the agenda. Few are surprised anymore by Gaddafi's antics, and in all events the man has his own view on the Arab League and inter-Arab cooperation. Suffice it to say that he has changed Libya's identity from Arab to African; a token of which was that the presidential plane taking him to Tunis carried the emblem "The United States of Africa".

What was disconcerting in the midst of this incident was not Gaddafi himself, but rather one correspondent who decided to fish in troubled waters and ask the colonel what he thought of "the Egyptian president's opposition to the withdrawal of occupation forces from Iraq". The Arab world already has to contend with enough looming perils and outside conspiracies without having to deal with petty games and ploys intended to set Arab leaders against one another. In fact, Gaddafi refused to take the bait, instead reminding his interlocutor of Mubarak's precise words and their context. In a press interview, Mubarak had been posed the following question: "The scope of violence is growing by the day in Iraq and has even reached the chairman of the Interim Governing Council. Is it possible, in light of this escalating bloodshed, for occupation forces to withdraw by the stated deadline of 30 June?" Mubarak responded: "To withdraw by 30 June would be a great mistake." Iraq has no edifice for maintaining law and order, he went on to explain. "It has no army, no police, no ministries. The country would fall into chaos and become a nucleus of terrorism." This statement is perfectly consistent with Mubarak's and other Arab leaders' appeal to transfer authority over the administration of Iraq to the UN for an interim period, during which international forces can be phased in, thereby averting the creation of a dangerous vacuum.

Such incidents aside, however, the Arab summit was highly encouraging. The spirit of commitment, responsibility and common cause that prevailed throughout is exactly what has been needed to initiate a new phase of effective inter-Arab cooperation.