Summit antics

The Libyan leader's melodramatic exit at the Arab summit in Tunis prompts many questions, writes Ahmed Abdel-Halim*

---

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sat facing a forest of microphones and dozens of cameras. Wearing an elegant white business suit, embellished with military decorations, Gaddafi corrected a journalist who addressed him as "colonel". "I am not colonel, I am leader of the revolution," he said. "Arab military is a disgrace," the Libyan leader told a throng of journalists. "You have to understand that I am neither a president nor a colonel. The Libyan people are the president. You have to grasp the crucial transformations underway in Libya. Ours is not an ossified country, unlike all those around."

The "leader of the revolution" called on the people's congresses of his country to withdraw from the Arab League. He himself walked out of the Tunis summit on the first day, during the opening session, in the middle of a speech by Secretary-General Amr Moussa. He did so "because the Libyan people does not approve of the summit's agenda". Earlier, he had gone into an elaborate explanation of his idea about "Israetine" -- the hypothetical country extending from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan in which Israelis and Palestinians, in his vision, are to live side by side. This is the perfect solution to the Middle East crisis, according to Gaddafi.

Before analysing Gaddafi's views, let's take a look at how he behaved during the summit. He was the last Arab leader to land in Tunisia, alighting from a plane bearing the emblem "African" -- a hint to Libya's African-leaning policies. He arrived amid conflicting reports about his participation and only following pleas by Cairo and other Arab capitals for him to attend.

Uncharacteristically, Gaddafi was smoking during the opening session of the summit. He was sitting next to President Hosni Mubarak and, according to one source, leaned towards the Egyptian president and said, "I am smoking an American cigarette." After which Gaddafi suddenly left, while Amr Moussa was delivering a preliminary speech. By acting thus, Gaddafi has managed to remain one of the most controversial Arab leaders, intriguing to journalists, basking in media attention. His bizarre ideas and opinions never fail to stir controversy in political and media circles.

"Israetine" (a name composed of the first and last syllables of Israel and Palestine, respectively) is where Gaddafi wants the Israelis and Palestinians to live -- a suggestion worthy of objective discussion. Let's begin with the word "Israel", which refers to a Jewish state open to world Jewry. "Israel" is another Hebrew name for the prophet "Jacob", to whom the Jews trace their origins. Jacob is considered the father of all Jews, just as "Ishmael" is considered the father of all Arabs. The Jews are attached to the name and are unlikely to want to alter it.

There is also the matter of the "Jewish State". Zionism created the State of Israel on an ethnic basis, as a purely Jewish state. This involves two things. One is that the state should maintain its ethnic purity, a goal to be achieved gradually until Israel is rid of all non- Jews living on its self-defined land. The other is demographic, for the population growth among the Palestinians is higher than that among the Israelis. If one state is created for both nations, the Palestinians would outnumber the Jews and the Jewish state would cease to exist. For these reasons, Israel is unlikely to even consider Gaddafi's idea.

The idea of a single secular state in which the Israelis and Palestinians live together is not a new one. The Palestinians have repeatedly proposed it in unofficial meetings and the Israelis have consistently rejected it. Less than a year ago, I was attending an unofficial meeting in a European capital. On the second day of the meeting, a delegate from the foreign ministry of the host country told us that Gaddafi's son, Seif Al-Islam, was in town and wanted to meet us. Seif Al-Islam then came and delivered a long and rambling speech about Middle East affairs, without contributing one new thought. He then put forward his father's idea about "Israetine". This brought smiles to the faces of those present, with the Israelis particularly dismissive. Seif Al-Islam's remarks became a source of amusement to all those attending the meeting from that moment on.

A week or so ago, I was conferring with virtually the same group when the idea of a secular state again came up. Immediately, one of the Israelis dismissed it, recalling a previous incident. Over a year ago, a controversy arose over the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A television dramatisation dealing with the Protocols brought about regional and international indignation. In the ensuing debate, presidential adviser Osama El-Baz wrote a number of sensible articles in which he called on Israel to abandon the idea of a "Jewish state". "By bringing up this idea," the Israeli official said, "El-Baz undermined all his sensible arguments about moderation in political and media discourse and about the way to resolve the current problem in the Middle East." The Israelis, as far as I know, are not prepared to change their country's name or live in one country with the Palestinians.

In short, the Libyan leader has tabled an improbable idea and used it as pretext to walk out of the summit. Gaddafi may have reasons of his own for not attending the summit, reasons that may be related to the Libyan about-face on weapons of mass destruction and on relations with the United States. His comment to President Mubarak about the "American cigarette" is not devoid of meaning.

Let's get back to the summit. The summit was held to achieve several objectives, such as increasing Arab solidarity and cooperation, strengthening the Arab League, enhancing commitment to decision-making and finding a common ground among Arab countries. The summit had to address the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Iraq issue and the Syria Accountability Act. The summit needed to tackle the question of reform, which is of immense importance considering the torrent of regional and international initiatives in this regard. Two impending meetings are going to have a bearing on that issue: the G8 meeting in the US and the NATO meeting in Istanbul. NATO is thinking of engaging an alliance with several countries in the Middle East.

As Arab delegates began drafting the final statement, it became evident that three groups had their own agendas. Maghreb countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) have a certain affinity with Europe, Gulf states are mostly pro-American and Israel's neighbours are distressed about the Middle East conflict. Even within each group, subdivisions exist. The differences are all related to the identity of each group's perceived "foes", and the way each is trying to confront or appease them. The picture is not one of harmony, and the summit generally has failed to reassure the Arab masses. Once the festivities are over, Arab countries may not fully comply with the resolutions. Much work is still needed to iron out lingering differences.

Let's now go back to Gaddafi. The man has a peculiar history with Arab summits. The first summit in which he took part was that in Cairo in 1970, when Gamal Abdel-Nasser said to him, "I see my younger self in you." Gaddafi refused to take part in the 1973 Algiers summit, which addressed peace terms with Israel. He took part in the 1974 Rabat summit, which focussed on the Palestinian issue, and the 1978 Baghdad summit, which passed sanctions on Egypt and ordered the Arab League to relocate to Tunis.

Gaddafi played a key role in the 1979 Tunis summit, at which Arab states denounced the Camp David agreement and ordered the continuation of the boycott on Egypt. He stayed away from the 1982 Fez summit, the 1988 Algiers summit and the 1990 Baghdad summit. In the Cairo summit, held also in 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Gaddafi voiced opposition to the participation of Arab countries in the international coalition. For the next six years, Gaddafi boycotted Arab summits, then attended one emergency summit in Cairo. He next refused to take part in the 2000 Cairo summit. He came up with the "Israetine" proposal during the 2001 Amman summit, then objected to the 2002 Beirut summit and refused to attend it. Only reluctantly did he attend the Sharm El- Sheikh summit of last year. Gaddafi and his Arab summit antics, however entertaining, don't matter. What matters are the decisions taken at the summit. Will they be implemented? Time will provide an answer.

* The writer is a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.