Summit of six
In appraising the Turkish initiative to convene a six-man summit, the goal of which is to produce a formula to end the Iraqi crisis peacefully, Arab states are taking one step forward and two back. Several Arab states, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, want first to verify that the initiative will not provoke opposition in Washington while simultaneously requesting that Iraq be responsive to the ideas the summiteers -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Jordan -- might reach.
Whatever Washington's stance towards the Turkish initiative, it is certain that Arab interests can be defended only if regional neighbours adopt a united stand. And until now Arab countries have been notably unable to unite ranks and speak with one voice, resulting in the sending of conflicting signals which Washington has interpreted in its own interests. The Turkish initiative, which might push regional states into positive action, could not be more timely.
Undoubtedly Turkey has its own reasons for seeking to prevent American military intervention in Iraq. Yet regardless of those reasons there can be no doubt that forging a regional consensus opposed to the war will impact on international opinion and on Washington's determination to enter a war at all costs.
Some believe the summit will result in little more than a declaration full of the usual rhetoric. It will ask Iraq to abide by international resolutions and cooperate with the weapons inspectors and will urge the US to exercise patience before initiating strikes against Iraq, allowing diplomacy a chance.
If the summit results in calls on the Iraqi leadership to create an atmosphere conducive to democracy and allow the opposition to return to Iraq and participate in political discourse it might be more effective. Similarly, should it ask Baghdad to reconcile with its neighbours and engineer real changes in domestic politics, then it will be better received. But once a clean bill of health has been verified for Iraq, Washington must pledge a halt to troop mobilisation, lift the sanctions and economic siege on Iraq and do away with the no-fly zones.
While it may be the case that the US finds it impossible to act on such a scenario so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power it remains impractical, as well as illogical, for the proposed summit to ask Saddam to step down. Real change in Iraq will occur only with the approval and acceptance of the Iraqi people. To secure such a change will require as much flexibility as avoiding a destructive war the price for which will be paid by ordinary Iraqis.
Nor do the responsibilities of Iraq's regional neighbours end with the taking of every available step to prevent war. They must also study likely post-war conditions should a war take place. The summit must, therefore, work towards putting in place mechanism\s for coordinating a regional position should it transpire that Saddam remains in power and is responsive to the efforts to stop the war, and the same in the event of his removal. Potential new leaders have, after all, been crawling out of the woodwork and no one knows what scenarios the US has written for or with them.
The significance of such regional efforts, in the end, is that they champion the political, economic and humanitarian interests of Iraq's neighbours, all of whom will be harmed by a war in Iraq, as well as of ordinary Iraqis. And if they succeed in a unified stand they will at least be able to mitigate against the US position and perhaps restrain the arrogance of an American military machine focussed exclusively on its own interests. History is unlikely to forgive those countries that claim to be the major regional players should they fail to shoulder the responsibility of doing everything in their power to stop US aggression against Iraq.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 23 - 29 January 2003 (Issue No. 622)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/622/op4.htm