What collective Arab order?
Arab leaders are still unable to form a joint position with respect to Iraq, reports Dina Ezzat
Unsurprisingly, given their continued division, Arab foreign ministers failed to agree on a date to schedule a joint Arab meeting this week. The meeting, proposed by the Libyans, remains in the pipeline.
"The meeting will eventually take place," said one Arab League source.
Most Arab states feel that if they were to meet now they would not have much to decide on. For many Arab capitals the situation is very fluid. There is still no clear vision on the exact details of US plans to administer Iraq. Equally unclear is the composition and mandate of any upcoming Iraqi government -- not to mention when this government will take over. In the words of one Arab diplomat, most Arab countries "are still unsure about what they should do".
What many Arab countries would like to see is a very short-term US civil administration of Iraq that would last only "a few months". This would be followed by a fairly representative Iraqi government that would allow for UN-Arab-League-sponsored free elections to bring about an Iraqi government that enjoys national, regional and international support.
"If the Americans offer guarantees, or at least assurances, that this would be the case, then Arab foreign ministers might meet to issue a declaration calling for this scenario," said one Arab diplomat. However, the Americans have not been very forthcoming with any assurances.
This is proving problematic to many Arab capitals that want to maintain friendly ties with Washington and, at the same time, do not want to see Iraq ruled by a government that would work against collective Arab interests and causes.
Syria, to cite but one example, feels particularly awkward. Damascus does not want to incur the wrath of the US, especially at a time when Washington's hawks, encouraged by the quick fall of Baghdad, might wage another war. At the same time, the Syrian regime feels particularly uncomfortable being geographically trapped between Israel and US-occupied Iraq. If the US was to install a pro-Israeli regime in Iraq then Syria would feel completely encircled.
Meanwhile, different Arab states do not all share the same concerns about the future of Iraq. Kuwait is making no secret of its satisfaction with the status-quo and of following whatever plans Washington may put forward with respect to Iraq. "The Kuwaitis are happy playing along with the US," commented one diplomatic source. Egypt, for its part does not want to see Iraq ruled by a government that many fear will be cooperating with Israel against collective Arab interests.
"So, it was felt that more consultations are needed before the ministers meet to make sure that their meeting will be conclusive and will not undermine already existing Arab divisions," one source said.
According to informed diplomatic sources it was these kinds of tensions and differences that were present during a Friday regional meeting that took place in Riyadh. The meeting, hosted by Saudi Arabia, was attended by Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey and Egypt. Sources close to the meeting noted several debates between the Syrian and Kuwaiti delegations over whether or not the communiqué coming out of the meeting should call for an immediate end to the foreign occupation of Iraq. The Syrians were insisting on the need that this meeting give no legitimacy to the occupation of an Arab country, while the Kuwaitis were not very sympathetic to this approach. They stated that US occupation was better than the rule of overthrown Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The outcome of the meeting was a communiqué that called on the "occupation forces" to observe the rules of relevant Geneva conventions, "until an end to the occupation is secured some time soon".
The communiqué also stressed the importance of maintaining the territorial unity and integrity of Iraq and preserving the interests of the Iraqi people and their right to be in charge of their country's natural resources.
"If Arab foreign ministers were to meet today they would have the same problems and more Arab divisions would surface. The overall situation would be much worse," an Egyptian diplomatic source said. He added that what is now needed is a minimum common ground over the way forward.
This week, limited Arab consultations took place. Arab heads of state have been meeting and telephoning each other. Secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, visited the Syrian and Jordanian capitals for talks with their respective leaders. Moussa is also planning contacts with other heads of states. Additionally, a number of Arab states may hold a limited Arab summit towards the end of next week in order to discuss the Iraq issue further.
"When the situation is a bit clearer there will be a full Arab meeting to take a common Arab position. The important thing is that the pillars of this position have to be established," one Arab diplomatic source said.
The evolution of this position may prove more difficult than some expect. This week, at the headquarters of the Arab League, over 20 Arab organisations representing a number of cultural, economic and humanitarian issues met to discuss potential Arab aid to Iraq. No conclusive outcome was reached. At the end of a three-hour meeting, representatives of these organisations and member states of the Arab League agreed that they will re-convene towards the end of the month to discuss specific proposals and coordinate with the UN.
One senior Arab diplomat commented, "This is where we stand: there is an awareness that the war against Iraq created regional uncertainty. There is disagreement about the impact of these uncertainties on the collective Arab order. Actually, it is even uncertain if there is still such a thing as a collective Arab order. After all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was only made possible because of some Arab countries."
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 24 - 30 April 2003 (Issue No. 635)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/635/sc5.htm