While the recent Arab Summit didn’t resolve much, it showed a willingness to talk

　　The 16th Arab Summit was held on May 22-23 in the Tunisian capital of Tunis. Events during the conference raise two questions of deep concern: Will the loose union collapse amidst deep differences of the league’s members and in which direction is the largest and authoritative Arab organization headed?

　　The summit was scheduled to be held on March 29-30 in Tunis, which holds the Arab League’s rotating presidency, but the Tunisian President Ben Ali announced a delay of the summit because the foreign ministers’ preparatory meeting did not reach a consensus. When the summit was held in May, only half the member countries’ leaders attended, while the other countries dispatched lower-level officials as representatives. To avoid open disputes, as happened during the 15th summit, the meeting was set as closed-door, except for the opening ceremony.

　　Unexpectedly, when the league’s Secretary General Amr Moussa proclaimed that it was not correct to attribute the ills of the Arab region to the league’s incapability and call for disintegration of the organization, Libyan leader Omar Muammar Qaddafi walked out. In a press conference, Qaddafi criticized the Arab League, saying that its members cannot expect the help of the organization when in trouble. He threatened Libya would pull out of the organization and not rely on the region.

　　Qaddafi’s behavior indeed provided some drama, reflecting deep differences among Arab countries on a number of issues from what principles to be used to guide the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, positions on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as well as the U.S. Greater Middle East Initiative to Arab political reform. There remain territorial disputes and old unsettled scores among some Arab countries. In the past, pan-Arab initiatives have been stymied, with national interests trumping regional, ethnic or religious ideologies.

　　In the 1980s and 1990s, Arab countries did not hold a summit regularly. By the turn of this century, the Arab world has been met with new challenges, which has compelled governments to coordinate responses. The Arab League consequently decided in 2001 to hold the summit annually.

　　In the past six decades since its establishment in 1945, the organization has endured a range of turbulent times. But it is the only regional organization to survive. Even if some members withdrew from the organization, it is unlikely that it would completely disintegrate. On the contrary, this year’s summit has actually forged consensus on some major issues. This demonstrated that most Arab countries are determined to seek common ground and willing to unify to protect Arab interests.

　　Consensus at the Summit

　　This year’s Arab League Summit focused on the following issues: reform of Arab countries, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Arab-Israeli tensions and the Iraq issue. Regardless of differences, the league’s members reached some consensus, issuing the Tunis Declaration along with other resolutions.

　　The region’s three conflicts are actually the three biggest challenges facing the Arab world. Political reform is the region’s most daunting intra-national issue. After September 11 events, the United States has targeted its counter-terrorism campaign at extreme Islamic organizations in the Middle East and Iraq, a country both Arab and Muslim. Washington has also been more vocal about democratizing the region, saying reform would muzzle terrorism and deter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

　　The U.S.-led war on Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who made a career hurling slanders at the United States, and prop up a pro-U.S. authority may have been an attempt at setting an example in the region. Contrarily, the unstable situation left in Iraq may have provided another lesson that armed invasion is not an effective way to promote U.S. values.

　　This February, the United States announced its Greater Middle East Initiative, aiming to reform 22 Arab countries, as well as Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan. A series of political, economic, social and educational reforms were proposed to promote democracy in these countries. The objective of the initiative, apparently, is to eradicate anti-U.S. extremist organizations so that the United States can stick its big political foot in the Arab world.

　　On the other hand, most Arab countries are economically underdeveloped, socially slow to evolve and relatively backward in science, technology and education. Gaps are widening between rich and poor in many countries as well. The Arab people have longed for rejuvenation of the Arab world, but domestic politics remains volatile. Some of the region’s elites have advocated reform, but they have been met with resistance.

　　Arab media has stressed two points. The first is that Arabs themselves should carry out reform, and oppose to any plan imposed on them. The other point is that Arab countries should define reform in accordance with their respective national conditions. At this year’s Arab League Summit, it was unanimous that reform in Arab countries should be gradual, stressing the need of diplomatic cooperation.

　　Participants agreed that the region should speed up political, social and educational reform. As an extension, expanding participation by people in political affairs was also considered, including loosening restriction on civil rights and non-governmental organizations, raising the standing of women and safeguarding human rights.

　　The meeting stressed that the Palestinian-Israeli problem is the top issue of the Arab world. Member countries opposed any military actions by Israel against Palestinians, condemning violence of either side targeting civilians. Appeals were made for Arab countries to support and aid the Palestinian people politically, materially and spiritually to help them realize nationhood. Members called on Israel to withdraw from all the Arab territory it has occupied and to resume the 1967 border, stressing the insurance of legal rights of both sides is the best way to settle the conflict. This could be looked on as a new positive development, as opposed to openly supporting the destruction of the Jewish state.

　　The meeting also expressed support for Syria, regarding U.S. economic sanctions against the small eastern Mediterranean country. Appeals were made to both countries to intensify dialogue to avoid further deterioration of the delicate regional situation.

　　Regarding Iraq, the meeting criticized the abusive behaviors of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, stressing the need to safeguard territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country. The league appealed to the United Nations to play a leading role in Iraqi affairs to ensure the scheduled transfer of authority and progress in reconstruction. Tunisian President Ali stressed at the closing ceremony that Arab countries should help Iraq resume full sovereignty and achieve stability as soon as possible. But as for how to regard foreign forces in Iraq and under what conditions Arab countries should dispatch troops to Iraq, opinions could not be reconciled.

　　The Arab League and the United States

　　There are 22 Arab nations. Their populations total 200 million. The oil-rich region has been strategic to surrounding powers. Despite this, Arab countries have a disproportionately small say in international affairs. This is true for a couple reasons. One is Arab disunity. The other is the interference of the Untied States.

　　Most of the region’s problems were actually created by foreign powers. The Palestine-Israel and Arab-Israel conflicts can be traced back to the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States continued to sell weapons to Israel, which is also the United States’ largest recipient of foreign aid. A biased position toward Israel has increased difficulty for the United States in brokering a settlement in the Palestine-Israel dispute. Arab nations also distanced themselves from the United States in the Iraq war, which many perceive as a foreign power bullying a fellow Arab nation.

　　Arab-U.S. relations are complicated. Most Arabs instinctively stand against policy that undermines their interests, but they cannot directly confront the United States. The Iraq war has indeed managed to intimidate the whole region. Regional leaders face strong domestic outbursts of anti-U.S. sentiment, which they cannot ignore. Appearing too conciliatory toward foreign powers would undermine their legitimacy. Meanwhile, some Arab countries maintain relatively good relations with the United States, accepting support and financial aid. Regarding how to cope with the United States, there exist deep differences that are hard to reconcile among Arab countries.

　　If the organization cannot balance their members’ relations with foreign powers and internal pressure to reform, national bickering, regional conflicts or the Iraq issue, it is hard to say who can.(By AN HUIHOU)