POLITICS-MIDEAST: Summit Fiasco Exposes Divisions

By Cam McGrath Reprint | | Print |

Cam McGrath

CAIRO, Apr 1 2004 (IPS) - Tunisia’s decision to cancel the Arab summit has widely been seen as exposing rifts within the 22-member Arab League.

The annual summit of the Arab League was due to begin in Tunis on Monday this week.

“The postponement of the Arab summit in Tunis reflects the differences between the Arab countries and failure to contain such differences,” said the Egyptian state-run Al-Ahram newspaper.

The Arab League’s annual meeting was expected to address the thorny issue of political reform. Arab leaders are generally reluctant to discuss an issue that highlights lack of democracy and poor human rights records in their countries.

The Tunisian government unilaterally cancelled the summit just 36 hours before it was to begin, citing the reluctance of some countries to endorse democratic reform and to reject “extremism, fanaticism, violence and terrorism.”

Some delegates accused Tunisia of caving in to pressure to promote Washington’s Greater Middle East (GME) Initiative, which urges Arab states to implement democratic and economic reforms. Many Arabs reject outright any U.S. interference in their affairs.

Differences had reportedly emerged during the summit’s preparatory meetings. Tunisia made the GME initiative “a priority at the summit while ignoring what is going on in Iraq and Palestine,” charged Saudi state-run newspaper Al-Watan. “But the bitterness that Arab citizens suffer today is better than any situation in which something is imposed on us, which will never be accepted by Arab leaders, government and citizens,” it said.

Several Arab private and state-run newspapers accused Tunisian officials of jumping ship at the earliest sign of trouble.

“There were complications, conflicts and sensitivities, but all these do not justify postponing the summit,” said an editorial in Saudi-owned Al-Hayat. “There are supposed to be conflicts; as these conflicts are the reason for holding the Arab summit in the first place. Why would a summit be held, and why would Arab leaders make the effort to travel from country to country, if there were no conflicts that needed resolving, differences in opinion to overcome and sensitive issues to treat?”

Others blame Arab leaders for failing to put aside their differences in the face of serious issues like the U.S. presence in Iraq and Israel’s recent assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

“The Arabs have proved to be barren and good for nothing,” wrote Mohammed Ali Ibrahim, editor of the state-run English-language daily The Egyptian Gazette. “Their insurmountable differences and disputes are more important in their eyes than the need to adopt a unified stand in the face of the invidious foreign reforms planned against their will.”

The cancellation of the summit “reflects an absence of responsibility and a lack of will to look civilised and developed, as well as the presence of the selfishness which became very clear when every delegation insisted on its own version of proposed democratic reform,” the Gazette wrote.

Syrian state radio urged Arabs to find common ground on the issues, warning that division only serves the interests of their common enemies.

“What happened in Tunis will never contribute to the national interest of the Arab nation, but rather it will serve the interest of the nation’s enemies,” it said, adding that Arabs should “exert all possible efforts to get things back on track.”

Egypt has offered to host the cancelled summit at the earliest possible date. But a number of commentators are asking whether it is time to abandon summits altogether.

“Most Arabs have adjusted to the fact that the Arab League does not function very well when it comes to collective political action,” said Majdoline Hatoum, a writer for Lebanon’s independent Daily Star. “The Arab street seems to be willing to live with the fact that on the political level, Arab leaders just have no say about what happens in the region, not to mention in their own countries.”

The Arab League has held annual summits since its founding in 1945, but as the pan-Arab organisation has grown from seven to 22 members it has become increasingly difficult to adopt a unanimous stance. Many of its resolutions are never implemented.

Arab League summits have degenerated into embarrassing farces, says Jordanian political analyst Rami Khouri.

“In the 1960s and 70s Arab leaders met at summits and adopted common positions that they generally adhered to, usually related to the conflict with Israel,” he said in an editorial in the Jordan Times. “In the 1990s, Arab summitry plunged into the depths of political entertainment and mimicked Arab satellite television talk shows, with Arab leaders insulting and shouting at each other, live and on the air.”

Now, he said, “we are spared even this embarrassing spectacle: this week, the Arab leaders could not even agree to meet in order to disagree and quarrel in person.”