Concerted Arab effort or combined failure!

Friday, Apr 3 2009

Every time the Arab leaders gather together for a summit, the eyes of the whole Arab world turn towards them, despite the fact that, according to the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, the Arab citizens are angry. They are devastated by the lack of any positive effects from these summits which turn Arab unity and concerted work from being a simple sentiment common to all Arab summits since that of 1946 in Anshas until that of Doha today in 2009, to a tangible reality. The citizens feel the burden of the numerous challenges. The Arabs need to work to get past their differences in order to avoid a fate of further division under various guises, not least of which is federalism, which threatened Lebanon during 17 long years of civil war.

The current Arab summit convened in Doha comes in the shadow of a series of radical developments both on the regional and international arenas, most of which are linked to major Arab issues, in particular the Palestinian issue. Despite the fact that every Arab summit states the necessity of working together to deal with this issue, still the massacres of Gaza which are the result of the creation of a right wing government in Israel have not resulted in an Arab agreement to take a stand, prevent and resist. The Lebanese president, General Michel Suleiman, was right when he said to the Arab leaders in Doha that “the Palestinian problem always remains an issue in the agenda of the summits, regardless of the summit’s location, and we should participate in recording any substantial advance.” It seems clear that this blow to plans of finding Arab solutions to Arab problems is linked to Arab national security – the latest events in Gaza and the crisis in Sudan – and shows that the gap is ever-widening between the various Arab interests. The peace effort with Israel is a priority under the umbrella of international legality on which the Arab initiative depended as a basis for settlement. This was refused by Israel which is working to sabotage it, particularly with the election of an ultra right wing Israeli government, despite statements by the American president, Barak Obama, revealing his displeasure and discomfort regarding the direction taken by the Israeli government. The new American administration has not stated categorically its view regarding this government which is working, more than its predecessor did, to establish a new reality in the Occupied Palestinian territories. This has included leveling the reality on the ground and changing the rules of engagement, as a prelude to imposing a solution based on the desires of Tel Aviv after their failure in Lebanon and Gaza. The terrible assault on Gaza has made obvious that the target is the Palestinian people and their cause, as there is no difference between Hamas and Fateh in Netanyahu’s dictionary. The negotiations which were taking place between Olmert and Abbas, and are still taking place according to the statement by the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, have not stopped the government from making war on Gaza, extending the blockade and cutting off communications with more walls, settlements and checkpoints, in addition to arrests and other similar activities. The issue is fundamentally related to Israeli priorities, particularly in relation to making up for the war in Lebanon and implementing the provisions of the Finograd agreement on the failure of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in July and August of 2006 which showed that the choice of force only guarantees that Israel remains in a hostile environment. This was also the path chosen by the occupying army in Gaza. The question now is whether the Obama administration will place a limit on the assault on Palestine or will maintain its vague stances which allow the regional atmosphere to remain tense by leaving options open – and we in Lebanon are the worst hit – to all possibilities. These include the fate and future of the Palestinian refuges and the fate and future of the weapons of Hezbollah in Lebanon, with all the associated issues such as the Chebaa farms remaining under occupation, the issue of water and the settlement of the issue of the occupied Golan Heights. Will the Obama administration continue to work within the framework established by the previous administration by announcing an intention to work on a Palestinian state while overlooking its viability for survival, particularly with the existence of a new reality in the region which is working exclusively for Israeli interests? What will the Arabs do then?

The Sudanese issue is a new priority, as are the fate of the Sudanese president and the unity of Sudan in light of the developments which emerged from the international criminal tribunal and the residual tensions in Arab relations and the organization of regional security. The goal is the unity of Sudan. We saw a similar situation in Iraq, which was transformed from a great Arab state to a battling conglomeration of sectarian, confessional and tribal groupings, which only ends up benefitting Israel. In addition to this, the Arab countries are in need of a plan to face the challenges of the global financial crisis, for the economic crisis and its effects on personal security and Arab economic security are a serious issue which must not be underestimated. Indeed, they call for, above all, finding ways of implementing the suggestions made at the Doha summit, as it is not enough for the Arab leaders to place their hands on the wound, acknowledge the crisis and propose theoretical solutions; rather they need to deal with the problems before it is too late.

In Lebanon, the Arab leaders need to be concerned about the dangers of keeping Lebanon open to the crises as it currently is. Lebanon benefitted from what was stitched together in Doha last May which buried the conflict temporarily even if it did not settle it, particularly as it broke up portions and gains. The proof of this is clear in all the actions of the political authority which took part in the meeting in Doha, where there was agreement on an electoral law which confirms sectarianism, confessionalism and a system of sectarian and confessional apportioning. Events in the lead-up to the elections can only be described as being a new incitement to conflict between the sects which make up the fabric of Lebanese society.

We turn to the Arab countries regarding the Palestinian issue, which is central. We are seeing a breakdown of the peace initiative, which is the source from which the Arab crises stem. The solution lies in holding on to the rights and documents of the Arabs. Indeed, Arab steadfastness is required instead of inter-Arab division, because any plan to change the current balance stands to hurt the Arabs as a whole particularly after the success of the resistance in Lebanon in stopping the enemy, the Israeli failure to overrun Gaza (so far) and bring the Palestinians to their knees, the embarrassment of the American position in Iraq which has made Washington promise the Iraqis a withdrawal date of 2011, and the failure to instigate a confessional conflict in Lebanon thus far. The alternative to Arab steadfastness in these gains will only serve to provide immediate security to Israel which has just elected a right wing government and killed any settlement with the Palestinians. So, how can there be a fair settlement which comprises the various Arab issues on the basis of the relevant international decisions?

In summary, the Arab position today is divided in relation to the Arab community in general and the Lebanese in particular. The choice lies between taking our issues seriously and facing the dangers, particularly from Israel, with unity and a concerted stance or leaving the dangerous issues to fester until we are all transformed into failed and collapsed states and arenas for conflict and chaos.