|
Expectations Of The Arab Summit
By Dina Rashed
30/03/2001
Despite high expectations from the Arab world, previous Arab summits have manifested few delivered promises, as Arab leaders remain incapacitated beyond their rhetoric and fund-lending capabilities. And the recent Amman summit was just one summit among many to follow these lines.
For a long time, the two main goals of the Organization of the Arab League were to resolve the Palestinian issue and to work on projects aimed at economic cooperation and integration among Arabs, but the half century-old organization has done little to reach these goals.
At the beginning of the last decade, another issue was presiding over the agenda of the summits, which were being held more often in response to emergencies than on a regular basis. That was to resolve the grave damages to Arab relations caused by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwaiti in 1990. After ten years, Arab leaders are still working on conciliatory initiatives to bring a restrained Iraq back to their arena and to guarantee at the same time the prevention of a similarly foolish endeavor in the future.
This time, despite its approval by the League's other attendees, the Iraqi delegation to the summit objected to three main points of the final communiqué. The first being asked to affirm respect of Kuwait's sovereignty (implying that it does not presently respect Kuwait) despite the fact anti-Iraqi raids are being deployed from Kuwaiti territories. The second objection is to the status of Kuwaiti captives in Iraq being classified as Missing in Action, rather than as Prisoners of War. The final objection centers on the League's insistence that Iraq abide by U.N. resolutions while Iraq feels it has done its share in spite of the U.N.-imposed sanctions starving the Iraqi people and killing their children.
On one hand, there was a call at the summit for restrictions on the active role of Iraq within the Arab community; and on the other, there were calls to lift the sanctions immediately. However, it is obvious that these Arab countries were not able to place the common good of Arab solidarity over their own individual interests. In rhetoric, they all promote Arab solidarity, but in reality, there is much more on the table than a unified Arab position.
As for the Palestinian issue, the Aqsa Intifada managed to mobilize the Arabs to lend a helping hand to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The League's final communiqué included a pledge to send $40 million monthly to the PA to compensate for the shortage caused by the Israeli authorities' refusal to pay to them that same amount in Palestinian tariffs collected by the Israeli government.
The Arab pledge to provide this monthly aid for a period of six months (the period since the Intifada began) renewed a prior pledge of $1 billion that was to be allocated through two funds - the Intifadah fund and the Jerusalem fund - established during the last emergency summit held in Cairo in October. But the ability of the Arab countries to promptly deliver these resources remains in question.
By mid-February, only a quarter of the amount had been collected, with a lesser amount than that actually reaching the Palestinians. Officials of the two leading Arab countries, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which carry the biggest share of financing the funds are skeptical about whether PA officials will appropriately allocate the aid following several allegations of corruption against them by fellow Palestinians.
In a coinciding development, a draft resolution before the Security Council calling for a U.N. observer force to protect Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was killed unjustifiably by an American veto.
The American decision came contrary to the hopes of Muslims and Arabs worldwide that the current U.S. administration would take a more just path in dealing with the Middle East conflict.
Summit participants were quick to respond to the veto. "The leaders express their extreme indignation at the United States' use of its veto in the Security Council against the draft resolution about protection for the Palestinian people," the final League communiqué said.
Their rejection of the American decision and its justifications is the first unanimous position to be adopted by all the Arab countries in the last few years.
"This position does not conform at all with the United States' responsibilities as a sponsor of the peace process," they added.
Commenting on the decision to block the resolution (which Israel had already opposed), acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, James Cunningham, said it is "because it is unbalanced and unworkable and hence unwise."
Arab states have responded to the appeal made by PA Chairman Yasser Arafat to Arab leaders to renew their call for a U.N. protection force, calling it "a legitimate right that we are claiming, as others have done in parts of the world in similar situations to ours."
But the extent to which the Arab states are willing to cross swords with the United States because of her position is very unclear. Although Syria called for the reactivation of the Arab boycott office, little more could be expected other than a rhetorical slamming of Israel and her practices. The two countries that still have diplomatic relations with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, expressed their discontent of the veto by drawing their diplomats back, but they remain short of cutting the relations. The oil rich countries are not expected either to use an oil boycott against the U.S. as a means of pressure, but would offer financial aid instead.
Several Palestinian voices have expressed their content to have direct negotiations with the Israelis and to limit the role of the U.S. to an honest broker who can bring new ideas to the negotiating table instead of being an advocate of the Israeli side, while other Arab voices fear an unclear vision of foreign policy by the less experienced American President that may muddle up the American role in the Middle East and damage the delicate fabric of the current situation.
|
