Great fanfare accompanied this year's Arab summit, but was there anything to celebrate, asks Anouar Abdel-Malek Talk of change has taken a turn down a blind alley; has entered darkened, soundproofed rooms without windows or doors. Recently, as I leafed through the pages of our dailies and periodicals, my attention was caught, between lines, on a referendum here and security crackdowns there, by what has often been and is again a synonym for change: the much-lauded "summit". "Summit for change" and "summit for the future" are but a couple of the fuller expressions used. Such slogans emblazon the walls of a far more elegant venue than the walled-in space of reality: a golden hall complete with vast chandeliers of crystal, sparkling above fields of silk carpeting, mahogany tables and gold-trimmed, sumptuous chairs, and the noble pates of their occupants. Here venerable gentlemen deliberate and discuss and deliberate some more, presenting as a breakthrough the same resolution they read out five years ago and that immediately thereafter vanished into thin air. So what has changed? This time, the resolution elicited a reaction. Two days after the "golden summit", Peres and then Olmert -- current second and first in command of the racist Zionist state -- came out and said that Israel would not return to the 1967 borders. Not so much as a word was spoken about the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in occupied Palestine. Not even a nod of recognition to a newly formed Palestinian government that has its arms open in welcome, not as long as a popularly elected Hamas leadership heads it. But some people are fascinated by appearances and by the shimmering tips of icebergs. And appearances there were galore. The golden hall was dazzling, the special effects outstripping by far Hollywood's most spectacular silver screens. We could have been back in the glorious days of imperial Rome. So what's wrong with that if, indeed, we are the masters of the universe? And why shouldn't we rejoice at the revival of the words, "Arab peace initiative" which had formerly elicited not even the slightest interest of the so-called "international community", let alone Israel and the UN and its Security Council that are now wed to the everlasting task of upholding the age of American hegemony? Of course there's no disgrace in mega- spectacle when it signifies mega-achievement. In fact, great fanfare can have its uses, such as letting the world know in no uncertain terms who the victors of a war are and ensuring that their proclamation of a new world or regional order is heard by all concerned. Not that history offers many examples. In the 19th century, the kings and generals of reactionary monarchical Europe assembled in the Hapsburg palaces in Vienna in 1815 to share the laurels for having defeated Napoleon and, with him, the message of the French revolution. Just over a century later, the leaders of traditional colonial powers France and Britain gathered on the outskirts of Paris in a summit sponsored by the rising global star headed by President Wilson with the purpose of setting their victory in World War I down in writing and simultaneously establishing the economic and political subordination of Germany, the most powerful emerging industrial power, and its wartime allies Turkey and Austria. Significantly, they had chosen for their venue Louis XIV's sumptuous Versailles Palace that had been converted into a museum after 1789. Curiously, nothing resembling that spectacle was repeated following the Allies defeat of Hitler in World War II. The meetings held in Potsdam, Tehran and Yalta were conducted in a sober businesslike manner, as was, to a large extent, the inauguration of the UN in New York, the capital of the waves of immigrants from Europe of the 1930s and 1940s. Perhaps the subdued tones were inspired by the unprecedented horrors of war. On the other hand, the first half of the 20th century did bring two more magnificent displays. The first was the victory parade in Moscow in 1945, during which the regiments of the Red Army marched the assembled remnants of the defeated German forces up to the platform over which presided General Stalin. As massive a display as this was, it was surpassed in scale by the second, which marked the foundation of the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949 and in which, after a long march, millions of Chinese assembled in the square of the Forbidden City as Mao Zedong proclaimed their victory in the world's largest popular revolution from the highest balcony. So what does this little history lesson have to do with our golden summit in Riyadh? Well, there's something of an inverse connection. What victory did the summit declare to the world? What new regional order did it proclaim in our name? Certainly not the "Greater Middle East", which is the Zionist codeword for Israel's determination to legitimise its occupation, to fracture the land of Palestine and to starve its people into submission, not to mention to hold over the heads of the rest of the region no less than 300 nuclear bombs, one of which, if Israeli Minister of Planning Avigdor Lieberman had his way, would be destined for the High Dam and another of which would be destined for Iran. So, if we have no victory to boast of, what are we going to do about it? Why don't the Arabs get their act together and start coordinating at a more productive level? Certainly the way the world is changing offers some clear indications of the way we should be heading. Why don't we, for example, push for an extraordinary meeting of the UN General Assembly and from this forum appeal to the world to take the actions needed to force the mighty to put an end to occupation, degradation and intimidation and to submit to the rulings of international law? But instead of such feeble questions, let's turn to a series of real events that should shorten the distance to a more productive line of thought. For suddenly, the chain of hollow proclamations, as well as the celebrations of the Prophet's birthday, Easter and Sham Al-Nessim were interrupted to bring us a special serial: a boatful of 15 British marines penetrated into Iranian territorial waters where they fell into the hands of Iranian coastguards. London and Washington railed and fumed as Saudi Arabia rapidly stepped forward with an appeal to Iran not to embroil the region in a confrontation of incalculable consequences. Iran was not Great Britain, it cautioned. But the proponents of democracy and reason overlooked certain facts. Those marines were not on a fishing trip and this was not the first such encroachment into Iranian territorial waters in the Shatt Al-Arab. Simultaneously, it was all over the wire services and news programmes that occupation forces in Iraq had kidnapped several Iranian diplomats. Yet this appalling and illegal act failed to precipitate not only a single official Arab protest but also the softest murmurings of consternation. Instead, some Arab Zionists felt that the time was ripe to get rid of that loathsome frightful "enemy" and were roused by the call by a moderate nation bordering Iran to mobilise the camp of Arab moderates and Sunni Islam against the renegade state and Shia Islam, whose capital is Tehran. Then, in a sudden twist of the tale, Ahmadinejad smoothly took the wind out of these sails, taking the occasion of the Prophet's birthday and Easter to announce the release of the captured marines. It was a blow to the stomach, but eloquently delivered. Once again Tony Blair felt the earth quaking beneath his feet and in his daze he stammered that there had been no secret agreement. American and British news reports, meanwhile, indicated that Syria had stepped in to help broker precisely such a deal. Ahmadinejad's deft turning of the tables is not only testimony to his diplomatic craftsmanship. It is proof that eastern nations can assert themselves and can steer themselves through treacherous shoals if truly patriotic leaders are at their political and ideological helms. Egypt demonstrated a similar alacrity in the face of the tripartite invasion of 1956, a victory crowned with the nationalisation of the Suez Canal and the construction of the High Dam. It did so once again in October 1973, when it put paid to the myth of the invincibility of the Israeli army, although this time the political gains from this victory were capped by Camp David. The Iranian leadership continues to move with a brilliance and tenacity that are rare these days in order to enhance its growing leverage against the front of imperialist arrogance. It is no coincidence that former Iranian President Mohamed Khatemi just visited Egypt for the first time in a quarter of a century. Here he met the Egyptian president, twice, and with political and intellectual leaders from all shades of the spectrum, the meetings characterised by a sincere and refreshing frankness free of the fanfare, diplomatic machinations, and superficial gleam of Arab summits. There was substance and it had a profound impact on the participants. Above all, he spoke of the historic ties between the Egyptian and Iranian civilisations and the need to revive them at the official and popular levels. That Egypt's history is unsullied by sectarian strife, except at moments of decay and depression, as Farouk Gouda put it in his analysis of this historic meeting, should render our society particularly open to this appeal. In addition, all who covered the former Iranian president's visit agreed that it drove home the point that Islam and democracy are compatible and that we do not have to emulate Western democracy. The great Iranian statesman and intellectual also stressed that national pride and steadfastness in the face of the enemies of our peoples constitute the foundations of safeguarding our homelands and cultures. In short, an excellent coup against the forces of imperialist tyranny was followed by a historic visit to build bridges of brotherhood between two civilisations that have stood at the centre of history for generations. When both consolidate similar bridges with China's great civilisation, they will have brought their modern revival to a summit of an entirely different order.
