Two options face the upcoming Arab summit: Arabism's demise and toing Washington' line, or rejecting strife and saving the Arab nation, writes Gamil Mattar* We watch disasters without growing agitated or angry. We witness strife breaking out in one of our countries and display regret or express some pain, hide the rest, and then return to our preoccupations and problems. We dive into them, indeed, and forget, or pretend to forget, what we saw of the firestorms and bloodletting that continue. In another Arab country, we see smoke rising, announcing the imminence of more strife flaring up. And so we issue warnings and draw attention to it, and then forget, or pretend to forget, that we even saw the smoke or issued any warnings. Yet now, what we have seen in the past in one or two Arab countries has spread to a greater number, to the point of becoming a regional trend. We must stop expressing regret and hiding our pain. We must deal with this phenomenon of strife face-to- face, without consideration for sensitivities, international and regional power balances, or narrow interests. I recently returned from a lengthy visit to a country I grew to love in my youth, and which I still love now. I returned from Lebanon more worried and frightened than after any previous visit. This time in Lebanon, I saw a people living day-to-day, doors of economic opportunity closing in one face after another, and political discourse sinking to unfamiliar, uncivilised levels. Lebanon is being choked with an enormous and growing number of politicians under the thumb of foreign countries. A limited number of ambassadors and agents of foreign influence divide interference in its affairs between themselves with frightening dexterity. Running freely amid it all are overt and covert intelligence operatives from various states and organisations. Everything we have seen so far is extremely serious, but new developments and future expectations are more serious still. In Lebanon and elsewhere, we are seeing attempts to sow new seeds of strife different to those we have grown accustomed to over the years. There are those who say that currents among the Shias have rebelled and receive external support. We have heard of groups among the Sunnis preparing to declare sedition against the dominance of political and religious leaderships monopolising discourse in the name of the Sunnis, and others preparing and training for terrorist acts against other Islamic currents. We have heard that a type of grumbling noticed by visitors to the Druze region may transform into insubordination and then rebellion if some of the Druze leaders continue their policy of "preparing the Druze role for serving greater international interests," especially after other sectarian leaderships have gone regional or international. The split within the Christian sect is no longer a secret, nor is the rising tone of its conflicting discourses or growing claims of arms races. Lebanon betrays a sense that numerous kinds of strife have broken out, or are about to, within sects themselves and not only between them. The fear befalling Lebanon is taking place in Iraq, with groups of Shias fighting other Shias in their sacred strongholds and beyond. Some warn of greater strife in southern Iraq, particularly in the region of Basra and Al-Ahwar. We see forces belonging to the Shia-majority government hunting people down and arresting them in neighbourhoods populated by a Shia majority and facing fierce opposition from residents. We hear of major strife in Al-Anbar, where Sunnis are killing each other, while between them are Sunni fighters from abroad who have gone there to kill for their own ends. Strife in Iraq began with the arrival of the American occupation and did not burst into devastating flames until after the bombing in Samarra. As soon as that disaster took place, the suspicion of all parties within and beyond Iraq was raised, with bets placed that it was executed by a non-Muslim, non- Iraqi group. The goal of the bombing was met when the factors of strife between Sunnis and Shias came together. The basis of this had been laid and prepared for by the Bremer administration, implementing the advice of neo-conservatives and advisors of Arab origin. A year later, Iraq had become a land of all kinds of strife -- strife among Sunnis and Shias themselves, greater strife in Kirkuk between Kurds and Sunni, Shia and Christian Arabs, and the greatest strife of all between Sunnis and Shias as opposing sects. In other Arab countries, peoples and governments are hostage to the fear of this strife epidemic spreading to relations between their Sunnis and Shias, within their Sunnis and Shias, and with their ethnic and linguistic minorities. With varying degrees of excessive oppression, alertness, or counter-terrorism, governments are preparing to confront political opposition wearing the robes of minorities in order to ignite strife in their name. We are now hearing of splits within the Egyptian Morcos Church, one of the oldest eastern churches, hence stable for longest. We know even more about that both publicised and that kept secret concerning splits in the Egyptian Muslim arena between extremism and moderation, extremism and super-extremism, and Egyptian Islamic extremism and that coming from Asia. In Sudan, there are Muslims against Muslims, Sudanese with some Arab blood against those without, and Muslims fighting non-Muslims. We hear via Paris and Brussels that in North Africa relations between governments and Amazigh minorities are declining, and of the harbingers of conflict between those called Arabs and others. Also from the West come threats under academic cover at times and intelligence and political cover at others directed at Syria and claiming that the same epidemic will soon arrive there. Lebanon, to its west, is on the verge, Iraq, to its east, is ignited, and Jordan, to its south, is filled with apprehension. Palestine has been struck with the malady and its case seems serious despite all that Arab parties have done to try to save it. These Arabs don't know that putting an end to strife in the region will not occur with such light-hearted efforts. Strife will not come to an end here or there until Arab leaders adopt decisive policies against those inciting strife, and particularly those adopting a policy of "constructive chaos" to impose their dominion over the region, as well as those who implement this policy. We are on the threshold of the Riyadh Arab summit. I believe it will be exceptional and highly important in all that it accomplishes and in all that it doesn't. It will be exceptional in that it will be the first in the kingdom's history, and perhaps that of the entire Arabian Peninsula if we overlook the small summit held in 1976 for Lebanon. This exceptionality in itself is highly significant and crowns numerous international, regional and domestic developments. And it will be highly important for a number of reasons, most significantly because it will be the summit from which will spring a redefinition of the regional order. By this I mean that this summit will attempt to respond to the most serious question in the history of this order's development. This question is, can the Arab order in its current circumstances remain steadfast in the face of encroaching Middle Eastern campaigns from Washington, Brussels, and regional sites such as Tehran and Ankara, as well as encroaching religious extremism, which share in a hatred for all things Arab that comes from the West? I believe that this summit in particular will respond, through its declarations and directives, and through that announced and that kept concealed or delayed, by affirming the Arab nature of the region. It will further affirm an intention to unite to confront the danger of submerging under or fragmenting from a Middle East whose major centres and ideologies are outside of the region. Either that or it will declare the end of the stage of Arabism in the development of its countries and nations, meaning the end of the stage of independence. In such a case, these countries would declare their intention to fall under the American umbrella, even after its holes have grown in number and become a danger for those it protects. In response to this most important question in the political history of the region, I expect Arab leaders to focus on the most urgent and pressing threat; that found in the danger of strife spreading throughout Arab societies. The statement issued by the Iranian-Saudi meeting held in Saudi Arabia made reference to the role of foreign forces in igniting strife. This is an accurate and precise reference, but it is not sufficient, for there are numerous domestic forces just as dangerous as the foreign ones and which are working day and night to incite strife. Among them are zealous religious currents and groups, political interests, and state agencies. I believe that duty obliges the upcoming summit to be resolute in its dealing with these domestic and foreign forces equally, with the same firmness with which some Arab governments are now halting donations to the families of martyrs and the resistance in Palestine and elsewhere, or with which others deal with media agencies over the history of the Nazi Holocaust and that of the Jews and Israel, as well as the development of hasty efforts to remove the Palestine issue from the agenda of international or regional priorities in order to impose a final solution on Palestinians and all the Arabs. I don't believe there currently exists in Arab countries anyone more threatening to the safety of Arab and Islamic nations than those spreading hatred against schools, sects and minorities living in Arab and Islamic states. They spread strife and fund its activities. With them, and before and behind them, are individuals and organisations who, from among and outside us, adopt the principle of "constructive chaos", fashioning it into numerous policies. On the plane from Beirut, my eyes fell upon an article by Robert Fisk in The Guardian. In it he asks: "Why are we (in the West) trying to divide up the peoples of the Middle East? Why are we trying to chop them up, make them different, remind them -- constantly, insidiously, viciously, cruelly -- of their divisions, of their suspicions, of their capacity for mutual hatred? Is this just our casual racism? Or is there something darker in our Western souls?" I knew then that I was not alone in my reckoning, particularly in my belief that there are foreign parties who hate us and conspire against us, and who will seek to hijack this summit and its outcomes. I will not be alone in anticipating this summit collectively declaring, as well as through each of its individual members, the end of the stage of concessions and destructive chaos that has harmed the spirit of the Arab nation as well as its being and its beliefs. I anticipate that it will declare the beginning of a new stage of regaining that lost and protecting that which remains. I anticipate a strong stance. * The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
