Mario Trinidad, in the Spanish capital, looks beyond the sound bites of the Barcelona Summit The mass media dominates politics as it does every other aspect of social life. Every political event has content, the substance of which is often transmitted to the public in the shape of an anecdote or sound bite. Politics, in addition, has always had a ceremonial or formal aspect intended to convey, to the political class as much as the general public, the seriousness of its business. This week's Euro-Mediterranean Summit, held in Barcelona, was no exception. One anecdote which delighted Spanish journalists covering the event, particularly those critical of the present Spanish government, was the result of a microphone, inadvertently left on, amplifying a conversation between the Spanish Premier Rodr�guez Zapatero and one of his advisers, Carles Casajuana. When Casajuana warned about the difficulties Spanish diplomats were encountering in trying to reach an agreement on the final declarations Zapatero responded anxiously: "Get one [agreement], no matter how." The Spanish opposition predictably translated "no matter how" into "no matter what". Whether they are correct in doing so is beside the point: the significance of the comment lies, in the end, in its reflection of the difficulties the summit faced in delivering concrete results. And there were results -- two resolutions, the first containing a condemnation of terrorism, the second outlining a programme for the next five years covering trade liberalisation, immigration, and ways to foster democratic reform and the participation of women in social and political life. But are these resolutions part of the substance or appearance of the summit? Critics and supporters of the Spanish government disagree on this point. For the government's supporters, in parliament, the diplomatic service and the media, the summit's results are substantial. "We could not imagine [before the summit] such a clear condemnation of terrorism being signed by Arabs and Israelis," said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. José Borrell, who presides over the European Parliament, described the five-year programme as "hopeful", even if he did warn that only political will on the part of the signatories could turn the programme into reality. (Significantly, the summit did not approve funding for any of the initiatives outlined in the programme.) Critics, though, argue that the two resolutions represent the triumph of form over content, pointing out that there was no final declaration and no agreement on a common definition of terrorism while the items covered by the five-year programme were simply stated with any discussion of their implementation deferred. The argument of the critics was lent weight by the absence of Arab leaders from Barcelona, with only the Palestinian Mahmoud Abbas, who is not a head of state, present. While Spanish officials attempted to downplay this, observers inside and outside Spain saw the non-attendance as a major drawback. The conspicuous absence of the Arab leaders was viewed by the Spanish media as a puzzle that needed solving. The solutions offered -- simplifications, as all media solutions are -- still provide an insight into the problems facing Euro-Arab relations. The Spanish opposition pointed to the political fragility of the Spanish government and its fraught relations with the Bush administration as the main reason for the diplomatic fiasco endured in Barcelona. Given the weight of American diplomacy and Washington's influence in the Arab world, a Euro-Arab forum hosted in Barcelona by a socialist government was, they argue, always going to be received coldly by the Americans and, by extension, Arab leaders. Comparisons were immediately made with the International Conference on Terrorism held last February in Saudi Arabia with the assistance of Condoleezza Rice. Yet others argued the absence of Arab leaders was a result of the political differences between the two shores of the Mediterranean and the lack of European political clout vis-à-vis its Mediterranean neighbours. Europe, as it continues a process characterised by transcending national boundaries, has placed increasing emphasis on human rights and the development of democratic institutions as the main engines of the political process and its source of legitimacy, even if it harbours second thoughts about their practical application. Abandoning the methods and mood of its colonial past, Europe is trying to exert its influence abroad through what some analysts call "soft power" -- ie power that uses example and persuasion rather than force and intimidation. On the other shore of the Mediterranean is the undisputed kingdom of nationalism and of what is usually known as realpolitik, a vision of power as strength, as the ability to intimidate opponents be they foreign states or the local population. These differences, runs the argument, explain the nonchalance of Arab leaders when faced with European solicitations. It is the opposite of how they behave towards the US, a superpower whose nationalist and religious tone the political elites that dominate the Arab world find it all too easy to understand. The results of the Barcelona summit may well be meager. But it would be wrong for Arab public opinion to downplay the political will of the European states, specially those facing the Mediterranean, and their desire to prioritise the problem of their relations with the Arab world. This is perhaps the most substantial message of the summit. As for the puzzle the press has been pondering, given the circumstances the real surprise would have been if Arab leaders had shown up.
