What would an Arab summit achieve? Rasha Saad finds some answers The Arab summit that was to have been held in terror-hit Sharm El-Sheikh but which was delayed following the death of King Fahd, triggered mixed reaction. In "Bush, Al-Zarqawi and the summit of symbols", Ghassan Charbel supported the necessity of holding the summit amidst "exceptionally critical Arab circumstances." In the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper Charbel described the summit as an emergency meeting. "Even if we sidestep the Palestinian and Iraqi issues, which are expected to join the list of chronic injuries, the threat of terrorism remains serious enough to justify calling for a summit." Charbel believes that when Arab leaders meet at the table, two shadows will hang above: US President George Bush "who extended the 11 September attacks to the heart of the Arab world and decided to change this part of the world" and that of Abu Mosaab Al-Zarqawi "who used Bush's failure in Iraq to complete the 11 September attacks and launch a counter plan to change the region." According to Charbel, this situation puts the Arabs in a real dilemma. In this atmosphere, he contends, many Arabs refuse to support Bush especially after his invasion of Iraq. "The American stand evokes their concern over stability and their fears of a collapse that might follow reform." At the same time, Charbel adds, the Arabs see the dangers of Al-Zarqawi's agenda and the impossibility of adopting what can only be more wide scale destruction. "Thus the summit, held in the shadows of Bush and Al-Zarqawi, should be committed to coming up with options that are clear, no matter how painful the issues of peace, reform and counter terrorism are. Options that do not keep the region hostage either to the White House general or Al-Zarqawi's knife." Ahmed Al-Rabie in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat disagrees. Al-Rabie ridicules the justifications for holding the summit, deriding clichés like the region is going through an "exceptional situation" and that "the current critical situation" demands meetings and discussions. "The question is when did the Arabs ever live in conditions other than exceptional? We did nothing in 50 years except discuss the 'exceptional situation' and 'the current critical situation.'" Al-Rabie argues that even if the Arabs held a summit, it will not be more than a mere cosmetic meeting which will not offer anything new given the present deterioration in Arab affairs. "The current status is 100 per cent Arab made, accumulated years of indifference and absence of both a genuine will to reform and an administration incapable of achieving reform and development." In its editorial, the Saudi Al-Riyadh warned against turning the summit into one of emotions and reactions. "Since the first Arab summit up until the present, they are usually held after a war erupts, as a result of a dispute between two or more states on borders or other issues. The fact that summits are held in reaction to a state of emergency have contributed to their failure." The editorial argues that the call for the summit in Sharm El-Sheikh reinforces unified Arab support for Egypt, however, "the current situation needs more than registering the names of Arab leaders in the Sharm El-Sheikh guest book because facts have it that no one is safe from terrorism and there should be a genuine Arab consensus against terrorism internally and internationally." The Omani newspaper Oman described the summit as one "of a special nature caused by the turbulence in political events in the region". Oman agreed that the summit is to be held when expectations of the man on the street are low. It gave its own reasons: "frustration because past summits did not achieve much as a result of the absence of a collective Arab will and the clashing of Arab interests regarding several political issues." Kuwaiti writer Mohamed Al-Rumeihi in the UAE Al-Bayan also asked the reason behind holding an emergency summit. "Is this an added Arab collective victory or is it another sign of their collective failure? "The manner and haste in which it was called is a sign that the meeting will produce nothing but a paper with decorative wording. Summit meetings through the decades did not produce anything but lame and unimpressive compromises, and placed the most crucial Arab issues under the table, not atop it."
