Regional participation at the Arab-South American Summit was little short of a disgrace, writes Hassan Nafaa* Brazilian President Lula da Silva deserves our apologies, as do other South American leaders. We should apologise first for the fact that it was not our leaders who came up with the idea of a dialogue with South American countries, though we need such a dialogue more than they do. Then they deserve another apology because our leaders failed to rise to the occasion, dealing with it in an unbelievably ignorant and arrogant way. At a time when the world's leading powers, and particularly the US, treat the Arab world as the sick man in international relations, and offer to act as educators, doctors, even as custodians of our nations, you would assume Arab leaders would be scouring the four corners of the earth for anyone who might listen, let alone sympathise, with their plight. They are not, out of laziness and ignorance. Then the South Americans came knocking on our door offering friendship. But instead of showing appreciation for the gesture Arab leaders were rude. They dragged their feet, knitted their brows, stumbled over themselves. We already knew our leaders were ignorant but who could have thought them capable of such unjustified arrogance? When arrogance exceeds ignorance it is impossible not to despair over the future of our countries. There was no shortage of Arab observers who recognised the importance of the overture made by Brazilian President Da Silva. They understood the significance of initiating an Arab-South American dialogue, saw that it was an opportunity that must be grasped. But then came the date for the first summit to bring together Arab and South American leaders and the Arabs once again dragged their feet. While the vast majority of South American presidents and prime ministers showed up for the summit the Arabs stayed away. Nine out of 12 South American countries were represented at presidential level. On the Arab side only the leaders of Algeria, Iraq, Qatar, Djibouti, the Comoros Islands and the Palestinian Authority and three prime ministers -- from Syria, Lebanon, and Mauritania -- attended while the rest of the Arab world sent ministers or even lower ranking officials. How to explain such behaviour? The Arab world greeted a notable initiative with utter disdain. Our leaders, once again, showed a complete lack of any sense of national responsibility. Had it not been for the presence and inspiring participation of Algerian President Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa things would have been even worse. South American countries immediately welcomed Da Silva's call for the summit. They sent their most senior officials and made a point of excluding the US so as to avoid its possibly negative impact. Brazil, the host country, turned down Washington's request to attend the conference as an observer, thus freeing the floor for a free exchange of opinion away from US pressure. The final statement of the conference, the Brasilia Declaration, was strongly-worded. It called on Israel to withdraw from all occupied Arab land to the 4 June 1967 borders. It called for all Palestinian rights to be honoured, including the right of self- determination. It called on Israel to remove all settlements from Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, urging all countries in the region to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It opposed "selective" implementation of international law and "unilateral" measures, including the US imposed sanctions against Syria. The Syria Accountability Act, it declared, was in breach of international law. That the Brasilia Declaration was more firmly worded than the statements issued by Arab summits suggests that the absence of Arab leaders might, after all, have had a positive effect. Certainly, it reveals that Arab and South American countries have a different take on how the two regions might relate to one another. South American countries are interested in how Arab issues (Palestine, Iraq, oil) affect current and future balances of power in the world. Arab countries, meanwhile, see little beyond the end of their noses, focussing on narrow material interests and ignoring long-term consequences. South American countries have enough of a history with the US to appreciate how dangerous that country's control of the international order can be. The US has been meddling in Latin American affairs for decades and has long impaired development and democracy in the region. The 1973 coup against Chilean President Allende is one example, recent US attempts to bring down the democratically elected government of President Chavez in Venezuela another. Latin Americans, having gained confidence through democracy, are intensely aware of the need to resist US hegemony. And they are aware that the Middle East is the scene of one of the most important battles for world domination. Latin American countries have a long history of dealing with major financial organisations. Many suffered from the formulas imposed by the World Bank and the IMF. Many of Latin America's low- and middle- income groups suffered under neo-liberal economic restructuring. Some of Latin America's current leaders, including Chavez and Da Silva, came to office promising to abandon such recipes in favour of new developmental strategies that promote the interests of the poor and middle classes. Such leaders are perfectly aware of the gap that divides Arab leaders from their people. They are aware, too, that the fight against US occupation in Iraq and Palestine is part of the global struggle against globalisation and unbridled capital. It is no wonder, then, that the Latin Americans are taking tougher stands than the Arabs, even on Arab issues, no wonder that Latin America is surging ahead with clear goals while the Arab world is retreating in the face of occupation and pillage. Arab leaders have a lot to learn, both in battling foreign domination and in setting real development goals. Only they don't seem interested in fighting hegemony, whether American or Israeli. And they don't seem interested in looking for development strategies beyond the recipes provided by the World Bank and the IMF. Recently we marked the 50th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, an event that changed the political history of the Third World. Bandung was more than an attempt by recently-decolonised countries to avoid joining two rival superpowers. Bandung was an attempt to resist international hegemony, whether unilateral or bilateral. The Brasilia summit could have been a Bandung for the 21st century. An Arab- South American solidarity movement could have rivalled the Afro-Asian solidarity movement of the 1950s and the Non- Aligned Movement that came in its wake. It is just that we couldn't keep our end of the bargain. South America has leaders of the stature of Zhou Enlai and Sukarno. We, sadly, do not. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
