Gamil Matar* suggests some questions Arab leaders should ask of their South American counterparts at their forthcoming summit Arab and South American leaders will soon be holding a summit, a rare case of two sides who know next to nothing about one another sitting around the same table. The politicised segment of the South American population knows little of the Arabs beyond what appears in the Western -- particularly the American -- media, which presents the Middle East as a region swamped with terror, rent by conflict and stuck in a never ending spiral of violence. Nor has any Arab country attempted to correct this image. The summit offers a golden opportunity to do so, one unlikely to be repeated given the limited horizons of Arab diplomacy which tends to ignore anything that does not stare it directly in the face, i.e. anything beyond the goals for which Washington is pushing. Nor have Arab capitals, however active on the international scene, displayed much interest in Latin America. For Arab diplomats Latin America has traditionally represented little more than a handful of votes in the UN General Assembly, votes that have, with alarming regularity, towed the US line. This is how Latin America was viewed when Arab countries were at the cutting edge of the Non-Aligned Movement and it is how it is viewed today despite the fact that Brazil has emerged as one of the leading voices calling for the formation of a new international block of emerging economies. Our new found interest in Latin America came in the wake of 9/11, when Arab governments came to realise that the support of expatriate Arab communities could be of use in off-setting the campaign against Arabs and Muslims. But while the motive for the summit may be to forge closer ties it is far from certain that the conditions that could make that possible are in place. And the Arabs, perhaps, remain unready for such closeness -- Latin America lingers somewhere near the bottom of the list of Arab priorities and no one is arguing for a complete reversal of those priorities. Yet we should give more thought to Latin America. We should, for example, put greater effort into improving the Arab image, and in so doing there is the possibility that we might win new markets as well as friends. And there is much to be learned from the experience of Latin American countries, many of which preceded us down the path of economic reform, embarking on their journeys before the Arab world, either voluntarily, or under foreign pressure -- even entertained the thought. There is much to be gained from Arab leaders speaking with their South American counterparts, not least when it comes to the pitfalls of IMF inspired recipes for economic reform. In recent years the continent has begun to ditch the market-driven policies the US seeks to impose, with many South American states slowing the pace of privatisation following a widening of the gap between the rich and poor. At one point the continent was dominated by right-wing regimes that attempted to impose models of development that failed wholesale. That failure led to the governments of Carlos Andréas Perez in Venezuela, Fernando de la Rua in Argentina, Fernando Collor de Mello in Brazil, Abdalà Bucaram in Ecuador and Alberto Fujimori in Peru being driven out of office. Subsequently demonstrators in Bolivia brought down the governments of Sànchez de Losada and, less than 18 months later, that of his successor. The protests were led by Evo Morales, an indigenous leader who called for royalty fees from foreign oil and gas companies to be increased from 18 to 50 per cent, with part of the proceeds subsidising the local cost of oil and gas. Interestingly, American analysts suggested that the US negotiate with Morales and his insurgents on condition that they withdraw support for the presidents of Venezuela, Brazil, and Cuba and refrain, should they assume power, from implementing similar policies. The continued siege of the rebels, they argued, served only to increase their strength and it would be better for them to be integrated into the Bolivian political system. Official US policy continues to threaten an economic blockade of Bolivia should Morales become president. It would also be useful for Arab leaders to listen to what South Americans have to say about the escalation of popular wrath and the numerous protests against exploitation by foreign companies, against the inequitable distribution of resources and the spread of corruption. Ten Latin American countries now have left- leaning governments. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez is leading a democratic regime that seeks to re-distribute income and has encouraged the formation of cooperatives and the integration of marginalised rural communities in production and politics. These same groups have protected the regime from Washington's repeated attempts to bring down Chavez. In Bolivia an insurgency was launched by farmers whose livelihoods were threatened by US campaigns against the cultivation of coca. The US had waged its war against coca without offering peasant farmers in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia any alternative crops. The cocaleros, mostly from indigenous groups, have refused to call off their rebellion unless the state abandons the market economy. In Ecuador demonstrators brought down the government of President Lucio Gutierrez two weeks ago, and in Colombia the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are battling against the government of President Alvaro Uribe. In Peru the government of Alejandro Toledo is also facing a major challenge led by the mostly poor indigenous population. Given this background, Arab leaders should consider seeking answers at the summit to a number of pressing questions. Why did the neo-liberal model collapse in Latin America so quickly? How is the defeat of neo-liberal policies by populist leaders adopting leftist slogans to be explained? Why have the majority of Latin American governments failed to quash extremist and terrorist movements? Why didn't these governments try to integrate the peasant classes, and are they trying to do so now? How do Latin American countries stand up to their powerful neighbour -- the US -- when it comes to matters of economic and political reform and sovereignty? This is a question of particular interest given that the US, courtesy of its invasion of Iraq, is now our neighbour too. And given Latin America's history of political instability, how has it been possible to neutralise the military? Has the US played a part in this or has the experience of the last half century convinced Latin America's elites that the military has often pursued the agendas of foreign interests rather than those of the people? Is the military refraining from interfering in political life because it has realised that it is not wanted and may face stiff popular resistance if it does so? The summit offers a chance to learn from countries that have already trodden the path on which we are now embarking. It also provides South American countries, particularly Brazil, with the opportunity to help fill the vacuum in the leadership of the developing world. * The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
