Much theatre and pathos went with this year's headline event in the world of inter-Arab cooperation, writes Abdel-Moneim Said* By the time this article appears the Arab world will probably be preoccupied with other issues, but this does not diminish the significance of the annual meeting of Arab leaders. Ever since their convention in Cairo in 2000 which established the principle that the Arab summit must be held regularly, the advent of March has people awaiting the curtain to open on a stage whose backdrop is renewed by changing events, even if the protagonists remain the same. In form, this year's pageant got off to a smoother start than it had in previous years. Time and venue were easily agreed upon, which already marks a departure from Arab custom in these matters. In general, what Arab League protocols have to say about periodicity and the rotation of venues is one thing, how Arab governments behave, quite another. We have, for example, the cases in which two countries -- Bahrain and the UAE -- refused to take their turn to host the summit, and the more embarrassing case in which, after the preparatory meeting of Arab foreign ministers, the host country -- Tunisia -- backed out at the last minute and then asked for a deferral. This time, participating countries acted as respectable nations should and followed established regulations and procedure. In other matters of form, the opening scenes were very much the same as in previous years. A "ministry" of Arab press and satellite channels assembled to draw up a long list of "challenges", "issues" and "tasks" that the summit must address and act upon if "contrary to custom" it was to succeed in meeting "Arab aspirations". Spectators contemplating this scene may have cast their minds back over previous years and noted the degree to which its tone has always been set by an "Arab nationalist" mood. They might then have been struck by the irony that in the past Arab nationalists did not look so kindly upon the Arab League, regarding it as an obstacle to the realisation of a single unified Arab nation. Yet, as the wave of Arab nationalist fervour receded, they suddenly began to invest all their hopes and dreams in the League. Of course, as no drama worth its salt is without an element of tension between antitheses, "high hopes and aspirations" were quickly offset by an equally powerful outpouring of dire predictions drawing on the League's dismal record of achievements, the weaknesses in the "Arab order" and the lack of sensitivity and foresight on the part of Arab rulers on the crucial issues of the Arab nation. The stage was thus set between eager anticipation and premature despair. The Arab League was expected to liberate Palestine, kick the Americans out of Iraq, unify the Arabs and change the world order, engage in dialogue with the East and West, and bring democracy and prosperity to the Arab world. Yet this was the same poor and wretched League that is no more than an expression of a weak and fractured Arab order. Perhaps no single character filled the opening scene as much as Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. With his dark Egyptian features, his punctuating gesticulations and that penetrating, doleful look he directs into the eyes of his spectators, he appears to have emerged from the heart of Arab nationalist thought of the 1960s straight into the 21st century after all those sweeping changes that speak of modernism and globalisation. Somehow, through his riveting presence, he gives voice to an institution that has inspired hope in the Arabs but has most likely become their victim. Following the prelude, attention turned to Algeria as audiences waited with bated breath for that moment in which the summit would erupt. Although everyone knew that Algerian diplomacy had already put everything but the final touches to the closing statement, in the world of the Arabs that means little. Past experience had taught them to expect something hugely untoward that would keep the media beast entertained for hours on end. Who could forget the sudden flare-up between the leader of the Libyan revolution, Muammar Qaddafi and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Ibn Abdul-Aziz at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit? However, as people's eyes were peeled on centre stage for similar titillation this year, perhaps they failed to notice that presence on the sidelines was nonetheless crucial to how the drama unfolded. That presence was a crowd of representatives from numerous nations -- Russia, India, Brazil -- and international organisations -- the EU, the African Federation and the UN. The problem, it now appeared, was how to make room to accommodate all those onlookers on stage even though it was difficult to understand why they suddenly had such an intense interest in an Arab organisation they used to ridicule. With all present and accounted for, it was now time to go into session, which took place over the next 24 hours with assorted open and closed doors. If there is a single word that sums up the entire performance it was "stimulate". The participants had assembled to "stimulate" the Arab peace initiative, to "stimulate" efforts to create an Arab common market, to "stimulate" dialogue with Europe and other powers, to "stimulate" the drive to secure a higher Arab profile in the UN, and to "stimulate" reform in the Arab world. I do not believe that any other summit in the world, or any high-level meeting of an international organisation for that matter, has ever used the word "stimulate" with such emphatic frequency. Fortunately, no one has asked whether this year's stimulation will fare any better than that of previous years. If they did, perhaps there would have been a move to create a committee to follow through on the implementation of summit resolutions that were reached through the convergence of Arab will at the highest level. As we have said, no drama is complete without anti-theses. As "stimulate" was strutted so resolutely before Arab public opinion, up steps Amr Moussa to the front of the stage to plead the fragility and financial bankruptcy of the Arab League. A Western analyst once described the way the Arabs operate as peculiar. All other countries of the world, he said, summon enormous resources to accomplish limited aims. Only the Arabs depart from this rule: they have the unique ability to rally extremely limited resources towards the realisation of aims that are so vast and numerous that they block the face of the sun. Moussa palpably drove home the accuracy of this assessment. He announced that the budget for all the hopes and aspirations that are pinned on the Arab League is $35 million, of which it has received only $26 million, which does not even cover the salaries of the League's staff. Apparently, too, many Arab countries, both rich and poor, want to reduce their dues. On this note, this year's Arab summit ritual reached its climax. As always, it exposed the bitter gap between resources and aspirations and, simultaneously, that perpetual state of reverie that has Arab leaders approving the creation of an Arab parliament based in Damascus, continued discussions on the creation of an Arab security council and Arab court of justice, and a long list of other institutions modelled on the EU and the UN, all combined in a single bankrupt organisation. * The writer is director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political & Strategic Studies.
