It really doesn't matter where the secretary-general of the Arab League comes from, writes Mustafa El-Feki* Algiers raised a subject that has been taboo for decades. Then it backed off, officially at least. The subject, about which Arab diplomats and politicians have long been whispering in back corridors, was first aired in the late 1940s, a couple of years after the Arab League was established. Shortly before he was executed in Lebanon the founder of the Syrian Arab National Party, Anton Saada, declared that Egypt had a disproportionate influence over the Arab League and that this hampered its ability to remain impartial. Clearly this objection, brewing beneath the surface for decades, cannot simply be shrugged off. It is true that Arab League general secretaries have always been nationals of the country in which it was based. That most of them were Egyptian, however, does not mean that Egypt put them into office or that Egypt has a monopoly of the post. All Arab countries have qualified candidates for the post. If it goes to an Egyptian it is because Arab consensus has determined it should, as a glance at the history of appointments demonstrates. Abdel-Rahman Azzam, the first Arab League secretary- general, was nominated jointly by Egypt and, because of his ties with the ruling house in Riyadh, by Saudi Arabia. However, the overriding criterion was that he was a fervent pan-Arab nationalist who had participated in several Arab national liberation movements and was an early and ardent advocate of the creation of an Arab League. The second secretary-general, Abdel-Khaleq Hassouna, had served as governor of Alexandria and in several government cabinets. He was the man charged by prime minister Mustafa El-Nahhas with delivering a letter to General Rommel who was then advancing towards Alamein, though Montgomery beat back the German forces before Hassouna could carry out this mission. More importantly, he was noted for his judiciousness and equanimity, qualities that proved crucial to the survival of the Arab League at a time when Gamal Abdel- Nasser was dividing the Arab world into two camps. Even the summit conferences that Abdel-Nasser called for continued to be held under the umbrella of the Arab League in spite of the volleys of mutual recrimination between Arab leaderships. The name of foreign minister Mahmoud Riad, the third secretary-general, was associated with the Palestinian cause from the outset. A senior officer in the Egyptian army, he was one of the signatories to the Rhodes truce agreement. During his term in office the Arab world experienced a rift of a different sort: over how to handle the Arab-Israeli conflict. After Anwar El-Sadat visited Jerusalem, went to Camp David and signed the Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty, the Arab League relocated to Tunis in protest against Egyptian policy. This was when Mahmoud Riad resigned. That the secretary-general be a national from the Arab League's host state had become a convention that was respected. And so it was that Al-Shazli Al-Qoleibi became the fourth secretary-general. Upon the League's return to Cairo it came the turn of the cool and seasoned diplomat, Esmat Abdel-Maguid. After a decade of Arab diplomatic boycott a consensus emerged across the Arab world that Egypt must resume its regional role. His successor, current Secretary-General Amr Moussa, was a similarly unanimous choice, a result of the admiration he had gained in his handling of Egyptian foreign affairs. If, since his appointment, his forceful personality and charisma have stirred dismay in some quarters, I would venture that this has more to do with the increased powers that have accrued to his office than to his own position with regard to any specific issue. Recently Algeria -- a nation with great moral and political weight due to the pan-Arab aspirations of Hawari Boumedian, the diplomatic acumen of Abdul-Aziz Bouteflika and its long and unique legacy of struggle for national liberation -- proposed a project for Arab League reform that included a provision for rotating the post of secretary-general. It argued that while the organisation's charter stated the country in which it would be based it made no stipulations regarding the nationality of its secretary-general. In this regard I would like to register a few observations. Firstly, a country may exercise influence on an international organisation by virtue of being its home base, but this is an entirely separate issue from the influence of the organisation's chief by virtue of his nationality. Cairo was chosen as the headquarters of the Arab League because of its regional centrality. Second, since the League's return to Cairo, President Hosni Mubarak has insisted that Egypt should not monopolise Arab League posts, maintaining that if the secretary-general is Egyptian other positions, whether at the level of inter- Arab cooperation or international representation, should be open to other countries. In fact, I recall that he once issued instructions ordering that the name of the Egyptian candidate for general director of the League's Culture and Science Organisation should be withdrawn so as to leave the post open to the Syrian or Algerian candidate. Also, when Mohamed El-Biguawi's term was up in the International Court of Justice, Mubarak refused to allow an Egyptian to compete against the Algerian candidate nominated to replace him. "We must give Algeria a chance in view of its difficult circumstances," he said. Nor is it a secret that when the Saudi poet Ghazi Al-Qasibi was forwarded as the Arab nominee for director-general of UNESCO instructions were issued to Egyptian ambassadors abroad to support former vice-president of the World Bank and now Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina Ismail Serageddin as a "candidate from Egypt" rather than as "Egypt's candidate". Serageddin became the African candidate so that his bid would not be seen to be in conflict with another Arab bid. In all events the position went to the Japanese ambassador to Paris, which should drive home the need to coordinate in advance over our representations in international forums. Thirdly, in the hope of not sounding nationally chauvinistic, I will venture that Egypt benefits more from having the Arab League in Cairo than having an Egyptian as its secretary-general. Egyptians have occupied enough international posts for us not to have to worry about loss of status or influence. An Egyptian has served as UN secretary-general. The International Organisation for Industrial Development and the OPEC Fund in Vienna had Egyptians as founders. The occupant of the demanding and sensitive post of director of the International Atomic Energy Agency is still an Egyptian, as is one of the judges on the International Court of Justice and as are the occupants of dozens of other important international positions. I should simultaneously stress that I feel a similar sense of pride in the knowledge that Algeria, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon have at various times offered distinguished diplomats as UN General Assembly chairmen and that the speaker of one of the sessions of the International Parliament was an eminent Saudi diplomat. Fourthly, I recall that following the return of the Arab League to CairoAlgeria forwarded a candidate for the post of secretary-general. Lakhdar Brahimi is a widely respected figure in the Arab world and internationally and had always had close ties with Egypt throughout his distinguished diplomatic and political career. Nevertheless, Algeria withdrew his candidacy when Egypt nominated Abdel-Maguid. Similarly, Yemen withdrew its nomination of its former prime minister Mohsen Al-Aini, another exceptional politician with a long and eminent record, when Egypt nominated Amr Moussa. These two examples demonstrate that while the door is open to candidates of all Arab nationalities, Arabs prefer to choose their general secretaries from Egypt. This is not just in recognition of Egypt's regional status but also because they recognise that a secretary-general from the League's host country facilitates the day-to-day workings of the organisation from the moment he assumes office. The foregoing demonstrates that it is not Egyptian control but Arab will that has always determined the choice of secretary-general. As the Arabs knuckle down to reform the League it will do them good to bear this in mind. Perhaps this will prevent them from placing excessive emphasis on the nationality of the secretary-general, as if this is responsible for the League's past failings or holds the key to future success. In a supra-national organisation such as the Arab League it is not important where its secretary-general comes from, as long as he is Arab and dedicated to the welfare of the League. * The writer is chairman of parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.
