The divisions that emerged at the GCC summit give El-Sayed Zahra* reason to worry A sense of unease prevailed among the citizens of GCC member states as much as among those who followed the proceedings of GCC's Manama conference, monitoring the arguments that preceded the conference and its dismal outcome. The main source of this unease was not the public spat between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain over Bahrain concluding a free trade agreement with America, a dispute that erupted before the conference and hovered like a black cloud over its proceedings. Similar disputes, over all sorts of issues, positions and policies, break out regularly between some or all of the GCC members. The prevailing sense of unease cannot be reduced to the conflicting positions of the two countries, to Bahrain's insistence that its free trade agreement does not go against other economic agreements between GCC member states and Saudi Arabia's argument that it does. Rather, the real trouble lies in three issues linked to the dispute and its development. Bahrain, after all, had been openly negotiating the deal for the past four years. The treaty's contents were publicly available and well known. If Saudi Arabia, or any other GCC country for that matter, thought that the agreement contravened standing GCC agreements and obligations then why didn't they raise the issue at some point in the last four years? That they chose to wait until a fortnight before the Manama conference to start disputing it is very worrying. Of equal cause for concern is the hostility with which the dispute was raised and dealt with, leading -- as is well-known -- to Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah first refusing to attend the conference then, during the conference, threatening to demand that unified treaties be frozen and to withdraw Saudi Arabia from plans for an integrated customs system. The manner in which the dispute started and then grew is without parallel in the history of the GCC. In the past GCC members have acted individually, concluding treaties with America over considerably more weighty matters than Bahrain's free trade agreement. Yet no member state ever objected or raised a complaint. When two GCC members initiated relations with Israel and opened Israeli trade offices -- a clear breach of the council's official position -- no one raised any objections. It was these aspects of the Saudi-Bahraini dispute that coloured the conference's proceedings. Far from being a simple dispute over a free trade agreement, it reflected profound disagreements between Gulf states. The most serious aspect of the affair was that the disagreement occupied the GCC for the duration of the conference, paralysing it and raising worrying questions about the future of the grouping. Crucial issues were not raised, let alone debated, at the conference which failed to make a millimetre of progress towards the important goals it has set itself. The conference was convened at a time when the Arab world, and the Arabian Gulf in particular, faces grave dangers -- a savage American colonial offensive, open hostility towards Arab countries and threats of intervention in these countries' internal affairs justified by a lack of internal reform. In such circumstances it was necessary to at least place internal reform at the top of the conference's agenda. Civil society organisations in the Gulf had demanded just this in a letter to the conference. And recent sectarian and political conflicts in the Gulf have served to underline the urgency of debating reform. But any mention of internal reform was absent from the conference save for a fleeting reference in the opening speech delivered by Sheikh Hamad Bin Eissa Al-Khalifa. The conference convened a quarter of a century after the founding of the GCC and it should have been able -- as was originally intended -- to move towards realising the long anticipated economic integration of GCC member states. In particular, it should have speeded up plans for the creation of a common currency, an integrated customs system and a common market. But the conference did nothing regarding these crucial issues. In light of all this what kind of future can the GCC look forward to? In one sense, at least, there is a positive side to a dispute breaking out between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in the way that it did. What I mean is that as long as there are genuine disagreements they should be aired and debated clearly and frankly. If not, then there is no chance of any agreement being reached. Indeed, there was an announcement that relevant ministers from GCC countries would be debating free trade agreements with America in the hope of reaching a unified position on the matter. Yet agreement on this issue will not end the crisis currently facing the council. Clearly disagreements run deeper than this. The GCC desperately needs to reach a general agreement covering major strategic issues including the steps necessary to move towards integration and the ways in which these will affect the member states and their peoples. Despite all the council's flaws, and the criticisms that can be levelled at it, the GCC has considerable achievements to its name. The council benefits not just the Gulf but the Arab world as a whole. Suffice to say it is the only Arab body that offers any hope for wider Arab integration. Events at the Manama conference highlighted one of the greatest shortcomings of the GCC -- its lack of any popular participation -- and it is a deficiency that must be addressed as soon as possible. The idea of a Gulf parliament has been floating around for a long time. Perhaps it is time it was acted upon. As long as decisions on whether or not to disagree or take action are determined solely by the opinions, interests and connections of the GCC members' ruling elites, and the citizens of these countries are denied a role or say in matters, the GCC's future as a ruling body that brings hope for unification and integration must be in doubt. * The writer is a columnist with the Bahraini newspaper Akhbar Al- Khalij (Gulf News).
