The Arab and Islamic worlds must embrace reform in the interest of all while holding would-be Western overseers to their own political obligations, writes Osama El-Ghazali Harb* The declarations of the G8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia this month appear to revolve mainly around plans concerning the so-called Greater Middle East and North Africa region, in other words, the area including most Arab and Islamic countries. How should these plans be evaluated? Should they be considered no more than abstract ideas and general slogans, to be eventually shelved along with declarations and statements issued by so many other conferences and summits? Or are we, in fact, looking at something far more serious and important? These proposals put forth specific visions of change, programmes and mechanisms of execution as well as processes to ensure monitoring and evaluation of their implementation. Endorsed by the world's mega-power, the United States, supported by the seven largest industrial nations in the world and representatives of the EU, these ideas were presented in two basic documents, the "partnership for progress and a common future with the region of the broader Middle East and North Africa" and the "G8 plan of support for reform". These are, in fact, the final revised formulations of repeated US demands for reform in the Arab and Islamic worlds since 11 September 2001. It would be extreme folly to ignore, underestimate or misinterpret these developments. We, the inhabitants of the region targeted by these plans, must make an objective assessment, as well as a studied and measured response, to this new challenge. Oversimplifications must be quickly set aside. This is neither a "conspiracy" to defraud the Arabs and Muslims of their identity and their faith nor an American exercise in national "reconstruction". Objective analysis is sufficient to refute the first interpretation, complications on the ground, in Afghanistan and Iraq, rule out the second. In order to understand and evaluate correctly the very real and serious challenge the Sea Island summit proposals place before our region, we must bear in mind three basic facts: First, the summit's proposals do not reflect solely the wishes of the US, but are a reflection of international consensus expressed by the seven greatest industrial nations. In this respect, we can liken this G8 summit to other historical international summits, held under US auspices, that set plans to "re-arrange" world affairs following major world wars, such as the summits held in Paris 1918 and Yalta and Potsdam in 1945. It can be argued that since the US, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan started meeting in 1975 -- to be later joined by Canada in 1976 and Russia in 1994 -- these great industrial democracies are in effect similarly managing world affairs. All major international developments since the 1970s, such as the European Conference on Cooperation and Security, the agreements at Helsinki, the dismantling of the Eastern European bloc and the Soviet Union itself, and the development of European political and economic unification, have taken place in tandem with G8 summits. The June G8 summit in Georgia, it can be argued, concerned itself with producing a new international "arrangement", following the comprehensive war on terror. This summit focussed on creating a new arrangement in the Arab and Islamic worlds, just as in Paris in 1919 an agreement was reached on the re-arrangement of Europe and in Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 a new world order came into being. The US dominated all three conferences although, at least from our point of view, the stature of US representatives has progressively declined from Wilson, with his concern with establishing justice and freedom throughout the world, to Roosevelt and Truman, and then finally to George W Bush. It is important to point out, nonetheless, that the documents of the Sea Island summit do not represent a capitulation to US pressure. Western European states, even those most circumspect in their dealings with Arabs and Muslims, are in full agreement with the US regarding the war against terror, which made its latest attack on Europe in the form of the Madrid bombings. Russia's position on the issue cannot be divorced from its troubles in Chechnya, and Japan has concerns for the welfare of its nationals in Iraq and elsewhere. In short, there is international -- not merely US -- pressure for reform in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Second, in its attempt to gain international support for, and minimise Arab-Islamic opposition to, its proposals, the US has made important concessions. It has conceded that reform cannot be imposed from outside but must come about through the interaction of domestic social forces, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each society and the pace and scope of reform that it can cope with. In the same vein, the US and the rest of the G8 also conceded the importance of ending chronic conflicts in the region, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict, in order to help remove obstacles hindering the process of reform and give it impetus and momentum. Although the documents stipulated that initiation of reforms should not depend on bringing conflict to an end, this is still a significant compromise, since the US has traditionally regarded any reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict in this context as a trumped-up excuse to avoid and postpone the reform process. It is therefore not difficult to see the implications of including quotes from the various recent Arab conferences that have been devoted to reform, such as the summits of Tunis, Alexandria, Sanaa, the Dead Sea and Aqaba. Third, the concept of reform, as embraced by the G8 conference, is comprehensive. While the political dimension is paramount, reform extends to social, economic and cultural dimensions as well. It is to be embraced by governments, civil society and the economic private sector. The summit documents set out a division of labour involving not only the G8 but also other states and international organisations. It set up new forums as well as mechanisms to discuss, monitor and evaluate progress on the ground. In short, this is a real and serious challenge. We, inhabitants of this region, can neither ignore nor underestimate it. Our response must be predicated on one basic premise: reform, be it democratic, economic or cultural, is first and foremost our demand and in our interest. If others demand the implementation of such reforms to protect their own interests and security, so be it. Let them fulfil the duties and obligations they have taken upon themselves, let them make a serious effort to end the Arab-Israeli conflict and the occupation in Iraq, as well as help to revitalise our sagging economies. For us, there is only one way ahead, to proceed diligently and seriously down the path of reform -- there is no other choice. * The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly Al-Siasa Al-Dawlia (International Politics), issued by Al-Ahram, and a member of the Shura Council.
