This weekend's Arab summit in Tunis must respond with resolve to regional and global developments, writes Ibrahim Nafie The preparatory meetings held by Arab foreign ministers in the Arab League headquarters this week displayed a new spirit in inter-Arab collaboration. This spirit was evident in the participants' determination to ensure that the forthcoming Arab summit goes ahead on schedule, in their resolve to overcome obstacles they encountered in March and in their general consensus over the draft resolutions on Palestine and Iraq that will be brought before the summit. If this spirit can be sustained, Arab leaders in Tunis should also be able to agree on positions relative to reform in the Arab world and of the Arab League, as well as on how to confront threats to various Arab countries, the most immediate being Washington's implementation of sanctions against Syria. The spirit to which I am referring is the spirit of constructive cooperation, an indispensable ingredient of which is the ability to adopt more objective and rational approaches to the problems and challenges that face the Arab world. Some governments will have to make a greater effort in this regard than others. Damascus, for example, is understandably angered, but the more restraint and level-headedness it shows, the more it will help Arab leaders formulate a strong collective stance that will work to alleviate American pressures. Syria presents a cogent case against the sanctions tactic. Syria has an extensive record of cooperating with the US and the international community, extending from its participation in the coalition to liberate Kuwait through its invaluable assistance in the fight against terrorism. Not only are sanctions not the appropriate reward for this record of cooperation, they are counterproductive for all concerned. The more Syria continues to demonstrate its openness to dialogue and cooperation, the easier it will be for Arabs to persuade the US that this is more conducive to producing solutions than confrontation. A constructive and rational spirit will also be vital in strengthening our relations with those international powers that share our keenness to defuse the tensions between Washington and Damascus. We can derive considerable encouragement in this regard from the EU's recent announcement that it intends to keep channels of cooperation with Syria open, despite economic sanctions imposed by Washington. The EU, however, has made it clear that it expects Syria to remain coolheaded if its strategy of long-term engagement with Syria is to be maintained. Syria, thus, has everything to gain by exercising self-restraint on the issues pertaining to it in the forthcoming Arab summit and afterwards. Perhaps Syria can draw heart from the achievements Arab diplomacy has scored in addressing the question of reform in the Arab world and Washington's so-called Greater Middle East initiative -- one of the central issues over which Arab leaders in Tunis are expected to produce a resolution. Of particular note, through dialogue with the US administration, the Arabs have secured Washington's acknowledgement that any reform process must emanate from within Arab countries and reflect their specific needs and individual characters. However, the Arabs must still formulate a collective agenda on this issue and promote it energetically. The urgency of this cannot be overstated, in view of the fact that the G8 are expected to issue a declaration on the "Common Future" in their forthcoming meeting in the US on 7 and 8 June. The declaration will be accompanied by a specific "agenda" towards this end and the creation of a "monitoring mechanism" to oversee the implementation of the agenda in the "Greater Middle East", which extends from Morocco to Afghanistan. If the major industrialised nations have their own motivations for creating such a mechanism, perhaps Arab leaders meeting in Tunis should ask themselves whether they should not, themselves, create a supervisory mechanism for the modernisation and development process in the Arab world. This is not to suggest that we should reject the G8 mechanism. Rather, a mechanism of our own would ensure that the development and modernisation process conforms to our specific needs and aspirations. That mechanism would fall under the Arab League and would promote this Arab body as the primary channel of communication with the G8 mechanism. Otherwise put, the G8 would have to recognise and interact with an "Arab mechanism" supervised by the Arab League. There is no question that such an Arab monitoring mechanism would strengthen the Arabs' position in general. It would promote the framework of the Arab League as the umbrella body for interacting with the Arabs and would thus fortify us against all attempts to uproot Arab identity or dissolve it in an amorphous entity called the Greater Middle East. In addition, the creation of this Arab mechanism will help the Arabs clarify their vision for what I believe should be termed a modernisation and development process, rather than "reform", given all the negative connotations and larger ramifications of this term. It is also expected that the G8 will invite a number of Arab leaders to attend their summit in the US. It is doubtful whether these leaders will accept, in light of the situations in Palestine and Iraq and the state of turmoil in the world in general. In addition, it is the tendency of the G8 summits to adopt resolutions and mechanisms that have been agreed upon beforehand, without consideration of the views of those Arab leaders who would be invited. Arab attendance at the G8 summit would be no more than window-dressing. In all events, if Arab leaders in Tunis succeed in formulating a collective stance on the question of the Greater Middle East project and in creating their own modernisation and development monitoring mechanism, no Arab leader will agree to participate in any activity that does not conform to the Arab consensus. It is clear from the foregoing that when the Arabs act collectively on the basis of a clearly formulated common position they can achieve what they want, or at least compel others to listen to what Arabs have to say and modify their positions. US Secretary of State Colin Powell offered a tangible instance of this in his speech before the World Economic Forum conference in Jordan, in which he addressed "reform in the Arab world". In his subsequent press conference he said, "The US is looking forward to creating a partnership for reform in the Middle East," adding that the discussions that took place during the forum confirmed that reform must emanate from within the countries concerned. Undoubtedly instrumental in shaping Powel's position was the meeting between him and Arab foreign ministers on the fringes of the forum. Following that meeting, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher stated that the most important result of that meeting was Powell's assurance that he wanted to hear Arab points of view. The same clarity and resolve that the Arab summit brings to the question of reform, it must also bring to the questions of Palestine and Iraq. It is extremely crucial at this juncture that summit participants face the concerns of the Palestinians head on, whether with regard to their current plight or final status issues. They must, for example, adopt a strong and unequivocal stance on Israel's ongoing assault on Rafah and the systematic house demolitions that are leaving thousands of civilians homeless. They must appeal to the UN and the major powers to intervene to put an immediate halt to this aggression. They must make it clear to Washington that its expressions of "worry" are far from commensurate with the magnitude of the human rights abuses Israel is perpetrating. And they must capitalise on the EU's condemnation of these practices by working to develop this stance into concrete measures for halting Israeli aggression against Palestinian civilians. On final status issues, and the creation of a Palestinian state, we are all too painfully aware of President Bush's recent retraction on his pledge to establish a Palestinian state by 2005, a deadline that he now claims is "unrealistic". However, given Bush's recent exchange of letters with Sharon, much more is at stake than a deadline, "realistic" or not. Arab leaders in Tunis must stress firmly that a settlement on the Palestinian track must observe the principles stipulated in international legal resolutions, and they must prevail upon the Quartet to set a precise agenda for reviving the roadmap and to pledge itself to respecting this agenda. Above all, they must make it explicit that the Arabs reject all attempts to impose a solution unilaterally, based on de facto realities, which, in effect, was the essence of Bush's assurances to Sharon. The Arab summit must also lend its weight to the international drive to transfer power in Iraq to the Iraqi people by the 30 June deadline, then to phase out foreign forces in accordance with a carefully designed agenda. President Bush's statement to Al-Ahram that American forces would not remain in Iraq one day longer than their mission requires is too vague. If the task of the Al-Ahram interview with Bush was to probe his thoughts and intentions, the task of Arab leaders in Tunis will be to confront the US president face on with questions such as what he means by "mission", who has defined this mission and when he expects it to be accomplished. But the Arabs must do more than insist on explicit commitments from the US. In Tunis, they must determine practical ways to promote the transfer of authority in Iraq to the UN for an interim period, during which all foreign forces operating in that country will be working under UN supervision. With the institution of an effective UN profile in Iraq, the Iraqi and Arab peoples will feel that Iraq has been freed from the direct occupation of a foreign power and that their independence is within reach following a transitional, UN-supervised, period. The Arab summit that will open in Tunis on Saturday offers an ideal opportunity to restructure inter-Arab cooperation on solid and realistic foundations. The criterion of its success will be the clear-sightedness and spirit of common cause its participants bring to the issues before them.
