As the West puts more pressure on the Arabs, the latter's reaction seems somewhat erratic. Gamil Mattar* says the Arab League can formulate a sensible response Every new weight of pressure placed by the US or EU on Arab countries, collectively or individually, brings with it the same set of questions. What are we going to do? What are our countries going to do? And what about the Arab League? The league is meant to speak on behalf of the Arab public while expressing the wishes of Arab states. Now though, with every tug at our collars, we wonder: whose fault is it? We are confused and frustrated. We are angry at governments we did not select, and a world that is becoming increasingly abusive. Our public is particularly disappointed with the league. For the past half century, the league did little to improve on its abilities, ease the limitations imposed on it by member states, or alleviate the region's tribulations. What we forget, however, is that the league is not free to respond to our aspirations. On the few occasions the league voiced an independent view, it was criticised and punished by its member states, which hindered rather than helped its attempts at creativity, renovation, and reform. There is a growing feeling that the league should find itself a new role, if only to keep up with the continued external pressures placed on the Arab region. With every additional unit of pressure placed on Arab countries by the US, with every reluctant submission on our part, with every report or statement issued abroad about how horrible we -- people and governments -- are, the need for the league to do something becomes more urgent. Few Arabs think that their governments can do a good job with structural and policy reforms while remaining under immense pressure from abroad. Look at how Arab countries reach out to their neighbours in search of sympathy and moral support. The sympathy and moral support they deserve should have come from the league. The league could play a significant role in comforting the public and backing the governments in the face of foreign pressure. And the league could bring about overdue changes in Arab countries. One wonders, however, if the league is up to the task? Can the league do something to accelerate the process of "change from within" in the region? Can the league propose, on behalf of its member states, reform measures and changes? The last thing Arab regimes want is introduce reforms that seem imposed on them, by the West or their own people. The league could, by proposing these reforms, help them save face. For this to happen, the league has to undergo reforms of its own. There is no lack of reform plans for the league, all of which should henceforth take into the account the ferocity of the democracy campaign the US is waging with EU backing. The league has to formulate an Arab response to this campaign. The league has a stake in the democratisation of member states. This is because democracy can dramatically change the way the league is operating and the way its decisions are made. Democracy can change the methods of work within the General Secretariat and the conduct of its regional officials, not to mention the league's very structure. The democracy campaign and the vicious pressures which accompanied it place Arab countries in a bind. If nothing else, the campaign distracted Arab countries' attention from vital national and foreign issues and implanted the seeds of mistrust and tensions in every Arab society. This campaign has affected the league, and the league cannot just pretend it is business as usual. It has to discuss the democracy issue in public. It has to come up with a suitable response to this campaign. It has to push the envelop on matters of political participation and freedom of expression. Otherwise, things will get worse. There is no point in denying that the league, as a regional organisation, has dragged its feet on the issue of human rights. Time was when the league was something of a pioneer in economic integration projects, even in matters of joint defence. But the league did badly on human rights. Now it has a new chance to issue a new charter for human rights, so that we may put the past behind us. The league can formulate a charter and ensure the commitment of member states to all international agreements in this respect. It is a known fact that some Arab countries signed human rights conventions but failed to ratify them, and were reluctant to extend their benefits to their masses. This is something the league has to discuss frankly. Such a discussion would be an appropriate initial response to the foreign campaign. It would also be reassuring for the Arab public. The league only recently acknowledged the importance of regional non-governmental work. I understand that the secretary-general has introduced a system of commissioners, including one for civil society affairs. So far, though, the move does not seem to have produced tangible or positive results, which tells us something about the political intentions of Arab governments. Some governments allowed civil work to thrive for a while, when they were under pressure by foreign countries and international civil society groups. Once the pressure abated, in the aftermath of 11 September and the war on terror, these countries launched into a semi- nationalisation of civil society organisations. They are now trying, through various means, to tame civil society organisations and get them to work under the state's mantle. Their close supervision of civil society groups jeopardises the latter's ability to do their work. What the league can do is be more assertive in protecting these groups from Arab governments. These groups need a measure of independence so that they may operate across Arab political borders without interference from the various states. Another thing the league can do is create a subsidiary agency with consultative functions to represent the three main forces in Arab society: private business, civil society, and governments. This agency could provide much-needed support to the secretary-general and to league activities. The combination of the three elements would be beneficial: civil society can afford legitimacy to league activities; the business community can provide material support; and government representation can facilitate the implementation of various projects approved by the aforementioned agency. It is no secret that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is now experimenting with a similar formula and his work seems promising so far. As for the clash of civilisations, the league cannot afford to act as if the matter is purely academic. It should do more than keep the dialogue going. Of course the dialogue must go on, and we should encourage it and involve civil society in it. But it is time we acknowledge that the clash is a fact of life. It is ferocious and getting worse. There are forces outside and inside our region that want the clash to go on. These forces have not been impressed by the willingness of most Arab to engage in debate. This is why we need a more forceful response. We need the cultural, intellectual, and religious talents with which to respond to the pro- clash Westerners. We have, for example, to expose the failures and pitfalls of Western culture and traditions. We have to take issue with the darker sides of Western civilisation. We have to confront the clash head on, at the same level of media and cultural publicity, even as we continue the dialogue. We need to answer those who harbour ill intentions toward us. As we do that, we should seek the support and solidarity of Asian, Latin American and African representatives and civil society groups. Meanwhile, we should pump new blood into the agencies of joint Arab cultural work. The need has never been greater for an assertive, enlightened, and creative Arab cultural setting. We must not forget how honourable people, such as Edward Said and Mahathir Mohammad, stood up to the pro-clash trend in the West. We need more. * The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
