Is the Arab world divided over the Iraqi Governing Council? asks Salah Hemeid A team of the Iraqi interim authority arrived in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, the first leg of a regional tour that seeks to garner political support from fellow Arab leaders. The trip comes shortly after the Arab League's Follow-Up Committee proposed that the Arab countries should not recognise the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) as a representative of Iraq because it is not elected, and therefore not legitimate. The delegation left for Oman on Monday and visits Bahrain and Kuwait this week, while Jordan is expected to be a later destination. Leader of the delegation, the rotating president of the IGC Ibrahim Al-Jaffari, said the delegation wants to introduce the new Iraqi leadership and discuss bilateral relations with the Arab countries. "Most of the Arab countries have a positive position towards us," Al-Jaffari told a press conference. Asked about the Arab response to the formation of the IGC, Al-Jaffari said: "We think the countries of the world in general, and Arab countries in particular, will eventually recognise us," he added. Al-Jaffari said it was no coincidence that the leaders are making their first foreign visit to the United Arab Emirates, whose President Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan proposed before the war that Arab states should ask ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to resign to avoid the conflict. The proposal was not even discussed when tabled at an emergency leadership summit at Sharm El- Sheikh in Egypt and the Arab world remained sharply divided over how to stop the US-British led war that ousted Saddam. It is now all but certain that the Arabs are once again at loggerheads on how to deal with Iraq. On 5 August the League's Follow-Up Committee -- which can only make non-binding recommendations to the leaders -- suggested that Arab countries do not recognise the US-appointed IGC as an interim government, saying Iraqis should elect their own leaders. A week later Arab powerhouses Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria jointly reiterated the proposal, saying Arabs should implement decisions they agree on. The Arab League itself has insisted that it will not invite any official representative of the council to its headquarters, though it would allow members to come in their personal capacity. The move leaves Iraq's seat in the 22-member body vacant for the first time since Iraq co-founded the League in 1945. The Arab League's decision was criticised by former Iraqi foreign minister and member of the nine person IGC presidency, Adnan Pachachi, who wondered if the League's aim was either to sanctify the US occupation or aid the return of Saddam. Pachachi said "The Iraqi people, more than anyone else, wanted elections so that a legitimate government could be formed." But he wondered how this was possible in the absence of a constitution or election procedures. "Should we leave it to the Americans to draw up the constitution and prepare for the elections, or is it better to have a Governing Council?" Pachachi asked. He, also a member of the delegation who arrived in Abu Dhabi, added that the Arab League should shoulder some of the responsibility for the occupation in the first place, having failed to act on the suggestion of UAE. Matters were made worse for the IGC when Syria abstained in a 14-0 vote in the Security Council over a resolution that "welcomes the establishment of the broadly representative Governing Council of Iraq on 13 July, 2003, as an important step towards the formation by the people of Iraq of an internationally recognised representative government that will exercise the sovereignty of Iraq". Syria's UN envoy said his country's abstention was in line with the Arab League's refusal to recognise the interim authority. While the Follow-Up Committee's proposal was only a recommendation, the passage of the resolution has posed a dilemma for the Arab states when six Arab countries -- Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain welcomed the resolution, thus showing willingness to work with the IGC. The conflicting positions may lead to a fierce clash of wills between the Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo next month. Those Arab states which have so far insisted on not recognising the Council did so on the grounds that its members were unelected, but rather appointed by foreign authorities and with no legitimacy. Critics say this is an invalid, hypocritical argument, pointing out that democracy has never been a pressing concern of the Arab League. But a closer look reveals that the Arab world, especially its major powers, are truly concerned about the war's aftermath, now that the drama of the initial military conflict has ended. Some analysts have argued that there is deep fear among Arab leaders and intellectuals that the current tumultuous situation in Iraq will continue to deteriorate and might even lead to the country's disintegration, with destabilising repercussions throughout the region. As long as it is unclear how Iraq will come out from the American occupation, many Arabs will remain sceptical especially as the Bush administration continues advocating unsolicited political reform in the region in the wake of Saddam's fall. Slow progress in the US-backed Middle East peace process and what is perceived as Israel's procrastination to implement the roadmap is also a factor behind the lack of enthusiasm to support the Iraqi Governing Council, considered a proxy of Washington. Many Arab governments remain suspicious whether the administration is willing and ready to carry out its promises to help create a viable Palestinian state as pledged in the roadmap. Despite the fact that no Arab official has yet talked in public about a linkage between Iraq and progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the disparities in how seriously Washington is being seen as committed to its own roadmap could be key in understanding why some major Arab capitals still decline to recognise Iraq's Governing Council -- a move described by the Washington Post as "throwing down the gauntlet to the American occupation" of Iraq.
