Arab countries seem supportive of the Arab League. But are they committed to reforming it, asks Dina Ezzat In the wake of harsh criticism of the Arab League, the organisation's Secretary-General Amr Moussa is touring Arab states to discuss the future of the 55-year-old organisation. Moussa is visiting Arab capitals in order to gauge the views of Arab leaders on ways to boost reforms in the league amidst a highly turbulent political atmosphere. Today, Moussa is scheduled to fly to Yemen to meet with President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Moussa has already consulted with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya, all of whom have proposed working papers for the reform of the organisation. Moussa is also in touch with Cairo, which is planning to propose its own ideas on how to improve the organisation towards the end of this month. The secretary-general has been in touch with Bahrain's leader, King Hamad Bin Issa, the current chair of the Arab summit, and Tunisian President Habib Bin Yehiya, the next chair of the Arab summit. The leaders of Algeria, Jordan and Syria have also met with the secretary-general to discuss the future of the organisation. "There has been much talk about the need to reform the Arab League. This talk was actually initiated by Moussa himself when he was assigned the job of secretary-general a couple of years ago. The question now is not about the need to reform but the will to reform," said an Arab League source who has been touring Arab capitals with Moussa. He added that "what Moussa wanted to hear from Arab leaders was what they have in mind, in very specific terms, concerning the future of Arab relations and the league". During his meetings with Arab leaders and foreign ministers, sources say Moussa encountered strong feelings regarding the need to defend the league against any calls for its dismantling. He was also supported for his personal efforts on this front. However, as sources suggest, while support for the league was forthcoming, commitment on how to reform it was not particularly concrete. "Leaders of Arab countries share Moussa's concern over the current state of affairs in the Arab world, but the question today is whether or not they are willing to show enthusiasm for its reform," said one source. "For now, support is very useful, especially given that it comes at a time when some people in certain Arab capitals have begun to question the role of the Arab League and the benefits of establishing an alternative organisation." Indeed, a few days after top Libyan officials expressed support for Moussa, Tripoli reiterated its intentions to pull out of the Arab League. Libyan sources said that their country has started to freeze its dealings with Arab League institutions. "We appreciate the efforts of Secretary-General Moussa, but Moussa's efforts and enthusiasm will not do much in the absence of a real will on the part of Arab countries to cooperate with one another," said one Libyan source. He added that ideas proposed by his country since 2001 to reform the league have not received due attention from Arab governments. This week, Libya did not attend several Arab League meetings. "The vast majority of Arab countries are keen about the Arab organisation and they are going to work to maintain it in the face of any attempts to dissolve it in favour of alternative non-Arab organisations," said the secretary-general, who had earlier voiced serious pessimism . According to Hicham Youssef, the official spokesperson for the Arab League secretary- general, a ministerial meeting for the Summit Follow-Up Committee will take place in the coming weeks in order to discuss ways to bolster Arab cooperation. The debate over the viability and validity of the Arab League is not new. In the early 1990s, when prospects for Arab-Israeli peace were high, some suggested the need to dissolve the institution in order to establish a Middle East organisation encompassing Arab states and Israel. Recent Arab disputes about the war against Iraq have driven some to suggest that divisions in the Arab world are too great to bridge and that it would be better to dismantle the league. Others have argued the opposite, insisting that given the current situation in the region, unity among the 22 Arab countries is more crucial than ever. Related to this are recent debates over American plans to establish a free trade area with the Middle East within a decade. The fact that these statements followed the American occupation of Iraq, threats against Syria and the push for further Palestinian concessions to reach a peace agreement with Israel indicated that time may be running out for the Arab League. "This call for Middle Easternism versus Arabism is not new and we know its objectives," commented Noureddin Hashad, deputy secretary-general of the Arab League. Expressions of scepticism about American intentions, however, do not negate the schisms within the Arab world and their impact on the Arab organisation. "What we have now are 22 countries that have very little in common other than their language," said one Arab League source. "Take the concept of national security, for example. Some Arab countries find the US military presence a threat to national security. Others believe that it is essential for their national security," he added. Among other things, there are disputes within the Arab world on how best to reform the Arab League. Some governments, particularly in the Gulf, argue that reform requires a new charter that accommodates the increasing differences among Arab countries. Others, including Libya and Syria, maintain the need for a new charter that demands all Arab states to maintain common policies. However, with one or two exceptions, most Arab countries hope that the league will survive. The Arab League, some Arab diplomats argue, is an umbrella under which Arab countries can garner international support for political and economic policies and deal with regional threats. Maintaining this umbrella, Arab League sources contend, requires commitment. If this commitment is already lacking, it might not be long before Arabs start to witness the end of an organisation that was established to protect their collective rights and promote common interests.
