Dina Ezzat takes a closer look at the current state of the debate on the Arab League and its secretary-general 'It's all about political will' Has the fall of Baghdad contributed to the decline of the Arab League? The Arab League, its role and its future have often been discussed, however, with the recent failure of Arab leaders to stop the war against Iraq, and with the very active role that some Arab capitals have played in making this war possible, this debate has taken on a new significance. Diplomats, intellectuals, commentators and ordinary people alike have been assessing both the past and future of the Arab League. Some are of the opinion that the fall of Baghdad is the last straw for the league, which has been rendered useless due to the many divisions splitting Arab states. These include not only issues of war and peace but also trade and economic cooperation. One argument runs that the league was the creature of the founders of Pan- Arabism in the 1950s and early '60s. With the collapse of this ideology, illustrated by the heavy Arab involvement in Iraq's occupation by the US, it is pointless to stick to the ideals of Arab solidarity and unity. Furthermore, the failure of Arab countries to establish any form of economic cooperation is a clear sign that Arabs do not have many common interests. It is unrealistic to overlook the fact that some countries see that they have more interests with the US, or even Israel, than they do with their Arab neighbours. "Actually, some Arab countries provide Israel with intelligence information about other Arab countries. They also go to Washington to get US officials to adopt harsh stances against these countries," commented one Cairo-based Arab diplomat. Others, however, argue that now is precisely the time to stick to the Arab League. The rationale is that at a time when Arab states are being subjected to new and unprecedented challenges, such as the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq, all Arab countries should work towards overcoming their differences and seek refuge in Arab solidarity. They admit that pan-Arabism is not at issue, rather common Arab interests need to be pursued. They acknowledge that the romantic calls for Arab unity that were made in the 1950s are relics of a bygone era. However, they stress that no matter how much Arab countries disagree, they will need to work out their differences or end up as part of a regional order controlled by Israel. Thus, the answer to the current problem is not to close down the Arab League which, at the very least, "serves as a meeting place for all Arab governments", but to reform the organisation and make it more compatible with the realities of 2003 and the aspirations of 2050. Their argument stresses that the Arab League is not divorced from its member states, thus, the weakness of the league is simply a reflection of the weaknesses of its members. Actually, with only one or two exceptions, most Arab governments openly insist that the league must go on even if it does not meet the expectations of some. "We cannot blame the Arab League for the war against Iraq," Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said recently. According to Mubarak, it was beyond the league, just as it was beyond the UN, to stop the war in light of the US's determination to unseat Saddam. Mubarak suggested that reform is the sole way out of the league's present crisis. Mubarak's call has met with support from many Arabs who also argue that the fall of Baghdad should lead to the reform, rather than the dismantling, of the Arab League. Efforts to reform the Arab League have been pursued recently by Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. Upon his appointment in May 2001, Moussa initiated an ambitious programme of reform, upgrading the league's structure, regional and international political status. However, "Moussa was not given enough support from all Arab states for his reform plan since some are not interested in the Arab League," commented one source. Moussa himself says that his efforts to reform the league over the past two years have not been as conclusive as he had wished when he originally took the job. "More could have been done," he said. Moussa attributes this slow pace of reform to reluctance rather than disinterest and he added that recent calls for reform by a number of "keen Arab leaders" should help in making reform a priority. According to Arab League sources, a number of proposals have been forwarded to the secretariat of the Arab League over the past couple of years. These proposals are now subject of a detailed study. "Reforming the Arab League is a key issue on the agenda now," commented one source. A proposal to reform the Arab League was supposed to have been presented at the last Arab summit convened in Sharm El-Sheikh by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. However, in view of the tense atmosphere due to the Iraq crisis, Abdullah decided it was best to wait until the next summit. The Saudi proposal entitled, "A new Arab charter" is perhaps the most realistic of all the proposals forwarded so far. At the heart of the Saudi initiative is a call to agree on common guidelines for Arab foreign policy and Arab relations to stop disputes from causing rifts. This means that all Arab countries will admit once and for all that they subscribe to a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that they will never resort to violence to settle common disputes and will work towards building joint defence capabilities. The Saudi initiative also addresses key concerns related to Arab economic cooperation and the need for reform of national governments. The assertion is that closer cooperation should be pursued collectively and reform should be pursued by all Arab governments. The Libyan initiative for reform is perhaps the most daring. Presented by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, the initiative calls for the establishment of an "Arab Union" to bring all member states together via a common foreign and economic policy, without any encroachment on the independence of each Arab government. Other proposals were presented by both Qatar and Sudan. Both initiatives insist that reform is, above all, a political decision. The Qataris argue that the reform of the league will require all Arab states to be more committed to regular payment of their dues and to the provision of qualified human resources. The Sudanese initiative calls for a serious commitment to all existing Arab agreements. "This is what it is all about: political will," commented one Arab League source. He added, "If Arab countries have the will they can have a decent organisation, but if they do not we will continue to have the current situation of an organisation that allows for meetings to take place and for decisions to be made, but for nothing to happen afterwards." For many Arab diplomats, the developments in Iraq strongly illustrate the lack of Arab political will. Some 12 Arab countries who on 1 March declared their rejection to any war plans and vowed to take no part in a war against Iraq ended up providing the very facilities that made this war possible. The secretariat of the Arab League is expecting more proposals for reform to be forwarded over the coming weeks. If an Arab summit takes place earlier than the regular summit, scheduled for March 2004, these reform proposals will be debated. Otherwise, Arab foreign ministers will initiate consultations in anticipation of the next summit.
