Summit squabbles

Will disagreements prevent Arab leaders from meeting to discuss the crisis that besets them all? Dina Ezzat reports
A political dispute between Beirut and the Libyan capital, Tripoli, over the disappearance of a Shi'ite cleric, is likely to hamper ongoing efforts for Arab reconciliation. The summit is scheduled to convene in Beirut in late March, according to a decision adopted by the first annual Arab summit that took place in Jordan last March. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- which comes after Jordan in Arabic alphabetical order -- conceded its turn to Lebanon after UAE President Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan said his health problems would prevent him from hosting a political event of this magnitude.
So far, Lebanon has taken all necessary measures to be ready to receive the 22 Arab heads of state on 25 March, the scheduled date. The Lebanese Parliament's influential speaker, Nabih Berri, however, upstaged these efforts late last month, when he called for the summit to be delayed. The situation was complicated further when figures of the Lebanese Shi'ite establishment publicly accused Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi of responsibility for kidnapping the prominent Shi'ite cleric Moussa Al-Sadr in 1978.
Tripoli's response has been a diplomatic initiative aimed at moving the summit from Beirut to the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. Libyan Foreign Minister Ali El- Triki said: "Security reasons would prevent many Arab leaders from going to Lebanon; the summit should take place in the Arab League headquarters in Cairo to allow for high-level participation." Libya subsequently submitted an official request to the Arab League to move the summit out of Beirut.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa replied by calling "those statements coming from certain political quarters in Lebanon... very negative," and added: "The Arab summit is a meeting for all Arab leaders with no exception whatsoever." Moussa expressed sympathy for Libyan anger, but suggested that all efforts should be exerted to contain this dispute "in the best interest of the cause of Arab solidarity and also in the best interest of Lebanon."
Yesterday, Moussa launched a round of visits that will take him to key Arab capitals in a bid to avert aggravation of the debate. Moussa's tour will take him to those key decision-making Arab capitals most embroiled in the dispute: Beirut, Tripoli, Riyadh, Amman -- current chair of the Arab summit -- and Damascus, which is said to have intervened already with the Lebanese Shi'ites to end their verbal attacks on Gaddafi.
The objective of the tour is to build on the intensive telephone diplomacy with other Arab capitals, including Cairo, that the secretary-general has conducted over the past few weeks in a bid to secure the convocation of the summit in Beirut without complications. Moussa's contacts seem to have been positive so far, with several Arab capitals criticising the attack on Gaddafi while supporting the convocation of the Arab summit as scheduled.
"The secretary-general is not taking sides. He made it explicit that he was offended by the remarks made against the head of an Arab state and has made this clear to the Lebanese government," one Arab League source commented, adding: "However, the secretary-general does not want the statements made by non-official figures to undermine the summit. It is imperative that it be held in the best of circumstances at a particularly critical time on both the regional and global level, when we need to focus on serious Arab issues."
Amongst the most important items on the Arab summit's agenda will be how to provide support to the Palestinian Authority, reintegrate Iraq into the Arab fold, encourage greater inter-Arab economic cooperation and speed up reform of the Arab League. It will be almost impossible to envisage the adoption of any serious resolutions on these matters if Arab leaders boycott the summit or it degenerates into further bickering over the fate of the disappeared Shi'ite imam.
So far, the Lebanese say, they are proceeding with preparations on schedule. "President Emile Lahoud is signing invitations to be sent out to all heads of Arab states, including Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who, after all, was not criticised by any government official," one Lebanese diplomat told Al-Ahram Weekly. The diplomat, who requested that his name be withheld, added: "Lebanon is a politically liberal Arab capital. All political quarters are always allowed to express their views as they want, but what the government should be held responsible for is what government officials say. And if some Arab capitals want to pass on the summit, as has been the case before, it is their sovereign decision; Beirut should not be held responsible for it."
For their part, the Libyans seem determined to boycott the summit should it be held in Beirut or, at the very least, to send a low-level delegation headed by the permanent Libyan representative to the Arab League. And, although they may acknowledge that Lebanese government officials were not involved in the personal attacks against Gaddafi, the Libyans insist that they will not moderate their stand unless the Lebanese government makes an official statement extending a particular welcome to the Libyan president. "The fact that neither the Lebanese president nor the prime minister have had anything to say to appease Libyan anger over the statements made against Libya's political leadership indicates that they either approve of what is being said or are not strong enough to oppose it. Either of those is a good enough reason for us to ask that the summit be taken out of Beirut," one Cairo-based Libyan diplomat told the Weekly.
The dispute over the venue of the summit has been criticised in the Arab press. Columnists and commentators are warning against a new inter-Arab dispute over trivialities at a time when the Arab world is facing serious regional and global threats.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor