While opinions differ on where to take joint Arab action and the development of the Arab League, greater coordination is agreed upon by all Arab capitals, writes Abdel-Moneim Said The first article of the Egyptian constitution states, "Egypt is part of the Arab nation and works towards the realisation of its unity." Egypt's foremost instrument of law not only defines national identity, it sets a political objective and moral duty. While the principle poses no great problem in theory (Egypt is an Arabic speaking country situated, like it or not, in an Arab region and with a long history of interacting with other Arab political entities), putting it into practice has been a wearisome business. If the principle has engendered an entire body of Egyptian Arab nationalist literature expounding upon the geographical and historical imperatives of Arab unity and Arab national security as a prime facet of Egyptian national security, application has betrayed some painful facts. In the greater historical picture, such concepts have sometimes clashed with the Mediterranean orientation of Egyptian identity. From this perspective, Egypt is, in part at least, an extension of Western civilisation that evolved initially in the Mediterranean basin through the interaction between the ancient Egyptian civilisation and the subsequent Hellenic and Roman civilisations. Nevertheless, as World War II neared its end, Egypt linked its fate with that of the Arab world. This resolve was formalised in the establishment of the Arab League in Cairo on 22 March 1945, which is to say long before anyone had even thought of creating a European Union. When the first Arab summit was held in Anshas, on 28 May 1946, the fledging organisation ran straight into a field of obstacles having to do with matters of sovereignty. Many winds have swept across Arabian deserts since that distant day. They brought stormy crises and momentous challenges, occasioning 35 summits of the ordinary, extraordinary and emergency brands. Most frequently questions connected to Arab relations with neighbouring countries topped the agenda, with the Arab conflict with Israel almost always serving as much to propel unity as it did to sew dissension. At the same time Arab nationalism was not without ideological rivals. To Islamist groups, religion was superior to Arab identity as a foundation for political bonds. There were even some who linked the two, seeing in the Sunni caliphate the font and essence of Arabism. Naturally, the notion immediately alienated non-Muslim Arabs as well as Shia Muslims. Moreover, today, a decade into the 21st century, the Arab world appears to have lost two key countries for which Arabism was a constituent ingredient. One is Iraq, which had to relinquish Arab nationalist thought in order to survive as a unified geographic entity. The other is Sudan, which has so far failed to persuade the people of the south that the country's Arab identity is not an obstacle to unity, and which is now on the verge of partition. In all events, six and a half decades since its creation, the Arab League remains the only concrete manifestation a political bond of some sort that links the Arab states and that makes them congregate beneath the same roof as though they were members of the same household. Moreover, in spite of all the upheavals that have shaken the Arab regional order, the Arab League has not only weathered the storms, it has continued to develop and expand its activities. So the question today is not whether the League is a good idea, but what can be done structurally and otherwise to make it more effective. In fact, there have been many calls for reform, which is not surprising given that the Arab League Charter has never been amended, apart from the addition of two annexes, the first being the Arab Joint Defence Pact, signed in 1950, and the second being the protocol, adopted in 2000, regularising the annual convention of the Arab League summit. But the Arab summit meeting that was held in Sirte from 8-10 October was not one of the periodic meetings. It was an extraordinary summit, arranged to coincide with the second Afro-Arab summit that was also hosted in Sirte and that was attended by representatives from 60 Arab and African nations with the purpose of discussing the various political, economic, developmental and cultural aspects of the Afro-Arab strategic partnership project. The Arab summit participants, meanwhile, discussed two main points: the project for restructuring the Arab League and its subsidiary agencies (the proposed project submitted by the five-party committee consisting of Egypt, Libya, which is chairing the current summit, Qatar, the previous summit chair, Iraq, which will chair the next summit, and Yemen, the author of the proposed Federation of Arab States); and the memorandum submitted by the Arab League secretary- general to the summit that was held in Sirte in March calling for the creation of a league between Arab nations and countries on the periphery of the Arab world in Asia, Africa and Europe. The first point follows through on the summit that the abovementioned five committee members held in Tripoli in June and that adopted 17 recommendations, incorporating proposals and initiatives submitted by 16 Arab countries, for developing the system of joint Arab action. One recommendation calls for holding Arab summits twice a year, once as a normal summit and another time as a consultative summit to be convened in the Arab League headquarters in Egypt. Another calls for convening special focus summits devoted to specific areas of common economic, social or cultural concern, such educational development or promoting scientific research. Among the other recommendations were the proposed establishment of an executive council, made up of the heads of Arab states, to oversee the implementation of Arab summit resolutions concerning developmental issues and to supervise the activities of the League's subsidiary specialised organisations and ministerial councils; the creation of a council of ministers of economy and trade; the creation of similar ministerial councils, such as a council of ministers of finance and investment; stepping up the procedures needed to draft the statutes for a permanent Arab parliament; and a review by Arab ministers of the statutes of the Arab Court of Justice. The Tripoli summit further encouraged the Arab League's general secretariat to prioritise those activities that will best enhance the efficacy of Arab League organisations and ministerial councils and promote coordination between them, thereby training energies on those programmes that best serve the interests of the Arab people. The recent Arab summit also followed through on recommendations from the previous summit, in March. Particular focus was given to the question of reconstituting the Arab Peace and Security Council with an eye to improving its efficacy, increasing its membership in a manner that observes geostrategic balances, expanding its competencies, instituting the mechanisms described in the council's statutes, and the preparation of detachments from the armies of Arab states to participate in Arab peacekeeping operations. Summit participants also discussed the question of incorporating the commissioner system into the Arab League. According to the proposal, the secretary-general would serve as chief commissioner and he would be assisted by a team of commissioners, each of whom would supervise a specific sector of activity, such as foreign affairs, defence and security, economy and trade, financial and economic services, energy, agriculture, water, environment, social affairs, education, scientific research, culture, media, legal affairs and civil society affairs. Another item on the Sirte agenda was the establishment of an Arab steering agency for the coordination of emergency humanitarian aid and relief operations in response to natural disasters, humanitarian crises and warfare, as called for by Arab League Resolution 319 adopted on 23 March 2005. It was further stressed in Sirte that all measures aimed at developing the system of joint Arab action and the attendant financial allocations should be scheduled in accordance with five-year plans. Note that all these objectives are very ambitious given the well-known pace of Arab action. One also observes quite a gap between them and realities on the ground in the Arab world, both at the conceptual level and at the level of the actual policies of Arab states. Bearing these factors in mind, I would suggest that there are two perspectives on the question of promoting joint Arab action. The first is the radical approach, calling for rapid and sweeping change. Its most recent manifestation is the proposal to create an Arab Union to replace the existing Arab League. According to the Libyan declaration in this regard, the Arab Union would be a fully competent international entity founded upon the principles of equality and integration between its members and established on the basis of a new charter within a set timeframe. The proposal was co-sponsored by Yemen. The second approach espouses the gradual reform of the Arab League and deferring consideration of the creation of a union until after reforms have been implemented and assessed. Egypt champions this approach, which would sustain the Arab League as the "engine of joint Arab action". During the five-party summit in Tripoli in June, President Mubarak urged keeping the name, Arab League, but with the possible addition of "Federation" so as to make the Arab League Federation. Naturally, the realist school in Arab political thought believes it would be difficult to transform the league into a union. The culture of national independence and sovereignty has eclipsed the culture of pan-Arab union and the supremacy of Arab nationalist interests. But this does not refute the need to reform the Arab League, the general awareness of which is reflected in the fact that, in 2003 alone, the League's secretariat received seven proposals towards this end from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar, Sudan and Libya. In response, the secretary-general created a task force to study the various initiatives and to create a database containing the various documents, suggestions and measures pertaining to the development of the League since its inception. Most of the proposals focussed on amendments to the League's charter, or adding new supplements. Only the Libyan and Yemeni proposals advocated the creation of a new system to replace the Arab League. None of these initiatives has yielded any substantial change in the pace and patterns of collective Arab action, which seems to substantiate the fact that the question of inter-Arab cooperation and integration has little to do with the name, be it "Arab League" or "Arab Union", and much to do with attitude and, specifically, the extent to which the Arab League's member nations are resolved to change policies and forms of behaviour that have persisted for many decades. On Amr Moussa's proposal to form an association between Arab League states and countries on the periphery, it is probably inspired by such EU experiences as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. Certainly one can perceive the strategic necessities of such arrangements, particularly in light of the mounting regional involvement and influence of Turkey and Iran. Unfortunately, however, regardless of the justifications for such an arrangement, the proposal comes at a time when inter-Arab relations are not at their healthiest state. One can also foresee the response of a country such as Iran. It would do its utmost to overtax the Arab order, and rather than helping to redress strategic balances with Israel it would work to skew them further. Particularly because of such prospects, the Arabs should concentrate on setting their own house in order first. After all, the crisis in collective Arab action is not the result of any shortage in available statutes or proposals for reform, but of the lack of resolve in implementing even so much as their unanimously adopted resolutions. At any rate, the objectives of the secretary-general's proposal can be pursued by developing already existing frameworks for regional and international cooperation, such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. Indeed, this leads us to the argument that some have already propounded to the effect that the substance of the Arab League secretary-general's initiative needs to be detached from the context of conflict and even regional power rivalries. Rather, the focus should remained trained on the aim of the association he proposes, which is to strengthen relations between the Arab world and its neighbours in a manner that serves the interests of both parties. Therefore, the Arabs should try to think outside the conventional box into which they fit such proposals and extend their sights to what has been termed the "new regionalism" as exemplified by such successful models as ASEAN and Mercosur. In fact, Amr Moussa himself said as much when he observed that recent partnership proposals are an attempt to revive understandings between the Arab League and decision-making capitals in the world, and an addition to the cooperation that exists between the Arab League and transnational regional organisations. This perspective is supported by a number of encouraging instances in which the Arab League interacted as a regional bloc with other parties. For example, the Arab-India Cooperation Forum succeeded in increasing the volume of trade between the Arab world and India from $40 billion in 2004 to $110 billion in 2009. Similarly, the Arab- China Cooperation Forum succeeded in increasing the volume of trade between the two parties from $36.4 billion in 2004 to $107.4 in 2009. Another fledgling example is the Arab-Japan Economic Forum, which was hosted in Tokyo on 6 December 2009. Meeting beneath the banner, "A new chapter in mutual prosperity," the forum featured a landmark agreement, signed by the Arab League secretary-general and the Japanese ministers of foreign affairs and economy and trade, for developing and strengthening Japan's economic relations with Arab states. Also, in December 2009, the Arab League and Russia kicked off a cooperation forum to stimulate yet another partnership. Meanwhile, the Arab- Turkey Cooperation Forum has progressed in leaps and bounds, inspiring Turkish Minister of Finance Mehmet Simsek to announce that as a result of the free trade agreements between Ankara and Arab countries the volume of trade between Turkey and the Arab world in 2009 was five times greater than in 2002. Moreover, when Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu inaugurated the fifth session of the Arab-Turkey Forum in June, he expressed his country's determination to promote economic relations with the Arab world. "We want the car to leave Turkey and reach Morocco." In all events, the give-and-take between diverse opinions is not only legitimate but also essential when considering the backdrop to the recent Arab summit in Sirte. Moreover, this principle extends to the Arab-African summit held in the same city and that represented a practical application of policy of developing relations between the Arab world and its neighbours. The results of these summits are indicative of the current position of the Arab pendulum as it swings between different poles of thought in its ongoing search for a midway point.
