The contrast between the Arab Summit in Doha and the G20 and NATO meetings in Europe could not have been more dispiriting, writes Assem El-Kersh Most perplexing and dismaying about the Arab summit in Doha was the fact that inter-Arab acrimony has not abated in the least. It is as though the summit had never been held. Surprise and consternation can only increase when we contemplate how Western countries handle their many differences. We were given a practical example of this in the recent series of summits that brought US President Barack Obama together with European leaders during his first transatlantic tour since taking office. It does not require proficiency in advanced maths to realise that all the consultations, mediations, meetings and behind-the-scenes contacts that took place before and during the Doha summit yielded -- as has been the case in many previous summits -- zero, regardless of whatever good will there may have been, and in spite of the challenges thrown up by the complex and precarious situation in the region. One cannot help but conclude it would have made no difference had the summit not been held. There was, of course, the usual sense of déjà vu : the same red carpets stretched beneath the feet of the same dignitaries and the same faces grinned into the camera, as though we had just conquered the enemy or won the world cup. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi indulged the same shenanigans in a performance intended to steal the spotlight, as he does at every summit. The charade produced the same ambiguously worded resolutions which made it crystal clear that, once again, the Arabs had agreed to disagree and were unanimous in their resolve to put off settling that most crucial predicament, how to deal with Israel. True, there was a warning that the Arab peace initiative will not be on the table indefinitely, but it was a warning without a deadline, almost certain to make the Israelis feel that the Arabs are infinitely patient. It was, in any case, overshadowed by mounting inter-Arab divisions and, worse, by the fact that "Arab reconciliation", the very motto of the summit, never happened, rewarding our adversaries with the opportunity for plenty of untroubled sleep. Egypt, absent from the summit, clung to its objections. Qatar refused to apologise. The last-minute meeting intended to contain the Saudi-Libya crisis could not sort out the mess created by years of folly. All of which provided a foretaste of the Arab approach to the many issues of concern afflicting our great Arab nation. When you compare the paltry results of the Arabs' most important annual meeting with those of Obama's first meetings with his European allies at the G20 summit, which met to discuss remedies for the global economic crisis, or at the NATO meeting -- NATO celebrated its 60th anniversary this year -- you cannot help but note the differences. In every aspect -- in terms of preparation and production, the subjects under discussion and the methods of dealing with them, the way quarrels between participants are contained -- they are as vast as the distance between heaven and earth, as stark as the difference between night and day. As important as it is to show respect to your guests, the reception accorded to the new president in his first appearance in the "Old World" did not prevent the airing of some strong objections to his plan for handling the financial crisis. Obama's idea of increasing public expenditure for this purpose was predictably supported by Britain and vehemently opposed by France and Germany, which are fearful of encumbering themselves in greater debt. The major European powers also resisted Obama's pressure to send more forces to Afghanistan to help resolve the war there, confining themselves to offering no more than token non-combatant training units, in spite of the "peril that threatens us all". They were equally firm but polite in their response to his appeal to admit Turkey to the EU. French president, and serving EU chair, Nicolas Sarkozy, told him, publicly: "We are with you side by side, but Turkey's admission or non-admission into the EU is a purely European concern," which translates, more or less, as "don't meddle". European objections were a reflection of the changing world and a natural reaction to years in which Washington had grown accustomed to ignoring the wishes of its closest allies and issuing orders with impunity. Obama himself acknowledged this when he stated in Strasbourg that there were times when Washington's approach had been arrogant, domineering and obstinate but he now hoped the two sides, the US and Europe, could abandon such negative attitudes. He did, however, take the opportunity to add that it is not only the US that has to change. Everyone knows that differences in politics are as natural as they are in love and business. Perhaps that was why Obama was not surprised that he did not obtain everything he had wanted from his European partners. What is certain is that the European refusals were not met with temper tantrums and fits of invective against European leaders and their ancestors on national television as is the wont of some of our officials when they encounter the first hint of opposition. The most that the head of state of the most powerful nation could do in such a situation was to respond in similarly polite tones and respectfully register his opinions. Thus, in the wake of the NATO summit he stated variously "this is not the ceiling we had hoped to reach," "the US will not shoulder the burden alone" and "all sides must make concessions, including the US." The Arabs have no monopoly over discord. The past and present of the West are filled with stories of wars of every sort and the historic rivalry between the British and French sometimes seems reminiscent of a Tom and Jerry cartoon. Yet even during the freeze that prevailed between Paris and Washington following former president Jacques Chirac's refusal to take part in the US invasion of Iraq the doors between the two sides remained ajar to allow an ongoing search for common ground even if some Americans, in a fit of chauvinism, took it upon themselves to seek revenge by replacing the French in French fries with freedom. You may well throw up your hands in despair at the realisation that the contradictions between countries and peoples separated by oceans, conflicting interests, diverse cultures and different languages are less than those dividing Arab countries which, as we have long since committed to heart, share a common language, culture, geography, history and fate. Yet whereas the former contradictions are somehow tractable ours immerse us in quarrels over petty details, pettier battles over vanities and endless maelstroms, as though being at each other's throats was an inherent Arab trait. The most important thing to learn from the controversy that follows every Arab summit is how best to keep such tensions from escalating into outright hostility and prevent differences from turning into vitriolic dictates, accusations of threats and plots. We need to stop linking every issue to personal feelings and fancies. We should also try to emulate the intelligent and rational way participants in Western summits handle their differences, however deep, without burning bridges or ruining the chances of reaching a compromise after tempers cool down. In fact, it would be useful to bear in mind the old Arab saying: "Don't spit in the well. You might have to drink from it later." In short, Obama's European tour furnished insight, to those willing to take heed, into why meetings in the West succeed and why our summits fail. It also showed that even if some issues defy solution for the time being there is nothing to prevent "managing" the problem in a way that keeps any rifts from widening. If future Arab summits do not prove constructive in containing differences then there is not a single justification for repeating the annual farce in which Arab leaders gather to have their pictures taken, shake hands and deliver glowing statements about concord, solidarity and a common fate when secretly they are resolved to pursue conflicting agendas.
