Pundits held Syria responsible for the absence of many Arab leaders from the gathering in Damascus, writes Rasha Saad In "The summit of 'whoever attends'" Elias Harfoush wrote in the London-based daily Al-Hayat that in the opinion of the Syrian leadership, the mere holding of the summit was a victory in and of itself, a victory over the American efforts to abort it, as put by the Syrian foreign minister, Walid Al-Moallem. However, Harfoush argues, the thinking of the Syrian leadership, as expressed by its diplomatic minister, is based on the idea that Arab leaders who stay away from the summit, whom Syria labels as America's allies in the region, are the ones who wanted this absence to cause the summit's failure, to serve American objectives, but Damascus scored a victory against them and decided to convene the summit with "whoever attends". This is, simply, Harfoush explains, how Damascus interpreted the absence of leaders like King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak. With their absence, they are sending a message of protest against the Syrian approach to the region's crises. "The Syrian leadership failed to respond to Saudi and Egyptian efforts to help the summit succeed, particularly during the preparatory phase. And now, it has chosen to label the states who object to this approach as serving American objectives and interests, instead of attributing their efforts to a desire (by Riyadh, Cairo and other capitals) to set down sound bases for a summit that will help solve Arab crises instead of compounding them further." Facilitating the solution to the Lebanon issue, Harfoush contends, would have been ideal in this regard. It could have helped create opportunities for the success of the summit and it could have paved the way for the participation of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other countries. However, Harfoush concludes, it appears that the no-shows did not bother Damascus. Harfoush accuses Damascus of being concerned with ensuring that the American "virus", as Syrian newspapers have described it, remains far from the summit. "This, in their view, is the element of the summit's success. There is no importance given to those leaders who are absent and have no voice, since they have been already described as enemies of Arab interests, which are sponsored so competently by Damascus," Harfoush wrote. Mustafa Zein in Al-Hayat believes that Syria's allying with Iran puts at stake its relationship within the Arab world. Zein wrote that the precondition for Syria's return to the Arab family is clear: abandoning its alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This condition shall remain standing until after the summit, and might see other conditions added to it. Raghida Dergham also in Al-Hayat noted that the Saudi reaction to the summit marks a new phase in Saudi Arabia's regional role. According to Dergham, the decision to dispatch the Saudi ambassador to the summit heralds a totally different era away from the traditional Saudi role. The de facto issue at hand, argues Dergham, is no less than the challenge of instituting a new regional order that can confront the existing set-up by Syria and Iran. Consequently, the Saudi leadership has no other choice but to adopt a comprehensive and qualitatively creative strategy that takes into consideration divisions at the Gulf, Arab, European and American levels without exception. "A leading explicit Saudi role has now become inevitable, not only to fill the void, but also to mark a creative and bold departure from traditional patterns that previously chained Saudi Arabia's role in confronting crises," Dergham concludes. The summit, which was labelled "The separation summit" and "The summit of insults", was also the focus of Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed's article in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat. Al-Rashed said that even before the invitations were sent out, the summit turned into a crisis when Syrian Vice-President Farouk Al-Sharah openly warned the Arab countries that anyone who does not attend will regret it. "These are words that have never been uttered by a host in the history of conferences in the world." After the intimidation, Al-Rashed continues, the next step was the imposition of the topics. "In spite of the conviction of almost all the countries, Damascus issued a number of statements that said that Lebanon will not be the main topic. The tension in Lebanon requires that this issue be placed on top of the agenda for debate. After all, the Arab League secretary-general has been devoting all his time to resolve the crisis since the beginning of the year," Al-Rashed wrote. However, Al-Rashed adds, what is even stranger is the way the leaders were invited to the summit. "Do you know how the Syrian leadership extended its invitation to Saudi Arabia? The invitation was sent with the chairman of the Syrian Red Crescent Society in a glaring insult to the Saudis. Syria thus wanted to force Saudi Arabia into boycotting the summit. However, Saudi Arabia decided to send its ambassador at the Arab League in order to prevent an Arab division due to the summit of insults." Al-Rashed says Syria "does not believe in the concept of concessions which is the consistent norm in mending Arab relations, although it is the host. Over the past three difficult years, it has been imposing its opinion, stands, and alliances using all means at its disposal. Today, it wants the summit to be the picture of a Syrian victory more than a gathering for Arab reconciliation," Al-Rashed concludes. The Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh described the summit as being "below even the minimum level." The newspaper wrote that the summit neither succeeded nor failed as controversial issues remained the same and even the communiqué came to echo previous summits. "The Arab league needs to review the current situation in the Arab world, keeping in mind Arab national interests and disregarding the divisions and polarisation because the overall atmosphere gives the impression that Arab unity is at stake," Al-Riyadh wrote.
