Arab summit’s relevance

The government of Morocco has declined hosting the annual Arab summit due at the end of March in Rabat.

The situation in the Arab world and the challenges facing the Arab nation were cited by a Moroccan foreign ministry official as causes of concern that an Arab summit at this time may not come up with the required effective decisions that could deal with the many crises critically tearing Arab relations apart, and Morocco did not want the summit to be a mere ceremonial formality.

But that would not be something new. Arab summits have for many years been just that.

Deterioration of inter-Arab action has been fast accelerating since the beginning of this century. Actually since the Arab League decided that summits should be held annually in alternative Arab capitals in the month of March, regardless of what the situation at the time could be, to demonstrate Arab states’ seriousness in handling their common strategies and in addressing their common interests.

The regularity of the meetings, which has been largely respected, did not only have little substantial effect on the Arab political scene but, far worse, turned the annual gathering of Arab heads of state into a burdensome duty.

As a result, fewer heads of state started to attend, and when they did, they cut the time of their stay to the bare minimum.

The significance of such supposedly high-level Arab conferences has long faded in the eyes of the ordinary Arab citizen anywhere in the Arab world, rendering this legendary half-a-century institution a redundant fixture with a vacant core.

What can be said about the Arab summit applies equally to the Arab League.

Since its creation, in the mid-1940s, the league has survived serious Arab crises and blows.

If the league succeeded over turbulent times and constant crises to remain a seeming umbrella for determining the Arab identity of its member states, by no means a small achievement, it was hardly successful in resolving the many Arab disputes and political discords.

At best, the league, with its many specialised agencies handling, among other fields, education, health, security, trade and economic cooperation, managed to maintain a semblance of considerable viability.

Most importantly, it did succeed even in the most difficult times to bring Arab parties to discuss controversial issues even if agreement was often out of reach.

Like most regional and international organisations handling multilateral matters, the Arab League performance must not be assessed away from the hard realities that govern the relations among its members.

It will be very unrealistic to claim that at any time the Arab states had identical positions on most of the issues facing them collectively or individually. 

All along, there was more disagreement than agreement. Often, and despite the clear provisions of the Arab Defence Pact, Arab states went to war against each other; they still do.

Against such a hapless background, and while inter-Arab politics are passing through one of their most critical phases, it would be unrealistic to expect the upcoming summit to come up with any positive outcomes.

Mauritania, whose turn alphabetically comes after Morocco, has already agreed to host the early April summit.

It used to be a gratifying privilege for an Arab country to host a summit, but things are no more the same.

However, the fact that the Arab world is so badly confused and overwhelmingly fragmented is not a good reason not to meet and discuss.

The fear that the summit may not come up with positive results should not justify declining any opportunity for dialogue.

As a matter of fact, such meetings are even more required at times of disagreement and crisis than in normal times.

The ideal situation at this fateful moment in Arab history would be for all Arab heads of state to go to the summit. And rather than have their staff do the work for them as formal routine, they should sit around a conference table and talk to each other armed with adequate political will to rescue the Arab world and the Arab people from the terrible conditions their awful performance over the decades brought upon them.

The situation in the Arab region is far too dangerous for any amount of eloquence to describe.

It is quite painful to acknowledge that we in this region are now the “sick man of the world”; at the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was referred to as the “sick man of Europe”.

But if we do not acknowledge this fact, how can we explain the ongoing destructive Arab wars in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere; the perpetual instability over almost all the Arab region, the uncertainty, the vast destruction and wealth squandering on futile conflicts and aimless policies?

How can we explain to the rest of the world the exodus of millions of Arab citizens who risk their lives to cross deadly seas in search of safety in foreign lands, other than as damning evidence of the failure of the Arab order and the Arab state system?

Whether we like it or not, whether we have the courage to admit it or not, we are becoming a parody for the rest of the world.

In senseless, aimless, unjustified and absolutely unnecessary wars, hundreds of thousands of innocent people and others have perished, dozens of cities and villages were completely destroyed, societies were shattered, history was abolished, life in some places returned to the darkest past ages and millions of families were forced out of their homes into the unknown.

Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on these vain wars that may grind endlessly without any winners at the end, billions that could have turned the Arab world into the most prosperous, safe, stable, progressive, flourishing and blooming part of the world.

There is no excuse for the Arab leaders not to get together to debate their destiny, the destiny of their lands and their peoples.

There are solutions for all chronic problems. All that needs to be done is to look for them through sincere, responsible and willful determination.