Substantial progress at Arab summits is rare. Habitual divisions have marked previous gatherings and have been usually papered over by a convenient consensus on generalities. But when half the leaders of the Damascus summit do not show up, the chances of reaching any sort of breakthrough considerably lessens, and the odds are further shortened when one of the principal parties of the very dispute which has kept so many leaders away, in this case Lebanon, boycotts altogether.

The nonparticipation of so many Arab leaders in Damascus is the culmination of a growing sense of frustration with Syria’s leadership, mostly over its role in Lebanon, its declared support for Hamas in its battle for Palestinian minds and hearts with Fatah, and not to mention its all but declared alliance with Iran.

The Arab countries who have chosen to send only token representation at the summit, notably the Kingdom and Egypt, have made clear their dissatisfaction with Syria and the fact that a solution on the issue including the election of army chief Michel Suleiman as the new president, a choice approved by both sides and decided unanimously by the Arab League, including by Syria is not being carried out. Thus the call by Prince Saud Al-Faisal for measures to be taken against member states that breach a common resolution.

However, the Syrian promise at the summit to cooperate in ending the political crisis in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia saying it saw Damascus as part of the solution is conciliatory language, which eased the tension. When it comes to Lebanon, all Arab capitals, including Damascus, are supportive of the choice of Suleiman for president, but are at odds at the rest of the deal.

Syria must acknowledge the concerns of other Arab countries over the continuation of divisions in Lebanon, and their impact on regional stability. It is equally important for other Arab countries to accept that the influence of Syria, ultimately, has a ceiling and that Damascus is not the only player in Lebanon. Nor is Syria and Lebanon the only problem in the region. There is no shortage of crises in this part of the world: Palestinians against Israel, Palestinians against Palestinians, Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, and Arab economic cooperation in a globalized world.

But with the summit becoming little more than an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with Syria, little of use has come out of the summit concerning these hot spots. Summits are not just photo-ops. They are meant to settle disputes. No Arab leader can deny the problems the region is facing; it is what route they take to the solutions that make all the difference.

Lebanon, as so often in past, finds itself the battleground for wider regional and global disputes but it must remain the exclusive concern of the Lebanese people and until they develop a strong enough consensus on that, to the exclusion of all external powers, the people of Lebanon will continue to suffer. And the Arab world will remain that much more divided.