Libya’s reported decision to quit the Arab League is not new. Ever since the 1990s, when Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi bitterly attacked it because it would not break UN sanctions imposed on his country following the Lockerbie bombing, there has been a stream of anti-Arab rhetoric flowing from Tripoli. The Arab world has been accused of not supporting the Palestinians, of not standing up to the Israelis and the Americans. Last March, Qaddafi threatened to quit because the Saudi Mideast peace initiative was not to his liking, even though it had the backing of everyone else; only the last-minute intervention of the League’s Secretary-General Amr Moussa, who flew to Tripoli to reason with the Libyan leader, averted the walkout. The Libyans said they would put the matter on hold. But it has not been on hold very long: just six weeks ago, Qaddafi was again musing aloud about leaving, this time accusing the League of "cowardice" in confronting Israel and the United States. Now he accuses it of inefficiency in dealing with the crises over Iraq and the Palestinians.
There is no denying that divisions have done great damage the Arab cause and to the Palestinians in particular, and that unity of purpose is a prerequisite if the Arab voice is to be effective. But Libya has itself contributed in no small way to those divisions. Nonetheless, if Qaddafi has a point about Arab weaknesses, he takes it to extremes. His present position is that Libya must turn its back on the Arab world and develop its Africa side.
Libya pulling out of the Arab League is not going to make it more, or less, effective in dealing with political issues. In any event, the League is about much more than the Palestinians or politics; it is about a pan-Arab vision. It is as much social, economic and cultural as it is political. It is all very fine for Libya to look at its African links, but it cannot be at the expense of its Arabness. Libya is an Arab country. That is its culture, its identity, its past, present and future.
Conversely, what are the grounds for embracing Africa and demanding a single Africa state? What is Africa’s culture? Is it Swahili or Amharic or Hausa or Zulu? Arabs may be divided politically but they know they are united as a nation. Africa is not a nation, it is a continent — a richly diverse continent, but simply being part of the same megalandmass is no automatic basis for political fusion. In any event, the new African Union, like the old OAU, has already proved itself just as incapable of resolving political crises as the Arab League: the latest conflict, in Ivory Coast, is testimony to that; it is not the AU that prevents it spreading, it is French troops.
On occasions, every Arab government has been exasperated with the others in the League, but it has never been a reason to walk out. The Europeans squabble incessantly about almost everything; the EU itself failed lamentably to act on Bosnia and Kosovo until propelled by the US. But none of them thinks of upping and leaving. Quitting the League will not diminish it or the Arab world; it is Libya that will be diminished — and it is a move that will not be popular with the Libyan people. Hopefully Amr Moussa, who is much respected in Tripoli, will persuade Qaddafi to reconsider.
