Next week, there is to be an emergency Arab summit in Egypt on the Iraqi crisis. It has not been easy to organize. At their meeting in Cairo on Saturday and Sunday, Arab Foreign ministers had some difficulty agreeing a date, but not as much difficulty as in hammering out a unified stand on the crisis.
There was a statement of sorts in favor of more time for Iraq’s peaceful disarmament and opposing any attack or the provision of assistance and facilities that could be used to threaten its safety and territorial integrity. But the statement was purely symbolic and has no binding force whatsoever on the 22 members of the Arab League. Moreover, Kuwait quit the discussions before the resolution could be put. The truth is that, like the EU, the Arab world is divided on the issue. Some states want to put the pressure on Washington to resolve the crisis; others want to put it on Baghdad. Thus a resolution that contradicts reality — for in hosting the growing US invasion force, three GCC states are doing precisely what the statement calls them not to do.
It is not the only contradiction. The GCC as a whole has already said that it will protect Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq; Oman has already sent forces to Kuwait. The logic of that is if there is a war and Iraq attacks Kuwait as it has threatened if it itself is attacked, then the GCC will be dragged in on the same side as the US whether it wants to be or not. That is every reason for preventing war in the first place, a war that could be the most momentous since the creation of Israel. This conflict could result in the very map of the region being redrawn. Never therefore has there been greater need for Arab unity. Never has there been greater need for unity of purpose and unity of action.
We all know that a date will be found for a summit and that it will take place. But what is the point of a summit if all it produces is nothing but the usual hot air? There have been too many of those summits in the past. Only last month there was the Istanbul summit of Iraqi front-line states; all it managed to do was echo the demand already heard everywhere else — that Iraq cooperate with the arms inspectors. Perhaps those involved did not consider it a waste of time, but many others did.
Next week’s Arab Summit needs to be one that will make a difference. If that cannot be done then it would be better if the meeting were shelved. What must not happen is yet another symbolic statement. It would be more than useless, it would be dangerous. It would demonstrate Arab disunity for all the world to see. Others, not just enemies like the Israelis, would exploit that to the full.
The summit must be a strong summit. The Arabs must demonstrate unity of purpose. Iraq is an Arab issue. They cannot afford to say that, like the Europeans, they are divided on the issue. The world ridiculed the Europeans when they failed to face up to the crises in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Arabs will face the same ridicule if they act with similar indecisiveness now.
They can make a difference. They can, for example, say that Saddam Hussein must go, as well as demanding that arms inspectors be given more time. It would certainly pile the pressure on Iraq for change. It is true that this would be interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, but that argument is meaningless now. The demand that Iraq disarm is also interference in its affairs but everyone, Arab governments included, is doing it.
