Saudi Arabia went to the Sharm El-Sheikh summit against its better judgment. It had suggested shelving the meeting because it believed that there would be no consensus on Iraq and that this would expose Arab disunity — exactly what happened.
But maybe something can be salvaged from this debacle. For too long the myth that 22 Arab governments could speak with one voice and with one will has wasted Arab energies, time and emotions. It is an albatross round Arab necks. Perhaps at long last, Arabs can accept that the search for consensus from Mauritania to Kuwait on anything other than vague generalities has always been, and will always be, an impossible task. The graver the crisis, the more elusive consensus has been — and the crisis now facing the Arab world is arguably its most serious since the creation of the state of Israel. Once again the very map of the region is at risk.
Let the cause of Arab unity remain a goal, but it must not become a mechanism for inaction by insisting on consensus. That is a recipe for permanent irrelevance. If a small group of Arab governments come up with a practical response to a regional problem then the fact that other Arab governments oppose it, while regrettable, should be no reason for its not being pursued.
Such was the UAE’s suggestion that Saddam Hussein and his regime go into exile and the Arab League temporarily take over in Baghdad. At least here was an offering that moved the crisis away from the present UN impasse between continuing arms inspections and a US-led invasion. Moreover, it addresses the problem of what to do with the Baghdad regime, while providing an alternative to Washington’s plan to replace him with a US military governor — a plan that is both an affront to the entire Arab world and one sure to provoke angry anti-American demonstrations across the region, not least in Iraq itself.
To say, as some governments and newspapers have, that the UAE plan is an unwarranted interference in Iraq’s internal affairs and that only the Iraqi people can decide such things is amoral. Everyone knows that the Iraqis are in no position to get rid of Saddam Hussein. To say that it is up to them therefore is to condemn them to perpetual misery while washing one’s hands of the problem. It is gross irresponsibility. In any event, there can be circumstances where international laws can be broken. No government at the time, or since, has said that Vietnam was wrong to invade Cambodia and remove the vile Pol Pot regime or that Tanzania should not have removed Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda. Neither had the approval of the UN. But they were acceptable regional responses to the existence of criminal regimes.
Iraq has put itself into the international dock because of its conduct. Arab states have every right to make decisions about it because of what it has done. Indeed, they have a responsibility to do so. Arab governments have already half accepted responsibility by saying the US and the UK must not intervene because it is an Arab state. But it is far from enough.
The UAE has said that in rejecting its proposal, Arab states have shown they are not interested in finding an alternative to war. Who can disagree? Arab unity has become a charade, and will remain a charade until Arab governments face up to their collective regional responsibilities.
