The state of inter-Arab relations, specifically the absence of credible and effective leadership during regional crises, reminds me of a trip I took a few years ago from Kano, Nigeria to Nairobi, Kenya. The only connection was through Amsterdam.
This week, the same circuitous routing was required to end a standoff between a small Arab state and its overbearing neighbor.
Since early July, Syria has effectively blockaded Lebanon. Hapless fishermen who drifted into Syrian territorial waters were summarily jailed. Hundreds of Lebanese trucks, many with fruits and vegetables bound for the Gulf, lined the road to the border. “Sisterly” relations plummeted; gun battles erupted between police and smugglers; and ordinary Syrians and Lebanese paid the price — from violence and lost livelihoods.
Damascus’ timing was impeccable and the message unmistakable. The blockade began as prolonged political infighting in Beirut delayed the formation of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora’s government. Syria would likely have preferred the return of outgoing PM Naguib Mikati, a more centrist figure. Unable to micromanage Lebanese affairs as it had for 30 years, Damascus resorted to tactics that bear uncanny resemblance to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians — using security as a pretext for choking a population into submission.
The crisis did not pass unnoticed in foreign capitals. Washington pounced (and undoubtedly Pentagon officials fumed that Damascus wasn’t nearly as ruthless at the Iraqi border). Mid-week, European officials met to discuss the issue. Condoleezza Rice paid a surprise visit to Beirut, not Damascus, yesterday.
Lebanese independence, the country’s tottering economy and democracy were once again the focus of Western capitals. The attention paid off. On Thursday, according to some media reports, Syria relaxed its vice grip enough to permit 65 trucks to pass and free the fishermen.
The most lamentable aspect of this installment of Syrian-Lebanese conflict resolution was the absence of concerted Arab leadership.
Of course, Amr Moussa was on hand to shuttle between the bickering capitals. His remarks, calling for a “political détente” and “a positive attitude by both sides” were eerily reminiscent of Clinton-era peace process language when Palestinians and Israelis were positioned as equals when in fact the disparity in their positions — the stateless versus the state — made a mockery of such rhetoric.
The same can be said of Arab League secretary-general’s cautious diction.
Had the victims been Palestinians, and the perpetrators Israelis, strong denunciations and calls for UN action would have followed. Not so with Syrian-Lebanese relations. Yet, unlike genocide in Sudan, Lebanese sovereignty is not a murky internal problem but a clearly defined dispute between two nations. At the very least, Damascus has violated free trade provisions of the Arab League Charter.
Is it too much to expect the organization to defend its own institutions, if not those of a weak member state?
An answer must be found as those currently filling the leadership deficit, from jihadists to neoconservatives, are operating with their own self- or national interests in mind, not the region’s.
The vacuum is not a new phenomenon. The consequences are the “gathering storm”: An unwanted war in Iraq and now a possible civil war, bombings in London, a sea of disaffected Muslim youth, and the roiling Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arab League is no panacea for regional ills. Yet a more effective organization, transformed as the League of Nations was after World War II, would staunch the tide of helplessness and demonstrate that Arabs will take steps to control their own destiny. Edward Said repeatedly pointed out the “waiting for Godot” affliction that has beset the region since 1948: Assigning external actors critical decision-making, from peace to reform. Addressing the leadership crisis is a first step. The second is equally important. To be credible, a more resolute Arab League must take action against its own.
For over 50 years, the Israeli-Arab dilemma has taken center stage. The bad practices of Arab states were largely ignored. Neoconservatives thrive telling chillingly accurate stories of Arab-on-Arab abuses, and the Arab League’s feckless response. The conflict with Israel was the pretense under which Syria was allowed to dominate Lebanon. Many Lebanese are understandably bitter about that bargain.
It’s time for the Arab League to live up to the same code of conduct and ethics that it rightly claims Israel violates. Perhaps all 22 members will be hard pressed to “walk the talk”. In that case, downsizing the club may be just the right remedy.
— Maggie Mitchel Salem is a public affairs and media consultant in Washington.
