On Dec. 10 and 11, Kuwait hosted the 34th summit of GCC heads of state. The occasion raised expectations about the Gulf Union, which was proposed two years ago by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah.

Observers may recall that on Dec. 19, 2011, during a GCC summit in Riyadh, King Abdullah called for the evolution of the GCC from its current “cooperation” phase to a “union” phase, in a “unified body that realizes the common good, does away with the bad, meets expectations of citizens of GCC states, and counters the challenges they face.”

The idea of a “Gulf Union” has been under active discussion in high-level meetings, such as the Kuwait summit, ever since. It has also been subject to frequent and thorough consultations between member states. Although the union has not formally materialized yet, much has been done to pave the way toward that goal.

And contrary to what has been mistakenly reported, there is in fact no disagreement on unity of the GCC member states as the ultimate goal of the organization, only profound and healthy debates on how to get there and at what pace.

After all, when the GCC was established in 1981, its charter explicitly stated that unity was its main objective. Article 4 of the charter clearly lists as the first goal, “achieving coordination, integration and connectivity between Member States in all fields, leading to their unity.”

Nearly all agreements and other major pronouncements issued by the GCC since its inception have restated that goal in one form or another. For example, when the GCC Economic Agreement was signed in 2001, it made clear that economic unification had become within reach. The words “unity,” “union” and “unification” were used in almost every page either as guiding principles or operational rules.

In GCC language, the word “unity” is the translation of a word in Arabic that means a close federation of states. On the other hand, a “union” refers to a looser grouping. The Gulf Union could be looked at as a step on the way to that eventual goal of unity, the attainment of which could take some time.

The statement issued at the conclusion of the 2011 summit recalled Article 4 of the Charter and reemphasized the goal of unity as stated therein, but was clear that what was under discussion was how to form an interim “union.”

As such there is no disagreement that “unity” is the ultimate goal, as in the 1981 Charter. A “union,” then, is a mere step on the way toward that goal.

To carry out the idea further, a high-level “Special Commission” was empaneled by the heads of state, composed of 18 members, three from each member state. It included former GCC general secretaries, ministers, parliamentarians, business representatives, and other former and current officials.

The commission concluded its work and submitted its final report in 2012, which was submitted to the GCC leaders. The report was then referred to a committee composed of the GCC Ministerial Council (the foreign ministers of the six states) and the commission’s chairman for further consultations.

By previous agreement, the ministerial council and the commission’s chairman are required to submit their final recommendations to the heads of state in a special summit to be held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to announce the union.

In addition to the commission’s report, a key subject of consultation is a draft charter of the union, which constitutes a legal translation of the commission’s recommendations. The draft includes the amendments required for the current GCC Charter to evolve into the union.

Although the full details of the draft charter and the commission’s report have not been made public, naturally, to maintain the integrity of current high-level discussions, the outlines of the proposed union can be described in general terms.

As in the GCC Charter, the proposed union emphasizes sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of member states. The union maintains all GCC goals, but adds more clarity and precision, informed by the 32-year-long experience of the GCC since 1981. It would tighten the operational workings of the organization, providing a consistent and transparent framework, professionally run with clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

Currently, the GCC is run by a small disparate staff coordinating the work of hundreds of committees. Those committees are populated with representatives from member states. There are scores of ministerial councils and committees, as well as hundreds of sub-ministerial and technical committees, working groups, task forces, specialized teams …etc. Nearly every issue is dealt with by several of those hierarchical bodies. Naturally, reaching a consensus in those chains takes a long time, as committees meet only once or twice a year, for a few hours at a time. What they cannot reach a consensus on gets postponed to subsequent meetings. It is not unusual to have the same issue discussed for years, sometimes decades, without reaching a common position. Not because there are genuine and discernible differences of opinion between member states, but because of the limited time and resources available for those committees to make an informed consensus.

Since the GCC was established in 1981, hundreds of committees, perhaps thousands, have come and go. Literally tens of thousands of meetings have been held in capitals, at the GCC headquarters in Riyadh and abroad. The results have not been always satisfying to citizens who are eager to see satisfying results in their lifetimes.

The proposed union would replace that cumbersome and endless committee-based system with a simpler one, based on permanent staff, overseen directly by permanent representatives of member states, all housed in the same place or places. Member states will remain directly in the driver’s seat through those permanent representatives. In addition, a high-level council of member states will maintain oversight of union structures.

To make sure that union decisions are uniformly and quickly implemented, a judicial commission will be established to ensure consistency of implementation of those decisions.

That is the union difference, in a nutshell.

Email: [email protected]