Usual outcome of Arab summit

It was no surprise to those concerned in the Arab world that the latest Arab summit, held in Kuwait recently, ended up without any noticeable accomplishment.

Neither, indeed, were the expectations of the Arab masses, heavily burdened by the impact of failed Arab states’ individual and collective performance in dealing with vital national issues.

The summit, which chose “solidarity for a better future” as its theme, did have a busy agenda, loaded with significant matters that needed urgent Arab action.

In addition to the permanent agenda item of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Kuwait summit was topped by the crisis in Syria, terrorism, economic cooperation, the security situation in Lebanon and Egypt’s political process. But the rushed work, which lacked both political will and vision, ended in total failure on almost all matters.

The irony is that the Arab states, members of the Arab League, meet to resolve problems that they themselves create. That is stunningly confusing.

The easier way, as a matter of fact the appropriate, normal, way, would be to never create inter-Arab conflicts or encourage them. And if that cannot be avoided, as seems to be the case, why pretend the intention to resolve them?

Being an Arab League member requires specific obligations, as clearly defined by the league’s charter. That has long been ignored.

The Arab Defence Pact, which requires Arab states to rally behind other league members when under any kind of foreign aggression or attack, has long been forgotten, too, with Arab countries not only abstaining from defending each other, but also contributing to aggression and participating in wars against other Arab League members.

We saw that happen against Iraq twice in 1991 and 2003. We saw that happen in Libya two years ago and in Syria now.

But apart from the declared belligerency, much more sinister work happens in the dark, away from the Arab people’s eye, as was the case when Israel attacked Lebanon in the summer of 2006, and Gaza in 2008-2009.

Many Arab countries either kept quiet while Israeli forces were wreaking havoc in Gaza and Lebanon, or blamed the victim for provoking the aggression; a clear signal of tacit approval to the Israelis.

The bitter reality is that the Arab states are divided on most issues relating to what would otherwise lead to orderly Arab relations, let alone “solidarity for a better future”, and that is by no means new. This has been the case since the Arab League was created just less than 70 years ago.

Never mind declared positions, official communiqués and formal statements that often reflect apparent agreement on specific political principles, and big talk about common aspirations, common interests and sought out unification. The depressing reality underneath is mostly different.

There are major disagreements on most important Arab political cases. Even on the question of Palestine, the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, there were deep Arab differences right from the beginning, and that remains the case.

Those Arab countries which are not directly involved in such political disagreements are either indifferent or disengaged, due mostly to their deeper involvement in their internal problems.

The Kuwait summit could not make any contribution towards the resolution of the raging war in Syria due to bitter inter-Arab divisions.

Some Arab countries want to throw all possible weight behind the opposition to enable them to win the war against the Assad regime, while others do not.

The Arab League has taken sides against the Damascus government while still in control right from the beginning, and that was incompatible with the provisions of the League’s Charter.

The question here is not who is right and who is wrong in Syria. That need years of investigations to determine. But that is not what is urgently needed.

What is, is an immediate ceasefire to stop the killing, the destruction, the suffering, the displacement and eventually the termination of the entire state structure in Syria in favour of eternal chaos.

That should be the first pressing step. An instant ceasefire is also needed, because this war cannot be settled militarily and may go on for years, until the two sides destroy each other and the whole country with them.

Does that serve the purpose of those who insist on arming the opposition and pouring oil on the fire? There is no question that the brutality of the Assad government against the Syrian people and the devastation caused so far should never be forgiven.

But it needs first to be stopped, and that requires that the regime’s excuse for continuing the killing be withdrawn, beginning with the removal of the foreign terrorists and the extremist jihadists from the scene.

If it were a fight between Assad’s brutal, oppressive, dictatorship and the Syrian people, everyone should wholeheartedly be on the side of the people against the regime, but the situation is not exactly like that anymore.

The only way out is a political solution, which needs to be preceded by an effective ceasefire that should clearly recognise the legitimate rights of the national opposition, without granting the foreign terrorists and the spreaders of horror and chaos any advantage. There is no doubt that the failure of the Geneva II conference was a major political setback, but that does not mean a return to the war-escalation option.

Efforts to reach a balanced political package should be renewed and supported by all parties, but how could that be possible while some Arab countries are so desperately determined to topple the regime come what may?

Arab divisions over Syria are sadly behind the latest crisis within the Gulf Cooperation Council; Kuwait’s sincere efforts to mediate do not seem to have done much, simply because it is linked to its Syrian roots, and it is clearly hard to address the symptoms away from the root causes.

Same Arab divisions are aggravating the already tense Arab relations with Iran, a major regional supporter of the Assad regime.

The Iranian-Arab hostility, very costly to both but to the Arab side in particular, could not, indeed should not, be allowed to last forever, let alone worsen so rapidly.

Iran is a major regional power with significant influence in parts of our region, currently Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

This unnecessary political discord has been causing accelerated multilateral damage between Iran and its Arab Gulf neighbours; it is also aggravating inter-Arab relations.

Iran should not be fighting in Syria, directly by supplying arms and money to the regime or indirectly via Hizbollah and Iraq. That is wrong. But it will also be wrong to respond in kind by arming the other side and prolonging the war indefinitely: two wrongs do not make right.

It is time that the Arab states reconsider the conditions that are taking the Arabs to the abyss of decline. That is a perfect recipe for even more disasters.

Arab assets are being squandered on futile wars and destructive, aimless, inter-Arab strife, rather than on education and development.

Should there not be an urgent call for mobilisation of Arab wisdom, or maybe sanity?