May 24, 2004
By BARRY RUBIN

The long-awaited Arab League summit in Tunis may not have produced anything of substance, but it is a marvelous index on the current state of Arab politics.

The attempt to hold a summit in late March collapsed when the governments could not even organize the meeting. This time, the leaders of eight of the 22 member states failed to come at all and a ninth, Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, walked out of the opening session, criticizing the summit as meaningless, while Jordan's King Abdullah II didn't stay for the whole meeting.

In short, the Arab League summit is the greatest proof of the lack of Arab unity or cooperation and the inability of Arab states to do anything effective.

After all, the Arab world faces myriad massive problems, including dictatorships, economic stagnation, low living standards, and high population growth, conflicts with Israel, crisis in Iraq, and terrorism. The summit did not deal seriously with any of these issues.

What was most significant, however, was that the meeting did not simply take the usual course of agreeing to blame the US and Israel for all these problems. This outcome may in part reflect the growing difficulty of sweeping issues under the rug and some need to react to an era in which the US and Britain have overthrown the ruler of Iraq, one of the league's formerly most powerful members.

Yet the final communiqu , called the "Pledge of Accord and Solidarity," while not fiery and radical, was also vague even by the Arab League's usual standards.

Sensitive to accusations of the league's ineffectiveness and its members' autocracy, the resolution pledged four things that everyone knows will not happen: that the regimes will work together, act to benefit their people, carry out reforms, and implement the League's resolutions. Regarding democratization, the document promises "broader participation in public affairs" for the people, "responsible freedom of expression," human rights, and the strengthening of the role of women "in line with our faith, values, and traditions."

Members would "continue the steps of comprehensive reform in political, economic, social, and educational fields in order to achieve sustained development." This is in response to US demands for change and some internal criticism from Arab liberals. Presumably, Arab governments can now say that they do not need any outside pressure, advice, or help since they are already taking care of the problem themselves.

Perhaps more revealing was a phrase promising that Arab governments would strive to "avoid the ordeals of sedition, division, and infighting."

Presumably, these words represent the view that too much openness and democracy will bring internal chaos, ethnic strife, partisanship, and the possibility of a radical Islamist takeover. These are arguments for maintaining the status quo.

The situation in Iraq only makes such fears more credible.

Similarly, the document advocates more of the same on the regional level. The members promise to work toward "strengthening our collective potential in order to safeguard the sovereignty, security, and safety of Arab lands" and resolving inter-Arab disputes peacefully. The subtext here is that otherwise Western states might intervene to impose their own solutions.

But that's about it. Other than calling for a return to negotiations to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is no action plan, new ideas, or calls for compromise on that question.

In general, then, the communiqu can be viewed either as a vague statement designed to satisfy everyone or as a relatively moderate response to the region's explosive situation. No doubt the league's ineffectiveness and empty words will be widely ridiculed throughout the Arab world.

Yet the governments have proven adept at playing both sides in this debate. Participants in a small demonstration outside the Arab League's headquarters in Cairo shouted, "We do not want condemnations. We want missiles!"

Most Arab regimes easily combine moderate official statements aimed at the West with continual incitement in domestically directed speeches as well as state-controlled media, schools, and mosques which demand greater militancy.

Barry Rubin's new book, Hating America: A History, co-authored with Judith Colp Rubin, will be published in September by Oxford University Press.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1085281778690