Kuwait, Lebanon and the Damascus Summit!
Al-Hayat - 28/02/08//
Usually, Arab summits have two sessions: one is an opening session for speeches, and the second is a concluding session, whereby resolutions and stances are announced. The formulas, settlements and actual negotiations about a given issue are taken up by foreign ministers in bilateral or multilateral deliberations that either precede or accompany the summit. This is so that when the leaders meet, everything is pretty much ready, except for the small details or "surprise" cryptic positions that affect bilateral relations, such as those that Colonel Qaddafi engages in time after time.
It is well-known that the Arabs have never reached a unanimous stance on any important issue of those in their region or the world. There are always reservations about an item, a policy or timing. However, since the establishment of the Arab League, they have been satisfied to find compromise solutions that preserve the minimum of solidarity at these summits, as the general interest takes precedence over the interest of an individual state.
However, on very few occasions, such as with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the division among Arabs becomes very obvious, if not flagrant. Neither diplomacy nor slogans can hide the divergent positions, despite the danger of any Arab state occupying another. Two and a half months after Iraqi forces entered Kuwaiti territory an emergency summit was held in Cairo, in which 20 countries took part. They condemned the invasion and Iraq's violation of the sovereignty of a member state then decided to send a joint force to participate in Kuwait's liberation. However, only 12 states voted yes (the six Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Djibouti), while three objected (Iraq, Palestine and Libya), three others had reservations (Sudan, Jordan and Mauritania), and two states abstained (Algeria and Yemen). We all know the rest of the story.
Today, the summit scheduled for Damascus at the end of the month appears to face a similar division. There is a big and influential Arab state, which is Syria itself, the host of the summit, that has decided after the exit of its troops from the territory of its small neighbor Lebanon, to do away with, by proxy, the remaining sovereignty and independence of this country. It has prevented the election of a president through its allies, whom it prompted to withdraw from the government - partially paralyzing the latter's activity - and to exercise considerable pressure on the country's economy and security. It also inflamed divisions and pursued its policy of heavily arming one of Lebanon's confessions. This has reached the point where the country's stability and future as a state are threatened to a dangerous extent. There appears to be no hope in seeing the situation change soon, especially after the failure of the Arab League initiative to defuse the crisis, even if in stages, despite the wide Arab and international support.
Thus, Damascus has insisted on "eliminating" Lebanon, striving to convene a summit of "the victor and the vanquished," exactly as it is doing in Beirut, and not a summit of reconciliation and solidarity.
What are the possible alternatives for other Arab states that oppose this situation? It's simple: Syria must come to its senses and put positive pressure on its allies to permit the election of a consensus president who will attend the summit in Lebanon's name and facilitate the formation of a national unity government without any side being able to obstruct the process. Otherwise, these countries will be obliged to boycott the summit and reduce their level of representation, which means the likelihood of its failure, or perhaps think about convening an alternative summit for the states that believe Lebanon has the right to sovereignty, independence and equal treatment by all other states, including Syria. This will mean exchanging diplomatic representation and achieving a final delineation of the countries' borders, which will reduce the permanent anxiety over seeing these borders violated.
Damascus' behavior in Lebanon might not be as crude as Saddam Hussein's in Kuwait, but history is full of lessons for those who want to learn.
|
