The Arab League: A forgotten ideal

The Arab League summit is held twice a year with the objective to strengthen ties among its 22 member nations and create uniform policies beneficial to the region. But there is always a difference between what is envisioned and the eventual reality. Though the creation of the Arab League was a significant step towards regional cooperation, mutual confidence and state building, it has proven to be a directionless vision, lacking the much needed cooperation and sense of determination from its members to make a difference. The Arab League has become an empty ideal with little relevance, which has been weighed down by the lack of cohesion among its member nations and has thus failed to effectively create policies and become the voice of the Middle East in the global arena.

The Arab League has been able to achieve something good by bringing about a general cooperation at lower levels with a moderate success in preservation of Arabic manuscripts, literacy, cultural exchange between member states, and prompting a more cohesive telecommunication and wireless communication throughout the region. But in the realm of high politics, besides the effective implementation of economic boycott of Israel from 1948 to 1993, the Arab League on the whole has struggled with internal turmoil and divisions. We saw visible cracks during the Cold War phase where some Arab nations endorsed the Soviet bloc while others chose to endorse the United States and its allies. Old hostilities between some member states and challenges from the new republics further obstruct the efficiency of the league with disagreements and pessimism, brewing a cold war between and amongst the regional so-called small powers.

The Arab League summit scheduled to be held in March 2004 in Tunisia was hastily cancelled two days prior to the event due to differences between Arab nations over political reform being proposed by the Tunisian government in the region. The negative response by some Arab nations to intended political reforms in the region led to controversy and eventual cancellation of the summit by Tunisia. Several delegates expected to attend the summit believed the disruption was due to the Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's support to US initiatives to promote reform in the Middle East. Many of the delegates have been less than welcoming to this intrusion by the US into Middle East politics. This emphasises the strain that has long existed among member states and the extent of outside influence in the way the League conducts itself.

On May 22, the summit finally was held as Arabs came together in a show of unity. But the surface had already been ruffled and the cracks and fissures were more than evident. As Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa delivered the opening speech, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya walked out in protest over Moussa's condemnation of unilateral actions taken by some Arab nations. Libya believed the comments were indirectly referring to the recent termination of their weapons programme and therefore felt the need to boycott the summit. Thereby creating a setback not only for the Arab League but the whole concept of Arab unity.

The agenda at the summit encompasses beyond just the issue of reform to include the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an issue that emerges at each summit only to be deliberated by yet another declaration without a feasible solution. Another issue on the agenda is the recent abuse of Iraqi prisoners and excessive force for so-called interrogation used by US soldiers in Iraq. There is no clear uniform condemnation or protest against the abuse scandal and large-scale brutality despite the evidence and anger in the Arab world. Iraq remains in turmoil and the transition to democracy is far from smooth but member nations continue to issue obvious statement about stability and self-governance. The league issues numerous resolutions and many remain simply words on paper without the authority to be enforced and binding upon all members. The League continues to speak in measured whispers where its voice is unheard, its condemnation ignored, and its observations inadequate.

There is a need for realistic introspection that the League has no influence whatsoever in matter of grave concern in the region. While difference is being made on smaller non-political issues, the league remains ineffective on crucial issues that make a huge difference to the affairs of the Middle East in the global arena in respect. The essence of the Arab League is in the unity of Arab nations that come together to accomplish a common good. Instead member nations remain separate entities bringing in differences and agenda that harm the interest of the Middle East as a region and accomplish very little for its people. Declarations are simply visions of what needs to be done and not solutions to the existing problems. Arab nations need to go beyond the usual condemnation and sense of victimisation to create concrete policies and find workable solutions to benefit them.

The future is far from optimistic for the Arab League, which began with a hope and has now fallen into utter despair. Individualism has crept in where there should have been unison, and the concept of the Arab League has been lost in the politics of nation states. A future cannot be sought by merely coming together. There has to be the will to make a difference, the heart to change, and the mind to imagine beyond the borders of confined individualism and benefit. The Arab League is an opportunity that has been left to wither too long and will cease to exist unless there is a sincere effort on the part of the Arab world to genuinely come together to be united to speak in one voice for their region and people.

Fatima Chowdhury is a freelance journalist based in Kolkata