Will this year's Arab summit garner the collective Arab will necessary to confront the region's many conflicts and contentious dynamics? Likely not, writes Dina Ezzat The propelling rationale for all Arab meetings now has become the tug of war between two sides, divided in two ways. Whether the question at hand is developments in Palestine, Lebanon or Iraq, or the relations between Syria and Lebanon, Arab ministers take position depending on whether they wish to be seen in the camp US officials qualify as "moderate" or that declared "extremist" by Washington if nationalist by the Arab people. Positions are also greatly influenced by a new but growing sectarian mood: Shia versus Sunni. Arab officials who have a considerable Shia majority to go back to are worried about taking harsh stances on issues related to Arab relations with Iran or Hizbullah. According to the annual Arab Strategic Report produced by Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, the Israeli war on Lebanon last summer has stripped all Arab regimes of the possibility of concealing their confused stances on issues such as militant resistance to occupation, the price of peace or war with Israel, and appropriate levels of defiance of US policies in the Middle East. This division between Arab countries who are keen to be defined as moderate and those who are nonchalant about qualifying as extremist, the report argues, has been reflected in every single Arab foreign ministers meeting convened since the start of the Israeli war. This clear-cut distinction has not been confined to the issue of the Arab-Israeli struggle only. It also colours issues like relations or confrontation with Iran, the participation of power and wealth in countries where Islamist-oriented ruling regimes are contested by minorities, and the interest demonstrated by some Arab countries to pursue peaceful nuclear programmes. When Arab foreign ministers meet on Saturday, at the Cairo headquarters of the Arab League, they are likely to review and eventually adopt around 30 resolutions that cover issues ranging from developments in Palestine and Iraq to Arab relations with Africa and Latin America. A good number are likely to pass without much debate, sources say. On a host of issues -- the need to boost Arab relations with other regional groupings, or to pursue a genuine dialogue between Arabs and the West -- it is unlikely that much will change in the Arab political language, one source argued. However, tricky issues like Lebanon and Hizbullah pose dilemmas relative to tone and nuance, with even the head of the Lebanese delegation unlikely to be sure about just how to accommodate the views of both the government and its opposition. Staying with Lebanon, sources suggest that Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa is inclined to refrain from including his mediation efforts in Lebanon in resolutions to be adopted by Arab foreign ministers as they conclude their meetings Sunday. Moussa, sources say, will not want to have the ministerial meeting hijacked by debate on who is responsible for the stalling of mediation efforts, or for the meeting to undermine the future of his efforts by adopting language that might upset either the government or opposition forces in Lebanon. "The issue is likely to be addressed through a closed meeting that Moussa may well have with the foreign ministers," the source suggested. Moussa's concerns about the progress of his mediation efforts in Lebanon are far from confined to the Lebanese parties alone. The Arab League secretary-general would not also want to have any unpleasant confrontation between the Syrian and Saudi delegations over the role of Damascus in helping -- or hampering -- the growth of stability in Lebanon after months of political tension. Similar levels of sensitivity are demanded when discussing or phrasing resolutions related to the presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Even if the secretariat decided to accept a draft resolution that the Iraqi delegation tabled on the overall situation in Iraq, problems may surface, Arab diplomats in Cairo argue, between the Syrian and Iraqi delegations over the impact of foreign troop presence on overall regional stability, as well as on whether or not the new strategy of US President George W Bush will bring stability to Iraq and improve its relations with its neighbours or not. Saturday's foreign ministers meeting is not the first since eight Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan and the six Gulf Cooperation Council states) deviated from the mainstream regional Arab political apparatus forming a new sub-group that holds regular meetings with the US to discuss political and security issues in the Arab world and beyond. Iran has been a main issue on the agenda of this new mechanism, which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice qualifies as the US-Arab "moderate states" grouping. As such, it is expected that debate over Iran will be contentious, with some countries possibly accusing others of playing into the hands of an American scheme to attack Iran. Few expect Arab foreign ministers to adopt a resolution outlining a collective stance on the standoff between Iran and the US. The question of Iran and how to deal with possible -- even if yet not potential -- US military action against Tehran is unlikely to be resolved in this foreign ministers meeting or in the Arab summit that will convene in Riyadh on 28 March. Arab diplomats expect each country to develop its own approach on the issue, depending on its relations and interests with the US. "The fact of the matter is that these meetings, whether on the ministerial or summit levels, are not really meant as venues to decide collective Arab positions," commented one Arab diplomat. He added: "In fact, there is no such a thing as a collective Arab position anymore." Al-Ahram's Arab Strategic Report highlights a lack of collective Arab will and decreasing interest on the part of Arab states to work within the framework of the Arab League. The worst cases of Arab failure, according to the report's authors and some Arab diplomats, are related to issues of US intervention in -- and scenarios for -- the region. Analysts and officials say that while the US and Iran are fighting over which of two scenarios will prevail -- the region as an expanded Islamist Middle East, or a "new moderate" Middle East -- Arab states are not offering the obvious third option of an "Arab" region based on Arab identity. Al-Ahram's report notes that the collective Arab cooperation regime is in a very poor state, and that most international powers prefer to deal with Arab states individually or in sub- groupings. Amid such confusion and lack of clear direction, Arab foreign ministers on Sunday are likely to revert to agreeing on classic formulas that call for peace, stability, security and economic and cultural cooperation. Existential matters are almost sure to remain sidelined.
