Notes of 2004 by a diplomatic correspondent carry few lines on Pan-Arabism. Dina Ezzat flips through her rather slim writing pad On 22 March the leaders of the 22-member Arab League will gather to commemorate the 60th anniversary of their Pan-Arab organisation. The festivities will coincide with the regular annual convocation of the Arab summit. In accordance with the Arab alphabet rotation, Algeria is the next host of the highest official Arab congregation. As pointed out by some Arab diplomats, as old or older than the Arab League, it is interesting that the League's anniversary will be celebrated in Algeria. For them the Arab League is essentially about Pan-Arabism, and the story of the Algerian struggle for independence is a good example of Pan-Arabism -- with Arab capitals sending money, arms and even freedom fighters to help end the French occupation. "Those were different days... when Arab countries stood by each other," noted a Cairo-based Palestinian diplomat. "It was embarrassing for an Arab capital to let down its fellow Arabs. It was inexcusable." According to the diplomat, now there is "no shame" about turning a blind eye to the plight of an Arab nation. "It is in fact too much to expect even words of support or condemnation of aggression. Today, we come under Israeli military attacks and our cities are targeted with F16s and yet we hear Arab capitals calling on 'both sides', Israelis and Palestinians, to exercise self-restraint. How could the oppressed exercise self-restraint?" He added, "What Pan-Arabism? We are not getting even adequate financial aid to provide for food and shelter for our people under occupation." The Palestinian diplomat might have shown more emotion than the average recurrent expression of dismay over the chances of Arab solidarity. This said, he is carrying the same message that many diplomats and observers convey: Arab countries -- or regimes as some diplomats and commentators call them -- are only interested in the fortunes of themselves in as far as they affect their direct national interests. "Give me one example of an Arab meeting [during this year] that delivered any concrete support as such to the Palestinian people," the diplomat added. "When [Palestinian President] Yasser Arafat was dying it was the French and not the Arabs who showed compassion. And it is not just about us the Palestinians. Who really cares about what is happening to the Iraqi people or people in Sudan or Somalia?" It was not just the death of Arafat in November to which Arab countries failed to react properly. There were other situations during the past 12 months, be it in relation to developments in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world. Arab countries had to negotiate for long over the wording of their condemnation of the Israeli assassination of wheelchair-ridden Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin on 22 March. Yassin was killed in the midst of preparations for the 2004 Arab summit. In fact, the Palestinian delegation in Tunis for summit eve preparations supported the camp advocating a "carefully-worded condemnation". The same went for the Arab reaction to the Israeli assassination of Hamas No 2 Abdel-Aziz Al-Rantissi just a little over a month after the slaying of Yassin. At that time Arabs were busy debating the venue for their summit that failed to convene as scheduled on 25 March in Tunis due to a capricious decision by Tunisian President Zein Al-Abidine Bin Ali to postpone the event. Arab League diplomats say that what was at stake when Al-Rantissi was assassinated on 20 April was much more than the Arab reaction to the Israeli policy of targeted killings of Palestinian resistance leaders. A senior Arab League official told Al-Ahram Weekly at the time, "The entire Arab regime is at stake. The sudden postponement of the Arab summit without previous consultations with Arab leaders has upset so many Arab capitals. Today, we are faced with a serious problem. We have a group of Arab countries which want to come to Egypt upon the initiative of President Hosni Mubarak, to convene the summit at the headquarters of the Arab League, while another group of countries argue that Tunis should be given the chance to propose an alternative date for the event." Eventually, the summit was held in May in Tunis. Arab leaders went, shook hands, posed for a summit photo and went into the opening session to hear a complaint from Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa over the disappointing level of commitment demonstrated by Arab capitals to the cause of common Arab interests. "The secretary-general does not use phrases like Arab unity or Pan-Arabism. He speaks in realistic terms. He speaks of common Arab interests. Arabs have common economic, political and strategic interests," commented a senior Moussa aide. But Arab diplomats who spoke to the Weekly during the past year demonstrated few, if any signs, of a genuine appreciation of such common interests. Libyan diplomats were frank about their lack of faith in the Arab countries. In the few interviews they accorded to the Weekly, the diplomatic representatives of Tripoli were ready with a long list of disappointing Arab reactions, not just during the past year but also throughout the past decade. Libya is certainly dismayed with the Arab failure to take its side in the row with Mauritania over allegations made by Nouakchott against Tripoli of an attempted coup. Rabat is annoyed with the attempts of some Arab capitals to mediate its decades-long dispute with Algeria over the Western Sahara. And the four countries are unable to settle their disputes either within the framework of the Arab League or that of the Maghrib Union that was on the verge of collapsing this year due to the many problems among its member states. Another Arab sub-regional bloc, the Gulf Cooperation Council, also seemed to lose poise in 2004. At a time when each member of the oil-rich but security apprehensive group seemed to depend more on the security support of and cooperation with the US, diplomats of most of the six member states did not appear to mind complaining about excessive engagement with the US of fellow members. The anger demonstrated by Riyadh during the past few weeks over Manama's pursuit of a free trade agreement with Washington independent of the rest of the GCC might be only the beginning of a litany of inter-GCC squabbles. The same goes for Kuwaiti diplomats who seem unable to get over the 1990 Saddam Hussein invasion of their country, and who interpret protests by some Arab capitals and the Arab League against the US management of the situation in Iraq as a sign of unending affinity towards the toppled regime of Saddam. Iraqi diplomats who represent an interim government in Baghdad were also unhappy with most Arab capitals for their show of sympathy towards anti-US Iraqi resistance and are equally upset over the willingness of the Arab League to engage all political Iraqi groups -- even those opposed to the interim regime. Meanwhile, diplomats of the United Arab Emirates still talk about the chance missed by the Arabs in 2003 when the Arab summit turned its back on an initiative presented a few weeks before the US invasion of Iraq, in the name of UAE President Sheikh Zayed, for Saddam to step down and spare his country. The Sudanese too are unhappy with the position taken by Algeria, when it sat on the Security Council, on the UN resolution that threatened Khartoum over the Darfur crisis. Inter-Arab complaints and criticism were not just over key political issues. During the past few weeks, Egyptian diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity have complained about Jordan's proposal of an initiative over education reform in Rabat, hosted by Future Forum, without coordination with other participating Arab countries. The Syrians make statements alluding to disappointment in the level of warmth demonstrated by Cairo and Amman towards Tel Aviv and Washington when these capitals are threatening Damascus on almost a day-in, day-out basis. Complaints about lack of inter-Arab coordination were also made, albeit at a lesser level, even during the Arab ministerial environment and health meetings this year. Obviously, complaints over lack of inter-Arab coordination are not a new item. But certainly, there was in 2004 an unmistakable disappearance of Pan-Arab statements -- even for pure purposes of lip service. Moussa is perhaps the one Arab official who can complain most about the receding interest of Arab countries in collective endeavours. At the helm of the supposedly representative body of Pan-Arabism, Moussa must often deal with a lack of political will of Arab capitals to coordinate action on key issues, or to act at all at times. His organisation that is planning the festivities agenda of its 60th anniversary is almost penniless. Some Arab capitals, like Mogadishu, are unable to pay their annual financial dues to the Arab League budget. Other capitals, Kuwait being the obvious example, are reluctant to pay because they are uncomfortable with what one Kuwaiti diplomat called a few months ago "the over zealous policies of the organisation that we don't agree with." But Moussa's concerns are far from being strictly financial. Remarks that the Weekly has compiled during 2004 on the decaying bonds of Arab relations are only a fraction, a close aide said, of the disturbing indications of weakening Arab ties. Typically, Moussa is willing to give the full picture. "There is no rosy picture to be drawn. 2004 witnessed some major political crises," Moussa said this week. "We are all well aware of the many diseases that are attacking the Arab body and that all Arabs stand to lose if they leave these ailments unattended, and use only some painkillers." However, Moussa is not willing to declare the Arab body dead just yet. Not even clinically dead, he argued. "It would be a big mistake to reach this conclusion. This is the conclusion that some would like us to reach." Moussa believes there are signs that the heart and the brain are still functioning. "On 1 January 2005 the Arab Free Trade agreement will go into effect. This is a considerable achievement of 2004." As far as many Arab diplomats and observers are concerned, this is perhaps the only significant item on the balance sheet of Arab relations.
