-
Arab diplomacy: lying in state
By Muna Shuqair, The Daily Star
-
Diplomacy a reflection of a country’s
political, military and economic potential is usually energized in
times of crisis.
While bigger and stronger nations have what can be described as reflective
diplomacies, which express their power and influence, smaller ones are
usually reduced to adopting a compensatory approach (i.e. these nations
try to compensate for their lack of military and economic power by playing
up such factors as good neighborly relations, rational and balanced
policies and close links with major powers).
During the current crisis over Iraq, Arab diplomacy has been active on
several fronts: bilateral meetings between Arab states, summits between
Arab and foreign leaders, regional diplomatic activity (such as the recent
Istanbul meeting which brought together six of Iraq’s Arab and Muslim
neighbors), and action through regional and global institutions (the Cairo
meeting of Arab foreign ministers held in preparation for the next Arab
summit, for example).
Yet where the Iraq crisis is concerned, Arab diplomacy has been faced with
many obstacles, which had the effect of limiting its effectiveness.
Successful diplomatic activity requires the fulfillment of many
conditions, such as the existence of effective and close relations with
the parties to the conflict. The diplomatic effort led by Egypt and Saudi
Arabia lacks this essential condition. While bilateral ties between Egypt
and Saudi Arabia on the one hand and the US on the other are adequately
close to sustain an initiative, this does not apply to overall relations
between the United States and the Arab world. Put differently, Arab
diplomacy is not strong enough to influence US positions.
On the other hand, neither are Arab (including Egyptian and Saudi)
relations with Iraq strong enough to be able to influence Baghdad’s
policies. Since no Arab country has ever dared challenge the 12-year-old
sanctions regime imposed on Iraq, the Arabs cannot exert any individual or
collective pressure on Baghdad to persuade the Iraqi leadership to act in
such a way as to avert war.
Successful diplomacy also requires a degree of political independence from
both sides of the crisis. While Arab diplomacy fulfils this condition
where Baghdad is concerned, the same cannot be said of the Arab
relationship with Washington. Arab policies are clearly subservient to
those of the United States.
To be effective, diplomacy must have the ability to adopt decisive
positions and articulate courageous opinions. Effective diplomatic action
involves making decisions and upholding them, as France, Germany, Russia
and Belgium demonstrated recently by opposing military action against
Iraq, despite Europe’s current political and military vulnerability.
Compare this position with that adopted by the Istanbul meeting. The
spectacle of a regional ministerial meeting, held ostensibly to prevent
the US from invading Iraq, asking the Iraqis to comply with UN resolutions
and allowing UN inspection teams to carry out their mission without
even mentioning Washington’s aggressive intentions was truly
disgraceful and depressing. The Istanbul statement accurately reflected
the participant countries’ subservience to American domination.
Another essential condition sadly lacking in Arab diplomacy is the
maintenance of good and balanced relations with influential regional and
world powers. Arab relations with Washington are not balanced by any
means; in fact, Washington has been using Arab diplomacy to achieve its
own ends. That was what the Americans did in the 1991 Gulf War by ordering
Egypt to convene an Arab summit meeting in order to give Arab cover to the
American-led war to liberate Kuwait. The US, however, has so far refused
to accede to Egyptian and Arab requests to play an effective and fair role
in finding a settlement for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
More often than not, Arab diplomacy has been dedicated to serving American
objectives. This was most recently noticed when Cairo succumbed to
American pressure to try convening an emergency Arab summit to exert joint
Arab pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The flip side of the ease with which the Americans can use Arab diplomacy
is the fact that the mechanism for Arab-initiated action is extremely
weak. This weakness is an expression of Arab impotence on the official
level. For diplomacy to be effective, all parties concerned must be
confident that the mediating party uses the same language both in secret
and in public, for only thus can credibility be maintained. Credibility
would be irretrievably dented if a party were seen to say one thing and do
another. This is the case with Arab diplomacy, which professes to stand
against war, while secretly wishing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. While
not actually wanting war, the Arab countries cannot nevertheless adopt a
position opposing it. In fact, most Arab countries are happy to extend
whatever assistance they can to the US all of which makes Arab
diplomacy untrustworthy, since it has a hidden agenda that contradicts its
public stance.
Successful diplomacy moreover needs to have the tools necessary to achieve
its objectives, such as the ability to exert pressure, and the ability to
threaten and reward using political and economic means. Arab diplomacy
fails in this count as well; Arab diplomacy lacks the means necessary to
influence any party.
To succeed, Arab diplomacy needs to have the ability and the will
necessary to overcome the crises affecting inter-Arab relations. The Feb.
16 meeting of Arab foreign ministers failed miserably, with Saudi Arabia
insisting it is not necessary to hold an emergency summit on Iraq, and
with Kuwait entering into a slanging match with the Arab League. Qatar,
which had previously accused Secretary-General Amr Moussa of bias,
supported the Kuwaitis. Quarrels and spats between different Arab parties
played an important part in the failure to agree on holding an emergency
summit. It took another week of wrangling for the Arab states to agree on
a date for the next regular summit.
Significantly, Arab diplomacy, far from being dedicated to serving Arab
peoples’ interests, has always been used to allay Arab grievances and to
give an impression that Arab governments have been working hard to avert
war. This has caused a popular loss of confidence in Arab diplomacy.
Finally, Arab diplomacy lacks the confidence of major regional and world
powers. Neither the US nor the European Union believes the Arabs are able
to swim against the American current.
Since Arab diplomatic efforts have evidently failed so far, and since the
vaunted emergency Arab summit has been cancelled, we can do nothing but
wait for the regular summit due to be held in Egypt on March 1 to witness
a new phase in Arab diplomatic action action that has so far been
miserably ineffective in upholding Arab interests.
Muna Shuqair is an Amman-based Jordanian
political analyst. She wrote this commentary for The Daily Star