BICOM

 

Key points

• The Arab League Summit in Libya was billed as the ‘Jerusalem steadfastness’ conference.  In reality, however, the conference highlighted continuing division among Arab states precisely on the approach to the Palestinian issue.
• The differences on the Palestinian question reflected outstanding broader divisions between pro-Western Arab states, such as Egypt, and those Arab states and movements allied to Iran, such as Syria.
• The summit reaffirmed support for the Arab Peace Initiative.  At the same time, Syrian President Bashar Assad was reported as recommending to the PA that the Palestinians abandon the strategy of talks with Israel and return to violence and ‘resistance’. 
• Divisions within the Arab world are one of the reasons for the relative weakness and passivity of Arab diplomacy, notably in the peace process. 

Introduction

Last week, the Arab League held its annual summit in the city of Sirte in Libya. The annual gatherings of the Arab League are rarely the venues for major diplomatic initiatives. They tend to consist of an attempt by the leaders of key Arab states to present at least the appearance of Arab unity, behind a set of familiar slogans and demands. Nevertheless, real issues sometimes find their way into the deliberations, making the gathering at times a useful forum for observing the differing strategic orientations and shifting alliances in the Arab world. 

The Sirte conference confirmed this pattern. The summit was billed as the ‘Jerusalem steadfastness’ conference. In reality, however, the conference highlighted continuing divisions among the major Arab states precisely on the approach to the Palestinian issue. These, in turn, reflected broader differences between pro-Western Arab states, such as Egypt, and those Arab states and movements who are allied to Iran, such as Syria.

Key events at the conference

There was speculation in the regional media in the weeks leading up to the conference that it might be the venue for reconciliation between Egypt and Syria.  Cairo and Damascus have been at loggerheads in recent years, because of the diametrically opposite regional strategies being pursued by the two regimes.  Egypt remains the strongest and most influential Arab ally of the United States and the West.  As such, Cairo is concerned at the Iranian drive for regional hegemony, and Egypt has itself been targeted in recent years by a Hezbollah-led terror network.  Egypt has been the most active Arab country in seeking to broker Palestinian reconciliation. An Egyptian-authored agreement for reconciliation remains on the table, but Hamas currently refuses to sign it.

Syria, by contrast, supports and domiciles Hamas, is aligned with Iran, and is the most outspoken Arab state supporting the idea of ‘resistance’ as the way forward for the Middle East in general, and for the Palestinians in particular. Syria derives its key position in Arab diplomacy precisely by maintaining this oppositional stance. Syria has been the subject of concerted efforts by the US and other Western states to win its support for issues of Western concern, including the peace process with Israel and efforts to stabilise Iraq. However, the recent defiant tones at the meeting last month in Damascus between President Assad of Syria, President Ahmedinejad of Iran and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, suggested that Syria is in no hurry to change direction.                                                                                                                                     

It was hoped, however, that in the same way that Saudi Arabia last year, to some degree, reconciled its differences with Syria, Egypt and Syria might find a way to at least paper over the differences between them. This did not happen at Sirte. Rather, the differences between Cairo and Damascus remained, and contributed to the failure of the summit to produce any new initiative of note. At the same time, Syria failed to impose its own ‘resistance’ agenda on the conference. 

In common with previous Arab League conferences, the attendance of Arab leaders was patchy, reflecting the largely symbolic and declarative nature of the summits. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend, with his absence attributed to his health problems. President Michel Suleiman of Lebanon, and the leaders of a number of the Gulf Arab states also were not present because of differences between their countries and the host, Libya. 

The conference opened with an address by Arab League Chairman and former Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa.  Moussa warned of the possible failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and recommended that the Arabs begin to prepare ‘alternatives’ to it.  He did not go into detail as to what the alternatives might be, though the two most discussed ‘alternatives’ in Arab debate are a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood and the idea of the ‘one-state solution’. 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated the PA’s refusal to enter ‘proximity talks’ with Israel without a complete halt to Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyep Erdogan, who was a guest at the conference, was also vociferous in his criticism of Israel’s construction policy in East Jerusalem.

But while there was rhetorical unity vis a vis the Palestinian issue, sharp differences in practical strategy once again emerged. In a closed session, Syrian President Bashar Assad was quoted by two delegates as recommending to the PA that the Palestinians abandon the strategy of talks with Israel, instead advocating a return to violence and ‘resistance’.  Assad maintained that the ‘price’ of such a policy would prove no higher than the price of peace.  Abbas rejected the Syrian advice. In a formula familiar to observers of Arab debate, an aide to the PA Chairman said later that if Syria sought to encourage conflict with Israel, it could do so using its own armed forces, rather than via the Palestinians. 

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem reiterated Syrian opposition to the proximity talks between Israeli and Palestinian representatives. There had been rumours prior to the conference that the Syrians might attempt to initiate a motion to have the Arab Peace Initiative withdrawn by the Arab League.  Syria attempted a similar move at the summit in Doha last year.  However, despite the Syrian rhetoric about ‘resistance’, no such effort surfaced this year.  Analysts later noted reports that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal had met with Syrian officials prior to the summit, to ensure that no such attempt would be repeated. The summit re-endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative. 

Significance of the summit

Ultimately, the summit was testimony to the current weakness and relative passivity of the Arab states with regard to key events in the region.  The Arab states are watching with interest the differences between the US Administration and the government of Israel on the issue of Jerusalem.  The Arab League supported the stance of the PA, in echoing Washington’s insistence on the cessation of construction in East Jerusalem. But no practical steps to either aid the re-commencement of the peace process, or support those forces proposing a return to a policy of violence emerged from Sirte. The overwhelming sense was one in which the Arab states are effectively playing the role of onlookers. This was true also of issues beyond the Israeli-Palestinian arena.  In Iraq, the Arab states are waiting to see the result of the stand off following the elections, and more particularly, what will happen after the commencement of the drawdown of US forces set to begin in August. 

With regard to Iran and its encroachments across the Arab world, nothing practical was concluded.  Hamas were not invited to the summit, at Abbas’s insistence, and neither were Iranian representatives.  But the Egyptian reconciliation deal remains unsigned. No practical steps for limiting Iranian interference across the region – among the Palestinians, in Lebanon, in Yemen, and in Iraq – were discussed.  At the same time, the pro-Iranian element in the Arab world failed to press its case at the summit.  Some analysts concluded that Syria’s recent reconciliation with Saudi Arabia, and the consequent gains made in the Syrian position in Lebanon and Iraq reflected this more quietist Syrian stance.  This might explain the fact that Syria, while making the case for the ‘resistance’ option at the conference, did not seek to formally promote the withdrawal of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Conclusion

The Arab world is disunited, and split between the influence and strength of a number of non-Arab powers. The central diplomatic and strategic contest in the region is currently being played out between the United States on the one hand, and non-Arab Iran on the other.  In addition to Iran, two of the most effective forces in the region – Turkey and Israel – are also non-Arab.  This was the most notable aspect of the Sirte summit. While the point of such gatherings is to give the impression of Arab determination to take active, united steps to shape the agenda of the region, the summit reinforced the sense that the agenda in reality is being set largely by non-Arab elements.