The Task of the Cairo Summit

by Abdul Qadar Tash

The fact that Arab leaders are meeting in Cairo today has raised high the expectation that the summit, the first in six years, would seek to close a painful chapter in contemporary Arab history.

The call for the summit has renewed the hope that the meeting would usher in a new era for Arabs by restoring their unity and solidarity that had suffered strains as a result of bitter disputes among them.

The moment the idea of the summit was broached, many had rushed to question the motives behind it and had done their best to prevent it from being held. Such a hostile attitude was expected from enemies of the Arabs. But it came quite as a surprise when some Arabs themselves adopted the same position.

Skeptics claim that the summit has come only as a reaction to the developments in Israel after the recent general elections there, and the rising tide of Israel’s hard-line right. They argue that the summit should have come on the initiative of the Arabs, not as a reaction to some external event.

The argument is unacceptable for many reasons. The convening of the summit was not just a reaction to an event that had happened in Israel. Arabs today are faced with many challenges, as is evident in their relations with each other, with their neighbors and with the outside world, as well as in their handling of the regional and international developments that have been unfolding over the past six years.

Of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to represent the most important of all the disputes in the region. But this conflict is not a new one, or one that will go away in a short time. The effort to hold an Arab summit did not start a few days ago. It has been going on for years now.

Even if we agree, for argument’s sake, that the summit is a reaction, what is wrong with that? Isn’t a reaction better than nothing? Isn’t reaction, judiciously employed, the natural response to events? A living nation always responds to challenges and seeks to confront them wisely, while a dead nation is never moved by events and never learns to sense danger.

Skeptics also argue that the disputes and differences among Arabs are so numerous and intractable that it would have been wiser to postpone the summit or not hold it at all until after these differences were resolved and a better atmosphere created to avoid further splits.

It is nobody’s claim that Arab differences have ended or that their leaders are meeting today to celebrate the return of Arab unity. What these leaders are actually meeting for is to discuss these disputes and find a way to settle them.

Differences are the reason why meetings are held.

It is perverted logic to argue that differences should prevent the Arabs from meeting. Differences are the reason why meetings are held. People negotiate, not after all the disputes are solved, but when they are still there. This is what the leaders of all other nations do.

European leaders rush to hold meetings whenever new disputes arise among them or when old ones threaten to become worse. They do this only to prevent these differences from becoming crises.

Our skeptics rightly view such non-Arab moves as civilized behavior. But when Arab leaders, who share more common bonds than other nations, make the same move and choose to meet among themselves, their action receives criticism from the same people. Why is this?

Today’s summit is a timely event. It is only through such gatherings that hearts are brought together and goodwill created. It is only through constructive dialogue that disputes are resolved and understanding gets a chance to triumph over misunderstanding.

However, we should not be swept off our feet by emotions and assume that the summit would provide a magic solution to all our problems or that the state of affairs of the Arab world would change for the better in a jiffy and the dawn of Arab solidarity is only one night away.

A realistic vision should lead us to the optimism that the summit represents a necessary step in a long journey toward the creation of suitable conditions for the achievement of the minimum level of Arab solidarity. We hope the summit will achieve not only that, but will go further to lay down strategic guidelines for a new joint Arab action and a futuristic approach that draws benefit from present and past lessons.

The summit must be viewed as a positive step toward a desperately needed rational dialogue so that we can prove to ourselves and the world that discussion is our way to resolve differences. We want the summit to mark the start of a new era by adopting a realistic approach to deal with Arab as well as international issues.

“First Things First”

It is possible that the leaders might find too heavy an agenda waiting for them. Some delegations would certainly seek to include topics they consider important. But while it is every participating country’s right to raise issues it regards as important, is it in the general interest that all controversial issues be put before one summit? Isn’t it better to adopt the principle of “first things first” by concentrating on major issues and leaving others for future meetings at different levels?

We want the summit to agree on specific strategies to address the three major issues facing the Arab nation. The first of these is Arab solidarity. The entire world is now waiting to hear from us. If our voice comes out strong, decisive and cohesive, we will win the respect of others. We will be taken seriously then.

Incidentally, one would wonder why some people always seek to deny the Arabs the right to speak in one voice reflecting their united position and expressing their aspirations, while allowing other nations to do that in defense of their interests.

The second important point is the establishment of peace in the region. Here we want the summit to declare most clearly and emphatically the Arabs’ commitment to peace as a strategic choice, with no alternative. And it should be declared with the same clarity and emphasis that the peace we want is peace with honor, not a humiliating surrender. It is unfair to ask the Arabs to submit to Israel’s interpretation of peace. If the world really wants a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region, it should be peace between equals, with negotiations leading to acceptable solutions on the main issuesthe return of Jerusalem to Arab sovereignty, giving the Palestinian people their state and just rights, exchanging land for peace, and freeing the region of all types of weapons of mass destruction without any exceptions. It is the legitimate right of the Arabs to press these demands.

The third important matter that must be discussed is the urgent need to set the Arab house in order. There are certain hot issues that cannot be ignored or put off. They have to be faced with courage and determination. The beginning should be the achievement of peace within Arab societies. Honest efforts should made to reconcile the many diverse interests and to establish a solid base for Arab national security to prevent the recurrence of conflicts.

All these efforts should culminate in finding a suitable mechanism to avoid, or at least cushion, the effect of disputes with neighboring countries so that the nation’s resources and efforts are not frittered away at a time we are faced with enemies from all sides.

We do not expect all these hopes to come true in one summit. But we should, at the very least, feel satisfied that this summit represents a confident beginning and a step in the steady march toward a better future.