8 April 2008: The end of March saw another annual summit of the Arab League, which concluded with a failure to resolve any of the serious issues on the agenda, but was successful in making clear the already visible political divisions in the Middle East.  Although normally a highly politicized event, this year’s summit transpired with attendance itself being a political play by several Arab countries intending to embarrass the host, Syria, and send a message regarding who they blame for the continuing deadlock in Lebanon. Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia did not send high level delegations and Lebanon chose not to attend at all in protest of what it claims to be Syrian interference in its domestic political situation. 

Only eleven heads of state were present for an event that largely revolved around the current situation in Lebanon and the country’s failure to elect a President since November 2007, or select a cabinet, due to the deadlock between the current government and the opposition. Syria, viewed as the chief supporter of the opposition led by Hezbollah, is widely blamed by the pro-Western Arab countries for this ongoing state of affairs.

The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Saud al-Faisal, suggested that Syria has not abided by the Arab consensus on the issue and is preventing a resolution in Lebanon. President al-Assad opened the summit by denying Syria’s involvement in Lebanon and stating that Syria is “fully prepared to cooperate with Arab and non-Arab efforts… on the condition that they are based on Lebanese national consensus, the basis for stability in Lebanon.”  Syrian officials also laid blame on the U.S. for attempting to prevent the summit from occurring altogether by encouraging Arab leaders not to attend to embarrass Syria as the host of the summit.

The voiced division among Arab states originates from the January summit of Arab foreign ministers where the consensus plan for Lebanon called for the election of the army chief, Michel Suleiman, as president and a unity cabinet. Syria has accepted this compromise in principle, as have the major stakeholders in Lebanon. However, the current pro-West government in Beirut and the opposition took differing interpretations of whether this plan allowed the opposition a veto over cabinet decisions—no political progress has been made since this breakdown. 

The broader argument over Lebanon originates from the long ongoing proxy war between two political camps in the Middle East with Syria, Iran on one side (supporting Hezbollah and Hamas) and the pro-Western Arab states on the other (Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia). The summit showed that American influence in the region, along with its clear opposition to the current regimes in Iran and Syria, continues to loom over Arab affairs.

Although Lebanon was the largest issue in question, the summit did not conclude without addressing several other concerns, where traditional bickering quickly ensued. Iraq was opposed to the original summit declaration because it did not properly recognize Iraq’s efforts towards national reconciliation while also failing to condemn terrorists and insurgents to the extent desired by the Iraqi government. Iran blistered at the overall summit support behind UAE’s territorial claim on three small islands, long in dispute between the two countries. Perhaps the one visible point of agreement was the situation in Palestine, although here too, the debate resulted in a watered down statement warning Israel regarding its continued policy towards Palestinians and threatening to review the previous 2002 offer of “land for peace” issued by the Arab League. This declaration did not note that the long standing offer was never seriously accepted by any Israeli government since 2002, as it would mean complete withdrawal of control and settlements to the 1967 line.

The summit concluded in a final declaration, which was simultaneously a consensus document, resulting from the input of each Arab delegation, and inherently compromised to the dissatisfaction of all involved. States from both sides of the political divide left without achieving significant progress on any of the issues, which is not an uncommon result for an event that is widely viewed as political theater for Arab leaders rather than a serious forum for resolving differences. 

Despite shortcomings, the summit continues to have practical value as a barometer of the political state of the Middle East and where the various leaders’ interests lie. This year’s gathering was no different and it proceeded in surprisingly cordial manner compared to previous occurrences, punctuated with humor and debate. Perhaps most summative of the feeling was a comment from Moammar Gadhafi, as quoted by The Washington Post during a debate on the proposed joint Arab nuclear program: “How can we do that?” he said, “We hate each other.”