The Arab world needs to speak up about its future
As the US-led war on Iraq continues, every Arab government is on the sidelines, wondering about its own future. Not since the period between World War I and World War II has Arab powerlessness been more evident. Of course, there are a number of insignificant, small Gulf emirates supporting the United States. However, they have no say on the pace or the scope of the military operations.
Even during the days before the war, Arab powerlessness was glaringly obvious. The March 2 Arab summit at Sharm el-Sheik will go down in regional history as one of the lowest points of Arab insignificance.
The Bush administration has already proclaimed that the UN is irrelevant, and that only America will determine the balance of power in the Middle East, and, possibly, in East Asia in the coming years. But as one of the Arab states - Iraq - is involved in a war with the US, one would think that the voices and opinions of Arab governments should be of some import for America. Not this time, for two reasons.
First, America has not finished flexing its muscle. If the US war on Iraq goes according to the script prepared by the Pentagon, it will not be long before North Korea and Iran have to brace for similar action.
Second, no major Arab state is openly siding with the US, except Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Qatar. Even they are keeping quiet about their roles. That might be one reason why the Arab voice does not really matter to the Bush administration. Even the role in the war for Turkey, which is not an Arab state, has been reduced to the question of how much money it should receive from the US.
In the final analysis, the world witnessed the real functioning of democracy when the Turkish parliament voted to allow the use of its air space for the US military action, but refused to sanction the stationing of American forces on its soil.
However, if America really wished to promote democracy in the Middle East, the actions of the Turkish parliament might serve as a prelude to what it will encounter in the future, when the tide of democracy sweeps the antiquated autocratic governments of the region into the dustbin of history.
The Arab summit will be remembered only for a public spat between Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia. Even though he is the younger of the two leaders, Colonel Gaddafi symbolises the archaic and ruthless dictatorships that still advocate the outdated Nasserite-Baathist notions of pan-Arabism - notions that the Arab masses left behind long ago, in the aftermath of the humiliating defeat in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
At least Crown Prince Abdullah attempted to bring some semblance of dignity to the 'Arabness' at last year's summit, by proposing a peace plan for the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In this sense, although he represents an outmoded system of monarchy, he has established the relevance of his leadership on the Arab street. The peace plan was set aside in favour of the vision of Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George W. Bush of what is best for Israel. The continued rounds of violence in the occupied territories have proven, time and again, that the Sharon-Bush vision of peace needs the fresh impetus promised in Crown Prince Abdullah's plan.
At the very least, it contained a crucial negotiating point for the Arab and Israeli sides: a complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories it has occupied since the 1967 war in return for complete diplomatic recognition of the Jewish state by Arab countries.
In contrast, Colonel Gaddafi and his band of Arab despots are still living in the darkness of their imaginations, thriving only by reviling the US and then throwing up their hands in disgust and returning to their air-conditioned tents and palaces to enjoy the rewards of despotism, while the Arab masses - especially the Palestinians - continue to suffer.
Another important meeting took place on March 5, when the Organisation of Islamic Conference was held in Doha, Qatar, where there was another round of public insults traded between officials from Kuwait and Iraq. In the end, Islamic nations, like their Arab counterparts, appear impotent and confused about what their position should be over imminent regime change in Iraq.
The ultimate and sad irony about the war on Iraq is that neither the US nor Arab countries have a clue what they will encounter once the regime in Iraq is destroyed. The US is convinced of the 'silver bullet' aspects of its military power - that it will resolve all that ails Iraq, once President Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how intricate or obdurate the ensuing problems are likely to be.
Now that the beginnings of regime change are underway, the people of Iraq face only uncertainty. If post-Taleban Afghanistan is an indication of what the US will do in terms of nation building, the Iraqis have plenty to worry about.
Ehsan Ahrari is an independent strategic analyst based in Alexandria, in the US state of Virginia
