AMMAN, Jordan, March 30 (UPI) -- The indefinite postponement of a scheduled annual Arab summit this week by the host country, Tunisia, took the Arab governments by surprise and embarrassed them before their populations and the international community, but the last-minute move reflected a truth about the state of Arab affairs.
Hours before the leaders of the 22-member Arab League started to converge to the Tunisian capital, Tunis, to meet in the 16th regular Arab summit on Monday, the host country decided to call off the meeting, citing Arab differences over major issues illustrated during the foreign ministers preparatory meeting.
Arab differences, however, have existed ever since the Arab League was established in 1945, thus, suspicions over Tunisia's abrupt decision, which it said was because some Arab countries had rejected its proposals for Arab reforms.
But independent Arab analysts said the host country was not to blame for failing to convene the summit, for it represented the nature of disunity among Arab leaders, none of whom were freely elected, and each with his own political agenda aimed at staying in power in their respective countries.
They noted every Arab government has shown it was eager to adopt a unified Arab position on the "challenges" facing the region, namely the continued escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq -- a member the Arab League -- and introducing democratic reforms.
With these "challenges," the regimes were coming under increasing pressure from the masses to take firm decisions and action to bring an end to the Israeli occupation of Arab lands it occupied in 1967, to actively work towards returning sovereignty to the Iraqis and to adopt moves that would see free elections in their respective countries.
Most Arab commentators and analysts blamed the entire Arab order for failing to "meet these challenges," and said that democratic reforms, which was on this week's summit agenda, was clearly the issue that led to the failure of a summit that was never held.
They noted that reforms was a non-issue for the leaderships in the past, despite the continuous struggle of their populations for basic political and civil freedoms, free elections and respect for human rights that have been absent from most of these countries for decades.
The fact that thousands of Arabs have been persecuted and repressed in their struggle for freedom, analysts said, the regimes did not take interest in political change until President George W. Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address in February that his administration was seeking democratic reforms in the "greater Middle East."
To prevent American intervention in this regard, and to avoid being accused by their people of having succumbed to U.S. conditions on the form of these changes, the leaders scurried to propose initiatives of their own, including proposals to reform the Arab League structure and charter.
Arab diplomats in the Jordanian capital, Amman, said there were no differences over most of the crucial issues on the agenda of the Tunis summit, for the Arab position on the Palestinian issue and Iraq had been relatively consistent: An Arab condemnation of Israeli practices, calling for restoring the Arab-Israeli peace process and urging foreign troops withdrawal from Iraq and returning sovereignty to the Iraqis.
The differences and divisions were over reforms, a new issue that Arab regimes had never discussed in a summit nor taken seriously in the past, mainly because it involved domestic changes that threaten the political system placed in each country, and Washington's "threats" were looming above.
Being caught between the American "threats" on one side, and the populations who see the U.S. ideas for reforms with great suspicion on the other, the leaders were looking for a way out of the reform dilemma and hoped that this summit would provide an opportunity to table an initiative that would keep both sides at bay.
Tunisia, with a poor record of human rights violations and a president that has held his position since he came to power in a presidential coup in 1987, admitted that it had offered its own version of a reform plan to be added to another that was agreed upon by the rest of the Arabs.
When the foreign ministers of some of the countries refused to make the addition, Tunis appeared to have protested by calling off the summit altogether.
Some analysts guessed the Tunisian initiative might have come directly from Washington after President Zain al-Abedine bin Ali met Bush in the White House on February 18, and some went as far as saying that calling off the meeting came upon the instructions of the United States if the Arabs refused to accept the Tunisian plan.
Whatever the motives behind calling off the summit, analysts agreed that its postponement came as a relief to the Arab leaders, even if it represented an embarrassment for them before their populations and the international community as being part of a dysfunctional body.
Until they agree on the timing and venue of convening the summit, possibly within the next several weeks, Arab leaders would have gained more time to formulate what could be a face-saving reform plan for the Arab League and the region in a way that would draw a balance between what the people are seeking and the American plan.
However, they would need to convene before Bush hosts the Group of Eight summit next June, in which Washington is expected to announce its initiative for the "greater Middle East."
