Arab Leaders Adopt Reform Plan…. Or Do They?
Arab leaders concluded the 16th annual summit of the Arab League May 23 in Tunis, Tunisia, reportedly adopting a 13-point blueprint for political and democratic regional reforms. The statement, based on a draft developed by Arab foreign ministers over recent weeks, urges greater political freedom, good governance and transparency, civil liberties and human rights, rights for women ("in line with our faith, values and traditions") and judicial reform.

Some leaders described the call for human rights and modernization as unprecedented or historic. "Now we have the first collective government commitment to reform," an Arab minister attending the summit told Agence France Presse. Another leading official lauded the fact that "for the first time Arab countries will adopt a document which speaks specifically of subjects long ignored by their governments: democracy, power-sharing, public freedoms, women's rights, judicial reforms, economic privatization and educational reform." "Not so long ago it was difficult to imagine that Arab countries could pledge to end all forms of discrimination against women," he added.

But other commentators were less sanguine, observing that the summit declaration specifies no detailed proposals for change, and entails no commitment to a timetable. The word “reform” was even deleted from the final communiqué's title at Syria's insistence. It referred instead to "development and modernization." Syria also vetoed efforts to give Egypt and several other states a mandate to discuss the document on behalf of the League. After much contention (see below), representatives from Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Jordan affirmed that they will attend the G8 summit in Georgia on June 10 to discuss the 13-point plan.

The declaration urges Arab states to reaffirm their attachment to “the humanitarian principles and noble values of human rights,” including freedom of expression, thought and worship, and guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary. There is no reference to freedom of association or free elections.

States will “endeavor” to reform and modernize the Arab world through “the consolidation of democratic practice,” “broadening of participation in political and public life,” “reinforcement of the role of all components of civil society [including non-governmental organizations] in conceiving the guidelines of the society of tomorrow, and making efforts to “widen women's participation.”

Individual countries are given latitude to implement the proposals at their own pace, although there is a suggestion that the League will establish a monitoring mechanism to gauge progress. Even delegates at the meeting were skeptical that this laissez-faire approach would be productive. "We are talking about problems that require real change in society — its position toward women, its position toward democracy, the role of civil society," Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath told the meeting.  "They need a dynamic in order for them to happen and the dynamic is not just monitoring by the Arab League.”

There is some speculation as to whether the Tunis Declaration was in fact officially adopted by the Arab League. Only two-thirds of the organization's 22 member states attended the meeting. Of them, Libya's Muammar Qadafi walked out on the opening day, and Jordan's King Abdullah and Eqypt's Hosni Mubarak left before the concluding session. Absentees included Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah.

The London-based al-Quds al-Arabi said Arab leaders' "refusal to use the word 'reform' … reflects their real intentions of continuing their repression and dictatorships.” Using the word "reform," it claimed, would constitute a "confession there is corruption and total absence of democracy" in Arab countries. "It's a futile PR exercise - just to show the people they are not following an American agenda," said Rime Allaf, an associate fellow at the UK's Royal Institute of International Affairs, who dismissed the Tunis event as "a summit to save face."

Reform Politics Prompt Division, New Alliances
Arab states sought to use the summit and resulting declaration to pre-empt and dilute the US effort for a Greater Middle East Initiative at next month's Group of Eight (G8) meeting. One Arab minister who insisted on anonymity told Agence France Presse that the summit “managed to agree on this resolution in order to undercut any chance by the G8 to issue their own statement demanding reform."

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in particular has attacked the US administration's initiative as an infringement upon Arab sovereignty, an affront to Arab dignity and an attempt to impose change on the region. But, despite proclamations of independence and high purpose, a summit that was supposed to generate an indigenous reform program produced a declaration notably thin on specifics, long on generalities, and lacking in deadlines.

Mubarak appears especially determined to stifle whatever initiatives may emerge from the G8 summit. Al-Hayat reports that Mubarak was involved in "fierce discussions" as he tried to persuade Arab leaders that US reform plans will be imposed unless there is “an Arab framework to deal with it." Arguing that the US will attempt a divide-and-rule approach, he demanded that Arab states commit not to respond to the US individually, but only collectively.

Although Mubarak's request garnered some support, the summit's Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali rejected his effort to include this commitment to lockstep unity in the final resolution, prompting Mubarak to storm out before the summit's closing session. Egypt has turned down an invitation to attend the G8 summit, with Mubarak apparently reluctant to be seen to be endorsing or otherwise legitimating reform proposals arising from the G8 meeting.

Ibrahim Nafee, director of Al-Ahram daily, and a close associate of the Egyptian leader, said Mubarak wants to keep the G8 out of Arab affairs and "reinforce the ability of Arab countries to resist foreign pressure.” Al-Ahram reports Mubarak's hostility to the US initiative is rooted in a conviction that it neglects the need for reforms to be "gradual in order to preserve stability and stop extremist forces from controlling the process."

Alliances are shifting as states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, normally considered moderate and close to the West, now take a hard line on the issue of reform. The Saudis are aligned with Syria in resisting reform. Egypt's position is "ambiguous": according to one analyst, Mubarak has “pledged to make reforms but is in no hurry to implement changes that could shake the sensitive equilibrium on its home front." Instead, Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain and Tunisia, have begun to project themselves as leaders of reform.

German Meeting Starts "Trialogue" on Modernization, Democracy
Berlin, May 26: Several hundred German and international guests filled the meeting chamber of Berlin's historic city hall May 25-26 for a “Trialogue on Modernization, Democracy and Security in the Greater Middle East.” The title itself implies some divergence from influential currents in US and European opinion: Europe has seethed while the US has largely gone it alone in foreign policy. But Germany's Joschka Fischer, the Foreign Minister from the governing coalition's Green Party, thinks Europeans, Americans and Arab moderates should intensify discussion about “transformation” in the troubled region.

The Berlin meeting was sponsored by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, linked to the German Greens. Foundation Board Member Ralf Fuecks opened the event with a description of growing intellectual and political ferment in the Middle East, noting that “we don't see enough of this debate.” Both Europe and the US “need to find partners in the region that go beyond the prevailing regimes,” many of which "fear democracy because it may jeopardize their rule.”

Many speakers, especially those from Arab or predominantly Islamic countries, were sharply critical of US policies in Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They nevertheless acknowledged the need for reform in what were described as corrupt and repressive structures that hold sway over their societies.

Former Clinton administration official Ron Asmus was among several academics and Foreign Service professionals who capably represented the US side at the meeting. Asmus noted that figures in both US parties are rejecting the “old paradigm” of cooperation with Middle Eastern autocrats and shifting toward the reformers – a shift he likened to the momentous turn in the late 1940s “away from cooperation with the Soviet Union toward containment.”

Although frequently assailed, no Bush Administration representatives or “neo-conservatives” were on the Berlin program. But European policies and practices in the Middle East were also subjected to trenchant criticisms – often by European delegates.

Dorothée Schmid of the Paris-based Institut Francais des Relations Internationales noted a “growing discrepancy between the democratic discourse of the EU and its actual practice” with respect to the Middle East. She suggested that while stronger conditionality in aid and trade may be established, there was also a need for more effective enforcement. Marit Flo Jorgensen of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network pointed out that many purported civil society groups participating in parallel meetings at EU-Mediterranean summits are organized by Arab governments and use the discussions to complain about Israel, rather than human rights abuses at home.

A session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was largely devoted to presentations from the two principal sponsors of the “Geneva Accord,” an unofficial peace proposal advanced by former Israeli official Yossi Beilin and Afif Safieh, an advisor to Yassir Arafat. Beilin warned that democratization on the Palestinian side should not be a pre-condition of peace. Safieh argued that the US is wrong to assert that democracies do not make war – they make colonial wars. Yet he recognized that there is a crisis of both the regimes and the opposition” in the Arab world. “The Arab left is an orphan of the collapse of the Soviet Union,” said Safieh. “Arab nationalism is an orphan of Abdel Gamel Nasser. And the religious opposition is helping to keep bad regimes in power – they are not an appetizing alternative.” When questioned, neither speaker conceded that the Oslo process failed because Arafat saw a yearning for agreement at Camp David as an opening for an offensive thrust, as President Clinton and his negotiator, Dennis Ross, have contended.

“The issue of Israel allows the Arab world to be diverted from its own problems,” said Joschka Fischer. “This permits the petrifaction of political structures in the Arab world.” On the issue of Arab reform and modernization, he asked whether “a great culture with great traditions can be part of the modernization process, or will it simply see this as something it has to defend itself against?”

Pascal Boniface, Director of France's Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques, which is close to the Paris foreign policy elite, challenged Fischer implicitly over his “trialogue” concept, claiming that “the Bush Administration's Greater Middle East Initiative is just a fabrication to cover its failures in Iraq and Palestine.” Fischer replied that “the power of the USA is indispensable” despite his criticisms of aspects of US policy and practice. Fischer added that there is a need to balance the power of the US with the UN. “Democrats in the Middle East need a united front of The West,” said Babiker Ashraf Badri from Ahfad University in Omdurman, Sudan. In a closing note to the "Trialogue's" main session she lamented that “when Europe and the US are divided, dictators will manipulate us.”

No Democracy By Diktat – European Think Tanks
“Methods to encourage democratization in the [Middle East] must not simply reproduce models generated elsewhere,” a consortium of European foreign policy think tanks suggests.

But, nevertheless, the region's distinctive characteristics should not permit the neglect of “key principles, such as active support for human rights and the encouragement of actors engaged in social and democratic change, irrespective of their origins, whether in political Islam or secular doctrines.”

The “imperative need for political and social reform” in the Middle East requires a coherent and credible European approach based on key criteria: