Arab League meet should avoid a split

Although still a cliff-hanger it now seems likely that the Arab Summit, scheduled to open in the Syrian capital Damascus next weekend, will go ahead. No one knows how many heads of state might show up.

The 22 members of the Arab League are more divided than ever, reflecting conflicting visions of the Arab future that go beyond disputes among ruling elites.

And, yet, the fact that no one has formally called for the summit to be scrapped or subjected to collective boycott must be rated as good news. Keeping contact and talking together are always better than shutting the door and walking away.

On the surface the most immediate cause of tension among Arab powers is Lebanon that is plodding along without a president and under a caretaker government.

Lebanon is a crisis in three concentric circles.

In the first circle, rival Lebanese communities are divided over what kind of country they wish to live in.

Some see Lebanon as a front-line bunker in a global war against real or imagined "enemies of Islam and/or the mythical pan-Arab nation". Others see Lebanon as a " haven of peace" in a Middle Eastern sea of turmoil, and advance the goals of economic development and social liberalisation.

The division cuts across religious differences, both visions having supporters and opponents within all communities.

In the second circle, Syria, backed by Iran that, although not an Arab country, is playing a major role in Arab politics, wants a Lebanese president and government that would cancel the changes brought about over the past five years and allow a restoration of Syrian-Iranian domination.

A bloc of moderate Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, on the other hand, are determined to help Lebanon consolidate its newly won independence from Syrian domination and Iranian influence.

The third circle of crisis concerns the rivalry between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran for reshaping the Middle East. The US wants a new Middle East linked to the West through economic, political and military ties.

Iran hopes to drive the US out of the region or force it to enter into a Yalta-like agreement in which Iran will end up with its own acknowledged sphere of influence in the Middle East.

It is clear that dealing with such a crisis is beyond the capabilities of next weekend's summit, indeed of any Arab summit in the foreseeable future.

Arab divisions, however, go beyond Lebanon and concern broader issues, notably peace with Israel. A majority of Arab states support the Saudi peace initiative as approved by two previous Arab summits.

More broadly, the Arab states are divided over the long-term goals of their societies. Some, such as Syria and Libya, and to some extent the Sudan, still cling to the slogans of the 1950s and 1960s and regard attention to economic development as a diversion from the supposedly nobler political projects.

In such a system the slogan-writer is more valued than the economist, the rabble-rouser more than the technocrat.

Most Arab states, however, have moved beyond the age of sloganeering and clenched-fist politics of the mythical "Arab street". They are under pressure from their people who, experiencing demographic explosion, are demanding a better material life for here and now.

This is why a growing school of thought now demands that Arabs simply forget about the unattainable goal of political cooperation and focus on economic issues.

The idea of a "common market" has been the Cheshire cat of Arab politics for decades, appearing and disappearing at unexpected times.

The Damascus summit may fail to resolve the major issues that have produced the current tension. But it may come up with a framework for economic negotiations that, given time, could herald trade liberalisation in the region.

Kuwait, arguably one of the most successful of Arab states in both economic and political terms, has offered to host an Arab "economic summit" in 2009.

The rationale behind this is that Arab states must repeat the experience of their European counterparts which succeeded in resolving their centuries' old political conflicts through economic cooperation.

In that context, the Gulf states have a special role to play by opening up their markets to other Arab states and encouraging direct investment in them.

For decades the Gulf states have given handouts to poorer Arab states, notably Syria. However, that has not been translated into durable political change because the handouts were used by the ruling elites to consolidate their power rather than encourage economic development.

There is one final reason why the Damascus summit will not, indeed cannot, progress on key issues, especially the creation of a new balance of power in the Middle East.

That reason is Iraq, a new state in the making that, no matter how it emerges from its current turmoil, is destined to be a major player in the region.

New Iraq has indicated its desire to return to the Arab fold and assume its responsibilities in that context. The Arab states would be unwise to continue ignoring it. Without this big piece of the jigsaw puzzle the new Middle East of which everyone talks could not fall into place.

The best that the Damascus summit could do it to avoid an open split, agree on ground rules for next year's economic summit in Kuwait, and welcome Iraq back with open arms.

If it does that the summit, truncated though it is, would still be a success.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.