The Pulse of Life: The Arab League and Double Standards

An observer of the Arab League’s operations, its decisions and relationship with the Arab revolutions — in other words, the political regimes that are standing and those that have fallen — will notice that the League is more than a bushel: There are no standards governing it and no restrictions on its various positions. Its decisions are based on the dictates of a few countries, which effectively implement U.S. policy.

Looking back at the way Arab League leadership was taken from the former Libyan regime, one notices that the Arab countries, among which Qatar plays a pivotal role, made a decision to boycott the system and to lift the veil immediately, and to participate in a series of international meetings regarding the Gadhafi regime. This is not the problem. On the contrary, everyone gave their blessing for any steps against the authoritarian Libyan regime, despite knowledge of who was behind Qatari policy.

The problem is that the Arab League has not taken a serious position on the situation in Yemen, despite what Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime has done, massacring unarmed civilians in defiance of all reason. The Arab League, however, has not adopted the Gulf Initiative on its own and has not taken any action. Like the United States, it is mired up to the ears in the details of the Yemeni crisis. It has not taken the initiative to convene an international meeting for a vote of no confidence against the Saleh regime. The United Nations stuck to condemning the regime while waiting for a standstill, as the United States has decided. The family regime still tyrannizes the people every night, although, as the sons of the Yemeni revolution have declared again and again, their revolution is peaceful and they will not be dragged into the maze of their brutal president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Nevertheless, the Arab League left the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which now holds the leadership of the League, which has become the Qatari “Empire” and dominates Arab political decisions.

The six GCC countries have the right to take their interests into consideration, especially since Yemen is an integral part of the region. Whatever happens there has implications for the entire geopolitical map of the region. The states ought to suggest imposing significant initiatives against President Saleh to isolate him, and transferring the powers to a national figure other than the vice president, who has proven to be a mere puppet in the hands of the current president. The GCC ought to loosen its grip on the Yemeni rebels, giving them the freedom of choice that they want.

The same thing is happening with Syria: Double standards also apply. The League has interfered with extreme caution as if they were on an egg, in accordance with the U.S.-Qatari agenda. Not one of the Arab nationalists or democrats has stood with the Syrian regime, which took possession of the Syrian people, killing, wounding, raping, destroying mosques and committing sins, but the mechanisms to deal with the Syrian regime are still sub par. They have not lived up to the aspirations of the masses of the Syrian Arab Republic. The Arab League is waiting to see what the United States, Western Europe and Israel will decide.

It will be very unfortunate if the Arab revolutions continue as they are now. The Arab revolutions and their transitional leaders in Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere want to liberate themselves from the ruling regimes here or there, and to move according to national interests and democracy to build a civil state, a state for all its citizens. Yes, all the revolutions are in dire need of support and Arab and international backing, but the Arab League should not submit their decisions to the will of the ruling Arab regimes or the West. This does not prevent cooperation between all countries of the world, both Arab and foreign, from the biggest to the smallest, but controls and precautions should protect the gains of the revolution here or there.

The Arab League and, in context, the GCC should live up to all their responsibilities to the Arab people and the revolutions in Yemen and Syria, and refrain from the calculations of small and private agendas stemming from the United States. It is time to support the Gulf Initiative and to force Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave the government and hand over the reins to a transitional council not related to the current political establishment in order to stop the Yemeni bloodshed. In Syria, the Arab League should not wait for a reply to the Arab initiative, which the regime knows is tactical in nature. The regime is no longer prepared to undo its repression of the revolution with iron, fire and bloodshed, and thus it has put a veil over it, expelling the representative of the Arab League. The League should also work to secure a no-fly zone over Syrian territory to protect civilians. This does not mean interfering in the course of the revolution directly, but rather supporting it.

There is no doubt that each country has its own particular characteristics, but this does not prevent the raising of standards and promoting unity among the Arab states. Also, the Arab resolution should not be subjected to American wishes, because the U.S. administration is not on the side of the Arab revolutions, but with its own interests and the interests of Israel.