By Gamil Mattar Many in the Arab world were optimistic that the call for an emergency meeting to explore ways of supporting the Intifada in Jerusalem would yield positive results. Soon it was no longer a one-issue meeting. Of course, observers of Arab politics and Arab summit politics in particular wondered how Washington would react. Every Arab official knows that consultations are taking place with Washington, most likely at its request, over every point concerning the summit. Recent events, at the level of the anger in the Arab street or the diversity of opinion reflected in the statements of some Arab leaders, demonstrate the maze of considerations the US must deal with when influencing Arab policies and decisions.
Arab summits are unique, firstly because Arab governments are unlike other governments.
Holding a summit, like any activity involving some organisation, requires thorough preparation and established rules and conventions. These conditions do not obtain in the Arab world, for two reasons at least. First, Arab affairs are still directly subject to the head of state, which means that inter-Arab relations are determined more by individual idiosyncrasies than by objective criteria, or even by the conditions that apply to relations with other foreign governments, with the exception, perhaps, of Washington. The second reason is that a summit is a framework allowing for decisions to be issued, then acted upon. These decisions may be the product of discussions during or prior to the summit and they may be unanimous.