Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

At the Evian summit of the eight industrialized nations it was difficult to see what was going on as the venue was ring-fenced and cordoned off. Like all other far-away summits, Evian also appeared like an album of the pictures of leaders.

However, it is clear that a number of issues were discussed at bilateral and multilateral meetings, and naturally these talks are going to have some sort of impact in the future. The attendance of Arabs at the summit of the big eight countries indicates that our issues have become their issues.

We arrived in Sharm El-Sheikh early because we thought that, at the summit there, all the issues would be of major importance for us in the Arab world. I asked Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the foreign minister, why the G-8 summit — like the Arab summit — was divided in two, starting in St. Petersburg and continuing to Evian after 20 hours. He told me: They are not really eight countries but seven plus one. The one is Russia. Normally the summit is held in one of the G-7 countries, and it was France’s turn this time.

That makes sense. But why were there two summits in the Arab world, one in Sharm El-Sheikh and one in Aqaba? The two are very close to each other, and a flight from one to the other does not take more than 20 minutes. However, the move forced the American president to travel on his plane, Air Force One, with all his armored cars and his furniture — which are carried in cargo planes — and an army of security men and women who follow him like his shadows from one Arab city to another.

One participant told me that the two summits were arranged for fear of antagonizing Arab participants. The Arabs had insisted that they would not come to the Sharm El-Sheikh summit if there was any intention to include the Israeli prime minister in the summit in the Egyptian city, even if he stayed at another hotel.

That forced the American president to travel on to Aqaba, so as not to make us angry. I asked the same person: Don’t you think it was a tough condition for a leader like Bush, especially when his life is under greater threat than that of any other world leader? Moreover, isn’t there an obvious contradiction when the Arabs go to New York every year and there stay with the same Israeli delegation to take part in the UN General Assembly meetings and sit together in the same hall? They have been doing this for 50 years. He told me with a smile: “The United Nations is one thing and regional summits are another.”

Frankly speaking, our reticence and lack of self-confidence on the world stage is always Israel’s gain. Negotiations between enemies are par for the course. After overcoming so much in the way of entrenched reluctance, we could easily go the extra mile and stay in the same city, if not the same hotel.

But the most important thing is that we should allow ourselves the opportunity to settle this issue. You have heard Sharon say that he is convinced of the need for peace and admit that Israel would not benefit by continuing the occupation. Occupation costs a lot.

I understand that insistence on direct meetings with the Israelis would not necessarily increase the chances for peace. Nor does staying in separate cities necessarily prevent it. If the Israelis want peace, then peace is possible, and if they don’t want it then there is nothing we can do even if we swim with them in the pools of Sharm El-Sheikh.

But my belief is that, after wading through a sea of blood, they are now in need of peace. Bloodshed does not serve anybody.

It has failed to provide them with the security they crave and it could not give us back our land.

Arab News Opinion 7 June 2003