“Al-Aqsa Flood” and the “postponed” summit between Arabs and Africa | Opinions

The “sudden” announcement of the postponement of the Fifth Arab-African Summit for the third time – and indefinitely due to the events in Gaza, and after a lengthy period of preparation for it, and postponement twice “in 2019, then 2020 due to Corona” – raises several questions about the reasons behind this postponement.

The Gaza War is one of the manifestations of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which was the reason for the Arab-African rapprochement after most of the countries of the continent sided with the Arabs in the 1973 war and cut off relations with Israel, and the subsequent talk about the unity of the Arab-African destiny in the face of colonialism, which was… At that time, it was perched on the chests of some of these countries, in addition to the Israeli occupation of some parts of the Arab countries. As a result of this, the Arab-African Summit was held, which met for the first time in Cairo in 1977, with the participation of more than 60 countries, and the issuance of its final statement, which was called, at the time, With the Cairo Declaration, to stipulate support for the struggle of the peoples of: Palestine, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Somalia, and the Comoros; To gain their freedom and independence, and indeed these African countries gained their independence, and Palestine remained as it was.

How, then, was the fifth summit postponed because of the Palestine issue, which was the reason for the existence of these summits in the first place! Does the Gaza war require postponement and ignoring the Arabs, the largest African voting bloc in the world (54 countries), instead of supporting relations between two entities that represent an important voting bloc (64 countries) and possess enormous economic and human potential that can be used to confront the West, which strongly supports Israel? Or is it the fear of not agreeing on the wording of a final statement in light of the Arab-Arab disagreements that emerged regarding Gaza before the summit on the one hand, versus similar African disagreements, that made postponement the preferred option, ignoring the benefits that both sides could reap from holding it?

Will the “Polisario” remain a stumbling block in preventing this Arab-African rapprochement, and why did it not constitute an obstacle in the third summit hosted by Kuwait in 2013! Is it possible to find a formula that contributes to overcoming this issue?

Postponement and Arab-Arab disputes

It can be said that the Gaza war on October 7 revealed deep Arab differences in dealing with it between the group of countries that rejected normalization and the others that supported it. What caused not only the postponement of the Arab-African summit scheduled for November, but also the extraordinary Arab summit not being held in Riyadh, and the “host country” being forced to suddenly cancel it on the eve of its scheduled date, and merge it with the Islamic summit, to hold a surprising joint Arab-Islamic summit as well. Unexpectedly, it resulted in a final statement that lacked concrete practical aspects that would contribute to supporting the residents of Gaza through the immediate entry of aid to them, and deterring Israel until it was forced to cease fire.

There are a number of reasons behind this cancellation of the Arab Summit, and the postponement of the Arab-African Summit, perhaps the most prominent of which is what was reported about the inability of the Arab foreign ministers, in their preparatory meeting for the summit, to reach an agreement on the final statement, after the proposal of some countries that reject normalization – namely: Qatar and Kuwait. , Oman, Libya, Palestine, Yemen, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon – a draft resolution that includes an escalation and threat to cut off oil supplies to Israel and its Western allies, and sever diplomatic and economic relations with it. According to some Arab sources, it included the most important rejected proposals that were presented in a In writing, the following:

1. Preventing the use of American and other military bases in Arab countries to supply Israel with weapons and ammunition.
2. Freezing Arab diplomatic, economic, security and military relations with Israel.
3. Threatening to use oil and Arab economic capabilities to pressure Tel Aviv to stop the aggression.
4. Preventing Israeli civil aviation from flying in Arab airspace.
5. Forming an Arab committee at the ministerial level that will travel immediately to New York, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, London, and Paris, to convey the Arab Summit’s request for the need to immediately stop the Israeli aggression against Gaza.

But the countries supporting normalization rejected these proposals, and in light of this discrepancy, the extraordinary Arab summit was canceled, and before that the African summit was postponed in light of this discrepancy regarding the war on Gaza.

“Polisario” and the Arab-African disputes

Perhaps the lack of a single Arab position regarding the representation of the “Polisario or what is known as the Sahrawi Republic” in this summit contributed to the deepening of Arab-Arab differences and the postponement of their summit with the Africans. There are still two Arab axes divided over this issue. The first includes: Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, and Kuwait, and he supports Morocco’s position of not recognizing the “Polisario” state, which is also not recognized by the United Nations and the Arab League, while the other party – led by Algeria – recognizes it. As a member state of the African Union, and before it the Organization of African Unity.

Hence, it was reported that Saudi Arabia postponed the summit for this reason, especially in light of the presence of African support led by South Africa towards the presence of the “Polisario”, in exchange for the rejection of it by Riyadh and other Arab countries. Perhaps the Saudi position benefited from the atmosphere that prevailed during the fourth Arab-African summit hosted by Equatorial Guinea in 2016, where the summit failed due to the representation of “Polisario,” and 8 Arab countries were forced to leave before its conclusion.

But the question remains: Will “Polisario” remain a stumbling block in preventing this Arab-African rapprochement, and why did it not constitute an obstacle at the third summit hosted by Kuwait in 2013! Is it possible to find a formula that contributes to overcoming this issue?

Africans and the “Al-Aqsa Flood”

But on the other hand, it is not possible to rely on Arab-Arab differences alone to explain the postponement of the Arab-African summit, as they are also met with African differences, regarding the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, and support for the Palestinian or Israeli side, which contributed to the idea of ​​postponement being the best option, even if For a temporary period, despite the issuance of a statement by the President of the African Commission, Moussa Faki, confirming that the denial of the basic rights of the Palestinian people – especially their rights to establish an independent, sovereign Palestinian state, is the main cause of permanent Israeli-Palestinian tension – the discrepancy still exists at the level of countries, where Three groups can be distinguished:

• The first: supportive of Palestine, led by South Africa, which confirmed that the cause of the conflict was the illegal occupation, and demanded a two-state solution, and the opening of safe corridors. It also linked Hamas as a resistance movement to the national liberation movement in South Africa against the apartheid regime, and even considered the South African Anglican Church Israel is an “apartheid” state.
• The second: Pro-Israel, led by Cameroon, Ghana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Zambia, and Rwanda, for various reasons, most of which relate to the desire to maintain close relations with the United States and Israel at the same time.
• The third: neutral, and includes: Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, and Rwanda, demanding a cessation of hostilities and dialogue to reach a two-state solution.

These discrepancies also at the African level may also serve to justify the postponement of this summit.

But the question remains: How long will it be postponed? And for how long will both sides remain unable or unwilling to achieve common interests and obstruct the dream of the possibility of merging the two entities: Arab and African within the framework of what is known as the “Afro-Arab” framework, or “Afrabia” called for by the late African Muslim scholar Ali Mazrouei, who He believes that the rapprochement between the two sides is a reality because there are non-African Arab countries, such as Yemen, that are closer to the continent than African countries, such as Mauritius. He also believes, on the other hand, that the Arab Gulf countries are closer to Africa than to the non-Arab Asian countries.

The Gaza war made the countries supporting Israel temporarily forget their differences and stand with it as one side, in exchange for Arab-Arab divergence, which was reflected in the rapprochement with Africa, and thus the Arab-African divergence has become the master of the situation, until now.