Monday February 7, 2005

Column

One day summits are always exciting. Less for what they accomplish, more for what they symbolize.

In these quickie, multi-partied affairs, meetings and discussions are normally pro forma. Most of the summit day is spent officially articulating ideas that are already known to all. More important than the formal ideas and more easily accomplished in forums of this type is the simple exchange of informal ideas and the breakdown of personality stereotypes.

The Middle East Summit in Sharm al Sheikh, albeit one day long, holds special significance.

This summit means everything to the participating parties, the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Egyptians and to the summit sponsors who also happen to be Jordan and host country Egypt. This summit is being held by, and exclusively, for neighbor nations in the Middle East. There are so many internal and external factors trying to prevent this particular summit from happening that getting it together and pulling it off is a triumph.

Just look at the forces trying to prevent this event from happening. Terrorists are trying to derail it. Extremists in ideology rather than in action don't want to see it happen. Countries with a vested interest in continued instability in the region are trying to stop it. Parties that think any agreement between Jews and Arabs is wrong are viscerally and vocally against it. The list goes on.

And yet, this summit will go on, because attendance in Sharm symbolizes that the parties are more vested and more serious than they have ever been before in forging a workable, livable, plan for the region. It means that the "big boys" Jordan and Egypt are assuming a serious role in the success of the summit and, consequently, in the effort being put forth to bring stability to the region.

The phenomenon that is the Sharm Summit is what I call the nature of the demise of Arafat.

During Yasser Arafat's lifetime this would never have happened. It couldn't have. It didn't. Jordan and Egypt both have a lot a stake in what happens between Israel and the Palestinians. With Arafat's demise they can, individually and together, put into play the plans that may convince the people on the street in the region to support a peaceful resolution.

Both Jordan and Egypt share borders with the Palestinians. Instability is fluid, it can easily ripple over the Palestinian border into either sovereignty. Both Jordan and Egypt have extensive experience in tackling terror and other extremist groups. That's something the Palestinians need to learn. Both Jordan and Egypt have paved the way toward peace with their own treaties - warmer or colder - with Israel. Both the king of Jordan and the president of Egypt are excellent mentors for the new Palestinian leadership and can show, by example, how to achieve the end goals through peaceful means and not through violence.

Importantly, if not ironically, is that one of the key successes of this Sharm Summit is keeping the United States out. Out of the summit. Out of the mix. It's a success because it telegraphs to every onlooker that this summit is a local initiative, that this summit is not sponsored by the corruptive influences of the USA.

As a basic rule, public US involvement puts the cabash on almost any policy in the Middle East. Condi Rice, might be in the region, but she is not an invited guest. In not inviting the secretary of state, the Sharm Summit might be able to garner credibility among those numerous skeptics who think peace is a tool of the United States in a quest to corrupt Arab society.

There are several reasons why it is right for the United States not to be in attendance:

** Reason #1 The US must let the parties in the region discuss these issues on their own.

** Reason #2 The people on the street in the region need to feel that discussions are not being forced by the US or by other external and world pressures.

** Reason #3 It is very important that Egypt be seen as host and as in charge.

** Reason #4 Egypt and Jordan are jockeying for control in the Arab world and after the summit they will be working together to help spearhead a pro-Western perspective.

** Reason #5 It is essential to side with Egypt and Jordan and not Saudi Arabia, the other power in the Mid East, specifically because Saudi Arabia represents pro-Islamic forces often contrary to the West.

Condi's visit to the region is a huge boost in an already optimistic period. She has made it clear that the US will help stimulate movement toward rapprochement. But she didn't need the Sharm Summit to do it. Coming to the region and meeting the parties on their individual home turfs is what she needed to do. Did she accomplish anything or cover new ground? No, she didn't.

The visit of the secretary of state, like the summit, is not about substance. It's about style and it's about symbols.

Never, never, underestimate the importance of symbols in the Middle East.