Online edition of Daily News

A delay in the holding of the Arab League summit in Tunis, could be said to highlight not merely internal differences among states in the Arab League over "proposals to promote democracy in the Arab world" but to reflect also the broader divisions which are relentlessly tearing the global political order apart.

At the time of writing some 22 Arab League member countries have expressed unwillingness to attend the summit while Gulf states had decided to send only low-level delegations to the summit.

Tunisian policemen stand March 28, 2004 in front of the closed gate of the entrance to the venue where the Arab summit was to be held in Tunis. Most of the Arab countries expressed their regret to the unexpected postponment of the planned Arab summit in Tunis and Egypt offered to host a rescheduled gathering as soon as possible. AFP

Referring to the fissures within the Arab League on principal agenda items at the summit, a commentary run by the official Tunisian news agency said that Tunisia had urged other Arab countries to explicitly embrace democracy and reject "extremism, fanaticism, violence and terrorism." It went on to say that, "It became clear that there was a variance of positions on... proposals related to fundamental issues on modernisation, democratic reform, human rights, the rights of women and the role of civil society."

Thus it could be seen that highly complex and contentious issues are at the heart of the Arab League crisis. While on the one hand, sections of world opinion - such as the West - see liberal democratic reforms and secularisation as the way forward for Arab countries which are yet to tread this path, there is a distinct hardening of global divisions on civilisational and religious lines - an "us versus them" syndrome nourished by different religion-based identities.

Accordingly, what is unfolding on a worldwide scale is a "clash of civilisations" and religion is seen to be the basis of these civilisational differences. In the Arab world these divisions have been heightened by the political storms in the Middle-East and in Iraq.

Military action by the West in recent times in Afghanistan and later Iraq and its support for Israel in the Middle East conflict, to name a few such storm centres, have intensified a "siege mentality" among sections of the Arab world which in turn is nourishing the perception among the latter that what is essentially under attack is Islamic civilisation.

Such perceptions and the consequent hardening of religious differences among states is inevitable considering the fierceness of these conflicts and the brutalization of Arab populations, they bring in their wake. It should, therefore, come as no surprise if armed, Arab militancies are on the rise, particularly in reaction to Western military aggression and perceived violation of Arab national sovereignty by Western states. However, such reactions by Arab states are come to be seen as "fanaticism" and "terror".

Thus, if there is hesitation on the part of some Arab states to accept the "democratisation" project, this should be viewed against the backbdrop of the emerging global cleavages on civilisational and religious lines. Attaching importance and priority to such agendas would not be possible for these states which are forced on the defensive by Western military aggression.

However, the West would do well to change track and think less of imposing its military will on the Arab world, singly or through its allies. It is difficult to see the "civilisational blocs" of the world coming out of the present impasse other than through a meeting of minds. Civilisational Dialogue needs to replace civilisational conflict.