It was reported by the Saudi Press Agency that the chairman of the Arab Thought foundation, Prince Khaled Al Faisal, met Amr Moussa, the Arab League's secretary general, and proposed to hold an Arab cultural summit similar to the economic one organised in Kuwait in 2009, wrote Mansoor al Jumari in an opinion piece for the Bahraini newspaper Al Wasat. Intensive meetings were held with the Arab League and contacts with Arab leaders, politicians and intellectuals were initiated to prepare for such an event.
Mr Moussa was quoted as saying that culture was taken as a comprehensive concept which included such aspects as education, scientific research, translation and Arabic arts. To address these issues, Mr Moussa said, would require a special meeting that would not necessarily gather heads of states, but highly regarded intellectuals to express and discuss their views. The discourse of Arab countries has been shaped since the Second World War by a cultural agenda centred on common destiny, national unity, the liberation of the Palestinian Occupied Territories, and so on. Arabs now need to devise a common but dynamic Arab cultural strategy to address present issues. "Overall, the proposal is good, but the measure of its success will be the extent of its impact on promoting a sense of mutual acceptance and a consensus in decision-making among Arab countries."
Before Arab media outlets revealed that "secret talks" were underway between Riyadh and Sana'a and then with the Houthi group, the situation on the ground signalled that subtle political action was taking place, wrote Areeb al Rantawi in a comment piece for the Jordanian daily Al Dustoor.
It has been noticed that major Saudi military operations against al Houthi militants have stopped, and confrontations changed into "skirmishes" interspersed by occasional air strikes. Saudis also did not act upon their deadline for the rebels to withdraw from places they occupied along the Saudi border. On the Yemeni front, sources said that major military actions were halted and senior officers were summoned to the capital amid speculation that the government would adopt a new strategy that champions tribal mediation over a military settlement.
Both Yemen and Saudi Arabia seem to be convinced that a military solution is unlikely to settle the upheavel, bringing about the possibility to try other solutions that span political, economic and social aspects. "Egypt also reported that it was ready to mediate between Sanaa and the rebels, an initiative that came days before a conference of the Friends of Yemen in London. By supporting a peaceful solution, Yemen and its friends in Riyadh and Cairo have studied the present situation well.
"Who is going to rule the South if the Sudanese choose separation?" askled Ahamd Amrabi in an opinion piece for the Qatari newspaper Al Watan. "Many Sudanese, if asked, would be surprised because, for them, the answer sounds obvious: the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) led by General Salvakir Mayardit." This is too simplistic a conclusion, given the tribal nature underlying the political conflict over power in the South, which caused the death of about 2,500 people in 2009.
This situation calls for more questions on the upcoming referendum and elections. Will fighting, if expanded, allow these two processes to occur in the first place? Will Mr Mayardit accept the strong competition of Lam Akol for the post of the South's president? What is more, Akol's clans do not favour separation. What will then be the attitude of the SPLM, if southern tribes vote for unity? There are no answers yet to these questions, but what is clear is that the Nivasha peace deal has put an end to the war between the North and South. However, it has spawned conflicts between southern factions.
That George Mitchell, the special US envoy to the Middle East, chose to start his tour of the region from Damascus is an indication that he has failed to bet on the Palestinians alone, remarked Abdul Rahman al Rashed in an opinion piece for the London-based newspaper Al Shahrq al Awsat. "As I have mentioned before, there is a need to involve Syria in the peace process, not only because it wants to see a peace deal. Syria, if excluded, may feel there is a conspiracy against it and might act against any accord. Historically, it is known that major negotiation initiatives have failed partially or completely because of rivalry between Arab countries, and especially with Syria."
"It seems that Mr Mitchell has learnt the secret of the game. To strike a peace deal through Damascus is a victory. This is why he thinks he should include Syria in the negotiations to reduce chances of failure in the next phase, and alleviate the pressure on Mahmoud Abbas, the president of Palestinian Authority." Mr Mitchell came to understand that offering Syrians a chance to prove their intentions either through collective or bilateral talks could achieve one or two goals: reaching an agreement between Syrians and Israelis on the one hand and between Israelis and Palestinians on the other.
* Digest compiled by Mostapha Elmouloudi @Email:melmouloudi@thenational.ae