Oman’s position on Union shouldn’t affect other Gulf states

Oman's rejection of a proposal to form a Gulf Union came as great surprise to the Gulf public, remarked Mohammed Al Hammadi, editor-in-chief of the Abu Dhabi-based daily Al Ittihad, in a column yesterday.
Oman's stance is not a first. Since its creation in 1981, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has seen many disagreements and objections which at times have amounted to threats of withdrawal, the writer noted.
The GCC comprises six independent countries – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and so it is quite natural that disagreements emerge now and then over this or that issue, provided transparency is maintained.
"Whether we agree or disagree with Oman's stance on the Gulf Union, and whether or not we find it convincing, our respect for Oman must not change," he said. Political stances by Oman or any other GCC member should not have any impact on brotherly relations.
Since Oman's minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, threatened on Saturday during the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain to withdraw from the GCC if a Gulf Union materialises, there has been a public backlash, especially on social media websites. This, in turn, has resulted in the Omani people voicing their opposition to a Gulf Union and their support of the threat to withdraw.
It was feared that this disagreement would cast its shadow over the 34th GCC Summit hosted in Kuwait on December 10 and 11. But Kuwait saved the day by saying that a Gulf Union would not be on the agenda at that meeting, and that a special meeting would be held in Riyadh to discuss the issue.
This is not the right time to fuel or focus on Gulf disagreements. This critical stage requires a great deal of action and cooperation to overcome the hurdles and be up to the aspirations of the Gulf people, the writer noted.
Whether Oman joins a Gulf Union or not is Oman's own choice, despite any problems that might arise. What is important is that Oman's decision should not affect the rest of the Gulf states, he added.
Yet if the developments in this region have shown anything, it is that the Arabian Peninsula is bound by a common destiny. Any Gulf state, big or small, is wrong if it imagines that it can be better off isolated.
At this point, the Gulf States must take notice of and deal with the transformations in the region and the shifting US Middle East policy. The US has reached a deal with Iran over the latter's nuclear programme without informing or involving any of the Gulf States.
Meanwhile, the 34th summit must focus on meeting the social, economic and political demands of the Gulf people and bettering their lives.
Pluralism is abused in Mauritania and Tunisia
Two weeks ago, representatives of 71 parties stood for election to the Parliament of Mauritania. This is absolutely not the kind of pluralism that reflects democracy, wrote Amjad Arrar in the Sharjah-based Al Khaleej.
Political pluralism should reflect the diversity of the political, economic and intellectual views among the public. But 71 parties in Mauritania is just an example of moving from one extreme, iron-fist dictatorship, to another extreme, inefficient ultra-liberalism, argued the writer.
A similar situation occurred in Tunisia after president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was toppled. More than 120 parties were created in Tunisia, a country of 10 million people. India, with over 1.2 billion people, has seven parties.
A democracy is gauged by its efficiency and its capacity to represent people and achieve their aspirations, not by its large number of parties.
Decades have passed since some parties in the Arab world were created, and yet they still fail to attract the public and rally them around their platforms. Despite their failure, they have not sought to revisit their methods. The opportunism of a handful of leaders, it seems, is the only explanation why such parties continue to exist.
The irony is that many parties that keep calling for democracy fail to practice that within their respective parties, with leaders clinging to their posts and restricting freedom of expression, the writer concluded.
Syria's choice: a new democracy or chaos
The UN and Arab League envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, has painted two scenarios for the Syrian conflict: either a new, nonsectarian democratic republic, if a political deal is sealed, or else a Somalia-style Syria torn apart by war lords, wrote Akram Al Buni in the London-based Al Hayat yesterday.
Mr Brahimi is sending this warning to the US and western countries amid reports of disagreement with Russia over the Geneva 2 conference, the transition period, figures nominated for transition, and the nature of concessions that the Syrian regime should make, the writer noted.
Moscow insists on making sure the regime's concessions are minimal to retain the key to the conflict. But it has at the same time offered some compromise, holding talks with some groups of the opposition and sending reassurances to Saudi Arabia to lower its reservations on the settlement.
These moves from Moscow were met with flexibility from Washington, which backtracked on some conditions and sought to talk the opposition into accepting a political settlement. The US, which used to see Iran a part of the problem in Syria, is now publicly saying it is part of the solution.
Mr Brahimi's message also targets Arab countries, urging them to unite and reconsider their positions in light of the US-Iran deal.
* Digest compiled by Abdelhafid Ezzouitni
AEzzouitni@thenational.ae