Joint fate and in­ter­ests

Kuwait Times - - LOCAL - By Khalid Al-Tar­rah

When the Gulf Co­op­er­a­tion Coun­cil (GCC) was formed 36 years ago, the com­mon dom­i­na­tor then was that the fate of mem­ber coun­tries was the same at all lev­els, But since a few years ago, some is­sues be­came very com­pli­cated, then we got ac­cus­tomed to some calm that was ac­com­pa­nied with cau­tion. The dis­pute be­tween GCC mem­ber states that we are wit­ness­ing to­day is not a po­lit­i­cal sur­prise, as the sides to the cur­rent dis­pute in the GCC saw po­lit­i­cal de­vel­op­ments that must lead to a new vi­sion lo­cally and in­ter­na­tion­ally. Fate is bring­ing mem­ber coun­tries closer and not di­vid­ing them. Yet, to­day a dif­fer­ence came up on defin­ing the joint fate and in­ter­ests, to a point where fate be­came un­known un­der the cur­rent com­pli­ca­tions. There is a ‘list of de­mands,’ and there are reser­va­tions to­wards it too, and in all cases, de­mands should be ne­go­tiable to reach a prag­matic so­lu­tion that makes the ceil­ing of de­mands not too high, so that the process of achieve­ment does not be­come im­pos­si­ble. It should be re­al­ized that to­day’s com­pli­ca­tions are the re­sult of po­lit­i­cal ac­cu­mu­la­tions that were not dealt with from their roots, and the method of treat­ment was over­come with cour­tesy, not trans­parency and frank­ness. What we are see­ing in the form of me­dia ex­changes con­firm that the po­lit­i­cal en­vi­ron­ment was not right, as dif­fer­ences en­tered the stage of ac­cep­tance and not ac­cep­tance.

The ter­ror­ism’s heat has hit the Gulf coun­tries such as what hap­pened in the world, and there is no doubt that if there was not a cra­dle for ter­ror­ism in the Gulf and neigh­bor­ing re­gion, its heat would not spread to the point where we are to­day. Con­tain­ing ter­ror­ism is a fore­gone con­clu­sion, but it is im­por­tant to set pri­or­i­ties ac­cord­ing to their de­grees, and dis­cuss them without the con­sid­er­a­tion of win­ning and los­ing, as the loser and win­ner are the coun­tries and peo­ple of the GCC. Mean­while, the lack of a joint def­i­ni­tion of ter­ror­ism maybe com­pli­cates reach­ing an agree­ment on the pro­ce­dures to con­front it.

Be­ing strict with de­mands and pre­sent­ing them as con­di­tions isn’t the way to make agree­ments, nor de­ci­sive re­jec­tions and strict an­swers are a wise stand to solve crises that may be­come more com­pli­cated be­tween broth­erly coun­tries who have the same fate. ‘The March of the GCC’ was not void of fail­ures, and the best ex­am­ple is the clin­i­cal death of the coun­cil’s sec­re­tariat gen­eral, but this can­not be in­ter­preted as the ba­sis of the dis­putes, but rather should lead to re­view­ing ob­sta­cles, bring­ing views close and cor­rect­ing the path of joint ac­tion. Com­pli­ca­tions like these can­not be solved by me­dia fo­rums, rather they are sup­posed to be made into win­dows of un­der­stand­ing and bring­ing stands closer, and not to deepen the dif­fer­ences.

Tim­ing must be con­sid­ered as well as the sur­round­ing chal­lenges as di­vi­sion is not in the in­ter­est of any party. Rather, sit­ting down be­hind closed doors should be pre­ceded by wishes to agree, bear­ing in mind the need of each Gulf party to the other, es­pe­cially un­der the in­creased al­liances around the world con­trary to what is go­ing on be­tween GCC coun­tries.

The Kuwaiti me­di­a­tion ini­tia­tive is go­ing on un­der charged skies and of­fi­cial and me­dia ex­changes, which should be done in prepa­ra­tion for ne­go­ti­a­tions that will end with agree­ments, as there are for­eign par­ties that ben­e­fit from any Gulf dis­pute, and this is what must be re­al­ized to keep the joint fate and in­ter­ests.—Trans­lated by Kuwait Times

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Kuwait

© PressReader. All rights reserved.