WHAT IS THE USE OF THE ARAB LEAGUE IN THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR?

One consequence of the end of World War II was the proliferation of international organizations, a phenomenon that also affected the Middle East. So, on March 22, 1945, when the war had not finished yet, Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria, decided to create the Arab League. A foundation three months prior to the approval of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco. Since then, this "exclusive" club has been joined by 16 other countries.

According to the second article of the Covenant of the League of Arab States, "The purpose of the League is to establish closer relations between member states and coordinate their political activities in order to conduct a closer collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider, in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries".

Although in its infancy, it emerged as a spokesman of weight, to the point of supporting the creation of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine - the PLO - in 1964, eventually it has shown a great ineffectiveness because of the conflicting interests of its members and the personalities of some leaders.

Only the uprisings that led to the Arab awakening in 2011, have managed to "remove" the foundations of this stagnant institution, albeit at a slower pace than would have been desirable. So, it was not until the 12 November 2011, after several meetings and a committee visit to Syria, that the Arab League suspended this country as a member. Paradoxically, the expulsion of Libya was expeditive and became effective on February 22 (Aug. 27 would be readmitted). Gaddafi did not enjoy much sympathy among its members.

The involvement of some Syrian opposition leaders and representatives at the last meeting of the Arab League, on 26 and 27 March of this year in Doha (Qatar), has put the final "nail" in the cofin of the erratic policy of non-interference of this institution. Many observers questioned it as a violation of Article 8 of its charter, which states: "Each State member of the League shall respect the form of government of the other states of the League and the form of government recognized as one of the rights of these states and not take any action designed to change it”. Others are calling it an example of the desire of these countries to assume greater international importance according to their economic and demographic weight.

This step should not lead to deception. Most member countries are undemocratic states or hesitant and unstable democracies that have acted driven by the need to give a "progressive" look and an appearance of protection of human rights of Syrians in a time when social unrest threatens to end the "status quo". They know that the change of government in Syria will become a reality in the medium term and in view of how the "revolutions" in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are evolving only a position in favor of citizens and against dictatorships can mitigate the effect they will have on their countries. One way to continue slowing change with the anesthesia of their wealth.