The Arab League was for a long time a Club of Dictators, boasting members such as Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak or Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. The body, a union of 22 Arab-speaking countries in Africa and the Middle East, reflected the political paralysis of its members.

League summits always ended with the same official statements. Hardly anyone took the League seriously - neither the people who lived in the region nor politicians from East and West. This has changed with the uprisings in the Arab world. The Arab League is somebody again.

Between democracy and power

The metamorphosis began in 2011 when the League pitted itself against Libya's dictator Gadhafi, suspended Libya's membership and supported UN sanctions against Gadhafi's forces.

Syria's longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad also faces opposition from the League. In November 2011, Syria was excluded from all meetings. Two weeks later, the body even imposed sanctions against Syria, marking an unprecedented action in the history of the Arab union.

Officially, the League said its decision was based on spreading democracy and protecting human rights. But in the background, massive regional and geopolitical interests play a role.

"The League has always been a reflection of the regionally dominating nations," said political scientist Hamadi El-Aouni, a Middle East expert at Berlin's Free University. "Today, the Gulf states are dominant with their wealth in oil, as well as the Islamist movements which have come to power in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt."

The powerbrokers

At the moment, mainly Qatar and Saudi Arabia are pulling the strings in the Arab League. During the revolution in Libya, Qatar even participated with its own aircraft in implementing the no-fly zone there. But Aouni said he finds it implausible that Qatar and Saudi Arabia of all countries should be standing up for democracy.

"These nations are not democracies and human rights hardly receive any consideration there," Aouni told DW.

Political scientist Elham Manea from the University of Zurich also questioned these countries' motivation. In eastern Saudi Arabia, for example, Shiites have been protesting nearly daily. Saudi security forces have often used massive force against the protests and also violated human rights in the process.

Another example was the unrest in neighboring Bahrain. When Shiites took to the streets there last year to protest against their discrimination, Saudi Arabia sent in troops as support. The call for more democracy was brutally struck down.

"I don't think that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are pursuing these politics within the Arab League for the right reasons," Manea told DW. Instead, they were following their own interests in the League.

"The Sunni Gulf states are trying to influence the region to their benefit and spread their own version of a political Islam," she said. The most important goal in this endeavor was not the spreading of democracy, but rather the weakening of the Shiite rival Iran.

United against Iran

The Gulf states feel threatened by Iran's efforts to gain more control in the region. Iran's most important ally in the region is Syria. Should Assad's regime topple, Iran would lose a key bridgehead to Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas - and therefore also influence and means of pressure. Weakening Iran and strengthening the Gulf emirates are therefore also in the interest of the West.

"The Gulf states are being supported by the West, with all political and military means," Aouni said. There are large US military bases in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Any criticism of undemocratic conditions in the Gulf is only made behind closed doors.

Aouni said he viewed the Arab League's new political stance, driven by the Gulf states, critically.

"The League is being exploited in order to legitimize the implementation of western interests in the region," he said.

Polarization within the Arab League

But not all member states approve of the League's new line. Countries such as Algeria or Sudan are very skeptical of the confrontational policy towards Syria. The League is essentially split.

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, host of this year's annual Arab League summit taking place in Baghdad from March 27 to 29, has no interest in a change of power in Syria. The Shiite Maliki is himself stuck in the middle of a power struggle with the Sunni minority in his own country. If the Sunni opposition in Syria were to come into power, this would weaken Maliki and the Shiites in Iraq. The Iraqi government therefore has financially supported the Assad regime since the revolution in Syria began.

Internationally, though, the Arab League has without doubt gained significance through its new political stance. The League's Secretary General Nabil Elaraby has become a sought-after dialog partner. International politicians are streaming in and out of the headquarters in Cairo. And the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is attempting to negotiate in Syria on behalf of the League and the UN.

One thing is clear, though: the Arab League is still anything but a democratic club. Sooner or later, the spirit of the revolution which the League is currently helping to diffuse could turn against the remaining autocrats and despots within its own ranks.

Author: Nils Naumann / sac
Editor: Rob Mudge