By: Ayman Okeil
Over the past two days, I followed reactions to the selection of former Foreign Minister Ambassador Nabil Fahmy as Secretary‑General of the Arab League. Responses varied: some say the Arab League has problems, challenges, and stumbling blocks too difficult for any secretary‑general to address or even approach, while others remain hopeful that the next secretary‑general will not be like his predecessors and will have the capacity to revive the League from its deep stagnation. I lean toward the optimistic view.
The Arab League Council at the ministerial level unanimously adopted a decision to submit a recommendation to the 35th ordinary session of the Arab Summit, to be held in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, supporting the nomination of former Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy to assume the post of Secretary‑General of the Arab League for a five‑year term starting 1 July 2026. Fahmy’s nomination comes at a time when criticism is being directed at the Arab League from all directions. The Arab region faces political, economic, and social challenges.
Indeed, capable leadership figures who possess clear plans and the ability to make an impact can lift institutions out of their difficulties, restore their luster, and save them from inevitable failure and a resounding collapse. The ancients agreed that selecting the best competencies for the most important posts yields guaranteed results, namely a rapid transition toward change, positive, of course. This introduction is necessary before I address the selection of Nabil Fahmy as Secretary‑General of the Arab League. He is a figure of great experience and varied qualifications, with broad political experience accumulated through his service as foreign minister and as Egypt’s ambassador to Washington from 1999 to 2008, in addition to his work at Egypt’s permanent mission in Geneva. He also comes from a distinguished diplomatic family: he is the son of Ismail Fahmy, Egyptian foreign minister from 1973 to 1977.
However, Ambassador Nabil Fahmy’s ability to rescue the League from its limited performance and roles hinges on reforming the administrative and financial dysfunction within the organization. Away from theoretical discourse and empty talk, the problem is not that the League fails to perform its roles; it is that it does not even attempt to perform them.
For example, it is unreasonable that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights would visit Sudan from 14 to 18 January 2026, after the Rapid Support Forces took control of El Fasher, without any senior Arab League official visiting. It is not natural that the League’s stance on the crisis in the Land of Somaliland be limited to mere condemnations, denunciations, and expressions of concern. It is inconceivable that the Arab League does not present a framework for a solution that enjoys consensus in the current disputes in the Arab region. This applies to the political level and to how Arab issues and conflicts are handled.
Beyond the political and administrative aspects, the Secretary‑General, by virtue of the powers vested in the office, can play positive roles in other fields such as culture, education, supporting the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and even in reforming Arab human rights mechanisms, addressing duplication and redundancy in their work, and reviving the Arab Human Rights Strategy, which has gained little traction despite the Arab League Summit’s approval of its draft in 2019.
I also suggest Ambassador Nabil Fahmy form a committee of legal experts and human‑rights specialists to draft a course of action encouraging Arab states to accelerate accession to Arab instruments, including the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
Regionally, I believe developing relations with the African Union would be an important addition for coordinating policies and supporting common positions. The two organizations have far more in common than separates them, especially on debt relief, supporting conflict resolution, addressing the impacts of climate change, combating terrorism and transnational crime, and countering hate speech.
But building consensus among member states is not easy, because national calculations often override considerations of collective security and economic cooperation among League members. This makes the Arab League, while theoretically committed to the principle of unity, frequently act according to the separate interests of its members, an erroneous approach in my view, because the challenges facing the League and its states are greater than any one state can confront alone. Finally, I, like some others, have positive hopes and expectations for Mr. Nabil Fahmy’s stewardship of the League. He is a diplomatic professional with notable experience from a respected diplomatic family, and perhaps his presidency of the League will bring reform to this institution, which is witnessing an unprecedented decline in effectiveness. The existence of the Arab League and reforming it are important; improving its performance and efficiency is even more important, but only in the hands of those who understand and comprehend. The Arab leaders who met in Cairo in 1945 were united by the ambition of a consequential Arab League, but they could not have imagined it would come to its current state.
English 
العربية