With no definite results from the regional conference in Iraq, hopes turn to the Arab summit, writes Doaa El-Bey While many parties agreed that a settlement in Iraq is linked to preserving its unity, the one-day security conference in Baghdad failed to bring Iraq any closer to a resolution. Nevertheless, it provided room for discussing other issues not less in importance. In a thorough assessment of the conference, Jabir Habib Jabir regarded the meeting as a chance to have a fresh look at the situation in the region, with the Iraqi problem as the core and crux of it. Jabir warned against building much hope on the conference because it aimed to "build confidence between parties that do not trust each other". In addition, the US, or the biggest player, came to the conference with no definite initiative. Thus, other parties were less than willing to come up with their own ideas. In the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat Jabir wrote that since 2003, Iraq has been an arena for an open conflict between national, regional and international interests that have led to the present bloodshed. "The conference is a chance to work within a diplomatic regional framework that could resolve a psychological dilemma, especially that of holding an American-Iranian meeting in order to settle their differences, or an Arab- Iraqi meeting in order to reach a constructive settlement to the Iraqi problem." He expressed optimism that the regional meeting can go hand in hand with other internal Iraqi initiatives that the current government is trying to take in order to conclude a draft resolution that would unite all the parties in their fight against extremist groups and calls for division. Walid Al-Zubadi wrote in the Jordanian independent daily Al-Ghad that the three parties, the US, Iraq and other states, participating in the Iraqi conference did not need to prepare papers or documents, write long speeches or arrange for holding bilateral and trilateral meetings. "The only option before the three parties was frankly tackling the dangers emanating from the US occupation of Iraq and the importance of ending it as soon as possible. Any other solution is like trying to prescribe medication for a patient with a hopeless case," he said. US President George Bush did not show any will either to withdraw from Iraq or to draw a timetable for withdrawal, as Amr Gaftely wrote in the Syrian daily Tishreen. He said that as soon as the conference was concluded, Bush declared he would send another 4,400 US troops to Iraq in what he called "an amended strategy for war in Iraq". Thus, Gaftely added, Bush showed he is ready to stay in Iraq "until the last day of his term in office in order to steal the last barrel of oil after his forces ransacked the valuable Iraqi treasure". The demonstrations against Bush inside and outside the US, calling for a US withdrawal from Iraq are, according to Gaftely, an indication that Bush's policies would bring a further curse to the US. Aisha Al-Murri regarded the Baghdad conference as important since it opened channels of dialogue among the relevant parties even if some of them have different or conflicting calculations. It paved the way toward more meetings, the first of which is in the Turkish capital Istanbul next month. Al-Murri wrote the conference was not merely for the sake of Iraq, but was a chance for opening other pressing issues like US-Iranian and US-Syrian relations. "Diplomacy said the meeting would focus on Iraq, whereas political language showed it was a move forward in US- Iranian and US-Syrian relationships. Iraq is just a pass to more pressing issues between the three states," Al-Murri wrote in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Ittihad. Abdullah Al-Ashaal agreed with Murri that the Iraqi conference was a ticket to opening a dialogue with Syria and Iran. The three states probably met to discuss the Iraqi issue but their negotiations tackled other matters as well. While both Syria and Iran regarded the US acceptance to meet them as a major victory, Ashaal suggested they needed to carefully study what could be gained as a result of the meeting. Both states could use political playing cards like giving up support for Hamas and Hizbullah in return for a bigger regional role and the initiation of the Syrian-Israeli peace process. "The conference derives its importance from its significance and from the fact that it could lead to efforts that might resolve the Iraqi and Lebanese crises, diffuse the tension in Syrian-US relations, spare the region the repercussions of US- Iranian military conflict and boost the Syrian-Israeli peace process," Ashaal wrote in the London-based daily Al-Hayat. While the spectre of division and sectarian conflicts is threatening the Middle East, all hopes are built on the Riyadh summit which Gamil Mattar regards as exceptional and extremely important. Exceptional, he wrote, because it is being held in Saudi Arabia for the first time ever, if we disregard the mini-summit held in 1976; and extremely important because it is held in the wake of numerous internal, regional and international developments. "The resolutions and inclinations of the summit would either emphasis pan- Arabism of the region and the intention of its states to unite and integrate in order to stave off the dangers of division, or announce the end of the 'Arab identity' of the region. The latter would mean that the region would live under the umbrella of the US which proved to be weak and incapable of protecting its allies," Mattar wrote in Al-Hayat.
