Looking into the Baghdad conference this weekend, Rasha Saad guesses what might happen In the Baghdad summit, where Iraq's neighbours will convene with the five UN Security Council permanent members this weekend, Elias Harfouch believes it is too early to be optimistic. In the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, Harfouch attempted to explain the reasons behind the conference, putting forth some suggestions. "Some say the Bush administration has started to realise how grave its mistakes are, and so is working to make up for what has gone wrong." They believe the administration is finally acknowledging the important role Iraq's neighbours can play in stabilising Iraq. Harfouch points out another suggestion, that Bush's complete change and his new, positive view of the members of the "axis of evil" is reminiscent of the transformation he experienced at an earlier stage of his life when he quit alcohol and made a belated return to religion. According to supporters of this view, the renewed political position on North Korea is part of Washington's policies towards Iran and Syria even though Damascus was not part of the axis of evil despite its strained relations with Washington. A third perspective, according to Harfouch, is that the administration is now returning, after three months of ignoring it, to the findings of the Baker- Hamilton committee which recommended engaging both Damascus and Tehran in the process of fixing the deteriorating security and political situation Washington is facing in Iraq. Senator Lee Hamilton is among those who are upbeat about the Iraqi conference. Hamilton outlined the call for the conference and Washington's preparations to participate as part of what he described as major changes in the US administration's vision and its acknowledgment of world realties. Also in Al-Hayat, Patrick Seale wrote that in truth, there is no great enthusiasm among Iraq's neighbours for a rapid US withdrawal because each fears that it may be to the other's advantage. As for the myriad militias fighting each other inside Iraq, Seale continued, they do not seem ready to put away their guns. He compared the situation in Iraq "with what the 15-year-long Lebanese civil war demonstrated, [that] conflicts of this sort have an inner dynamic which needs to run its course before a settlement can be reached." Seale explains that however tragic the Iraqi situation may be, and however great the human misery, the conflict may not yet be "mature" enough for a settlement. "Factions and states inside and outside the country are still jockeying for power. The prize is too great for these actors to give up the struggle. It needs to be said, however, that in everyone's mind is the fear that a sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni could spill over from Iraq into the whole region, from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Gulf states, and to Lebanon," Seale warns. It is against this background that Seale believes that the Baghdad conference is being convened. "It is this terrible anxiety which may bring Iraq's neighbours and many other interested parties to accept Iraq's invitation to the Baghdad conference. It [the conference] will at least have the advantage of bringing the US face to face across the table with Iran and Syria." Also in Al-Hayat Mustafa Zein wrote of a warning from the US generals to the Bush administration, that the US has six months to win, otherwise Iraq will turn into a new Vietnam and the US will be forced to leave quickly. The generals listed the following: internal political and financial support is decreasing; people's moral support is wavering; Britain has decided to withdraw; Denmark will pull out; Italy and Spain already have; Japan is criticising Washington; and the Americans only have Bulgaria and Mongolia left. According to Zein, the White House knows the gravity of the Iraqi impasse and is thus moving on all fronts. "Achieving any kind of political and military victory is extremely important. Therefore, it has re- stirred Middle Eastern issues, from Lebanon to Iran via Palestine and, of course, Iraq." Zein maintains that the White House is trying to break the deadlock in Iraq by blaming neighbouring countries, especially Syria and Iran, for the results of the occupation. He adds that the US is striving to apply the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission without declaring it openly, and is leaving to the Iraqi government the freedom to call for the Baghdad conference that will be attended by Damascus and Tehran. If it succeeds, Zein adds, it will be followed by an international conference to help re-build Iraq, re- legitimise the occupation and perhaps engage Islamic and Arab countries in managing it and fighting terrorism in the country. Another important Arab gathering taking place at the end of this month is that of the Arab League to be held in Riyadh. According to Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed, the summit should focus on a limited number of key issues rather than lose its way amongst the various heaps of problems, both old and new. In his article in the Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat he wrote that if the Arab League and the host country can succeed in making it a summit determined to resolve one issue, "it will be more effective than issuing a joint statement that amalgamates hundreds of unresolved issues to be read in the concluding hour, as has become customary in previous summits." Unfortunately, according to Al-Rashed, most summits have fallen into the trap of dispersive and multiple tendencies, and open-ended decisions that have not benefited the region nor serve any important cause. What they can do, according to Al-Rashed, is focus on one single cause -- a fundamental cause like that of Palestine -- and commit themselves to defining a single solution that is binding on all parties. "If the summit were to focus on a limited number of issues and can manage to achieve practical results for these problems, it would then be considered a true victory," Al-Rashed concluded.
