By Salama A Salama January has already witnessed three important developments in the region, each the result of a long- term conflict. In all three instances the US was the main player, hardly surprising given that Washington has assumed the task of reordering regional affairs to serve its own interests. The first development was the signing of a peace treaty between the Khartoum and the Sudanese Popular Liberation Army after a civil war that has claimed more than a million lives and left four million homeless. The agreement, which follows two years of protracted negotiations between the two sides, allows the south to secede at any point in the next six years should obligations under the treaty, based on a division of power and wealth and the exemption of non-Muslims from Sharia law, not be carried out. Despite the lengthy negotiations the treaty has as many holes as a sieve, the largest of which is Darfur. The second development concerns Palestinian presidential elections, hailed by many as a watershed moment in the Middle East. The elections took place in the shadow of the Israeli occupation, and large numbers of Palestinians were prevented from casting their votes in the West Bank. Some international players were keen to use the elections to wash their hands of any responsibility felt for the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people. As expected, the elections ended with a victory for Abu Mazen. Yet the standoff between Abbas and his closest rival, Mustafa Al- Barghouti -- representing civil society and those forces eager for renewal -- was only the first, and the easiest, obstacle Abbas faces. Now, as president, he must begin communications with Israel. It will not be long before he discovers that Sharon will not budge an inch from a position now backed up with American guarantees. Sharon will insist on conditions that Arafat had previously rejected. The third development concerns Iraq where there is growing pressure for elections to be held regardless of the appalling security conditions and the refusal of major political forces and groupings -- including the Sunni Muslim Clerics Association and the Shiite followers of Moqtada Al-Sadr -- to participate. Those who are boycotting the elections are doing so, first and foremost, because of their belief that adequate preparations for the poll cannot be completed by the date scheduled. They question, too, the legitimacy of an election held under American occupation and against a backdrop characterised by violence and chaos. Yet none of these objections have managed to convince the Americans and their supporters in Allawi's transitional government to reexamine either the methods or timing of the elections. Washington stubbornly insists that the vote will go ahead regardless. It will happen, whether or not it achieves its goals, and at whatever cost. There is mounting evidence that a large segment of the Iraqi population won't participate. Shia leaders, intent on the elections taking place, have warned that any delay carries with it a threat of civil war, and have attempted to pacify their Sunni compatriots with promises of seats in any new cabinet and in the assembly that will be charged with drafting a new constitution. The elections, then, are coming increasingly to look like a piece of political gerrymandering. The danger is that they could well lead to conflict between Iraqis and, perhaps, lead eventually to partition. In all three examples above -- situations on which the future of entire peoples depends -- the biggest factor in keeping the flames burning is America taking unilateral decisions and ignoring the parties whose future is involved.
