The gap between promises and reality never seemed wider than at this week's Red Sea conference on the Future of Iraq. Amira Howeidy reports from Sharm El-Sheikh Click to view caption While 16 countries and four international organisations, including the UN, were discussing the future of Iraq in the sunny Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh on 22 and 23 November, violence continued to grind away throughout the land that was the subject of their civilised conversations. US Marines were embroiled in heavy fighting in central Falluja as the offensive there entered its third week, while three members of the influential Sunni Muslim Clerics Association where assassinated separately by unknown gunmen. Violence also remained a fact of life in Baghdad, Al-Ramadi, Mosul and Kirkuk. But the contrast between the scenes in Sharm El-Sheikh and those on the ground between Tigris and Euphrates went far beyond the difference between beachview pools and street-to-street fighting. Pledges and promises made during the two-day international ministerial conference, which was intended to help the Iraqis recover their country and build a democratic society, stood at odds with the now significant boycott of the scheduled 30 January elections. More importantly, the conference's communiqué carefully avoided setting a date to end the occupation, which consists of more than 150,000 foreign troops, including 138,000 Americans. This much-hyped talking shop was the first to be held since the re-election of US President George W Bush and according to observers, reflected the views which will determine US behaviour towards Iraq during the American president's second term. "The US is demonstrating that it will pursue its aggressive policy in Iraq and the region," Gamil Mattar, a former Egyptian diplomat, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "They are demanding -- and getting -- international support for their open-ended stay in Iraq. The US has demonstrated that it is even stronger and more intransigent than it was [during Bush's first term]." An eight-page communiqué issued at the end of the meeting said that the mandate of the "multinational forces" in Iraq "is not open-ended" and that it will expire on completion of the "political process" in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1546 adopted last June. The resolution, however, does not set a date for the withdrawal of the occupying forces, but states instead that their mandate shall be "reviewed" upon the completion of the political process. According to the resolution, this mandate could also be terminated earlier at the request of the Iraqi government. While emphasising the UN's "leading role" in supporting the political process in Iraq -- and specifically, the forthcoming elections -- the communiqué did not specify the mechanisms that the UN would use to perform that role. It also ignored the boycott of the elections recently announced by 46 political parties, which began as a protest against the offensive on Falluja which has since destroyed the city and caused a still unknown but apparently very large number of civilian casualties. The boycott later expanded to include a wider range of political parties, including Christian groups, and the parties have now devised a list of demands to guarantee free and fair elections. These demands include international Arab and Muslim supervision of the electoral process; a cessation of all military operations; the resignation of the interim government; and a full withdrawal of the occupying forces from all areas where voting will take place, one month prior to election date. While the interim government virtually ignored these demands, snubbing the boycott as Sunni- driven, the Sharm El- Sheikh conference pressured the Iraqi government to convene with representatives of the whole Iraqi political spectrum, and from civil society, so as to pursue national reconciliation and broader participation in the elections. Despite the communiqué's emphasis on the need to hold this conference in advance of the poll, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hochiar Zibari told reporters on Tuesday that while his government does not mind in principal, he would not set a date for holding such a convention. An offer by Bahrain to host the convention was turned down by Zibari, who insisted that "any such meeting should take place on Iraqi soil." But according to one high-ranking Egyptian diplomat, Russia presented a surprise proposal immediately following the conclusion of the conference, stressing the urgency of holding a follow-up ministerial meeting before the elections scheduled for 30 January. "The proposal argued that we cannot wait till the next ministerial meeting scheduled for February," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, "because violence in Iraq could escalate even further between now and the election date, and we should try to alleviate this." He also said that there will be serious pressure on the interim government to hold a conference with the Iraqi opposition. "The interim government needs to prove its good intentions," said the source. Although expressed in private, these words reflect what appears to be a crisis of confidence affecting many of the participant countries and organisations. Members of "Old Europe", such as France and Germany, the "axis of evil's" Iran, and even the UN secretary- general, who described the invasion of Iraq as "illegal", may have endorsed the 14-point communiqué, but that does not mean that their differences with the US have been completely silenced. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit, for example, said that the communiqué is "not an Egyptian one", and that Egypt's position on the situation in Iraq "transcends its contents". For one thing, Egyptian diplomats say that Cairo does not regard all violence as "terrorism", and recognises forms of "Iraqi resistance" that do not violate international humanitarian law. Then there is France, which had previously opposed the exclusion of Iraqi political parties and forces from the conference, going as far as offering to host a meeting between the various Iraqi political groups. France had also demanded a precise timetable for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation forces. Although the French representatives signed the communiqué, which does not fulfil either demand, they also made a point of saying that they had not changed their mind. Speaking to reporters after the conference's closing session on Tuesday afternoon, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said that the communiqué should have specified a date to end the occupation, "just as it specified a date for the elections". In an interview with the Weekly, Barnier's spokesman Herve Lavsous said that France accepted that the Sharm El-Sheikh conference would be exclusively intergovernmental, but that "the idea of including Iraqi political forces still makes sense." While the communiqué supports the interim government and the US in their determination to press ahead with elections on 30 January, regardless of the security situation and the boycott of the vote, not everyone found the date set realistic enough. Asked if France will recognise the election results as fair and legitimate if the situation remains as volatile as it is now, Lavsous did not give a positive yes. Instead, he said that "this is a process, and we'll judge it according to its merits, according to the circumstances." Asked the same question, Secretary- General of the Arab League Amr Moussa expressed the hope that the UN would be able to supervise, prepare and monitor the election. "The elections should include everyone and should be held all across Iraq," he told the Weekly. And if that doesn't happen? "I think these elements are important for the elections," he replied, after a brief pause. But for the Iraqi interim government, subtle diplomatic criticism from the anti-war camp fades in comparison with the victories it scored during the two-day conference. Thank to US pressure, the Paris Club of creditors, which includes France, Germany, Britain and Russia, agreed to cancel a large part of Iraq's debt. Over the next four years Iraq will be forgiven 80 per cent of the debt it owes the club's members, bringing the figure down from the current $38.9 billion to $7.8 billion. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia reportedly also agreed to rewrite 80 per cent of Iraq's debts to them. Iraq received assurances from neighbouring countries that they will exercise stricter control over their joint borders, so as to stop, in the words of Zibari, "the transfer of weapons and terrorists" into the country. More importantly, the interim government also won the full support of the international community for the policies it has adopted. "The is a conference that gives legitimacy to the occupation," said Wamidh Nadhmi, spokesperson of the independent Provisional Iraqi National Conference. "It does not in any way represent the will of the Iraqi people," he told the Weekly in a telephone interview from Baghdad. Nadhmi took issue with the communiqué's general denunciation of terrorism in Iraq. "What about US terrorism and illegal occupation that has killed 100,000 Iraqis?" he asked. "The conference will not genuinely affect the situation on the ground," he added. Nadhmi, a prominent academic and politician previously turned down offers to join the US-appointed National Governing Council which became the nucleus of the interim government after the "handing over" of power to the Iraqis last June. "It is ridiculous to seek legitimacy in Sharm El-Sheikh," said Nadhmi. "Would Egypt host a similar conference for India, for example? Of course not, because India enjoys constitutional legitimacy. How can any government ask for a legitimacy it doesn't have?"
