The Sharm El-Sheikh conference allows at least for the building of hopes, writes Ibrahim Nafie The Sharm El-Sheikh conference on Iraq brought together the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighbouring countries, the G8 and China, along with representatives from the UN, the EU, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League. The final statement of the conference underlines Iraq's political independence, territorial integrity and national unity, as well as the role the UN should assume in Iraq's elections. The statement urges the interim Iraqi government to organise, ahead of the January elections, a meeting of political parties and groups and civil society representatives with a view to bolstering participation in the elections. Most significantly, the statement calls on all parties concerned to refrain from the excessive use of force and display maximum restraint, particularly with regard to civilians. The statement notes that the mandate of the multinational force is not open-ended and will be over once the political process is complete, in line with clauses 4 and 12 of resolution 1546. Egypt had its reasons for hosting the conference. Cairo wants to end the dominance of the occupation powers, led by the US. It also wishes to remind the world of the tragedy of the Iraqi people and underline the fact that Iraq is labouring under an illegal military occupation. Egypt wants to reopen the Iraqi dossier and place it under the mandate of the UN. A UN role, Cairo believes, could diminish the control of the occupying powers over Iraq's future and open the way to a political process leading to Iraq's independence. The conference triggered a heated debate among its supporters, who view it as a step towards Iraqi independence, and its opponents, who claimed that it represented an attempt to legitimise occupation and bolster the status of Allawi's interim Iraqi government. The opponents pointed out that Iraq's opposition forces and various factions were absent at the conference. In my view the conference was not required to look into the immediate independence of Iraq or come up with a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The agenda of conferences such as this is determined in advance, through consultations among the concerned parties. Usually there is a consensus on the final statement before the conference gets underway. The gathering, therefore, could only formalise agreements reached in advance. The task at hand was to implement and follow up already approved plans and programmes. The outcome of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit can only be assessed in the light of realities in Iraq. We need to encourage the start of a political process that will eventually end the US-UK occupation. We need to find a way out of Iraq's suffering, a tragedy that has worsened as occupation forces escalated their attacks in recent weeks. We also need to take note of the conclusions reached at the conference, and of the programmes and plans the gathering has endorsed. The conference has not lived up to Arab expectations of a speedy liberation of Iraq. It has not come up with a timetable for withdrawal. What it did, however, was set in motion a process that -- if domestic, regional and international parties honour their commitments -- will move Iraq towards freedom, territorial integrity and national unity. We have to view the conference from an holistic perspective and in the light of current complications in Iraq. It is true that the conference was convened in the absence of enough guarantees for the launch of a genuine political process capable of ending Iraq's tragedy. There is no timetable for the withdrawal of occupation forces or for the transfer of an appropriate mandate to the UN. And the absence of Iraqi opposition and influential factions was a serious flaw. And yet one has to take into account the complex regional and international situation and the tragedy unfolding all over Iraq. The destruction carried out by the occupation forces has reached an alarming scale. In Falluja, to give one example, there has been wide-scale destruction, killing of civilians, and murder of wounded combatants -- the latter in clear violation of all conventions concerning military conduct. The term "resistance" becomes controversial when criminal elements and extremist groups infiltrate the scene, killing and slaughtering Iraqi and foreign civilians. The resistance actions have triggered retaliation on the part of the occupation forces. As a result large areas of Iraq have been destroyed and the human cost has been immense. The resistance, one may add, has not forced the occupation forces to pull out. Despite US losses in Iraq the American people re-elected Bush for a second term. President Bush, who won the popular vote this time, sees a US withdrawal from Iraq under current circumstances as a defeat. The occupation forces are, meanwhile, throwing whatever weaponry they deem appropriate at the resistance, as was evident in Falluja. The occupation forces want to win the war at any cost, and the Iraqis are paying the price. The killing and destruction carried out by occupation troops have not discouraged the resistance. Each time occupation forces destroy a city the resistance moves on to another. What we have here is a process in which Iraqis are being killed, their resources destroyed, their cities razed, with no sign that the occupation forces are willing to pull out, let alone observe international norms governing military conduct. Nor is there any sign that resistance is abating, despite the immense losses and the scenes of wanton destruction. As the tragedy worsened the US refused to heed calls for an end to the killing and destruction. Countries such as France, Germany and China have offered helpful suggestions, but these stayed within the ineffectual realm of rhetoric. The UN, hobbled by a potential US veto, was helpless. The Iraqi scene was, and still is, one of mutual mayhem involving the occupiers and the resistance. This sorry state of affairs has generated intense divisions among Iraqi factions and ethnic communities. As the conflict progressed some Iraqi groups began to disassociate themselves, politically and geographically, from the rest of the country. This led to mutual mistrust, which in turn threatened to spiral into a series of revenge actions, tendencies that have been fuelled by the country's sad past as well as by differences of opinion concerning the course of events in post-occupation Iraq. The decision of the interim Iraqi government to impose martial law in all areas of Iraq, with the exception of the Kurdish areas, sent a serious signal concerning Iraq's future and territorial integrity. The unfolding scene, with all the killing and destruction, with all the tarnishing of the image of the resistance, bodes ill for Iraq's unity. If this situation is allowed to continue Iraq's factions will drift further apart. Some will be backed by the Americans, others will not. Even the Americans know that the possibility of civil war has to be taken seriously. The chances that occupation will be ended through armed resistance are remote. Something has to be done to stop the spiral of violence. The occupation has to end through a political process in which the UN, and other international forces, play a key role. This is the only hope that those who care for Iraq's independence have for now. Whatever the reservations voiced about the Sharm El-Sheikh conference, the gathering has set in motion a political process that may lead to Iraq's independence. This process imposes certain responsibilities on the occupation forces, the interim Iraqi government, the UN and Arab countries. If we are really concerned about Iraq's independence let us use the days and weeks ahead to coordinate our efforts and fill in the gaps the conference was unable to cover. We should begin by encouraging the interim Iraqi government to start a genuine national dialogue including all Iraqi political parties and guaranteeing their full participation in the elections scheduled for 31 January. We should also seek, in cooperation with the UN and major international powers -- France, Germany and China -- to implement UN Security Council resolution 1546. The resolution entitles the interim Iraqi government to ask the occupation forces to depart. In June 2005 a year will have elapsed since the resolution was adopted, presenting an opportunity to press the Security Council to once again look into the presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Any efforts the interim Iraqi government makes to start a national dialogue of all political forces, factions, and ethnic communities, would lend credibility to the January elections and once the elections are held under international supervision Iraq will have a national assembly. The assembly would then be entitled to write a permanent constitution and form a new government. With the support of the UN and other international forces Iraq's new government would then be in a position to ask the occupation forces to leave. According to a last-minute addition to the conference's final statement, the ending of occupation and the departure of troops is to be expected by the end of the political process in December 2005. What we need now is to bring the violence under control so that credible elections may be held. The Sharm El-Sheikh conference was never intended to result in a declaration of Iraqi independence and the departure of occupation troops. But the conference was an important step towards the liberation of Iraq. It laid down the cornerstone for a political process with a timeframe of up to one year. The success of this process depends on how the various parties, particularly the interim Iraqi government and the countries and forces of occupation, behave. The conference gave all those who support independence, national unity and the territorial integrity of Iraq hope. One urgent task is to encourage the holding of a national dialogue comprising all forces and factions in Iraq, another to end the excuses made by the occupation forces for their continued killing and destruction. Upon the success of these tasks rests the hope that Iraq will embark on the political process necessary to ensure that it gains independence within a year.
