Inside The Iraq Conference That Wasn't

While called the 'neighbors conference', the meeting that took place in Iraq on March 10, 2007 was not a regional conference but an international conference, as there were more non-regional participants than regional participants. The next step will be the Ministerial conference which may be held in Istanbul or Cairo, according to my sources.

Anecdotally, one attendee at the conference shared this insight:

The Baghdad Conference was a fine showing of career diplomacy at work, in advance of the feasible, where the desirable remains, for now, elusive. Proving that diplomacy is a tool in advance of the political among antagonists, and not a love fest of the like-minded.

Ambassador David M. Satterfield was superb. Every word, every move of the hand on target. Near motionless and expressionless during Iranian’s address. And vice versa. In contrast to Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, whose performance ... can best be summed-up as “refreshing.”

Lunch was, yet again, proven to be a fine instrument of diplomacy. There was a marked change in post-luncheon atmospherics. But, then again, the orange juice flowed, freely. The Iranian is a class act. The amusement being generated by Iraqi FM brushing off the mortar attack as something usual. (sources inside the conference)

We look forward to reading the Joint Statement issued after the conference, which is not a joint Statement but a Chairman Statement, as there was no consensus on what to say and how to say it.

Reflections on Iraq Neighbors Meeting, Baghdad, 10 March 2007:

The following reflections are attributable to Mr. Albrecht Gero Muth, former special adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in Iraq, now advising the Hoyatoleslam Moqtadir al-Sadar. Mr. Muth attended the Iraq neighbors meeting on the margin and, integral to broad-based consultations with all parties, helped draft the Chairman’s Statement. Will be involved in Conference follow-up, which will help prepare the forthcoming Ministerial Conference.

1. On substance:

Bearing in mind that what the press is incorrectly referencing as a “Joint Statement” is really a “Chairman’s Statement,” i.e. non-binding on Conference participants, and therefore, diplomatically-speaking, a lesser document, the document is not bad for a day’s work. There was no drafting committee. Quite ad-hoc. As the document states:

“All participants expressed their support for Iraq’s sovereignty, independence, national unity and territorial integrity. They recognized the principle of non-interference…”

“The participants also agreed to assist and support the people and government of Iraq to realize their national vision through the International Compact for Iraq.”

2. On process:

We got our follow-up and follow-on processes.

Follow-up: the three working groups to be established by end of month. I’ll be working on the one dealing with security. Will be making the same case as before. Membership: voluntary participation. In other words, U.S. not, as yet, committed to participate.

Follow-on: the Ministerial, now decided upon. The Americans seem to prefer Istanbul over Cairo. Not sure why. The working groups will be making recommendations to the Ministerial.

International Compact for Iraq being pushed into the center. The alternative to the eminent persons group/ contact group proposal. Ironic that everybody talks of support for vision for Iraq, when the national reconciliation process is not yet far enough along in building consensus on that vision, i.e. what are the political and religious principles, which are to govern the New Iraq.

3. Climate/ atmospherics was good. Lots of orange juice flowing, freely. Matter-of-fact. One sensed a willingness to air all issues, openly. So now, we know where we stand, not that we didn’t know it before. But, we can now work in advance of the agenda set forth.

4. I like to think that the meeting was worth the while, if alone for taking place at this point in time. Will say, the PM was able to pull it off, get the parties together, thus underscoring his capacity and intent not to be pushed against the wall. Thus, for now the military and political progressing in tandem. The meeting was not derailed by the bombings earlier in the week. Nor, once convened, did it degenerate into a recitation of various grievances. Overall, a good beginning. Everybody was following the script. There were no surprises.

5. The constructive role of Sadrists/ JAM in run-up to the Conference was noted.

One report says, 'Seated near opposite ends of a large rectangular table, the U.S. and Iranian envoys exchanged accusations of kidnapping, arms smuggling and inciting violence, tempering hopes of an imminent thaw in their relationship.' That doesn't exactly jibe with what my sources experienced.

Prior to the conference, Ambassador David M. Satterfield said this:

That way forward strategy contemplates four essential tracks or lines of operation, all of which have Iraqi, U.S. and international -- by which I include regional and neighbors -- elements. All have to move forward, all need to be progressed upon in parallel for success as Iraqis would define it, as we would define it -- a peaceful, stable Iraq; an ally in the war against terror; an Iraq able both to defend and to economically sustain itself -- to be achieved. (source)

Everybody has their own opinion of what, if anything was accomplished. As I stated here, what went on diplomatically behind the scenes is where the real successes will be found. We won't know those results for weeks.

Iraq's neighbors are all concerned about her future as it relates to them, but one thing is certain -- everyone is looking out for their own personal interests. ' ... all sides are meeting under the slogan of 'rescuing Iraq', they all harbor hidden intentions that go beyond - and on many occasions, do not even take it into consideration - such rescue.' (Dar Al Hayat)

Aljazeera says, "Experts expect the conference to produce positive results ..."

Baghdad summit tests U.S.-Iran-Syria thaw", "the gathering Saturday marked the first meeting in years to bring together officials from the U.S., Syria and Iran ...

Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, appealed to states attending the one day conference to adopt a firm stance against terrorism ...

He called for ending "sources of support" for militants operating inside Iraq, yet he didn’t accuse any particular country, or even Iran and Syria ...

"We look for the assistance and the cooperation of our neighbors," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has been quoted as saying.

Winnipeg Free Press says, "Nothing much is expected to come immediately from the talks ..." They infer that the United States and Iran are actually meeting face-to-face unofficially and think that's a good thing.

Nothing much came out of the talks between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saudi King Abdullah, but the fact that the leaders of two of the region's most bitter rivals got together at all may be useful. They embody the two sides of Islam's great schism that are driving Iraq towards disintegration. [skip] There is importance, however, in the mere meeting.

Warning: Iraq Is Asserting Her Statehood, Red State, "There is almost NO media coverage yet this morning regarding Iraq's meeting with her neighbors about regional issues, and I am not really surprised."

Mohammed, from Iraq The Model has an interesting thought about why, with all the problems in Iraq at the hands of her neighbors, everyone has decided now is as good a time as any to have a pow-wow:

I personally think that most of those meeting tomorrow will show up just to pretend they are willing to help while common sense suggests they don't—the reality that was born after the change in Iraq represented by toppling a dictatorship and the attempt to build a new state on basis of democracy, rule of law and protecting minority rights is raising deep concerns among some of our neighbors. And perhaps watching the former dictator walk to the gallows for a crime he committed twenty five years ago made them think about how similar their history is to Saddam's and fear for their own heads and wonder what kind of concessions they'd have to make to keep their heads on their shoulders.

Mohammed just may be ON to something here.

What will determine whether the Iraq conference was a success or not? "... a constructive parallelism between non-interference by outside powers (Iran) and timely/ phased withdrawal of all foreign forces, regular and irregular..." U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, heading the U.S. delegation, nonetheless hailed the talks as a "constructive first step". Only time will tell.

On a related note, President George W. Bush approved 8,200 more troops for Iraq and Afghanistan today, in addition to the 21,500 troop surge which should be complete by June 2007. I'm assuming this request is not related to the conference, but merely a request by generals on the ground.

________________________________________________________________________
Other reading:
If America Wins In Iraq And No One Reports It, Will It Make A Difference?, Captain's Quarters
Iranian Defector Has Spied Since 2003, Power Line
Extreme Left Hijacking Local Democratic Party Chairs Faultline USA
MorE SuN! , Woman Honor Thyself
123Beta, Daylight Savings

Comments

[Night Rider]

Hi Debbie,

I went and voted for your article and I like to think that there is a chance, you could be onto something here I guess that I try at best to keep a positive outlook towards democracy in Iraq.

[Layla]

Great write-up Debbie. Thanks. I would like to say I do not hold much hope out regarding this however. With the US and its appeasement forte-the insanity du jour here in the US-and the hatred of Israel that permeates the world I think this is all nothing more-than more HOT AIR.