By Adam Morrow
CAIRO, May 10 2007 (IPS)

Two days of talks on Iraq last week produced an international agreement promising support for the Iraqi government in exchange for political and economic reforms to be implemented by Baghdad. But while the so-called International Compact on Iraq (ICI) cancelled some of the country’s foreign debts, the initiative – and the conferences that accompanied it – yielded few other tangible results, local commentators say.

“No real results came out of the conferences,” Gamal Zahran, professor of political science at Suez Canal University and spokesman for the independent bloc in parliament told IPS. “The Arab regimes only made themselves complicit in the Iraq disaster, without getting anything in return.”

On May 3, a conference devoted solely to the ICI initiative was convened in the Red Sea resort town Sharm el-Sheikh. It was attended by foreign ministers from 20 countries, along with representatives from 12 major international organisations, including the UN, the EU and the Arab League.

First proposed in mid-2006, the compact’s stated aims are to reduce Iraq’s Saddam Hussein-era foreign debt, provide financial assistance for national reconstruction, and improve border security. In return, the Iraqi government is expected to institute a number of political and economic reforms.

The plan sets out a five-year timetable for Baghdad’s implementation of legislation regarding oil-revenue sharing, and government policy vis-à-vis former members of Iraq’s defunct Baath party. It further stipulates that the Shia-dominated government disband illegal militias and reconcile with its Sunni political rivals.

The ICI also lays down a number of fiscal targets to be met by Iraq over the course of the next half-decade. These include an economic growth rate of 15 percent for this year and crude oil production levels of 3.5 million barrels a day by 2011.

Debt relief, however, appeared to be the initiative’s most tangible component. Amid much fanfare, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that ICI signatories had cancelled a total of 30 billion dollars worth of Iraqi foreign debt.

At the signing ceremony, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lauded the initiative.

“Under the compact, Iraq has undertaken important steps for advanced economic reforms and good governance,” she said. “In return, Iraq’s compact partners have agreed to help Iraq by providing substantial debt relief, along with significant financial and technical assistance.”

Some local observers, however, saw the spotlight on debt cancellation as an attempt to divert attention from the obvious lack of political progress.

“The Sharm talks failed to produce any real political results, so they focused instead on debt forgiveness,” economist Hamdi Abd Elazim, former head of the Cairo-based Sadat Academy told IPS. “Even so, we’ll see if these promises are kept. Pledges of debt relief are often made publicly but never honoured.”

The second day of talks, May 4, was limited to representatives from Iraq’s seven geographical neighbours, the five members of the UN Security Council, and the G8 bloc of industrialised nations. This ‘neighbours-plus’ conference – which included representatives from Iran and Syria – dealt with wider issues pertaining to the stability of Iraq and the region, particularly the sectarian bloodletting that has wracked the country since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Here, Arab governments urged the Iraqi government to disband Shia militias and institute constitutional reforms aimed at a more equitable system of power sharing. For its part, Baghdad vowed to review the national charter and reconsider a handful of government policies.

In exchange, Arab nations promised to take steps to prevent foreign militants joining the insurgency against the Iraqi government and the U.S.-led occupation. The conference did not, however, issue any proposed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

According to analysts, the most significant aspect of the meeting was Washington’s apparent willingness to talk to Damascus.

In a marked deviation from its policy of isolating so-called “rogue states”, Rice met with her Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem in the first high-level meeting in two years. According to reports, the two discussed their strained bilateral relationship and the need to stabilise Iraq.

“The U.S. administration has changed its strategy towards Damascus because of its enormous failure in Iraq and because of the pressure it’s facing domestically,” said Zahran. “This can also be seen in the reduction of U.S. pressure on Syria on other issues, such as the assassination of (former Lebanese premiere Rafik] Hariri.”

Rice also reportedly sat across from Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki at an official luncheon, fuelling speculation that a measure of U.S.-Iran rapprochement was in the offing. Although the two did not officially meet in the end, the fact that they sat at the same table further suggested that Washington was rethinking its rigid approach to its adversaries in the region.

The day after the twin conferences, on May 5, Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul- Gheit told a congregation of diplomats that the talks had the effect of sending three important messages to the international community.

“The first is about the necessity of stopping the violence in order to achieve national reconciliation,” he said. “The second is the need to stop cross-border interference, while the third is the need to halt the activities of militias and terrorists.”

He added: “The two conferences reflected the desire of the chief parties concerned to improve the situation.”

But many local political commentators are less sanguine. They say the event was primarily an attempt by the U.S. and its allies to “internationalise” a problem of its own creation.

“The two conferences were little more than a confession of U.S. failure to manage the occupation of Iraq by itself,” said Zahran. “Iran and Syria were the only winners, because they achieved an acknowledgement by the U.S. as to how essential their respective roles are in Iraq.”

Zahran added that Arab governments – despite public statements suggesting otherwise – are fundamentally unable to reduce the ongoing chaos and bloodshed in their war- ravaged neighbour.

“Leading Arab regimes such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have all lost credibility on the Iraqi street,” he said, “because it’s well known that these governments simply serve U.S. policy in the region.” (END/IPS/MM/PI/IK/IP/AM/SS/07)

Excerpt: