Riyadh Summit: From Opposition to Resignation

Summary

Officials from countries neighboring Iraq, as well as from Egypt, met in Riyadh over the weekend to discuss the future of the Middle East. The shift in the atmosphere from the pre-war period was striking: There was deep unease with the U.S. victory in Iraq, but there appeared to be even more unease with confronting the United States too openly. Everyone was careful to hold their positions without irritating the powerful, unpredictable giant in their midst.

Analysis

On Friday, April 18, the foreign ministers of all countries bordering on Iraq met in Riyadh. These included officials from Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and, of course, Saudi Arabia. The foreign ministers of Egypt and Bahrain also were present. The goal was to craft a regional response to the U.S. conquest of Iraq.

The results were interesting: There appears to have been a powerful shift in the atmosphere in the region following the Iraq war -- toward accommodation of the United States and away from confrontation. What was unthinkable before has now become reality, and it appears that countries in the region are learning to live with a massive U.S. presence on all of their borders. In sort, the Middle East has not gone up in flames. To the contrary, the Riyadh meeting established an air of cautious acceptance.

It was, it would appear, a lively conference. Instead of ending on April 18, it spilled over into the following day. The most interesting part of the meeting was that it occurred at all, indicating that there was already some prior agreement on basics. The second interesting thing was that everyone invited attended -- indicating that there was relatively broad agreement.

Obviously, the main topic of conversation was Iraq. There was a general agreement that an internationally recognized government representing the Iraqi people needs to be established and have power transferred to it. There was no call for immediate elections, but essentially a call for a road map to such a government to take over from the U.S. military as soon as possible. The basic view seemed to be that expressed by Saudi leaders: While the goal has to be an Iraqi government, there is now a power vacuum in the country and the United States must fill it. There was some discussion over whether there would be direct, state-to-state dealings with the U.S. military government. Turkish officials opposed that possibility, while the Egyptians supported it. This disagreement was in some ways symbolic, but it did represent Turkish sensitivity about the future course of Iraq -- particularly its territorial integrity.

Turkey wants badly to see an Iraqi government established in Baghdad with full authority over the entire country. Officials in Ankara fear an autonomous or even independent Kurdish entity might emerge in northeastern Iraq. Therefore, the Turks don't want to leave the Americans with much time in which to establish at least a formal government. They want territorial integrity as the top issue and see the creation of an Iraqi state as the only real guarantor of that integrity. The foreign ministers all back the Turks on the territorial integrity issue, although Ankara's urgency on the new government was not universally shared.

The diplomats in Riyadh agreed that there should be a central role for the United Nations in Iraq, but there was no call for U.N. control over the country or for the United Nations to supplant the United States in any way in a governing role. In other words, the conference appeared to back the U.S. position and reject the position of U.N. officials or European leaders.

Attendees agreed that U.S. and British troops should leave as soon as possible, but there was no demand that this withdrawal come within a particular timetable, nor was a timetable proposed.

In regard to Syria, a proposal was made to condemn U.S. policy toward Damascus, but that was watered down to state that the foreign ministers "disagreed with U.S. allegations." The conference-goers did not state that Syria had a right to its policies regardless of allegations; ministers said only that they didn't believe the allegations. In the context of an apparent reconciliation between Damascus and Washington over the weekend -- partly brokered by Spain -- this indicated not only that the crisis was being defused, but also that Syria did not have regional support for a confrontation with the United States.

One of the more interesting things at the conference was that Turkey appeared to lay claim to at least some of the oil in Kirkuk. Ankara previously has claimed that some treaties dating back decades give Turkey rights to at least some of Iraq's oil fields; it now has refloated that claim. It is not altogether clear whether the claim was directly addressed at the conference or in other venues -- and the Turks are claiming that these rights have been pressed recently -- but these claims certainly were floated before the war, and there are enough reports about the Turks pressing the issue to make it credible. Turkish leaders also are raising objections about some of the people proposed to take part in the new Iraqi government. Thus, the Turks continue to be extremely anxious about the evolution of events in Iraq and are probing in a variety of directions.

The most interesting part of the meeting, however, is what didn't come up prominently: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A ringing condemnation of Israel was not showcased. This is not necessarily positive for Washington: The Americans have promised a number of countries that they now will push forward with a road map for peace. Part of that road map involves forcing Syria to abandon support for Hezbollah and other Palestinian groups. A strong demand for a peace process would have allowed the United States to lean on the Saudis and others to support this pressure against Syria. Washington was hoping for the opportunity to hammer the Syrians further as a prelude to Israeli-Palestinian talks; it didn't get the opportunity. The foreign ministers in Riyadh hung back on the issue, leaving it to the Americans to negotiate the way. Therefore, the United States has to proceed with its initiative without being able to confront Syria. The crisis has defused, apparently before Washington got what it wanted most: Damascus' abandonment of Hezbollah. Of course, side agreements might have been forged, and this remains to be seen.

In general, aside from the Israel issue, the meeting represents a powerful shift in the regional atmosphere since the Iraq war. The total opposition to U.S. occupation of Iraq now has shifted toward accommodation. There is acceptance of a U.S. presence for some time and a willingness to give Washington time to sort things out. Middle Eastern countries represented at the summit clearly have no appetite for confrontation with the United States.

In short, the war has had the desired psychological affect. No one wants to confront a highly unpredictable and very powerful United States. Getting the entire region to agree on that is an achievement in itself. Now the issue is whether this can be translated into effective action against al Qaeda and other groups targeted by the United States.

It does no good to be an 800 pound gorilla unless you periodically show what you can do. Others tend to rethink their options after you pitch a fit.

This is all great news. I wish I could believe it. Maybe if Baghdad Bob or Debka were to back Stratfor up on this...

I really think the biggest thing that gets their attention is the fact that we are coming closer and closer to never missing with a single shot. Not counting small arms - man, we just don't miss. Frickin' amazing! Shocked the Awe out of me. Awed the Shock out of them. Look the f*$% out, and stay out of the way! We didn't come to steal their lunch money, we came for their collective asses - they know it, we know it, and everyone else knows it (including China).

This "test case" of good old fashioned tough love got everyone's attention. It's time to grow up world, and now Big Pappa is back on top! (Horn tooting entirely intentional) Let's get some house cleaning done here at home, too.

but there appeared to be even more unease with confronting the United States too openly.

but also that Syria did not have regional support for a confrontation with the United States

A ringing condemnation of Israel was not showcased.

I'm sceptical given the source, but it seems good: oderint dum metuant.

"..but also that Syria did not have regional support for a confrontation with the United States."

We need to land a big swift boot straight smack-dab up the royal ar$e of Syria's Ass-Ahd.

Now - while the boot is just a few inches away from the target.

And Turkey needs to take some series notes of what just happened to their pal in Baghdad, shut the hell up, and go back into deeper conference with Chirac and Schroeder - not to resurface for another ten or twenty years.

Muslims understand ONE THING - BRUTE FORCE.

Not so sure about Muslims, but I am sure it is what Arabs understand.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.