There is a widely held view that if only the Americans would go home or if only Iran and Syria would stop interfering, Iraqis would be able to settle their differences and the country would be at peace. That is a delusion. Outside powers are able to interfere because there is a situation to exploit. They make things worse but the conflicts themselves spring from the collapse of the institutions of the state or belief in those institutions and the subsequent rush to fill the vacuum.
That is why no one should expect yesterday’s and today’s conference on Iraq at the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh to come up with an instant answer to Iraq’s misery. Much as they would love to do so, those attending have no magic wand to wave. They cannot stop the killing because those responsible for it are not there and are not dependent on those who are. Nor could they be there; on either side of the sectarian divide, there is no one organization in control; Iraqi terrorism is a centerless web where each part, with its own particular motivation, acts independently.
Nonetheless, the Sharm El-Sheikh meeting is important because for the first time outsiders who play conflicting roles in Iraq are talking to each other and doing so in a positive manner. That can only be for the good. It would be wonderful indeed if, at the end of today, the delegates were to agree a total arms blockade on the various insurgency movements and a crackdown on their members, linked to a US timetable to withdraw — although even if rigorously implemented it would not end the killing (and without an end to that what hope is there for economic recovery?) That will only stop when either the main insurgents are brought into the political process (as per Northern Ireland) or the country reverts to dictatorship with a government eliminating the opposition and terrorizing it into peace.
It is the great irony that, when polled, most Iraqis while pleased that Saddam is history, want a tough government that is ruthless on the insurgents. They want democracy — but not yet. The country, they have discovered, is not ready for it. Democracy can only work, they have realized, where everyone can coalesce around common values. That is not there in Iraq at present.
What is encouraging about the Sharm El-Sheikh conference though is that, providing good will is maintained, it could provide the foundation for peace. When the time is right outsiders can make the difference. The Arab League’s Taif meeting in 1989 that ended the Lebanese Civil War was not a one-off event that suddenly came up with the solution to Lebanon’s problems; it was the result of a hard-won diplomatic initiative — but it worked. Sharm El-Sheikh could be the start of something similar, ending up with a political solution acceptable to all sides in Iraq. But it will have to be accompanied by strong fist at the center of power. Iraq has no chance of peace while the extremists on either side of the communal divide, be it Al-Qaeda or Moqtada Sadr’s brigades, have a foothold.
