أخبار المركز
  • بهاء محمود يكتب: (ضغوط ترامب: كيف يُعمق عدم استقرار حكومتي ألمانيا وفرنسا المأزق الأوروبي؟)
  • د. أحمد أمل يكتب: (تهدئة مؤقتة أم ممتدة؟ فرص وتحديات نجاح اتفاق إنهاء الخلاف الصومالي الإثيوبي برعاية تركيا)
  • سعيد عكاشة يكتب: (كوابح التصعيد: هل يصمد اتفاق وقف النار بين إسرائيل ولبنان بعد رحيل الأسد؟)
  • نشوى عبد النبي تكتب: (السفن التجارية "النووية": الجهود الصينية والكورية الجنوبية لتطوير سفن حاويات صديقة للبيئة)
  • د. أيمن سمير يكتب: (بين التوحد والتفكك: المسارات المُحتملة للانتقال السوري في مرحلة ما بعد الأسد)

A Platform for Dialogue

What has the Baghdad Conference Achieved?

09 سبتمبر، 2021


On August 28, 2021, the Iraqi capital hosted the Baghdad Conference for Cooperation and Partnership, inviting several Arab and regional countries, as well as some regional and international organizations. The conference issued a final statement in which the participants presented their stances on the issues discussed, most notably Iraq’s stability and sparing it the repercussions of regional tensions. The statement also stressed on the need for coordination between various regional and international stakeholders to confront terrorism and extremism, including setting limits for external interference in the internal affairs of countries, primarily Iraq. 

A critical condition within Iraq

The Iraqi scene was the trigger for launching the Baghdad Conference, where participants raised the slogan of "restoring the Iraqi state" by re-establishing its stability and security and strengthening the state institutions. Since Mustafa Al-Kadhimi assumed the office in May 2020, he has been trying to change the Iraqi scene, whether regarding the complex domestic situation since the US occupation in 2003, or regarding the unbalanced external interactions, particularly with relevance to the Iranian and Turkish interference in Iraq. 

Given that the post 2003 Iraqi political system and the methodology of governance and state administration were based on sectarian quotas, the relative distribution of power according to the demographic balance became the governing criterion in public policies and the distribution of positions, which in turn was reflected in the efficiency of state institutions. This led to the spread of administrative and financial corruption, as well as the growth of sectarian nepotism, while the concept of nationality began to dilute from the collective mind of the Iraqi people. 

As is the case with all countries that seek to recover from collapse resulting from occupation, military defeat or major catastrophes, the current Iraqi government has realized that facing external interference and internal crises requires enhancing relations with some external parties, as Iraq lacks several necessary ingredients for building the state on its own and for achieving self-sufficiency and immunity against pressure and blackmail practiced by some countries. Thus, a general position was reached at the Baghdad conference towards the agreement not to turn Iraq into an arena for settling scores between the conflicting countries in the region. This was clearly reflected in the words expressed by leaders and heads of delegations reflecting their country's positions. 

However, a more insightful observation shows that some of the countries participating in the conference were not as eager to "neutralize" Iraq and spare it from being an arena for regional competitiveness. By analyzing the official statements, it is evident that both Iran and Turkey have agreed with the other countries regarding the broad lines of cooperating to maintain the stability of Iraq and help it out in addressing its domestic issues. However, on ground, Tehran and Ankara’s interventions in Iraqi affairs were not as clear in comparison to the positions of the Arab countries and France, during the Baghdad Conference.

Intertwined Settings 

The Baghdad Conference is a model for combining the internal context with the regional and global settings. It also reflects the deep connection between the political, economic, security and demographic aspects in Iraq, in particular, and in the Middle East as a whole. This was clearly reflected in the comprehensiveness of the issues addressed at this summit, and the side meetings, in addition to positions reflected in the speeches and statements of the participating delegations. Part of what confirms the overlapping interdependence between these settings is that the conference was limited in its scope to the neighboring countries of Iraq, since they are the ones directly concerned with the Iraqi situation.

It became evident that seeking Iraq’s stability and future, and thus the stability of the region as a whole, requires expanding the scope of participation to include parties that may not border Iraq, but that deeply influence its affairs. The same concept applies to the participation of countries outside the region, namely France, which was backing this initiative due to being one of the European countries most interested in the region. 

Consequently, the Baghdad summit gave impetus to the regional and global coordination towards resolving conflicts and filling existing and expected gaps in the Iraqi arena, and preventing any party from exploiting the decline of the direct US presence, whether in Iraq or at other critical or potentially critical areas in the Middle East. 

Divergent Priorities

The countries participating in the Baghdad conference agreed to support Iraq and strive to establish stability and internal security. However, the procedural details necessary for achieving this goal were neither clear in the final statement, nor in the bilateral discussions that took place between leaders and heads of delegations. Limiting the declared statements or positions to specific aspects gives a generic indicator about what have been agreed upon generally. 

Some countries, specifically the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have adopted a developmental approach that is based on supporting economic projects through practical measures that would help restore the Iraqi economy, revitalize its internal components, and improve the living conditions of Iraqis. However, other countries, like Egypt, Jordan and France, focused on the political perspective of Iraq's stability, rebuilding state institutions and restoring the government influence domestically or externally 

Other countries gave priority to specific issues to address, whether with regards to supporting Iraq or confronting transnational threats such as terrorism, as well as the need to curb foreign interference. For example, Iran considered the presence of foreign fighters in Iraq to be one of the key sources of threat to Iraq and the region. Tehran further linked the practice of terrorism to some of the operations that took place in Iraq over the past two years, specifically the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani on Iraqi soil in January 2020. Meanwhile Turkey was clear in defining the PKK's presence in Northern Iraq as a source of terrorism.

Thus, selectivity and fragmentation may be observed in the positions of Iran and Turkey in particular. Selectivity was manifested in Tehran’s neglect of describing its diverse support for the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and other Iraqi armed factions. Iran did not consider the political pressures and sectarian practices exercised by its affiliated political parties and forces as one of the key drivers of the political instability and tension within Iraq. The fragmentation was clearly embodied in Iran and Turkey's support for the general demand adopted by the Baghdad summit to oppose foreign interventions, as if the various Iranian and Turkish interventions were not just the same. 

Key Indicators

There are a number of significant indicators revealed by the Baghdad Conference, most notably the following:

1-    Supporting communication between countries: 

The Baghdad conference reflected positive aspects regarding bilateral relations between the participating countries, which in turn will impact regional interactions. There were signs of positive shifts in the interactions between some countries, which had in some cases reached the point of estrangement. Direct meetings took place between some leaders and heads of delegations, such as the meeting of between his Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE, and the Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, each separately with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Furthermore, there was a meeting that took place between his Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Hossein Amirabdollahian, Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs. Other meetings were held spontaneously but have significant implications, such as the conversation that took place between the Egyptian President and the Iranian Foreign Minister. Thus, the Baghdad Conference turned into a platform for re-activating channels of communication between some countries, which entails the possibility of developing this communication, whether through other events or by direct bilateral channels.

2-    Enhancing ‘conference diplomacy’: 

Conferences and collective meetings are not a novel tool, but they have become a means of addressing internal crises, particularly when external parties are involved in such crises, whether to exacerbate or resolve them. 

3-    Repositioning Iraq:

The success of Al-Kadhimi and his government in holding the Baghdad Conference will in turn help in repositioning the Iraqi state regionally, which previous Iraqi governments may not have sought with the same enthusiasm and skill. Iraq, under Al-Kadhimi's leadership, had begun this repositioning by opening up to the Arab countries in particular. 

Accordingly, the Baghdad Conference opens the door to the transition of Iraq from being an arena of competition and power struggle between conflicting external forces to a regional platform for understanding and dialogue.