Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


Does the Baghdad conference have a future?

rocky
rocky
NNP TEAM
NNP TEAM

Posts : 202022
Join date : 2012-12-21

Does the Baghdad conference have a future? Empty Does the Baghdad conference have a future?

Post by rocky Sat 04 Sep 2021, 7:23 am

[size=52]Does the Baghdad conference have a future?[/size]


04 September 2021



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=45]Baghdad Conference for Cooperation and Partnership (28/8/2021/Press Office of the Iraqi Prime Minister)[/size]

[size=45]Last Saturday (August 28, 2021) a conference was held in Baghdad, to say the least, that it was unique. its agenda. It is true that its Secretary-General was present and participating in it, but as a representative of a regional organization invited to participate as an observer, like other international organizations, such as the United Nations or the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It was not a conference of Middle Eastern countries, because many countries located in this region were not invited to it at all, while at the same time, countries from outside and far from it were invited to it. The conference was not for the neighboring countries of Iraq, because some of the most important countries neighboring Iraq were deliberately ignored (because other countries threatened to boycott the conference if they were invited). The strangest thing of all is that the conference was held under the slogan of cooperation and participation, then it was called the “Baghdad Conference for Cooperation and Partnership,” despite the fact that the conflict nature is still the distinguishing feature of the relationship between many participating countries, and therefore no one was able to determine the quality of cooperation or the nature of the desired or targeted partnership or the parties to such partnership. Therefore, it is natural that the convening of this conference raises many questions, and perhaps more confusion, about the reality of its objectives, as well as about its expected results and possible effects on the course of interactions in the region in the next stage. Two things raised more eyebrows in this conference than others: France's participation in it, and Syria's absence from it. Therefore, it is natural that the convening of this conference raises many questions, and perhaps more confusion, about the reality of its objectives, as well as about its expected results and possible effects on the course of interactions in the region in the next stage. Two things raised more eyebrows in this conference than others: France's participation in it, and Syria's absence from it. Therefore, it is natural that the convening of this conference raises many questions, and perhaps more confusion, about the reality of its objectives, as well as about its expected results and possible effects on the course of interactions in the region in the next stage. Two things raised more eyebrows in this conference than others: France's participation in it, and Syria's absence from it.[/size]
[size=45]France was not the only country invited from outside the region to participate in the conference, but it seems that it played a major role in preparing for it and determining its agenda, and then there was much speculation about what could be its real motives, and whether it came to represent itself in this conference. Or on behalf of the entire Western camp, and therefore delegated by the US administration to play a role related to Western strategy in the region. Some commentators believe that France, after it began to sense a vacuum in the region, especially after the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan and the possibility of its withdrawal from Iraq within the foreseeable future, is seeking to fill this void in accordance with its own agenda and interests in the region, and not necessarily according to the agenda of its allies. Westerners and their interests at the same time. Therefore, this team believes that France's participation in the Baghdad conference is an extension of its recent moves and initiatives towards Lebanon, especially after the explosion in the port of Beirut. Others, however, believe that France could not have played the role it played in preparing for the Baghdad conference without prior consultation with the US administration. Hence, this team believes that the convening of this conference is completely consistent with the Biden administration’s policy towards the Middle East. The American administration has a clear interest in keeping Iraq away from the Iranian grip, and in enabling it to transform from an arena for the struggle for influence between competing regional states, especially Iran, Turkey and Israel. To a state capable not only of extending bridges of cooperation with the rest of the neighboring countries, but also of having a greater and independent role in calming the raging conflicts between them. It is true that France may share the same vision and goals with the United States, but it believes that it may be better able than the United States to achieve them, and to play a role that the United States cannot play in the current stage, which is witnessing a clear American decline at the global level.[/size]
Iraq is the country that benefits the most from this conference on various levels
[size=45]As for Syria's absence from the conference, it is clear that it took place against the desire of the host country. Iraq is certain that this absence would negatively affect not only the credibility of the conference, but also the expected results. However, what could Iraq have done, in light of the insistence of some of the invited countries, especially France and Turkey, and perhaps others as well, not to deal with Bashar al-Assad, and then the host country was forced to submit to the decision to leave Syria and continue to isolate it, in order to save the conference and to ensure its convening . However, it can be said that Syria was the absentee present in the conference. And because all the participating countries are fully aware that the Syrian crisis is one of the most important crises in the region, if not the most important one, especially since it was and is still involved in it in one way or another. It is natural that Syria’s absence limits the conference’s ability to discuss this incurable crisis, not to mention the search for ways treated. This absence reflected negatively on the outcomes of the conference, and referred its final statement to mere constructivist phrases that are very general, and suggest that the conference was unable to hold any serious discussion or to undertake any collective treatment of any of the problems or conflicts raging in the region, and at the same time was unable to Reaching an agreement on any specific formula for cooperation between the countries participating in the conference. However, what is most taken from the statement is that it does not refer, from near or far, to the Palestinian cause, and to the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, as if this issue or that occupation does not mean anything to the two of them.[/size]
[size=45]Despite all that, the mere convening of the conference was beneficial and desirable by all parties. And because every conference held with the participation of high-level representatives from countries whose relations are tense has more benefits than disadvantages, it was only natural that the Baghdad conference, in which leaders and leaders from Iran, Turkey and Qatar participated, along with their counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE and others An interesting event in and of itself, especially as it witnessed side meetings between leaders and leaders who meet for the first time in many years, such as the meeting between Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi and the Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad. And the meeting between Sheikh Tamim and the Vice President of the Emirates, Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid. Therefore, it can be said that the Baghdad Summit was, from this particular angle, an extension, in one way or another, of the Al-Ula Summit (in Saudi Arabia), which was held at the beginning of the year and established reconciliation between Qatar and the four siege countries, and succeeded in building on the positive results that had been achieved in it.[/size]
[size=45]Each conference held with the participation of high-level representatives from countries whose relations are characterized by tension, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages[/size]
[size=45]In sum, it can be said that Iraq was perhaps the country that benefited most from this conference at various levels. In the side meetings that took place between the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mustafa Al-Kazemi, and various leaders and senior officials who attended the conference, Iraq obtained promises of support, both in the fight against terrorism. , or in armament and intelligence cooperation, or in the field of reconstruction and reconstruction. The conference provided a good and new opportunity for additional consultations between the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Iraq to work on activating the joint agreements concluded in several fields, especially in the field of oil and gas, trade, electrical interconnection lines and others.[/size]
[size=45]However, the question that should be raised, in the end, relates to whether the Baghdad conference succeeded in producing enough momentum to exploit the current state of calm, and to work on generating a mechanism that helps to actually transition to a state of cooperation and participation among the countries of the region? I doubt very much, for a simple reason, that the conference was unable to discuss either of the two issues on whose settlement the future of cooperation and conflict in the region depends: the Iranian nuclear program, and whether the United States will actually return to unconditionally committing to the 2015 agreement, and the Palestinian issue, And whether Israel is really ready for a real settlement, whether on the basis of two states, or on the basis of one state in which all citizens coexist without discrimination. For this reason, the Baghdad conference was merely a response to a need that appeared and disappeared, and therefore has no future![/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

    Current date/time is Sat 18 Sep 2021, 3:58 am