Arabs stepping up in Iraq... because they expect US drawdown?

For weeks, Arab editorialists have been arguing for - or, if you like, signaling - the need for an Arab opening towards Iraq.  The seeds of this could be seen in the Neighbors Conference held in Kuwait at the end of April, where appeals were made if little actual progress. (*)  Since a June 12 article in al-Sharq al-Awsat by former Jordanian Information Minister Salleh al-Qullab calling for an Arab "third way" between Iranian and American visions for Iraq, I've been noticing a dramatic increase in such articles in the Gulf press, usually asking some variation, as in in the UAE's al-Khaleej, of the theme  "where is the Arab role in shaping the future of Iraq?"  Many of these have been published in al-Sharq al-Awsat, a paper which is often considered to be an outlet for the views of the Saudi leadership.   

Over the last few days, events have begun to catch up.  In conjunction with Nuri al-Maliki's trip to Abu Dhabi, the UAE announced that it had appointed an ambassador to Baghdad and would forgive Iraqi debt ($7 billion according to the Arab media, $4 billion according to English reports - not sure why the discrepancy).  Jordan appointed an ambassador, and the King reportedly plans to be the first Arab head of state to visit Baghdad.   Iraq is now reportedly beginning talks with Kuwait over outstanding issues, including debt, oil fields, compensation claims, and the border. This is capped with an editorial by al-Sharq al-Awsat's editor calling on Maliki to respond to the Arab opening with real national reconciliation, and a guest editorial in the same paper by Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

There are still important limits to this Arab opening.   Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the two key players with regard to Iraqi debt, seem to be biding their time (and, might I add, I've been saying for years that it's scandalous that these Arab countries continue to hold on to their claims on that vast Saddam-era debt).   Qatar's al-Jazeera just apologized to the Iraqi government after the latter complained about an inaccurate report showing some sensational violence.  Despite recent changes, most Arab governments, media, and public opinion still seem to view Maliki's government as sectarian and pro-Iranian.  But enough has now happened in the public discourse and in concrete action to think that there's a real Arab (or at least Gulf) policy shift going on here.   

While many critics argue (for good reason) that American pressure is driving these changes, something else seems to be going on as well.  It's interesting that Maliki chose the venue of a meeting with Arab ambassadors to broach publicly for the first time the idea that Iraq might demand a timetable for withdrawal of American forces in its negotiations over the long-term relationship.  Not only would such a withdrawal please most Arabs, depending on how it is handled, but  it would also increase their perceived need to do something.   Virtually all of the public debate leading up to these new developments highlighted the fact that the US would soon begin to draw down its forces and that Arabs needed to step up now if they did not want Iran to dominate this new Iraq.  That's exactly the sort of "stepping up" which those arguing for a responsible withdrawal have expected - that the expectation of an American drawdown would shift the incentives of all the actors and lead them to change their behavior in a productive fashion.   Something to be encouraged, and closely watched.

(*) sentence added after I came back from my mid-day meeting. 

Comments

[Craig]

Arabs stepping up in Iraq... because they expect US drawdown?

I think it has more to do with their recognition that the insurgency is on it's last legs, and whether they like it or not Iraq is going to survive. And eventually prosper. And they want Iraqis to forget what shitheads they have been the last 5 years.

When will you come to the same conclusion, Marc?

[Solomon2]

expectation of an American drawdown would shift the incentives of all the actors and lead them to change their behavior in a productive fashion.

Could you please be more specific as to what "productive" means?

[bb]

After 5 years of sowing chaos and conflict, the neighbours are now accepting the new Iraq and constitution's fully and fairly representative DEMOCRACY? Right on their doorsteps?

Surely, the most signicant development in the Arab ME since the advent of Al Jazeera?

Not to mention a triumph for President Bush's troop ESCALATION (er, not withdrawal, Marc) at the end of 2006 in defiance of all domestic political logic!

[madtom]

Even though I understand the need for Arab participation with Iraq, for one the need for Sunnie government to reconcile with a Shi'a Baghdad if for nothing else it's PR value. I have many reservation with the idea of the US pulling back so the dictatorial regimes to increase their influence over Baghdad. There is no democratic value in that. I would rather see Iraq come closer to Europe, Asia, and the US that cede the newly minted Iraq to the lions of the peninsula

[seth edenbaum]

"that the expectation of an American drawdown..."
No. That the expectation that Iraqi's would demand one...

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.

[seth edenbaum]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/07/iraq_insists_on_withdrawal_tim.php

[alle]

The pullback negotiations chatter and Maliki's supposedly tough stance in US troop agreement talks ... all that strikes me as part of a drive to boost his & his government's 'Arab' credentials (on the back of the surge successes, and of him dealing with al-Sadr etc), just when Arab countries start upgrading their relations with him, perhaps with Iranian influence in mind more than anything else. Question is what's cause or effect, but there's really a lot going on at the same time.

[Klaus]

It's an election year, and al-Maliki is pandering to Arab Iraqis by bashing the US. Is my take.

[motown67]

Hasn't this story of the Arab countries reaching out to Iraq been going on for a couple years now? I think I remember in 2006 or 2007 stories about how the Saudis and Gulf States were going to get more involved because they were afraid of the sectarian war spilling over into their countries and wanted to support the Sunnis against the Shiites? Didn't seem to amount to much back then. Hopefully the offering of ambassadors actually goes somewhere because I think one reason why Iraq keeps such close ties to Iran is because they and the U.S. are the only ones that accept a Shiite led Iraq. Perhaps if they get more support from their other neighbors they could wean themselves from Iran more, although they'll probably have good relations as long as the SIIC and Kurds are main players in the government.

As for Maliki's motivations I just wrote a piece about this (click on name for link to my blog if interested). I think he's gotten a little carried away thinking that the Iraqi Army are going to be able to defend the country sooner rather than later, therefore Iraq doesn't need a large and long-term U.S. presence anymore. It's also a way to build up his nationalist credentials to try to get some votes in the upcoming elections, Dawa is afterall divided and weak compared to the Sadrists and SIIC. Finally, many in Baghdad think Washington can be easily pressured into better terms because Bush wants a U.S.-Iraq agreement before he leaves.