I guess we have to say “better late than never.” Yet, one still can’t help but wonder why America waited so long before doing the obvious. After all, all George W. Bush had to do was to follow the footsteps of his father. Instead Bush took the road of the Holy Father. A high-profile Middle East Summit, like the one Bush senior co-hosted in Madrid in the wake of the 1991 Gulf war, was a no-brainer after toppling Saddam. Tony Blair begged for it to no avail. A mind-boggling “state of denial” about the quagmire in Iraq ended up wasting three precious years and thousands of lives.
It may still prove too little too late, but Saturday’s regional meeting in Baghdad with Iraq’s neighbors and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was long overdue. The next step appears to be a higher-profile international conference in Istanbul, bringing together not only Iraq’s neighbors and the UNSC but also the G-8. This is certainly good news for Turkey and the AK Party government. Yet, instead of bragging about Turkey’s wisdom, Turkish diplomacy should focus on the substance of the summit. To be truly successful, the Istanbul Summit will have to go beyond cosmetics. The model should indeed be Madrid 1991.
The Madrid Summit of 1991 was a great success because it paved the way to the Oslo Peace Process. One can only hope that the Istanbul Summit will display a similar willingness to see the larger picture in the Middle East. As the host country, Turkey’s goal should be clear and ambitious: the Istanbul Summit must become the opening chapter for the “Istanbul Peace Process.” The conditions likely for such an outcome ultimately depend on the United States. The first step for Washington is to realize that it cannot deal with Iraq’s instability without addressing the strategic environment of the Middle East as a whole. This is why the Istanbul Summit should become an opportunity to start a regional diplomatic offensive leading toward a regional détente between Iran and the US on the one hand and between Israel and the Arabs on the other.
Make no mistake. Ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is by no means sufficient to build a peaceful Iraq. There are tough domestic decisions that the Iraqis must make on their own. Nonetheless, peace and stability in Iraq will remain elusive until Iran and Syria have lent their total support and commitment to a broader security agenda in the Middle East. Only if Iran and Syria have a greater stake in regional security can the overall strategic environment in Iraq and the broader region truly change. This, in turn, requires addressing the nuclear issue in Iran as well as the Arab-Israeli dispute.
The guidelines for the Istanbul Peace Process should therefore envision a “grand bargain” based on the familiar “land for peace” formula adopted in the Oslo accords. Land occupied by Israel, including the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, would be returned to Arab control. For their part, Arab nations would reissue their 2002 offer at the Arab League summit in Beirut to normalize relations with Israel after its withdrawal from the occupied territories. Such an approach could help to pull Syria away from its alliance with Iran, cutting off the corridor through which Iran channels resources to Hizbollah and Hamas. The US could then open bilateral talks with Iran on the full range of mutual security concerns from a position of relative strength.
Finally, one word of caution. If Turkish authorities are to show determination and willingness for ownership in the Middle East peace process, the international community would probably want to see a similar Turkish willingness and democratic maturity in Ankara’s engagements with Iraqi Kurds. How can Turkey help solve one of the world’s most intractable problems when it can’t even talk to its Kurdish neighbors?
Benzer Haberler 
