© Oxford Business Group's series of publications are renowned as the leading source of economic information for nearly 30 countries across The Middle East, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Caribbean.

With its decision to press ahead with the "Forum for the Future" in Rabat later this year, Morocco is now set to provide the platform for the first such US-sponsored event in the Arab world since President George W. Bush's re-election. It will also launch Washington's much derided Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative - a repackaged Greater Middle East project. Yet recent political capital lost in the Arab street will make it hard for the United States to gain anything more than token acceptance of its diplomatic goodwill.

Set to take place on December 11, the initiative was officially launched by the G8 back in June 2004. It seeks to provide support for the economic, political and social development in the region. Morocco's decision to host the forum was first announced on September 24, and the go-ahead was confirmed last week, following uncertainty during the US elections. The forum will bring together the region's foreign and finance ministers, their counterparts in the G8, and representatives from civil society and the business community.

The one big sticking point was Israel's participation. As part of the region, the US insisted on the country's presence, yet with this almost all the other invitees would have stayed away. As co-hosts, Morocco could not lose face in front of other regional countries by inviting Israel either. Rabat came up with the honourable solution that where the forum's reference was democratisation, Israel did not need to be invited, as it was a democracy already.

In the end, all the countries of the BMENA region have apparently responded positively. Only one country is not coming, and that is Sudan. In the latter's case, it is continued US anger at the Darfur conflict that has seen it leave out Khartoum's participation.

That Darfur should be the one inflexible point of contention between Washington and the regional countries is perhaps comforting. The Darfur conflict has raised great concern around the world, especially due to the precariousness of the region's civilian population. But it has not dominated the world's attention as has Iraq and Palestine. It is the chasm that separates US and Arab, or Iranian, or Pakistani, or even Afghani perceptions of those latter conflicts that shapes mutual distrust.

But where Sudan is seen as the aggressor, and the US has vetoed its participation, it is the US that is popularly seen as the aggressor in Iraq. It is also accused of excessive support for Israel.

It is on those terms that the most stringent opposition has been voiced locally. Some political parties, the most outspoken of which has been the al-Adl wa al-Tanmia, or Party of Justice and Development (PJD), have denounced the holding of the forum on Moroccan soil. The PJD's general secretary, Saad Dine el-Otmani objected for four reasons: that political reform is a domestic prerogative; that the US cannot deliver democracy if it is implicated in "these crimes committed by the occupation army", and if it is "considered complicit in Sharon's government and its massacres"; that it has "supported dictatorships in the region and stopped democracies around the world"; and that finally, regional conflicts need to be resolved before holding such a forum.

The PJD is commonly labelled "Islamist" by the press, although its leadership insists its stance is broader and not religious. The fact the Moroccan constitution reserves religious authority to the monarch means that religious terms of political reference are strictly prohibited. The other "Islamist" party, al-Adl wa al-Ihsane, is considered to have a broader base, but its refusal to recognise the king's religious authority has rendered it illegal.

In any case, the PJD acts in concert with a broad coalition of Moroccan parties and associations. The fact the leftist PPS (Parti Populaire Socialiste) of Ismail Alaoui also raised its objections shows this is not simply an Islamist concern.

US diplomats have recognised the task of selling the forum to a sceptical public will not be easy. They have made efforts to explain the forum's intentions and dismiss the more outlandish claims of imperialist imposition. US State Department spokespersons have been at pains to point out the forum is not about "imposing anything from the outside, as much as it is to facilitate efforts that are already being undertaken within the region."

With Bush's re-election confirming Arab suspicions about US ignorance, or worse - indifference - to their sentiments, the forum will be a chance to mend some fences. Already Syria, Libya, and Iran have responded positively to the invite - a mark of at least some goodwill.

Libya is the easiest to comprehend, as it is now back in the West's good books after paying what was seen to be its dues. Indeed, Colonel Qadhafi's willingness to open his wallet has seen relations thaw at an unprecedented speed. Damascus on the other hand is probably keen to talk shop with Washington after becoming the object of sanctions earlier this year, and it is positive to see the US willing to engage once more. Finally, as regards Iran, while relations remain officially tense, quiet contacts have been maintained, so it is once more perhaps unsurprising to see them participate. The fact some Iranians came out in support of the Bush administration during the elections may also have contributed.

In any case, it was a diplomatic acknowledgement of Morocco's intentions. As Rabat had agreed to hold the forum, a decision that bore some risk (as US diplomats must have realised), its decision to invite Iran could not be turned down easily. Western diplomats have applauded Rabat's decision to hold the forum, saying it showed the country was at ease with the pace and reality of its own political reform process.

Certainly, the forum looks likely to attract some lively debate, with not only government officials but also business and civil society leaders invited. A group of civil society groups met in Beirut in September to hammer out a seven-point action plan, and travelled to New York to present it to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell and 12 foreign ministers from the region. Although subsequently overshadowed by Morocco's decision to host the forum (one Lebanese NGO activist complained the meeting had turned into a two-man show between Powell and Benhaïssa), civil society participants will doubtless add some spice to what could otherwise descend into non-committal diplomatic and bureaucratic formulas.

However, it is in non-political economic and business co-operation that consensus will most likely be reached. On the table for the conference will be a raft of such initiatives, ranging from micro-financing for small entrepreneurs to the creation of regional fund networks (a project already taken up by the EU in its own Greater Neighbourhood project). Other initiatives being considered include the creation of regulatory and investment taskforces, business training centres, and literacy training programmes.

During this first meeting, it seems likely that the participants will opt for a "reform-lite" package that is heavy on technical co-operation but light on the more sensitive political content. The priority for the moment is perhaps to regain some trust. Now Condoleezza Rice is tipped to take over at the State Department, the forum will also be an opportunity to see in which ways US foreign policy is likely to develop, particularly as she is known for a more hawkish line than her predecessor. The forum should provide a good gauge of US intentions and regional reciprocity in the coming years.

Chris de Oliveira.