Date of Interview: 08-28-07
Date Broadcast: 09-01-07
Q: How do you assess the new quartet alliance?
A: At the beginning, the five-party agreement is an important step that was preceded by a great deal of work during the past weeks that produced results concerning important laws such as the debathification laws, provincial laws, and the decision making process. My assessment and the assessment of the U.S. is that it represents a positive step forward. The agreement of the four, or any other number, is a natural thing in a free democratic system where alliances are formed as part of the system, and there is no need to consider external positions. However, in the coming weeks and months, all political entities should concentrate on the huge problems ahead. This is the important thing.
Q: Do you bless [support] the quartet alliance? You mentioned the meeting and the agreements announced yesterday that were reached over the issues of difference, but regarding the quartet alliance, it includes Shiites and Kurds and some see it to be of an ethnic-sectarian nature, so how do you see it? Do you bless it?
A: Any political alliance in Iraq does not need the blessing of the U.S. or any one else. The important thing under the current circumstances is to work together, important decisions need to represent all Iraqis, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, and this is what we saw in the communiqué announced recently.
Q: In the light of the new alliances, some see that the national unity government has failed to realize its goals. Is there a change in the U.S. strategy towards a new government different from a national unity one?
A: The Most important thing here is national reconciliation. The security plan started in February and these has been progress in security achieved by the Iraqi and coalition forces, and now there is a need for similar progress on the political front to achieve reconciliation, therefore, we need joint Sunni-Shiite-Kurdish decisions. Shiite-Kurdish decision does not represent national reconciliation, it could be the beginning, but to reach the final goal there should be decision agreed upon by all.
Q: You have spoken of joint decisions. But with the presence of a national unity government there were still obstacles facing the decision making process. So what is the solution and how can national reconciliation be realized?
A: There have been around 60 decisions taken by the government and parliament including very important decisions such as the budget and investments. There is progress and this was not easy in the presence of sectarian violence. The main thing is to make joint decisions even if it means coping with difficulties and delays.
Q: Some believe that the U.S. is seeking solutions outside of democracy, and that this is being reflected by its political and military officials such as [Gen] Benjamin Mixon who recently said that democracy is an option which Iraqis can either choose to accept or reject. Does this reflect intentions to change the course and seek a fair dictator [as an alternative]?
A: Our position has been clear since the liberation and even before that. We support democracy in Iraq. Iraqis have achieved progress despite the difficulties. Today they have a constitution, a parliament, elections, and a free and independent media. There is democracy in Iraq despite the differences and problems, and based on my experience here for the last six months, there is no Iraqi that wants to go back to the former regime’s times. Iraqis want democracy and we back them 100%.
Q: A statement by Senator Mitch McNeil, head of the Republican majority [sic] at the U.S. senate, said he had no doubt that the U.S. policy in Iraq will take another direction after the Crocker-Petraeus report. So does he mean the political or military policy?
A: We will have to wait until September to see what Petraeus and Crocker have written in their report. There is a discussion currently in the U.S. which, like Iraq, enjoys a democratic society, where some see that no progress is made in Iraq and different decisions need to be taken. But the position of the U.S. administration and President Bush is that we will continue and that progress is being made by Iraqis. The U.S. policy in Iraq is stable, and I don’t believe that any quick or major changes will be introduced to the U.S. policy in Iraq.
Q: The report to be submitted by the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq and the General Commander is approaching, and some believe that it will include the progress that has been achieved in security; meanwhile the political scene is the same?
A: [Laughing] you’ll need to wait.
Q: We don’t want a full disclosure, just what you have written so far?
A: I haven’t written anything yet, but there are some thoughts. In general there are huge political, security, and economic problems, but at the same time, there is progress in the fields of security, and also in politics as in the recent agreement of the five parties and in Anbar and other areas where the people have turned against al-Qaeda which represents a security and political achievement. And there is progress in the economy also, and this can bee seen in the implementation of provincial budgets which has gone ahead well in comparison to last year. So there are problems and there is progress, but Iraq and its friends need to be patient, because after 35 years of injustice under Saddam Hussein’s regime, and after the problems that emerged after the liberation, it is not possible to solve the problems of 40 years in one or two years. But the important thing here is that there is progress.
Q: Some see that the recent criticism by U.S. figures is not surprising taking into consideration the start of presidential elections campaigns in the U.S.?
A: In the U.S. there is complete freedom of expression, and there are also the administration and the Congress, and it is only natural to have differences over some issues including Iraq. However, we need to pay attention to these statements and realize that they are made by the Congress. The position of the U.S. administration is fixed on supporting the Iraqi government and Iraqi politicians towards national reconciliation and improving the people’s conditions. There is a difference between the administration and the Congress, and the administration’s message is clear in stating support for the new Iraq.
Q: I didn’t get a sufficient answer. [New question] The issue of withdrawing forces from Iraq has been brought up. Is this an elections campaign maneuver?
A: Elections will be held in the U.S. at the end of next year, and this does affect some issues. But the presence and mission of coalition forces in Iraq is a strategic issue and is above political maneuvers. There are serious discussions over the issue, but everyone in the U.S. realizes that what happens in Iraq will affect the whole world, and therefore, deep and serious discussions are needed.
Q: Some suggest September or the next year as a start date for pulling out forces, but experts and analysts say that puling out around 160,000 troops, 100,000 contractors, 200,000 tons of equipment, and 20,000 vehicles needs at least two years. So what’s behind these hasty proposals?
A: Some want to see a change in policy and this is their right. But it’s important to have conditions that are suitable for withdrawing from Iraq.
Q: Does this mean that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq before the conditions are suitable, meaning that security is established?
A: This is my opinion. And this is a very important point. There will be a withdrawal some day because we cannot stay forever, and this is what the Americans and Iraqis want. But the main question here is about the conditions, we need suitable security and political conditions to pullout forces, and Iraqi security forces should also be prepared to take on their responsibility. There is progress being achieved now but we need time.
Q: There have been statements including some by you about the lack of political progress in Iraq and progress being disappointing, in addition to other statements about progress in security but not on the political front. The political process is underway, a national unity government is in place, and national reconciliation has been proposed, so what is the baseline that the performance of the Iraqi government is measured?
A: This answer is for all Iraqis to hear. Iraqis do believe that if national reconciliation is achieved, it will provide the right condition fort the withdrawal of coalition forces, and steps similar to that announced two days ago are important [Presenter interrupts]
Q: How can political progress be achieved? Progress on the security front has been seen through striking the infrastructure of al-Qaeda, but what are the steps necessary to achieve political progress so that the U.S. can withdraw from the country?
A: Politics is more complicated than security and there is no simple answer. But there are many indicators as agreements among political leaders over draft laws, the timings of provincial elections, the amendment of the constitution, in addition to other points, for example, the situation in Anbar where Iraqis were against the government and coalition forces, but they have changed their positions both Sunnis and Shiites. As for the economic front, I believe that implementing provincial budgets and improving services such as electricity and water are also important steps and evidence on political and economic progress.
Q: Democracy in Iraq is based on consensus and governed by ethnic power sharing, and this type of democracy was proposed in the 60s and failed to yield results in any country during the last 40 years. So are we witnessing a change in direction towards the democracy of the majority where big blocs are given the privilege of forming the government?
A: Such decisions are for the Iraqis to take, and they are the ones decide over the type system they want. But I believe under such circumstances, the democracy of consensus is important [Presenter interrupts: But they have failed to produce results] We need time. Iraq’s problems have not developed in one or two years, they have developed since 1968 at least when the Ba’th Party came to power. Achieving security is relatively easy compared to a political solution which is more complicated and needs time.
Q: You mentioned the former regime and also mentioned security. The former regime’s method in achieving security was through the excessive use of force and through exploiting civilians to strike against the opposition. And today some see that U.S. forces are adopting the same methods especially in areas like Sadr City, Shula, and Samara?
A: Coalition forces coordinate in their actions with the Iraqi government. And this was seen in Anbar and also in Abu Ghraib. In Abu Ghraib the people were against the new system in Iraq, but now they support the Iraqi government and coalition forces and have enrolled in police academy training and this was achieved with the complete consent of the Iraqi government. The same thing can be said in other areas in Baghdad like Ghazaliya and Ameriya where work is done in cooperation with the government.
Q: We’ve heard about the US-Iranian talks, but no further details have been revealed?
A: We agreed to a request by the Iraqi side to hold talks with Iran, and the talks were not bilateral but trilateral with the participation of the Iraqi government and discussed the one subject of security in Iraq and the necessary steps to be taken by all sides to serve this purpose. We made several demands to the Iranian side but unfortunately we have not seen any results. We are ready for another round but we also want to see results and efforts put forward by the Iranian government.
Q: The media did mention the meeting but nothing was said about what was demanded and the response to these demands. There were proposals to raise the level of representation but Iran declined. So what results were achieved and what about future plans?
A: There is no need for raising the level of representation. But there is a need for results. We want an end to Iran’s support for militias that fight Iraqi and coalition forces. We want an end to bombardment on the Green Zone. We want an end for training militia members. This is what we and the Iraqis want, but unfortunately there have been no results on the ground.
Q: What about Syria? Will there be future discussions with Syria, or will the U.S. depend on comments by Senator Joseph Lieberman who was reported by the Wall Street Journal as saying that Damascus airport was the gateway for foreign fighters into Iraq and that the U.S. should strike the Syrian infrastructure and deny these fighters access to the Syrian channels to Iraq. Will the U.S. follow this proposal or will it seek talks as it did with Iran?
A: First, it important to understand that the U.S. concentrates on diplomatic and political solutions and seeks non-military efforts. Secondly, there were discussions two weeks ago in Damascus over the issue of Iraq’s border security, and the U.S. attended this meeting as an observer. There will other meetings in the future and we hope that results will be reached in Iraq’s border security Syria and preventing the infiltration of the Iraqi-Syrian borders.
Q: A step that has incited controversy in Iraq and caused demonstrations on the streets is the arming of groups that used to fight U.S. forces and civilians. Many people say these groups are the same ones that used to kill innocent civilians and now the U.S. is arming them to fight al-Qaeda. The U.S. has said it is arming tribes, but the Iraqi government says they are not tribes but various factions, while others says that these groups have since killed several prominent figures in their neighborhoods. So what is the reason behind arming these groups?
A: First, we do not provide arms or ammunition to any groups or individuals under any circumstances. Secondly, there is coordination with the Iraqi government in this issue. A week ago I went on a visit to the area of Ghazaliya with Gen. Petraeus, Dr. Safa from the PM’s office, and Lt. Gen. Aboud who heads the security operation in Baghdad and the purpose of the visit was to see the conditions on the ground and talk to the volunteers from this area. So everything is open before the Iraqi government and we do not take any step without its approval.
Q: The Iraqi government has complained over this issue, and the Iraqi security forces themselves are infiltrated, so how can the U.S. trust and recommend these figures in the armed groups?
A: We do not choose anyone, if someone were to come to us and say he wants to fight on our side, then that is good, but the next step is to coordinate with the Iraqi government which the side responsible for choosing whoever it sees fit to join the police and army forces. It is an Iraqi decision not an American one. We do not provide arms to anyone.
Q: Are you optimistic over the future of Iraq? And for the last time, can you give some of what will appear in the September report?
A: [Laughing] You’ll need to wait. When I came back to Iraq early this year I was optimistic, and six months later I am still optimistic. Noticeable progress has been made in building the new democratic Iraq. But problems still lie ahead and they need strategic patience.
[Final comment by the presenter]: You have given us only little. |
