Text of Interview With Iraqi President Talabani

Text of interview with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani by Raghidah Dirgham in New York; date not given, carried by London-based newspaper Al-Hayat website on 19 September; subheads inserted editorially:

[Dirgham] Did you touch on the relationship with Syria and Iran during your talks with President George Bush?

Syria

[Talabani] A very long time ago, we were able to balance our good relations with the United States with our relations with Iran. We are now trying to balance our good relations with Syria with our good relations with the United States.

[Dirgham] Are your relations with Syria now good?

[Talabani] My personal relations are good.

[Dirgham] What do you mean?

[Talabani] I feel that Syria did us a great favour when we were in the opposition. It gave us valuable assistance and enabled us to resume and continue the struggle. I therefore feel a moral commitment to it.

[Dirgham] Officials in the Iraqi Government have criticized Syria and accused it of inciting the terror and of letting the gunmen infiltrate into Iraq. Does not this contradict what you said?

[Talabani] I said that my personal relations with Syria are good.

[Dirgham] But I am talking to you in your capacity as the president of Iraq!

[Talabani] I know that. I, as the president of Iraq, have good relations with Syria. But you know that we have in Iraq different ministers, a minister who praises Syria like Abd-al-Salam al-Maliki and a minister who criticizes it like Sa’dun al-Dulaymi. I am personally convinced that this method is wrong. The government should have a single opinion. It is my personal view that we should not raise our differences with Syria in the media and press until we despair of the Syrian position. I have not despaired yet.

[Dirgham] What will you do regarding the contacts with Syria?

[Talabani] Dialogue and the exchange of views through middlemen.

[Dirgham] What middlemen?

[Talabani] Common friends. For example, I sent some time ago Fakhri Karim to Syria on my behalf to meet with President Al-Asad. I sent after that brother Abdallah al-Nasrawi and gave him a message to President Al-Asad. We also have a common friend who is Husni Muhalli whom I gave a verbal message. We want to resolve our differences with Syria within a fraternal framework and hence do not raise them publicly.

[Dirgham] What was the Syrian response?

[Talabani] Generally positive.

[Dirgham] And what did you demand?

[Talabani] I cannot tell you what I demanded. I do not raise our differences with Syria in the press. In other words, I cannot tell you what I demanded and what they replied.

[Dirgham] But you are saying there are relations and dialogue and that you have certain demands?

[Talabani] Yes, this is all true.

[Dirgham] Do I understand that you are not happy with the US accusations against Syria concerning the Iraqi issue?

[Talabani] The United States and Syria are two countries that have relations, disagreements, and common interests, whether I like it or not. I maintain my opinion on the need for direct dialogue with the Syrian brothers.

[Dirgham] President Bush is asking everyone to isolate it and he surely asked you too. What was your reply?

[Talabani] He did not ask me this. I explained to the US President that we should not contemplate change regime whatever our disagreements with Syria are but change the regime’s policy concerning Iraq. This was exactly the US President’s viewpoint.

[Dirgham] You are saying he does not support change regime in Syria?

[Talabani] Yes. He only wants to change the regime’s policy on issues related to Iraq, Lebanon, and others.

[Dirgham] So what US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said about Syria’s isolation is for consumption?

[Talabani] I cannot say this. This Mrs or Ms Rice is a strong and clever secretary and you can ask her. You asked me and I answered you. What I heard from President Bush is that he wants to change the Syrian regime’s policy concerning Iraq, Lebanon, and some other issues. He does not want to change the entire Syrian regime.

Iran

[Dirgham] How was the Iran issue raised during your talks with the US President?

[Talabani] Iran was not mentioned because we do not have problems with it. On the contrary, our relations with Iran are normal. The Americans know that we have good relations with it.

[Dirgham] The impression among many, especially the Arabs, is that Iraq has departed from the Arab world and fell into the Iranian orbit!

[Talabani] First of all, Iraq has not departed from the Arab environment. Iraq under Saddam Husayn was isolated in the Arab world. Saddam waged war on Kuwait and entered into battles with all the Arabs. The Arab armies fought Saddam Husayn, including the Syrian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Saudi, and Kuwaiti armies. Iraq returned to its Arab environment after Saddam Husayn’s downfall and took part enthusiastically and effectively in the Arab League’s meetings and Arab conferences. Iraq did not throw itself into the lap of Iran or any other lap. Iraq is still where it is and we want to establish the best relations with the Arab brothers.

[Dirgham] But the United States is accusing Iran of controlling the course of affairs inside Iraq to a large extent?

[Talabani] I do not think so. The Americans are not saying this. I have not heard from them that the Iranians are in control of affairs. The Americans are present in Iraq and know that no one controls the course of affairs except the active forces in Iraq’s society and which are represented by the parliament, the presidency of the republic, and the cabinet.

[Dirgham] How was the meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinezhad?

[Talabani] It was in fact a courtesy visit and congratulations on his election and mine. He invited me officially to visit Tehran. We exchanged views on the need to improve Iraqi-Iranian relations for the better. It was actually a short visit.

[Dirgham] When will you visit Iran?

[Talabani] When I have the chance. I received the invitation when President (Mohammad) Khatami was still president and President Ahmadinezhad renewed it. I accepted it with gratitude. But I need to look at my work and programmes because I already have previous invitations to visit Britain, Check, Austria, and China. I will then decide when to visit. We have the Arab summit coming up and I cannot determine now when I can visit Iran. But it is in my agenda to visit it this year, God willing.

Arab League

[Dirgham] The Arab League secretary general has apparently welcomed the constitutional changes!

[Talabani] We accepted the proposal of brother Amr Musa that the constitution should include the following text: Iraq is a founder and active member in the Arab League and is committed to its charter and resolutions. We included this text in the constitution and Amr Musa welcomed it.

[Dirgham] Was this all what was demanded? Was this the only change?

[Talabani] No. This was the required change concerning Iraq’s relations with the Arab League and the Arabs.

[Dirgham] Federalism as proposed in Iraq at present is creating sectarian sedition. Some fear that it will be a model for the entire region on an ethnic and sectarian basis!

[Talabani] First of all, any federalism in the world is sometimes established on an ethnic, geographic, or sectarian basis. This is the nature of federalism in the world. The Iraqi one is stipulated in the constitution as the State Administration Law for the transitional period. No one objected when the federalism issue was raised. Whether it is the Arab Sunnis, the Arab Shi’is, the liberals, or the democrats, all of them supported federalism in Kurdistan. The objection to it was in the south. They called it sectarian federalism while in Kurdistan it is geographic-national. They therefore did not agree on federalism in the south.

[Dirgham] So you admit that federalism in Iraq nourished the sectarian sedition?

[Talabani] No. I object to this strongly and consider this accusation unjustified. On the contrary, I believe that federalism and democracy can tackle all of Iraq’s other problems because they lead to the fair distribution of wealth and powers between the Iraqis and the various Iraqi governorates. Historically, my dear, Islam is also based on confederation. The Islamic emirates are some kind of a confederation. The present Iraqi state was divided into three provinces under the Ottoman rule: The Shahrasur province that was later the Mosul province, the Baghdad province, and the Basra province. These were based on the geographical facts.

Federalism

[Dirgham] There are no signs of Iraq being partitioned after a civil war [sentence as published]. These signs are tangible. Does federalism treat this?

[Talabani] I do not agree with this description of the Iraqi situation. I believe that centralization caused all the problems in Iraq. It alone led to sectarian and national persecution and the squandering of Iraq’s resources. On the contrary, federalism pleases and convinces all the people and distributes power and resources between them fairly. I believe that those opposing federalism have not understood it or their mentality is still that of the totalitarian state. There are now 76 countries in the world that practice federalism. The Arab Emirates is a type of federalism and so is Pakistan. So why has federalism in Iraq become divisive.

[Dirgham] I am talking about something beyond federalism. I am talking about the current situation in Iraq. This situation is unstable and there are daily bombings and sectarian disagreements and this is causing fears of collapse and a civil war!

[Talabani] The Arab and Western media are not reflecting the true situation in Iraq but focusing on the negative aspects. There are 14 calm governorates in Iraq, apart from acts of terrorist infiltrations. The people are going on with their lives, prosperity is continuing, and there are schools, universities, etc. Come to Kurdistan and you will see that we are safer than New York. I do not deny the sectarian disagreements but the civil war is difficult. I do not believe that Iraq is heading towards civil war. There are disagreements but there is a foreign invasion of Iraq, an armed invasion by “Al-Qa’idah” and Al-Zarqawi groups and the Muslim extremists who are coming in their thousands to fight the Iraqis.

Terror

[Dirgham] The US President is reiterating that the war in Iraq is to repel the danger of terror from US cities. Is this not the use of Iraq in the war on terror?

[Talabani] Did the Americans create the terror or did it come to Iraq? You are not accurate. He is saying our fight against terror in Iraq is to keep the danger away from the United States. This is what he is saying.

[Dirgham] But this battle against the terrorists is taking place in Iraq!

[Talabani] Yes. It is taking place in Iraq because the terrorists focused on Iraq, because thousands of them came to Iraq, and because they are daily blowing up booby-trapped cars in Iraq and have now started to operate in Saudi Arabia and Egypt too. But their focus is on Iraq.

[Dirgham] Do you admit that there are Iraqi elements, call them terrorists if you like or resistance, and that not everything happening in Iraq is imported?

[Talabani] Yes. I agree with this view. We have two kinds of terrorists: The invaders coming from Al-Qa’idah, Al-Zarqawis, and others and the Iraqis who have taken up arms against the present government and the Americans. The latter are divided into two: The remnants of Saddam Husayn’s regime and the forces that believe the resistance against the Americans with weapons is better than political resistance. I do not deny this. What I mean is that the political forces that are carrying out the bombings are external ones.

[Dirgham] How long will it take for Iraq to win its war on terror in its own backyard?

[Talabani] I believe that Iraq will win if it practices a comprehensive media, political, economic, military, and regional and international diplomatic policy. We can triumph over the terrorists quickly if the neighbouring countries help us. We can eliminate terror more quickly than we expect if they help us. But we also need a domestic policy, a comprehensive policy that seeks national reconciliation between the Iraq Arab Sunnis and Shi’is, the Kurds, and the Turkomans. Let us agree that the only route to change and development in Iraq is the parliamentary one, the political route, and the elections dialogue one and not the route of terror and taking up arms.

[Dirgham] You met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and you were supposed to have discussed the Kurdistan issue. Turkey has of course a position on the establishment of a Kurdish state. How was this issue raised?

[Talabani] Believe me, Erdogan did not raise the Kurdistan issue and neither did I. I gave him a summary of the situation in Iraq and the constitution and asked him to denounce the sectarian war announced by Al-Zarqawi and to strengthen bilateral relations. The issue of the “Kurdish Workers Party” was discussed and I said that the armed fighting in Turkey is against the Kurdish people’s interest because that interest requires the success of the democratic experiment in Turkey.

[Dirgham] You demanded from Russia to stop having its unfriendly view of Iraq and threatened it would not get contracts!

[Talabani] I met President Vladimir Putin and the understanding between us was complete. There was a statement in my name that was somewhat distorted. I asked Moscow to deal with us directly and said we are reading to cooperate with Russia and to look at our positions from the Russian-Iraqi relations’ angle instead of looking at them from the US-Russian relations’ angle.

[Dirgham] Has Russia started to look at you positively? Is it because of the contracts?

[Talabani] Yes. Our relations with Russia are now good. We agreed to exchange views and for the two foreign ministers to coordinate in the Security Council concerning the multinational forces and the Iraqi situation. We also agreed to activate the joint ministerial committee and bolster the two countries’ trade, economic, and cultural relations.

US bases

[Dirgham] You talked in a television interview about Iraq’s intention to let the United States have military bases after its troops’ withdrawal?

[Talabani] I said the presence of US troops in Iraq is not just for fighting the terrorists because the Iraqi forces should undertake this task. The US troops’ presence helps us prevent foreign interference in Iraq’s internal affairs by neighbouring countries.

[Dirgham] What you said was this: The Iraqi Government might see it is in Iraq’s interest to ask for the US troops to remain in bases even after Iraq’s liberation from the danger of terror?

[Talabani] I did not say this at all.

[Dirgham] This is what you said literally!

[Talabani] I said that some troops might remain when they withdraw. I did not say all of them. Anyone who says this is a 100 per cent liar. I said some US troops can stay in certain military bases in Iraq and I might now reiterate: It is probably in Iraq’s interest to have limited US troops remain in bases once their current mission is over.

Within two years

[Dirgham] When do you believe the United States will withdraw its troops?

[Talebani] This matter concerns the Iraqi-US relations. It is my estimate that the Iraqi forces will be capable of undertaking the protection of domestic security within the next two years. But the question of scheduling the US troops’ withdrawal concerns the Iraqi- US cooperation and the two countries’ conditions. Announcing the schedule now is not in Iraq’s interest because the terrorists will consider it a victory they achieved and raise their morale. So even if there is a schedule, it should remain between the two countries to announce at the proper time.