Journalists, Political Analysts React to Iraqi Premier’s Speech
Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television in Arabic at 0857 gmt on 10 March carries live interviews with a number of journalists and political analysts on Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s speech at today’s opening session of the Baghdad Conference. The interviews are conducted by Elsie Abi-Asy in the Doha studio – live.
In an interview with Liqa’ Makki, a political analyst specialized in Iraqi affairs, the moderator asks Makki about the important parts of Al-Maliki’s speech that drew his attention. Makki says that Al- Maliki repeated the political stand of his coalition and government concerning the constitution and the reconciliation programme. Regarding reconciliation, Makki says: “He did not offer anything new or provide answers to some questions. He continued to present the issue in general terms. There were some observations related to his ability to attract non-participating sides to join the political process – something that did not occur, because he is accused of involvement in sectarianism.” Concerning terrorism, Makki says: “He also tackled the issue in general terms without referring to the ‘Takfiris and Saddamists’ cliche. This perhaps was intended, to avoid provoking the parties that are demanding the annulling of the de-Ba’thification law and who are attending the conference. On the other hand, he did not talk about the militias and did not refer to them at all in his speech today. The part that drew my attention at the end of the speech was his rejection of anything related to cancelling the election results.” He adds that the world community and particularly the Arab League secretary general have referred to the need to reshape the political process in Iraq on the basis that the Iraqi Government and the political process have reached a dead end.
Within this context, Makki says that the prime minister wanted to emphasize the concept that: “We came to power, and you should accept the [elections] results and deal them rather than jumping over them. This concept may obstruct some of the conference mechanism, because there are certain sides inside the conference, including the international ones, who will attempt to make proposals aimed at changing some of the current political mainstays. Thus, he rushed to declare his stand before these proposals become a reality.”
Asked whether the Iraqi Government fears that Iraq would change from being the focal point of the conference into a marginal one in light of possible US-Iranian or US-Syrian meetings, Makki confirms these fears, not only by the government, but also by all Iraqis. He says: “The Iraqi prime minister is aware that neither he nor others are capable of stopping the United States from obtaining certain gains from Iran in return for allowing Iran to have influence in Iraq, or vice versa.”
The moderator refers to a recent statement by the Iraqi foreign minister, in which he says that Iraq needs help from its neighbours and at the same time is capable of helping its neighbours to find the means of communication with influential world powers. The moderator asks Makki to verify to whom this message is directed. Makki says that the minister wanted to show that Iraq is also an influential country. He reiterates: “In Iraq there is a superpower and a regional power and Iraq can play the role of a mediator in reaching an understanding about a certain regional order, in which all sides can feel secure.”
At 0905 gmt, the moderator interviews Abd-al-Karim al-Alawshi, Iraqi political writer and analyst, via satellite from Cairo. Asked to comment on Al-Maliki’s speech, Al-Alawshi says that the speech was a repetition of previous ones. He adds: “Al-Maliki is part of the political process, which contradicts all his programmes. This is because there is a political situation in Iraq that differs from other situations, since the prime minister is part of the sectarian forces that are ruling Iraq today, and the measures that he takes emanate from this sectarian background. Concerning the Baghdad Conference, there was no Iraqi consensus on holding this meeting. Reconciliation among all Iraqis should have been achieved prior to the conference plus a consensus on the topics of the conference agenda.” He goes on to say that the neighbouring countries and others are active in the Iraqi arena for their own interests, reiterating that “this conference will not yield good results since it failed to achieve its main objective; namely, reaching an Iraqi consensus on the conference.”
Asked whether the neighbouring countries’ collective stand on helping Iraq is equal to his call for achieving Iraqi reconciliation, Al-Alawshi says: “I believe that regional countries will have more access to intervention in Iraq’s domestic affairs once an agreement to help Iraq is reached. This is why I say that the Iraqis are the ones to solve their own problem.” Asked to comment on the part of the speech when Al-Maliki stressed the need to respect and honour the Iraqi Constitution and the election results, Al-Alawshi says that “the Iraqi Constitution lacks the approval of all Iraqis. More than 48 per cent of Iraqis rejected it, because it was tailored to suit certain powers inside and outside Iraq.” He reiterates that it was designed to partition the Iraqi people into sects and blocs.
At 0911 gmt, the moderator interviews Adnan al-Mufti, speaker of the Iraqi Kurdistan Parliament, via telephone from Arbil. Commenting on the conference, Al-Mufti says: “The conference is a positive step, although belated, but it is a positive step in the right direction, which can help the Iraqi people and government to maintain security and stability.” He adds that terrorism and violence in Iraq pose a threat to neighbouring countries through the risk of it spreading, emphasizing that it is in their interest to work with Iraq in order to crush it. He says: “The current dialogue in Baghdad will be a step towards achieving this end, and should be accompanied by other steps in order to establish security and national reconciliation.”
Asked whether he anticipates an important outcome from the conference, Al-Mufti confirms that there is no magic solution to the problem, reiterating that it is a first step to enable all parties to shoulder their responsibilities towards achieving the aspired end. He says: “This conference could be the beginning of openness and dialogue that would lead not only to solving Iraqi problems, but also all the problems of the entire region.” Regarding the difficulty of resolving Iraq’s internal problems in the absence of inter-Iraqi reconciliation, Al-Mufti confirms this and stresses the need for the Iraqi political powers to tackle the political impasse with the support of neighbouring countries.
At 0915 gmt, the moderator interviews Lou Fintor, spokesperson for the US Embassy in Baghdad, via telephone from Baghdad. Asked whether he expects decisive results from the conference, Fintor says [in English, with superimposed translation into Arabic; translated from Arabic] that “he hopes that all governments will take this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and work together for maintaining security and stability in the region. We are happy that the United States will support this initiative through participation.” Asked whether it has become certain that the US delegation will hold talks with the Iranian and Syrian delegations, or whether this depends on the progress of deliberations, Fintor confirms what was said by the US ambassador to Iraq concerning his readiness to meet the Iranians in Baghdad only to discuss the Iraqi problem with all related matters, including arms smuggling, emphasizing that no dates have been set for such meetings.
Asked if the United States will engage in a dialogue with Iran in case the latter wants to bargain on other issues, Fintor says that speculation is not fruitful at this point, noting that “in her address to the US Congress Appropriation Committee last February, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the current violence in Iraq might affect the neighbouring countries and, accordingly, these countries must play a role in supporting the Iraqi Government’s efforts to end violence and strengthen national reconciliation.” Asked whether sitting at a table with Iran and Syria during the conference constitutes a change in the US strategy in Iraq, Fintor expresses hope that all governments concerned about this conference would improve their relations with Iraq and contribute to establishing stability and security in the region.
At 0918 gmt, the moderator interviews Elias Murad, head of the Syrian Journalists Union, via satellite from Damascus. Asked to sum up Syria’s role in the conference and in resolving the Iraqi crisis, Murad says that Syria has been contributing effectively to the region’s security and stability, reiterating that “however, as a result of the US occupation of Iraq, the entire region was subjected to security imbalance, particularly in Iraq. We are certain that Syria can play a significant role in establishing security and stability in Iraq in cooperation with Iraqi parties through supporting the political process and employing its historical relations with Iraq.” He adds: “Syria has already shown desire and direct and indirect readiness to achieve this end. I believe that some steps have been taken on this path through the meetings that took place in Baghdad and Damascus by high-ranking officials of both countries.”
Asked whether any future meeting between the US and Syrian delegations during the conference will constitute a change in the US policy towards Damascus, Murad says: “I believe that the US Administration has realized, though belatedly, the significant role the region’s states can play in tackling the Iraqi problem,” reiterating that “resolving this problem is the responsibility of our Iraqi brothers, notwithstanding the neighbouring countries’ responsibility. If the US Administration is serious about what it says and wishes to restore the situation in Iraq to its former stability and security – not referring to the former regime – it will certainly take the Syrian-Iraqi relations into considerations. I also find that there is a US policy retreat in this particular issue. This is because the US Administration previously rejected allowing Syria to play a role or share in a meeting, imposed pressures on it, and unjustly accused it of harbouring terrorism, all that has changed now and the US Administration is sitting at the same table with the Syrians, Iranians, and other countries. This is a significant matter. However, we are not saying which side has progressed or which one has retreated, what concerns us is finding an objective and logical solution that restores security, stability, and unity to Iraq – a unity that can be achieved through a political process in which all categories of Iraqis participate, after which a time-table for the US forces’ withdrawal from Iraq is set.” He goes on to say that if this move has an impact on other files, the initiation of a dialogue may become the first step towards conducting a more comprehensive dialogue, despite the fact that some US sides pressuring against this direction.
Asked what Syria will seek from the United States in the event a bilateral meeting is held, Murad confirms that Syria does not seek anything new from the US Administration or the world community, and says: “What Syria wants is support for the peace process in the region, Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state, withdrawal from the Golan, and allowing the region to solve its problems by itself.” He adds: “We know that the United States has interests and a role to play in the region, which cannot be ignored, but at the same time, we do not accept settlements at the expense of our territories and rights.”
At 0923 gmt, the moderator interviews Safar Turan, the director of world news at the Turkish TV Channel Seven, via satellite from Istanbul. Asked how he views the Baghdad Conference, Turan says: “Only recently the United States has been able to understand that it cannot solve the region’s problem alone and that it has to coordinate with the region’s countries, particularly Iran and Syria. The United States has always accused these two states of supporting or harbouring what is called terrorism in the region and the world. Now we see that it is sitting at the same table with all concerned parties in the area to begin a dialogue. The question posed here is whether or not intentions are good. It seems that all parties have realized that US policy in the region has had bad consequences on the internal, regional, and international levels, and I believe that these parties are serious about finding a solution to the Iraqi problem as well as to the entire issue.”
Turan focuses on the Turkish policy prior to the invasion of Iraq, which centred on allowing the neighbouring countries to solve the problem, but was unable to prevent the war from occurring. He says the Baghdad Conference has come as “a result of this policy,” and adds that the upcoming meeting in Istanbul in April will be very important towards solving the region’s issues.
At 0927 gmt, the moderator interviews Muhammad Shari’ati, an expert in Iranian affairs, via telephone from Tehran. Asked what Iran expects from the Baghdad conference, Shari’ati says: “I do not think Iran expects much from this conference. To begin with Iran was hesitant to participate in the conference, and coordinated with the Iraqi Government on whether to set conditions concerning those who were arrested in Kurdistan, for instance. But in the end, we expected Iran to participate because Iranian-Iraqi relations are too strong to be shackled by conditions here or there. I rule out the possibility of talks between the sensitive sides, Iran and the United States, but there could be talks between Syria and the United States. Iran has announced that it does not anticipate bilateral talks to take place, but today’s session could be a window for future talks.”
(c) 2007 BBC Monitoring Middle East. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.