Elected President of Iraq in October 2018, Barham Salih served as Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government from 2009 to 2012, and as Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq from 2006 to 2009. He is currently the second deputy Secretary General of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). He briefly left the PUK and established his own Coalition for Democracy and Justice in 2018, before returning to the party.
In this interview conducted by Rudaw on Sunday, Salih expresses a wish to challenge the root causes of issues plaguing Iraqi politics and lives, including activity by Islamic State (ISIS, otherwise known as Daesh) remnants in the country and Erbil-Baghdad disputes over territory and budget.
Salih repeatedly asserts that Iraq "does not wish to take any side in rivalries unfolding in the region” or become embroiled in any potential conflict between Iran on the one hand, and the United States and regional ally Saudi Arabia on the other. He denies that attacks earlier this month on an Aramco facility in Saudi Arabia could have been launched from Iraq.
Efforts made by Baghdad to de-escalate tension are first and foremost for the benefit of Iraq, the president says, which ‘needs a rest’ after decades of conflict.
Challenging of war and extremism and the reallocating of funds to public services are mutually beneficial, he explains, as tackling unemployment and poverty reduces the likelihood of radicalization, while reduced radicalization means less spending on war, which can then be funneled into public services.
This interview has been redacted for length and clarity.
Majeed Gly: I would like to start off by asking about your speech at the General Assembly. You dedicated a segment to address the attendants in Kurdish. How did you make this decision?
Barham Salih: I am a Kurd. It is one of Iraq’s main languages. I am currently the president, and it is my responsibility to speak on behalf of all communities in Iraq, including Kurds, Arabs and others. The people of Kurdistan have a voice in the political system and decision-making bodies of Iraq.
You met with US President Donald Trump. What was your main demand from him?
He commended Iraq’s progress. He spoke about US-Iraq relations, how to make efforts to improve such relations, and about building on Iraq’s progress. We spoke about the situation in the region post-Daesh [Islamic State]. He greatly praised victory over Daesh (Islamic State), describing it as a big achievement. Yet we will need to work to guarantee that terrorists do not come back to Iraq, and to the region as a whole. However, it needs a lot of work in terms of security, economy and politics. It can also be tackled with the resolution of Syria's situation.
Do not you think international military support for Iraq to counter ISIS has reduced since the liberation of Mosul, even though Iraq says ISIS still poses a military threat?
Daesh is a long-term subject. Not just Daesh, the matter of terrorism and extremism is an important subject in the Middle East. Military victories over Daesh were achieved with efforts from the different peoples of Iraq, of Kurdistan and of other areas. The Iraqi army, Peshmerga forces and Hashd al-Shaabi, backed by our partners, played a giant role in defeating Daesh. Yet, the group maintains a presence, having manpower in Syria and border areas of Iraq.
It bears questioning how extremism emerges in the first place. It comes from unemployment, from unstable political atmospheres, and from regional and international rivalries happening in the region. Plenty of work needs to be done to solve them if we want to prevent the resurgence of another Daesh, as I highlighted in my meetings with President Trump and others. The Middle East is engulfed in problems, the main one being the combat of terrorism and extremism. It is impossible for Iraq to allow the return of terror to our country after all the bloodshed and struggle to defeat terror.
Are you for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq?
The Iraqi government makes decisions based on security needs. The existence of American troops in Iraq is upon the request of Iraq, upon the basis of Iraq’s security requirements.
You have met with both President Trump and President Rouhani. Did either of them push Iraq to take a side or express its stance amid their regional rivalry?
Our stance is clear. We will not take one side over the other. We do not want to become part of, or involved in, their rivalries. The people of Iraq have been in conflict for 40 years now. This country needs a rest. I conveyed this message clearly and frankly in my speech at the United Nations.
We clearly stated the same thing in Saudi Arabia during the Arab League. It is not for the sake of this or that side, but for our country alone. This country has been devastated, shifting from one conflict to another. It is time to spend money on building schools, hospitals and expanding services available to people instead of spending our revenue on conflict and devastation. If we do not do so, the extremists will definitely return and capitalize on internal rivalries. When our neighbors speak with us, they emphasize that the stability of Iraq is of importance to them and that they are against destabilization of Iraq. We have assured them that Iraq’s land will not become a source of threat to any of our neighbors.
I spoke with Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. He said Hashd al-Shaabi [Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF] is a problem for them, one that must be resolved. He even viewed the issue of Hashd al-Shaabi as a global one.
Hashd al-Shaabi is legally recognized by the Iraqi Parliament. They played an instrumental role in the fight against Daesh. According to law, this force must be under the command of the general commander of Iraq’s armed forces [Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi]. The Iraqi government must stand against any force operating outside of the law.
But is it not the case that Hashd al-Shaabi forces are not well regulated?
That is true to some extent.
The main topic discussed at the [United Nations] General Assembly was attacks on Aramco [in Saudi Arabia]. The Iraqi government has dismissed claims that the attack was launched from its land. But the fact is that the Iraqi government does not have authority over all its territory. What makes you so sure that the attack did not come from inside Iraq?
The missiles were not fired from Iraq, and no country or side has said so.
Are you sure?
Iraq is in a transitional stage. It is trying to reorganize itself, to impose the rule of law and stabilize the state’s position ... We stress that Iraq does not wish to take any side in rivalries unfolding in the region. This is not just a point of emphasis by one or two sides, but one unanimously held among all of Iraq’s main political parties.
However, I am not saying everyone is committed to the government’s stance. Undoubtedly, there are sides working contrary to our agenda. It is ultimately the responsibility of the government and the state of Iraq to stand against them.
Given that Baghdad enjoys good relations with both Tehran and Washington, have you opened up any channels for relations between the two rivals? If, not do you have plans to do so?
We are in talks with all sides; the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It is an important matter, one that concerns us too. However, these countries have their own direct and indirect channels between themselves. I do not want to delve into too much detail here.
Our viewpoint remains unchanged - the last thing this region needs is another conflict. The fight against terror has not yet ended in this region. The breakout of another conflict would be absurd. If God forbid, a conflict were to ignite, it would be detrimental to the whole region. It will be in our interest to help put such rivalries to bed and prevent war from happening.
Shiites are not merely a majority; the country is also on the edge of being run on sectarian terms. As the protector of the Iraqi Constitution, are not you worried?
There are political parties in Iraq running on sectarian lines, both Sunni and Shiite. There are also nationalist Kurdish parties, working contrary to the constitution... the main Iraqi parties, at least, are stressing their commitment to the constitution. As the president, it is my duty to work with the government to implement the constitution, though it is not easy to do so. Let us not forget that, despite there being problems and long-running speculation that civil war would break out, Kurdish-Arab relations would collapse, Shiite-Sunni relations would collapse, and this and that would happen in Kirkuk, Diyala and Mosul [territories disputed by Erbil and Baghdad], the main parties of Iraq have been able to work side by side. I am not saying there are not issues, though.
Erbil and Baghdad say their talks are going in the right direction, but results do not seem promising. What stage are the talks at now?
I was in the Kurdistan Region where we talked about this matter in detail. Iraqi delegations have visited Erbil many times, both in secret and publicly. We are now waiting for the Kurdistan delegation to visit Baghdad.
There are two viewpoints; one is that there should be another agreement between Erbil and Baghdad for the 2020 budget; another is for the idea that there must be a grassroots agreement to solve all long-standing issues. We cannot keep dealing with this issue that repeats itself every year during budget talks. What is important to me is that the atmosphere between Erbil and Baghdad is right for talks. In our media, we often say there are parties against Erbil-Baghdad talks, that there are parties acting against the interests and demands of the people of the Kurdistan Region. Meanwhile, the Kurdistan Region has a lot of friends and supporters in Baghdad. Mr. Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi is an old friend of Kurdistan, though some of his rivals consider his assistance to the people of Kurdistan as a negative.
We must nurture this atmosphere, so we can lay the foundations for a deep resolution of our revenue and budget disputes. The issue is not just about salaries, but how to improve economic infrastructure. We will soon submit a bill to parliament, together with Abdul-Mahdi, for the establishment of a Reconstruction Council in which government revenues will be deposited ...
As President of Iraq, what are you going to do to guarantee that the Kurdistan Region budget is never again manipulated as a political tool during Erbil-Baghdad disputes?
The livelihood of people should not be tampered with or be manipulated during political rivalries. As the president of Iraq, I will execute my duties. Moreover, I hope all other sides will act responsibly.
Abdul-Mahdi is said to be a factor behind improved Erbil-Baghdad ties. But he is weak in Baghdad, he has a lot of rivals, and his future political career is unclear. What is your take on that?
The prime minister has a clear stance. He needs support ... we cannot hold on to the singular belief that all sides, that the world is against us - it is not like that. There are friends out there who back us. If we happen to ask for something unreasonable, our friends, including Adil Abdul-Mahdi, might tell us it is wrong. The contrary is also true; if they want to impose something wrong on Kurdistan, it is my responsibility to speak up and say no.
In your view, is Kirkuk's situation acceptable?
No. It must be normalized. Efforts to resolve the situation in Kirkuk and other areas, to bring its peoples together, are taking place. As the president, I will contribute to finding a solution in the right way... some minor issues remain, but eventually, all groups in Kirkuk must get together and find a solution.
Arabization is ongoing in Kirkuk and is contrary to the constitution. Why aren’t you using your constitutional power to stop it and help implement Article 140?
There are many things I could express through Rudaw, but the time is not right. We are trying to resolve the issues. I am assuring you as Dr. Barham, the president, that I have made my stance clear and have taken measures to prevent violations not just against Kurds, but other groups too. The president's constitutional responsibility is to prevent violations from taking place. The complicated situation of Kirkuk and other areas need fundamental solutions. I hope they will be resolved with an agreement between the city’s indigenous groups ...
There is a degree of rivalry between the PUK and KDP in the Kurdistan Region. We remember when Mam Jalal [Talabani] was president well; he used to come to Erbil to ease the tensions. What have you done?
I was recently in Erbil and Baghdad. Kurdistani political parties must help and coordinate with each other. Political differences are a normal thing, but it should not hurt the Kurdistan Region’s peace and security. We must protect our achievements in Kurdistan. Reforms we make must serve people, not lead to division. Unfortunately, 21 years into the Washington Agreement [made in 1998 between the KDP and PUK], repercussions of the civil war are still felt. The issue of two different zones persists. With help from all sides, I hope we can resolve such problems.
Translation by Zhelwan Z. Wali
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment