Abadi enters election campaign with ‘project to save Iraq’
Haider al-Abadi, who served as Iraqi prime minister from 2014 to 2018, is preparing to contest the upcoming parliamentary election, running on a platform of creating a state that serves all its people, regardless of sect or ethnicity, and puts weapons exclusively in the hands of the state.
“The most important thing is that the state forces must serve the citizen and not challenge the state. We must build the state on solid foundations, create a free economy and job opportunities,” he said in an interview with Rudaw’s Shahyan Tahseen.
Abadi has formed an alliance with Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Hikma movement, drawn together by a shared belief in “the national moderate line,” he said. “We are dedicated to Iraqi interests. We have a project to save Iraq, not a project of power and acquisition of positions.”
Abadi also reflected on current relations between Erbil and Baghdad, the status of Iraq’s militia forces, and Turkey’s military incursions into the Kurdistan Region.
Rudaw: A year passed on the government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. How would you evaluate its performance?
Haider al-Abadi: The assessment is very difficult, given that this government came in at a very critical period of time, after a catastrophic failure that led to the killing of demonstrators, which created a big issue in the country. We wanted a way out and they chose this way out. The state has been weakened so much, especially the security forces, and a lot of money was wasted. The government started working with no money. The other thing is that the corona pandemic coincided with the advent of the government. These are three problems that were not created by this government. The challenge was serious.
The main challenge for the government now is to bring the situation to early elections in less than four months from now and to prepare the environment for it. The success or failure of the government depends on this matter. I hope it succeeds in holding fair and successful elections in which citizens express their votes and choose the political system they want. This is the measure of success.
Do you regret supporting the current government?
No, that’s not true. I wanted the previous government to last four years. It’s not healthy for a government to have a short term as it will not be able to be productive. Unfortunately, that government did not deal with issues correctly. First, the way it suppressed citizens was bloody. And the way it dealt with economy, there was huge waste and waste of money. This was the first government to end before its time in modern Iraq, and this was its mistake, even though it had regional, international and local support, and the two largest blocs in Parliament supported it. We must not repeat the previous mistake.
What is it?
The previous mistake is that the state was controlled by a few parties and it guaranteed the quota of these parties. We have reached this point because of abhorrent quotas. We rejected quotas in the first place. Previously it was quotas for all parties, then it became between two or three parties, unfortunately, which sent the country down a tough road. So we're at this point now and are still paying for it.
There were reports that some blocs, including al-Fatih [largest Shiite bloc in parliament], decided to postpone the elections. Do you support holding elections on their scheduled date?
Certainly, especially since the date has been set. The problem with changing the date is that we will lose people’s trust in the electoral process. There has been legislation and a decision, the Federal Court was formed, parliament voted to dissolve itself before the elections, so all the factors for holding early elections are in place. Any delay would lead to the loss of voters and the political blocs’ trust in the electoral process. The blocs started working and spending a lot of money, so any delay will weaken trust in the other future elections. If the elections are postponed, the constitutional dates will be delayed as well. I know there are election boycotters, but what is the other option? We want fair and impartial elections, and most of the previous elections have been rigged. I would be objecting most if the elections were rigged. We want elections that express the will of the citizen and are linked to his or her voice, but if the votes are rigged, they are not his or her voice. It will be a new dictatorship.
Young people no longer trust politicians or the elections as they don’t expect the vote will be fair.
This is a problem and it is our duty to make the elections fair. If we lose the trust of citizens, the state cannot continue. Our government is not an authoritarian and terrorist government as Saddam Hussein’s was. In our current situation, sometimes the voice of the citizen is louder than the government, so I warn against any fraud in the elections, as it will lead to disasters for the people and politicians.
Why are some parties trying to postpone the election?
Some of them are afraid of changing the political map and they’re afraid their size will change, I know that. But we say to them that, in these elections you may end up in a better position and in another election, maybe you won’t be. This is a positive point. If you don’t win, you will work until you regain your role in the elections a second time. If you rig the elections, even this little you will not get.
If the state, the security and economic system collapse, there will be enormous suffering. Before 2003, Saddam's regime was repressive and terrorist, people were bombarded indiscriminately with chemicals, and there are mass graves. After 2003, we saw the huge damage after the collapse of the system. There was chaos, gangs, armed groups, and terrorism. We do not want to repeat this again. Everyone will be harmed if the system collapses. Those who carry weapons and imagine that they will be the stronger, I tell them they will not, because they and their families will be harmed. The elections must take place on time and they must be fair. This is an invitation to the judiciary, the commission, parties and citizens, to participate.
Why did you ally with Ammar al-Hakim and not someone else? And what is your election platform?
We talked with many blocs and we have a vision of creating a national moderate alliance. People are tired of conflict and uncontrolled use of weapons. It’s wrong for you to have a political bloc and have an armed wing that you use to make threats while the other side does not have a weapon. The rapprochement between us and Mr. Ammar al-Hakim came about because we both do not have militias and uncontrolled weapons. We believe in the national moderate line, we have acceptance from the various Iraqi components, regardless of national and sectarian affiliation. We have regional and international acceptability within the moderate line. We are dedicated to Iraqi interests. We have a project to save Iraq, not a project of power and acquisition of positions, and we have understandings about that.
The most important thing is that the state forces must serve the citizen and not challenge the state. We must build the state on solid foundations, create a free economy and job opportunities. In the current situation, investment cannot go ahead. There is an environment that repels investment due to the use of uncontrolled weapons and corruption. If the state becomes strong, there will be greater trust in investment, and thus the country will be able to move forward.
In Iraq, the weapon decides, and other political blocs have weapons. Last May, you announced the “Let Me Participate” initiative calling for protecting candidates and the voting process. Do you really think there will be no intimidation by armed militias before the elections?
Our initiative was welcomed by others. However, there is a fear of two things. The first is the uncontrolled weapon, which won’t necessarily be used by the other party. Rather, merely threatening to use it is a threat and this is not permissible in the electoral process.
There is another fear of massive fraud, whether in the electoral apparatus or by preventing or pressuring voters to cast their votes in a certain direction. The work of the commission must be transparent, clear and stand at the same distance to all political blocs. It’s not right to have solid relations with certain political blocs and to not be open with the rest. They must deal with everyone impartially. And the commission should promote citizens' broad participation in elections, and reassure citizens that the right to vote is guaranteed and that it can protect their votes.
How will the government deal with weapons not in the hands of the state?
On election day there will be three cordons: a cordon inside the voting center, which is the responsibility of the commission, a cordon outside the voting center, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior, and the largest and farthest cordon is the army. Protecting citizens and holding early and impartial elections, as all eyes are on the government, will it be able to implement this? Pulling any weapon, as happened in previous elections, raises concerns and panic that any party can use weapons, especially if they are not controlled.
The state must monopolize weapons. There is no well-respected state that allows arms outside the state, because it will lead to an arms race, which means we must cancel the elections. Our goal in our initiative is to make a distinct line between political blocs and weapons as it is not permissible for a political bloc to have an armed wing and be proud of it and try to benefit from it. This is not neutral.
In your alliance with al-Hakim, how many seats do you expect to get in the upcoming elections?
Some have told us their expectations, as some parties have some statistics. Some of them say up to 50 seats, other predictions were between 30 and 50. Most expectations for other blocs are that they will not exceed 50 seats, which is a high number, especially with a single voting district system that depends on the citizen. If people do not participate significantly, it will be worse than in 2018.
The Sadrist movement believes it is capable of obtaining 100 parliamentary seats.
I heard that. They say it to media, but in private, they don’t say that. They know the facts on the ground are different and are in the hands of the people, they are the ones who will cast their votes. If the Sadrists form a large bloc, we will rejoice in that, but it must be based on the election’s outcome, which is based on people's participation and not by other means.
Are you planning to go for the premiership again? Are you ready to take this position?
In our alliances, we discussed this issue. Most of the disputes will be over the presidency of Iraq, as it is the highest executive authority in the country. This is not the focus of our work, but if we reach this stage, we are ready to contribute. If the rescue project [with Hakim] succeeds, as I mentioned, there’s no pressure on me to be in this position. There was a chance to get the position of prime minister in 2018 and I said I would not run for it back then as the situation was dangerous and unstable. I don’t want to be part of a conflict, this is not my role. If we reach a conclusion that we can save the country together, I am ready. However, the next stage needs cooperation. Some talk about bringing each other down and some want to form a majority government. This depends on the people's vote. But if the votes are distributed among several blocs, how can a majority be determined and formed? Only through blocs working together. I call on the blocs not to burn their electoral papers. When people elect you, they expect you to work with others, not to work alone.
The division the blocs as Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite, is this harmful or good for Iraq?
Division and fragmentation are not good for Iraq. Democracy needs consensus between the large blocs to achieve required results. The mistake that we made was distributing privileges based on self-interests. If the work is based on distributing positions in a way that serves the interest of the country, not my own interest, then this is correct and there is no objection to it. But what happened is the distribution of privileges by appointing incompetent people. My point is that I do not support the parties' participation in forming the government. It is true that parliament is composed of parties. However, when forming the government, it must be stipulated that the selection of ministers should be competent, not just that the minister belongs to a particular party so he is given a position and placed in a sensitive place.
It used to be that there were horizontal Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite alliances, but in these elections the map of alliances has changed. Will these alliances remain or change after the elections?
This is a healthy phenomenon when we cross sectarian and national differences. It became clear to me that the political dealings differed from previous ones, and during my time as prime minister for four years, I tried to fight national and sectarian chauvinism. Nationalism exists among people and I respect it. A person has the right to be proud of his nationality or sect, but the state should not be based on differentiation between citizens… It does not discriminate between one citizen and another on the basis of nationalism, sect or religion because the state is responsible for everyone. We have succeeded in making the state equal for everyone through political action. The previous sectarian polarization greatly weakened the state, and there is still national polarization that exists.
What do you mean by national polarization?
There is a tendency to serve only Kurds, Arabs, or Turkmen, while I should be in a position to serve everyone in any electoral district where there are Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens. If I aspire to serve someone who represents my nationality and sect, then what about the others? There must be rights for citizenship and I commit my governmental or election program to serving the people, regardless of their identity and affiliation. He or she was born with that identity, it is not their choice, so why do I distinguish between people on the basis of identities they were born with?
I hope we will reach a point of running for elections with a national coalition that serves all Iraqis. I remember at one point even the prime minister’s position was said to be the Shiites' share, but that is not written in the constitution. What is wrong with a non-Arab or non-Shiite person occupying that position if he is keen on the homeland? Why do we look at affiliations before we look at human capabilities? For many, and throughout history, there are bad people of all nationalities and sects, and there are, in turn, good and competent people. So why not choose the good, regardless of their affiliation and identity?
Do you have a rapprochement between you and a Kurdish party or bloc?
Our relationship is good with everyone, whether with Mr. Masoud Barzani himself or with brother Nechirvan Barzani, also in Sulaimani, whether with the sons of the Jalal Talabani or other Kurdish leaders there. Our relationship is excellent with them and there is communication in this context. There might be a visit to the Kurdistan Region soon. To be clear, perhaps I am accused of doing something bad against the Kurds. I frankly love the Kurds. I do not distinguish between Kurdish and Arab or anyone else. I consider myself responsible for every citizen in the far west or south of Iraq. I am responsible for them as prime minister and as a politician as well. I am the first prime minister who was keen to put forward an electoral list in all Iraqi governorates in 2018.
You made only one visit to the Kurdistan Region. Why did you not visit the Kurdistan Region more often? Was it for personal or political reasons?
I visited the Kurdistan Region several times in 2018, and after that. And by the way, Mr. Masoud Barzani has sent me an invitation, and the brothers in Sulaimani as well, and I will respond to this invitation. We must build healthy relationships. We differ in positions and differ in visions, but this disagreement should not turn into hostility. I do not accept this. I have great respect for Mr. Masoud Barzani and the other Kurdish leaders and brothers in Sulaimani as well. Mr. Masoud Barzani visited me when he came to Baghdad and we had a nice conversation. Yes, we have a certain vision in the way the state is managed and its dealing with public money and the issue of allocations. It is not permissible to see these allocations to you and me, while they should be for the people. The problem I have is, where is the money? You tell me this money is for the Kurdistan Region, tell me how the money is spent on the citizens in the Kurdistan Region? How is money spent in Basra or Anbar or Baghdad or Najaf?
You had a special vision for the Hashd [Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF]. In your opinion, is it now an institution that serves the state, or has it become one of the many problems in Iraq?
It should not turn into a problem. It was originally established to solve a problem. You know, when terrorism started, it was based on ideologies and many of our military units collapsed. They [the PMF] came as volunteers to help and correct the situation, and played an important role in fighting the Islamic State (ISIS). They had courage, faith, and drive, but the problem that developed later is involving them in politics. Some parties started to control them and use them for their interests.
If we review PMF numbers during the ISIS war, it was less than 120,000. Now it has reached 180,000 and we are in a state of peace. The number should be less in a time of peace. It means that there is a partisan electoral victory. I challenged the blocs and told them that this is a party's victory, not a combat one, and this is an insult to the PMF. I love PMF fighters and support them. They must enjoy state sponsorship to the fullest extent, especially those who fought previously and insist that the PMF force remain within the state. The PMF must preserve the security of the people and the country. This is now becoming a political crisis as political blocs try to defend their interest, which offends the PMF.
Is there a solution for this crisis?
I called for a serious dialogue so the PMF can avoid conflict, as it must remain affiliated with the Iraqi state, not foreign parties, nor any other parties inside Iraq. The PMF must only follow the state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Why does the PMF remain a private institution? Why are its members not distributed among other forces, such as the army and police?
From my point of view, it is difficult for this to happen. The method of training the PMF is different from the army and police, and integrating them into the army and police forces will not be easy. I call for maintaining the Hashd, but for it to have another form. The PMF was established in order to fight terrorism, not to be inside cities, or for the parties to exploit it as fronts in cities and get votes. This will harm the Hashd the most. And this is what happened. It’s not shameful to talk about issues and mistakes. The shame is that we insist on making mistakes. I was the first prime minister who spoke about the presence of ghost members in the Iraqi army in 2014 after the collapse of the army. The aim was not to offend the army, but I wanted the army to develop and improve its image.
Has the number of ghosts increased after 2014?
On the contrary, after 2014, our fighting forces numbers decreased and we achieved a victory. The problem was after 2018, a huge door was opened for increasing the size of forces in the same way it was before. We were talking about strengthening security forces, not in numbers, but in organization, training, and qualification. We had huge forces, but they collapsed and did not withstand ISIS. From Mosul, Anbar, to Salahaddin, the total number of police forces that collapsed reached 80,000 policemen in one day. What is the use of forces that collapse in a time of need? So something is wrong out there. The blame is not on the police, but on the system. We rely on the numbers, without proper training. Therefore, we must establish a security force that has loyalty to the country, not to outsiders, to parties, or any country or group outside Iraq.
Kadhimi has repeatedly stressed that there are no US military bases in Iraq, but rather there are Iraqi bases where American forces are stationed for training, armament and aircraft maintenance. But these bases, such as Erbil and Ain al-Asad, are attacked. What is your opinion of the parties targeting these bases? Do you consider these operations resistance or sabotage?
Resistance to whom? Let’s have a discussion on this subject. First, these foreign forces came to help Iraq in the fight against ISIS. If the task of eliminating ISIS ends, what is the reason for their staying? It is the government's responsibility to reach an understanding on this issue, but what is happening outside the understandings is an unacceptable conflict. We are supposed to have the ability to fight ISIS, so what is the reason for these forces to stay? Then, when they attack Balad airbase, even though there are no foreign forces there, what is the reason for attacking it? Yes, there are foreign companies that maintain Iraqi warplanes. When we talk with factions and political groups, they themselves ask the same questions. Who does that? It is unreasonable to hurt ourselves they say, so are there now uncontrollable groups?
I have a rule about this. Now, we are not a country ruled by a dictatorial regime so that we must work in secret. Previously, there was a need to work secretly during Saddam’s period, but now we can speak openly and criticize the government. The voice that criticizes the government and the state is louder than the voice that defends the government. So what is the justification for working in secret? Especially since there are secret parties that carry out these attacks. There should not be secret groups whose leaders are unknown and we must raise the alarm in a country that is now free. The presence of secret parties that carry out actions that even some factions do not accept is dangerous and must be disclosed. This means that any party can penetrate Iraq and do what it wants under the pretext of national slogans.
Here I want to point out that the regime that had the most national slogans was Saddam Hussein's regime. No one can top his national slogans when he used to say he was liberating Jerusalem and the region, and in his last years he turned into an Islamic leader. But was he really a national leader or did he destroy Iraq? He established an army he called the al-Quds Army, with seven million men. It suppressed Iraqis, not liberate Jerusalem. It was burying Iraqis alive and bombing them with chemical weapons.
Is it plausible that there is no information about the parties targeting the military bases?
To be clear, officially and publicly, Iranians, from their leaders, deny it and consider it a mistake, and say they are not directing to do so. And most of the factions say it is not us who carry out these attacks. They say if it was us, we would have announced that. So who are they? Do we have uncontrolled groups? The one who is uncontrollable can do anything in the country. He can sometimes be exploited by a regional force hostile to Iraq, with different titles, and this is a danger.
Turkey now has 70 military points within the borders of the Iraqi state, that is, in the Kurdistan Region, to a depth of 16 km. How do you view these large Turkish operations within the borders of Iraq?
It is very worrying. Let's look at things as they are. Since the 1980s, during Saddam Hussein's rule and even during the Iran-Iraq war, there was a Turkish presence in northern Iraq, and it changes. We have a problem and it is the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The PKK is Turkish, not Iraqi. It is present in Iraqi territory. We have sent messages to the PKK and to the Turks saying that we do not allow the PKK to use Iraqi territory to harm our neighboring country, Turkey. The Iraqi constitution prohibits the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against any of the neighboring countries, and this must be adhered to. For the PKK, if they are a refugee group in Iraq, they will remain as refugees, but they do not have the right to use Iraq’s hosts in attacking Turkey.
Iraqis are tired of war. They have fought in the years of Saddam Hussein's time and then they fought terrorists after Saddam. We don't want a new war. We must find a solution to this issue. The PKK is a movement that is not Iraqi and it has a view of what is happening in Turkey, and this is none of our business, but at the same time we respect these views. But it is not permissible to use Iraqi territory to launch attacks on Turkey.
For Turks also, any time they enter Iraqi territory and do such actions, I imagine that this creates violent reactions. There are movements inside Turkey of groups that consider part of Iraq to be affiliated with Turkey, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, an area larger than Kurdistan. And this creates an atmosphere of mistrust. That is the purpose of these groups, to regain control over these areas. That is why I call on Turkish officials to understand Iraq’s fears, because they are serious fears, and any attempt to attack northern Iraq under the pretext of the PKK will lead to opposite reactions.
We are not going to war with the PKK. It is not our mission because it is a Turkish organization. So why would we go to war with it? During 2014, Turks were annoyed when I paid tribute to the efforts of the PKK in rescuing some of the Yazidis in Sinjar [Shingal], as they provided them with safe passage to Kurdistan.
From 2014 until now, there have been security changes in Sinjar. Is that one of the reasons why the Sinjar Agreement has not been implemented yet?
It is not permissible to engage Sinjar in a regional conflict and that is why I make my address to the Turks and the PKK and Syria that it is not acceptable to transgress Iraqi lands in this conflict. Sinjar is for the people of Sinjar. Even Kurdistan and Baghdad should not be in conflict over Sinjar. We have to cooperate in serving its people so that they can live in peace. There is an international desire to help them after what they have suffered, but in the absence of security and stability, how can we help them and help the people who return to their areas?
What do you think of Ebrahim Raisi’s win in the Iranian presidential elections? Will Iranian policy toward Iraq change?
Perhaps it will bring some harmony to Iran. In Iran, there was a reformist government, according to their description, and a second party controlled the rest of the state facilities, which are conservatives. Today, one movement controls the government and the rest of the state institutions. I hope it creates a kind of harmony with respect to foreign relations. We do not want to live in the shadow of a conflict between various Iranian groups. And Iran, as an Islamic Republic with a close relationship with Iraq, must deal with Iraq as a state versus a state. We want to see one harmonious party in Iran dealing with Iraq, whether it is the Revolutionary Guard, government or parliament. This is what we aspire to. We want to build the best relations with neighboring Iran. The war that Saddam put Iraq into against Iran for years, resulted in destruction, killing, and displacement, and this is unacceptable. It is not permissible to return to conflict again. We must leave war behind and benefit from that experience in building a safe and better future for the next generations.
Is there anything that should be changed with Iran in terms of policy, treatment, or relations between the two countries?
Our call to the Iranians when I was prime minister was to cooperate as a state with a state. Perhaps the Iranians had a view at that time, considering the presence of ISIS and ISIS represented a strategic threat to them as well, not only to Iraq. Today ISIS has ended, so I see no justification for several parties to have arms in cooperation with Iraq. It must be under the responsibility of a state and a government that deals with the Iraqi government, and any other unhealthy relations are not needed for the sake of a better future for Iraqi-Iranian relations. We have a desire to improve relations with Iran and we must have normal relations. I regret that Iranian visitors did not enjoy visiting the holy shrines because of coronavirus or for security reasons. Even during the presence of ISIS, there were millions of visits because the holy places belonged to everyone.
What is the Iranian role after Qasem Soleimani time? There are visits, according to media reports, of Esmail Qaani [head of Iran’s Quds force] to Iraq without an official announcement or invitation?
Any visit is supposed to be with official Iraqi approval, and I imagine that there are always approvals, because there is no justification for it to be without approval. He is an official in Iran. It is normal that his visits be covered in the media. We have nothing to hide or be ashamed of in Iraq. I call for frank and clear relations with Iran and the announcement of any official visits because it is not a mistake. Iran is a neighboring country and we are not with any party against another, whether Iran or America. We are with Iraq. Every country is looking out for its interest and there are common interests between us and Iran. There are those who demonize Iran, or demonize America in order to confine Iraq, while we want to achieve Iraq’s interests. We have common borders with Iran and the Iraqi population concentration is in the east, alongside Iran, so we must deal with great realism in this cooperation. I know that some leaders in America think in a different way, especially some senators and members of Congress, but I say that they are thousands of miles away from us, while Iran is a neighboring country.
What do you think of the new US administration? Has Joe Biden neglected the Iraqi file?
The administration came in an unusual environment in America. America was hit to the core on September 11, and this is the second time that the security of its parliament and Congress has been endangered. It is an internal issue. The new administration inherited all these problems. And half of the voters appealed the election results. So I do not imagine that the administration is free in its program. There are different views on America’s involvement abroad and I fear that Iraq will not be within the circle of American attention. This is considered harmful, because it is in Iraq's favor to be in the circle of interest of the great powers. And Iraq is a free country that must take care of its interests.
In military and security matters as well?
Of course, we have to protect the people. We can rely on ourselves in that, but the war period will be longer and there will be more victims. Why should we make our citizens pay a high price to be proud of achieving victory?
The 2021 budget was passed, but so far payments have not been sent. What is your position on this issue?
My approach is to go back to the origin. I hope that politicians will not be part of partisan discussions. The budget has a context and a law and there are entitlements. There is a budget law that distributes state revenues fairly. I remember in 2018, three months before the elections, there was a problem in the Kurdistan Region, where the educational system began to collapse due to the lack of salaries. In the end, the Kurdistan Region is an important part of Iraq. I cannot distinguish between one citizen and another. Two or three months before the elections, salaries were released, and I wanted to save the situation.
My responsibility as a prime minister is not to let our citizens suffer because of the non-distribution of salaries. I did not calculate the exact share that I sent back then. I must save the situation. If there is a disaster in a region, we must deal with it, and then we will do the calculations. Today, a part of us should be merciful. How can we help each other if there is a problem? In meetings with the ministers of finance and oil and the prime minister, there were preliminary accounts, in light of which amounts were decided. Others wanted us to discuss politically, not on the basis of accounts and numbers.
If there is an urgent humanitarian crisis in a region of Iraq that needs attention, this is an entitlement we must look at, but it does not seem like that. Today they are talking about the oil revenues of the Kurdistan Region and what are the expenses in the Kurdistan Region. I think that the issue is arithmetic and there should be no dispute. I know that the Council of Ministers voted on something. I don’t know if the Council of Ministers voted on something based on figures or a political decision. Rights issues should not be decided on by a political decision.
Frankly, if you were in Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s place, would you have sent the Kurdistan Region its share?
If they deserve it, I send it to them, as I did in 2018. I sent it in full during elections when I could be harmed if I calculated it according to political interests. But I sent it for the benefit of the country. These are the citizens whose interests I must look at, not mine. This populism must be avoided, winning the public but with no right.
According to your experience in the premiership, what would you advise Kadhimi and the Kurdistan Regional Government in this regard?
I advise them to reach an understanding, not only in the political framework. The truth is that Kurdistan is an important part of Iraq, we must nurture it and make its citizens feel part of Iraq, and that Baghdad cares for them.
Do you agree that the financial separation of the Kurdistan Region from Baghdad with the agreement of the Shiite blocs is what pushed Kurds and the Kurdistan Region away from Iraq?
I did not imagine that there would be this trend from the Shiite blocs, but this is a very wrong approach. The group should not be punished. This is not permissible. If I am not satisfied with the governor of Basra, will I punish Basra? In the end, these are citizens for whom I am responsible.
On the issue of salaries, a committee was sent when I was prime minister to Kurdistan. All the information was submitted to the committee and salaries were distributed in light of the information and verification of it. The salaries were sent in full and I don’t hide the fact that many parties in Kurdistan helped us reach that result and provided us with information that helped us in this, on the side. I call them facts, but if I deviate from the facts and go to a political agreement for partisan or populist interests, this is a mistake. Some mobilize Arabs against Kurds to achieve electoral gains, and some Kurds want to do the same.
Do you think that any party that wants to gain votes, especially before elections, tries to criticize Kurds and the Kurdistan Region?
Yes, and vice versa as well. There are groups in the Kurdistan Region who try to win people over by criticizing Baghdad and Arabs. This is a wrong populism. Hitler was a populist and he created a disaster in Europe.
After the referendum, you used to give the Kurdistan Region more than $300 million per month and Mr. Adil Abdul-Mahdi said that he used to give the Kurdistan Region more than $400 million, but this government did not give anything to the Kurdistan Region. Does that not harm the Iraqi state?
I imagine that this would cause harm to the Iraqi people in general, especially since Kurds are an important part of Iraq. Any impression of any party in Iraq, whether they are Kurds or people in Anbar or in Basra, that there is no interest in them from the Iraqi state, is harmful to the unity of Iraq and I am against it.
Translation by Sura Ali
“The most important thing is that the state forces must serve the citizen and not challenge the state. We must build the state on solid foundations, create a free economy and job opportunities,” he said in an interview with Rudaw’s Shahyan Tahseen.
Abadi has formed an alliance with Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Hikma movement, drawn together by a shared belief in “the national moderate line,” he said. “We are dedicated to Iraqi interests. We have a project to save Iraq, not a project of power and acquisition of positions.”
Abadi also reflected on current relations between Erbil and Baghdad, the status of Iraq’s militia forces, and Turkey’s military incursions into the Kurdistan Region.
Rudaw: A year passed on the government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. How would you evaluate its performance?
Haider al-Abadi: The assessment is very difficult, given that this government came in at a very critical period of time, after a catastrophic failure that led to the killing of demonstrators, which created a big issue in the country. We wanted a way out and they chose this way out. The state has been weakened so much, especially the security forces, and a lot of money was wasted. The government started working with no money. The other thing is that the corona pandemic coincided with the advent of the government. These are three problems that were not created by this government. The challenge was serious.
The main challenge for the government now is to bring the situation to early elections in less than four months from now and to prepare the environment for it. The success or failure of the government depends on this matter. I hope it succeeds in holding fair and successful elections in which citizens express their votes and choose the political system they want. This is the measure of success.
Do you regret supporting the current government?
No, that’s not true. I wanted the previous government to last four years. It’s not healthy for a government to have a short term as it will not be able to be productive. Unfortunately, that government did not deal with issues correctly. First, the way it suppressed citizens was bloody. And the way it dealt with economy, there was huge waste and waste of money. This was the first government to end before its time in modern Iraq, and this was its mistake, even though it had regional, international and local support, and the two largest blocs in Parliament supported it. We must not repeat the previous mistake.
What is it?
The previous mistake is that the state was controlled by a few parties and it guaranteed the quota of these parties. We have reached this point because of abhorrent quotas. We rejected quotas in the first place. Previously it was quotas for all parties, then it became between two or three parties, unfortunately, which sent the country down a tough road. So we're at this point now and are still paying for it.
There were reports that some blocs, including al-Fatih [largest Shiite bloc in parliament], decided to postpone the elections. Do you support holding elections on their scheduled date?
Certainly, especially since the date has been set. The problem with changing the date is that we will lose people’s trust in the electoral process. There has been legislation and a decision, the Federal Court was formed, parliament voted to dissolve itself before the elections, so all the factors for holding early elections are in place. Any delay would lead to the loss of voters and the political blocs’ trust in the electoral process. The blocs started working and spending a lot of money, so any delay will weaken trust in the other future elections. If the elections are postponed, the constitutional dates will be delayed as well. I know there are election boycotters, but what is the other option? We want fair and impartial elections, and most of the previous elections have been rigged. I would be objecting most if the elections were rigged. We want elections that express the will of the citizen and are linked to his or her voice, but if the votes are rigged, they are not his or her voice. It will be a new dictatorship.
Young people no longer trust politicians or the elections as they don’t expect the vote will be fair.
This is a problem and it is our duty to make the elections fair. If we lose the trust of citizens, the state cannot continue. Our government is not an authoritarian and terrorist government as Saddam Hussein’s was. In our current situation, sometimes the voice of the citizen is louder than the government, so I warn against any fraud in the elections, as it will lead to disasters for the people and politicians.
Why are some parties trying to postpone the election?
Some of them are afraid of changing the political map and they’re afraid their size will change, I know that. But we say to them that, in these elections you may end up in a better position and in another election, maybe you won’t be. This is a positive point. If you don’t win, you will work until you regain your role in the elections a second time. If you rig the elections, even this little you will not get.
If the state, the security and economic system collapse, there will be enormous suffering. Before 2003, Saddam's regime was repressive and terrorist, people were bombarded indiscriminately with chemicals, and there are mass graves. After 2003, we saw the huge damage after the collapse of the system. There was chaos, gangs, armed groups, and terrorism. We do not want to repeat this again. Everyone will be harmed if the system collapses. Those who carry weapons and imagine that they will be the stronger, I tell them they will not, because they and their families will be harmed. The elections must take place on time and they must be fair. This is an invitation to the judiciary, the commission, parties and citizens, to participate.
Why did you ally with Ammar al-Hakim and not someone else? And what is your election platform?
We talked with many blocs and we have a vision of creating a national moderate alliance. People are tired of conflict and uncontrolled use of weapons. It’s wrong for you to have a political bloc and have an armed wing that you use to make threats while the other side does not have a weapon. The rapprochement between us and Mr. Ammar al-Hakim came about because we both do not have militias and uncontrolled weapons. We believe in the national moderate line, we have acceptance from the various Iraqi components, regardless of national and sectarian affiliation. We have regional and international acceptability within the moderate line. We are dedicated to Iraqi interests. We have a project to save Iraq, not a project of power and acquisition of positions, and we have understandings about that.
The most important thing is that the state forces must serve the citizen and not challenge the state. We must build the state on solid foundations, create a free economy and job opportunities. In the current situation, investment cannot go ahead. There is an environment that repels investment due to the use of uncontrolled weapons and corruption. If the state becomes strong, there will be greater trust in investment, and thus the country will be able to move forward.
In Iraq, the weapon decides, and other political blocs have weapons. Last May, you announced the “Let Me Participate” initiative calling for protecting candidates and the voting process. Do you really think there will be no intimidation by armed militias before the elections?
Our initiative was welcomed by others. However, there is a fear of two things. The first is the uncontrolled weapon, which won’t necessarily be used by the other party. Rather, merely threatening to use it is a threat and this is not permissible in the electoral process.
There is another fear of massive fraud, whether in the electoral apparatus or by preventing or pressuring voters to cast their votes in a certain direction. The work of the commission must be transparent, clear and stand at the same distance to all political blocs. It’s not right to have solid relations with certain political blocs and to not be open with the rest. They must deal with everyone impartially. And the commission should promote citizens' broad participation in elections, and reassure citizens that the right to vote is guaranteed and that it can protect their votes.
How will the government deal with weapons not in the hands of the state?
On election day there will be three cordons: a cordon inside the voting center, which is the responsibility of the commission, a cordon outside the voting center, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior, and the largest and farthest cordon is the army. Protecting citizens and holding early and impartial elections, as all eyes are on the government, will it be able to implement this? Pulling any weapon, as happened in previous elections, raises concerns and panic that any party can use weapons, especially if they are not controlled.
The state must monopolize weapons. There is no well-respected state that allows arms outside the state, because it will lead to an arms race, which means we must cancel the elections. Our goal in our initiative is to make a distinct line between political blocs and weapons as it is not permissible for a political bloc to have an armed wing and be proud of it and try to benefit from it. This is not neutral.
In your alliance with al-Hakim, how many seats do you expect to get in the upcoming elections?
Some have told us their expectations, as some parties have some statistics. Some of them say up to 50 seats, other predictions were between 30 and 50. Most expectations for other blocs are that they will not exceed 50 seats, which is a high number, especially with a single voting district system that depends on the citizen. If people do not participate significantly, it will be worse than in 2018.
The Sadrist movement believes it is capable of obtaining 100 parliamentary seats.
I heard that. They say it to media, but in private, they don’t say that. They know the facts on the ground are different and are in the hands of the people, they are the ones who will cast their votes. If the Sadrists form a large bloc, we will rejoice in that, but it must be based on the election’s outcome, which is based on people's participation and not by other means.
Are you planning to go for the premiership again? Are you ready to take this position?
In our alliances, we discussed this issue. Most of the disputes will be over the presidency of Iraq, as it is the highest executive authority in the country. This is not the focus of our work, but if we reach this stage, we are ready to contribute. If the rescue project [with Hakim] succeeds, as I mentioned, there’s no pressure on me to be in this position. There was a chance to get the position of prime minister in 2018 and I said I would not run for it back then as the situation was dangerous and unstable. I don’t want to be part of a conflict, this is not my role. If we reach a conclusion that we can save the country together, I am ready. However, the next stage needs cooperation. Some talk about bringing each other down and some want to form a majority government. This depends on the people's vote. But if the votes are distributed among several blocs, how can a majority be determined and formed? Only through blocs working together. I call on the blocs not to burn their electoral papers. When people elect you, they expect you to work with others, not to work alone.
The division the blocs as Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite, is this harmful or good for Iraq?
Division and fragmentation are not good for Iraq. Democracy needs consensus between the large blocs to achieve required results. The mistake that we made was distributing privileges based on self-interests. If the work is based on distributing positions in a way that serves the interest of the country, not my own interest, then this is correct and there is no objection to it. But what happened is the distribution of privileges by appointing incompetent people. My point is that I do not support the parties' participation in forming the government. It is true that parliament is composed of parties. However, when forming the government, it must be stipulated that the selection of ministers should be competent, not just that the minister belongs to a particular party so he is given a position and placed in a sensitive place.
It used to be that there were horizontal Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite alliances, but in these elections the map of alliances has changed. Will these alliances remain or change after the elections?
This is a healthy phenomenon when we cross sectarian and national differences. It became clear to me that the political dealings differed from previous ones, and during my time as prime minister for four years, I tried to fight national and sectarian chauvinism. Nationalism exists among people and I respect it. A person has the right to be proud of his nationality or sect, but the state should not be based on differentiation between citizens… It does not discriminate between one citizen and another on the basis of nationalism, sect or religion because the state is responsible for everyone. We have succeeded in making the state equal for everyone through political action. The previous sectarian polarization greatly weakened the state, and there is still national polarization that exists.
What do you mean by national polarization?
There is a tendency to serve only Kurds, Arabs, or Turkmen, while I should be in a position to serve everyone in any electoral district where there are Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens. If I aspire to serve someone who represents my nationality and sect, then what about the others? There must be rights for citizenship and I commit my governmental or election program to serving the people, regardless of their identity and affiliation. He or she was born with that identity, it is not their choice, so why do I distinguish between people on the basis of identities they were born with?
I hope we will reach a point of running for elections with a national coalition that serves all Iraqis. I remember at one point even the prime minister’s position was said to be the Shiites' share, but that is not written in the constitution. What is wrong with a non-Arab or non-Shiite person occupying that position if he is keen on the homeland? Why do we look at affiliations before we look at human capabilities? For many, and throughout history, there are bad people of all nationalities and sects, and there are, in turn, good and competent people. So why not choose the good, regardless of their affiliation and identity?
Do you have a rapprochement between you and a Kurdish party or bloc?
Our relationship is good with everyone, whether with Mr. Masoud Barzani himself or with brother Nechirvan Barzani, also in Sulaimani, whether with the sons of the Jalal Talabani or other Kurdish leaders there. Our relationship is excellent with them and there is communication in this context. There might be a visit to the Kurdistan Region soon. To be clear, perhaps I am accused of doing something bad against the Kurds. I frankly love the Kurds. I do not distinguish between Kurdish and Arab or anyone else. I consider myself responsible for every citizen in the far west or south of Iraq. I am responsible for them as prime minister and as a politician as well. I am the first prime minister who was keen to put forward an electoral list in all Iraqi governorates in 2018.
You made only one visit to the Kurdistan Region. Why did you not visit the Kurdistan Region more often? Was it for personal or political reasons?
I visited the Kurdistan Region several times in 2018, and after that. And by the way, Mr. Masoud Barzani has sent me an invitation, and the brothers in Sulaimani as well, and I will respond to this invitation. We must build healthy relationships. We differ in positions and differ in visions, but this disagreement should not turn into hostility. I do not accept this. I have great respect for Mr. Masoud Barzani and the other Kurdish leaders and brothers in Sulaimani as well. Mr. Masoud Barzani visited me when he came to Baghdad and we had a nice conversation. Yes, we have a certain vision in the way the state is managed and its dealing with public money and the issue of allocations. It is not permissible to see these allocations to you and me, while they should be for the people. The problem I have is, where is the money? You tell me this money is for the Kurdistan Region, tell me how the money is spent on the citizens in the Kurdistan Region? How is money spent in Basra or Anbar or Baghdad or Najaf?
You had a special vision for the Hashd [Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF]. In your opinion, is it now an institution that serves the state, or has it become one of the many problems in Iraq?
It should not turn into a problem. It was originally established to solve a problem. You know, when terrorism started, it was based on ideologies and many of our military units collapsed. They [the PMF] came as volunteers to help and correct the situation, and played an important role in fighting the Islamic State (ISIS). They had courage, faith, and drive, but the problem that developed later is involving them in politics. Some parties started to control them and use them for their interests.
If we review PMF numbers during the ISIS war, it was less than 120,000. Now it has reached 180,000 and we are in a state of peace. The number should be less in a time of peace. It means that there is a partisan electoral victory. I challenged the blocs and told them that this is a party's victory, not a combat one, and this is an insult to the PMF. I love PMF fighters and support them. They must enjoy state sponsorship to the fullest extent, especially those who fought previously and insist that the PMF force remain within the state. The PMF must preserve the security of the people and the country. This is now becoming a political crisis as political blocs try to defend their interest, which offends the PMF.
Is there a solution for this crisis?
I called for a serious dialogue so the PMF can avoid conflict, as it must remain affiliated with the Iraqi state, not foreign parties, nor any other parties inside Iraq. The PMF must only follow the state and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Why does the PMF remain a private institution? Why are its members not distributed among other forces, such as the army and police?
From my point of view, it is difficult for this to happen. The method of training the PMF is different from the army and police, and integrating them into the army and police forces will not be easy. I call for maintaining the Hashd, but for it to have another form. The PMF was established in order to fight terrorism, not to be inside cities, or for the parties to exploit it as fronts in cities and get votes. This will harm the Hashd the most. And this is what happened. It’s not shameful to talk about issues and mistakes. The shame is that we insist on making mistakes. I was the first prime minister who spoke about the presence of ghost members in the Iraqi army in 2014 after the collapse of the army. The aim was not to offend the army, but I wanted the army to develop and improve its image.
Has the number of ghosts increased after 2014?
On the contrary, after 2014, our fighting forces numbers decreased and we achieved a victory. The problem was after 2018, a huge door was opened for increasing the size of forces in the same way it was before. We were talking about strengthening security forces, not in numbers, but in organization, training, and qualification. We had huge forces, but they collapsed and did not withstand ISIS. From Mosul, Anbar, to Salahaddin, the total number of police forces that collapsed reached 80,000 policemen in one day. What is the use of forces that collapse in a time of need? So something is wrong out there. The blame is not on the police, but on the system. We rely on the numbers, without proper training. Therefore, we must establish a security force that has loyalty to the country, not to outsiders, to parties, or any country or group outside Iraq.
Kadhimi has repeatedly stressed that there are no US military bases in Iraq, but rather there are Iraqi bases where American forces are stationed for training, armament and aircraft maintenance. But these bases, such as Erbil and Ain al-Asad, are attacked. What is your opinion of the parties targeting these bases? Do you consider these operations resistance or sabotage?
Resistance to whom? Let’s have a discussion on this subject. First, these foreign forces came to help Iraq in the fight against ISIS. If the task of eliminating ISIS ends, what is the reason for their staying? It is the government's responsibility to reach an understanding on this issue, but what is happening outside the understandings is an unacceptable conflict. We are supposed to have the ability to fight ISIS, so what is the reason for these forces to stay? Then, when they attack Balad airbase, even though there are no foreign forces there, what is the reason for attacking it? Yes, there are foreign companies that maintain Iraqi warplanes. When we talk with factions and political groups, they themselves ask the same questions. Who does that? It is unreasonable to hurt ourselves they say, so are there now uncontrollable groups?
I have a rule about this. Now, we are not a country ruled by a dictatorial regime so that we must work in secret. Previously, there was a need to work secretly during Saddam’s period, but now we can speak openly and criticize the government. The voice that criticizes the government and the state is louder than the voice that defends the government. So what is the justification for working in secret? Especially since there are secret parties that carry out these attacks. There should not be secret groups whose leaders are unknown and we must raise the alarm in a country that is now free. The presence of secret parties that carry out actions that even some factions do not accept is dangerous and must be disclosed. This means that any party can penetrate Iraq and do what it wants under the pretext of national slogans.
Here I want to point out that the regime that had the most national slogans was Saddam Hussein's regime. No one can top his national slogans when he used to say he was liberating Jerusalem and the region, and in his last years he turned into an Islamic leader. But was he really a national leader or did he destroy Iraq? He established an army he called the al-Quds Army, with seven million men. It suppressed Iraqis, not liberate Jerusalem. It was burying Iraqis alive and bombing them with chemical weapons.
Is it plausible that there is no information about the parties targeting the military bases?
To be clear, officially and publicly, Iranians, from their leaders, deny it and consider it a mistake, and say they are not directing to do so. And most of the factions say it is not us who carry out these attacks. They say if it was us, we would have announced that. So who are they? Do we have uncontrolled groups? The one who is uncontrollable can do anything in the country. He can sometimes be exploited by a regional force hostile to Iraq, with different titles, and this is a danger.
Turkey now has 70 military points within the borders of the Iraqi state, that is, in the Kurdistan Region, to a depth of 16 km. How do you view these large Turkish operations within the borders of Iraq?
It is very worrying. Let's look at things as they are. Since the 1980s, during Saddam Hussein's rule and even during the Iran-Iraq war, there was a Turkish presence in northern Iraq, and it changes. We have a problem and it is the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The PKK is Turkish, not Iraqi. It is present in Iraqi territory. We have sent messages to the PKK and to the Turks saying that we do not allow the PKK to use Iraqi territory to harm our neighboring country, Turkey. The Iraqi constitution prohibits the use of Iraqi territory for aggression against any of the neighboring countries, and this must be adhered to. For the PKK, if they are a refugee group in Iraq, they will remain as refugees, but they do not have the right to use Iraq’s hosts in attacking Turkey.
Iraqis are tired of war. They have fought in the years of Saddam Hussein's time and then they fought terrorists after Saddam. We don't want a new war. We must find a solution to this issue. The PKK is a movement that is not Iraqi and it has a view of what is happening in Turkey, and this is none of our business, but at the same time we respect these views. But it is not permissible to use Iraqi territory to launch attacks on Turkey.
For Turks also, any time they enter Iraqi territory and do such actions, I imagine that this creates violent reactions. There are movements inside Turkey of groups that consider part of Iraq to be affiliated with Turkey, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, an area larger than Kurdistan. And this creates an atmosphere of mistrust. That is the purpose of these groups, to regain control over these areas. That is why I call on Turkish officials to understand Iraq’s fears, because they are serious fears, and any attempt to attack northern Iraq under the pretext of the PKK will lead to opposite reactions.
We are not going to war with the PKK. It is not our mission because it is a Turkish organization. So why would we go to war with it? During 2014, Turks were annoyed when I paid tribute to the efforts of the PKK in rescuing some of the Yazidis in Sinjar [Shingal], as they provided them with safe passage to Kurdistan.
From 2014 until now, there have been security changes in Sinjar. Is that one of the reasons why the Sinjar Agreement has not been implemented yet?
It is not permissible to engage Sinjar in a regional conflict and that is why I make my address to the Turks and the PKK and Syria that it is not acceptable to transgress Iraqi lands in this conflict. Sinjar is for the people of Sinjar. Even Kurdistan and Baghdad should not be in conflict over Sinjar. We have to cooperate in serving its people so that they can live in peace. There is an international desire to help them after what they have suffered, but in the absence of security and stability, how can we help them and help the people who return to their areas?
What do you think of Ebrahim Raisi’s win in the Iranian presidential elections? Will Iranian policy toward Iraq change?
Perhaps it will bring some harmony to Iran. In Iran, there was a reformist government, according to their description, and a second party controlled the rest of the state facilities, which are conservatives. Today, one movement controls the government and the rest of the state institutions. I hope it creates a kind of harmony with respect to foreign relations. We do not want to live in the shadow of a conflict between various Iranian groups. And Iran, as an Islamic Republic with a close relationship with Iraq, must deal with Iraq as a state versus a state. We want to see one harmonious party in Iran dealing with Iraq, whether it is the Revolutionary Guard, government or parliament. This is what we aspire to. We want to build the best relations with neighboring Iran. The war that Saddam put Iraq into against Iran for years, resulted in destruction, killing, and displacement, and this is unacceptable. It is not permissible to return to conflict again. We must leave war behind and benefit from that experience in building a safe and better future for the next generations.
Is there anything that should be changed with Iran in terms of policy, treatment, or relations between the two countries?
Our call to the Iranians when I was prime minister was to cooperate as a state with a state. Perhaps the Iranians had a view at that time, considering the presence of ISIS and ISIS represented a strategic threat to them as well, not only to Iraq. Today ISIS has ended, so I see no justification for several parties to have arms in cooperation with Iraq. It must be under the responsibility of a state and a government that deals with the Iraqi government, and any other unhealthy relations are not needed for the sake of a better future for Iraqi-Iranian relations. We have a desire to improve relations with Iran and we must have normal relations. I regret that Iranian visitors did not enjoy visiting the holy shrines because of coronavirus or for security reasons. Even during the presence of ISIS, there were millions of visits because the holy places belonged to everyone.
What is the Iranian role after Qasem Soleimani time? There are visits, according to media reports, of Esmail Qaani [head of Iran’s Quds force] to Iraq without an official announcement or invitation?
Any visit is supposed to be with official Iraqi approval, and I imagine that there are always approvals, because there is no justification for it to be without approval. He is an official in Iran. It is normal that his visits be covered in the media. We have nothing to hide or be ashamed of in Iraq. I call for frank and clear relations with Iran and the announcement of any official visits because it is not a mistake. Iran is a neighboring country and we are not with any party against another, whether Iran or America. We are with Iraq. Every country is looking out for its interest and there are common interests between us and Iran. There are those who demonize Iran, or demonize America in order to confine Iraq, while we want to achieve Iraq’s interests. We have common borders with Iran and the Iraqi population concentration is in the east, alongside Iran, so we must deal with great realism in this cooperation. I know that some leaders in America think in a different way, especially some senators and members of Congress, but I say that they are thousands of miles away from us, while Iran is a neighboring country.
What do you think of the new US administration? Has Joe Biden neglected the Iraqi file?
The administration came in an unusual environment in America. America was hit to the core on September 11, and this is the second time that the security of its parliament and Congress has been endangered. It is an internal issue. The new administration inherited all these problems. And half of the voters appealed the election results. So I do not imagine that the administration is free in its program. There are different views on America’s involvement abroad and I fear that Iraq will not be within the circle of American attention. This is considered harmful, because it is in Iraq's favor to be in the circle of interest of the great powers. And Iraq is a free country that must take care of its interests.
In military and security matters as well?
Of course, we have to protect the people. We can rely on ourselves in that, but the war period will be longer and there will be more victims. Why should we make our citizens pay a high price to be proud of achieving victory?
The 2021 budget was passed, but so far payments have not been sent. What is your position on this issue?
My approach is to go back to the origin. I hope that politicians will not be part of partisan discussions. The budget has a context and a law and there are entitlements. There is a budget law that distributes state revenues fairly. I remember in 2018, three months before the elections, there was a problem in the Kurdistan Region, where the educational system began to collapse due to the lack of salaries. In the end, the Kurdistan Region is an important part of Iraq. I cannot distinguish between one citizen and another. Two or three months before the elections, salaries were released, and I wanted to save the situation.
My responsibility as a prime minister is not to let our citizens suffer because of the non-distribution of salaries. I did not calculate the exact share that I sent back then. I must save the situation. If there is a disaster in a region, we must deal with it, and then we will do the calculations. Today, a part of us should be merciful. How can we help each other if there is a problem? In meetings with the ministers of finance and oil and the prime minister, there were preliminary accounts, in light of which amounts were decided. Others wanted us to discuss politically, not on the basis of accounts and numbers.
If there is an urgent humanitarian crisis in a region of Iraq that needs attention, this is an entitlement we must look at, but it does not seem like that. Today they are talking about the oil revenues of the Kurdistan Region and what are the expenses in the Kurdistan Region. I think that the issue is arithmetic and there should be no dispute. I know that the Council of Ministers voted on something. I don’t know if the Council of Ministers voted on something based on figures or a political decision. Rights issues should not be decided on by a political decision.
Frankly, if you were in Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s place, would you have sent the Kurdistan Region its share?
If they deserve it, I send it to them, as I did in 2018. I sent it in full during elections when I could be harmed if I calculated it according to political interests. But I sent it for the benefit of the country. These are the citizens whose interests I must look at, not mine. This populism must be avoided, winning the public but with no right.
According to your experience in the premiership, what would you advise Kadhimi and the Kurdistan Regional Government in this regard?
I advise them to reach an understanding, not only in the political framework. The truth is that Kurdistan is an important part of Iraq, we must nurture it and make its citizens feel part of Iraq, and that Baghdad cares for them.
Do you agree that the financial separation of the Kurdistan Region from Baghdad with the agreement of the Shiite blocs is what pushed Kurds and the Kurdistan Region away from Iraq?
I did not imagine that there would be this trend from the Shiite blocs, but this is a very wrong approach. The group should not be punished. This is not permissible. If I am not satisfied with the governor of Basra, will I punish Basra? In the end, these are citizens for whom I am responsible.
On the issue of salaries, a committee was sent when I was prime minister to Kurdistan. All the information was submitted to the committee and salaries were distributed in light of the information and verification of it. The salaries were sent in full and I don’t hide the fact that many parties in Kurdistan helped us reach that result and provided us with information that helped us in this, on the side. I call them facts, but if I deviate from the facts and go to a political agreement for partisan or populist interests, this is a mistake. Some mobilize Arabs against Kurds to achieve electoral gains, and some Kurds want to do the same.
Do you think that any party that wants to gain votes, especially before elections, tries to criticize Kurds and the Kurdistan Region?
Yes, and vice versa as well. There are groups in the Kurdistan Region who try to win people over by criticizing Baghdad and Arabs. This is a wrong populism. Hitler was a populist and he created a disaster in Europe.
After the referendum, you used to give the Kurdistan Region more than $300 million per month and Mr. Adil Abdul-Mahdi said that he used to give the Kurdistan Region more than $400 million, but this government did not give anything to the Kurdistan Region. Does that not harm the Iraqi state?
I imagine that this would cause harm to the Iraqi people in general, especially since Kurds are an important part of Iraq. Any impression of any party in Iraq, whether they are Kurds or people in Anbar or in Basra, that there is no interest in them from the Iraqi state, is harmful to the unity of Iraq and I am against it.
Translation by Sura Ali