INSIDE IRAQ: A BRIEFING WITH IRAQI PARLIAMENTARIANS

Transcription

1 CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE INSIDE IRAQ: A BRIEFING WITH IRAQI PARLIAMENTARIANS WELCOME AND MODERATOR: MARINA OTTAWAY, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW PROGRAM; DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE MIDDLE EAST PROGRAM SPEAKERS: SHEIKH KHALAFR AL-ULAYYAN, IRAQ NATIONAL DIALOGUE COUNCIL DR. NADIM AL-JABERI, SHIITE ISLAMIC VIRTUE PARTY FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2008 Transcript by Federal News Service Washington, D.C.

2 (Note: Remarks made by Dr. Nadim Al-Jaberi and Sheikh Khalaf Al-Ulayyan are delivered through translator.) MARINA OTTAWAY: Good afternoon. Sorry for the delay. We had some complications with the translation equipment. Welcome to the Carnegie Endowment. I m Marina Ottaway, the director of the Middle East Program here. Thank you so much for coming for what should be a very interesting conversation with the two Iraqi Parliamentarians. When we first announced the meeting, we thought that there would be a delegation of five people. Some had visa complications and travel complications, but we are delighted to have with us Sheikh Khalaf Al-Ulayyan to my far right and Dr. Nadim Al-Jaberi to my near right. Sheikh Khalaf is a representative of the Iraqi National Dialogue Council. Dr. Nadim Al-Jaberi represents the Islamic Virtue Party. You all have complete bios and I will not take a lot of time in introducing them. You can read the rest for yourself. I would also like to apologize to our guests. We are not giving them much time to relax. They spoke to the press and we are not giving them time to eat. And we realize that for people who are not used to Washington ways, this habit of eating while at the head table is somewhat uncivilized, but that s the way we do things in Washington. (Cross talk, laughter.) The format of the event is somewhat different from what we do. Because we thought we had a large delegation, we decided against initial statements, so we ll go directly into questions and answers. I will start by posing some questions myself and very soon I will open it up to the public, because I m sure that you all have a lot of questions that we want to add. So without further ado, I think we will move into the questions. And the first question that I would like to pose concerns the political process, the process of reconciliation. There is a perception in the United States that the process of reconciliation in Iraq is not going well. We read the reports in the press about the difficulties that the Parliament has had in passing important legislation. There is still not an oil law. It took a very long time to get an agreement on the provincial elections and so on. And what I would like to hear from you is an assessment of how the political process, how the process of reconciliation, is unfolding in Iraq at the present time. DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: Perhaps discussion about the national reconciliation is a rather bitter one. But I do believe that the fundamental key for reconciliation in Iraq is reconciliation, national reconciliation. A few months ago, the prime minister had an initiative in this respect. And I believe that any reconciliation has conditions and has mechanisms, the flaws of which are suffered today and make us unable to reach true national reconciliation, and this is somewhat strange, of course, because until now the parties to the conflict have not been determined yet. So who are we reconciling with? So this is the problem that is still continuing along with the political process. And I believe that determining the parties to the conflict should be undertaken in the following manner. We have to classify them in two kinds: the political power that is participating in the political process and the second power standing outside the political process and perhaps opposing it. I believe this is the

3 most appropriate introduction to national reconciliation and this is what has not been declared until this very moment yet. So once we have determined who the parties to the conflict are, then we can move on to an unconditional dialogue between them. So in order for us to reach an initiative on national reconciliation, each of the parties to the conflict has to also express their good faith. And the following steps are expressions of good will. First of all, eliminate any rules or laws that have an exceptional or eliminating nature. Second, declare a national or general amnesty. Part of this has already happened. Thirdly, to eliminate the sectarian and ethnic codas in the political process because they obstruct that process. And finally, try to redraft this experience on the basis of a country of citizenship, which means that civil political parties would run in the elections and let the better win. These are the kinds of initiatives that could calm the fears of the other parties. Those who are outside the political process also have to make expressions of their good will. For example, those who are bearing arms should not target civilians any longer, and refrain from any extremist discourse, be it religious or nationalistic. Thirdly, accept the principle that elections are the only way by which to accede to power. In my modest assessment, this is the best introduction to fair dialogue between the two parties, which may result in a national reconciliation, which we expect will include the point of views of both parties so that when it is presented, it is not totally rejected. Then we can have a second round of discussions in order to settle the points that are still not discussed. And then we can launch a larger scope of national reconciliation through which we can settle any other differences we may have at the national level. That may include the mechanisms, the amendment of the constitution, other measures. I believe these would be the benchmarks towards a real national reconciliation. But so far nothing has been done in this respect and the other parties have to provide some initiatives to improve this dialogue. And neither the regional countries nor international entities have participated to reach the solution of these problems. But I do believe that these are the essential and fundamental points toward a national reconciliation. With our deep respect for any other point of view, which we, of course, can listen to and discuss and have a dialogue in this respect. Thank you. MS. OTTAWAY: Sheikh Khalaf, would you like to add something? SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: In the name of God most compassionate and most merciful. Dr Al-Jaberi has very well expounded on the conditions for a national reconciliation and I would add that this will not be possible unless we include all the Iraqis in this and as well as the Iraqi parties, including even the Ba ath and other parties. The Iraqi resistance is a very important party to this reconciliation and we should stay away from describing the resistance as being a terrorist movement. Many factions of this resistance have very greatly contributed to fighting al Qaeda elements and eliminating their operations. And there are also about 2 million people who were former adherents to the old Ba ath regime. And this is a very large number that we can except from this action of reconciliation. We have to include them in it. And of those, if anyone is judged to be harmful to the Iraqi people and society, then there is a different way of making sure that they are not included in the political process.

4 There are two steps that are very important toward national reconciliation. The first one is a general amnesty toward all those who have borne arms in the past. And what I m saying here is those who have borne arms against the occupation and not against the Iraqi civilian population. Such a law has already been published. It has been passed, but has not been implemented in a true manner yet, because there are some people who are still controlling the enforcement of this law that do not wish for these people to be included in the pardon and be released from jails, although we are deeply convinced that most of them are innocent. And when we talk about pardon or amnesty, we mean it towards someone who is a culprit, not an innocent. The second step is talking about the internally displaced people. We need to remember first of all that there are more than 4,600,000 people who are considered ex-patriots who live outside of Iraq who suffer very much, are very badly treated, and most of them can t even find food because they have run out of funding or because they cannot receive the rationing tickets to get their food. And considering that these food tickets and their salaries or any other source of funds have been cut off from them has made their lives even more miserable than ever before. In addition, there are the 2 million Iraqis who are internally displaced inside of Iraq. Those people were robbed of their properties and expelled from their homes and, therefore, they must be returned to their dwellings and their properties returned to them and feel secure and protected. Should these matters be taken into consideration, it is true that the national reconciliation will succeed. Another obstacle in the national reconciliation is the constitution. Many articles still need to be amended and they still are the point of contention among the various political parties and factions. These are the subject matters that I wanted to add to what my colleague just presented. Would you like was the second part of your question with regard to the oil law or what would you like for him to answer? MS. OTTAWAY: Not specifically, not at this point. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: I have a comment with regard to the oil or petroleum law. This oil law is extremely important for the Iraqi people because we definitely need a law that would regulate the production and distribution of oil and would regulate investments in this very strategic sector. But this law has to be drafted in a very serious manner in order to take into consideration the interests of the Iraqi people and would be under the oversight and supervision of Iraqi people who know how to draft laws. The actual law in its present form is not very well drafted because it has bypassed the law of the Iraqi oil company and bypassed investment laws. It gave more to foreign investment companies than they deserve because it has linked and kept Iraq within accords and agreements, long-term agreements, more than they should and has allowed investment in some oil fields that have been already explored and some that are in the process of production already, whereas our understanding is that investment should be in oil fields that have not been explored yet. And it does not consider some of the fields that have not been explored, such as Majnun (ph) field and the Ramala (ph) field and the Nafthana (ph) oil field because as I mentioned earlier these fields are for Iraq only and are not in common with anyone and Ramala and Majnun are far

5 enough from the borders except for the Nafthana oil field, which is called in Iran Nafahacha (ph). This field is in common between Iraq and Iran. Therefore, this law has not regulated the actual situation where Iraq has stopped its production, whereas Iran is continuing its production on this oil field. So this is a very imbalanced situation. We are not denying that an agreement or law on oil is necessary for Iraq. However, we do specify that we need the conditions that I have just mentioned earlier. These are most of my comments with regard to this law and perhaps Dr. Nadim has another comment. DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: The draft oil and gas that is being presented to us contains two points that are of concern to us. One is the protection sharing agreements. These kind of touch on the sovereignty of Iraq and give more to the companies. The other point of concern is the excessive privatization that is being proposed. Oil production constitutes more than 90 percent of the Iraqi income. We are not rejecting privatization as far as the principle is concerned, but from the point of view of results, because privatization will go to foreign investment and not to the Iraqi people. Please do not imagine that the situation is the same way as it is in the United States where when you have privatization, the capital moves to American capitals, whereas in Iraq if we have privatization it will be to the advantage of foreign investment, not to Iraqi investment. So you can imagine the impact of such a step for people 90 percent of whose income comes from oil production. Even the national oil company that is referred to in that law will not be in a position to compete with foreign investment. Therefore, we believe that it should be given precedence over foreign companies. MS. OTTAWAY: Thank you very much. I d like to push a little more on this issue of reconciliation because it is so central. Both of you have indicated that it is important to include all groups in this process of reconciliation. You talked about the Ba ath party, you talked about some of the insurgents and so on. The question is how do you do that? What is the mechanism that you envisage to use? Are you calling for a national conference that will include some of these groups, like what happened for example for Afghanistan? Are you calling for new elections in which other parties would be allowed to participate? How do you broaden that process? Maybe this time we ll start with Sheikh Khalaf. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: First of all, there has to be committees and task forces, mixed task forces between the Iraqi government and the parties in order to discuss this issue. But before doing so, there has to be a true will to implement and have a real national reconciliation. Many of the ruling political parties try to except these other parties from the process and don t even mention their names. It is the right of all to manage the interests of our country. The justification earlier used to be that we have an abusive regime, Saddam s regime. Now that it s gone, there is no reason for us not to be able to manage our own affairs. The political process includes many parties and we need to classify these parties in several categories. There are those that have participated or have helped the foreign occupation and then there are those who have their own agenda that they would like to further and then there are those who oppose both. In addition, there are the parties that did not participate at all and these include the Ba ath Party and the resistance movements, which must be respected for what they have done.

6 The resistance movement has changed its tactics because there is another threat that is more dangerous to Iraq than the occupation, and that is Iran, which has infiltrated its ranks. And therefore, we have seen that many of these factions of the resistance have confronted al Qaeda and were able to neutralize their operations and have been able through the al Sawha (ph) or awakening groups to make stability prevail, which is something that the American troops were not able to do over five years. Therefore, these people have to be taken into consideration in the political process and must be respected should the government or the American government so these governments have to know that any people who are under occupation have a sacred duty to protect themselves and defend their country and this is well known in heavenly and earthly laws. These people are not terrorists. They are not gangsters. And they have the right to participate in the political process. This requires that the government declares whoever has borne arms in that manner only and this does not include the terrorists who have killed the civilians and does not include other terrorist organizations that have harmed the interests of Iraq. Then a task force and committees, including the Arab League and the United Nations, can be formed in order to establish and found the basis on which this national reconciliation can be built. Thank you. DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: As far as the mechanism of reconciliation, I do not believe that conferences are the appropriate venue because conferences include large numbers of people. I mean, imagine that we re sitting here just in this room and we re trying to solve some problems. Obviously, we won t be able to. But when it is a restricted and small group, then it may be a lot easier. In addition, conferences are very embarrassing for conflicting parties because no information will truly be disclosed during these conferences. Therefore, I believe that the mechanisms that Ms. Ottaway has suggested may have more to do with dialogues and not conferences. As to determining which are the conflicting parties, this is left to the Iraqi government and the parties who are participating in the political process to determine because they will determine who are the conflicting parties. And I believe that they are quite obvious. And in general, we can divide them in two categories. One is armed and the other is not. The armed parties are known by their actions and those that are not armed are known by their political stance. And the final solution or at the bottom line, everybody will know who is who. You will also notice that the motivations are different because motivation is a very important factor in determining which are the parties. So if anyone comes back and comes and says, oh, we have to go back to dictatorship in Iraq, well, it s clear who that group is. This is equivalent to the government saying, I do not wish for this group to be participating or the other. Therefore, the principle on which we should all agree is that elections are the only approach through which we can run our country. Once we have agreed on the principles, all the rest is detail subject to dialogue and discussion. Thank you. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: I have a small follow-up. What I meant by conference is not including everybody, all people in that process, but the task force and committees would decide who would come to the meetings. The conference would include the decision-makers and the major leaders. These conferences would be used only to make the official declarations that will commit every party to what they have decided in front of the international community. But if you hold a conference that includes all sorts of people, of course it will fail. Thank you.

7 MS. OTTAWAY: Thank you very much. I have a lot of questions that I d like to ask, but I see people squirming in their seats and some hands already going up. So what I will do at this point is open it to your questions. I reserve the right to come back if you re not asking the right questions. (Laughter.) So let me start over here. I will take three questions at a time, so please, because of the interpreting process, try to keep your questions short and please identify yourself. So over here. Q: Thank you. Gary Mitchell from the Mitchell Report. I want to ask a question this way. One of the candidates for president of the United States has made a pretty clear commitment to immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops in January of 2009 with a pretty clear end date. My first question is do you support that recommendation? Do you believe that s in the best interests of Iraq? Second, if not, I m interested to know whether you could describe for us which of the two concerns are greatest in your mind: that this would create an opportunity for tremendous internal conflict or second whether you are concerned more about meddling by external interests, countries that I need not name but which you know better than I. MS. OTTAWAY: Okay, thank you very much. Yes. Q: Thank you. Howard LeFranky (ph) with the Christian Science Monitor. I would like to know the two parliamentarians, your view of the status of forces and the framework agreements being negotiated now between your government and the United States and also what impact you see that negotiating taking place now, what impact you see from that on the reconciliation process. MS. OTTAWAY: Okay, Helena. Q: Hi. I m Helena Cobban. I m with the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Welcome to our civil society gathering here. I guess my question is two-part. First of all, to go further on who can convene the internal reconciliation process. I heard from Sheikh Khalaf that there would be a role perhaps for the Arab League and the United Nations. Do you both agree about that or perhaps get some external mediator like the Qatari government which has done so well in Lebanon recently where nobody else could succeed? And then given that you need to embed this in a broader process, first of all, I d like to hear your answer to the question of whether U.S. troops are helpful or not helpful for your national reconciliation, and then since I gather that you support a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops, how can this be how can that negotiation be structured in the most effective way? Should that be a bilateral negotiation between the U.S. and Iraq or a negotiation similar to what happened with South Africa in Namibia where the negotiation was convened by the United Nations and led to the orderly and speedy withdrawal of the South African occupying forces? MS. OTTAWAY: Okay, thank you. You are all cheating and asking multiple questions. (Laughter.) Our poor guests now have about eight questions, not three. (Laughter.) DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: The question that was asked first mentioned the statement made by one of the candidates to the presidency and whether we support this candidate and whether this would be in the best interests of Iraq. To be honest, we do not really rely on changes of faces in the United States. Whether McCain or Obama takes office, there are some policies that do not change. And you all very well know how all the promises made before elections change soon after. We rely on our own national capacities and no one else. If at all we have just a slight tendency toward Obama because he represents a credibility of what democracy is all about. As to having an impact on what happens in Iraq, I believe this is irrelevant.

8 Your question is one that I have heard very often. Many in the political and military milieus always claim that a true withdrawal will cause chaos in Iraq and they have three standards for this chaos. One is if we withdraw, there will be in-fighting between the various sects. And here may I ask you, did there used to be in-fighting before the entering of American forces to Iraq? This conflict arose after entry of the American forces to Iraq. And these conflicts are at the political level and not at the popular level. Consequently, we do not anticipate the chaos being predicted. The various communities in Iraq have coexisted peacefully since the establishment of the Iraqi state in 1921 until the occupation. And the conflicts started after the policies established by Ambassador Bremer with regard to sectarian and ethnic codas in the governing council. We have polled the public opinion in Iraq and have noticed a very important swing in their opinion. And please be assured that should we obtain international oversight over the provincial local elections or the general elections in the future, this will result in a more stable situation. The second source of chaos being repeatedly mentioned by the media and the American government is that Iraq will lay under the grips of al Qaeda. And this is a funny paradox that I keep hearing in America because al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before It entered after 2003 and that under the American cover. What has helped them was the request for liberation and jihad. This has empowered them and enabled them to rally many people within and from outside of Iraq. Therefore, withdrawal of the American troops will nullify all these claims and the al Qaeda will be neutralized and withdrawn from Iraq. This was taken into consideration that the American troops were unable to stop al Qaeda operations in Iraq. What has stopped it are the people of Iraq, its tribes specifically and even more specifically in the Ramadi area. Therefore, we do not fear this possibility. The third point is that if the troops withdraw, Iraq will fall under the grip of Iran. Here, too, we have another paradox. Iran was never able to obtain any influence inside of Iraq except under American cover. Before 2003, it had no effective presence in Iraq. And it moves and takes action in Iraq with two motivations. One that we may want to understand and this is the perception that the presence of the American troops on Iraqi territory threatens its national security and this is what prompts it to take action inside Iraq in order to defend itself, but it is the Iraqi people who are paying the price. It may also have other illegitimate interests in Iraq. So I may say that the fears are because of the presence of foreign troops, not because of their withdrawal. Moreover, I would like to bring to your attention that Iraq has confronted Iran for eight years in the past and has won its conflict. So we believe that Iraq is capable of defending itself and defending its border from an Iranian invasion. Therefore, I will answer only the first question. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: The second question is with regard to the security agreement. In reality, we have taken we have learned about this agreement through the media. And we have seen that this agreement is totally unfair for the Iraqi people. And whoever has an opportunity to take a look at it will realize that Iraq is not just an occupied country, but will notice that Iraq has become as if it were part of the United States.

9 This agreement allows the United States to use the Iraqi territories and the American military bases for a very long term, which give her the right to aggress and attack any country around the world based from these military bases. It also gives us the right to arrest any person or to raid any home without obtaining the permission of the Iraqi government and provides all the American troops and civilian American presence as well as security agencies operating in Iraq the total immunity. It can do anything it wants without being accountable to anyone. It is obvious that it is totally impossible for anyone to enter into an agreement with another party when this party is being threatened with weapons. Therefore, entering into an agreement of this importance and at this level cannot be done as long as there are foreign troops on the territory. There has to be a balance between the two parties to this agreement. And the timing, of course, is not very appropriate because it will affect the national reconciliations and the parties part to this reconciliation. And this, of course, will cause a lot of embarrassment for the American government as well as the parties who will be signing this agreement. Thank you. DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: Another question was about which is the best entity to sponsor or to convene a national reconciliation. Some people suggest and propose the United States, others the United Nations. Others suggest that Saudi Arabia or Iran could do it or maybe the Arab League or the Islamic Conference. And another lady just mentioned Qatar. Just to mention between brackets that Qatar has succeeded in convening and reaching a solution about Lebanon as a way to protest external interventions in Lebanon. The message was that a tiny little country was able to solve a huge problem that a large, very huge country could not. And perhaps if the large and big powers interfered or intervened in Lebanon, the solution would have really gotten even worse. In my personal belief, I think that the Arab League is the best institution to sponsor such a reconciliation. First of all, it is a neutral party. And it is perhaps the only entity that can truly understand the nature of the problems in Iraq and find solutions for it. And there is a very important interest that the Arab League has expressed with regard to the Iraqi conflict. And perhaps I can say that the only conference that truly could help the interests of a national reconciliation in Iraq was the conference that was held in Cairo and I m not sure of the year, perhaps 2005, because that conference truly brought together conflicting parties. And following that conference, these parties were never part or never participated in any other activity and from this conference many good results have had these solutions or results been followed, they would have led to a very good situation. But what made it fail is that the parties to the conflict were not allowed to truly be active and the procrastination in following up on the resolutions. In addition, the U.S. administration has hampered that project because it believes that the Arab League is competing with its role, so it did not allow an effective Arab role in the matter. But I still believe until now that the Arab League is the most appropriate venue for holding such a conference. Thank you. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: The other question was whether the American presence is harmful to the national reconciliation. We do believe that the presence of American troops on the land of Iraq is extremely harmful for the following reasons. The American forces are creating problems to justify why it shouldn t leave Iraq. And because many parties today in Iraq are greatly supported by the United States and therefore use the American protection to prevent the other parties from participating in the political process. And therefore, we believe that withdrawal

10 of American troops according to a time table will be greatly helpful for a national reconciliation. Thank you. MS. OTTAWAY: Okay, let s take okay, the lady back there. Q: I will speak first in English and then I ll no I ll speak in Arabic and then I ll translate to English myself. (In Arabic.) My name is Randa Slim. I m from the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue. I asked our two guests two questions or one question of two parts. (Laughter.) The first part is the following is that there are provincial elections that are being planned in the future for Iraq, what do they think is going to be their impact on the future political scene of Iraq, what are the results expected results, in their opinion, how will these impact on the future political scene in Iraq? And the second part is that there have been a lot of talk in Arab press that the military activities or campaign that was conducted in Basra and still now in Mosul were being conducted in order to basically help and hurt help some parties in these elections in the future and hurt other parties in the future in this election. What is their comment on what this on what these reports have said. Thank you. MS. OTTAWAY: Okay, thank you. Let s try to have questions in one part and not in two. Back there, yes. Yes, the gentleman with the red shirt. Q: Hi, my name is Mohammed Salif (ph) from Interpress Service. Sheikh Khalaf Al- Ulayyan sounded very concerned about the Ramala and Majnun oil fields in Iraq and I would like to hear him expanding more on the issue of those two oil fields, whether any of Iraq s neighbors have laid any claims to those oil fields that he s concerned about? And my second question or the second part of it (laughter) you both sounded very concerned also about the agreements between the Iraqi and U.S. governments. I would like your alternative solution, whether you want an extension of the U.N. mandate, or what are you looking for? Thank you. MS. OTTAWAY: Thank you. You had your hand? No, okay. Over there, yes. Q: I m Abdulkadir Onay from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I would like to ask again, I m sorry two questions about the north of Iraq, but both are related. One is about Turkey and the Iraqis; the other is Iraqi Kurds. What s your stance about the Kirkuk issue, Article 140 not only Kirkuk but also the surrounding territories between the Iraqi Arabs and the Kurds. And the second question, what s your stance towards the Turkish actions against the PKK existence in the Iraqi territories? As we know that the PKK has enclaves in Iraqi territories and both Iraqi Kurdish regional authority and the Iraqi central authority claim rights on these territories, but they cannot have border police controls and they cannot send their security officials without getting permission from PKK officials through their checkpoints in those ends and PKK has sort of semiautonomous enclave in Iraqi regime. So if it s somewhat like no man s land, isn t it Turkey s legitimate right to launch ground incursion upon your territories? What s your stance against this? Thank you. MS. OTTAWAY: I don t know who wants to start. DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: I will answer the question with regard to the impact of local elections on the future of Iraq. I believe that they will be extremely important because it will determine the structure of the next government and the manner of its administration. And two

11 political forces will compete in these elections using different nominations, names. One that believes in sectarian quotas and some forces represent this opinion, and those who believe in a country of citizenship, a state of citizenship. The winning category will determine the aspect and form of the next Iraqi government. If the forces that believe in a state of citizenship win the elections, Iraq will see more civilization in the future. Whereas if the other forces win, they will see that the country has a forum that relies more on sectarian lines. And this step is extremely dangerous because it will lead to bloodshed of two kinds. One will be a conflict between the different provinces with regard to the areas that are under contention and on the distribution on natural resources and it will lead to another kind of conflict which will be inside each of the provinces. In other words, it will lead to a conflict within the ranks of the Shi a community or within the ranks of the Sunni community. So such conflict will be about influence, authority, resources. Therefore, there are reservations about this step. In our belief, the forces that believe in a state of citizenship are going to be the winners provided, of course, that international monitoring and oversight are available. If not, the forces of sectarian quotas will be the winners. Thank you. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: As to the second question with regard to the operations in Basra and Mosul, some may imagine that these operations happened because of reasons related to elections or because they had been directed by other parties. We don t believe that, but rather we know that there are many gangs that work on smuggling oil outside the country and prevent the government from doing its job in these cities, Basra in particular. Mr. Prime Minister and the Minister of Interior and other officials have gone there in order to address the situation and to meet with the leadership of the tribesmen and the officials in that area. So they were very surprised to see an attack on these people who went there, which prompted them to bring in other forces from other provinces in order to address the situation. And it was very well undertaken and some of these gangs were neutralized. But it turned out that these gangs were supported by other countries the gangs were not run just by small people. And I believe that the foreign countries that are present in Basra also have a hand in this. So if we were to put a flag on this, maybe there won t even be any elections in there. Whereas in Mosul, there are gangs from the al Qaeda terrorist organization that attack citizens, kill them, and prevent the government from implementing reconstruction or development projects in that province. So the government had to fight a few battles in order to cleanse the province from these gangs. But there armed forces have not done anything unacceptable so far and the prime minister has allowed some of the representatives of that province to accompany the armed forces to witness the operations and to address any violations, if any, right away. Some arrests were made in that province of former military figures, but the investigation went very fast and those who were innocent were released immediately. We approved these operations after we received confirmation that they were not meant against specific parties. And this is certainly to the credit of the prime minister for having cleansed Basra from some of its gangs and then continued his work in Mosul. And this is a nationalistic operation that is the prerogative of the government to do. Thank you.

12 MS. OTTAWAY: Okay. MR. : (Inaudible, laughter.) (Cross talk.) SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: In fact, there are some elements from the PKK in the Kurdish area of Iraq that are making incursions and operations in Turkey. And it is the right of Turkey to defend itself, but we do not agree or approve of harming the Kurdish areas and towns and cities. So far, there have been no attacks on the populated areas and the operations have not targeted any other areas than those where the PKK is centered. And therefore, we do not see any impact of these operations on Iraq. Q: (Off mike) what s their stance towards the (off mike) under the provisions of article 140? SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: This article 140 now has passed, I mean, time-wise MR. : Expired. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: Has expired, thank you, and therefore is considered to be no longer part of the constitution. But the problem is still standing and requires a solution. I don t believe that the solution would be to impose force, but I believe that there should be a popular referendum that includes all Iraqis to take a decision with regard to Kirkuk. And I believe that this is an internal matter that can be solved if there is good faith among all parties concerned. MS. OTTAWAY: Thank you very much. We don t have much time left. I ll take two questions at this point. And when I mean two questions, I mean two questions and not four. There is a gentleman back there who has been waiting for a long time. MR. MR. MR. : What was this question? : The question from the back. : What was it? MR. : On the oil fields, on if not (inaudible) MS. OTTAWAY: Okay, yes, let s take this question and then go back, revisit the one concerning the status of forces agreement. Q: Thank you, Mohammad Tabaar with the BBC Persian Service. Next year there will be a presidential election in Iran. If a more pragmatic person, such as Larijani comes to power, how will it impact Iraq? DR. NADIM AL-JABERI: The issue of the proposed treaty and you re wondering what the alternative would be if since we do not approve of this treaty, we said that having a friendly relationship between Iraq and the United States is to the best of interests of both parties. And

13 therefore, it would be a good idea to have good relations, but under conditions and circumstances that are different than this one. I understand from your questions that you are linking the withdrawal with this treaty intimately. But legally speaking, there really should not be any linking. The expiry of the mandate of the presence of multinational troops in Iraq is the right of Iraq. Entering into a treaty is one of the aspects of a sovereign country. And therefore, there is no object to entering into a treaty except however it has to be after the withdrawal. And therefore we should not deal with the treaty as being a fatalistic, a determined matter that is being sent by heaven. So is it between is there any bond between is it going to be either the treaty or the destruction of Iraq? Yes, we can look into having a treaty, but under the appropriate circumstances where the two parties to the agreement are at par because Iraq has seen in the past treaties where the parties to it were not at par, thus leading to incredible problems and conflicts. For example, the treaty that was signed between Iraq and Great Britain in 1948, which is called the Portsmouth Treaty, and because it was not between two equivalent and equal parties, it wasted many of Iraq s rights, which led to the disbanding of the government of the time and unrest in the street. And then the agreement between Iraq and Iran in 1975 in Algiers was also signed under uneven circumstances and has led to Iraq giving away half of (inaudible) which is an Iraqi river in all the maps of the world, which led to a bloody war between the two countries to eight years. Treaties between two uneven parties is an introduction to conflict and not to peace. Thank you. SHEIKH KHALAF AL-ULAYYAN: The question with regard to the next elections in Iran and its impact on on Iraq. First of all, we are not the enemies of the Iranian people. They are friends. They are Muslims. And they are neighbors. But we have misunderstandings and conflicts with the government of Iran. And this government has its own agendas and has ambitions in Iraq and would like to export its revolution and unrest to all the countries of the area including Iraq and has used the presence of American troops to justify its conduct. Therefore, the government has its own agenda and the president who comes or leaves is going to have the same agenda as the government. Therefore, I don t believe that their position will change, but we do hope that the next president will have a different way of thinking than the actual government and will deal with wisdom and reason and will act in regard with and respecting neighborly relations so that the two countries may live in peace. Thank you. MS. OTTAWAY: I know there are a lot more questions, but we don t have any more time. So in closing, I would first of all like to thank the American Friend Service Committee for bringing this delegation to the United States. It is through their effort that we were able to have this meeting. And then, of course, more than anything else, I d like to thank the two speakers for their very exhaustive answers to all the questions. Thank you. (Applause.) (END)