bet · GT01UU15 · 2006-03-16 00:00:00 — This legitimate violence: Do you by this mean violence from the Iraqi people, people of any ethnicity or religiosity, who are struggling for a unitary , or do you mean that the violence that is being performed by the forces of the occupation troops is legitimate - or what else? Question from the floor: My first question goes to the gentleman sitting next to Mr. - I am afraid I have forgotten your name. How could this so called insurgence be pulled into the political process when, as you said yourself, they lack organization and political leadership and when their lines are unclear to these criminals and al-Qaeda elements? My second question also goes to you. You fear a break-up of , but I, as a who lost a lot of relatives during the Anfal Campaign, fear a unified and strong . As you said yourself, the leaders of have played on ethnic tensions and lines to gain political power. How can it be guaranteed that they will not do it again? We have seen what nationalism has done to minorities in countries. We have seen , we have seen , we have seen and of course . So why is a peaceful break-up of worse than a unified , which is actually not based on the free will? You said that 75 per cent of the Iraqis are for a unified , but that means around 90 per cent of the Arabs, not the Kurds. As one of the earlier speakers mentioned, there was an unofficial referendum in where 97 per cent of the people voted for separation of . My last question goes to Mr. There are signs that the Americans and the Kurds are getting closer. Their relationship is getting better. Could this, together with an , which is difficult for the US to control, lead to separation? : I have two issues for Mr. and on federalism. They touch upon the question that we just heard. There are a lot of examples of progressive and successful federal countries. Why should that not be the case for ? Or maybe I misunderstood you. The other issue deals with ethnicity, the bogey man of the Middle East - and not only there. At the end of the day, I agree with you. I think that you need issue oriented parties as political blocks, but at this stage, can you avoid using or having ethnicity as a block at all? Thus, the question is if you can avoid having ethnicity as a block today when you build your political structure. Again, I agree with you that at the end of the day it would be good not to have it - I think that is a necessary thing - but at this stage, how can you avoid it? Is it even realistic? I don't think so. : There is a strategy for the government and for different political parties in . All of them are trying to build a democracy in , believing in human rights. But that does not mean that they are taking all the steps in a correct way. We cannot say that everything is completed and correct, but one question is: Why are we giving this right to the Iraqi people? We have a deep scar against , as we have been included for eight years. Why are we not giving it to the Kurdish people, who have these deep scars inside after having suffered from 's regime? They still do not believe that the power inside to be fair to the Kurdish people, with other nations and . They are afraid, and they have the right to be afraid. How can we go the right way? That is when we have a federal system and when we, through our practicing government, the central government and all parties, are working with democracy and human rights. At that stage - it will take many years to get there - maybe the Kurdish people do not need a federal system and instead want to be like any other country. But they do not believe in central power, because they have suffered. They have been killed. Chemical weapons have been used, as in the Anfal Campaign. Even in the prisons biological tests were performed on the prisoners inside against the Kurdish people. It takes time to have such a kind of program and process, doing it correctly and looking at all the nations in with the same eyes when it comes to ethnic and religious criteria. I even give the Shiites right. When killed people in , he killed some of them because they were Kurds, some because they were Shiites. He did not kill them only because they were in opposition. He said that all those Shiites would be executed. The others will get life penalties in prison without trials, only because they are Shiites. Those scars do not mean that we in speeches can say: "Shiites, you must be very Iraqi. Kurds, you must be very Iraqi." They cannot do that! It is a process. And that process is something that I, you, the other parties and the people can sit down together and plan for the future, for a better future in . Things are not going as fast as a blitz in . You cannot say to somebody that they must be Iraqi. I cannot be Iraqi direct. My daughter asks me: "Mum, why are you going to ?" She thinks that I am working for the Iraqi people. She has not got this relation. She lives in , in Sulaymaniyah. She asks me why I am going to . She has lived for 13 years in an independent place, and she has always heard about how we suffer, how Iraqis have executed my uncle or how my brother-in-law has been in prison. She has only heard about . She cannot be Iraqi directly. We need a plan, and we need to sit down together to create a better life for the Kurdish people, where there is no second nation, there is no second religion, there is no , there is no 'ah, and that will take a long time. It is not going as fast as a blitz. Bakthiyar : It was my colleague, Mr. Yahia , who mentioned that many Iraqis actually were in , and they did not go through what the rest of the population in went through. But what they went through was something that many people among the rest of the population did not go through, and that is the confiscation of their properties and belongings and the withdrawal of their citizenship. They were placed in trucks and were deported to the Iranian border. They had to go through land mine fields, and a lot of people lost their lives. They lived in miserable conditions for years in various refugee camps in whether they were Faili Kurds, 'ah Kurds or 'ah Arabs. Their deportation was similar to what the Jews went through during the Nazi oppression and repression of the Jews in Europe. Thus, they have been through hell. They were deported in 1969 in a wave, and then in 1971, and then in until after the end of the war. They were deprived of their citizenship. has had tree types of citizenship throughout the history: those who were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, those who were subjects of the Iranian Empire and those who were subjects of the Indian Empire. Thus we had class A and class B citizens, and those who belonged to the Iranian Empire were people who left traces in . They had their properties and their houses and they had commitments. They were deported, and they went through terrible situations. The new constitution addresses these issues and solves the issue of citizenship. has today a progressive citizenship law that is better than in any other country in the region. Actually, our constitution could hopefully, with modifications, be one of the best constitutions in the entire region. I hope that the gentlemen that is on the panel with me would confirm this. I was a member of those drafting the transitional administrative law, and Kurds there were not just fighting for their own rights. They were fighting for a democratic , and they were fighting for a of Rights. I had a hand in the of Rights that we got. There were a lot of people who participated, and it was made for the entire , separation of power and also protection of the minorities. The Kurdish delegation were the best defenders of minority rights in this constitution that we have got. : There is a great and strong element of romanticism among the of a united Islamic state. That kind of unity has never existed. That is a myth. The Soviet communists also dreamt of a classless society. They wrote that in their constitution. Those who are pretending that there is an Iraqi nation suffer from the same kind of romanticism of an existence of an Iraqi people. You can write in the constitution that there is no other than the Iraqi people, but the reality is different. People also seem to be short-minded. They do not remember that the Ba'athists in 1991 had a slogan, when they went to and Kerbala: No 'ahs after today. This is not an invention of the occupation forces. It is part of the history of the region. People also seem to deliberately choose specific areas of the history. The difficulties between the 'ahs and the Sunnis go back much longer than the existence of . Also interesting is the romanticism of defending this artificial entity that is called . It could be an abstract idea, but to make it function you have to have a formula that is going to protect those who have been subject to different waves of violence. It is very difficult for those who have not been suffering. I was in in 2003 in . You could see that there was a major difference between the Kurdish part of the city and the well-looked-after areas of . So do not tell any Kirkuki that even the Sunnis suffered. They will tell you: "Never!" You cannot really compare it. You are either insensitive, or probably inhuman at the end. There are also different examples of federalism that could function, but for this kind of federalism to function it takes a negotiation that is going to be very demanding. People who are dreaming of a different scenario cannot really relate to the kind if issues that are at stake in this region. It has to do with a control of resources, territory and identity, and you cannot just remove it by adopting an American idea of federalism with a centralized system. It has to correspond to the need of different areas and different peoples of this country. Otherwise it will fail. failed because it lacked that kind of differentiation between the needs of different individuals. It was imposed with the same kind of eagerness of Iraqiness that we hear from some speakers here. The idea of a Yugoslav nation failed entirely, and it ended up with a genocide. has already had a genocide, so it is time to think differently, also about how it is going to emerge, because this process has not really been finished. It is in the making, and for that we need to think along different lines, not imposing one agenda or two just because it has to be that way. I would like to comment on the relationship between the US and the Kurds. I think that the US had a very negative perception of the Kurds when they arrived. They wanted to remove all the Pesh , which Yahia wrongly called the militias time and time again. I have corrected him at another public event, but he sticks to that terminology. There is an ideological baggage in that. Anyway, the US wanted to disarm the Pesh . But then suddenly they realized that there is a difference between that part of and the rest. And that has nothing to do with the elite. The population in is welcoming the liberation forces, as they say, because for the first time they have managed to get rid of a system they never joined freely. That is why they accept the American presence. And that is why the Americans will be more welcome and, if they would like it, will be able to have military or security relations, or in the long run even economic relations. There is potential in that region as it is now. It could go in the same direction as the rest of , but that is a different matter. Yahia : Despite what you might hear from this panel, we are actually a lot more in agreement than in disagreement. I fully agree with her Excellency, the Minister, that it is impossible to build without dealing with the wounds of the past. Injustice, especially the genocide of the Kurdish people, is something more untenable in terms of historical memory in than the consequences of the war. The problem of what happened with the constitution is that these memories, this burden of the past, has formed a document that will design the future, and this is my problem with that document. This is a document that is not forward-looking. This is a document based on the bitter experience of the past. If this was just a political declaration, I would be very happy to live with it. But my fear is that the disintegration that this document will cause if implemented literally will be impossible to reverse. Once we move over this, and in 20 years the wounds are healed and there is and reconciliation in , it will be too difficult or impossible to go back and try to build a country together. Now, why do we need to build a country together? There is definitely a lot of romanticism. You do not build nations without romanticism. I think that the Kurdish experience over the last ten years is also based on romanticism. It is based on "never again", on preventing a genocide again, on the Kurds finally taking control over their life and and a happy nation. There is an element of romanticism in that as well. You need romanticism in every nation exercise. My obsession with is very simple, because I think it is necessary for practical reasons. You need to have a unified set of human rights, more than we have in this constitution. Bakthiyar said, the Kurds have lobbied very hard for the rights of women, for human rights and for the rights of minorities. But when it came down to the wire, when it came down to the bargaining table concerning Kurdish rights, self rule rights and human rights they allowed loopholes in the constitution to allow for clerical, theological, rule. They allowed for compromises on women's rights, because the main priority of the negotiators was, at the end of the day, self rule and not human rights. Now we will of course have a constitution in with a wonderful set of human rights, but the constitution for the rest of will have serious problems with human rights. As the minister said, women are lobbying very hard to amend that. That is the problem. That is why you need one nation. You need, for example, a set of human rights. We cannot have theological rules in because of ethnic issues. What will the women in say? the women in ever forgive us for allowing the clerics to have sway over their lives, their bodies, their marriages and so on because we wanted an ethnical identity? Water resources and oil also matter. One of the speakers today mentioned that the Kurdish regional government has signed a treaty with a Norwegian oil company to extract oil. How is that process managed? Is this really the best way to exploit the resources? Even if the resources will stay entirely within , is this really the best way to maximize the welfare of the Kurds? Is this the best way to utilize that? There is expertise in . For example, if you are negotiating a portfolio of oil assets that includes oil fields in and oil fields in you can get a better deal from an oil company if all the assets you have is at the field. Is this really in the interest of the Iraqi people - regardless of where the money goes, regardless of who ultimately has control over that particular field or of that particular contract? Isn't it in the interest of the Iraqis to have a unified set of rules governing the management of the oil sector, a unified set of institutions? I am not against federalism. I am a very strong proponent of federalism. My problem with the current constitution is that it is not federal. At its best, it is confederal. Reading the constitution, I like it. If it is implemented to the letter and in the spirit of some of those who negotiated it, then it will look like a commonwealth of independent states. The central government will have to go hat in hand, every time it tries to raise funds, to the regions in order to finance the army and the . The central government has ceremonial roles, and everything from the internal security to the oil sector and to finance is firmly in the control of the regions. If I wanted to run in the elections tomorrow, I would wait for these parliamentarian elections. They are insignificant. I would run for governor of , because that is where the power will be according to this new constitution. Hopefully, there will be changes to that in the next months. I think that I can get a sense even from the people in the panel today that they are open to suggestions and changes. I would like to address one last thing on the issue of , because I want this to be very clear. I think that if went independent tomorrow, I wouldn't have any problem with that. And if they wanted to take with them, I wouldn't have any problem with that - as long as the minorities that are living there have equal rights. I think that the Kurds, the suffering that they went through, the genocide that was inflicted upon them by various regimes, justifies, gives them the right, to opt for independence, if they so felt. But I do not think that it is correct to impose that same model for the rest of the country. I feel that those people who were negotiating the constitution, those people who were in parliament talking on behalf of the 'ahs or the Sunnis, were not representative, and they will ultimately be swept by history and will be replaced by people who are a bit more far-sighted. Finally, I would just like to say something about the Pesh , because it is very close to my heart. I love the Pesh . I travelled into , and I was protected by them. Some of my best friends are in the Pesh . But they are a militia. The ultimate test is that if a member of the Pesh is currently in the Iraqi army. Where does his allegiance lie? Is his allegiance to or to ? And if a member of Pesh is operating in today, where does his allegiance lie? Is it with Talabani, Barzani or ? If you can answer me honestly, with your hand on your heart, that Pesh members have allegiance to institutions rather than to political parties or tribal affiliations, then I will never call them a militia again - I promise. : There is a formal answer to this: The parliament in in 1992 adopted a law, legalizing the of the Pesh , and it is part of the government institution. It is responsible for reviewing, recruiting and commanding. It is a complicated structure. Part of the Pesh is under the government in Sulaymaniyah and . That is part of the internal fighting that divided into two administrations. But literally the parties in the region also control the government. That is why they are part of the party and the government. But in the militia context you do not have any kind of regulation that regulates neither recruitment nor training nor education. That is why it is just a cliché repeated with no substance. Question from the floor: Mr. stated that a precondition of a democratic is the end of the occupation. My question to Minister and to Mr. Bakthiyar is: Do you agree? And if you agree, when will the end of the occupation come about and how? Question from the floor: I was just going to say that first of all, I think that we talk a lot about the framework here. That is very important, but I would also like to ask, in reference to the question about what could do for : How can, or could, civilians or NGO's contribute to the grass-root conditions being improved in ? Is there a specific way to do this? I ask also in reference to the security situation of course, which perhaps is kind of hard to understand for us living in . (): My question relates to the previous question. But I must say that I am really grateful to this panel, because we have really seen that we should not underestimate the problems we are facing, but also that you feel the hope that we have for the peoples of and the admiration that we feel for all the brave people that have made progress possible. I do not only want to ask about what can do, but also how you view the role for the international community, not only now immediately - I understood that there is a need for immediate humanitarian help in some parts of the region as we are facing a situation close to civil war - but also a long term political commitment. Bakthiyar : I would like to go back to Yahia. Actually, you are right that there sometimes are concessions made in the constitutional negotiation process on the principals of human rights, women's rights and fundamental freedoms. That was also because of the outcome of the previous elections, where the Islamists had the upper hand. It was not so easy for the Kurds. They were in a dilemma. Sometimes they were in sandwich between choosing this and that right, and sometimes - often, actually - in every paragraph, they integrated the word or a reference to . It was not an easy issue. It was not lack of insistence. There was a lot of insistence. And they were not backed to the bottom on the issue of women's rights. They were not the only ones. There were other powers also who did not back them on that issue, and I regret that in its constitution does not make any reference to the declaration of human rights and five international treaties and conventions related to human rights. There are others that we have not signed or ratified. submitted reservations on CEDAW, which should be lifted. There is no reference in this constitution to CEDAW. I hope that after the elections and the creation of the new assembly there will be room to create a committee and to negotiate and bargain, because the entire constitution debate will open up again, and they have four months and after that two months to prepare for a referendum based on the same regulations as in the previous referendum that took place. Now I turn to the three questions that were asked. The first was about the occupation. The Kurds did not see any wisdom in that Americans accepted to be called occupants rather than liberators. There were others who did not see any wisdom in doing that and accepting the resolution, because that poured more water into the mill of anti war groups and of those who are hostile towards a successful story of . You also have some people who do not care whether will go down in the history. They just want their motivations and their arguments to be right. They said: "I was against the war. There is a civil war. It's a big down. It's hell." There is a certain unsensitivity to the suffering of the Iraqi people, that there are people who in the past were totally silent about the suffering of the Iraqi people, who never raised their voices. They continue not to raise their voices against all the atrocities committed by 's regime. And those who created mass yesterday are creating new mass today. It's mostly the same people and the same groups who are committing these atrocious crimes under different names. And whatever is black in the world, when it arrives to the border of it becomes white. Saudis were calling terrorists inside their country terrorists. And the same people, the same network, were called resistants, , inside . Until yesterday, according to the poll, I heard of say that 55 per cent of the Jordanians were supportive of al-Qaeda and al-Zarqawi. Another poll showed 60-90 per cent. After the three explosions of the hotels Radisson, and we saw that 80 per cent of the people now are against these people, whom they called resistants, and they were the same people. Al-Zarqawi is from , by the way. It is cynical for Iraqis sometimes to think: Let us pray that other people go through tragical situations in order to open their eyes, their minds and their hearts and feel our suffering and our pains that we are going through on a daily basis and have gone through for decades. Occupation: Nobody likes that his or her country is occupied. The occupation legally ended by the resolution. Sovereignty was given to . But in reality you have about 150 000 soldiers. There is resistance in every nation's history, and even the UN Charter allows resistance.