KURDISTAN NEWSLINE

Special Dispatch August 21, 2002

Jalal Talabani Interview with Asharq Al-Awsat

"It is the American air protection, which safeguards the freedom enjoyed by the Kurdish region" "We believe that the mission to bring about comprehensive democratic changes in Baghdad is the task of the Iraqi opposition forces" "We heard one voice from all sections of the U.S. Administration " "The next step is to convene a conference for the Iraqi opposition" "Vice-President Dick Cheney has reaffirmed protection for the Kurds" " We envision our interests within a unified democratic Iraq"

Washington D.C., August 18 – The leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Jalal Talabani discussed the Washington meetings, the Iraqi situation, the role of the opposition and possible future developments, in an interview with the international Arab daily, Asharq Al-Awsat*:

Q. In a television interview with an American channel you stated that your party is prepared to offer bases and military installations in the area of Iraqi Kurdistan which you administer to the American forces in case they invade Iraq. In another interview with an Arab television station , you denied that . Could you clarify the issue for us and what exactly you said ?

A. I did not issue a denial. Here is what I said: I was asked about the position of the Kurdish people regarding possible entry of American forces to Kurdistan. My reply was that the Kurdish people welcome the presence of American forces in Kurdistan in order to defend the freedom they enjoy and to prevent being attacked with weapons of mass destruction. This is the view of the Kurdish people after the Americans rescued them in 1991 from tragedy and mass expulsion. There is a kind of sympathy with the Americans who are looked upon as liberators. It is the American air protection, which safeguards the freedom enjoyed by the Kurdish region. It guarantees the cultural, health and civilizational progress made in Iraqi Kurdistan. That is why the Kurdish people would welcome the presence of American forces in Kurdistan. This issue must not be mixed up with the idea of invading Iraq. We in the Iraqi opposition have a common stand that the opposition forces, assisted by regional and international states including the United States, must undertake comprehensive democratic changes.

Q. Does that mean that the Kurdish people are not ready to receive American forces in order to invade Iraq?

A: I did not say that. What I stated was that the Kurdish people are ready to welcome American forces in order to protect the Kurdish people in the region. As to the subject of invasion, let us analyze it section by section. We, Iraqi opposition, do not favor invading Iraq. We believe that the mission to bring about comprehensive democratic changes in Baghdad, in the sense of ending the existing dictatorship, is the task of the Iraqi opposition forces. I have stated that the principal opposition forces, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan(PUK), Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution( SCIRI) have tens of thousands of fighters and enjoy considerable popular support. These forces, in addition to other elements, are capable of bringing about the comprehensive democratic changes, if they are aided regionally and internationally. In our opinion, invasion is a different issue. We are against the concept of the invasion scenario. We support the principle of democratic change, even with American assistance. We believe that the United States should coordinate and cooperate with the Iraqi opposition, and must not entertain any idea of making changes behind the opposition’s back. That is exactly what we have frankly told the Americans in our recent negotiations.

There is confusion between the two issues: the first is the belief that the Kurdish people consider the Americans as liberators and protectors of their liberty. That is why I believe that the Kurdish people would welcome American forces in Kurdistan for a number of reasons. The principal reason is for providing protection. The Kurdish people welcome the no-fly zone protection, contrary to the Iraqi regime that is against it. The Kurdish people want ground protection also. The Kurdish people want American presence, not only as deterrent against possible Iraqi attacks but also because there are terrorist organizations such as the Ansar Al-Islam and others, which constitute a danger to the Kurdish people.

The view of the Kurdish people toward Americans is clear. I say this as a fact and not necessarily as a policy of PUK, which supports the policy of achieving the comprehensive democratic changes by Iraqi national hands, supported internationally. We do not deny cooperating with Americans, or coordinating with them in order to bring about the necessary change in Iraq. As to the question whether we prefer the invasion of Iraq or Iraqis undertaking the change, we obviously prefer the latter. That is clear.

Q. How do you evaluate your and other opposition representatives’ discussions with American officials? What is the next step?

A. Frankly the meetings were very important. We listened to a unified American point of view. The Congress was supporting the Iraq National Congress (INC), the State Department supported the Quartet group. Now we saw and heard a unified stand from the Congress, Department of Defense, Department of State and the White House toward the opposition. We heard one voice from all sections of the U.S. Administration who have decided and are determined on the need for change in Iraq. We heard that they want democratic change, and not substituting one dictator with another. They expressed their respect to the views of the opposition when we stated that the goal of regime change and bringing about democratic transformation is an Iraqi task to be undertaken by Iraqi opposition forces. They informed us that they did not object to the idea. This is an important issue. They enquired from us whether we were in total agreement regarding federalism when we presented them with our final communiqué, which emphasizes the vision of a parliamentary, democratic and federal Iraq. In response to our affirmation of this principle, they stated that they respect the Iraqi decision. On our part we also raised some issues.

Q. Like what?

A. We asked them why do they focus exclusively on UN Resolution 687 only and ignore Resolution 688 and 949, which are favorable to the people of Iraq.

Q. What was their response?

A. They explained that Resolution 687 covers weapons of mass destruction which is an important issue for Europe and the world. We stated that we understand that but at the same time there are the resolutions concerning human rights and measures to end suppression in Iraq which should be highlighted to which they agreed.

Q. But what is the next step exactly?

A. The next step is to convene a conference for the Iraqi opposition. A steering committee , representing the six organizations, will undertake this task.

Q. Where will it be held?

A. Perhaps in Europe or in liberated Iraqi Kurdistan if we can obtain appropriate American security guarantees.

Q. Have you obtained them?

A. Last Wednesday the State Department reaffirmed the protection for the Kurdish region. And Vice-President Dick Cheney has reaffirmed protection for the Kurds. If there are sufficient guarantees, then we prefer to hold the meeting on the home soil rather than holding in America or a foreign country.

Q. What is the timeline?

A. It should be held within a month.

Q. Will the conference be restricted to the six sides you referred to ?

A. No. No. The steering committee will invite other sections of Iraqi opposition who subscribe to the declared common manifesto, of a democratic, parliamentary and independent Iraq, to attend the conference. The outline of our general agenda will be tabled at the conference for deliberation. It is expected that about one hundred representatives of parties and personalities will participate in the forthcoming conference.

Q. What is the status of the other national opposition forces?

A. In my view there are two basic lines of opposition. The first ,represented by the six , believes in relying on forces of the Iraqi people, supported by regional and international countries to make the required change. The other line which states that they do not wish to cooperate with an regional or foreign side. On our part, we , though we wish them well, think that this policy is not feasible. There are those who advocate the removal of sanctions, reject external support and reject any dialogue with the United States. This means, in reality, the survival and continuation of the present dictatorship because they are exactly its slogans.

Q. But this line represents a significant portion of opposition?

A. We do not think is part of the opposition. I want t be frank. The opposition which has basic forces are the PUK, KDP , SCIRI and some other forces inside the country. The opposition which speaks from outside does not have basic forces.

Q. What is your explanation for the absence of Masoud Barzani, the KDP leader, from the talks?

A. Masoud sent Hoshyar Zebari who is a member of the political bureau, his nephew, head of the International Relations Department and a senior leader of the KDP.

Q. There is talk that Turkey has withdrawn his Turkish passport?

A. Not true. These are just they say “newspaper gossip”. Turkey has not withdrawn passport from Masoud Barzani.

Q. How is your relations with Turkey?

A. Turkey’s relations with KDP is not good. But they are trying to improve it. Our relation with Turkey is normal and good. Our relations are good with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Our relations were good with Jordan during the late King Hussein’s time.

Q. There exists in Washington a semi-conviction that there will be an American invasion of Iraq?

A. That is not certain as yet. During our talks with American officials, they informed us that they have not decided on how and when the change will come. They have not decided whether there will be an invasion. Will they support the opposition? Will they support a coup d'etat? They have not decided to this minute as stated to us by Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney.

Q. What did you feel about this issue as everyone in Washington thinks the invasion is only a matter of time?

A. The senior officials we met did not tell us that. We were told that they are change but the scenarios for change are not clear for them yet.

Q. Did you feel during your talks that Turkey will join the American invasion and military attack?

A. I don’t think so. From what I’ve heard from American officials and Turkish officials, I don’t think Turkey will join a military attack against Iraq.

Q. Neighboring countries declare their opposition to invasion?

A. Then that means that the Americans have no plan to invade Iraq. How can they invade if these countries are closed to them? This reinforces our view that we must rely on Iraqi opposition and the idea of invasion is not valid. The alternative is to rely on the forces of the Iraqi people and the real Iraqi opposition, supported internationally, in order to bring about the desired change.

Q. Do you think the elimination of weapons of mass destruction is , as the Americans say, is the real reason behind the American determination for change in Iraq, even if it requires the use of military force ?

A. The issue is not only weapons of mass destruction. It concerns terrorism and the new world order which requires getting rid of dictatorships. I believe the democratic transformation in Iraq will lead to change in Middle East.

Q. There is a belief that the United States as the only remaining super-power is intent on redrawing the map of the region and reorganizes its affairs according to its own vision. What is your opinion?

A. Perhaps that is valid point of view.

Q. Will there be a Kurdish state?

A. No. There are no geographical changes. In my estimate, there are political changes. Perhaps the United States wants a new world order starting from the Middle East. And I don’t oppose that view.

Q. Is the outcome of your talks with the Americans that there is no military invasion of Iraq?

A. Let us be precise on this subject. My impression as the result of the talks is that there is no American decision to invade Iraq right now.

Q: Is it possible after 2 months or a year?

A. It is possible. In the current circumstances, as we understand it, there is no decision to invade. The commitment for change is there. The question is how this change will be effected. The Americans have decided on a policy of regime change. But the final decision on its application has not been taken, in my view. There are many possible scenarios: military option, support for a military coup, aerial campaign to prompt a coup, and supporting the opposition to undertake the task. Another possibility is for the Americans to reach an understanding with the regional states to effect the change, once these states are convinced that the United States is serious and determined in carrying our its declared policy. In my opinion ultimately they will not stand in the way of a determined American campaign as they see their common interests coincide.

Q. Do you think the opposition is capable of managing the change?

A. The real opposition consisting of PUK, KDP and SCIRI must not be underestimated. For example SCIRI has 15,000 armed personnel, equipped with tanks and artillery , station on the border with a neighboring country. We do not possess similar equipment. I want to give a realistic picture of the opposition. We believe that the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly disgruntled with the Iraqi regime. Do you recall that during the uprising in the aftermath of the Kuwait war, fourteen provinces were completely liberated?

Q. But the Americans betrayed them ?

A. That is true. The Americans let them down.

Q. Aren’t you afraid of another American betrayal?

A. Our goal is to secure the American support and prevent the repetition of the American betrayal of the people of Iraq. That betrayal was due two factors according to the memoirs of James Baker and Colin Powell: the first was fear of the Shiites and the Kurds. Secondly, the fear that Iraq might be divided. Those fears have no validity anymore as the American Administration has established a working relations with both the Shiites and the Kurds, neither of whom advocate or aspire to establish a Shiite or Kurdish state.

Q. Is that your impression with the Americans?

A. Yes. They have reaffirmed it to us. We on our part have reaffirmed our commitment to the unity, independence, sovereignty and security of Iraq. As to the second reason that chaos might prevail in Iraq after a change of regime, we believe there is a general consensus that the opposition will be capable to manage the critical transition phase and preventing anarchy. The purpose of the talks was to emphasize the need to support the opposition forces wholeheartedly in its mission and not resort on outright invasion.

Q. Do we understand from your remarks that you oppose the American military invasion of Iraq?

A. We prefer and support the national opposition forces to undertake the democratic changes in Iraq. But I beg to pause at the concept of ‘ oppose’. We do not favor or support an invasion of Iraq. But we cannot prevent America from attacking if it chooses to do so. Therefore I cannot oppose. There is the difference. The Arab states, or Europe cannot be against America, . So how do you expect Talabani to oppose?

Q. Did you discuss the issue of the presence of Al Qaeda network elements in Northern Iraq region under your administration?

A. No we did not discuss this subject. But we have discussed it previously. There is a group calling itself Ansar Al-Islam, which includes three factions: first, 130-150 Afghan Arabs who have been infiltrated from Afghanistan. The other factions are two small terrorist groups called Hamas and Al Tawheed. These Afghan--Arabs have joined forces with a number of armed Kurds, who had split from the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, to form Ansar Al-Islam. Some members belong to Al Qaeda; others don’t.

Q. The Americans say that there is a link between Al Qaeda elements in your region and the Baghdad regime. What do you say? Is it true?

A. I cannot conclude that with certitude. I am a lawyer. I need sufficient evidence to make a conclusive determination. It is said that there are elements of Iraqi intelligence Mukhabarat in their ranks. Whether they are there for intelligence gathering mission or to cement their relations with Al Qaeda, I cannot say.

Q. How active are these elements?

A. One of them is active. He leads an organization within the network under the name of “ the Revenging Soldier”. They operate on a narrow mountainous enclave on the Iraq-Iran border covering about twelve villages, the biggest of which is called Biyara. They are fanatical militants who are even more extremists than Talibans.

Q. There is talk of return of monarchy with the presence of Shareef Hussein bin Ali with you in the opposition

A. We believe that an Iraqi founding national assembly, freely elected, must decide the future of Iraq. Will the assembly choose monarchy or republican form of government, I don’t know.

Q. Can we say that is not your aim to establish a Kurdish state? Do the Kurdish people have the right to establish a state?

A. Yes they have the right but they cannot. The Kurdish people have the right of self-determination like every other nation in the world. Self-determination could mean independence, confederacy, federal and autonomy. Currently the international and regional situation does not permit for the foundation of an independent Kurdish state in north of Iraq.

If we declare independence and assuming Turkey, Iran and Syria did not declare war us and invade us but merely boycott us. How do we enter and exit from Kurdistan? Then there are states, which threaten that if a state is declared, it will occupy the area. We cannot resist the Turkish Army. This is from a pragmatic point of view. On the other hand , we as Iraqi Kurds, we envision our interests within a unified democratic Iraq, in which we contribute to the government in Baghdad. We aspire to secure our rights within the framework of Iraq. It is not inevitable that there should be separation or independence.

 

*Asharq Al-Awsat August 18, 2002

URL: http://www.asharqalawsat.com/