|
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on the PKK-Turkey
Crisis: Interview
21.10.2007
|
|
|
|
October
21, 2007
(Asharq Al-Awsat) Tension persists in the
Kurdistan Region. Are you still convinced that it
will not lead to a war and an incursion into
northern Iraq? What do you think of Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki's declaration about
"eradicating" the Workers Party of Kurdistan's [PKK]
combatants from Iraqi Kurdistan?
(Talabani) This
is a sensitive issue and I would like to speak
frankly and clearly about it. For some time we have
been advising the PKK to abandon armed action. We
have told them: We are living in the globalization
era. Partisan wars are no longer acceptable or
useful. We believe that the PKK should turn to
political, parliamentary, diplomatic, and popular
action instead of armed action. In a speech that I
recently made in Sulaimaniyah, I openly stated that
the Kurds do not believe
that the PKK's military acts in Turkey or Iran can
serve the Kurdish people's interests. Indeed they
undermine their interests. We believe that armed
action hurts democracy in Turkey and hurts Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Justice and
Development Party [AKP].This party is a new
democratic feature that wishes to build a new
Turkish society that makes room for Turkey's Kurds
and the other ethnic groups in the country.
|
Iraqi President : Jalal Talabani, a Kurd |
The AKP recognizes the existence of a Kurdish people
and a Kurdish cause. It adopts a friendly attitude
towards using the Kurdish language in the media.
Furthermore the recent parliamentary elections were
free in the Kurdish areas and led to the election of
patriotic Kurdish deputies to parliament. The AKP
won more than 60 percent of the Kurdish vote, which
means that they are happy with it. This means that
carrying out armed actions against this party serves
only chauvinist forces in Turkey.
Regarding the presence of PKK combatants in Iraq,
our constitution clearly forbids the continued
presence of foreign armed forces on Iraqi territory
or using such forces to launch armed attacks on
neighboring countries. But what can we do? We want
the party to depart from the Kurdistan Region and
return to its own country where there is more
difficult mountainous terrain, a larger territory,
and there it can do what it wants. Iraq does not
approve of the presence of the PKK combatants and
their armed acts. It cannot tolerate them when they
go into Turkey and kill people then return to our
territory, thus providing an excuse for other forces
to attack our areas. What we can do is condemn these
acts but we do not have sufficient military forces
to send them to the Qandil Mountains to drive them
out. We need our military forces to maintain
security in
Baghdad's streets and to fight terrorism.
I wish to state that we are willing to operate
within the tripartite committee with Turkey and the
United States to put an end to the PKK's activities
in Iraqi Kurdistan and to confine them to the Qandil
Mountains. At any rate we do not want to allow them
to benefit from the current situation.
(Awsat) Does this mean that as a first step
you wish to drive them out of the populated areas?
(Talabani) We
drove them out of the cities and are trying to make
them leave all the other populated areas. We wish to
prevent them from using facilities including
contacting parties abroad, bringing sums of money
from abroad, and transporting persons from Europe to
Iraqi Kurdistan. We need to put an end to all this.
We closed down their offices in the Iraqi cities
including Baghdad. They used to operate offices in
these cities under various guises.
(Awsat) The Turkish Government wants you to
arrest their leaders who are present on Iraqi
territory.
(Talabani) We
cannot do that. How can we arrest the leaders who
are present in the mountains and surrounded by
thousands of men? The Turkish army, with all its
power, cannot do that. How can we do it?
(Awsat) What, then, does Nuri al-Maliki mean
by his comment about eradicating their bases?
(Talabani) I do
not think that this is accurate talk. The prime
minister and I have the same view, namely, that we
cannot send sufficient Iraqi forces to fight the PKK.
(Awsat) Some voices in the Kurdish parliament
have criticized the government's security
cooperation agreement with Turkey. They are saying
that the Kurdish parliament did not view the text of
this agreement.
(Talabani)
Pluralism is part of Iraqi democracy. As president,
I have viewed the agreement and it has a provision
stating that Turkish military intervention is
inadmissible. However, it provides for cooperation
to combat terrorist activity whether it is carried
out against Iraq or Turkey. Moreover it is not true
that the Kurds did not view the text of the
agreement. I told them that I viewed it and that
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who is also a Kurd
and member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, viewed
it. The deputy Prime Minister, also a Kurd, viewed
it. There are extremist voices among all parties but
they represent only themselves.
(Awsat) Are you still clinging to your
opinion of ruling out the likelihood of an extensive
Turkish military action? Have you received US or
European assurances in this regard?
(Talabani) I
still rule out extensive Turkish military
intervention. Everybody is against it, the United
States, Europe, and NATO. I have other reasons to
rule it out, including the fact that Recep Tayyip
Erdoganis a good and wise man. He understands that
military intervention will not solve the problem or
produce concrete results. Additionally the text of
the resolution passed by the Turkish National
Assembly speaks about intervention against
combatants and leaves civilians out of it.
Furthermore Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi
conveyed to us observations that the Turkish
officials promised him that no military action was
imminent.
Personally I understand Prime Minister Erdogan's
position. He is coming under strong pressure from
hard-line nationalist forces and from the country's
armed forces. All of them are criticizing the AKP
because it is not adopting strong positions on the
issue. In brief I hope that the leaders of the armed
Kurds will understand that Kurdish interest requires
them not to subject the Kurdistan Region to danger.
What we have in Kurdistan is a historic gain that we
achieved in legal ways, in accordance with
constitutional provisions and with the central
government's approval. The government of Kurdistan
has provided significant services to the Kurdish
people. Consequently it is in the Kurds' interest to
preserve this entity. Today there is a democratic
climate in Turkey that is favorable to the Kurds.
This climate should not be spoiled by reckless acts
that have not and will not produce any positive
results.
(Awsat) What about the US assurances?
(Talabani) The
United States announced in the words of its
President that it opposes military intervention. Is
this not an assurance?
(Awsat) I mean, have the Americans informed
you that Turkey will not carry out a military
incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan?
(Talabani) They
state everyday that they oppose intervention. The
Turks themselves are saying that they do not want to
invade the region and hurt the Kurds. They are
saying that a military act would be confined to the
PKK combatants. I believe that if the PKK combatants
halt their operations inside Turkey, no intervention
will occur.
(Awsat) It has been said that Al-Hashimi was
not officially instructed to carry out his Ankara
mission.
(Talabani) I
believe that the initiative that the vice president
carried out was commendable, positive, and
excellent. It has my full support. I believe that
brother [Vice President] Adil Abdul-Mahdi also
supports the initiative. Hence you may regard it as
an initiative by the Presidency Council. I do not
know if Al-Hashimi coordinated his Ankara visit with
the prime minister or not. Whatever the case, it was
a commendable initiative.
(Awsat) The initiative was criticized by Al-Maliki's
adviser Sami al-Askari.
(Talabani) Sami
al-Askari talks too much.
(Awsat) Do you have anything to add to your
former comment on the remarks made by Syrian
President Bashar al -Assad regarding a Turkish
military intervention in Iraqi Kurdistan?
(Talabani) I
heard President Al-Assad's remarks with my own ears
and saw him making them on television. First of all
I believe that these are very serious remarks that
conflict with the spirit of Arab solidarity and the
spirit of Syrian-Iraqi solidarity and cooperation.
How could the president of an Arab country support
military intervention against the Republic of Iraq?
This is a very serious matter that hurts relations
between the two countries.
Personally I have always refrained from commenting
on Syria's positions out of my desire to preserve
our longstanding ties with Syria. However, this time
I cannot tolerate this serious position that goes
beyond all bounds. The Syrian president would have
done better to say the same thing as the Americans
and Europeans, namely, that he prefers a political
solution despite his understanding of Turkey's
position.
(Awsat) How do you explain these remarks?
(Talabani) I
think the question should be put to the Syrians
themselves. I wonder why Syria did this despite the
fact that we have reached agreement on numerous
matters. I personally visited Syria. My deputy Adil
Abdul-Mahdi visited it. The prime minister visited
it. The Syrian foreign minister visited us. We have
joint committees that are working on projects. I am
really astonished by this unfriendly stance towards
Iraq.
(Awsat) The oil bill and the fact that the
government of Kurdistan has signed oil agreements
have been the subject of criticism. Are you not
afraid that this will create tension?
(Talabani) The
cabinet and the five-member command council approved
the bill. It has been referred to the Council of
Representatives, which will undoubtedly approve it.
Our problem is that many people do not read the
texts of laws and resolutions carefully. The law
says that the oil is a national resource and that
its revenues will go to the central state, which in
its turn will distribute it to the provinces
according to the size of their populations and
needs. Similarly final contracts are in the central
state's hands although the regions have the right to
make some contracts, but the final form of the
contracts is in the hands of the central government.
If it does not approve them, the contracts will not
go into effect. Regarding the Kurdistan Region's
contracts, they do not deal with oil production and
exploitation but with the initial stage of oil
exploration. When we reach the stage of production
and exploitation, we need to go back to Baghdad in
accordance with Article 12 of the Iraqi
Constitution.
Hence we can see that the Kurdish positions are
being misrepresented. The regional government there
actually insists that the oil is an Iraqi resource,
that its revenues should go to the central
government in Baghdad, and that the final contracts
should be signed in the center. Some problems arise
from the fact that certain provisions of the
constitution are not well understood. Articles 100
through 112 give the regions the right to
participate in drawing up and managing the
contracts. Why are regions given the right to take
part in the management? It is because in the past
Kurdish and Arab oil-producing regions were deprived
of their share of the revenue. The Kurds have not
made any demand to monopolize the oil and its
revenues. We implement the relevant constitutional
provisions and believe that oil revenues should be
shared and distributed equally and fairly to all
Iraqi regions without exception.
(Awsat) According to some circles, the law
deprives some regions of their share of oil
revenues.
(Talabani) This
is wrong. It violates the constitution and the law
that is now being examined by the Council of
Representatives.
(Awsat) When will a vote be held over this
law?
(Talabani) The
question should be put to the Council of
Representatives.
(Awsat) When will the referendum over Kirkuk
be held?
(Talabani) It
was not possible to hold the referendum this year
because the census was not complete and the
normalization of the situation had not been
finished. Normalization is now underway. A committee
chaired by the minister of science and technology
has begun to pay reparations to the families that
wish to return to their original homelands. Those
who do not wish to return will not be expelled but
they will not have the right to participate in the
referendum to determine the fate of Kirkuk.
(Awsat) This means that they will become
second-rate citizens, is that not so? Will this not
inflame ethnic and confessional tensions?
(Talabani) There
is no reason for such tensions because what is being
done is an attempt to rectify errors that the former
regime perpetrated. It tried to alter the city's
demographic character and impose Arabization by
force. I wish to note that what we plan to do is
mentioned in Article 112 of the Constitution. We
wish to implement this provision while taking into
account the rights of the Turkomen, Chaldeans,
Assyrians, and the Arabs who had lived in Kirkuk
from the start. I advocate that we turn Kirkuk into
another Brussels with Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians,
Chaldeans, and Turkomen living together. If we view
the issue from a humanitarian, normalization
perspective, there will be no reason for problems.
Chauvinist Kurds are saying: Kirkuk is a Kurdish
city and non-Kurds should leave. Chauvinists from
the other side are speaking in similar terms.
However, if we regard Kirkuk as a city of fraternity
and justice, there will be no problem.
(Awsat) There is a certain US inclination to
reduce the military presence in Iraq, indeed to
withdraw from Iraq. What is your opinion on this
issue? How do you view the future of the US presence
in Iraq?
(Talabani) The
best solution is to train, arm, and equip the Iraqi
forces. We want their number to be increased to
15-17 divisions. Currently we have 12 divisions. It
is possible to complete this process by the end of
2008. It is useful in this respect to use the help
of the military experience of former cadres. For
example, my military adviser is staff Lt Gen Wafiq
al -Samarrai, who was director of military
intelligence during the Saddam Hussein era.
Additionally it is necessary to continue arming the
members of the Iraqi police force. Currently only
one out of every five policemen has a weapon.
Recently we concluded an agreement with China to
supply our police force with light firearms. When we
have well-trained army troops and police forces, we
will gradually be able to do without the foreign
military presence and the coalition forces. So far
we have taken over security in eight Iraqi
governorates. By the end of 2008 we will have taken
responsibility for security in all the governorates.
The question then becomes: Will we need the US
forces after that?
My answer is this: As long as a foreign threat
exists and as long as we cannot repulse it and
prevent the larger neighboring countries from
intervening in our affairs, the answer is that we
will continue to need the US military presence. Are
we today able to prevent a Turkish intervention?
Will we be able to prevent Iran from intervening in
our country in the future? If we ensure that no
foreign intervention will occur and if we succeed in
training and equipping our military forces, we will
be able to tell the foreign military forces: Thank
you and goodbye. In my estimation, the United States
can withdraw 100,000 men by the end of 2007. The
remaining forces can withdraw from the cities to
three or four bases and when we no longer need them,
they can depart.
(Awsat) Are there any plans to conclude a
long-term defense agreement with Washington by which
the US forces will remain in Iraq?
(Talabani) We,
the five leaders, have asserted the need to
establish a strategic cooperation with the United
States. If we reach agreement with Washington over a
formula that is suitable to both sides, we will sign
such an agreement. The agreement will organize the
presence of these forces and the duration of their
stay. Now I wish to return to the issue of the US
forces' withdrawal. I wish to assert that what is
intended is a withdrawal, not a flight. I have met
with US officials and with US presidential
candidates. All of them agree that the withdrawal
should be an organized affair. They consider an
immediate withdrawal a disaster for both sides.
(Awsat) The Iraqi-US relationship is in some
ways a tripartite Iraqi-US-Iranian relationship. How
will you succeed in maintaining balance if things
get worse and reach the point of a military conflict
between Washington and Tehran?
(Talabani) I do
not see the matter in this way. On one side we have
relations with Washington and on the other we have
relations with Tehran. We operate on the basis of
what is good for Iraq. It is in our interest to have
good relations with Iran on condition that it should
not meddle in our affairs. At the same time we are
seeking to have good relations with the Arab
countries. Personally I am making efforts to improve
Iraq's relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan,
and Syria. It is in our interest to have good ties
with our Arab environment. Regarding the likelihood
of a war between Iran and the United States, we
cannot prevent such a war. What I can say is that we
seek to have good relations with both countries. The
US-Iranian relationship is complex. Iran is now
playing a role in trying to convince Al-Mahdi's Army
and other groups over which it has influence to
maintain calm and refrain from causing problems.
This is a new and commendable attitude.
aawsat com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 