Nouri al-Maliki discusses elections, Kurdish issues with Rudaw

Rudaw's Shahyan Tahseen spoke with former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on August 19, discussing a wide range of topics including the upcoming elections, attacks on Erbil, relations with the Kurdistan Region, and the Iraqi constitution.

The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Translation by Layal Shakir 

Rudaw: We are about to have early elections and we still don’t know if the elections will happen or not. Do you think the elections will be held on October 10? 

I will not talk about possibilities, but I will talk about the decision that is approved and adopted by most political blocs, the government and the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC). The election has to be held on the set date, October 10 for many reasons related to the national interest, the need to maintain order, develop the country and to overcome challenges.  God willing, the election is a starting point to head in a better direction. That’s why it’s necessary, because it will contribute to reform and providing what is needed for the stability, security and the wellbeing of the Iraqi people. The decision was made by the IHEC, the government, the United Nations (UN) and all other related parties. Yes, there is a [different] opinion amongst some of our partners. We respect their opinion whether they participate or refuse to participate [in the elections], this is their right. But, from our side, we hope and ask them to be partners in the election process, to prepare themselves for participating in this election so they can be partners in the correction, construction and reconstruction that await Iraq. But the decision remains theirs. We respect it and we respect what they decide, but when we are asked about our position, we hope they will join us.  They must have their own motives and justifications as why they don’t want to participate, but we still hope and expect that they will all participate in the election on the set date. 

At first, you doubted the integrity of the elections, and as the State of Law coalition, you had your own conditions regarding holding the elections on time. Now, you are firm on them taking place. What changed?   

Our worries have not gone, to be honest. Our fears of possible counterfeiting remain, and that’s why we are still in meetings with the political powers, the IHEC, the UN and the supreme security committee about the elections. A few days ago we had a meeting with the prime minister where we discussed important topics for the success of the election process, most importantly the fear of electronic fraud, because we will be working with electronic equipment customized for the elections which speeds up the results. We are still talking about this topic, and we are still appealing for votes to be counted manually as well as electronically. If the results match, then we have confirmed the safety and integrity of the elections, and if they differ, then we will have the manual counting and sorting. There are some other disagreements between us and the commission, including the matter of photos, the matter of old cards that can be used more than once, but this doesn’t impact the decision for the elections to be more integrated and fair, more comprehensive and [to give] the most opportunity to those who want to participate in the elections. 

Regarding the manual counting, the commission declined your request. 

It is not only a request from us. We submitted an appeal on behalf of the others brothers who were unanimous in the necessity of manual counting and sorting. We submitted a request, the commission rejected the request and we submitted an appeal to the judicial authority. We are waiting for a decision today or tomorrow. If it says yes, then we will proceed with the manual counting and sorting. It might reject it, and if it rejects it then we will proceed with electronic counting and sorting and here we will emphasize to the commission that there has to be real monitoring, and an international company that is able to watch the electronic equipment and the chances of them being tampered with, because if electronic tampering happens, God forbid, it’s dangerous. One click will change the results. 

Do you feel that there is pressure on the commission, especially from some parties?

We don’t feel that there is pressure on the commission but the commission works with its own conviction. We believe the commission needs to be more flexible and to be more able to listen to the political blocs and stakeholders. We have commented on this and have asked the commission and the head of the committee to respond to us, because it’s not a personal issue or a party issue: it’s the issue of a country and if, God forbid, the elections are forged, the effects will be long-lasting. 

Don’t you think that a boycott or the continuation of Sayyed [Muqtada] al-Sadr’s boycott of the elections may ignite the Iraqi street? 

I don’t think there is a connection between Sayyed al-Sadr’s will to boycott the elections, and the Iraqi street. And I think that it’s in no one’s favor for the Iraqi street to be ignited, and no one has any interest in postponing or cancelling the elections because if it’s postponed or canceled, it will not be held again. We are keen that the Iraqi street doesn’t ignite, and that is our request from the political powers and anyone that holds a weapon, for them to assist the supreme security committee in order to maintain security so the Iraqis, blocs, candidates and voters can practice their complete freedom. I rule out any possibility that the Iraqi street will be ignited. 

Some say Sadr’s refusal to participate in the elections means that the political process will not succeed. 

No. Participating or not participating is a right for the blocs. The elections remain with those who participate, if the required quorum is achieved in the process of participation, it is considered legal, official and legitimate. I don’t think there is a connection between not participating in the elections and legitimacy. 

Those that are boycotting the elections, do you think they will change their opinion a few days or hours before the elections? 

That’s what we hope for. That’s what we hope for and work towards, to change their minds and to be partners in the political process. All those who announced a boycott, not only the Sadrist movement but Dr Ayad Allawi, Sayyed Salih al-Mutlaq, the Communist party, and new powers… we will reach out to them and contact them and ask them to change their minds. We don’t want anyone to, one day, say that they weren’t a part of this political process. 

There was an attempt by you, I think, to ease the tension between you and Sayyed al-Sadr. What was his response?

I have said many times that I don’t want any crisis or conflict with any constituent, any party, any nation, and my arms are open to everyone. Once again, my arms are open to whoever wants to start a new page of concord and reconciliation, let’s call it that, of sharing, especially with the parties with whom we are partners and share a history, like the Sadrist movement. We hope that we can review our relations and reach a consensus that preserves friendship and relations and strengthens national action.

What was Sadr’s response? 

I don’t have any contact on this topic. I talk through satellite channels; I haven’t received any response through satellite or private channels. There are other people that have talked about this and I reaffirmed that I welcome all the agreements and outstretched hands for whoever wants overcome the complications from the past.

Regarding the State of Law’s participation, how many parliamentary seats are you expecting to get? 

I don’t speak in the language of numbers. 

You are the master of numbers. 

No. The numbers are related to conditions and factors. Will there be a big turnout? We will have more results. Will the Iraqi people hold back from attending the elections? We will less luck, just like in the previous elections. That’s why I don’t speak about numbers because I honestly can’t predict. I speak of what I see and hear and watch. We have a good reputation; we are accepted in all the districts of the Iraqi street. We are well accepted, which we predict will be reflected on the ballots, and we will have a presence like that of our brothers and partners. 

If you get enough seats, do you aspire to a third term as president?

First, the topic of presidency is not connected with the number of seats, because there is no party that can gain more than half of the parliament, it’s impossible. I am not looking to be the prime minister; I am looking for real reform of the administrative system and political system in the country. And if it falls upon me to choose among the participants, then I am a servant of the Iraqi people. 

Do you think the government will be formed immediately or will it take time like the previous governments? 

If the commission does actually get the results in 24 hours, the situation today is easier for naming candidates for the three presidencies. Because it’s almost known, even if it’s not constitutionally proven, that the presidency is for Kurds, the presidency of the parliament is for the Sunnis, and the prime minister is for Shiites. Here in this time, we work democratically, and democracy talks about the national majority that Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and all participate in. I believe these groups will be able to name its candidates for the positions or for the three presidencies in a quick way. 

You have strongly criticized UNAMI head Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, and your coalition has for called for her to be replaced. Hennis-Plasschaert has expressed the same fears as other politicians. Is it justified? 

I didn’t strongly criticize her. But, I reminded of something and said that the UNAMI, whom was signed to be in Iraq during my time, I signed for the necessity to benefit from the UNAMI, the United Nations, in supporting the Iraqi government in what it [the government] asks. UNAMI is a project for the Iraqi government to ask for help and assistance from in the elections or other than elections. She doesn’t have a decision above the Iraqi government; it only assists the government.  There were statements that unfortunately disturbed the atmosphere. I reminded Mrs. Jeanine; I reminded all UNAMI that I hope they return to the origin of the agreement, which was approved by UNAMI, that there is no authority to intervene, but there is authority to respond to the requests of the Iraqi government. We didn’t say anything more than that. 

You called for dialogue to change the system to presidential or semi-presidential. Why do you want to change the Iraqi system from parliamentary to presidential? 

I didn’t suggest it strongly, but this has been my opinion for a long time. The parliamentary system hasn’t succeeded in Iraq, and I say it honestly. It has complications, it needs to mature, it needs a lot of things to be effective. The parliamentary system is criticized worldwide, and system in America, Iran and other countries is a presidency because it summarizes the crisis that can be in the framework of the parliament and the disagreements between blocs, lists, components, blackmails and so on. I don’t covet for anything, nor me nor the State of Law or the Dawa party, but I believe Iraq achieves stability by having a strong elected president, that is elected directly, not through bargaining, negotiations, agreements and giving and taking, but by the Iraqi people, and he will form his own government and will be accountable in front of the people. In my opinion, this is strength in the political system and that’s why I wish we and the Iraqi people reconcile to a presidency. But, from a practical aspect, can the shift from parliamentary to presidency happen? The constitution would need to be changed, and our constitution is dead. It is not adjustable because any article that is suggested, the people have to vote for it. And every suggested article that is opposed by one third of provinces is rejected. If a decision has been agreed upon by Shiites but the Sunnis refuse it, then three Sunni provinces or three Kurdish provinces will hold the decision. That’s why, if there’s no agreement between all the groups and blocs, we can never switch to the presidential system. 

Other than the presidential system being unconstitutional, don’t you think it will turn Iraq to a dictatorship once again? 

A presidential system bounded by a constitution and a parliament, not a presidential system like Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath regime. We don’t want that, and we don’t want to go back to such an atmosphere. A presidential system where the process of running the state is carried out in a harmonious and unified manner, for which an elected president is responsible. And the elected president is not absolute; he is bound by a constitution like constitutional monarchies…his authorities are the ones he takes from the constitution, and he is under the supervision and control of the parliament. He can’t turn into a dictator, otherwise the parliament can remove him.

Do you not think that the Prime Minister has great powers, faces various obstacles from armed groups or political blocs that prevent him from exercising these powers?

The prime minister is under pressure from conflicts that happen in the parliament between the blocs that look at their own interests. We don’t blame anyone for thinking of their own interests, because that’s politics, but achieving national interests comes before party and other interests. The prime minister, as you said, has great authority and using them in a harmonious atmosphere may be enough, if he was agreed upon and chosen. But if the atmosphere is like the one we are in now, then the prime minister faces challenges, where he is unable to practice his full authority because he will collide with this group, collide with that bloc and he will be removed.  

Let’s move to foreign relations. It was very strange to me and the audience that we didn’t see you at Ebrahim Raisi’s inauguration, even though a number of Iraqi politicians and party leaders were present. What is the reason? Were you invited but rejected the invitation, or are there other reasons? 

Firstly, I have a very old friendship with President Raisi and I have met him more than once. Secondly, they sent me an invitation when only three people were invited from Iraq, I was one of them, and I had decided to attend. But, when it got close, I suspected I had the coronavirus and that doubt prevented me from going. I didn’t’ boycott. That was the only barrier. 

Where will the relations between Iraq and Iran in Raisi’s era go? What do you think will happen? 

For the Islamic Republic, the debate which existed between conservatives and reformists may have led to gaps in political unity. Today the political system is almost unified in the Islamic Republic in the presidency of the republic and the supreme leader of the revolution are all from the line of conservatives. This will enable Iran to progress more in solving challenges that the Islamic Republic faces. I believe that this will be stabilizing, but it doesn’t mean that reformists will be excluded and pushed out of the political process. If the Islamic Republic wants more stability, it will make the reformists its partners in the devolution of power…the Islamic Republic is on the same path as seen in world powers or countries that depend on two political systems..  I hope this process of devolving power become a strength point to the Iranian authorities and not a point of conflict. 

You spoke of America. Do you support the complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq? 

This has become a controversial topic; it was referred to parliament and the parliament voted unanimously on it. The parliament can’t unless it’s unanimous. I believe it doesn’t need the parliament and it’s not in its powers because the government that asked for the American military assistance was based on the framework of the agreement that we signed in 2008. The invitation is based on a signed agreement that the parliament has ratified. So it was the government’s responsibility to ask the US forces to leave when they were no longer needed. The agreement was that having foreign bases in Iraq wasn’t possible because the system and the constitution don’t allow the presence of foreign bases on Iraqi territory.  But we have relations and a strategic framework with America, and interests and weapons that we bought from them and the people using these weapons will need experience, training, competencies and skills that whoever has sold the weapon has to bring. Iraq needs this American training and rehabilitation within the agreement, or dialogue. The understanding from PM’s visit to the US is the mission of the US forces will shift from combat to training, and by the end of this year there will be no combat troops or combat weapons in Iraq. We will still need the presence of troops for training, rehabilitation and support. 

Do you think that the withdrawal of the US forces will decrease or increase outside interference especially in the southern cities where there was demonstrations against the Iranian forces and in the Kurdistan Region and the disputed areas? There are 70 Turkish military bases and points in Iraq. 

Did US forces stop these military bases? Did it stop the Turkish bombing that is happens every day in villages in Duhok and Amedi, and the Kurdish areas that are [being bombed] under the pretext of targeting the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)? We of course don’t let any side or party attack Turkey from Iraq, so it doesn’t justify the bombardment. But the US forces didn’t stop that, and they couldn’t stop it. Turkish bases are growing and expanding. But, regarding the US military bases and the presence of US military, I think, with the presence of Iraqi forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and the new weapons and all of the experience in fighting Daesh [ISIS,] I think Iraq…is able to control the security situation.  There will still be some terrorist movements here and there that the Iraqi forces will chase daily as you hear in the news. I believe Iraq is now more capable of controlling its security situation. It needs experience, intelligence, and training. US troops will be supportive of Iraq too. We welcome these troops to stay in Iraq. 

You might ask about Afghanistan. What happened there will not happen in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is not like in Afghanistan. 

What is the difference between them? 

The difference between them is that the Taliban wasn’t over; it stayed in cities and towns, its weapons and its presence were not eliminated. In Iraq, Daesh was eliminated, and only remnants remain. Sometimes these remnants expand and shrink, but it’s not at the level to conquer one street. Since we hit Daesh, it hasn’t been able to take over one village. They do hit-and-run attacks, they can never be like the Taliban and the way it invaded the majority of the cities of Afghanistan. Iraq has forces of the PMF as well as other military forces that can break any other force that want to control the area. 

Are you satisfied with the behavior of some armed factions affiliated with the PMF, including what happened recently in the Green Zone? 

For us, the PMF’s establishment was a response a challenge. The PMF was a national response after ISIS emerged, and the Iraqi people unanimously supported and participated in it, especially after the fatwa was issued by the supreme authority in Iraq. Therefore, the PMF for us is sacred, because it gave thousands of martyrs to liberate Iraq and break the will of ISIS and those who stood with ISIS. We do not accept the PMF or those affiliated with them to carry out any violations, because any violation from the sacred [PMF] will be considered great, because they are affiliated with the PMF which came about as a national response. We don’t accept any violation against the system and the constitution. Regarding what you mentioned about appearing in Baghdad or other provinces, we denounced and condemned the acts in announcements and statements, and we will never accept it. We do not want a weapon that opposes or competes with that of the state. Every weapon in the state must be subject to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and bound by the rules of military and security operations.

You played a major role in mediating between the government and the PMF during the recent events in the Green Zone. These armed groups, affiliated with the PMF, do not listen to anyone and sometimes deviate from the Iraqi will. How are they controlled?

We do not accept them deviating from the Iraqi will or the established military system. We only accept that it moves according to the tasks assigned to it by the state, and that it is committed to the recommendations of the government and the supervision of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This is what we say and we do not retreat from it, and if there are violations, I say that the government must confront those who break law and order them to return to law and order. The responsibility of the government and the responsibility of the political forces that participated in the government is to maintain commitment, public order and security, and there should not be a weapon on the street that frightens citizens or breaks the prestige of the state. For us, the prestige of the state takes precedence over everything, because the prestige of the state is reflected in the economic, security, psychological, health, political and educational fields. A state without prestige means a state that is not governed by law and is considered a failed state.

Do these factions not question the prestige of the state?

Going out in the street armed with all kinds of weapons without the knowledge and without the approval of the government is considered a violation of the prestige of the state.

Factions and groups affiliated with the PMF targeted Erbil in rocket and drone attacks, and you chose silence. Investigations proved that the factions were from the Nineveh region.  

No, I do not have a firm belief that it is the PMF, and that is why I say that some actions, even some that targeted the American embassy, I ask questions and follow up and they have denied it, they say it’s not from us. But there is a third party that wants to cause sedition. I doubt that what happened in Erbil was also caused by those who want to cause strife between the region and the central government, but I also say it frankly that we do not accept rockets attacks on any area. I have said it and I say it now, with regard to the American embassy and others, as long as they are in Iraq with the approval and knowledge of the Iraqi government and according to the diplomatic laws, they protect our embassy and we protect theirs, I do not accept even from a legal point of view for an embassy to be targeted…our decision is we want the US embassy to remain valid in its dealings and presence, and [our] relations with the US, and indeed with all countries of the world, we want them to remain in place. In regards to the increased targeting of areas in Kurdistan, I reject it and will never accept it, and I think that this process of expanding the crisis will be tiring for the government and tiring for the political forces, tiring for Iraq in general.

This year in particular, there were many attacks. Why did you not condemn them at the time?

I did not issue statements on any of the attacks, but when the Prime Minister calls me or we meet, I express my clear opinion, and everyone knows my opinion reject these operations. I have said repeatedly that I do not accept and will never accept for an armed force affiliated to the prime minister and commander-in-chief of the armed forces to encircle the Republican Palace. This is the height of chaos, and I told them this is a scandal in front of the world. It is unacceptable, we will not accept it no matter who you are and what your position has been with us and support in fighting terrorists. We don’t accept violating the sanctity of the state and its institutions. 

How are your relations with the Kurdistan Region, specifically with Masoud Barzani?

My relationship with Masoud Barzani didn’t start today, or after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, or when I was prime minister. My relationship with him goes back to the days of struggle and jihad when our military headquarters were located next to the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Badinan and other areas. Our relation is old and our friendship is old, and I can say that the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Islamic Dawa Party are the two parties that were most targeted by the Baath Party regime with its mass executions. Challenges brought us together, confrontation brought us together, and struggle brought us together. Martyrs and sacrifices brought us together, both for the Dawa party, when an execution order was enacted for anyone who is affiliated with, promoted, or protected the Islamic Dawa party, and for the Kurdish side as well, when the Anfal and the chemical attacks happened. My relation with Masoud Barzani was good, and still is. Three or four days ago, we discussed common issues, and perhaps I will soon visit him, because he has invited me more than once, and as corona prevented me from participating in Raisi’s inauguration, it also prevented me from traveling to Kurdistan.

Why did issues surface between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Iraqi Federal Government? They surfaced in 2013 I think. Why?

They started before 2013, in 2007 and 2006. I don’t think the issues would end even if we had 100 agreements. Whenever the budget comes, we will be in an agreement where the budget should be legislated on. I am honest and I have relations with the brothers in the region. I speak frankly with Mr. Masoud, with brother Nechirvan, even with the late Jalal Talabani. I told them repeatedly that we will not reach a stage of consensus and harmony that supports the federal system and supports Kurdistan’s stability and supports Iraq in general, as long as Iraq is not stable and part of it is foreign, whether it is Kurdistan, western or southern. This can only be done when we complete the process of implementing the laws referred to in the constitution, and the most important laws are the oil and gas law, which must regulate this issue, which has raised many problems between the region and Baghdad and the law for the distribution of financial resources, considering that the state's money is distributed according to the approved population ratios among the groups involved in the political process. In 2007, we wrote the oil and gas law because I was aware that we needed this law in order to stabilize the relationship and so that the region knows what it has and what it owes, and Baghdad knows what it has and what it owes. We unanimously agreed in the cabinet on the draft law, and referred it to the parliament, but unfortunately it remains there. It has not been raised, and unless we reach an agreement on this law and the law on the distribution of financial resources, we will continue to disagree on every budget. I invite the other brothers, and I said it repeatedly, even a few days ago…do not think that we will settle down and the relationship will be stable as long as this law is not implemented as in the constitution.

There is an opinion on the Kurdish street that says that the State of Law, or Dawa party, is one of the biggest opponents of the budget agreement. Is this true?

I do not know of these opinions. First, the budget is a set of items, chapters, and issues related to building the state, stabilizing the financial and security situation, and everything else. Yes, we have an objection to some of its provisions, but are we the biggest opponents? No. And if we were the only opponents, we would not have had a sufficient number of deputies to oppose it..We were among those who agreed in the end, it would not have ended the issue of the differences raised by the budget, but we wanted Iraq to go on the path of the process of stability.

Kurdish leadership always says that our problems with the Iraqi government are not only about the budget and salaries, but they are deeper problems, for example Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution. During your tenure as prime minister, there was a leak of a meeting between you and some of the parties and the leaders of Kirkuk, where you say that this article was never implemented during your presidency.

We said it wasn’t implemented or we don’t want to implement it? 

Article 140 was not implemented during your presidency. Is this the right time to implement the article now?

First, whether I agree or disagree with the constitution, I am committed to it as long as the Iraqi people voted for it, and as long as article 140 of the constitution is constitutional, I am committed to it, and perhaps if you ask the Kurdish brothers, they will tell you how much of that article I implemented. I implemented all the issues related to article 140 and prepared the land. I prepared the houses, I withdrew the villages that Saddam Hussein had created, and we fixed all the demographic changes. 

Only the first part of the article.

Yes, that is what is required; I completed the process of carrying out the procedures. Even when we were in Dohuk, we had a meeting with the brothers in leadership, Mam Jalal, may God have mercy on him, brother Masoud and the rest of the members. Masoud Barzani asked why article 140 was not implemented, and I told him to ask Mam Jalal. Mam Jalal told him that the case is no longer at the government, it has returned to the presidency. Talabani said that the presidency must submit a draft law to parliament setting the boundaries of the governorates and the boundaries of the districts. Then Barzani asked why we didn’t do it. Talabani said we rejections from Sunni representatives, Shiite representatives accept and the other rejects, so we can’t do it. I told him the issue is no longer with us, it is no longer with the government. The government has accomplished what it has, and what remains has not been accomplished by the presidency. Therefore the demand of presenting a draft law from the presidency remained until it was submitted recently. I do not know how long ago the draft law was presented, but they responded to it with an absolute refusal. They said we will go back to the governorate borders from 1967, which is problematic as governorates will be abolished and created. We will return to 1981 or 1980 and this is also problematic, and the draft law, upon which the implementation of article 140 depends, is in the House of Representatives and has not been discussed. The parliament does not dare discuss it because of the fierce disagreements. The issue is neither with me nor with the government.

Where is it now? 

It’s at the parliament. 

At the parliament? 

At the parliament and the presidency.

I do not know if you are still close to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), as there are reports of disagreements between you and them.

Between us and them?

Between you and them because you didn’t appoint a vice president to Barham Salih. Were there any disagreements? What were they about? 

This is not true and the National Union [PUK] is not responsible for this. I didn’t have the will to appoint the position because it had no value. But for the National Union to be responsible for this disagreement, no. I received all the brothers from the PUK,  brother Pavel and brother Lahur, a delegation from Lahur came and a delegation from Pavel. I wanted to be a mediator to find a solution to the existing problems. My relationship with Mam Jalal and with the National Union is also a strong one. My relationship with Masoud Barzani does not mean that I have no relationship with the National Union. I have a relationship with all the Kurdish movements, and the relations are not the relations of today, but the relations of the old common struggle in the days when we faced dictatorship. Our relations are very good.

You mediated between different sides in the PUK. What is your position on these internal disputes?

I tried and called, but I was unable to do anything because it appears to be a deep issue. I received the brothers and each side talked about the situation and explained the issue and the existing crisis. I honestly do not want to be a party to one of the sides. But my words are with all the movements, even the non-Kurdish ones. When internal differences occur, I say to them: don’t you have an internal system? They say yes, and I say go to the bylaws and solve the problem according to the bylaws. You say that your internal system has appointed you a joint leadership. This joint leadership has the right of the general leadership, which is made up of 120 people, to meet and change the internal system and say we want one leadership, so please refer to the internal system, which is the party constitution. Therefore, the issue has now turned to the leadership in order to amend the internal system and hold elections, and whoever wins will be one president of the National Union. I encouraged this and supported this, because there is no other solution. Weapons are not a solution, differences are not a solution, the collapse of the National Union is not right, we do not accept it to collapse. We want it to remain, we want all Iraqi Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish political forces to remain coherent and committed within a framework of relationships and disciplines imposed on them to participate in the political process.

Do you have a message for the Kurdish people, since you will soon visit the Kurdistan Region? 

My only words are that I invite them to remain true partners, and for the Kurds and Arabs to remain present within the framework of the state and in the best friendly relations. I just want to say to the Kurdish brothers, rest assured, no decision will be made for you in Kurdistan if there is no stability in Iraq. And I want to say to the Arabs, both Shiites and Sunnis, that there is no stability if the situation in Kurdistan becomes turbulent and Kurdistan becomes a theater for foreign interventions. 

I hope that everyone, our Kurdish and non-Kurdish brothers, will be convinced that there is no luxurious and stable life on one side when others are in crisis. This is my message: come, brothers, let us meet on the common denominators that unite us, which is Iraq. Brothers, there are many good things in Iraq, if we make good use of them and use them well, we will live in prosperity and the whole of Iraq will develop. We want a stable Iraq that provides services to its entire people, from the mountains to the marshes. It is achievable but it needs openness. And I say to all Iraqis and our brothers, put aside the phenomenon of doubt about the other, because doubt has its own making and circumstances. You are brothers, you are partners, and what partnership is stronger than the partnership of blood, sacrifices and prisons?