PM Maliki announces his alliance for upcoming elections (AP)
"This upcoming debate on the election law is going to be very important in deciding how democratic the next elections will be. There is a lot at stake for everybody; there is a lot at stake for the people, there is a lot at stake for the political party leaders."With the upcoming elections in January, how is Iraq beginning to prepare for the elections, and what can you tell us about the different coalitions that are forming?
Well, Iraq already began to prepare for the elections weeks ago, if not months ago. There is definitely a great deal of activity and political repositioning taking place, partly inspired by the elections we had in January. The provincial elections in January indicated certain trends; some political players came out better, some lost out. The verdict of the electorate was very clear. Most political leaders in Iraq have tried to adjust themselves, taking their cue from the people. So it’s a very interesting time for Iraq.
What is the state of the elections law?
The election law is a work in progress. Parliament is supposed to look at it before the end of the term. There are major issues in it that need to be resolved. One of them is whether to deal with the whole country as one electoral district or to subdivide it into much more localized provincial districts. This has ramifications for representation and for each individual member of parliament, whether he or she has a local constituency to answer to or not. The general tendency is to go for local representation. That’s one element. Single district elections, on the other hand, favor small groups as it allows them to consolidate their votes.
The other issue is whether to have an “open list” or a “closed list.” In the open list, each political party has a list of candidates and a voter has the option of voting for particular named candidates, rather than an entire list or bloc. The closed list is the other way around; the voter can only vote for a bloc, i.e. the whole list. The open list makes a better connection between the elected member of Parliament and his constituency, but takes away some of the power of political party leaders, because they lose the ability to show their preferences by the ranking of members in the list. The last time we had elections they were based on the closed list model. For any bloc, votes are assigned starting with the first name on the list and going down. Candidates who are at the bottom of the list stand a smaller chance of getting elected. That way, candidates try their best to please their leaders, so that they are placed nearer to the top of the list next time. You can see the difference between the two. Politically, party leaders want to maintain their power through a closed list but there is a huge pressure from the people to go towards open list and that is something to be decided. This upcoming debate on the election law is going to be very important in deciding how democratic the next elections will be. There is a lot at stake for everybody; there is a lot at stake for the people, there is a lot at stake for the political party leaders.
Can you talk about the status of Iraq’s relations with its neighbors?
After Saddam’s regime was removed, a vacuum was created. It was filled in for awhile, and still to some extent, by the United States. The new regime—the new political order—is not yet consolidated, so you can argue that there is still a political and security vacuum. Each of the neighboring countries is eager to occupy all or part of this vacuum in order to protect their interests, and reflect their priorities. So there is strong temptation for all of our neighbors to intervene in ways that reflect their interests.
For that reason, the coming elections will not be an entirely internal affair between political players inside Iraq. All our neighboring countries will want to influence the outcome of the elections. That creates problems for us. Of course, we always say that our neighbors should be helpful and should refrain from interfering in our internal affairs. The reality is, the best defense against interference, is to strengthen our own institutions and political coherence inside the country. Anything beyond that is just wishful thinking. You cannot stop people, if there is a vacuum, from trying to fill it. Politics like nature does not like a vacuum. So, we have this challenge which we have to deal with.
Moving more towards the internal, can you speak about the governments’ efforts and more general efforts toward political reconciliation in the country, including efforts to integrate the Sons of Iraq?
Iraq has moved a long way from two or three years ago. Now all communities have asserted their disdain of and opposition to violence. On the Sunni side, they banished Al Qaeda, they drove extremists out of their communities and they have demonstrated that they want to be engaged in the political process through political means rather than using violence to achieve political aims. Likewise, Shiite extremists have been hit very hard and their communities have rejected them. The whole country has moved towards moderation and that bodes well for the future. There are tensions, there is competition, there are many, many issues that remain unresolved, but as long as we resolve them through political dialogue and political debate and even political competition, we are going to make progress, maybe slowly, but in the right direction. It is violence that we have to really keep under control and keep out of the political arena. And on that we have made huge progress in the last couple of years.
Along those lines, August was a very violent month in Iraq. Can you talk about the government’s efforts to stem that violence?
Well, extremists and terrorists don’t give up easily. They got hit hard. They no longer occupy or dominate any geographical part of Iraq. They used to have entire territories in which they had a degree of control and intimidated communities. Now they don’t have that. But that doesn’t mean their danger has vanished. They continue to want to prove that they can reach targets and they can inflict pain and show their strength. They usually go for headline-grabbing action with a high number of casualties. In this August attack, or series of attacks, they went for important state institutions, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance, and it was a challenge to the government and to the state.
We believe that this particular attack was different from the recent series of suicide attacks on soft targets, in marketplaces and other civilian targets, in that it was clearly orchestrated, organized and facilitated by powers that are outside Iraq. It is for this reason that Iraq has asked the international community to help—initially by appointing a high official from the United Nations to come to Iraq and look at the evidence that we have accumulated as a result of the investigations. Then, if that envoy determines that there is a case to be further investigated, perhaps we will go to the next steps in pursuing the culprits if they are, as we suspect, outside Iraq. But though this has been a painful blow to us, it is not going to deflect us from our path. It is not going to stop the political process, or create any political changes. It has been very painful nevertheless. We in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lost more than forty of our fine young people doing their jobs selflessly and devotedly; very nice people some of whom I know personally. It is atrocious and we want to prevent it from happening again in any way that we can.
Kirkuk has remained a flashpoint for Arab-Kurdish relations. Can you talk about the status of those relations at this point and in the context of the elections coming up in January?
Again, a lot of people talk about the Kurdish-Arab relationship with alarm. Perhaps this is overstated. Yes, there is tension in certain areas. Yes, there are different ways of looking at the future of Iraq, different views about this between Kurdish leaders and leaders of the federal government in Baghdad, in which they participate fully by the way. But it’s not to the level of seriousness that some observers make out. I go back to my remarks about the abandonment of violence. It is very heartening—very encouraging—to note that both the leaders in Arbil and the leaders in Baghdad insist all the time that there is no intention or possibility that they would resort to violence in resolving the disputes and differences between the two sides. This principle is clear. Everybody knows how awful, and unthinkable, it would be to go that way. Therefore, as long as we keep to that, and given time, these issues will be resolved within the context of a unified, federal Iraq.
There have been complaints about Iraqi oil development policy deterring foreign investment. Can you speak about what the government is doing to address these complaints?
I don’t know if these complaints are justified. We need to develop our oil sector, that’s for sure. It’s a vital sector for us. It is in need of development and Iraq has the potential to produce a lot more oil than it is producing at the moment. That would help us with our reconstruction. But this process is also a learning process. Recently, there was an attempt to attract international oil companies through a bidding round that was designed by the Ministry of Oil. That was only partially successful, but we all learned a lot from it. There is another round going on now, which we hope will be much more successful because both sides have learned how to do it better and what is important for the other side. So, it is a learning process, it is a process that initially is inevitably slow, but we hope will accelerate. We also need to promulgate our hydrocarbon law. The good thing is that our constitution is very clear that the entire hydrocarbon wealth of Iraq belongs to all the people. It does not belong to the region where it is found or the communities where the oil is found. So that is a unifying factor. The law will then clarify the modalities of managing this wealth and exploiting it. We are moving forward, maybe more slowly then we would like, but it’s not an easy task.
Finally, can you talk about the status of U.S.-Iraqi relations, and what you hope to see from the Obama administration?
I think that the status of our relations is very good, if not excellent. We have a framework for our relationship represented by the two agreements signed November of last year, namely, the Status of Forces Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement, both of which the Obama administration says it will respect and abide by. The first agreement, the SOFA, lays out a schedule for military disengagement from Iraq as Iraqi security forces become more and more able to handle the security situation. The first stage of that schedule, the 30th of June 2009, was actually implemented by the withdrawal of American forces from cities and towns in Iraq. That went smoothly. The cooperation between American and Iraqi security forces continues to be active and very positive without too many problems or hitches. In other words, we are on track with implementing this agreement. The other agreement, which is the Strategic Framework Agreement, is now coming into focus more and more, and through that we hope to build a long-term relationship with the United States based on close cooperation on a whole range of fronts: economic, political, diplomatic, technical and cultural. That shows the way for the future in an ever-closer alliance and friendship between the two countries and peoples.
