Redstate

"The solution should have a national project to save Iraq, not a sectarian project." vs. "The reason of violence in Iraq is the Americans staying here."

By AcademicElephant Posted in Special Events — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

By a series of hooks and crooks, I got into the Iraqi parliament to do interviews with MPs willing to talk to the western press. Since the bombing last week, the Council of Representatives has met regularly and made quorum, suggesting that AQI, which has claimed responsibility for the attack, did not achieve its objective.

I hope to get some time with members of other blocks in the future, but the fortuitous juxtaposition we found yesterday was enlightening. Both subjects are from the majority Shia sect, and both say they want a strong Iraq free from foreign intervention. The means they propose to achieve this goal, however, are radically different. You read one and are filled with hope for Iraq, the other and despair for the entire enterprise. It's particularly striking coming on the heels of my interview with Colonel Everett, in which he emphasized the crucial role of the parliament in the development of a free and peaceful Iraq. In the comparison between these two members of parliament we can see the battle being waged for the soul of Iraq. Ironically, these two men seemed extremely comfortable as they joked together before the interviews. Yet one is left with few doubts about the fate of the moderate at the hands of the radical, should push come to shove.

(I should note that I participated in these interviews with George Kilianas from Greek public television and Linda Robinson of USNews and World Report, so the questions are not all mine. I have tried to intervene in the transcripts as little as possible so that you can get the flavor of the conversation; Dr. Sharif speaks English and Mr. Rubaie uses an Iraqi interpreter.)

Read on...

Our first interview was with Dr. Bassam Sharif of the Fadhila block, which recently broke with the ruling Shia majority in protest over the sectarian nature of Iraqi politics.

How much agreement is there in your party on the accountability law--what they call de Baathification. Are you in favor of a new law? What is your position?

We write our particular law in 2004, how to deal with the al Baath. We suggest that the best way to deal with al Baath is the legal way, through justice. I mean party members of al Baath, small or large in the hierarchy, we deal with them legally. If they do harm to Iraqis or crimes to Iraqis in the court, to ask him about his crimes. And he will be found innocent or guilty, and if he has no crimes against the Iraqi people, if he is innocent, he can go and do his job in Iraqi society like any other person. But we suggest that during this transitional period when we want to build a new, democratic Iraq, those with high rank may not be allowed to be part of the parliament or in the ministries, like our President. Those who enter the court and are innocent, they should be allowed to do an ordinary job. But when Iraq is democratic and a settled country, all can enter the political ring, but not under the umbrella of al Baath. As individuals. But the new law, there is quite a controversy. It has not reached the parliament yet. When it arrives we can read it--they will give it to us to review--we can give our ideas about it. Because it is not before the parliament--they have said it is under discussion in the council of ministers. There are some changes in it--I hear there are some changes--and the last two drafts have not reached us until now--they will reach the Fadhila party and we will read it. Before one month [One month ago] I asked the Prime Minister and he said this new law would be discussed in the council of ministers and after this wide discussion he would send it to parliament but he did not indicate a time.

How would you feel about continuing to work--to stay in session later into July. Will the Council of Representatives continue to work into the summer?

According to the constitution, we have the break, and last summer we take from this break one month to work and we take one month only. But as you know it is our right to take the break--it is not should the government take the break. Can one take this right out because the situation in Iraq, it is miserable? The daily killing, the bloody bloody--Iraq has daily bloody killing. Can the government take this right away and continue its work? But I think that the government will take a break for one month or two months in the summer. July and August. The break is three months--in the constitution there is eight months work and four months break. Three months in the summer and one month in winter. June, July and August. We will take June for work and July and August for our break.

What do you think about the development of the provincial election law, with proposition 140 and Kirkuk? What do you think about holding the provincial elections without resolving Kirkuk, or does that have to happen first?

Until now there is no law for provincial elections--there is no draft of an election law in parliament. The provincial councils that there are now were elected in 2005 and are now still working. The problem that will effect the election is the problem of Kirkuk because Kirkuk, there are some Kurds who think Kirkuk is part of Kurdistan. And there has to be the measure to change the position of Kirkuk and make it part of Kurdistan. And the Turkoman and Arabs want to make Kirkuk independent--not related to anything, not to Kurdistan, not to us. This would effect how to write the official election law. Somebody in the government, they are always saying now we shouldn't do elections without Kirkuk because some party or some block of Iraqis like Sunni or the Sadrists, they are not part of the elections who took place in 2005. I think this is a particular problem that will effect the provincial election that should be written and subjected to discussion by the government. The only draft that has been under the eyes of the parliament is the draft of the town council law, which indicates the authority of the government and the authority of the town councils. Because you know the town councils--there are about 15 councils that are present in all the [regions] of Iraq except for Kurdistan--they are working according to law 71, which was written by Bremer. Until now, we have no Iraqi law. They are working according to Bremer's law, and there are many deficiencies in this law. There is no clear relationship between the governor and the town council. Between the council and parliament. Between the central government and the governors. They are hazy and not clear until now, so now, as you know there is a lot of trouble from time to time between the central and the local government because they are working according to the Bremer law, which was written on the 6th of April, 2004.

There are a lot of people in the US who are not sure the majority of the country, the Shia majority, would like to see the Sunni population to leave the country. What is the position of the Shia majority about the Sunni?

According to us, I am Shia, I am from the west, from al Kut. Nine years of my life, I lived in Mosul because I was a student in the medical college in Mosul. My neighbor was from Albanya, many of my friends are Sunni. Til now they call me and they like me. One friend, he works in a ministry and I help him. According to Fadhila we have no problem with the Sunni. We want the Sunni to live in Iraq, and I used to say it [I am used to saying it], I like all the people of Iraq--Sunni, Christian, even Jewish--Iraqi Jewish--I like them more than Muslim from outside Iraq. I like all Iraq. Iraq is formed from Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, Arab, Turkoman. All Iraqi should be held together and live in Iraq to make Iraq more and more--and better than any country in the world. Because Iraq is a rich country, and according to the population base there is no problem between the Iraqis. The problem is in the upper [echelons], with the politicians, especially those politicians who come from outside Iraq, who lived outside Iraq. They have many problems. There are many conflicts. The politicians who lived inside Iraq have no conflict against the Sunni or other Iraqi people. I lived in Iraq. I did not leave Iraq during the Saddam period.

Why so much violence? What will it take to stop so much violence--the car bombs and the sectarian killings? What's the solution?

The solution should have a national project to save Iraq, not a sectarian project. Our thinking should be national thinking, and anyone thinking in a sectarian way, he is follow a foreign agenda from Iran, Syria, Turkey, from Saudi--foreign. Many Iraqi parties they take their agenda from the outside. Some Shia need federalism in the south. The violence in Iraq will help them with their project. Some Sunni need to retain authority in Iraq. The violence helps them. So we need to make politicians' thinking into a national way of thinking of Iraq. Not thinking of the sectarian way, and to make confidence between the politicians of Iraq. There is this crisis--I called it a crisis of confidence between Iraqi politicians who encircle themselves with their sectarian or ethnic way. In Fadhila, we think the political process should be changed to the national way in order to solve the problems of Iraq.

What would you like to see happen in terms of the American involvement in Iraq? Would like to see a timetable for American withdrawal? Would you like to change the nature of American involvement?

The Americans from the start, they only hear from some of the politicians from Iraq, during Bremer. I think they should hear, or should take ideas from all Iraqis, not to hear from one or another. Some Iraqi politicians come with the USA, who had lived outside in London, in Iran in Saudi. They have not a complete idea of Iraq. There is Iraq from the inside, and they have a clear idea about the society and of Iraq--and we should hear from those, and take ideas from those also.

Second, America is responsible for the security of Iraq--they are still responsible. Any violence that occurs in Iraq is the responsibility of the USA of of the Iraqi government. Because until now, our security forces are very weak, their equipment is bad, there is no proportion between the terrorists--the terrorists are stronger than the security forces. The USA should not withdraw their troops until the Iraqi people make their security good, they can manage good, there is a confidence--the Iraqi people should trust their security personnel. There is a problem between the Iraqi people and the security forces because they are built the sectarian way. Iraqis think the Interior is Shia and the Defense is Sunni. The Sunnis fear Interior and the Shia fear Defense.

Is it true or just a perception?

To some extent, but it is not true 100%

As the interview concluded, Dr. Sharif told us that his first name, Bassam, translates as "smiling," and I believe it. The man exudes a calm confidence, and is urbane and highly-educated (he's a medical doctor), but also passionately Iraqi. Throughout he insisted that his Iraqi heritage comes first, and he is particularly proud that he never fled the country, but suffered through the Saddam era with his fellow citizens.

We then walked 50 feet across the auditorium into another world, where we joined an interview that had just started with Nassar al-Rubaie, who is second in command to Moqtata al Sadr and the head of the Sadrist block in parliament. Most recently, he made headlines when he pulled the six Sadrist ministers out of the cabinet, although he did retain the party's 30 seats in parliament. In casual conversation, he told us that he had seen Sadr within the last three days and that he is in Iraq, but declined to give specifics. Before we arrived, he answered this question:

Will the American "surge" help pacify the area or make things worse?

No way to pacify the area through the surge. Things are growing worse. What the Americans want to do is establish themselves permanently in Iraq, and they will try to make any excuse to stay in the country.

When we came in, Mr. Rubaie was in the process of answering a question about human rights abuses against innocent civilians:

The most cross of the human rights standard was due to the constitution 19--there is a law due to this one they arrested people--they arrested them randomly, they have to be charged, they don't have lawyers, they have to go home in a short time, and due to another section of that law they have to be offered to a judge in less than 24 hours on only one charge. But what we see here, they start to arrest randomly, and huge numbers of people--they arrest a lot of them and most of them their families don't know where they are until now. They just arrest them and put them in the prison--we don't know which prison or what reason and even their family don't know where they are for now. Sheikh Ahmed Shibani, he has been arrested for two years and a half without saying the reason. He's a leader in the Sadr group.

Do you want to receive a timetable set for the Americans to go out from Iraq?

From the beginning we have asked the Americans to leave Iraq and put a timetable on leaving Iraq. But now after four years it has become very necessary to put a plan on timing to leave Iraq. When we ask them to leave and put on a timetable they say they cannot because the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police forces are not ready. And the question is why they are not ready--we ask them again why they are not ready. You have a long time. The answer is that they don't want to leave Iraq so they don't make the Iraqi army good and ready to take the responsibility to make a reason for the Americans to stay in Iraq--a reason to cover the Americans staying in Iraq.

How long is your party willing to wait for the Americans to go out, and if they don't go out what are they going to do?

If they let us build our police and army we need six months, and I have heard personally from the Prime Minister that if they let us build our security and police we just need six months. Therefore the Americans make problems for us to build the police and army. And the other thing is, we ask from the beginning for the Americans to leave Iraq and they didn't obey us. And therefore we start to resist them with peaceful resistance because we want them to remove Saddam and then they will leave. After that, we start the second step with military resistance or fighting the Americans as you know, and now we are fighting them politically--we are resisting them politically in order to get what we want.

Therefore we improve our steps from the military to the political in order to release Iraq from the Americans, but if they refuse, the Americans they will not stay here forever. It's impossible to move all the Iraqi people out of Iraq. It's like a body having two heads. It's impossible. One of them have to move. We will not accept them forever.

What is the place for the Sunni population in Iraq? Does your party accept their continued living here in Iraq? Can they live with the Sunni?

The Iraqi people are like tissue--it's mixed, and it's together for a long time. So what has happened now, it's not a problem from the people. It's the result of exterior hands or exterior politicians that push these groups to fight each other in order that...and from these hands to make fighting and disturbing the situation in Iraq and not to leave it in peace and be a reason for the Americans to stay even longer in Iraq.

And so the Americans are working on making problems and destabilizing Iraq in order to stay a longer time in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Americans working with some Iraqi politicians--the Americans say they have plans, and we see it and we have a plan and it is opposite and it is better than their plan. The Americans say that if we apply your plan there will be a non-secure situation in Iraq. We ask them to put a timetable, a practical timetable--an objective timetable. After four years of staying in Iraq, the Americans, we didn't see them building the Iraqi security forces and police and so we asked them to put the timetable and build Iraqi army and police.

You can imagine it as if it's step by step [gestures with hands]. The Americans are strong and the Iraqi police are weak. Step by step we can increase the level of the Iraqi police and remove the Americans until the Iraqi security and police will be able to control the security of Iraq and not lose control with a sudden withdrawal from Iraq.

Do you see a time after the current crisis is over when your party could work with the Americans as allies?

While we are under the hand of any side, don't expect us to deal with them nicely because it's not right to stay under the hand. But after that, if they draw out, maybe maybe we will work with them in the future. But it's maybe. The first one is due to what we need and what the other country needs--we will not be seen as a weak country. We will deal them as neutral countries and what we need.

Do you think that if the US leaves, that will stop the killing, or what will stop the violence in the country?

The reason of violence in Iraq is the Americans staying here and because Americans are in Iraq it is the reason for attracting terrorists to Iraq. Unfortunately the American military operations keep themselves safe but they don't care about the Iraqi people and they don't secure them. They just secure themselves and their bases.

Once George Bush in one of the universities in the US bragged that without trying he pushed the terrorists from America, or I make them busy in Iraq. Do you transfer the truth of the situation here to Europe and to the American people? Iraq, after the Americans came here to Iraq and controlled Iraq and the Iraqi army collapsed completely stayed without terrorists for one year and a half. There was no terrorists in Iraq. After eight months from when the Americans came here I used a civilian car and made a tour with my family from Baghdad to Kirkuk to Mosel, Tikrit, Samarra--I had my Pepe with me. What happened in Iraq, it's not civil war--but the Americans make Iraq a place for fighting between agendas of other countries--fighting ground for other countries fighting their wars in Iraq. Now there is more than 90 foreign agencies are now in Iraq that are making Iraqi people work for them.

I've talked to a lot of [American] officials that are saying "We want to negotiate with the Sadr block. We think 90% of JAM is good. We want to bring projects into Sadr City. We want to negotiate with their leaders. We released Shibani so he could go and talk to them and build a channel. Yes--but right now people want to negotiate with your party. What is your response to that?

In general, we don't have contacts with the Americans and with the British army. We don't cooperate with them. If the Americans say that the it is good, and that we make a mistake to make the Americans think it was good...They released Shibani because there wasn't any reason to keep him inside the prison. Your answer reminds me of Saddam Hussein who gave a "present" to the Iraqi people. Each house, each family got a chicken. Even releasing the innocent is a gift like Saddam using Iraqi money to make a gift to the Iraqi people even though the money is for the Iraqi people. Shibani is innocent and he didn't do anything and they show us this like a gift. Instead of apologizing to the Iraqi people, after two years he says he makes a gift. It's a crime.
End interviews.

After the interview was over, Mr. Rubaie told us about the letter Moqtada al Sadr wrote to President Bush, which was read in the Iraqi parliament Saturday. He handed us a copy in Arabic but gave us the gist in English as he pointed out that in Sadr's opinion, the American congress and people were on the same side as the Sadrists. The world had been in balance, he said, until George Bush came along. Now there is chaos.

These back-to-back interviews provided me with something of a moment of clarity. Iraqi lawmakers are not all venal opportunists; there are patriots at work in that run-down convention center who are risking much more than the next election cycle to establish democracy in Iraq. Dr. Sharif points the way to an independent and peaceful country that seeks to integrate all its ethnic members into an Iraqi whole. He doesn't want the Americans in his country but he knows they are needed to bring the country to a secure place where it can achieve reconciliation and prosperity. No, the Iraq envisioned by Dr. Sharif would not be a utopia. It might not even be precisely the Iraq envisioned by the United States. But it certainly sounds to me as if it would be a healthy state goverened by tolerance and the rule of law.

And then there's Nassar al Rubaie's Iraq, a place where shadowy, sinister Americans plot to disrupt the country and victimize Iraqis for selfish reasons of their own. Where fearmongering and violence are perfectly legitimate means to achieve political ends. Where all are welcome, as long as they toe the Sadr line. I found Mr. Rubaie's final answer particularly chilling as he dismissed any attempts at appeasement as tactics worthy of Saddam. He was telling us, loud and clear, that there will be no negotiations. They are not interested in compromise or alliance. Gestures such as the release of Shalbani will be met with mockery.

It's worth noting that according to Moqtada al Sadr himself, these are the people trying to make common cause with opponents of the war in our own country. Is it a coincidence that the timeline Mr. Rubaie proposed dovetails neatly with the one in the recent supplemental passed by both houses of congress? I'm not implying that congress is in cahoots with the Sadrists, but I do think the Sadrists are exploiting congress' actions for their own purposes. And that is, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Rubaie, unfortunate.

I wonder that Sadr has forgotten so quickly that were it not for George Bush and his "chaos," the man who murdered his father and two of his brothers in cold blood would still sit in a palace in Baghdad. But such things are now apparently meaningless in the deadly struggle that is going on in Iraq, and for Iraq. Judging from my experience the battleground that is the parliament, we need to choose our side. Are we going to stay and help the likes of Dr. Sharif, or withdraw and "obey" the wishes of Mr. Rubaie and his master?