Barzani: Maliki’s Crime against Kurdish Region Worse than Saddam’s Anfal Operation

Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani. (Reuters)
Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani. (Reuters)
TT

Barzani: Maliki’s Crime against Kurdish Region Worse than Saddam’s Anfal Operation

Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani. (Reuters)
Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani. (Reuters)

President of the Kurdish Iraqi Region Masoud Barzani expressed his disappointment and “bitterness” towards former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Baghdad’s treatment of Kurds during his time in office.

Barzani told Asharq Al-Awsat on Wednesday that Maliki’s term deepened the Kurdish desire for independence from Iraq, accusing the former PM of “committing a crime against the Region that was worse than Saddam Hussein’s Anfal operation” that left more than 180,000 Kurds dead.

He therefore reiterated his commitment to holding the Kurdish independence referendum as scheduled on September 25, saying: “The vote is decisive and it is the choice of the people and the majority of political forces in Kurdistan.”

The referendum must be held on time “unless there is a better alternative”.

Asked if this alternative exists, he replied that “this is just an opinion as there is a higher referendum council in Kurdistan that takes decisions unanimously.”

“We have heard from several sides that the timing of the vote was not appropriate and that it should be postponed for six months or a year…. Such an alternative would require guarantees from the Iraqi government and parliament, the United States, International Coalition, European Union and United Nations,” Barzani explained.

He noted however that such guarantees seem unlikely at the moment, which means that the referendum will be held on time.

Moreover, the Kurdish leader stressed that he will respect the will of the people if they rejected the independence, revealing that he would resign if such a result emerged and possibly quit political life.

He remarked however that it seems that the people are prepared and excited to hold the referendum, predicting that the majority will vote in favor of independence, “but all options are still on the table”.

Commenting on a meeting he held around a month ago with an Iranian delegation, Barzani revealed that it had relayed to him Tehran’s call for cooperation and coordination, but its reservations on the vote.

Iran said that the timing of the referendum was “not appropriate” and that it was better for Irbil and Baghdad to resolve their disputes and return to the constitution. He added that he did not receive any threat from the delegation over the vote, revealing that some Iranian threats were later made through the media, but he did not go into details.

The Kurdish leader also received at a later date Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who reiterated Iran’s stance on the referendum. The Turkish official noted that the war against ISIS was not over yet and that “the referendum may affect the security and stability in the region.”

“Cavusoglu acknowledged that the Kurds have been wronged, that the constitution was not properly implemented and that the region has the right to demand these rights, but hoped that this may take place within Iraq,” continued Barzani.

“We explained to him our perspective and our frustration after all efforts to establish real partnership with Baghdad failed. We did agree on maintaining contacts,” he said.

This is the same stance that he relayed to US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who echoed Ankara and Tehran’s concerns over the referendum.

Barzani did not rule out the possibility that the Kurdish region may end up being “besieged by Iran, Turkey and Syria,” adding: “We may be harmed by this, by they will be harmed even more if they resort to such a step.”

On the post-Saddam period after 2003, he expressed his “huge” frustration over the failure to establish a diversified and democratic Iraq.

“Everyone knows that we exerted great efforts to prepare for the overthrow of the regime in 2002 and we took part in the military operations. We have no regrets, but we were hoping for a greater opportunity and a chance for a new Iraq, based on fraternity and a federal democracy. We tried hard to achieve this goal, including the drafting of and voting on the constitution. Had it not been for the Kurdish people, the constitution would not have been a success,” he stressed.

“We initially agreed to establish a democratic civil state, but day after day it became very clear that the state shifted to become a religious sectarian one in Baghdad,” he lamented.

“They mobilized armies against us and cut the Kurdish region’s budget. Even if there are disputes between the region and Baghdad, how is this acceptable? Let us assume that we are in the wrong, how could a prime minister dare, with a stroke of a pen, cut the livelihood of an entire people? This is another form of the Anfal operation,” he declared.

“Yes, Maliki committed another version of the Anfal operation, but in another uglier way. We did not hear single voice of protest by any religious leadership or Shi’ite political parties in Iraq. We sought to establish a democratic federal Iraq, but Baghdad refused and we reached a conviction that we are not wanted there.”

He also accused the former Iraqi premier of withholding arms dedicated to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces that were allotted to it by the constitution. These same weapons eventually landed in the hands of ISIS, he revealed.

“Even in the war against ISIS, they did not offer to help us. We are the ones who helped the Iraqi army and allowed it to come to Mosul. We destroyed ISIS’ first line of defense and opened the way for the army… Even up to this moment, violations were committed, not by the army, but the Popular Mobilization Forces,” Barzani said.

In fact, he stated that he was surprised by the close cooperation between the Peshmerga and Iraqi army, despite the 50 to 60 years of war between them.

Asked if current Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi’s arrival to office improved ties between Irbil and Baghdad, Barzani replied: “He wanted to resolve these problems and he is different from others, but there are several obstacles ahead of him. I enjoy good ties with him and we are in constant contact, but I have reached a conclusion that Abadi cannot fulfill his pledges to us due to reasons out of his control.”

This reality and “the failure of Arab-Kurdish coexistence” in Iraq prompted Kurdistan to push for independence, he stressed.



Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
TT

Goldrich to Asharq Al-Awsat: No US Withdrawal from Syria

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ethan Goldrich has told Asharq Al-Awsat that the US does not plan to withdraw its forces from Syria.

The US is committed to “the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with,” he said.

Here is the full text of the interview.

Question: Mr. Goldrich, thank you so much for taking the time to sit with us today. I know you are leaving your post soon. How do you assess the accomplishments and challenges remaining?

Answer: Thank you very much for the chance to talk with you today. I've been in this position for three years, and so at the end of three years, I can see that there's a lot that we accomplished and a lot that we have left to do. But at the beginning of a time I was here, we had just completed a review of our Syria policy, and we saw that we needed to focus on reducing suffering for the people in Syria. We needed to reduce violence. We needed to hold the regime accountable for things that are done and most importantly, from the US perspective, we needed to keep ISIS from reemerging as a threat to our country and to other countries. At the same time, we also realized that there wouldn't be a solution to the crisis until there was a political process under resolution 2254, so in each of these areas, we've seen both progress and challenges, but of course, on ISIS, we have prevented the reemergence of the threat from northeast Syria, and we've helped deal with people that needed to be repatriated out of the prisons, and we dealt with displaced people in al-Hol to reduce the numbers there. We helped provide for stabilization in those parts of Syria.

Question: I want to talk a little bit about the ISIS situation now that the US troops are still there, do you envision a timeline where they will be withdrawn? Because there were some reports in the press that there is a plan from the Biden administration to withdraw.

Answer: Yeah. So right now, our focus is on the mission that we have there to keep ISIS from reemerging. So I know there have been reports, but I want to make clear that we remain committed to the role that we play in that part of Syria, to the partnership that we have with the local forces that we work with, and to the need to prevent that threat from reemerging.

Question: So you can assure people who are saying that you might withdraw, that you are remaining for the time being?

Answer: Yes, and that we remain committed to this mission which needs to continue to be pursued.

Question: You also mentioned the importance of humanitarian aid. The US has been leading on this. Are you satisfied with where you are today on the humanitarian front in Syria?

Answer: We remain committed to the role that we play to provide for humanitarian assistance in Syria. Of the money that was pledged in Brussels, we pledged $593 million just this past spring, and we overall, since the beginning of the conflict, have provided $18 billion both to help the Syrians who are inside of Syria and to help the refugees who are in surrounding countries. And so we remain committed to providing that assistance, and we remain keenly aware that 90% of Syrians are living in poverty right now, and that there's been suffering there. We're doing everything we can to reduce the suffering, but I think where we would really like to be is where there's a larger solution to the whole crisis, so Syrian people someday will be able to provide again for themselves and not need this assistance.

Question: And that's a perfect key to my next question. Solution in Syria. you are aware that the countries in the region are opening up to Assad again, and you also have the EU signaling overture to the Syrian regime and Assad. How do you deal with that?

Answer: For the United States, our policy continues to be that we will not normalize with the regime in Syria until there's been authentic and enduring progress on the goals of resolution 2254, until the human rights of the Syrian people are respected and until they have the civil and human rights that they deserve. We know other countries have engaged with the regime. When those engagements happen, we don't support them, but we remind the countries that are engaged that they should be using their engagements to push forward on the shared international goals under 2254, and that whatever it is that they're doing should be for the sake of improving the situation of the Syrian people.

Question: Let's say that all of the countries decided to talk to Assad, aren’t you worried that the US will be alienated in the process?

Answer: The US will remain true to our own principles and our own policies and our own laws, and the path for the regime in Syria to change its relationship with us is very clear, if they change the behaviors that led to the laws that we have and to the policies that we have, if those behaviors change and the circumstances inside of Syria change, then it's possible to have a different kind of relationship, but that's where it has to start.

Question: My last question to you before you leave, if you have to pick one thing that you need to do in Syria today, what is it that you would like to see happening today?

Answer: So there are a number of things, I think that will always be left and that there are things that we will try to do, to try to make them happen. We want to hold people accountable in Syria for things that have happened. So even today, we observed something called the International Day for victims of enforced disappearances, there are people that are missing, and we're trying to draw attention to the need to account for the missing people. So our step today was to sanction a number of officials who were responsible for enforced disappearances, but we also created something called the independent institution for missing persons, and that helps the families, in the non-political way, get information on what's happened. So I'd like to see some peace for the families of the missing people. I'd like to see the beginning of a political process, there hasn't been a meeting of the constitutional committee in two years, and I think that's because the regime has not been cooperating in political process steps. So we need to change that situation. And I would, of course, like it's important to see the continuation of the things that we were talking about, so keeping ISIS from reemerging and maintaining assistance as necessary in the humanitarian sphere. So all these things, some of them are ongoing, and some of them remain to be achieved. But the Syrian people deserve all aspects of our policy to be fulfilled and for them to be able to return to a normal life.