Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: Ailing World Needs New American Approach

Ghassan Salame. (Reuters)
Ghassan Salame. (Reuters)
TT
20

Ghassan Salame to Asharq Al-Awsat: Ailing World Needs New American Approach

Ghassan Salame. (Reuters)
Ghassan Salame. (Reuters)

Lebanese former minister of culture, professor of international relations and former United Nations envoy to Libya Ghassan Salame said the political and economic impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic on our daily lives has dwarfed all other issues.

“We are living in an ailing world in every meaning of the word. The pandemic coincided with a time of great imbalance in the global system. Its outbreak accelerated several changes in international relations that had already begun,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat in an interview.

“It also kicked off changes to that very system, especially in ties between China and the United States,” he noted.

Moreover, the pandemic exposed the “vast laziness” in the West that had already affected its trade and financial relations with China. It is now forced to acknowledge that it has a geopolitical problem with China as well, said Salame.

The coronavirus battle is still ongoing and a new variant of the virus was detected as the vaccine was being rolled out. What conclusions can be drawn from the pandemic?

I believe we are living in a sick and ailing world in both the metaphorical and literal sense. Literally, we are experiencing an unprecedented pandemic. Metaphorically, the global system in which we live in is also sick. I hope that the new year will be one of recovery. However, the imbalance in the global system is so multifaceted and deep that the recovery will take years.

On the individual level, some people want to forget that the pandemic is among us and others are concerned with every minute detail of their lives. The pandemic has affected our daily lives and the lives of humanity. It has also had social impacts.

Such as?
It has left over 1.7 million people dead. This is a small number because it does not take into account people who were killed by the virus without others realizing it. It has infected 70 million people and those are just the registered figures. The real figures are actually much greater. A friend of mine, who is a specialist, told me that over 300 million people had caught the virus.

What about the economy?
There has been a massive impact: India has lost a quarter of its annual production. Whatever global growth we had predicted for this year transformed into a 7 to 9 percent recession. The wealthy countries of the West are trying to compensate those who were impacted economically. They have spent in nine months at least triple what they did in addressing the 2007 global economic crisis. I believe trillions more will be spent and that will take years to make up.

We have also realized things we had not previously paid attention to. We noticed just how fragile the tourism sector is. Countries that are dependent on tourism were dealt very heavy blows. It will take years for people to grow accustomed to traveling again.

The pandemic has also made some people even wealthier. Jeff Bezos, Amazon chief, doubled his fortune and managed to hire thousands of people to deliver products to people at home. The pandemic is the single most significant development of 2020 that all other events seem trivial.

But vaccines have been developed…
True, but we are not certain of their long-term effect. We are not certain of the effectiveness of the vaccine if the virus mutates. We are also uncertain if billions of people around the world will be able to have access to the vaccine before the virus infects them. This is a race between the vaccines and the virus, especially since we have yet to find a medicine to treat this disease. There is no guarantee that we will not be struck by another pandemic. So, the world has been upended by the pandemic. The results are monumental and ongoing for the foreseeable future despite the vaccines.

What about the greater picture, such as China? Some believe that China’s rise was already on the table and that the pandemic only accelerated this issue. Second, the pandemic has also raised questions about democratic systems, especially since China attempted to promoted itself as having the best example in how to handle pandemics.
The issue of China has been posed for a while, which is why we should approach it calmly. The country kicked off rapid change 30 years ago and has managed in three decades to end the poverty of millions of Chinese people, transforming the country into a major market. Most significantly it is the factory of the world. Throughout that time, the world approached China away from geopolitical considerations, but that changed some five or six year ago. Attention then shifted to its military spending.

Some observers began to ask: Are you aware of China’s military spending? Have you noticed that it was the first country to build an aircraft carrier? Did you note that it developed artificial islands that can rapidly be transformed into military bases?

I also would like to ask: Did you notice that a war broke out between China and India for the first time in decades? Did you notice that for the first time, China reacted firmly in Hong Kong and against democratic trends?

But Chinese President Xi Jinping had spoken of the priority he sets on the military…
When the Chinese president says that he wants his country to be the strongest military in the world by 2050, then many countries will be worried. They know that China does not make empty promises. Japan has increased its military budget and is buying 150 of the latest F-35 model and India is bolstering its border security, while demands for the US to withdraw from its Asian bases have waned.

Addressing China’s geopolitical rise began before the pandemic. The pandemic only gave a demagogical angle to the issue when US President Donald Trump spoke of the “Chinese virus”. He uttered those words just as the US was beginning very critical trade negotiations with China. Those talks began when the West sensed that globalization, which it had benefited from for a long time, was now becoming more beneficial to non-western countries. That sense began to emerge in the West even though no one was openly talking about them. Then came Trump, who said that he wanted to review trade relations with China because it was benefiting more than globalization that the West was.

Years before the pandemic, the West had started to negatively view globalization. Then the pandemic happened and China showed its superiority in sending out medical support to and containing the outbreak in Wuhan. It again proved that globalization allows China to boost its image and control over the global system in a way that the West can no longer keep up. The same West realizes that the United States’ share of the global economy shifted from 45 percent in post-WWII 1945 to 17 percent today.

Demographically, the number of white men dropped from 30 percent in the early 20th century to less than 17 percent today. Therefore, there is a sense that globalization allowed western companies to reduce production costs through shifting production to China and Asia. They ended up opening a new market for western products – China. But globalization began to come at a price, which was costlier than the benefits.

Then the pandemic happened, and demonstrated all of this…
The pandemic established a new concept, that of health sovereignty – meaning modern countries discovered that they had erred during globalization when they had sought lower production costs at the expense of local production of medicine. Of the first dozen coronavirus vaccines that were produced, five were made in China. This achievement will be highlighted even further when dozens of countries will procure the Chinese vaccines given their low prices. France suddenly discovered that it does not produce its face masks and that its Panadol pills are made in India. This will all change after the pandemic. Many countries will reconsider their view of globalization and address their weaknesses that it laid bare.

What about the difference between democratic nations and totalitarian ones? Did the pandemic change the rise in populism?
During the 1990s and for a first time in history more than half of the people in the world shifted from living under a totalitarian state to a democratic one. However, at the beginning of the 21st century, this began to change. First, because the number of countries embracing democracy began to drop. Many countries witnessed military coups or totalitarian coups through elections. Second, the growth of populism in democratic systems. The technological revolution helped populism infiltrate the heart of democratic life in several countries, such as Hungary, the US and Brazil.

The cyber revolution also helped spread populism, but it also helped the excessive meddling in the affairs of other countries. We will obviously witness more cyberwars in the coming months and years. They will stoke tensions between major powers and weaken trust between world leaders.

Can we say that democratic countries are ill?
Quality of life in democratic countries is dropping, but does that mean they are incapable of addressing such crises as the pandemic while totalitarian ones can? I’m not sure of the answer. I believe that Asian countries were more efficient, regardless of their system of rule, such as South Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Taiwan. They do not have the same system as China, but they managed to tackle the pandemic better than democratic countries.

So where lies the problem?
The problem is that the pandemic demands that governments, in countries such as Britain, France and Italy, impose restrictions on public freedoms. The foundations of these democratic countries are built on such freedoms. I believe these countries will, however, be able to return to their freedoms once the pandemic is over. Concluding that totalitarian countries are more capable maybe a hasty theory, but it is plausible and worth debating.

A debate that raged between democratic and totalitarian countries before the pandemic was which system was more efficient in pushing forward social and economic development. China, with its capitalist one-party rule, said that it was the best in terms of development.

Totalitarian countries can impose limits on freedoms during the pandemic because they had done so even before the outbreak. When they impose restrictions on freedoms, democratic countries violate the foundation on which they are built. Western countries will debate for years to come over how soon they will be able to restore their democracies or keep in place the pandemic restrictions.

What about the US? How did the pandemic impact its role?
I believe the US presidential election was decided by the pandemic. It was not decided because the pandemic happened, but because how poorly President Trump handled it. He alleged that life will return to normal by April and that the virus was not dangerous. He then politicized mask-wearing and allowed large gatherings without health precautions. The Trump administration’s mismanagement of the pandemic cost him the election.

This shows us an important lesson that role of people in the course of history is marginal. Forces have an impact on history, not individuals. In this case, Trump’s individual behavior was the antithesis of this. Had he acted differently, he would have secured reelection. The result of the election was all up to Trump himself.

What about your statement that Joe Biden’s election is the third chapter of a book we have already read?
Biden has introduced new faces to his administration, but most of the figures are familiar. We have seen them twice under the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations. Have there only been two democratic administrations in the post-Cold War era? A Clinton administration and an Obama administration. Now Biden’s team is a third chapter of a book we have already read. Will he be able rectify the errors of his predecessors?

What errors?
Clinton was very dismissive of the Soviet Union and Boris Yeltsin. He failed in building a relationship based on trust with the new Russia and we are still paying the price of that to this very day. There is real anger in Russia in the way the West, especially the US, dealt with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We are paying the price of this at the United Nations Security Council. We are paying the price of this in Libya, Syria and other countries. Has the new Democratic administration reviewed this historic error, or will it be a copy of its predecessors?

The same goes to China and the intervention in wars in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. Has there been anyone in America in the past four years who has said: “If I were to return to power, then I will not commit the same mistakes as the previous Democratic administrations.” This is the first question posed to Biden.

And the second?
“Have I realized that the world has changed and that we are no longer in 1990 and that the US is no longer the leader or the sole leader of the global system?” Several countries have started to meddle in the affairs of their neighbors. Some countries are working daily on developing their military. Turkey is embroiled in four wars, so is Iran.

Is there anyone in this administration who has carried out this review? Is there anyone who has reviewed America’s position in a world that is vastly changed, not because of Trump, but because the entire system has changed? It is naïve to blame Trump alone for this change.

When you look at the core of issues, there was an issue with Trump’s character, such as his provocative tweets and his sudden sacking of officials. This personality, however, came back and managed to garner the votes of 60 million Americans. He has a real popular base. This figure tried to achieve something with North Korea, opened the trade file with China and did not launch a new war in the world.

I fear that the new administration will say that the past four years have been a break and that it will return things to how they were before, such as with the climate agreement, World Health Organization and the Iran nuclear deal.

Is that possible internally?
If this is the main focus of the new administration, I believe it will fail because the majority of the US Supreme Court is conservative and Republicans make up the majority of Congress.

What about Europe as it deals with Brexit, populism and immigration?
Let’s say it bluntly, those who believe that Brexit would lead to the break up of the European Union have been proven wrong. The evidence is immense, first, other countries did not follow suit in quitting the union. Moreover, and in a first, Germany accepted demands by France, Spain and others, for the EU to take out loans to tackle the economic impact of the pandemic. In other words, the pandemic helped reinforce the financial strength of the union. In Britain, recent figures showed that supporters of Brexit have dropped.

So, the EU succeeded in spite of the enormity of the pandemic challenge. It overcame the first phase of the pandemic and now is faced with the challenge of taking decisions unanimously. Such decisions demand consensus on central issues. If some countries lean further towards populism and the curbing of freedoms, such as Poland and Hungary, then this basis of consensus will undoubtedly be obstructed.

What about the relationship between Europe and the US?
Europe will be taking a more hostile approach towards Chin after the pandemic. America was already following such a path, but Europe was not prepared for it. Now, after my recent visit to Germany and the change in French President Emmanuel Macron’s rhetoric, there are concerns that China may invest its financial and economic capabilities in geopolitics. We have seen the concern over China’s purchase of a port in Greece and Algeria. The US and Europe are almost seeing eye-to-eye on China. Perhaps the most telling sign of this shift is the European Parliament’s vote over the Uighur issue.

Is the position towards Russia different?
Macron has a real desire to build a strategic relationship with Russia. He made this point clear in September 2018, but nothing has been achieved on the ground. There is also the gas pipeline that Germany is building with Russia and that the US opposes. The Biden administration and Europe may differ over Russia, but they share common positions over China.

At the beginning of the pandemic UN chief Antonio Guterres called for a coronavirus truce in conflict-ravaged countries, such as Libya and Syria. How do you assess the response to the call?
He was right to make the plea, but the response fell short of expectations. First, the Security Council took weeks and weeks to take a decision over this issue. Why? It is clear. Confronted with the pandemic, we must pause and assess what is more dangerous and what the fighters are facing. Why the delay? Because the US wanted to remind China and underline its lack of trust in the WHO. The situation at the Security Council politicized the pandemic and as a result, the response to Guterres’ call was more complicated.

What about the resolution of conflicts?
No country complied. But the pandemic did impose itself on fighters. Notice in Libya, how both sides were in denial over the severity of the pandemic. That was until the fighters started to become infected. This led to a gradual ceasefire and the 5+5 meeting in Geneva that cemented it. The pandemic played a role, no doubt in that. Had the fighters pushed ahead with the war, then we would have had a real massacre on our hands. If you were not killed by your enemy’s bullet, then the virus will get you. So you were confronted with two choices: A bullet from the other side of the divide, or a virus from your close ally.

What about the future of UN agencies after the pandemic?
The pandemic was a major challenge, but the greatest challenge lies ahead in the years to come. Several UN agencies will be demanded to provide much more than they had done before. The World Food Program is an example. It needs billions to feed the poor all over the world. The refugee program needs a budget to address millions of refugees. The WHO and UNICEF play central roles. They all demand budgets worth billions of dollars. Where will they come from? They come from all countries of the world, but in reality, they are provided from western countries. Here lies the challenges, if these wealthy countries, especially the western ones, need the money to address their own economic recessions, massive unemployment, secure vaccines and medical and hospital needs, will they offer additional dozens of billions of dollars to address the impact the pandemic has had on poor countries?

I believe wealthy countries will use their money for their own needs. Capable countries will be unable to finance UN agencies, which will be a major challenge to the UN.

Politically, what about relations between major powers?
The ties are bad. I hope that they will improve under the Biden administration. The Security Council practically plays no role in global crises, as we have seen in Nagorno-Karabakh and the dispute between China and India. The UN is playing a practically nonexistent role in several conflicts, such as Syria or the demarcation of the marine border between Lebanon ad Israel. That is a classic situation where the UN can play a central role, but it was filled by the US. The UN’s role in global peace and security weakened due to the disputes between major countries.

Libya seems to be headed on a new path. What is your assessment of the situation?
Libya presents a unique case in which the UN is in a hurry to lead a settlement process. Several countries want to play that role, but the UN mission has managed to keep itself on top despite the great challenges. I am proud. I say that without hesitation. I am proud of what we have achieved in the past two years in very difficult conditions. We brought together under the same roof Presidents Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. We arranged the Berlin conference on January 19 and all countries involved in Libya made important pledges. They left it up to the Libyans to implement them. After great difficulty, we managed to reach resolution 2510.

What about the execution?
When it came to implementation, developments took a wrong turn. Some sides sought to obstruct the implementation of the Berlin conference. Fighting erupted over Tripoli, then the pandemic happened. It was only until the summer that the Berlin conference decisions, which I proudly oversaw, began to be implemented. Is the implementation taking place at the pace I want? No. Can the fighting erupt again? Yes. Can foreign meddling return to the way it was before the Berlin summit? Yes. Have the mercenaries pulled out as we wanted? No. Have all roads been reopened? No.

What are the positives?
If you compare the situation now in Libya to the way it was months ago, then it is better. Flights have resumed between cities, roads have reopened, the displaced have returned home, the central bank board met for the first time in three years and political dialogue was launched in Tunisia. All of these developments point to one thing: The Libyans have grown more aware.

Military offensives were launched and have failed. They realize the need for political understanding. They are also aware that any such understanding should take place through the UN because it has no oil or business ambitions in the country. As opposed to other countries, the UN cares about the Libyans themselves, not just their wealth. Furthermore, there is a realization among the many meddling countries that no single one of them is capable of coming out on top and of solely controlling Libya. They must agree to share influence.

There are weak signs that the we are headed in the right direction in Libya. It will take time, but despite the obstacles I am optimistic that Libya will get itself out of the mess it has gotten itself into.

What about Lebanon? Reports speak of poverty, immigration, no government and the end of the Taif Accord.
Let me just say that the actual implementation of the Taif Accord has ended. Some aspects of the accord, such as its institutional parts, establishing the troika and sectarian elements – such as weakening some sects and strengthening others – were implemented. This implementation of the Taif is behind us. Is there a need for a more loyal implementation of the accord or is there a need to come up with a substitute agreement? I support the first idea. I believe that the Taif Accord, in its essence, helped end the civil war that claimed the lives of 170,000 Lebanese people. I will not so easily abandon it. However, I believe that the actual implementation of the accord tarnished the spirit of the agreement. If you ask me to choose between a more loyally implemented Accord with some amended articles, or search for a purer alternative, I would choose the former.

You said that the “Lebanon intifada” exposed the sectarian leaders. How?
The main political class and opinion polls say so. The political elite has lost a lot of its popular base. The Lebanese were shocked with just how much the political class undermines them. They were shocked with the collapse of the banking sector. They have stood helpless as they life’s savings evaporated and they were no longer able to pay for their children’s education. They were shocked again with the Beirut port explosion. French President Macron toured the streets of Beirut, while not a single Lebanese politician can go to a restaurant without being humiliated and kicked out. The political class has become aware of just how much they are reviled by the people. The surveys that are carried out and not published reveal this as well.

What about the formation of the government?
The government could have been formed before we even finish this interview. However, there are two obstacles. The first is the dramatic drop in popularity of the majority of the country’s leaders. They are therefore, using this time to boost their support among their sectarian base instead of acting swiftly to reach an understanding that can halt the tragic collapse of the country.

The second is that these leaders know that as soon as they form a government, it will be bombarded with international demands and pressure to take unpopular austerity measures. It will be demanded to carry out fundamental reforms in the finance and banking sectors. This will not take place before the real detailed facts and figures of the state’s finances throughout the past 60 years are revealed. Several politicians fear the close scrutiny for obvious reasons.

This is why they continue to evade Macron’s pressure and remain in a state of denial of the need for a swift agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The government should have been formed soon after the Diab government resigned in August just after the horrific port blast.

My fear is that the growing poverty among Syrian and Palestinian refugees and the Lebanese people themselves will push them to rely further on their sectarian leaders. They will need to turn to someone who will support them. I fear that this crisis will only help these leaders rise up again by helping those in need, who are willing set aside their anger in order to survive.



Sudani to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iran Is Serious About a Deal with America

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief
TT
20

Sudani to Asharq Al-Awsat: Iran Is Serious About a Deal with America

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani during the interview with Asharq Al-Awsat's editor-in-chief

In recent months, Iraq has navigated two difficult challenges. It avoided being drawn into the Israeli-Iranian conflict and managed to stay clear of the fallout from US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Earlier, it had resisted the temptation to intervene in saving Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Having passed these two challenges, Iraq is now facing a third: the elections scheduled for November, which will determine the shape of parliament and the identity of the next prime minister. We posed these and other questions to Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani:

Q: Do you have the impression that we are witnessing new regional power balances after what happened in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran?

Absolutely. After the October 7 events and the subsequent aggression on Lebanon, the changes in Syria, and then the aggression against Iran, there are growing speculations about the region’s future amid these still-unfolding developments. The aggression on Gaza and Lebanon is ongoing. Discussions about arrangements in Gaza, and also about Israeli incursions into Syria are also ongoing. We’re also talking about a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, so we’re not yet looking at a stable political trajectory for the region’s structure, balance, and relationships.

These developments raise important questions that demand a clear vision: What do we want for this sensitive region economically, politically, and in terms of security, especially as it almost witnessed a full-scale regional war, not just clashes between Iran and Israel?

Iraq is part of the region’s geopolitical landscape. While prioritizing its own interests and those of its people, Iraq is also an active regional player, not a bystander. We leverage our relations and interests with neighboring countries to formulate positions that enhance security and stability, particularly since we reject wars, which we have suffered from for decades.

Q: What did you do when the Israeli raids on Iran began?

Everybody expected escalation and reciprocal strikes. All regional countries, including Iraq, interpreted it this way. After the Israeli aggression on Iran, which violated Iraqi airspace, Iraq faced the risk of being dragged into the war and into aggression against a neighboring state, which goes against our constitution and political principles. We do not allow any party or country to use Iraqi airspace or territories to launch attacks on others.

We expressed our rejection diplomatically. So we filed a complaint with the UN Security Council, contacted others to support our position, and condemned the aggression against a neighboring sovereign state under the pretext of preventive war, when in reality it was a clear act of aggression on a sovereign state that is a member of the United Nations.

The most important part was maintaining internal security and a unified national position on this crisis, which we thankfully achieved. We presented a unified national stance rejecting aggression and violations of our sovereignty and airspace, supporting the government’s effort to protect Iraqi interests and keep Iraq out of war. This internal position was crucial.

Q: Did the US assist you?

Yes, the United States was keen to keep Iraq away from the conflict. We had ongoing communication, especially regarding the airspace violation and the importance for a US role because it is part of the international coalition against terrorism. For ten years, there should have been support for Iraq’s air defense system to protect our skies.

Q: What did Iran ask of Iraq during the war?

There was no request. Rather, Iraq took the initiative to clarify the risks and exchange messages between parties to stop this war and return to negotiations. We were in constant contact with the presidency and all relevant channels. Negotiations were expected to start on Sunday, but the aggression began early Friday.

Iraq’s position was to push for a return to talks and halt the war. Iran’s view was: how can we negotiate while the aggression continues? Our discussions with regional countries and the US focused on this issue. Iran was ready to negotiate if the aggression stopped. That was Iran’s initial positive position.

Q: Was it difficult to manage relations with Iraqi factions backed by Iran?

Definitely. The region has faced unprecedented events in the past two years, yet Iraq has remained stable unlike in the past when the region was stable and Iraq was turbulent. We’ve managed to contain reactions and channel them into balanced political positions through political and security efforts.

Q: Do you feel you've implemented the "Iraq First" slogan?

Yes. It wasn’t just a slogan. It’s a doctrine we truly believe in: Iraq and the dignity of its people come first in our domestic and foreign policies.

Q: Are you concerned about a new round (of fighting) between Israel and Iran?

Yes, because everyone knows (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu hasn’t respected any ceasefires in Gaza or Lebanon. It’s likely he’ll carry out further aggression against Iran. His policy and strategy seem to be intending to keep the region in a state of conflict to maintain his political position.

Q: Were you worried the Iranian regime might falter and that the war would drag on? Did you prepare for prolonged instability?

Iran is a key regional country. If anyone thought a 12-day war could topple the regime, the repercussions would affect the entire region. Naturally, we were concerned about regional stability and that of any neighboring country. You can’t watch a neighboring country burn and expect the fire not to reach you.

What we believe in at this stage is pushing toward stability, security, peace and understanding. Our source of concern was for these repercussions to affect the region’s stability. But internally, we were sure of our capabilities and the awareness of our political forces and the Iraqi people on the importance of preserving internal security and keeping the political system stable.

Q: What did the Iraqi army conclude from this war?

This is currently under study. I don't think it's just the Iraqi army, but all the militaries of the region are studying it. We are facing a new type of warfare that uses modern technology. Therefore, we must be on par with this development and these technologies so that we preserve the security and stability of our country.

Q: Who destroyed the Iraqi radars after the end of the Iranian-Israeli war? Was there an investigation and what were its results?

There is an investigation by a specialized technical committee, and I am closely following this probe. It was a clear attack using drones. As you know, it's not easy to detect these aircraft. Today, this technology is used in attacks and to create instability. But this matter will definitely not pass without consequences.

Bases in Nasiriyah were targeted and sustained minor damage. However, the radar system in Taji was damaged. At other sites, the air defenses intercepted and shot down the drones. We will reach a conclusion, and whoever is responsible will be held accountable.

Q: Were the drones launched from inside Iraqi territory?

The investigation is ongoing. We even sought assistance from the international coalition because there are highly technical matters to determine the launch area and the distance the drones traveled. All of these are details necessary to identify the culprit.

Q: Why do relations with Syria appear not yet completely normal?

On the contrary, I find them normal and on the right track. Since day one, Iraq's stance has been clear: to respect the choices of the Syrian people and the changes that occurred. We sent a delegation, initiated reciprocal visits and communication, including the Doha meeting, and communication is ongoing regarding different developments. We have also expressed our concerns.

Q: Concerns about what?

Our concerns come in the form of advice because Syria's experience is similar to Iraq's after 2003. The diversity that exists in Syria mirrors Iraq’s diversity... So first, there should be an inclusive political process that embraces everyone, guarantees their rights, and respects their beliefs and ideologies. There must also be a clear stance against extremism, terrorism, and violence and a clear position regarding ISIS, which poses a threat not just to Syria but to all countries in the region.

We also want to see a united Syria, without any foreign intervention or presence on Syrian territories because a strong and unified Syria is a strength for Iraq and the region. All of this falls in the interest of the Syrian people.

We are also ready for economic cooperation. Iraq and Syria share geography and history that can form a foundation for further cooperation and stronger bilateral relations. We have started studying the revival of the Iraq-Syria oil pipeline to reach the Mediterranean Sea through Baniyas.

We’ve also expressed our willingness to contribute to Syria’s reconstruction through a conference. Today, Iraq chairs both the Arab League summit and the Arab Development Summit, so it is concerned with all Arab issues, especially Syria. We proposed an initiative that was adopted in the “Baghdad Declaration” to hold a national dialogue conference for all components of Syrian society.

So the relationship is moving in that direction, along with continued security coordination. The Coordination Committee held a meeting last Wednesday between Iraqi and Syrian security leaders to secure the borders.

Q: Are you satisfied with Syria's cooperation on security coordination?

Yes. At this level, both sides are satisfied with the exchange of information and security coordination, which is sufficient to ensure the security of Iraq and Syria, especially given the noticeable activity of ISIS, which has recently become more active, seized a large number of Syrian army weapons, and is planning operations, the latest of which was the terrorist attack on a church in Damascus. So we have a mutual interest in increasing security coordination.

Q: Have you also discussed with Syria the issue of foreign fighters who took part in toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime?

Among our comments was the issue of granting citizenship to foreigners, and I believe this matter needs to be reviewed because there are reservations about it within Syria itself. We explained these points frankly and transparently out of concern for Syria’s stability as we’ve been through experiences post-2003 and we were keen to help the new administration avoid the mistakes we made.

Q: Would you have preferred that Syria remained under Bashar al-Assad’s rule?

That’s not my opinion; it's up to the Syrian people. They are the ones who decide the system that suits the Syrian state.

Q: Could we see President Ahmad al-Sharaa soon in Baghdad, or you in Damascus?

That depends on the circumstances.

Q: When did you realize that Bashar al-Assad's regime had collapsed?

Syria was exposed to years of suffering, turmoil, and instability. After the October 7 events and the subsequent aggression against Lebanon, our reading was that the region would witness a state of chaos, confusion, and security imbalance. The vulnerable side was Syria, given that large areas were not under the control of the regime at the time. So, within our regional communication efforts, we focused on how to maintain Syria’s stability to prevent a security collapse that could be exploited by ISIS terrorist mobs - this was the real threat.

This was one of the concerns of countries in the region, especially Iraq and Türkiye. Therefore, we launched an initiative to bring Türkiye and Syria closer together in order to resolve certain files that contribute to and support stability. This began early on, and these efforts continued. There was a clear and serious desire from Türkiye, and also cautious acceptance from Syria. There were several attempts, but unfortunately, they did not yield any positive steps.

Q: Was it a mistake for Assad not to meet with (Turkish President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan?

In my estimation, yes. And this was not just Iraq’s attempt. From what I heard from leaders of other regional countries, all of them tried to achieve a meeting and some sort of de-escalation at the level of the border areas, which were experiencing unrest. We considered the refusal to meet a mistake. The meeting could have contributed to de-escalation and created an atmosphere of reconciliation with all parties within Syria, instead of the ongoing instability and confrontation that served no party.

Q: Has it become clear that the keys to solving crises in the region are with the United States, which allegedly wanted to disengage from the Middle East to focus on the China threat?

The US remains an important country in its relations with the countries of the region. But certainly, the greater role lies with the countries of the region themselves, which define their interests and the course of their ties. There is no ready-made formula for the countries of the region to achieve stability and sustainable peace. The people of the region are the most entitled to engage in dialogue based on mutual interests and mutual respect. Dialogue and understanding must be the approach, rather than seeking conflict or exclusion that threatens others. The language of war cannot be the path to achieving stability.

Q: President (Donald) Trump favors the “deal” approach. Is an American-Iranian deal in the coming phase possible?

It’s possible. The US president took the initiative to contain the recent war, and Iraq supported this move. This initiative was the reason a truce was achieved and this destructive war was halted. We hope this role continues, especially through bilateral negotiations on (Iran’s) nuclear program, to achieve a deal or agreement that lays the foundation for the stability of a vital region like the Middle East.

Q: Is there a planned visit to the United States?

Not at the present time.

Q: I’d like to ask about Iraq’s relations with regional countries. How would you describe your relationship with Türkiye?

It’s a relationship based on an understanding and awareness of its importance geographically, historically, in terms of shared interests, and the opportunities that lie ahead of us as two neighboring Muslim countries in a vital region. We've laid the foundation for a genuine new phase in this relationship through several files: security, economy, and issues of mutual concern, particularly water.

During this government’s term, we’ve established a significant strategic partnership with Türkiye, especially after launching the “Development Road” project, which is one of the most important economic corridors in the region. It will benefit both countries and lay the groundwork for a major economic axis in the region.

On the water issue, we’ve taken a strategic approach for the first time in the history of the Iraqi state through a bilateral framework agreement for cooperation on water management, signed in Baghdad during President Erdogan’s visit. These are all positive indicators of a strong relationship between the two countries.

Q: You spoke of a strong relationship with Türkiye. Can you describe your ties with Iran in two lines?

There’s a strategic partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran based on shared religious, cultural, and social values and mutual interests. Iran has also stood with Iraq and the Iraqi people during various phases under the dictatorship, during the fight against terrorism, and in the political process. But we are certainly keen for this relationship to remain within a proper framework that serves mutual interests and prevents meddling in internal affairs. Iraq has its own independence and national decision-making, driven by the interests and priorities of its people.

Q: So there is no Iranian management of Iraqi affairs?

Absolutely not.

Q: Not even over any part of it?

Not over any part of it. Even the term itself is unacceptable and doesn’t exist in our vocabulary. A positive relationship today does not mean interference. Iraqis are highly sensitive about their independence and their love for their country and their national sovereignty. Iraq is not, and will not be, subordinate to anyone. That’s Iraq’s history.

Q: Is Iran helping you with the issue of "exclusive control of weapons"?

This issue is an Iraqi matter, and it is part of our program as a government. The Parliament voted on it, and we set a plan for it. The weapons we are talking about... we fought a war against terrorism for two decades. It was a war in every sense of the word. The war against terrorism and terrorist mobs like al-Qaeda and ISIS was not a war against a regular army but rather targeted citizens in every town, village, and city. These unstable conditions led to the presence of weapons to protect citizens in this or that region, reaching a stage of confrontation with ISIS.

After the victory, it is necessary to reorganize security and institutional reform, which we adopted through a committee chaired by the premiership. We set solutions for all these sensitive points related to the presence of arms outside the framework of state institutions. There is a clear plan, and everyone knows it; it is being implemented according to a decree.

We will not accept the presence of weapons outside the framework of state institutions. This is one of the important and fundamental pillars for building the Iraqi state. It is an opinion and principle supported by all religious forces. The religious authority’s statements are clear - not only the latest statement but throughout the past years, they have emphasized this principle. This goal is supported by religious leaders, political leaders, and also by our people. This is not a slogan but a goal for which we set a plan and are implementing in line with a government decree.

Q: Can we say that exclusive control of arms is a necessary condition to ensure stability and attract investment?

Investment is at its best. For the first time in two years, investments have exceeded $100 billion. A month ago, I spoke of $88 billion. A few days ago, the head of the National Investment Commission updated the figure and informed me that we have surpassed $100 billion over two years. Arab and foreign investments are now active in Iraq. So, the process of attracting investments is progressing within the existing safe and stable environment despite the region’s instability. Iraq is stable and cohesive, and it offers investment opportunities and welcomes Arab and foreign companies.

Q: Talking about investment compels me to ask about corruption. Can you say with certainty that corruption today is less, or significantly less, since you have taken office?

With full confidence, yes. As a government, we stopped the collapse that occurred in the abuse of public funds. You remember the “theft of the century” - more than 3.7 trillion dinars. That happened during the previous government’s term. This amount of cash was stolen as the Iraqi state and its security apparatus watched, and unfortunately, the theft took place under official cover.

Q: But wasn’t it the previous government that uncovered it?

For eight months, the funds were being stolen. But when the thieves disagreed among themselves over how to divide the shares, one of them stirred up the crisis, and that’s when things spiraled out of control. This is what happened in the investigation that was initiated at the time by the acting Minister of Finance. That investigation is ongoing and involves figures from the previous government, along with employees and wanted businessmen.

This is one of the most blaring examples of the corruption that occurred. Today, we’ve put a stop to that collapse. We’ve stopped the abuse of public funds in this way. But of course, we still have a long road ahead before we can fully eliminate corruption. What we have achieved as a government is, first, reforming the oversight institutions responsible for combating corruption because we found that an important part of those institutions themselves needed reform. That was our first step. Through the changes and accountability measures we took against officials in the Integrity Commission and the Board of Supreme Audit, we were able to reform these institutions.

We also introduced a new concept: the repatriation of wanted individuals involved in corruption cases, including those accused in the “theft of the century” and others. Most of them hold other nationalities. So, our relationships with countries around the world have been based on how much they cooperate with us in extraditing the wanted individuals

Q: Have you arrested any of the wanted individuals?

Yes, a significant number. And a large percentage of the wanted individuals themselves have started to come forward, because they realized they were being pursued, and they returned the stolen funds. We’ve recovered approximately more than $500 million. We’ve also begun legal procedures. Iraq is a member of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which places an obligation and responsibility on all countries to cooperate with us in extraditing the wanted individuals and recovering stolen assets.

These measures are essential to fighting corruption. Corruption is a challenge faced by countries around the world. It’s recognized by the UN as one of the global challenges - not just for Iraq. But we have taken real steps and we are continuing until we eliminate this dangerous phenomenon that threatens all our development, investment, and reconstruction projects.

Q: Do the armed factions put pressure on the judiciary? Are judges scared?

No, certainly not. The judiciary enjoys independence, first and foremost, and it is respected. It is supported by state institutions in ensuring that it does not come under pressure or allow any party or entity to threaten it. The judiciary has proven, on multiple occasions, its independence and courage in making important decisions that ensure justice is upheld and the law is enforced.

Q: From your discussions with Iranian officials, did you deduce that there is a genuine Iranian desire to reach an agreement with the US?

Yes, our impression from a series of contacts and meetings is that there is a serious desire from the Iranian state to reach an agreement that secures Iran’s interests while also addressing the concerns of the international community. There is no decision in Iran, either religious or official, to acquire nuclear weapons, which is the main global concern. Therefore, the path is clear to reach an understanding that would close this file, which has been a key source of tension and escalation in the region.

Q: How would you describe relations with Lebanon?

It is a strong relationship, marked by keenness on Lebanon’s stability, especially during these challenging times. Our position is to support Lebanon’s sovereignty and its state institutions as they face ongoing aggression and repeated violations by the Israeli occupation authorities.

The Lebanese president recently visited Baghdad. Various political and economic issues were discussed, particularly the revival of the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon pipeline and the operation of the Iraqi refinery in Tripoli. We also reaffirmed our support for Lebanon and its reconstruction.

Q: There are common stances, such as both governments calling for the “exclusive control of weapons.”

Yes, this is certainly one of the most important issues. In Lebanon, the issue of arms in a state confronting the Israeli entity is, of course, subject to considerations that are assessed by the Lebanese people and the active forces within the country.

Q: How would you describe relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

They are at their best in terms of alignment of views on the various issues that have shaken the region. Throughout this period, there has been high-level and continuous coordination regarding various developments.

On bilateral relations and cooperation, there are electrical interconnection projects with Saudi and US companies. There are also upcoming projects on opening additional border crossings to facilitate the movement of pilgrims and Umrah performers from Central Asia through Iran and Iraq, and then on to Saudi Arabia. Additionally, there is clear cooperation between institutions and investment funds in both countries to facilitate Saudi investments in Iraq.

Q: Does that mean there is consultation with the Saudi leadership?

There is continuous communication, consultation, and coordination on various issues. We have had visits, in addition to ongoing contact.

Q: It is said that Baghdad is accused of trying to starve the Kurdistan Region...What is your response?

This is an accusation without any basis - neither legal nor constitutional. The people of Kurdistan are part of our people. And this government, in particular, has been keen to fulfill its moral and constitutional obligations, as well as the political agreement that included resolving the outstanding issues.

But we are talking about the Budget Law, and we are talking about the decision of the Federal Supreme Court, both of which are binding legal grounds that the Prime Minister cannot override.

Since the approval of the Budget Law and later its amendment, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has not complied with delivering all oil produced within the region, as stipulated by the law and affirmed by the Federal Supreme Court. The KRG also did not commit to handing over non-oil revenues to the public treasury. This constitutes a violation of the law and of the Court's ruling.

Therefore, the Ministry of Finance cannot fund any budget unless the KRG complies. As a result of our efforts to find solutions, we have ended up disbursing funds beyond the allocated share in the Budget Law, based on the Federal Court’s ruling.

These are clearly legal and technical matters and not political decisions as evidenced by the ongoing discussions now, which are centered around the quantity of oil being delivered.

Q: Could we say that the crisis has nothing to do with political parties in Baghdad wanting to undermine the Kurdistan Region?

Not at all. The Region is a constitutional entity respected by the Iraqi state, with all its components and authorities. We are committed to the stability of the Region. We supported, helped, and contributed to the holding of the Kurdistan Region parliamentary elections, which took place about eight to nine months ago. Unfortunately, the political forces in the Region have so far not been able to form a government.

The federal government was keen to support the electoral commission and allocate a budget. After the elections, I visited all the winning political forces in the Region, urging them to form a new regional government and for the parliament to exercise its powers in line with the framework of the constitution.

All political forces are committed to the Region’s stability because it is part of Iraq’s overall stability. There is no political interference in this issue.

Q: Is the salary issue going to be resolved soon?

The issue was discussed during last Tuesday’s Cabinet session. The document submitted by the federal ministries and the one submitted by the KRG were reviewed. We formed a committee headed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Planning, along with five other ministers, to develop a consensual proposal that aligns with the constitution, the law, and the Federal Supreme Court's decision. The committee will make its recommendations to the Cabinet for approval, after receiving confirmations that the KRG is committed to it.

Q: Has your relationship with President Masoud Barzani deteriorated?

Definitely not ... President Masoud Barzani is a respected national figure. We have built a good relationship over the past period, and we believe in the partnership with him in managing political affairs. As I mentioned, the recent disagreement or divergence is legal and technical, not political. He knows well that we are fully committed to the interests of our people whether in the Kurdistan Region or in other provinces. But we certainly do not have absolute authority to override the constitution and the law. We are entrusted with the public funds of all Iraqis, and it is our duty to achieve justice and equality without any discrimination.

Q: Why hasn’t the Oil and Gas Law been passed?

It was part of the government’s program. We began forming a technical committee made up of the Federal Ministry of Oil and the Ministry of Natural Resources in the Kurdistan Regional Government, along with a political committee. We held two or three meetings, then the Region stopped sending its delegation, despite our requests to finalize a draft. We believe that this law is a fundamental and essential part of solving the issue of oil, its contracts, and the powers of the Region and the provinces.

Q: Will you personally run in the elections scheduled for November?

Yes, definitely. We have a national plan and a broad electoral and political alliance. We will run in the elections in most provinces with a national - not sectarian - approach.

Q: Do you expect to win a large parliamentary bloc? What are your estimates?

Putting numbers and estimates aside, there is certainly a positive impression about the chances of this alliance in the upcoming parliamentary elections. We are counting on the awareness of the citizens and the precision of their choices in selecting a path that ensures the continuation of this approach in managing the state in a way that secures the interests of Iraq and Iraqis.

Q: Is power tempting? Does the holder of power grow attached to it?

Yes. This is one of the afflictions of governance and authority. It requires a strong degree of faith and principled integrity to prevent the one in the seat of power from being swept away by its temptations. One of God’s blessings upon us is that we have enough moral immunity to resist the allure of this transient authority. We view power as an honor bestowed upon us to serve our people, and so we treat it as a responsibility to keep working for a nation that has sacrificed greatly through the past phase.

Q: We are now sitting in a place where Saddam Hussein once sat... Do you ever feel like you wish you had his absolute powers?

Absolutely not. The political system since 2003 is based on the philosophy of people ruling themselves through a parliamentary system we believe in. Sometimes, administrative and executive hurdles complicate the delegation of powers, but overall this is a political path built on partnership and peaceful power rotation. Iraq has proven its commitment to this approach.

We’re now talking about parliamentary elections for the sixth term, spanning two decades, despite all internal and external challenges. We support this direction. We continue to adhere to this principle and this democratic path. A one-man rule or dictatorship does not bring justice, nor security, nor stability, nor development. We’ve seen where all the dictatorships have ended.