Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki
Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/iraqi-pm-maliki-interview-703/
States that send arms to Syria face upheavals and unrest
due to sectarian violence, their stability will be in jeopardy and the state of
affairs will be no better than in Syria, warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
Al-Maliki in an interview to RT.
"He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in
the end,” Al-Maliki stated, predicting that sponsorship of the Syrian opposition will
backfire on supporting states.
RT: What do Iraq and Russia
have in common in terms of their approach to the Syrian crisis; and do you
think the two countries can come up with a joint proposal on how to settle it?
Nouri Al-Maliki: Of course, the crisis is
a matter of serious concern both for the countries in the region and for the
world’s major powers. And it’s not only countries – this issue has been on the
agenda of many international organizations. We have repeatedly said that we
take the Syrian crisis as our own problem. It is a very important country, with
its own political position. We did warn everyone earlier – and keep reminding –
that the fire that started in Syria will spill over the borders to engulf other
countries of the region and, in the end, it will have a global impact. The
Middle East is one of the major energy producers of the world.
Just like Russia, we believe that the use of force cannot
be a solution to the crisis. Many other countries now share this approach, even
those that used to think that supplying arms to the opposition would be
sufficient to generate regime change. They now recognize that it is impossible
to settle the Syrian crisis through the use of force. This is also Russia’s
position.
Russia, Iraq and many other countries are united in their
conviction that force will not end the crisis in Syria – we need to look for a
peaceful solution through political dialogue. It is our joint task – I mean
Iraq, Russia and the whole international community – to help both sides find
common ground, to agree on a mutually-acceptable form of government.
This new government must be based on the principles of
freedom and democracy. The Syrians must have the right to vote, they must have
a Constitution. These are the things that the Syrian people demanded when they
started the revolution. But of course, not everybody in Syria agrees with these
demands, some groups don’t think that reforms are needed. We’ve heard different
statements and demands. Of course dialogue will continue, because we are very
much concerned about what’s going on in Syria. We have been seriously affected
by the situation in Syria. We have experienced some spillover effects of the
Syrian crisis here in Iraq.
We will discuss this issue with our Russian counterparts;
we will talk about possible ways to make existing initiatives effective,
including the original peace plan put forward by the Arab League, as opposed to
the flawed proposals made during the sessions of the ministerial committee and
the Geneva agreements. According to them, there is no military solution to the
conflict. The agreements call for an end to arms supplies both to the
opposition and the regime. Unfortunately, a number of states ignore these initiatives
and continue to send arms to Syria, which only makes the situation worse.
This is where Russia, Iraq, China, and many Muslim and
Arab countries in the region agree. It is our duty to address this issue and
try to find ways out of this turmoil which, we are afraid, might turn into a
fully-fledged regional war.
RT: How would you assess the
calls by some countries, especially Arab countries that have the support of the
West, for military intervention in order to resolve the crisis in Syria?
NM: I’d give them a piece of brotherly advice: “Forget
it! He who starts a fire will be destroyed by fire in the end.” Those who want
Syria to follow this path have to understand that it will destroy the Syrian
people. This is what’s happening in Syria right now. Cities lie in ruins, the
war rages on and is likely to spill over involving new actors – international,
regional, religious and political ones. If they care about themselves and their
people, if they seek stability and security, if they care about Syria and its
people, they have to stop sowing the seeds of discord by supplying arms. They
also have to stop thinking it will be them who will shape Syria’s future.
I met with several representatives of the Syrian
opposition and I felt they understand the threat that is coming from the Arab
forces that provide them with weapons. These forces openly declare that they
want to interfere in Syria’s affairs. But the Syrian nation is against it.
RT: Do you share the view
that it’s foreign interference in Syria’s affairs that’s made the situation in
the country so dangerous?
NM: Absolutely. And they will keep driving it to an
even more dangerous degree until eventually it will backfire on the states that
are now sponsoring the Syrian opposition. All these states will face upheavals
and unrest due to sectarian violence, foreign interference, the spillover
effect and expansion. They’re already feeling it. If these countries keep
sending arms and using force for a regime change, their stability will be in
jeopardy, and the situation inside these countries will be no better than in
Syria.
RT: What do you think about
the “national partnership government”? Is this the best form of governance to
help to move Iraq forward or are there any negative aspects that make that
government less effective? What do you think of “the majority government”,
something many other countries rely on?
NM: A partnership government has exhausted both its
capacity and agenda. It was necessary during previous stages, but not any
longer. Right now everyone, even the people of Iraq, feel that the regime of
national partnership keeps our hands tied, hinders our development, stands in
the way of the breakthrough that Iraq could make in the development of
infrastructure, the services sector and economic recovery.
We hear more and more voices now, in our society and in
parliament, calling for a shift to a majority government, to make parliament
united so that it can pass decisions and laws that would help to rule the
state; because right now the government is paralyzed. It can’t do anything. The
partnership originally built to pursue a major breakthrough has now degraded to
a partnership that generates obstacles. Because of that we need a majority
government, and I am working hard to make it a reality.
RT: Both the Iraqi
government and its citizens still suffer from regular terror attacks. Who is
behind this violence – international players interfering in your affairs or
Al-Qaeda militants opposing the political process? Or are there any other
reasons that the Iraqi people are not aware of? Why is it so hard to take out
these armed groups that are still out there?
NM: Violence continues and it’s been down to all the
factors you have mentioned. Foreign intervention is fully underway. What they
want to do is to use these acts of violence to prepare for the next,
post-Syrian stage. It’s the same states that are now interfering in Syria. They
are sending arms and militants there, over and over again. Their goal is to
change Syria, then Iraq, and ultimately the entire region. Also, Al-Qaeda is
back, it came to life again – regrettably, as part of the Arab Spring. It
flooded the streets in the capitals of Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen. Its slogans,
groups and terrorist attacks are clear signs of its revival, and Iraq couldn’t
escape that. And those states that are interfering won’t escape it either.
But the really embarrassing thing is that the national
partnership government cannot be effective in the fight against terrorism.
That’s the problem. When your partner supports both security measures and
terrorist acts, you get problems. I wouldn’t like to go into detail now. I am
only saying that this is one of the downsides to the national partnership. How
can we expect security agencies to control the situation when the government’s own
money, arms, transport, and the nature of the government are used to support
those seeking to carry out terrorist attacks?
RT: Mr. Maliki, when Iraq
was about to buy F-16 fighter jets, Iraqi Kurds, along with some neighboring
states, including the Gulf countries voiced their concerns over the future
deal. Are these concerns justified? And can they be allayed?
NM: They are totally unsubstantiated. These people
might still have old stereotypes of Iraq that go back to the times of
dictatorship that were characterized by reckless operations, wars and
invasions. Some regimes, both big and small, still have expansionist ambitions.
Sadly, they have learned no lessons from Saddam Hussein’s experience. He had it
all: troops and offensive capabilities, but the end of his career was a
disaster. These people still believe that just like in the past, Iraq is still
capable of invading its neighbors, concocting conspiracies, attacking other
countries like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or slaughtering people in its southern
or northern regions.
But today Iraq is a different country. It does not wage
war on its own people. The Kurds who believe that Iraq is taking up arms to
fight them are seriously deluded.
These talks are no more than political maneuvering used
to make up for the mistakes and failures of the past. These countries are aware
that present-day Iraq has nothing in common with the dictatorship of the past.
It is a democratic country which is against the use of force, as set forth in
the laws adopted by its parliament. Generally speaking, our main principle is
non-interference in the affairs of other states. But we would like this to be a
two-way street.
But the reality is that Iraq is located in an
arms-infested region. All the neighboring states have impressive arsenals of
modern weapons. Even the smaller states in the region have more weapons than
Iraq, a large state with a rich history. Iraq is entitled to self-defense, so
it has the right to use different armaments to protect its sovereignty. And so
it can have the same weapons as other countries who claim they need the same
weapons as Iraq to defend their sovereignty.
I would like to allay their concerns by saying that Iraq
is not interested in offensive weapons, only defensive ones. Indeed, we would
like to have very strong defensive weapons to repel any attack on Iraq’s
sovereignty. But primitive weapons won’t be enough. What we need is something
very strong and absolutely sophisticated to counter any possible aggression.
This would make anyone who plans to breach our sovereignty to think twice
before attacking Iraq.
RT: Mr Prime Minister, as
commander-in-chief, when do you expect Iraq’s armed forces to reach combat
readiness in terms of the size of personnel and materials?
NM: We already have the number of troops that we need,
but we are still working on the list of weapons and hardware. We are receiving
weapons supplies from the US, former Soviet nations and possibly from Russia,
too, in line with the contracts that we signed earlier. However, we expect to
ensure maximum defensive capabilities by 2020, according to the plans we have
at the moment. By that time we expect to re-equip the armed forces with
powerful weapons to protect Iraq on land and in the air. So currently we would
still be able to defend the nation but our capabilities need to be maintained
and further improved.
Posts
a.jpg)
a.jpg)
