|
A lecture
delivered to the Gulf Cultural Club – Abrar Islamic
Foundation
On 29th
April, 2004.
Chairman:
The programme this evening is in two parts. My apologies on
behalf of the organisers. His Eminence Dr Haider Al Abadi,
the Iraqi Minister of Telecommunications will be giving his
talk later on. We also have a very important speaker prior
to that Mr Ali Al Bayati the Director of the office of the
Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. He is
also, fortunately or unfortunately, the brother of Dr Talib
Al Bayati the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Iraq and his
presentation this evening will be about the process of
transferring power to Iraqis and the forthcoming elections.
Ali Al Bayati:
First of all I would like to thank the organisers of this
meeting, and especially Dr Saeed Al Shehabi. I apologise
firstly because I am talking and not my brother. I wanted
to talk about the process of transferring power to the
Iraqis, the election and the complexity of transferring
power in Iraq. To talk about these issues we have to talk a
little bit about the background to the situation.
Prior to
the coalition powers going into Iraqi the opposition – the
main Iraqi opposition groups – went to Washington and the
Supreme Council was one of them. The groups that went were
the Supreme Council, the Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi
National Accord, the Constitutional Monarchy Movement, the
Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan. At that time they told the Americans that they
oppose the war, they oppose occupation and there are other
ways to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. The statement
was written and it was read publicly to everybody.
The USA
wanted to have a conference for the Iraqi opposition and
they said it is us who will have the conference and we will
organise it ourselves. The conference took place in London
and they sent Dr Khalizad, the current ambassador of the US
to Afghanistan. We told him categorically that there should
be a government straight away after the fall of the regime
of Saddam Hussein. He said ‘no we will have an American
general who would rule Iraq for a while’ but we refused
that. A month later he said we will have a civilian
American who will rule. And again we refused. We said to him
if you are going to have an occupying power we will have
terrorists all over Iraq. We will have Al Qaeda inside Iraq,
the remnants of the regime and we have other people who will
join that because the stigma of occupation is refused by
everybody. He said ‘don’t worry we will organise it we have
enough power’.
After all
this time now they confessed that they were wrong and they
are admitting that they have made mistakes but they cannot
rectify them. I think the handing over of power to the Iraqi
people if vital but it should take some sort of a process.
That is why we insisted on the United Nations presence. That
would give a legitimate implication to the handing over of
power.
Regarding
the IGC there is more than one view: to hand over power to
the IGC as it is, to widen the IGC to 50 or 100 or
completely finish the IGC and create something new. There
is a lot of discussion going on at the moment.
I think
the role of Al Marjaya under the leader of Ayatollah Al
Sistani is vital in this situation because he represents the
cornerstone of the whole situation. He represents the
security of the Iraqi people, the Islamic idea in Iraq.
That is the identity of the Iraqi people we cannot deny them
that.
On the
other hand we have always resisted the occupation but we
think the resistance should come through peaceful means. The
mainstream of the Shia people inside Iraq (Ayatollah Al
Sistani, the Supreme Council and other groups) all
supported the peaceful means of ending the occupation.
After
handing over power to the Iraqis there is a view of who is
going to receive it and the elections. Without the election
we will never have a legitimate government and that is the
ultimate solution for us.
When the
IGC delegation went to the United Nations and they met Kofi
Annan and subsequently he accepted the idea of sending a
delegate from the UN to Iraq the Supreme Council had a
complete study on how the election could be conducted inside
Iraq. If we had prepared for the election last June we would
have been ready by now and the power would have been handed
over to a complete sovereign government. Unfortunately the
occupying power refused that for one reason or another but
that study is still there.
The study
was with the consultation of the Ministry of Trade because
they controlled the ration cards. The ration card provides a
good census inside Iraq. They have the names of the members
of the family, their ages, a record of any deaths etc The
registration of the office was consulted – i.e. the
citizenship and the passport office. The Ministry of Justice
was consulted along with the Centre for Statistics inside
Iraq and various NGO’s from various countries who have
experience in difficulties of the election situation inside
Iraq.
Some
issues were raised concerning the election ie. The security
situation and the precise census and statistics inside Iraq.
There is no election law and a large number of Iraqis are
still outside. Most of these concerns are being looked at
and they will be resolved.
One of
the reasons we wanted to have an election was because we
think having an election is better than no election at all.
We can consider the election in Kurdistan. It was held in a
situation where the security was not that good and it was
during the time of the Saddam Hussein regime so they were
under threat from the regime itself and seventy percent of
the Iraqi people who will take part in the election live in
a secure area.
Just to
go back to the terrorism that has been going inside Iraq. We
have gone through various stages inside Iraq. The first
stage was prior to July 2003. There were people who were
infiltrating through the porous borders. The occupying power
dissolved the Iraqi army and the police and that created
chaos. When they came into Iraq they tried to have a
partnership with them and the perfect partnership was the
majority of the Shia community inside Iraq. They approached
the leadership and at that time the martyr Ayatollah
Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim said we will resist the occupying
powers by peaceful means.
They did
not like it and they started their second stage of
terrorising the people with car bombs. They assassinated
Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim and then Sergio de Mella because
they wanted to get rid of the United Nations. Basically they
wanted to get rid of everyone who could create a bit of
legitimacy and security inside Iraq.
They have
always tried to bring somebody from the Shia community to
have a go with them against the occupying powers.
The
latest stage is the kidnapping of civilian people inside
Iraq. Most of these people are innocent, some of them are
helping the Iraqi people. These are the main stages of
terrorism inside Iraq.
There
are a few things Iraqis should look at carefully when power
if handed over in order to achieve their goals: full
sovereignty and an end to the occupying powers inside Iraq.
First of
all we have to gather and we have to listen carefully to the
marjaya in Najaf. We think they are the main people who will
represent security inside Iraq. We have to resist the
occupying powers by peaceful means. The security powers in
Iraq i.e. the police and the army, should be looked at again
because they do not really represent the true security
inside Iraq. The recruitment is done through the occupying
powers, they are having the interviews for the policeman and
the army and it is not very clear to them who they are. So
now anybody can join the army or the police.
We will
have to look at the people who were in the ex regime and we
have to vet them quite well before letting them have
responsibility in the new government. We have to patient, we
have to be rational, we have to look at resolving issues
without the use of violence or guns.
The Iraqi
government now or the Iraqi government who will receive
power will have to look at resolving the problems of the
Iraqi people who really suffered from the past regime. After
all the Iraqis are the main vital people for Iraq.
Chairman:
I would like to call on the Iraqi Trade Minister to say a
few words.
Kamal Fidh:
Ladies and gentlemen. Iraq has a large consumer market. It
is rich in natural resources and has a rich agricultural
base.
We have
created an environment conducive to foreign investment. In
addition to that we have hard working populations, transport
facilities etc.
For those
who are involved in trade there is a tremendous opportunity
in supplying the market as the last regime prevented many
goods from coming to the market like mobiles, satellites,
foreign branded commodities, financial services etc. All
these are badly need in the consumer market in Iraq.
We have
natural resources but the facilities are still poor. We need
foreign investors in these facilities for extracting natural
resources. In agriculture Iraq can produce a lot of
products: wheat, barley and rice. We also need investment
in industry that is based on agricultural products. In this
respect the economy is poor so we need your investment.
As far as
labour is concerned we have a large educated population but
still we need investment in vocational training.
In
transport we have trains, ports, airports – all of them need
maintenance. The private sector in Iraq have very little
resources to maintain and develop these facilities. We are
looking for foreign investors in this respect.
In the
past the policies of the previous regime and irrational
spending resulted in a decline in economic growth. Economic
recovery depends on improving Iraq’s capacity for exporting
oil and encouraging foreign investors and private sector
development and efficient use of donations.
Studies
have been conducted by the CPA indicating that with the help
of donations from various countries within four years Iraq
can reach full employment. This is a very optimistic study
because of the current crisis and security issue. Once we
overcome this problem the Iraqi economy can recover and
grow.
You may
ask what are the signs of economic recovery in Iraq. In
summer last year the unemployment rate was 50 percent. In
March this year the unemployment rate has been reduced to
30 percent. This is a sign of a bit of recovery. Electricity
was and still is a problem but there is now equal
distribution throughout the country. Most of the country is
now receiving not less than 12 hours supply.
What has
been done to ensure a speedy recovery? The market has now
been opened to international trade and foreign investors.
Legal and judicial reforms have been instituted and we have
approved financial institutions.
Chairman:
The Iraqi Minister of Telecommunications Dr Haider Al Abadi
is here now. Thank you for waiting and for your patience.
Dr Al Abadi has been a colleague and friend. I just want to
remind him of one of the incidents that took place once. We
were outside the Iraqi embassy protesting against Saddam
Hussein. We were very afraid that they would attack us from
inside. The policeman said :”Look today you are here and
they are there. Tomorrow you will be there and they will be
here. But I will always be in my place, I will not change.
So I think the prophecy of that policeman has come true and
I have one opposition figure who has become a minister with
us. Welcome Dr Al Abadi.
Dr Haider Al Abadi:
I am sorry I missed what Kamal Fidh was saying about
development in Iraq – it is a major issue at the moment. One
of the major problems of development in Iraq is security. I
have been asked to summarise the major problems. I say
number one is security, number two is security, number three
is security, number four is security, number five is
financing and number six is restructuring.
Security
in Iraq has many aspects and the unfortunate thing is that
the coalition has made a blunder with security.
We are
having a very useful discussion in Baghdad at present and I
tell you the atmosphere is very encouraging. I attended last
week a meeting of the Municipal Office of Baghdad at which
40 people were present. There were bombings and
assassinations in the heart of Baghdad which nobody can
anticipate. Car bombing is one of the lethal weapons used by
people against freedom and against democracy to cause
destabilisation. We could hear some gun shots when we were
sitting in that meeting. We did not where they were coming
from- whether it was friendly fire or enemy fire. It is
difficult to differentiate but it doesn’t matter because
gunfire kills people regardless of whether it is enemy or
friendly.
But I
tell you the atmosphere in that meeting was very encouraging
in terms of freedom of speech. People can accommodate each
other despite their differences. I could see women there
with a full proper Islamic veil, another with only a scarf
– not Islamic dress as such - some Christian women were
unveiled in that meeting, some Muslim women were unveiled,
people of different opinions and different ethnic origins
and they all worked for Baghdad. That meeting was
democratic. You could hear a lot of different opinions and
they then they followed certain rules they agreed upon to
finalise their discussions.
In that
meeting I felt that in Iraq there is a lot of hope that we
get out of the current situation successfully. I am not
trying to raise spirits here because the challenges –
especially the security challenges – are still great in Iraq
but I am trying to reflect the true side of Iraq, the true
picture. Unfortunately military actions take over the
coverage of life in Iraq. All we see on tv, especially
satellite tv, is not a true reflection of what is going on
in Iraq. On tv screens what we see maybe true but the
message it tries to portray- this is the only picture of
Iraq – is not true. The other side is much greater than
this. When I am in Baghdad I watch tv and I say are they
talking about Baghdad because I am in Baghdad. What they
are reflecting is true – people are getting killed. American
soldiers are getting killed every day and so are innocent
people. But this is not the whole picture of Iraq as we see
it from inside Iraq. This is one side of the picture but
unfortunately, for different reasons, people want to show
the picture of Iraq as the only side. This is completely
untrue and completely unrepresentative of what is going on
inside Iraq.
Why are
they trying to reflect this picture? As you are well aware
this war has been fought without much approval of world
opinion. Most of the people of the world were against it all
along so there are scores to be settled. Everybody who was
against the war is trying to prove his point of view that
this war was wrong. So they are trying to reflect on the
atmosphere in Iraq as very bad. This will show that their
point of view is correct – this war should never have been
fought.
There are
others in the region who are very sceptical of the policies
of the US and the coalition in general and for them it would
be very beneficial to reflect the picture of Iraq as a very
unstable situation. It is to protect themselves.
Unfortunately some in the Bush administration were very
unwise to unleash all sorts threats against the countries
neighbouring Iraq so they live in fear. Most of them
collaborated to destabilise the situation in Iraq and to
show a picture of Iraq which is completely unrelated to the
actual situation on the ground.
At the
moment the security situation is a bit critical. I always
say power is corruption. A superpower like the US has
massive military power and power sometimes corrupts decision
makers. They think they can solve everything with power but
they cannot. We can see this in Falluja. Clearly what the US
army did is wrong. They should not have unleashed a massive
power like this against the inhabitants of a town,
regardless of what we think about these fighters. I do not
agree with these fighters. I think many of them are corrupt
people belonging either to the security services of the
previous regime or they are the extremists who are trying to
exert their influence on the country. All they are trying to
do is to destabilise the country. But when the US decision
makers decide to go for collective punishment of the
population they only result is to create many future
extremists. When innocent people are getting bombed for no
reason other than they happen to be in that town they would
be very much angered with the establishment and the
occupying forces and this could produce more extremists. The
corruption of power has led to many bad and wrong decisions
by the occupying forces and we are reaping the fruits of
these decisions.
Although the CPA is
in Baghdad they are so much distant from Baghdad, so much
distant from the Iraqis themselves. There has not been much
consultation with the Iraqis about many of the decisions
which have been taken without consultations. In fact
consultations take place after decisions have been taken.
When they come to a collusion course they seek advise.
The problem with the
CPA, as with any occupying force, is that they think they
have a right to govern. And it is true that this right is
given to them, unfortunately by the Security Council. It was
unfortunate because as we can see a lot of countries opposed
the war. But after the war was successful they gave their
blessing to the US to become an official occupier of Iraq,
without much objection from others.
In this respect that
was the wrong decision from the international community. It
was imposed on Iraq as an occupying force and the CPA was
the administrator of the country and they had the legal
right to govern the country. This right was given to them by
the UN.
However I think
there are some common strategical interests between the
coalition and the Iraqis and that is why they are in
government although Iraq is under occupation. We are not in
this position to collaborate with occupiers because we did
not want them to become occupiers. I don’t think they wanted
to become occupiers in the first place. They tried to
portray themselves as liberators but officially they became
the occupiers of Iraq.
The strategical
interests at the moment – I am not talking about the whole
strategical planning of the war by the Bush administration,
I am talking about what is taking place in Iraq after the
collapse of the previous regime, after the war. The
strategical interests are first security, second rebuilding
the country and third fighting extremism and terrorism.
These are within the borders of Iraq. We have a lot of
things in common between the Iraqis and the coalition.
Security is very
important for Iraqis because they want to get on with their
lives as normal. They cannot live without security, they
cannot raise their children without security, they cannot
perform their normal duties without security. It is also
important to the coalition because it means they don’t lose
soldiers. It means the whole region would be stabilised and
it means they would shows the world that Iraq is a better
country than it was before. It means they have been
successful. I was told by the British Prime Minister
yesterday that if we win, he wins. If Iraq is successful it
means that he can win the election. If Iraq is not
successful he will lose. So there is a common interest here.
It is to our benefit if Iraq wins because as Iraqis we want
our country to succeed for them they will get something out
of this.
For the Iraqis
whether the war was right or wrong is a philosophical
argument. For us it is life or death, it is the life of the
people Whether the war was right or wrong has no reflection
on us. What is important for us is that we have got rid of a
very oppressive regime and we want to get along with our
lives as normal. We want to manage our affairs, we want to
be able to manage our resources and transform our society
from complete dictatorship to democracy and freedom. And we
intend to do this.
There are a lot of
positive aspects in Iraq and I assure you Iraqis will be
successful in that. With regard to the resources of the
country, because Iraq officially is under occupation all the
resources of Iraq are under the control of the CPA. It means
they are the ones who are supposed to run the country. But
in the summer of last year ambassador Bremer, when he became
administrator he wanted the Iraqi politicians to become his
advisers but they refused. They said we will not become
advisers because this is our country. We want to run the
country. In the end he came to an agreement which was to
establish a governing council of Iraqis and to delegate all
authority to them apart from security. Iraq was under
occupation and it did not have any police force,
intelligence or army. All three collapsed.
Don’t forget Iraq was
run by a dictator and the whole apparatus of the country
collapsed after the dictator fell. This is the normal course
for any country which is run by a dictatorship. The whole
infrastructure falls. So Iraq was without a government,
without infrastructure. A lot of ministries collapsed
altogether. When I came to the Ministry of Communications
all the structures of the ministry collapsed. Most of the
buildings were ransacked and the employees were without
anything to do. The whole country collapsed, especially the
military, the intelligence and the police. The regime was
using these apparatus to protect the regime rather than to
benefit the people. Most of these apparatus were involved in
crimes against the people. That is why they fled and the
whole thing collapsed. Iraqis could not manage security so
the only solution was for the occupying force to take
control of the country. They had a sizeable army and it was
agreed that they should take care of the security.
But ambassador Bremer
promised that Iraqis could run the country and that he
would keep a veto for himself. But he promised that he would
never use the veto. But he has to keep the veto according to
him because Iraq is officially under occupation and the
ultimate decision has to be within his administration – that
is how he puts it..
The Governing Council
was given a task at the time of appointing ministers to run
the country and the ministers were appointed at the end of
August last year and the country was run by the
ministries. The overall decision making has been with the
governing council, legislation has been with the governing
council but Ambassador Bremer gave himself the right to
screen any legislation that he sees as unfit or improper.
In such circumstances he would not sign it but he would
refer it to the Governing Council for them to make
amendments. Some legislation never saw the light because
Ambassador Bremer did not approve it. It went back to the
council and the council refused to ratify it, so it never
saw the light. In the case of some legislation they made
some alterations and they agreed with him and then it was
ratified. So the relationship continued in the same manner
and gradually the security of the country was in trouble.
We have a two-fold
problem with security in Iraq. Any country run by the
military will have a lot of problems. Even if London is run
by the UK army there will be a lot of problems. The American
military do not understand the culture, the language, the
people. They do not who is the enemy who is a friend. They
do not even know who is an Iraqi. They cannot recognise an
Arab and see whether he comes from a neighbouring country.
Security becomes an issue and the US army and coalition
forces were committing crimes against the Iraqi people.
They were treating the Iraqis with harshness, with a lot of
excesses. Over time the whole thing accumulated and Iraqis
at the moment have become very uncomfortable with the
occupation. Unfortunately what was supposed to be
liberation has turned into occupation. In our opinion it
must end soon, the occupation cannot continue and I think
the transfer of power and sovereignty to the Iraqis is the
proper step to take.
But sovereignty must
be sovereignty. I looked in the dictionary and I don’t think
there are two meanings for sovereignty. Unfortunately some
people in the White House are trying to give different
meanings to sovereignty. If a lot of issues are going to be
kept in the hands of the occupation it is not right. We
should not call it a transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis – we
should have made it gradual - that would be in line with
what you are calling limited sovereignty. First, you
transfer the budget to the Iraqis, second the administration
and thirdly the security file. It should have been done this
way – it would have been much clearer and it would seen in a
much better light.
At the moment if the
USA is going to appoint a new government - I think many
in the current Iraqi administration would be reluctant to
serve in that government - because it will be seen as a
puppet government. Last summer a government had to be
appointed because the country had to run. The CPA were very
co-operative and they gave all assurances they want to
transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis. But when we reach this
summer if things are going to be the same as before why call
it transfer of sovereignty.
To be fair the CPA is
saying that we will transfer all aspects of the budget, that
is the money of Iraq, all administration aspects, the
ministries. This is irrelevant because the ministries have
been run by Iraqi ministers for eight months. So there is no
change there. There may be a big change in the money but I
think Iraq will still need the help of the coalition because
you have to keep the oil flowing and ensure security. Iraq
needs help in exporting oil. There are a lot of debts. We
are in danger of people who have debts against Iraq seizing
the money which is in Iraq’s accounts. The US and the UK and
the rest of the countries have put this money in a safe
account where the people who Iraq owes a lot of money
cannot put their hands on it. So Iraq still needs
protection in this respect.
Moving to the
rebuilding of Iraq there have been very many delays to that
process. We have not seen much of it. There is a lot of
argument about it. One of the sizeable donations as you are
aware, is coming from US supplemental which amounts to
about $18.6 bn. Congress has approved something like $13bn
so far to be released for the rebuilding of Iraq and some of
this money has already been committed to projects inside
Iraq. But none of the projects have physically started,
especially the projects to do with reconstructing,
rebuilding, proper construction work.
Construction work is
very important. Telecommunications is important but it is a
very specialised field. Not many people work in this field.
It only requires a few people. But construction, usually
requires a lot of labour, a lot of people and Iraq has a
massive army of unemployed. These people who are
unemployed, disadvantaged and live on the margins of society
haven’t seen much change. They have not seen much benefit
since the fall of the last regime. They have not seen an
advantage in the process. They have been waiting – they have
been very patient but since they haven’t seen much change
they have started to become uncomfortable and it is very
easy for them to fall into the hands of terrorists, trouble
makers and people who want to destabilise the country.
I would divide people
who want to destabilise the country into three categories:
ex Iraqi regime affiliates. People may say this regime has
gone now, why should they keep on fighting. There is a
reason. Many people were prepared to take part in the
crimes of the previous regime. Their number of sizeable.
They plundered the country committing torture and rape,
committing murder on a massive scale. These people are still
living free in Iraq. They have not been held accountable for
their crimes. They are still living freely. Unfortunately
the occupying force did not make any effort to bring them to
account. They are living freely. Once there is a proper
Iraqi authority all of them will be held accountable. They
cannot go unpunished. Whoever took part in a crime against
the people of Iraq should be held accountable.
These people do not
want this day to come. They want to delay the stabilisation
of Iraq, they want Iraq to be kept destabilised. That is why
they spend so much time and energy to cause the
destabilisation of the country. That is why they are hitting
oil pipes, telecommunications towers, infrastructure, water
pipes – anything they could get their hands on. They do not
want the country to be rebuilt, they do not want the country
to be stable. Why? Because once the country is stabilised
there will be courts and they will be held accountable.
The second group is
organised crime. It has become very powerful in Iraq over
the last year. It was powerful under the previous regime
during the 13 years under sanctions. At that time organised
crime became very powerful and there was a strong link
between the intelligence service and these organised gangs
were able to operate because of the sanctions, because of
the low standard of living inside Iraq. A lot of the
intelligence services were part of these criminal gangs and
part of this organised crime.
Because of the
collapse of the Iraqi state organised crime flourished. They
said that the occupying force is not equipped to fight such
organised crime. They did not even make any effort to fight
it. That is a failure. We always say that it is the
responsibility of the occupying power to ensure security
inside Iraq and they failed drastically in this aim because
they let the crimes flourish under their noses. The reason
for that was because they thought the organised crime was
not a threat to the US soldiers, it is not a threat to the
coalition soldiers. They were very much pre-occupied with
the dangers to their forces and organised crime was not
considered a problem. But they were wrong. The whole thing
worked together: the organised criminals are in bed with the
ex Iraqi regime officers and the religious extremists who
are the third destabilising group inside Iraq.
The religious
extremists have an agenda and this agenda is beyond the
borders of Iraq. They are in a trap because the think they
are in a war with the US and the West. If the US and the
coalition succeed in Iraq it will prove they were wrong.
They are prepared to kill Iraqis in their tens of thousands.
They have an agenda and they want to fulfil this agenda.
Unfortunately it has got nothing to do with religion. They
have a political agenda. Otherwise how could we explain
suicide bombers killing innocent people in their houses.
They are prepared to kill many people because they want to
destabilise the country. They want to set Iraqis against
each other. That is why on one of the holiest days for Shia
Muslims they tried to kill Iraqis in their hundreds in the
hope that the Shias would have a back lash against the
Sunnis. That was their aim. And then there would be another
backlash and the country would fall into civil war. But
fortunately the Iraqis are aware of this and the whole plot
was foiled.
In our opinion the
next couple of months are very critical because we have to
come out with a civil administration of Iraqis who must be
seen as a caretaker government until proper elections are
held. Now we are working for elections in January 2005. I
hope we can fulfil this date because we have already started
work on the election processes. The Ministry of
Communications was part of a set up to look at ways of
registering people electronically and to make it fool proof.
Probably we can achieve this very quickly and register
people in a very quick way. We can prevent double voting
and have proper elections.
The problem is we
must have free speech. If there is no free speech because of
the security situation we cannot hold elections. Elections
are not merely a matter of casting a vote. You have to have
discussions and free speech. People must be free to present
their ideas and describe what they are going to do. If they
do not feel free to do this the elections will not be a lot
of use. We are better off without elections and we should
wait until there is free speech.
There is a large
degree of free speech. There are about 100 newspapers in
Iraq. All of them are free. Unfortunately some of them are
free to publish lies and accusations. Some of them have an
affiliation with the previous regime and are trying to cause
problems inside Iraq. Unfortunately democracy takes time to
mature and it will take some time. When a country is under
dictatorship for 35 years we do not expect it to turn into a
free democratic country in one year. It will take time.
There are enough
resources inside the country. Iraq is not short of
resources, it is not short of capabilities with its
population- there are many. Our belief is that the country
will come out of its present trouble very quickly. It may be
seen at the moment as very fragile because of the current
security situation but in the end we are hoping it will
prosper in a very short time. Already there are a lot of
rebuilding projects although we cannot see much. There are
proper projects, there are serious projects which will
transform the whole country. There are serious projects for
electricity, for water for telecommunications for health.
This is something
which is under way although it is slow and painful We were
hoping that this process would start last December. Then we
were told January, February. It has taken a very long time
to implement and we can understand why because of the
security situation. It needs a huge amount of money which
has to be managed. But most of the Iraqi ministries are
functioning properly, the infrastructure is there, there has
been a lot of restructuring of the country and de-Baatification
is going head although there are a lot of arguments and
counter arguments about it.
De-Baathification does not mean that
everyone who was associated with the previous regime must be
got rid of. Senior members of the previous regime must not
occupy a public place in a new Iraq at least for a few
years. The ex Iraqi regime was not a normal regime. It is a
regime that has committed a lot of crimes, great crimes
against the Iraqi people. So senior members of this regime
must have responsibility for these crimes. We do not aim to
punish all of them – only people against whom we have
serious proof they committed crimes against the Iraqi
people. The rest of them must not occupy public places. This
is what de-Baatification means. We agreed about de-Baatfication
when we were in opposition and these people must not occupy
public positions in the aftermath of the previous regime. | 
