Fuad Hussein: KDP seeks presidency; Iraq lacks prisons for ISIS detainees

Because now the distribution of salaries - meaning the fiscal policy - relies on the one-and-a-half rule. This means that just as salaries were issued in January last year, they must be given the same way this year. This is also based on the issue of non-oil revenue, which must be handed over.

If I am not mistaken, in the past day or two, you chaired a Ministerial Council meeting for the economy of Iraq?

No, I did not participate.

You didn't participate? But was the meeting held?

The meeting was held, but I haven't followed up on it because I was very busy and did not participate.

I want to ask whether the subject of non-oil revenue and those 120 billion dinars [nearly $92 million] will continue, or has a committee been formed to review it?

The committee itself exists, but January salaries must be paid - meaning they have started. If they don’t reach a new agreement, it means the old agreement will continue as it is.

I will move to the situation in Syria and the circumstances there. What has Iraq done to prevent the dangers from spilling over into Iraq?

Generally, we are all very concerned - all of us officials in Baghdad. We had a security meeting; the prime minister and I were present, and they presented a security report. We are very concerned about the situation in Syria, both the situation of the Kurds in Syria and the situation of the ISIS [Islamic State] prisons.

From what I understand, there are about 8,000 - some people say 12,000 - terrorists in those prisons under the control of the SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces]. Certainly, some places fell to the Syrian government, and some [prisoners] got out, were released, or escaped, I don’t know. The people in Hasaka [prison], are numerous and very dangerous - and are from the leaders of ISIS and major terrorists. We are talking about thousands of people. Imagine if they escape, or are released, or flee and once again return to the field of terrorist activity.

A large number of them are Iraqi, and this is a major threat to Iraq, to Syria, and to the security of the region. Therefore, we have investigated this closely, and I myself, in my contacts with American, European, and even Gulf officials, have tried to get them to support extending the ceasefire and for the problem between the SDF and the Syrian government to be solved through dialogue, because that’s the right way. The use of weapons…

So you, as the foreign minister of Iraq, played a role in extending the ceasefire?

No - rather, it’s my job.

I mean, did Iraq have a role in this [ceasefire]?

I don’t know if it was my role or not, but we have contacted all sides and hope this ceasefire continues. The issue is that it must not turn into a war, especially in Hasaka.

If war breaks out in Hasaka, several things will happen: First, the issue of those terrorists in the prison in Hasaka who are truly dangerous. Second, if war breaks out and a military attack is launched on Hasaka, it means all civilians will flee. Where will they flee to? Either they come into Iraq, or they go toward the Kurdistan Region. This creates another problem of refugees and displaced persons for us this winter, which certainly becomes a humanitarian problem. We hope none of this happens.

In your remarks, you referred to the prisoners and ISIS leaders and said “be released” or “set free.” Who would release them? Or is [the concern] that they will escape?

That's right. If they escape themselves.

That is one thing, but does the Iraqi government fear that the Syrian government might release those prisoners?

You see, there are one or two things. the SDF had many Arab tribes with it, had armed them, etc. All those tribes are now against the SDF. They were together for many years, but now they stand against them. Sometimes they act on their own, meaning they go to a prison themselves and release the people in the prison, even presenting it as if they released their own brothers and relatives. This doesn't mean it's the policy of the Syrian state, but that situation exists there. This is dangerous, very dangerous.

What is Iraq afraid of?

First, the issue of security in Syria, and if Syria is not stable and has war in it, there will be an impact. Second, those prisoners - the terrorists - will immediately reconnect with ISIS, because ISIS exists in Syria; meaning the ISIS organization exists in Syria. When they are on the border and 2,000 to 3,000 of them are Iraqi, they will certainly try to return to Iraq as well.

However, the border demarcation is controlled by the Iraqi army and Iraqi forces, so it is not easy for them. But in any case, one must account for it, because we saw how it was when ISIS came and how their behaviour was. It remains and it exists. Their organization is very strong and they can carry out terrorist acts in many places. Therefore, when one talks about that, one must make preparations, because we have a bitter experience with ISIS.

That experience was 12 years ago, in 2014. Hasn’t the Iraqi army grown stronger during these 12 years?

It has experience and more information. Previously, when ISIS came and took the areas of Mosul and later Salahaddin and reached Ramadi and near Kirkuk and Makhmour and south of Baghdad, that information on ISIS was not available. But in recent years, there is a lot of information on them and much intelligence work has been done on them; certainly, it cannot be compared with the year 2014. In military terms, both the Peshmerga, the Hashd al-Shaabi [Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)], and the Iraqi army have experience; they have good experience too.

Won't that experience repeat where ISIS captures a city in Iraq?

I don't believe so, but terrorist activity is always dangerous. Because four people can also carry out a terrorist act; the issue is not a frontline war. A full-blown war will not happen, but in the ISIS era, it became a full-blown war. In a short period, about two months, they seized all those areas. On the 10th of June, they were in Mosul, and on the 5th and 6th of August in 2014, they reached south of Makhmour. In that period I mentioned, they were in Mosul, and in August they reached south of Baghdad. Meaning two capitals - the capital of the country and the capital of the Region - were under the threat of ISIS.

Those prisoners the Americans are transferring to Iraqi prisons - does that include all ISIS prisoners or only those prisoners under SDF authority?

We have discussed this in principle; this has not been implemented yet. In principle, we have discussed with the federal government that it is better - if the situation is like that - to transfer those ISIS members to prevent some tribes from releasing them or them escaping themselves. It is better for us to transfer them, because they were part of a terrorist organization and that organization killed people in Iraq and Syria, so legally it is our right.

So, in principle, we have discussed it, but in our contacts, both with the Americans and the Europeans, we have also discussed it and told them this is a major task. Transferring 8,000 to 9,000 terrorists first requires special prisons, which we don’t have, or they must be distributed, which is also not easy.

Second, they will stay in prison for 20 or 30 years; the question is, how will their expenses be covered? Some of them are citizens of other countries; they’re not all Iraqi and that’s the problem. Those who are Syrian will likely remain in Syria, but those who are Iraqi or citizens of other countries - it’s true they committed crimes on Iraqi soil and must be tried here - but at the same time, they are citizens of other countries, such as European and Arab countries, they’re too much.

So, the proposal is for them to go back to their own countries?

No, no one accepts them.

This hasn’t been implemented yet, right?

No, no. This has been discussed only in principle.

What do the Americans say?

The Americans would like it, because the Americans help the SDF protect these [prisoners], but that war that started between the Arab tribes - and at times the Syrian government - against the SDF has created a problem in that area. Therefore, the Americans are concerned that those [ISIS prisoners] might be released or escape, so it’s better for them to be in prison somewhere else.

If they are transferred, how long will they stay in Iraq?

The judiciary will decide on that, because they were tried by the SDF, but the SDF courts do not have international recognition because [the SDF] is not a state. Therefore, according to international laws, they have not been tried anywhere, and a new case must be opened for each of them.

Where is the Syrian government in this equation? Why aren't those prisoners handed back to the Syrian government?

The prisoners are not currently under the control of the Syrian government; rather, they are under the control of the SDF. The reason for the concern of the Americans and other parties is that if war breaks out between those two sides, controlling those prisons will be impossible, and the prisoners will flee, because the SDF controlled that area.

According to reports from human rights monitoring organizations, many violations occurred in the January 22 attack on SDF and Kurdish areas. As you know, until now, Kurds in the Kurdistan Region and other global cities have been protesting [to condemn those violations]. You, as a Kurd who is the Foreign Minister of Iraq, what have you done to convey these violations to the world?

Certainly, part of the actions that were taken were by the tribes. There is a problem in Syria now; you have the government forces, the SDF forces, and the tribal forces. Most of those tribal forces that were previously with the SDF have split from it and are now working against the SDF and fighting against it. In reality, some of the actions that were taken were done by those tribes. In our contacts, we ask European countries and America to put pressure first on the Syrian government so that it can prevent those actions. But believe me, in some locations the Syrian government also has no authority, and those forces are independent and tribal.

Meaning they are not under their control?

In some places, they are not under their control.

If the Syrian government wants to, can’t it control them?

How?

If the Syrian government forces want to?

I am not an expert on their military and security capability, but I am talking about the situation and the reality. Those tribes that were with the other side suddenly turned. They are all armed and have been trained by the SDF and the coalition.

Did they defect?

I don’t know. The SDF should [answer this question]. I don’t know the reason for this sudden switch, because they were together for many years, were heavily armed, and were receiving salaries. They suddenly turned.

Do you predict another Israeli attack on Iran?

I cannot determine that, but the Iranians themselves say - meaning when I was in Iran, Iranian officials themselves said it's possible they will be attacked, but by whom is a different matter. The Iranians themselves say they will not attack and will not take the initiative, but they are preparing themselves to defend themselves if an attack is made on them, and they have made statements in that regard.

A few days ago, you were in Iran; has Iran prepared itself for another war?

To defend itself.

To defend itself?

Yes, that’s true.

You, with that experience you've had - a while ago, you gave a statement in Qatar and said the situation of the region is not easy and is not moving toward peace; in your exact words, you said it is not moving toward peace. Is it still like that now, and the situation hasn't calmed down?

Yes, it is becoming more complicated.

Is the regional situation becoming more complicated?

Yes.

Where and what is the reason?

These very threats, because these days threats - meaning words - become bullets. There are many threats.

Who is making them, and against whom?

Threats in the region, we see that the Americans talk about, meaning they also talk harshly about the situation of Iran. When they talk harshly about the situation of Iran, it means that the problem that exists between Washington and Tehran has not been solved; there is no sitting [meeting], no dialogue, and no contact. Therefore, the problem remains, and the problem is big.

Is the situation such that from time to time it gets hot and then cools down?

It might get hot and cool down, but it is in a state of psychological war. It is a media war. The question is, will this media and psychological war turn into a hot war? I don't know, but all indicators show that the region is moving toward more complications.

Mr. Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani has stated in his interviews that they are trying for Iraq to mediate between America and Iran. There are also rumours that a meeting might be held in Baghdad. Have you worked on such a thing?

That is a difficult task. I went to Tehran and listened to Iranian officials, as well as the American side. The problem now is that there is no direct contact. Perhaps there is contact through messages, but there is no meeting. If there is no meeting, a problem is created. If a decision for a meeting is made, then we can put ourselves in between them, but from the American side, there is no decision for a meeting.

There is no decision from the American side. Is Iran ready for a meeting with the Americans in Baghdad?

It doesn't necessarily have to be in Baghdad; wherever it may be. I cannot speak on behalf of Iran, but my prediction is that it is not unlikely that Iran has a desire for a meeting, but they also say that conditions must not be imposed on them, and the meeting must be without conditions.

What are America’s conditions?

For America, every stage has had different conditions, but initially it related to the nuclear weapons project, later it went into details such as uranium enrichment and the percentage that Iran must have or not. My view is that the problem is not that now, because a major blow was dealt to Iran’s projects, and most of the materials they had are now underground. They indeed have their uranium, but the Iranians are ready to solve it and give clear signals that they are ready to discuss that subject, but so far, there has been no response from the American side.

Have you conveyed the messages of both sides to one another?

I won’t say I conveyed the messages of both sides, I listened to both sides and discussed these subjects with both sides.

My point is, does Iraq mediate?

We are not mediators at this stage, because mediation requires both sides to agree on negotiation, and if there is a small problem, you solve it for them. Currently, negotiation and a negotiation process are not on the table.

Meaning if there were a small problem, you would have solved it, so the problem is very big now?

It is very big.

The problem between Iran and America is very, very big.

They see it as big themselves.

Yes. Regarding America and Iran, another question about Iraq occurred to me. Is it true that the Americans have requested that the first deputy speaker of parliament be changed?

I have heard it that way.

What have they told Iraq officially?

I am not aware of who they told officially, because they also talk with the [Coordination] Framework as a political force, but I don’t know if they discussed it with the Framework or not, although it was discussed in the media as well.

In your opinion, will the framework comply with this American request?

That depends on who forms the next government in Baghdad and how and when it is formed.

What are your views on Maliki’s nomination for prime minister?

That is clear. We were pleased that the framework reached a decision, which was the nomination of Mr. Maliki. We supported that decision and said we support any of their decisions. Certainly, we supported Maliki because he is an acquaintance and a friend, and we know him, but in the end, this is the decision of the framework.

I return to the beginning of our talk regarding the formation of the Iraqi government. You said the presidential vote might be postponed until Sunday; won't this timeline create a constitutional problem?

No, they discussed it in a way that the 29th of the month falls on a Thursday. They discussed that after Thursday, Friday is an official holiday and no session is held. Also Saturday is a holiday, so the session falls on Sunday. I believe they have solved it legally. Meaning, the legal side of the subject was discussed that way.

So, the constitutional issue has been solved?

They discussed it that way themselves. I don’t know how legal experts will analyze it later, but this was what they discussed.