Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Of course, the most prominent subject is Iraq, especially after the escalation of violence
we are witnessing in the recent days in Sadr City, al-Falluja, Tal Afar and other cities
what do you think is the cause of this escalation?
In the name of God, the compassionate and the merciful
There are several armed groups in Iraq; these groups have different ideas
different international and local affiliation, different funding and different goals
but they all share one thing in common and that is that they are all armed groups whether they show their faces or not, it is the same
There should be no weapons except with the State which will face any armed group
These groups should lay down their weapons and engage in the political process whether this engagement is in a negative or positive way
what really matters is that there should not be any weapons with any group in Iraq; Iraq will not be a country of militias
There are evil and ignorant intentions, and there are decent intentions that might carry weapons
but in the new IRaq it will not be acceptable to have any weapons except with the state just like what the situation was in the past
The lack of security, border liberty, looting the arsenal of the former Iraqi army, poverty and unemployment; all of these factors
In addition to regional and international forces trying to destabilize Iraq and destroy the new democracy in it
because it might be a threat to the dictatorial regimes in the region
they don't want Iraq to prosper. I am assured that the near and middle future of Iraq will be good
There might be some problems with the near future, but we are assured about the distant future
But sir, you are talking about militias but these militias claim to fight the American forces
and they are the only party the militias are fighting in al-Fallujah or other cities
The government is not making any public statement or making any arrangement to put an end to what is going on
so what are the rights and duties of this government?
The government has the authority, and the US forces can take no action except after coordinating it with
it and taking the permission of the prime minister and the Iraqi government
Fighting Americans had some political legitimacy before handing the power to the Iraqi government
now we have an Iraqi government and the US forces are in Iraq because this government asked them to stay
No sane person in Iraq would ask for the American forces to leave now because this would cause chaos and endless problems
Fighting the American forces is not legitimate from the political or religious aspect
because they are in Iraq based on the request of a legitimate Iraqi government recognized by the Security Council
this government is more legitimate than many others in the Arab world today
But how would this government face these circumstances?
The militias say that they fight the occupation and not the Iraqis
how could this government mediate to solve these problems especially that the militias sometimes have a sectarian aspect?
The government cannot be a mediator; the government should have prestige and sovereignty in the Iraqi street
The government should warn the terrorists, insurgents or fighters - whatever you call them
and ask them to lay down their weapons and engage in the peaceful political process and resist, if they choose to, by peaceful means
There is no resistance because the occupation ended officially, legally, and politically when the transfer of power to the Iraqi government took place
Those who fight now are fighting the Iraqi government which asked for the help of the American forces; these forces are the guests of the Iraqi government
Sorry, but we have the experience of Najaf where there was a peaceful intervention after the violent fights that took place in that city
How do you think that similar peaceful solutions, such as the Najaf experience and Mr. Sistani's initiative would help bring improvement
the peace initiative came from the Iraqi National Council, not the government, and the Imam Sistani who is the father of all Iraqis
this initiative was a success, but the government cannot mediate
Yes, there are good attempts to convince the militias to lay down arms
the Mahdi Army fought with dignity they fought without covering their faces or disguising their voices. They did not hide their faces like women in some countries do. They also laid down their weapons with dignity
Others must also lay down their arms and engage in the political process that is open to all with no exceptions
but he did not lay down his weapons in Sadr City; he kept fighting under a sectarian slog, the Shiites, who are the biggest sect in...
The Mahdi Army did not raise a sectarian slogan
anyone following the statements of officials of the Mahdi Army would know that their slogan is not sectarian, but Iraqi
Yes, they are SHiite, no doubt, but they are not sectarians
So we can say that all the Shiites in Iraq have one authority and they are not divided with each part having is own authority?
The ***'a are not a political party; they are Muslims and you can find a Communist Shiite, a Baathist Shiite, a Liberal Shiite, a secular Shiite or even an extremist or non-extremist Islamic Shiite
There are many religious and political authorities so we cannot say that the Shia did so or the Shia want so
The Shia constitute the majority of Iraqis including in the Iraqi political parties and leaders
even the party, 80 percent of whose members are Shia, and the Communist Party as well
We have recently heard that the Shia want to have the biggest authority in politics and the government because they are the largest sect
Do you think this could be applicable in Iraq, a country that contains many sects and ethnicities
Not for the Shia, but they want real representation; they are at least 60 percent of the population, so they must have half the ministries at least
the ministers could be Communist, secular, or liberal Shiites, but they cannot be excluded
This is a reaction to the past situation in Iraq. The recent recent, from 1920 to 2003 was purely ruled by Arab-Sunnis
We had Kurds and Shiites, but they were powerless. This was from the rule of Faisal the First, until Saddam Hussein's. This became the past and will not come back
Since we are talking about the state's form and the sects' participation in the government of this state
let us discuss the elections; the prime minister says that the elections will take place as scheduled
So, considering the Iraqis' circumstances, do you think that this deadline will be final and that those elections will really happen?
I am against holding elections now and disagree with the prime minister, the president
and the members of the Iraqi government over holding elections in the beginning of 2005
Iraq is not ready, socially I mean; Iraqis are afraid to express their opinions
Many Baathists have changed their convictions but are afraid to say so
Many people cannot express their opinions because they need security, stability, economic stability and other things
We still need at least two years to be ready to hold elections
The current government almost represents the IRaqis; most of the real political parties and political forces are represented in this government
We have good and qualified people in the Iraqi government, the Presidency Council and the National Council
So I think it would be more appropriate to obtain a resolution from the Security Council
to extend the interim government two more years, and then hold the elections
If you ask any Iraqi about his priorities, he would say security, electricity and water
no one would say that elections and the political process are among the priorities
This is the work of politicians; they want elections
They want popular legitimacy and they have the right to, but the right of the people is to ask them to provide security and services
But this violates some of the promises given by the government to several authorities in Iraq
to hold elections on time including the big Shiite authority of al-Sistani
Yes, they are trying to hold the elections on time but I disagree with them. I think that holding the elections now is not in favor of the Iraqi people
the year 2007 would be a better date for these elections. The government should focus now on security and services
But if the elections were held on time, what do you think their result would be?
I think the same parties will win because there is a coalition between the effective political forces that have long political experience
an old organization, distinguished international relations, and clear political message. So, I think the political combination..