)
In an extensive interview, the head of an important Sunni Arab bloc in the Iraqi Parliament has said that his parliamentary front seeks to withdraw from the Parliament and end the political process, and that it is attempting to convince like-minded parties to do the same.
Saleh al-Mutlak, head of the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, raised the possibility that several opposition groups in the Parliament could withdraw as a group from the political process, especially if the process of amending the Iraqi constitution is not completed.
The interview was published in Arabic by al-Malaf Net on Monday. A translation appears below.
Mutlak does not mince his words about the US presence in Iraq, but also swipes at the Maliki government, the Sadrist current, Iran, Iraq's Arab neighbors, and rival Sunni parties -- especially the Islamic Party and the Tawafuq Front.
The MP points out that other Sunni parties now face a dilemma after Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, head of the Islamic Party, one of the three parties in the Tawafuq Front, threatened to withdraw from the political process if the process of amending the Iraqi constitution fails.
The interview is a rare glimpse into the political debates underway between the Iraqi Sunni and opposition parties, and the positions of the opposition parties on the political process and the state of affairs in Iraq. It is also a window into the extent of Sunni Arab frustration with Iraq's political process.
Mutlak’s National Dialogue Front holds 11 seats in the Iraqi Parliament, but does not participate in the government, unlike its Sunni rival the Tawafuq Front, which does not support the Maliki government, but holds the position of vice president (Tariq al-Hashemi) and several cabinet portfolios. In the course of the interview, Mutlak argues that this position gives his bloc a certain independence relative to the political process that other opposition Sunni parties to not enjoy.
Interviewer: How do you look at the ways that the occupation forces are dealing with conditions in Iraq?
Saleh al-Mutlak: I think these days are the worst days for the occupation forces in Iraq, for they are confused forces, but despite that they continue in their determination to pursue the plan known as the “new security plan,” which they fail to realize has failed, but they proceed in it because the US administration still believes that there is no alternative for it except to proceed with the security plan”
When I say that there are not many alternatives for maneuvering for them, I mean by that they are not aware and not honest in their dealings with their own people, and neither with the Iraqi people.
(US forces) insist on saying that there is hope in the success of the security plan, seeking only to buy time by saying this. And even if the time were extended, one has to arrive at the conclusion that even this waste of time will not work on their behalf, and it is now incumbent on them to search for real alternatives to rescue them from this quagmire. And perhaps the (best) alternative for them is to leave Iraq.”
Interviewer: Is it possible to talk here of a specific time for the American administration to reach this conclusion?
Saleh al-Mutlak: This all depends on the American elections and the internal conditions inside America. All their plans that they have put into place in Iraq were not on the account of the reality in Iraq, or were not what could be presented to Iraq. Since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, all the plans that were pursued by the American occupation forces responded to what was inside American and did not look at Iraqi reality, and for this reason they have failed.
What has appeared in the plans relates to the schedule of the elections and you see them planning half the days of the year, and the other half doing nothing about it, and all this is related to the internal American situation. They are looking to convince the American street of what they are doing in Iraq, more than that their conduct in Iraq is related to the search on finding a real solution in Iraq, relating to what happens on the ground.
This way, they appear as adventurers, and not as planners, whether technically or strategically, because even the technical and temporary operations do not respond to the Iraqi condition but rather to the American internal condition. They follow a program that moves forward blindly; perhaps this blind movement forward will take them to what they want.
Interviewer: This is with respect to what the US forces are doing in Iraq. What about what the Iraqi government is doing?
Saleh al-Mutlak: (The Iraqi government) is the other one, it is also suffering its worst days, as no governing conditions worse than the current conditions have come to pass in Iraq after the occupation.
Security conditions are deteriorating in all the provinces of Iraq, even the northern provinces. The Kurds are approaching the conviction that these parties that are leading them are moving them towards their doom, by pulling them into war with the Turks.
The Kurdish street clamors over the failures unfolding, especially as the security situation stays dangerous after the explosions and the demonstrations (in the Kurdish areas), and the great discontent in the Kurdish street, despite the security which the area experienced in the last four years, and in the ten years before that the region was quasi-independent. And even now electricity still doesn’t arrive at the houses except for an hour or two a day, in Irbil or Sulaymanyia, and there are feelings that our Kurdish people that the monies that are coming for development and investment are not apparent.
I believe that the Kurds are arriving to the conclusion today that all the previous regimes that were present in Iraq are preferable to the regime that they are living in today, and sometimes they announce that in the media. Theft today, for example, has become very open and whoever steals is not held accountable. What separates this system and the system of Saddam Hussein is that whoever committed the crime of financial corruption or theft in Saddam’s time was punished sternly, the thieves knew that. As for today, there is no one who punishes. And matters are out of control in all areas, and the Iraqi officials continue to practice financial corruption in a clear and open way without finding anyone to punish them.
Interviewer: What about the Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki and his choices?
Saleh al-Mutlak: Many opportunities had come to Maliki without him knowing how to handle them. The most recent one of these opportunities was the Sadrist opportunity, when (the Sadrist current) withdrew their members from the government, and said to him, “We want independent ministers to replace our ministers.” And it was possible to initiate a treatment of the errors of the past that result from the sectarian, partisan, and ethnic quotas, but he, unfortunately, acted with the same mentality that the government was established on from the first day, after most of the ministers came from (Maliki’s) Da'wa party or the Supreme Council (SIIC, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council).
Interviewer: Why has he acted in this way? Is it error or policy?
Saleh al-Mutlak: They are a mix of the two, but Maliki is also a hostage to the political parties that brought him (to power), and he is looking for a way to appease the others in order to stay the longest possible period that he can.
Maliki intended to become the secretary general of the Da'wa party and he had not yet pleased the members of the party, because it was the electoral period for the party. And so he was dealing with that, and he was elected general secretary of the Da'wa party.
The other matter in Maliki’s political mentality, and others like him who are governing Iraq today, is the mentality of those lacking political weight and authority. It’s a mentality of the political newborns, and for that reason their actions are of a transitory nature, ignorant of how to deal with matters, and they don’t possess the long-term strategy of governance. What they want is to preserve power in any way, and to preserve power means to be preoccupied with today and to leave the problems of tomorrow for tomorrow. So it is incumbent on us to marginalize and isolate and block off everything in this type (of mentality).
Interviewer: What about the Iraqi resistance and its role and its effect today in Iraq?
Saleh al-Mutlak: The resistance has been very active in the recent period despite all the pressures and arrests that they have experienced; but it seems that these procedures have created reactions that strengthen the resistance, and this is evinced by the movements to consolidate (the resistance movements), that are happening among them. There are many provinces that have fallen from their grasp, in spite of the fact that the style of resistance fighting does not depend on territory, but there are some cities that are still under their control.
When the Iraqi resistance began, it was working on an undistorted map, whereas today there are those who work in a way to tarnish the reputation of the resistance. This is a normal condition because the resistance is being dealt with by dozens of global intelligence apparatuses. But what calls for attention here is that there is intention of unifying the ranks of the resistance and discarding its political strategy, after the act of resistance has been limited to the military side that is devoid of political strategy.
Interviewer: I want to you to draw the map for the Iraqi political opposition (i.e. in the Parliament):
Saleh al-Mutlak: The Iraqi opposition is divided into two divisions. The first one entered into the political process, in the attempt to make something out of its entering into the elections, and we are an example of this, as the Dialogue Front, which pursued the opposition path from the beginning, refusing to participate in the government, and practicing opposition from within the Parliament. But we represent a national current, whose size inside the Parliament contrasts with its size in the street. Our size in the street is not reflected in the Parliament as a result of the great forgery that happened during the elections, in addition to the style of violence that was used against the nationalist current, along with sectarian polarization.
However, there is another opposition (group) in the Parliament, but it participated in the government despite its displeasure with its performance. They try to save the government from outside the government. Our knowledge is limited in the Parliament and we are not capable of doing anything, and neither can this opposition inside the government do anything.
Interviewer: This means that what you are doing is opposing a legitimate government?
Saleh al-Mutlak: This is true, we give them legitimacy, and we know that well. And we asked this of the currents that are near to us in our nationalist line, that they not participate in the Parliament or the government after we saw how the results of the elections were forged. But we were unable to convince them -- especially the Tawafuq Front –- of this position, even today.
We seek at the current time to convince the currents who are near to us to withdraw collectively from the Parliament, because the withdrawal of the Dialogue Front alone will not be influential, especially since we only have 11 members in the Parliament. Rather, our withdrawal could be heartening to others. But this does not meant that we have shut the door on withdrawal, but we have taken measures with the goal of pressuring the other powers to withdraw. In this period, we are practicing an approach of persuasion and mutual understanding, with the goal of bringing down the political process, and to concentrate pressure from the street on them.
Interviewer: The word “withdrawal” has been heard in more than one place, but it has not been spoken to the government or the occupation forces?
Saleh al-Mutlak: Most unfortunately, this is what is happening, such that it’s become the brandishing of withdrawal without meaning, and therefore we had appealed to our brothers in Tawafuq, and specifically in the Islamic Party to apply their threat, otherwise the Iraqi street is fated for frustration.
And they (i.e. Tawafuq Front and the Islamic Party) are in an unenviable position, ultimately, for if we leave behind the dossiers that we are calling for, the test of the constitution still remains in front of the Islamic Party. This subject (of the constitution) is supposed to be decided today, not tomorrow. Specifically, the legal period, set out in the constitution for amending it ended in the middle of this month. So when they couldn’t reach an agreement, they extended it, in a clear constitutional breach. And yet this isn’t the first time that the constitution is violated, but rather it is violated whenever they want to violate it. I believe that it will remain violated because it is not a sound constitution.
And here, the Islamic Party specifically, and the Tawafuq Front especially, are in an acute test, for if the constitution continues without essential amendments, I believe the Iraqi street will interpret this with strong response, because they (Tawafuq Front, Islamic Party) are the ones who promised the street that that they would work to change the constitution according to Article 142, and for this reason they asked the Iraqis to vote yes on the constitution, in the hope of changing it. And if they are not able to change it, and if the country will fall into catastrophe, they are the ones who caused it. Therefore they could withdraw (from the political process) over this matter specifically.
Interviewer: There are those who believe that if there is no withdrawal from the political process, this means that you are only symbolic leaders, not real leaders on the ground, and it means that you are being replaced by the Iraqi resistance?
Saleh al-Mutlak: This is true, but we are looking for an Iraqi solution, and this does not mean that we are being replaced or that we will remain, or anything else, as this subject no longer affects our political accounts -- because the condition is beyond comprehension, and any person possesses a limit -- from his humanity and his patriotism -- which supposes that he won’t think of partisan failure, but rather, how to save the country from the abyss.
But we are, in general facing adversity, as in the elections through fraud. And were wronged when it was said that we were a part of the political process and we are in truth not (treated like) a party in it. And we refuses to participate in the government and we demanded withdrawal from the Parliament, but we see that by our withdrawal alone we will not reap anything from it, and therefore we are putting pressure on the powers close to us so that they will withdraw with us to accomplish something.
And if we arrived at a stage of replacing the political opposition (in the Parliament) with resistance, well that’s most welcome, and let them do the country proud.
And in general, if the Iraqi condition continues the way it is, maybe the political scene will witness our withdrawal soon.
Interviewer: What would Iraq first, and then secondly you (the Dialogue Front) stand to lose in the case of your withdrawal from Parliament?
Salih al-Mutlak: This is an important question, because we fear that our withdrawal may not affect the political process in Iraq, but only our voice would be missing from it in the Parliament.
Interviewer: Well, this is in terms of losses, but what about positive results from your withdrawal?
Saleh al-Mutlak: The expected positive results would be to move the Iraqi street to pressure the other powers to withdraw from the political process. And generally this is one of the choices that we are looking into today, and it is possible to take something like this decision on the basis of this expected positive result.
I will reveal something to al-Melaf Net: Two days ago I didn’t sleep, and I was thinking about this subject in a serious way, with regards to withdrawal and reorienting to street leadership, to make changes through the leadership of the street.
What I want today is to save the country, and not to pull it into a big bloody sequence of events, God forbid. And despite the existence of a daily bloody sequence of events in Iraq, what could happen later would make this look like a joke in comparison. We fear that matters could turn into killing between Sunni and Shi'a in a widespread way, becoming popular infighting. What is happening now is infighting between militias and parties, and we don’t want to induce the Iraqi citizen to kill his brother Iraqi over his identity.
Interviewer: Where does the Sadrist current stand today in Iraq?
Saleh al-Mutlak: The Sadrist current has taken some apparently good positions, and if it were possible to interpret them as becoming part of a real initial policy that it is committed to, and if it tries to be rid of its militias, and becomes a part of the nationalist current, then I believe that it is possible for it to do something fruitful for Iraq.
However, if it continues in this policy that oscillates, one time taking positions on the right, and another time taking positions on the left . . . . The problem is that the mob aspect is overrunning it today, and if it continues in this way, it will not be possible to present an influential status in Iraq.
Interviewer: What about Iran, and the American threats of striking against it?
Saleh al-Mutlak: This is a difficult question to answer. If we assume that America would not permit Iran to possess the nuclear bomb because of Israel, and Iran is determined to possess the nuclear bomb, well this means that there is no solution other than the military solution. But if there were Iranian steps to make a renunciation on this topic, then there would not be the possibility of a military solution.
In general, US policy towards Iran is vague, and unclear, and there are those who believe that the controversy is agreed upon, and is not a real controversy.
And in the result that the goals that Iran seeks in Iraq, they are the same goals that America seeks. Iran wants a weak Iraq, and fragmented to a certain extent, and this is an American goal. And whether there is coordination on this matter or not, they are walking on the same path and (towards the same) goal.
Interviewer: What about the dealings of the Arab countries with the Iraqi question?
Saleh al-Mutlak: Unfortunately, the Arab countries, and at the forefront of them the neighboring countries are remiss with regards to Iraq, as they, at least have even not moved to stop the Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs. And despite the fact that Iraq has given a great deal to its (Arab) nation, the Arab countries have not undertaken what would be commensurate with what Iraq has given.
It is asked that the countries of the region get involved in a positive way in Iraq, and if there is not this involvement for the welfare of Iraq, and the fulfillment of the previous Iraqi positions, then at least it is a fulfillment of their own countries’ and peoples’ interests. Because what obtains in Iraq will spread to the region, and has affected the whole region.
