On Monday evening, 12 October, Nechirvan Barzani, President of the Kurdistan Region, took part in a panel at the annual forum of the Middle East Research Institute, “MERI,” and, through a discussion and responses to several questions, addressed various aspects related to the Kurdistan Region, Iraq and the region.
Full transcript of the discussion:
Interviewer: A war took place in April and, unfortunately, Erbil was targeted by drone attacks, so we must address this issue. At the same time, as previous guests, including the former prime minister, discussed Iraq, I would also like to talk about Iraq. Then I would like to address the Kurdish issue and the Kurdish aspiration in all four parts of Kurdistan and the region. But there is a question that I really think has arisen for all of us; we heard something a little while ago, but I think more than 80 percent of those present in the hall did not understand what it was about; what is the story behind the Brno? Which Brno was Kak Bafel talking about?
Nechirvan Barzani: Naturally. Is Kak Qubad here? I think Kak Bafel said at the end of his remarks, “I want my Brno too,” didn’t he? That Brno is an issue between Kak Bafel and Mr. President Barzani—yes, between the two of them. At a meeting attended by all three of us, Kak Bafel asked Mr. President; as you know, the Brno is a symbol of the beginning of the Kurdistan revolution, which began with it in 1961, right? He asked Mr. President to give him a Brno rifle as a gift, and he replied, “Okay.” I think Kak Bafel is raising the same issue now and wants to receive that Brno as soon as possible. Without doubt, we will all convey this matter to Mr. President, and I think it will be done. That is the story behind the Brno.
Interviewer: The story of the Brno is clear now; transparency is good in such matters. Sir, as artificial intelligence noted, you have had a year full of activity; both as President of the Region, as a Kurdish political leader, and as yourself and in your relationships. So we can ask you these questions from all three angles. The current situation and circumstances through which the Middle East is passing; the war of the United States and Israel with Iran, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz, and the international economic crisis that was mentioned; are these circumstances and tensions temporary, and is this a war like other wars? Or do you believe that this is the beginning of a new phase in the politics and stability of the Middle East?
Nechirvan Barzani: Without a doubt, this is the beginning of a new phase in the region. What has begun is not temporary and will not simply come to an end. It is certain that, as Kurds, we have both opportunities and perhaps threats in this situation, but I believe we can see far more opportunities than threats for the Kurdistan Region and for the Kurds in general. That is how I personally see it.
Interviewer: Can you list the threats for us? In order, what are the greatest threats to both Iraq and the Kurdistan Region?
Nechirvan Barzani: If we examine Iraq’s current situation, the greatest threat at present may be an economic threat; that is, the issue of the economy and where Iraq’s economic situation is heading. As you know, Iraq is heavily dependent on oil exports and, during these wars, is more than 90 percent dependent on oil, while the only operational route for oil exports now is the Strait of Hormuz. One of the major challenges facing Iraq in general is precisely this economic issue. That is one.
Interviewer: Yes, other threats?
Nechirvan Barzani: Without a doubt, another threat is what concerns us generally: What policy are Iraq and, consequently, the Kurdistan Region moving toward? Are we behaving in Iraq as a sovereign state? As a normal country that has good relations with its surroundings and within and outside Iraq? I think this is the greatest challenge concerning Iraq and the Kurdistan Region as part of Iraq. I believe Iraq must make a very serious effort in this regard to act like a sovereign state and have the best relations with its neighbors and with the outside world.
Interviewer: Those were the threats; what are the opportunities?
Nechirvan Barzani: There are many opportunities. If we talk about the Kurds, naturally there are opportunities, but Kurds in every country where they live have different circumstances according to their characteristics and way of life in those countries; these are suitable opportunities for Kurds in Turkey, Syria and even Iran. Kurds can truly seize these opportunities and work on them so that they become a basis for resolving this whole issue.
Interviewer: I would prefer to go a little deeper and proceed country by country, because when we read the news, there is little hope. Even when the situation in the Kurdistan Region, Rojava, the peace process in the north or east, and Iran is analyzed, the news and analyses are not positive. But you say there are opportunities; what do you think of examining this country by country? Let us start with the north; how serious is the peace process between the PKK and the Turkish government, in your assessment, and how much risk is there that it will deviate from its course?
Nechirvan Barzani: I think my dear brother Kak Tuncel Bakırhan has a panel tomorrow and can speak more about this, but let me express my own view. In the Kurdistan Region, the question has always been whether this is a serious or a non-serious process. What are the criteria for seriousness or They are known and evident. Personally, in the meetings I had with President Erdoğan—even when I had not yet met him and did not fully understand whether he was serious or not—what I have truly seen from President Erdoğan over the past two years is that this is a serious process. What I have seen and know of what is happening in İmralı is also serious on the part of Mr. Abdullah Öcalan. Our brothers in the DEM Party are also very much at the heart of the matter, and they too have approached this issue seriously. I believe this process is moving forward seriously, though there may be a complaint that the steps are slow. In my view, this is very natural; you cannot expect all the problems of a process that has involved 40 years of crisis, 40 years of war, 40 years of not understanding one another, 40 years of denial and 40 years of telling a nation that it does not exist to be resolved overnight. But let us look at the process; even if nothing had been done over the course of two years, at least there have been no grieving mothers and no one has been killed for two years. That is not insignificant. A process has been under way for two years which, although progressing slowly, is not accompanied by war. So understand this: even if we achieve nothing else, the mere fact that there has been no war or killing so far is a major achievement. I see this as a serious process. The steps may not be moving at the speed we would like, but they are moving along the right path and in the right direction. Let me also tell you this: in a meeting, I said to President Erdoğan: “Mr. President, the world has changed a great deal.” He asked: “What has changed?” I replied: “Just think: we Kurds—we said this while Bahçeli was in hospital and ill—we Kurds are now praying and saying, ‘May God grant Bahçeli good health!’” I said this is a sign of change, a sign that we view this process very seriously and hope it reaches a result.
Interviewer: What is the role of the Kurdistan Region? How does it help?
Nechirvan Barzani: The role of the Kurdistan Region—when I say the Kurdistan Region, I mean the entire Region, that is, both Erbil and Sulaymaniyah—is to support this process. We are helping this process. What rests on our shoulders is not mediation, but we have done, and are ready to do, whatever has been told to us by both sides and whatever has been our responsibility as the Kurdistan Region. I do not want to go into the details of the work that has been done; it is better not to go into the details. But we have done what was necessary with Ankara and Qandil, and what was the responsibility of the Region, the Regional Government and ourselves, and we will continue with our steps. As you know, the law was passed in the Turkish Parliament, and today or yesterday the Turkish National Security Council also held a meeting on this issue. We must be patient regarding this process—indeed, we must have a great deal of patience—but what I want to say is that I believe it is moving along its proper path toward resolving the problems.
Interviewer: If the problems are resolved, what will the Kurdistan Region gain?
Nechirvan Barzani: It will have very many gains. The policy of the Kurdistan Region, as a principle, is that these problems must be resolved in each country according to its own particular characteristics, and within the framework of that country and the geography where the Kurds live. Certainly, if this issue is resolved, in my view a new phase and a new beginning will also start for the Kurdistan Region; both in its all-round relations with Turkey and in terms of solidarity with and support for our brothers in Turkey.
Interviewer: So, this has one dimension for the Kurdistan Region and one dimension for Turkey itself?
Nechirvan Barzani: It has one dimension for the Kurdistan Region and one dimension for Turkey itself. — Let me add this as well — Turkey, too, will enter a much more important phase. In other words, it is not a matter of saying that it concerns only the Kurds; if this issue is resolved, Turkey will also move from its current phase into a very different phase so that it can play its natural role in the region. Because resolving this issue is not a small matter; it is a very major one, and truly, if anyone deserves to receive the Nobel Prize, it should be the person who resolves this issue. In my view, the first person is Mr. President Erdoğan.
Interviewer: If this peace process is good for the Kurdistan Region, for Turkey’s Kurds, for the Kurdish cause and for Turkey itself, who benefits from it not succeeding? Who might derail or sabotage it?
Nechirvan Barzani: It is a very embarrassing question! If there is an opportunity, let us move past it, but what matters is that we all remain committed to it and help make this process succeed, and that we do not give an opportunity to hands that do not want this process to succeed. Those who do not want this process to succeed are people who are enemies of the Kurds and enemies of Turkey itself, and they do not want it to succeed.
Interviewer: If we turn to Rojava over the past twelve months, many events took place there. What is your assessment of all those events, and more importantly, of the current outcome we are living with, with Rojava’s representatives also present here, and of what they have achieved?
Nechirvan Barzani: In my assessment, what has been done so far — if one looks at it realistically — Rojava’s task was not easy, but I appreciate and thank them for the steps they took, because they were realistic. Their understanding of the situation was realistic, and truly, they may not have been able to do more than they did. It has its own nature; as I said, for example, you cannot implement the model of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq in Syria. There are many differences; the geography is different, and the social interweaving in Syria is different. You cannot implement this model there. During my trip to Syria, what I saw in my meeting with the Syrian president, President Ahmad al-Sharaa, was that they truly bear no hostility toward the Kurds; we discussed this issue at length. We now see the steps being taken to integrate the security forces, and this process is proceeding well. Progress has also been made on education, which was very important for the friends there and for the Kurds. But in my view, we can say that full progress has been achieved when these rights are enshrined in the constitution Syria should be consolidated permanently; the rights of the Kurds and the rights of other minorities. Syria is not only an Arab country; Syria is a country with Arabs, Kurds, Druze and Alawites. What matters is guaranteeing the rights of these minorities within the framework of a united Syria. The Kurds are included in this framework as well. What has been achieved so far through the brothers’ efforts is desirable. Once again, what matters is the unity of the Kurds’ discourse there, with everyone and all political forces present; having a single discourse in Damascus is very important so that, ultimately, they can establish the rights of the Kurds in Syria’s permanent constitution. My view of the system currently governing Syria, and specifically of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, is that they genuinely want to solve the problems.
Questioner: The point you mentioned is important, because you are known for knowing personalities and analyzing famous individuals. When you say that the Syrian president has no hang-up concerning the Kurdish issue, I think this is an important assessment.
Nechirvan Barzani: Dear Kak, from a purely symbolic perspective, the message he sent and the welcoming protocol itself showed that he wanted to tell me he had no hang-up with the Kurds. We landed at Damascus Airport, and we were welcomed with a letter that the president himself had sent us in Kurdish. The flags of Kurdistan and Iraq were flying everywhere. He wanted to send a message; even the food menu was written in Kurdish. What he meant was: “I want to say that I have no hang-up; I want to, and I believe there is understanding.” But of course, they too have no shortage of problems; Syria is not an easy country, but a very difficult and devastated one. Rebuilding Syria in all respects will take time. I am glad that our brothers in Syria, Kak Mazloum and his companions and others, looked at the matter realistically. Sometimes people have wishes, but sometimes there is a reality that you must come to terms with. They came to terms with the reality of the matter, and this realism in confronting problems is, in my view, very, very important for the Kurds. Let us not underestimate it, let us not make it seem insignificant, and let us know that what they did was very important in a country that did not grant the Kurds an identity and did not consider Kurds Syrian citizens. Now you come and place nearly 13 thousand people in the Syrian army, 17 thousand people gradually enter the security institutions, and the issue of education is being examined—how they can study; these are all very serious and advanced matters, and we must see them as they are.
Questioner: This assessment is important, because Kurdish media sometimes complain that these achievements fall short of the level of sacrifice, struggle and martyrs offered in Rojava. But your assessment emphasizes realism. Another point: you said that the situation of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq differs from that of Rojava in Syria. I want to ask two questions: First, what should Rojava learn from the experience of the Kurdistan Region? Second, what mistakes have we made so that they do not repeat them?
Nechirvan Barzani: I have previously discussed these remarks with General Mazloum and told him that they should learn from us in some matters. We have made mistakes, and we must admit that they were mistakes; learn from us and ... Do not make mistakes. There is no need to give an example, but I told him, and we agreed that we must be realistic. I will say only one thing: Wherever a Kurd lives, they must look realistically at their situation in the countries where they live; to what extent is it possible? Where is that boundary? In 2005, was Iraq’s Constitution a minor achievement for the Kurds? Never. If you examine Iraq’s history, the constitution that recognized the rights of the Kurds was achieved through everyone’s efforts, especially those of the late President Mam Jalal and the long patience of President Barzani, and all the political forces supported it. But when the president returned and was asked, he said: “This is not all of our demands, but what we have achieved is not insignificant; it is great.” It moved us from one stage to another, and there is a document that the people of Iraq voted for and that was enshrined in Iraq’s permanent constitution. These are facts that a Kurd, wherever they live, must view according to the circumstances of that country.
Interviewer: Let us turn to Iran and Iranian Kurdistan; the war this spring, the war that took place this spring, turned the issue of Iranian Kurdistan into an international matter. Some say that the failure of Iran’s Kurdish political forces to participate in this war was a missed opportunity; others say no, it was right not to do so, because Iranian Kurdistan might have been harmed and the flames might have spread to the Kurdistan Region. How do you view these two positions?
Nechirvan Barzani: I want to be very frank and clear on this issue: Unfortunately, Iran’s Kurdish opposition forces behaved extremely irresponsibly and placed the Region in a very bad situation. What they were doing and relaying on social media made it seem as though these forces were heading to enter Iran; they exposed the Region to a very great danger and acted extremely irresponsibly toward the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. At the beginning of the war, we had a clear policy; we were in daily, continuous contact with Sulaymaniyah — my brother Kak Qubad is here — and with Kak Bafel. Our policy was that the Region must not become part of this war. The war was not our war; Iran is a neighboring country, and we share approximately 600 kilometers of border with it. It was not possible, nor is it possible, for the Kurdistan Region to become a place from which Iran is threatened. You cannot be an armed force in the Kurdistan Region, see the Region as a safe place for yourselves, and threaten the neighboring country from within the Region. This is permitted neither under international law nor under Iraqi law and the Iraqi Constitution, and even if it had been in Kurdistan’s interest, it should not have been done. Unfortunately, they thought of themselves as heroes of the war, but we knew from the outset that this was not permitted. Our position on this issue was clear; as the Union and the Party, from the first day we controlled the borders, deployed forces, and explicitly declared that we would not allow any action to be carried out from within the Region.
Interviewer: The same issue was previously mentioned in Kak Bafel’s messages as well; it now appears that you also agree on preserving this experience in strategic matters.
Nechirvan Barzani: In strategic matters, in Baghdad and on these issues Strategically, this war was a very important experience, but we emerged from it very successfully thanks to the coordination that existed among us. Despite the disagreements and all the problems, we worked hand in hand to safeguard the entity of the Kurdistan Region.
Interviewer: What is the opportunity for Iranian Kurdistan?
Nechirvan Barzani: In my view, the opportunity for Iranian Kurdistan will come. We have tried before and have not been silent on this issue, but as I said, in each country it must be based on that country’s particular characteristics. In all our meetings in Tehran, part of our discussions concerns this very issue.
Interviewer: What are they saying after this war? Has Tehran’s view of the situation of the Kurds in Iran changed after this war?
Nechirvan Barzani: I think it may not yet have reached full maturity, but if the question is whether it is being considered, in my view it is being considered very seriously. My suggestion is that the Kurdish issue is a serious issue in these countries and cannot be resolved through forgetfulness and denial. Second, resolving this issue must be commensurate with the characteristics of those states. We cannot propose any model and say, implement it according to such-and-such a model in Iran or Turkey; rather, we say that you must resolve this issue based on the internal characteristics of your own country. A policy of denial cannot continue forever.
Interviewer: Let us turn to Iraq; how dangerous is the withdrawal of US forces? People are afraid that if America withdraws, who will protect the Kurdistan Region? What is your position on the withdrawal of US forces?
Nechirvan Barzani: I think Mr Sudani explained that matter in detail, but let me also give my view: First, the US forces and other forces came in 2014 when ISIS attacked, at the formal request of the Iraqi government and with an official letter, and one of Iraq’s conditions was that America lead this coalition. A great deal has changed since 2014. It is quite natural that today, after approximately 10 to 12 years, Iraq no longer needs a coalition of such magnitude, because this designation undermines confidence and causes people not to trust Iraq and not to come there to invest. Iraq needs to have its sovereignty, but the country must have bilateral relations with these countries for security cooperation. We are grateful to the forces that came and helped, but today Iraq has reached a stage where it can confront the challenges. Regarding safeguarding the country: First, Iraq and the Kurdistan Region need an air-defence system. As far as I know, there is an agreement between Iraq and the United States, and approximately 52 sites in Iraq have been designated for deploying an air-defence system, with the Kurdistan Region also included in this system, because all of Iraq needs it. Second, the issue of weapons must be exclusively under the state’s control. It is not possible for neighbouring countries and the region, from within Iraq threatened Kurdistan. This is the beginning of governance: how can there be a weapon outside the will of the state? In practice, those who defeated ISIS were the Iraqi army, the Peshmerga and the Popular Mobilization Forces, who sacrificed and shed blood. Today, too, the Peshmerga and the people of Kurdistan are ready to defend their land. But the most important factor in safeguarding the region, alongside air-defense forces, is diplomacy, proper dialogue and agreement with the surrounding parties.
Interviewer: You have been negotiating with Baghdad for more than twenty years; what have you learned from this experience that you did not know in 2005?
Nechirvan Barzani: In 2005, with great aspirations and hopes, we drafted a constitution for a federal and democratic Iraq based on citizenship—not only for the Kurdistan Region, but for all of Iraq. We wrote a constitution that we thought would move Iraq from one stage to a completely different one. What we learned from it is that the main problem is the failure to implement the constitution. The problem between the Region and Baghdad is not personal; it is not the fault of this or that prime minister or anyone else, but rather a matter of Iraq’s system of governance. On paper, we have a federal system, but in reality the system’s substance is not federal; it is a collection of old laws from the former regime that compel Iraq’s ministers to deal with the Region according to those laws. Therefore, I want to say that if we want an Iraq in which we can all live peacefully, the way forward is to implement the constitution. The key to this issue is implementing the constitution; the constitution means that we have both duties and rights. They call the country a federal state; it is important to begin a serious dialogue on implementing the constitution and to implement the constitution in full, but the priorities are also clear: the fair distribution of natural resources and revenues, and the Federal Court. If there is an oil and gas law and a revenue law—people repeatedly say that the Kirkuk issue is very important, and that is true, and I will not enter into that discussion here—but if we have an oil and gas law and a revenue law, then the problems in the ancient and disputed areas will also be greatly reduced. The issue of the Federal Court is very important for Iraq. If we want an Iraq in which we all feel like citizens, then in my view the key is the constitution.
Interviewer: In the Kurdistan Region, some disappointment has emerged after the elections over the formation of the new cabinet; what is your initiative to bring the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union closer together and form the government?
Nechirvan Barzani: It is true that it has been a long time—we have, I think, set a record and even surpassed Belgium in delaying the formation of a government—and this is undesirable. The people of Kurdistan placed great trust in the political forces, and turnout in the elections was about 72 percent, which is a very high percentage. These votes are a trust; they belong in trust to this people. This voting and democratic system was established by our own choice, and no one imposed it on us. During this period in which the government has not been formed, it is encouraging that, regarding matters related to strategic affairs, the views of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union are not far apart but close to one another. I am personally constantly engaged with this issue; I heard Kak Bafel say that we are halfway there, and I likewise emphasize the same view. We had good meetings last week, and we are waiting for meetings to Let us have another conversation so that we can find a way to form a government.
Interviewer: A report on the Axios news website stated that you had mediated between Tehran and Washington. What do you say about this?
Nechirvan Barzani: Sometimes in diplomacy, things can also be accomplished through other means. What was stated in that report was largely correct. We do not want to speak about ourselves more than necessary, but we did play that role. This was appreciated in Washington, and it is worth thanking the Iranian officials for also responding very positively to this initiative.
Interviewer: What is your message to young people for the next ten to twenty years? What do you tell them so that they can feel confident about this land and homeland?
Nechirvan Barzani: Let us look at history, at where we came from and where we have reached. This people has arrived at today through suffering, destruction, chemical bombardment and displacement. We have brought this situation to where it is today—with all its good and bad aspects. My message to young people is: Please do not underestimate these achievements, because you did not live through the pain and difficult times that previous generations endured. This is a very great trust, and young people must take over this trust from here and guide it toward improvement. It is not necessary that everything we have done was right; mistakes also occurred during this fifty- or sixty-year journey, but what matters is preserving this experience. It is love and care for the land and homeland. In every home in this homeland lies a story full of suffering and sacrifice. We must appreciate what we have today, with all its shortcomings. I ask the new generation to move this journey forward with a new outlook; today is the age of science, artificial intelligence and technological progress, and our young people must prepare themselves for this stage. When I see these young people, I feel great hope that they understand their heavy responsibility and know what they must do. I am sure they can serve their country much better than we did.
