Hoshyar Zebari (born 2 December 1953) is the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq. A Kurd originally from Aqrah, a city in Iraqi Kurdistan, Zebari holds a masters degree in sociology from the University of Essex, England and studied political science in Jordan. He was the foreign spokesperson for the Kurdistan Democratic Party in the 1990s and represented the party to both the United Kingdom and the United States.He was appointed Foreign Minister of Iraq in 2003 by the Iraqi Governing Council and held the post for the Iraqi Interim Government, Iraqi Transitional Government and the first permanent government.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to Gulan: the crisis in Iraq is a result of breaking political consensus.


Iraq now is going through a critical and perilous situation. There is distrust among the Iraqi groups and this destabilizes the principles of consensus and partnership among the Iraqis and it may lead to further unrest. In today's Iraq, one feels that there is a kind of ethnic and sectarian discrimination and there is an attempt to marginalize some groups. Regarding the relationships between the Kurds and Baghdad, there are many issues that are still unsettled and there is no real intention on the part of Iraqi government to settle them. At the regional level, the Iraqi government has a complex and an uneasy relation with Turkey and has not a clear stance on Syrian conflicts. However, its relationship with the United States is worsening after the withdrawal of the American troops. At the national level, moreover, the government cannot provide services to the people and this causes unrest and demonstrations. To probe further into these issues, here is the interview with Hoshyar Zebari, the minister of foreign affairs of Iraq:

Gulan: Iraq now is going through a critical situation. What is your view on the crisis in Iraq and how do you see the situation is going?

Zebari: Iraq is in crisis now. This is the result of the transition from dictatorship to democracy. The process of transition is very complex and troublous because democracy requires democratic people to carry out the process. This crisis certainly has a very negative impact on the political process and on the people at large. There are many attempts to solve this crisis, yet there is no real hope to end it. There are demonstrations in some areas and there are also counter demonstrations in others. There is a tension between the central government and Kurdistan regional government. Many of these problems have not been settled yet, but all the factions are still adhering to the political process of the country, all parliamentary blocs are still adhering to the principles of political process. These have impacts on the government's actions because any government that wants to serve its people should at least have three prerequisites: good representatives, people's satisfaction, and unified positions. Unfortunately, the political consensus is broken as a result of making some orders and carrying out some policies. This is threatening because the principle of consensus, that has been laid down after 2003 and on which the new Iraq has been established, now is broken.

Gulan: as you have mentioned there are tensions among the political groups that cannot be solved through dialogue, to what extent do you see the critical situation threatening?

Zebari: certainly the situation is threatening and the country faces new challenges. As a result of breaking the consensus, new challenges face the country. The problem is—there were some authorities before, whenever Iraq faced a crisis, these authorities had interfered. There were also American troops before. They had a strong influence and role as mediator, but now they do not have an impact because they withdrew from the country. There were the authority of Najaf which had an active role in every tension, in challenging sectarian conflicts, and many other tensions. It did not choose silence and had its own words in all of these. This role is also weakening. The head of Kurdistan coalition had also have an active role as a mediator when forming a government reached a stand still two years ago. Kurdistan president, Massoud Barzani, had a big role in forming the new government. Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, had also a role and an authority. He hosted the leaders in his own house in Baghdad many times, and now he is sick—hoping he will soon recover and return to the country—but now no one has the role of gathering all the Iraqi leaders around a table. Because of these things, there is a possibility that this crisis will continue. The international parties—such as the United Nations, Arab League, and Islamic cooperation organization—have always introduced help and support if necessary in solving the tensions, but we have not asked them to do so. That is, there is no a real mediator around so as to address problems that face our country.

Gulan: do you think these problems affect the performance of the government, or become obstacles before carrying out government plans, some of the observers think that the current situation makes the government so worse that cannot carry out its plans, to what extent does this situation stop the measures of the government?

Zebari: it has an impact on the government plans, but does not stop them. It is true that it has a psychological impact, poses threat both inside the government and within people, but the government plans do not stop and the institutions in the ministries are carrying out their works. Yet, since the cabinet is a coalition government and makes up of these factions that form the government, this reflects in government performances.

Gulan: all of the tensions have risen when the American troops withdrew from the country. This indicates that the Iraqi government can neither solve its problems nor maintain stability and order. In your opinion, how does the American withdrawal from the country have an impact on worsening the situation?

Zebari: both the Iraqi government and the Americans have agreed to withdraw the troops. In the place that we are sitting now, (the ministry of foreign affairs), many times, we had dialogues with the Americans. Withdrawing the troops was the decision taken and agreed by both Americans and the Iraqis. The problem is not in withdrawing the American troops, Iraq's gaining independency, sovereignty, and progression. These are all positive points. Two possibilities were taken into consideration when the American decided to withdraw: The first one was breaking the political consensus, and the second one was deteriorating the security situation and the Iraq's lack of providing security to the entire country, but this has not happened. That is, the government has not collapsed, the security forces have not dismantled, the sectarian wars or the wars between Kurds and Arabs have not happened, and thank God, it is not happening now. People were afraid of the consequences of the withdrawal of American troops, these threats have not happened.

Gulan: Some of the observers show their worry about waging sectarian wars if the situation remains unsettled?

Zebari: Yes, there is a possibility because the more the situation becomes complex and tense, the security situation will become more deteriorating. If there is a consensus and if political understandings are present at the level of parliament, government, presidency, and political leaders, it will have a positive impact on the security situation as well. So far, none of the threats that have been predicted happened-- sectarian wars, Shiite and Sunni wars, Kurd and Arab wars, civil war have not happened.

Gulan: Some of the scholars and experts in think tanks and policy centres in America see the situation in Iraq as making a big challenge to the American policy in 2013. This week the second term of Obama administration will start, in your view, what will happen to Iraq in the second term of Obama?

Zebari: 2013 will become a difficult year not only for Iraq but also for all the countries in the region. Syria, Iran, Iraq, and all the Arabic countries that are listed in the Arab spring will face a big challenge. The decision makers should interpret the changes deeply. The new administration will start in the near future, general and strategic policies will not change, the changes will not occur on the principles, but there is a possibility of change in leading and implementing these policies by the new administration. How these policies should be implemented. Iraq and the region will become the focus of attention for the new administration. So I anticipate more concern on the part of this new administration as the Americans introduced many sacrifices to free this country. It is not possible to leave it unsettled as some anticipate. I think America will have a more active role in both Iraq and other countries in the region.

Gulan: one of the big problems in the Middle East is Syrian or Assad's regime. Now Iraq seems to be on the side of Assad. Are you as a foreign minister of Iraq with Assad remaining in power?

Zebari: the formal attitude of both the government and the foreign ministry are the same. We are not with Assad or any other regimes remaining in power, the willingness of Syrian people should be taken into account. We are with the destiny and right of Syrian people, neither with the Assad regime nor with the opposition. Iraq has tried to have a neutral and balanced role. In this sense, we are neither with the Americans nor with the Iranians. Keeping this kind of policy is both difficult and challenging. We know that inside Iraq there are many different views on dealing with what is happening in Syria. Whatever the results, Iraq and Syria remain neighbors for good. It is not important who rules or will rule Syria. What is important is the relationship between the two nations in all their sects and groups. So Iraqi government has its embassy in the capital of Syria and at the same time has relations with Syrian oppositions. They come to us and we speak with them. We meet them and we have hosted them. Recently Iraq has allocated ten million dollars as charity for those who displaced from Syria. We moved by this and had own supports. The impression that some people have about our support for Assad and opposition for Syrian people is totally wrong and baseless.

Gulan: Iraq and Turkey relations are not good. Why is this?

Zebari: this evaluation is somehow true. There is not a good relation between the countries and there are disputes because of the different views that both the countries have. However, these political disputes do not affect commercial activities and Turkish companies are still working in Iraq. Commercial deals are still present. Yet, if the political disputes remain unsolved, it will certainly affect commercial activities. In my opinion, two main reasons have roles in the disputes: firstly is the interference of the domestic affairs of the country which is contrary to the international laws. Turkey did that. Secondly is the mutual respect of each other. We told the Turkish officials that you have not taken these two principles into account. You have not respected Iraq as a nation, a government, and a country. So, the Turkish officials are trying consistently to move one party against the other, to advice us. This will not have good consequences for both the countries. We do not give up and we are trying to find solutions for these disputes so the relations will become normal in the framework of some disciplines.

Gulan: it is obvious that there are many disputes between Kurdistan Region and Baghdad. In your opinion, where will these disputes end up, and to what extent do these disputes create distance between the two?

Zebari: the main reason of the present disputes is violation of the constitution in dealing with the problems. Whenever there are negotiations, the disputes can be solved easily, and the less the negotiation, the more the disputes will spark off. The problems should be discussed at the leaders' level, nor at the level of having some ministries in Baghdad or posts. I think these problems have been present from the start of forming the new Iraq, but they have been restricted. The problems are related to article 140 and the disputed territories or are about the given share of Kurdistan's income in the Iraq's budget and oil and gas laws because the laws have not been amended yet, or are about whether Peshmarga is part of Iraqi defense or it is independent, etc. so the problems remain as they are. On the other hand, what is the authority and power of Iraqi government and Kurdistan government? The constitution clearly stated these things. If one acts according to the federal system, both sides have legal commitments in this respect. The problems exist between Baghdad and Erbil can be solved, even if there is not an immediate solution, it is possible to suggest some mechanisms. The main problem is the different analysis an interpretations that are given by both to the constitution. Each uses the articles that are in its advantage without looking at the whole constitution. I don’t believe the tensions between the two could reach a military confrontation or the wars between Kurds and Arabs because anyone thinks this way is wrong.

Gulan: the Kurdish side obviously states that the other side is violating the constitution. Thus, the whole political process is at risk, so if these violations continue, what will the Kurds decide?

Zebari: only constitution will guarantee the union of Iraq, the political consensus, and the partnership that has created in new Iraq. The constitution is the solution of all these. If one interprets the constitution according to his mood or violates it, the country will dismantle because the constitution is a contract between the people who voted for it and those who wrote it and signed it.

Gulan: After 2003, Kurds are the main party in forming the new Iraq. Instead of being rewarded, they are forced to dig deep into the crisis.

Zebari: it is true that the Kurds have had this role and now have their own weight in the equations. But in the world of reality these things change according to time and place. It is true that the Kurds have a major role in establishing the new Iraq, implementing the principles of democracy, and direct participation in the governments formed after the fall of the previous regime, but this role will not remain as it is if the Kurds do not prepare and activate their role in Baghdad again, or if they do not deal with the changes logically. These things are not solid. They are changeable. So according to the changes, the Kurds have to have their own role and attitude so as to have an impact on the events, from Erbil. But we have to have impacts from Baghdad on the other governorates, inside the Arabs, both Shiite and Sunnis.