Al-Nabaa Forum for Dialogue, in collaboration with the Official Spokesperson's Office of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), held a panel discussion titled "Iraq and Regional Neutrality," with the participation of several political, academic, media, and cultural figures in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
At the opening of this dialogue session, Dr. Ali Al-Saadi, a member of the Al-Nabaa Forum for Dialogue and a representative of the Official Spokesperson's Office of the PMF, cited historical facts from the eras of Presidents Jawaharlal Nehru, Tito, and Gamal Abdel Nasser. They established an international movement amidst the conflict between the socialist and capitalist camps, which was then named the Non-Aligned Movement. When these leaders were asked about the meaning and objectives of this movement, they responded by raising the slogan "Positive Neutrality." To clarify this meaning, the response was that we do not belong to either the socialist or capitalist camp, but we are not neutral between the forces of colonialism and the forces of liberation; meaning, they stand with the forces of liberation against the forces of aggression.
Now, as you all realize, Iraq has become a center of polarization between two camps: the American-Gulf-Turkish camp and the Russian-Iranian camp and their allies. Everyone is trying to polarize Iraq to their side. Some propose Iraq's return to the Arab fold, while others suggest Iraq should serve as a center for cooperation, playing the role of a mediator, and remaining systematically and objectively independent in its decision-making. Here, glimmers of hope appear on the horizon, where thought must overcome ideology and vision must overcome mere opinion. What elements, capabilities, and data can Iraq currently possess or acquire to play this role? Can it balance its stance between those who stood by it and supported it in the darkest circumstances, and those who harbored hostility, sent suicide bombers, and engaged in media and political incitement? How, then, can Iraq build its strategy to effectively harness all local, regional, or international elements in its favor?
Geography is Not Neutral
To further encompass the subject of this session and answer all these questions and inquiries, the session hosted Mr. Ahmed Al-Asadi, Member of the Iraqi Council of Representatives and Spokesperson for the PMF. He first noted that the PMF institution is one of the Iraqi state institutions. Historically, what Iraq has suffered most throughout its history is its inability to be neutral, because its geographic position places it between empires to its east and west, which have constantly fought over Iraq at times, and within Iraq at other times.
Based on this, Iraq has never been known to be neutral in its history. If there is evidence refuting this fact, those who perceive otherwise can present it to us. Consequently, Iraq has not been neutral as a government, a people, and a state. The reason for its non-neutrality is that it has been influenced by specific civilizations or conflicts. Therefore, Iraq today is living in a very sensitive and difficult circumstance. This sensitivity and difficulty stem from the fact that it carries the seed of a new experience in the region. The democracy that emerged after 2003, even if we have reservations about the mechanism by which it was introduced and the results it produced, is a de facto reality and, despite its flaws, is to a certain extent a democratic experience lacking in most of the region's peoples, or a large percentage of them.
Consequently, this political circumstance that Iraq has lived through, coupled with the massive onslaught it has faced from 2003 to the present day, is one of the main reasons for this onslaught. This is in addition to the continuous attempts to weaken Iraq's regional role and distance it from its historical role in the region to thwart this experience. The success of this experience means it could spread to other places or be applied in other social and political spheres. Therefore, even those who disagree, and perhaps even enemies, sometimes cooperate within a specific scope: the scope of thwarting this experience. However, thank God, despite all the sacrifices it has made, Iraq remains steadfast and resilient in preserving this experience.
Al-Asadi added: "Therefore, when we want to discuss the issue of neutrality, especially since Iraq is situated between two camps with an evident conflict between them: a camp led by the United States of America, with which it is tied by agreements, treaties, or mutual interests, and we do not say shared visions, because whoever represents this axis in the region entirely contradicts what the United States believes in as a state sponsoring democracy, and entirely contradicts it in its application of governance mechanisms in these countries. On the other hand, there is an axis represented by Russia, along with China, and at the head of this regional axis stands the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with Syria and its extensions in Lebanon and some other Arab and Islamic countries."
Al-Asadi continued: "Between these two axes, Iraq has connections, commonalities, agreements, understandings, and also mutual interests with both the first and the second axis. How can Iraq, amidst all this chaos and the clash of interests, positions, opinions, and ideas, be neutral? How can it emerge with a purely Iraqi, neutral vision to present or announce itself as an independent axis that other countries interact with, dialogue with, or even intersect with? And how far does this intersection go so that Iraq becomes the axis, and the other is the one who comes to dialogue, negotiate, or even fight or conflict? This is the law of history and the mechanisms through which nations and peoples maneuver. As an Iraqi state, until now, we do not have a clear vision of how Iraq should position itself in the midst of this continuous and escalating conflict."
Al-Asadi emphasized: "We expect in the coming days that this might continue and escalate in more than one situation and stage. Does the Iraqi state have a clear vision of the position Iraq should assume? Yes, perhaps there is a clear vision held by this or that person, or by a certain party or bloc, or by a specific thinker, professor, or philosopher. But does the Iraqi state, one of whose current manifestations is the legislative authority or both [executive and legislative] combined, have a genuine vision from which we can operate to defend it before others, establish it as a reality, and impose it in the international and regional arenas? I am not revealing a secret when I say we do not have this vision. Until now, it has not crystallized in Iraq, fourteen years after the fall of the former regime and the establishment of a democratic state governed by a collective of rulers across various authorities, through ballot boxes in which we all participate to choose those who represent us."
Al-Asadi explained: "We, as an Iraqi state, do not have a specific vision of how Iraq should be. However, there are some voices here and there stating that Iraq wants to distance itself from the policy of axes. But this is merely for media marketing; in reality, we are at the heart of the axis and cannot exit it. Since 2003 until today, in many political and security clashes, the position of the Islamic Republic was often clear: it supported the experience in Iraq. Even though it was, and still is, fiercely opposed to all American positions in the region, representing an axis confronting it, it stood with the Iraqi experience and supported it beyond its capacity. This continued until the events of 2014 placed Iraq at a crossroads: either vanish and fall before the fiercest terrorist onslaught in modern Iraqi history, which almost overthrew the state, not just the government. Iraq was, to a large extent, heading toward the axis known as the resistance, defiance, or the rejection of the American project. Iraq was present in this axis through direct coordination with the Islamic Republic, and through the presence of various forces from the Islamic Republic inside Iraq, offering support and backing. Planes carried weapons, vehicles, equipment, and ammunition to the Iraqi government, the army, and the PMF in particular."
Al-Asadi elaborated: "Conversely, the United States and its axis, which overthrew the regime and which, by its own admission and the UN's declaration, was an occupying power of Iraq until December 31, 2011. When the US withdrew from Iraq after signing the Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, the terrorist gangs' onslaught occurred in June 2014, almost toppling the Iraqi state. At that time, the United States abandoned one of the most important conditions of the memorandum of understanding, or the strategic agreement, regarding the defense of Iraq. The agreement stipulates that if Iraq faces any external aggression or internal threat, the US must intervene. It should be noted that the Global Coalition was not formed at that time. However, after the announcement that former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was stepping down and another figure had not yet been nominated, and when Kurdistan was threatened, and ISIS approached within thirty kilometers of Erbil, the United States intervened in late August 2014."
Al-Asadi concluded: "Based on this, when we come today to discuss where Iraq stands in this circle, whether it should be neutral between this axis and that axis, ultimately, from a personal point of view, Iraq cannot be neutral between the axis that supported it, stood by it, protected it, protected its land, regime, and sons, and defended it, and the axis that contributed, through car bombs, suicide bombers, terrorists, billions of dollars spent, and hundreds of kilometers of borders opened for terrorists to pour in, killing and terrorizing the Iraqi people and destroying our infrastructure and security. We cannot be neutral between this axis and that one. Yes, we hope and work on this hope, across our various orientations, to build a shared vision for Iraq, for it to be an independent axis, or at the very least, a meeting point between these two axes, while preserving the right of everyone who provided assistance to Iraq and did not abandon it. We must not forget that there are those who were, still are, and perhaps will continue for a considerable time to contribute to our killing and terrorization, rejecting and opposing our democratic experience."
The Active State and the State Receptive to Action
For his part, Dr. Faiq Hassan, a researcher at the Al-Nabaa Forum for Dialogue and Professor of Political Science at the University of Baghdad, addressed in his research paper ("Iraq and Regional Neutrality") that developed countries describe politics as "the science of creating alternatives." An alternative can be either applicable or inapplicable, depending on one's planning capacity and intrinsic capabilities. It is an important paradox that the process of creating alternatives has been applied in Iraq. Regarding the issue of neutrality, positive neutrality is a legal decision adopted by the state through a national desire, provided it has the capacity to implement it. Opposite to positive neutrality, we have another element and concept: negative neutrality. Negative neutrality is very similar to positive neutrality in the sense of distancing oneself from all regional conflicts, as these conflicts and regional balances could constitute a national loss. However, the decision to adopt neutrality is not an internal decision but rather imposed from the outside. The United States strove to establish this point in Iraq, meaning, more precisely, that the state becomes passive regarding all regional balances and conflicts. This is a major paradox witnessed in Iraq, and what we suffer from domestically is largely an extension of regional conflicts.
The idea of shifting Iraq from positive neutrality to negative neutrality, or from an active state to a state receptive to action, this is the idea the United States has tried to consolidate since 2003. The evidence for this is that from that date until 2014, the US relied on Iraqi internal security and also on a series of regional conferences. These conferences addressed the Iraqi problem, specifically the security problem within Iraqi territory. However, all these treatments, propositions, and immense capabilities provided to these conferences did not reflect positively on Iraqi territory. In other words, we defended a decision, and then it became an idea entrenched by the American role, which states that Iraq is incapable of achieving internal security, cannot transition to an initiative-taking role, and will always remain in the role of the recipient of action.
Hassan added: "This matter constituted a critical point in the shift of Iraq's foreign policy, especially in its relations with regional countries. Will Iraq, with all the elements it possesses, remain in the position of the recipient of action, or will it transition to the role of the initiator? Here we are speaking of the political process in its modern sense."
Hassan continued: "In 2014, with the scale of the onslaught Iraq faced, these massive losses, and ISIS taking control of large parts of Iraqi territory, Iraq shifted to the idea of creating alternatives. This was not a political decision but rather a societal one. It was initiated by rational societal leadership, starting with the fatwa of the religious authority and its ability to mobilize this massive popular support to serve as a defensive line and confront this momentum coming from abroad. At this stage, Iraq indeed transitioned to creating alternatives by relying on its intrinsic capabilities. However, observers of the event notice that public opinion makers, specifically Sayyid Al-Sistani (may God protect him), through the initiative of the PMF fatwa, relied on societal power. But this power cannot take action without the presence of a supportive momentum, whether from inside or outside Iraq, relying on regional allies."
Hassan also indicated: "These factors made Iraq face a major challenge: if it succeeds in confronting this onslaught, will it remain dependent on an alliance with a specific regional party, or will it resort to an approach based on a more positive action to achieve the goal of positive neutrality? This is a goal often sought by developing countries: to be proactive without becoming embroiled in conflicts that cause them material and human losses."
Three Realities on the Ground
To examine this alternative and the possibility of its realization by Iraq, we need to review three very important realities present on Iraqi soil...
First: The first reality is the geographic one. Among the fundamental dilemmas Iraq has constantly faced throughout its history is that it is a semi-landlocked country that always relies on neighboring countries to serve as a platform for communication with the outside world. Its only maritime outlet is through the Arabian Gulf, and as time progresses, this outlet is exposed to greater threats. Therefore, by virtue of this geographical location, Iraq remains highly dependent on its regional neighborhood. It relies on Kuwait, especially after the idea of building the Mubarak Port project and restricting navigation in the Khor Abdullah, which forms the only access to the Umm Qasr Port. It relies on Saudi Arabia as an export outlet to the Red Sea through the Yanbu Port, and it relies on Turkey via the Ceyhan Port to export Iraqi oil. Consequently, geographical realities dictate that Iraq must be neutral so as not to lose its regional allies and to benefit from its natural resources.
Second: The societal reality of the Iraqi society. The majority of this society belongs to an Arab nationalism, alongside other nationalisms, and this Arab majority is internally divided regarding regional loyalties. The idea of Iraq adopting a specific axis would make this societal majority an element of instability within the homeland. Therefore, the issue of positive neutrality, as Iraq aspires to, is one of the effective alternatives that could serve societal development in Iraq.
Third: The security reality we witness on the ground. The challenge of ISIS is an immensely significant one, and this challenge did not emerge from a vacuum but rather exists with international and regional support. The evidence is that our security forces periodically arrest elements of various nationalities, as if ISIS has transformed into a multinational corporation recruiting explosives experts from China. This means they have transformed violence from a means of threatening the state into an international tool that threatens not only Iraq but the entire region.
Hassan further explained: "This idea proposed by Iraq, to transition from reaction to action, is coupled with a very important element alongside the three aforementioned realities. That is: Does Iraq, with its intrinsic capabilities, have the ability to initiate and shift to the side of action? If we try to measure Iraq's capacity against its regional neighborhood, there is quite a significant gap. The Islamic Republic of Iran possesses very large intrinsic capabilities. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia possesses huge economic capabilities in addition to its qualitative armament. Syria is an important and large state, and it also has many political disputes with Iraq. Jordan is a state that forms an important platform that must be handled with caution. Kuwait constantly seeks a sense of security in its dealings with Iraq."
Hassan believes: "The idea of Iraq's intrinsic capabilities and its ability to dictate terms to the region and transition to positive neutrality, if compared to the elements of power Iraq possesses, it is a feasible idea. If compared to the capabilities of the Iraqi society, it is also feasible, because the Iraqi society is easily motivated and provoked. However, motivating and provoking the society depends on the catalytic element: towards what is the society being motivated? Is it motivated toward the positive aspect or the negative aspect?"
Challenges and Determinants
Hassan points out: "Facing this idea, we observe a set of challenges that serve as determinants preventing Iraq from shifting from negative neutrality, or the passive side in receiving action, to positive neutrality. The most prominent of these determinants are:
First: Is the political reference in Iraq aware of the importance of positive neutrality, and is it capable of taking the initiative and adopting the concept of positive neutrality? The other point is: if the political reference in Iraq is capable of adopting the idea of positive neutrality, has the society reached a level of rational development to accept the idea of positive neutrality? These are significant determinants regarding the idea of Iraq adopting positive neutrality.
The other, more critical, and more dangerous determinant is the presence of the United States. Since 2003, it has tried to entrench the idea that Iraq is a weak state, cannot stabilize, and that the security equation can only be achieved through the region. This idea has proven its lack of seriousness and correctness, because the victories achieved by relying on regional allies in important aspects largely depended on intrinsic capabilities, and the victories exist on the ground. As for the United States, it always tries to push Iraq toward the negative side and also attempts to impose a regional equation that suits the US. As you know, the priorities of the United States are reflected in security and stability that suit the American equation, preserve the security of Israel, and largely ensure the flow of oil. This is what drove the American strategy to support sectarian strife and, in some aspects, fund terrorism. We all realize the magnitude of the digital database the United States possesses, capable of tracking any capital in any country in the world; nevertheless, ISIS was selling smuggled oil and importing weapons, and the US was watching without initiating any decision to prevent this.
The third determinant is Jordan. It is an important country in the region and serves as a crucial information transmitter. More precisely, Jordan represents a critical sensor for Israeli orientations regarding Iraq. Can this state be won over and transformed into a positive element that accepts Iraq adopting positive neutrality? This is a very important point, because if Iraq adopts positive neutrality, Jordan will lose many of the economic benefits it currently enjoys. The other determinant is Syria, which believes that regional security depends fundamentally on an intrinsic regional equation. In the event of harmony between the Syrian and Iraqi positions alongside the Islamic Republic, the idea of the Fertile Crescent could be realized, creating a fundamentally national regional equation. However, as you know, Syria today is governed by conflicts on the ground, and the armed forces present on Syrian territory from the armed opposition will have a say, which largely materialized in the recent Geneva conference.
Another determinant is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Throughout its history, it heavily relied on Iraq, especially in adopting regional blocs that largely served Gulf interests. The idea of an existing positive neutrality did not serve this Saudi aspiration; therefore, it is considered a major determinant. Kuwait, the small state neighboring Iraq, lives with the security obsession of the large state next to it, which invaded it in 1991 and has, throughout its history, attempted invasion. This state harbors a security and economic apprehension towards Iraq. The idea of Iraq transitioning to positive neutrality and consolidating its intrinsic capabilities to build a modern economy could threaten Kuwait's security, which is an unacceptable matter. Turkey, the economic winner, constantly seeks to keep Iraq within the regional axis equation that drains its intrinsic capabilities so that Turkey remains the biggest beneficiary. The Islamic Republic of Iran also has very significant fears regarding Iraq, especially after the democratic transition achieved in 2003. It viewed it positively because it gained a regional ally seeking to achieve regional security relying on intrinsic capabilities. However, the idea of Iraq shifting to regional axes could threaten the Republic's security, and the presence of the United States is also considered a deterrent against Iraqi action.
In the face of these determinants, Iraq requires three fundamental elements. If it succeeds in building them, it can, to a significant extent, adopt positive neutrality: First, building a rational society. Second: Capitalizing on regional contradictions and transforming Iraq into a safety valve that prevents these contradictions from expanding. Third: The necessity of adopting a policy of disengagement from the United States, meaning shifting from political association to economic association.
In my humble opinion, from an academic perspective, Iraq's transition from political association to economic association will have positive results on development and the economic reality of Iraq."
Interventions
Former MP Abdul Abbas Shiyaa: "When America wanted to withdraw from Iraq, it signed two agreements. The first was the withdrawal of foreign forces, and this agreement was not concluded without a second, parallel agreement, named the Strategic Framework Agreement, which was voted on in the Council of Representatives at the end of 2008. The withdrawal began on December 31, 2011; the security agreement ended, and the new agreement began. Naturally, America is a superpower, and when it entered Iraq, it had a strategy. It is unreasonable for it to withdraw without achieving it; America wants Iraq within its project. The second agreement was not activated on the ground until the events of 2014 occurred. So, do we acquit America of the events of that year? Did it not know that ISIS was on the verge of occupying vast areas in Iraq? At the very least, it could have provided information about ISIS movements. Truthfully, if not for the Kifaei (Sufficient) Jihad fatwa and the resulting transformation in Iraqi society, we would not have been able to repel the ISIS attack. Therefore, Iraq is in an unenviable position. Consequently, the neutrality process is a difficult equation and decision, requiring a host of consensuses."
Building Identity and Defining the Vision
Dr. Raid Fahmi believes that there are several matters to raise. "First, can we compare the polarization of the two camps in the 1960s, where the socialist and capitalist camps had a vision for building society, with today? Now, there are two axes based on politics, and there is an association in cases of a specific conflict. Even within the Russian-Iranian-Syrian axis, they converge on the battle related to terrorism; outside of this, there is no shared vision. Therefore, it is difficult to talk about a comparison because there is no identical methodology, but rather a state of political conflict where alliances can be formed temporarily. Second, Iraq's ability to take an independent stance, specifically since the Iraqi vision is not unified, even within the authority and the higher structures. Thus, the concept of Iraq is still in the formative stage. Meaning, the Iraq we desire today is still a site of conflict. We are talking about building the foundations for Iraq to be capable of crafting its independent policy and consequently deciding with whom to align. This requires prerequisites, especially since there is a profound dilemma in building the Iraqi political system; if not addressed, the matter will be difficult. Thus, for Iraq to be able to define its political identity and the identity of its system, it must resolve this issue and rebuild its state on sound foundations. This system has proven, since 2003, its political limitations and inability.
However, the battle against terrorism today has achieved a popular awakening, creating possibilities for rebuilding Iraq. The national identity has resurfaced, perhaps breaking much of the doubt and apathy between Iraq's components, thus creating the possibility for Iraq to emerge in a different form. On this basis, Iraq must proceed from its interests, especially since Iraq maintains a distinguished relationship with Iran and has an agreement with the United States. Therefore, you are connected to two conflicting axes, and you can act as a convergence point between them, without fully aligning with one party over the other, while benefiting from both."
Commonalities and Constants
MP Shurooq Al-Abayachi: She started from the title, questioning the meaning of regional neutrality: "Is it neutralizing regional influence on Iraq's reality, or the reverse? Second, one of the principles of neutrality is that you must have a battle of all viewpoints so you can choose the point of balance. Third, our entire reality and where we have ended up is the result of the absence of a single national vision or common ground for Iraqi interests. We still have not created the common ground from which we can proceed regarding our other differences. Even just yesterday, the concept of political majority was used from two different perspectives among Iraqi political forces. Consequently, even the concepts we circulate are not agreed upon. Therefore, we must focus on commonalities and constants so that we can use them as a starting point to discuss other differences."
Iraq's Interest is Absent
Miqdad Al-Baghdadi, a member of the former National Assembly, views the issue of regional neutrality as more theoretical than practical or realistic, due to the political hegemony of major powers in the region and the subjugation of many countries to external political agendas. "Therefore, these countries impact independent political decision-making to the point that many politicians find themselves in a vortex because of this. The second issue is that many countries always want to build their relationships. The political equation today is decisive in international and regional relations in the area, along with mutual interests. Therefore, we see principles wavering because mutual interests dictate the political stances of these countries, especially Iraq. The other issue is that some regional countries lack a clear theory in their foreign relations; slogans and nationalistic impulses dictate the neutrality of this country or that. Some countries claim to be neutral when they are not, deceiving their peoples and the region. Thus, this issue is subject to the absence of the Iraqi National Security Council in charting foreign policy, which means political theory oscillates between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Relations Committee in the Iraqi Parliament.
The other issue is the contradiction of political orientations among the ruling political factions and the coalitions that govern any country. In reality, in Iraq, we are afflicted with this type, meaning the various political orientations and blocs lack a unified, shared national political discourse in their calculations, in favor of advancing the interests of other countries while Iraq's interests are absent. The issue of conflicting decisions among the ruling institutions in the country is evident; you notice the Parliament, the executive branch, and the judiciary today all interfering in politics for the benefit of the party they belong to. In addition to this, when we want to create a political theory, starting with the Iraqi National Security Council, we must first diagnose the national interest, then understand what others want from me, and consequently unify the political discourse."
Geopolitical Impacts
Fattah Al-Kaabi, a writer and journalist, believes that the concept of neutrality and regional neutrality has been exhausted in the new international relations due to the existence of a unipolar system, which is a natural byproduct of the conflict between the socialist and capitalist camps. "As for foreign policy, it is linked to domestic policy; the stronger the domestic policy, the stronger the foreign policy you possess. Domestic policy draws the features and form of the state. Have we established the concept of the state so we can launch our foreign policy? This is first. Second, how are our international relations drawn? Are they according to the international regulator, formally or informally? The important axis revolves around charting foreign policy based on the principle of shared national interest to determine where our mutual interests lie. Do the Kurds form a common base with the Arabs and the Shia? Do the Sunnis form a common base with the Shia? Once we manage to find a total ultimate goal in mutual interests, I believe we will have made significant strides in charting foreign policy. Besides that, we are surrounded by these controlling powers, so where do we stand amid these various powers? We must also study the geopolitical impacts."
Dr. Abeer believes that humans need development and intellect before we delve into foreign policies, and that the elite is what will determine the level of foreign policies. "Now, were it not for the ideological faith embodied by the heroic PMF, they would not have responded to the calls of their leaders, regardless of whether their classification is political, religious, or social. We are heading toward elections; have the right people been elected who can chart state policy? Therefore, the rationality of society must be realized, and society must be built so that it results in a balanced political structure."
Relative Neutrality
Ahmed Jwaid, Director of the Adam Center for the Defense of Rights and Freedoms, views the word neutrality as a relative term, not an absolute one. "Is the required neutrality for Iraq political, social, or religious? If there is any neutrality, must the state enjoy the advantages of unity of political decision-making, security stability, economic strength, and military strength so that this serves as a prelude to taking its role by its own will? It is not shameful for a state to ally with another state to protect its interests; states are driven by interests to repel aggression or provide economic aid. The most prominent model of moderation in the region is Oman, which enjoys relative neutrality, the reason being that it possesses a unified social fabric, as well as political and economic stability."
Points of Strength
Ali Al-Talqani of the Al-Nabaa Forum for Dialogue stated that the country's points of strength include its geographical location, which made it an arena for conflict. "At the same time, this country enjoys a strong economy and massive human capacities that have proven their strength, intellect, and presence in all countries of the world. However, this country, regrettably, has become an environment that repels talent. Some spoke about the educational aspect and free and fair elections; indeed, these are the true foundations we need today. Also, what is required from the Council of Representatives and the political blocs is to build a political will capable of building a state. These political polarizations have heavily impacted the charting of a political reality free of regional and sectarian entrenchments, to the point that a Shia fears a Sunni and vice versa, and the matter even extends to the Kurds.
Today, we must work to overcome this obsession. The invitation is extended to everyone, starting from the members of the Council of Representatives to the media brothers. The media discourse up to this moment follows a pattern of glorifying this or that sect, or this or that party. The other point is that institutions were established to manage internal conflict among political blocs and sects, but they were limited and did not reach the streets. We must adopt transparency and good governance, ensuring everyone is a winner in this system. Today, what is legislated in the Council of Representatives always considers whether the decision will cater to a specific bloc or a specific country. Legislations have not been viewed with an Iraqi eye, nor are America and Iran viewed with an Iraqi vision; rather, America is viewed with an Iranian vision, and Iran is viewed with an American vision. So where is the Iraqi decision? Consequently, for Iraq to be characterized by regional neutrality, we are lacking regional economic and security weight because we are not strong. Therefore, we hope to obtain an election law that will yield a political process possessing a vision, where the competition is for the sake of building this country."
