European Union Ambassador to Iraq Thomas Seiler spoke to Rudaw’s Nwenar Fatih on various topics, including the significance of elections in Kurdistan, the role of the European Union in monitoring and supporting these elections, issues related to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and asylum seekers, EU projects in Kurdistan, economic cooperation between Iraq and the EU, and other geopolitical concerns such as the Turkish military operations in Iraq and the status of Iraqi Airways
The following is the transcript of Thomas Seiler’s interview with Rudaw
Rudaw: welcome to my show. I'm glad that we are having this conversation again.
Thomas Seiler: Thank you for your invitation. I'm pleased to be in Erbil.
We are pleased that we are seeing you here too. You worked closely with the KRG and also the Iraqi federal government regarding the elections in Kurdistan. I want to ask you why the elections in Kurdistan are significant for you.
I have actually worked very much in the background.
I know that, that's why.
And I have very much worked with the UN, particularly with Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, who unfortunately has left us. Why is this important? Well, the European Union focuses and concentrates not only at home but, in particular, in foreign policy very much on democracy. What we see currently in the Kurdistan region is the existence of a government—as good or bad as it may be—but a government that has no democratic legitimacy. You do not even have a parliament or assembly. It would actually be better to have a parliament and only an acting government, but ministers and advisors lack democratic legitimacy by a parliament. Even if I talk to your ministers, they admit themselves that they lack the legislation and legislative initiatives from the parliament. They do not know how to maneuver in one case or another. What was important for us is the part of democratic legitimacy of the acting government. Beyond this, perhaps more importantly, if you carry out elections in a region, it helps to stabilize a country politically, whatever the result is. Of course, theoretically, you could fall into a very bad situation, but I wouldn't expect this in the Kurdistan region. It is important that this contributes to stability. The government, whenever it is formed later, has much better legitimacy to act with Baghdad and the federal government. Legitimacy and stability were the driving arguments for me to push for this.
So that's why when the President of Kurdistan announced a new date for the election, you tweeted that political decisions in Kurdistan will gain total legitimacy.
Exactly.
Do you have a plan to monitor the elections as the EU?
We have no direct electoral observation mission here, and there is a very simple reason: administrative reasons. If we do a fully-fledged electoral observation mission, we have to plan this months ahead, not just two or three months. This is not possible otherwise, but we will have a number of people looking around, as will the international community as a whole. Some of our colleagues will certainly go to polling stations, interview people, and see what has happened.
In what circumstances do you think it's important for the election to be held? I'm talking about the circumstances here for voters and also for political parties.
I think it's equally important for both of them
I'm not talking about whether it benefits either of them, but I'm talking about the circumstances and the political environment for both of them—political parties and voters.
You're talking to a European, and for us, the political environment for elections must obviously be that people can vote freely and unimpeded, that they can express their democratic wishes. On the other hand, politicians who run for elections—and I know you have hundreds of candidates from various parties—must also be able to campaign freely and unimpeded. You may remember we had cases recently in Europe where people campaigning were physically attacked in pedestrian zones in Germany and France. That cannot be the case here. The circumstances must be absolutely free, unimpeded, fair, and everyone must be able to express their political will.
Will you also monitor media coverage during the election as the EU?
We will definitely have a look at this, yes.
That was my question. Now, about the EU's projects in Kurdistan specifically, what do you focus on?
We have a number of areas where we work with Kurdistan through the government in Baghdad. We have a kind of policy that is all-Iraq programming, so we do not have a very specific program exclusively for the Kurdistan region, but inside the programs, we obviously look at this. The main focus currently is on internally displaced people, but we also have programs for social inclusion, social security systems at a broader perspective in the country, and anti-corruption. We know that there are institutions already existing, authorities, but what we want to do—and we will do this in the coming weeks—is a systematic approach to fight corruption. That means, first of all, pertinent legislation and the implementation of legislation. We work on this very much together with the UN, and I'm accelerating this at the moment, which also goes for the Kurdistan region.
The Iraqi government has asked the United States to start withdrawing its troops from Iraq starting next year and end the task of the international coalition. Do you think this is the right time for this?
Iraq is on a way to continuous stability and moving ahead in forming a more stable country. Now, the military and the defense of a country are an essential part of all that. It is obviously necessary, in the same case as you do for anti-corruption or any other area, to have substantial, good functioning capabilities. If we hear that Iraq now has the capability to fight what is left of ISIS or Daesh, well, this is good to hear. On the other hand, I think people have also to understand that unfortunately, due to the events in the region, the so-called West, to which we belong, is also a little bit prudent at the moment. Prudent in the sense of perhaps saying, "Yes, let's engage in talks," and they have taken place two days ago in Washington, which we welcome very much. But let's also be prudent perhaps not to go too fast. The European Union, as you know, is not a military organization; member states are part of the coalition forces. So, in principle, I have to be a little bit prudent in what I say. But your question went more to the environment and the general conditions, and I really think, as in many other areas, what is absolutely necessary is an intense debate on both sides and to define a common approach to how this is done. I have the feeling there are some good progresses being made.
We still see activities, attacks by ISIS in Syria and in Iraq, and recently we see more news about these kinds of attacks, whether it's from ISIS or the Iraqi army attacking ISIS entities. Do you think that ISIS still poses a threat to Iraq?
It's the government that is saying we still have some remnants here and there. The government is concluding that they can fight them themselves. So, the answer is actually given by that. You will not have eradicated these forces completely yet. What we're also looking at, which may not be a surprise, is whether there is a resurgence of radicalization in certain areas. We think we all have to be very careful, and I see that the government in Baghdad is also being careful, ensuring that radicalization is not taking place again, for example, in camps. That is a point we have to look at all together to be careful that this is not resurging again because you may be able to fight some remnants, but if new ones come up, then we have a vicious circle.
A few days ago, 1,200 ISIS fighters were released by the Syrian Democratic Forces. I'm sure you're aware of that. Do you think such a step is a threat to what you just mentioned, the circle of reemergence?
It's difficult to say. It's happening in Syria, but I know this is your neighbor and it's not far away. Again, if there is good monitoring taking place in the country by military forces, secret services, law enforcement agencies, I think that can be managed.
Kirkuk is an area where I think the UN and also EU countries were pretty much focused on in recent years because it's significant to Iraq, to Kurdistan, and it's a disputed area. The political parties have failed to appoint a government for the last seven months; there's no consensus between the different ethnic groups. As the EU, how do you monitor that?
Monitor is perhaps not the right expression. We have engaged in talks with political parties, but not in public. You're saying it in a way; it is actually little Iraq in a microcosm, if I can say it like this. You have all the various groups coming together, and it shows that there is a need for compromise and acceptance of others and other views. I have not yet given up my optimism and hope that there will be a solution. I welcome that Prime Minister al-Sudani is active himself on this and is always looking at this because he knows very well, better than I would ever know, how important the city is for a balanced approach. I talked two days ago with the Kurdish minister of minorities, who is Turkmen, and it was a very interesting debate. He also mentioned to me that there needs to be a readiness to understand each other. People have to sit together and find a compromise. But I would also like to say, please do not call upon the international community to find the compromise. This is to be done by the people themselves. We can help here and there, but I have told my people to stay out. We are not in favor of A, B, C, or D. We are ready to facilitate and help, but we will not engage in defining the compromise or solution.
That was good because the people need to solve the issue. They live there, so it's better if they do that. Another issue is Turkey's operations in Iraq. They are bombarding areas in Duhok, which is in the KRG region, but also targeting areas in Iraqi Kurdistan. How do you see that? Because we have heard some of the condemnations from European countries, but we don't hear any specific action.
The problem of condemnations is that they don't bring anything at the end of the day.
Rudaw: Actions bring something, not just words.
Yes, exactly. If you know international law, you know where you have, in theory, the end of the flagpole when it comes to taking concrete action. So, the main focus here must be on engagement with both sides. We talk to Baghdad, we talk to Ankara, and we see what we can do. I know that there are not very positive developments coming out of the talks so far. But this is the only thing that can be done at this stage. If anyone had the impression that simply engaging in condemnations would lead to a better result, I think this is an illusion.
Do you know about Iraqi Airways? It recently announced it will have more flights to European countries after being banned for a while. Do you know about the situation with this issue?
As far as I understand, they are talking about this. It is a commercial company, after all, with an established market and the right to operate here or there. The problem that existed so far is that Iraq was still on the list of countries with insufficient capabilities regarding air safety. This is under monitoring by the international community, and they are now talking about taking Iraq out of this so-called blacklist. I don't think it's yet a full-fledged decision, but we should expect something soon. It is part of the overall engagement that Iraq is moving in a positive direction, not only in terms of air safety but also in other areas of economic and social development.
