Interview with Bulgaria's Ambassador to Iraq, Valeri Ratchev

What is the present situation in Iraq? How stable is the country, and is the Iraqi democracy functional?

The most important thing that can be said in a few words is that the trend is by and large positive. The country is advancing slowly but steadily towards stabilization. At this stage, this can be achieved through establishing more and more elements of statehood but also through the consolidation of the democratic process.

The government is already the major factor in Iraq; it takes the most important decisions, and is responsible for the consequences. The Parliament is gradually turning into a forum of national unity. The population as a whole is in favor of the government's efforts, unlike the situation a few years ago. The security forces are turning from a "mass" into a "force". The international environment is improving slowly but progressively in favor of the security and stability of Iraq.

At the same time, as is evident from the announcements of the global media, the situation in Iraq is still highly vulnerable. Since April there has been a trend towards the intensification of terrorist activities, which analyzers link to the fact that on June 30, 2009, in accordance with the agreement between the Iraqi government and the USA, the American forces have to leave the cities, i.e. to stop patrolling, and withdraw into bases outside the populated areas.

This development shows that everything that has been achieved in Iraq must be maintained all the time. The efforts need to be systematic, consistent, and decisive, and most important of all, there need to be advances on many fronts simultaneously.

Because, while the security threat is connected mainly with the activity of international jihadist groups of the Al Qaeda type, Iraq also has many social, political, economic, ethno-religious, refugee, health, environmental, etc. issues, that need to be resolved in order to provide a sound social support for the security measures.

Is the approach of the Obama Administration on Iraq any different from that of the Bush Adminstration?

What is happening right now are effects to turn what has been achieved during the so called "Surge" operation (it's officially known as "New Way Forward") not just into a sustainable result on the whole territory of the country, but also to develop it into a general political and economic success.

There are no significant new initiatives just because almost anything that could be done has been tried already. Now there needs to be systematic work, everyday and with the full exertion of all efforts in order to prevent from appearing the illusion that the terrorists might make a comeback.

At this stage, the efforts of the new American administration in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region are more visible. Every single positive development contributes to the improvement of the environment in which the government in Baghdad could achieve its goals.

It is no secret that the neighboring countries including some of the neighboring Arab countries do not have a very positive attitude towards the efforts of the Iraqi government, and this needs to be changed including with the efforts of the UN, the US and EU diplomacy, because it is extremely important how the neighboring states act regarding the security and stability of Iraq, the democratic process, and the Iraqi authorities, which are democratically elected.

Given that the US Administration has announced a withdrawal deadline, does that give the extremist forces the chance to just wait out and prepare for a more massive campaign? Do you expect that the Obama Administration might not keep the deadline under certain circumstances?

In principle, it is very to talk about long-term planning in Iraq at this stage. Things are planned for about a year in advance but then they are reconsidered several times over the course of the year. The question is that some things are more and others are less likely.

This question has several aspects. First, as experience has shown so far, it is not that important how we plan our actions but how the terrorists perceive them and act accordingly. If they perceive the withdrawal plan as a sign of weakness - political, social, military - they are going to follow a strategy that we have already seen how it looks and what sorts of results it produces.

The intensified terrorist activity shows that this way of thinking exists, and that it is likely to exist not just until the potential full withdrawal of the American forces but until the establishing of full control by the Iraqi security forces over the country's security.

Which sets the next important question - about the condition and the operational capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. They are already sufficient in number - over 700 000, and the budget would hardly be able to afford more of them. About 90% have passed through some form of tactical training.

About ¾ of their divisions are evaluated as being in fighting trim according to the Coalition Forces' standards. The government and the ministries exert great efforts in order to make the security forces really capable of guaranteeing the security of the people. The US troops and the NATO training mission continue to provide full support in the training and military preparation.

The Border Security Forces pose a special problem because such troops did not exist under Saddam Hussein since he deliberately kept the borders open. Now everything has to be created from scratch here, and it is widely known that a large part of the jihadist terrorists and the means of violence penetrate through the borders. This is still one of the weak spots in the Iraqi security system.

At the same time, the military and police of all ranks are subject to constant political, religious, ethnic, and corruption pressure. As far as I remember, the Minister of Interior recently announced that tens of thousands have been discharged from the security forces over corruption or suspicions that they are connected with radical elements.

All in all, the development of the security forces is a task that needs to be resolved parallel to the development of the political process in the country so that the security forces could be a real factor in the situation. I believe that their building will be among the priorities of the government for years to come.

What is the likelihood that Iraq would disintegrate? Is there an Iraqi national identity exist?

The Iraqi identity is a question of principle. But it is typical of all peoples who have been united in one state over political considerations. In this respect, Iraq is not unique at all. The creation of a strong national identity on the Swiss or German model could not take place within the short and controversial "new history" of Iraq.

No doubt there is difference between the uniting of free citizens in one state and the uniting "from the top down" over geopolitical considerations. However, I do believe that this question should not be overestimated nowadays. Iraq is already one of the most secular nations within the greater Arab nation, and at least my impression is that the people want to and feel Iraqi with pride and dignity despite the current difficulties.

It is a whole other question that Iraq has been a dualist state since its very creation. Figuratively speaking, the dualism is expressed in the simultaneous existence of a nation state, and a "state in the background".

The nation state is formal, decentralized, and with a ministerial government. The "background state" belongs to the traditional leaders, the traditional ethnic and religious norms, and rules over the family, the kin, the clan, or the religious movement. Thus, the idea of a federal organization is close to the very structure of the Iraqi society.

Iraq is a federal state under its constitution as well as de facto. It has one federal region - Region Kurdistan, which has all attributes of a federal region - head of state, government, parliament, even self-defense forces called Peshmerga. Thus, the federal organization of Iraq is a fact, and there is no need to discuss it. However, the Iraqi constitution provides for the spreading of the federalist trend on the whole territory of the country.

This is important. No matter what we thing of this topic, it exists in the constitution, and someone is inevitably going to craft policies on these grounds, someone is inevitably going to pursue federalist aims. Iraq has sufficiently powerful political parties, movements, who believe that the federalist formula must be realized the way it is stipulated in the constitution.

This is one of the questions of principle regarding the political situation in Iraq. On the one hand, everyone expects a strong central government in order to deal with the issues related to security, economic recovery, refugees, feeding the population. On the other hand, some politicians believe that the increasing of the power of the government contradicts the federalist idea of the constitution.

This dichotomy is an important axis around which the political strife in today's Iraq revolves. The success of the government of Nouri Al-Maliki, who is the epitome of the idea of a strong central authority, in the local elections shows, in my view, that for much of the population the federalist option is not the favorite one, at least at the present stage.

The extent to which it would be realized depends on the development of the political process, the consolidation of the political parties so that they can reach the level of "national parties", the way the economy is built - mostly state-owned, or mostly private, the actual relations between religion and state, etc.

Does the very existence of an autonomous Kurdistan, which also happens to have significant oil deposits, create regional tension - given the Kurdish minorities in the neighboring states?

Of course, it creates tension because the historical thinking is that every process of acquiring autonomy grows into a federalization movement, and eventually reaches the idea for independence. From this point of view, there is obviously such an interpretation on part of Iraqi Kurdistan's neighbors - Turkey, Iran, and Syria, which have Kurdish communities.

However, in my view, at this stage there are no serious indications that the issue of an independent Kurdish state is on the agenda of any of the actual Kurdish leaders. The Kurds are extremely experienced. No one must forget that in the course of many, many years they have learned how to survive in this extremely complex environment in which their people have been living for centuries.

And they have learned how to approach the environment in such a way that very slowly but incessantly ensures progress for them. Right now this is, so to say the golden chance of Kurdistan - before any speaks about statehood - to speak about progress, to create Region of Kurdistan within Iraq that is attractive for the Kurds from all over the world.

The Kurds in Iraq have the chance to achieve a standard of living, political freedom, and cultural development that they have never had in their entire history. I think that the Kurdish leaders will find the best way to take advantage of this chance. I am sure that the future of Kurdistan as part of Iraq is very promising.

Bulgaria lost 13 soldiers with its military participation in Iraq. What did Bulgaria win from its participation there?

I hope that "win" is just a word that slipped out. No one in Bulgaria ever set a goal of "winning" from the participation of Bulgarian troops within the multinational forces in Iraq.

Then let me paraphrase the question: what are the benefits for Bulgaria from its participation in Iraq?

The benefits are not from "participation". There is no such connection between participation and benefits. Everything that falls into the Bulgarian word for "benefit" could only be the result of a policy.

This policy needs to be systematic and consistent over time, and multi-layered, i.e. with the participation of the state, business, NGO sector, and academia in various directions - political, economic, military, cultural, diplomatic. Only this type of policy could produce benefits - and these benefits are invariably for both nations.

Bulgaria has taken part in the coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq with the presumption that it contributes to the fight against strategic terror. This is the most important thing. Everyone could interpret differently the issue of this type of terror which aims at changing the world order and international relations by impacting the policies of governments and the way of life of the people.

However, everyone is obliged to ask themselves the question what our life today would look like if the reactions against the strategic terror had not been so decisive, if we had just closed ourselves, and had just started to guard the borders trying to stop the all-permeating terrorism.

Breaking the spine of the strategic terror is a goal with an extremely high price. This price is being paid by the multinational armed forces, and has also been paid very gravely by the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis. That is why everything that we have achieved in Iraq so far is extremely precious, it is not timely, it could not be abandoned easily. We are just doomed to succeed in Iraq; we, I mean together with the Iraqis, and most of all, from now on - the Iraqis.

That's why it is very important to realize that Bulgaria's participation in Iraq did not end with the withdrawal of its troops. What Bulgaria is doing right now is to set the foundations of the new bilateral relations together with the Iraqi authorities and society. These relations are practically being fully redefined because neither Bulgaria, nor Iraq are what they used to be.

This requires time and consistent efforts, and I am sure that very soon there will be a new renaissance of the bilateral relations. Bulgaria is going to continue to contribute to the stabilization and development of Iraq because a peaceful and prosperous Iraq means a powerful economy with a huge capacity for business and trade, cultural exchange, it means a powerful blow against the global networks of political terrorism, stability in the Persian Gulf region, and a mighty modernization impulse for the Middle East. The peace and security of Iraq are connected to the security and wellbeing of the Bulgarians.

(Photo No. 2 - Ambassador Ratchev with Iraqi carpet trader Abu Zaid in Arshaf, Eastern Iraq.)

Have Bulgarian firms and companies managed to participate tangibly in the post-war recovery of Iraq?

The system of distributing public procurement orders until a year ago did not give a great chance to Bulgarian companies to become first-class providers of large-scale infrastructure or other services.

Starting this year, the Iraqis are governing their state budget in a sovereign way, and the through their public procurement system, they try solve the strategic issues of their economy, and to provide for the basic needs of their population. We work very well with the Iraqi government which finds resources to develop its relations with Buglaria despite the thousands of pressing issues it encounters daily.

Over the last three months we have six Iraqi delegations in Sofia. Two of them were on the ministerial level, one was parliamentary, one was a business delegation from the local industrial chambers in Iraq, and two delegations of top experts. I think that this is the right way to lay the track for the intensive development of the bilateral relations.

We even expect several Iraqi observers for our Parliamentary Elections on July 5 at the request of one of our MEPs. It is known that we have Iraqi students using Bulgarian scholarships; we have had initiatives for the training of Iraqi military and police officers in Bulgaria.

My opinion is that the commitment on both sides is big enough, and the results won't be late to come. But they will result not just from the support that we provided for the stabilization of the country; rather, they will come from a new type of thinking, systematic interactions and good public-private partnership between Bulgarian political subjects and the private business. This will produce a result that will be significant and visible in the very near future.

To what extent could you say that the question about the Iraqi debt to Bulgaria settled in a just way?

The Iraqi people inherited a debt of over USD 120 B from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship not counting the interest, reparations, compensations, and other payments. This was 15 times the GDP of the country, and was about USD 17 000 per capita. The remission of the debts from the old regime is national cause for Iraq - finding a solution of the inherited debt meant opening a door to the development of the nation.

At the same time, for Bulgaria the question about the Iraq's debt was also an issue with a high political, social, and economic potential. Eventually, the matter was settled in the best possible way for both sides. We are the first nation of all of Iraq's creditors that settled the issue under a new formula that was different from the one prescribed by the Paris Club of Iraq's creditors.

The prescription envisaged the remission of 80% of the debt, and rescheduling of the remaining 20% over 23 years, the first six years being a gratis period. The Bulgarian side worked for another formula, and I think that the USD 360 M we got in direct payments was a satisfactory solution under the specific conditions. That was a good solution for both Bulgaria and Iraq.

Are the ongoing protests in Iran fomented from the outside, or are they the result of internal processes?

What is going in Iran has an extremely big importance about what is going and will be going on in Iraq. The two states are extremely related, and I think that the way the situation in Iran unfolds will have a great influence on certain processes in Iraq.

Only a person who does not know Iran could think that protests of such scale and organized in such a way could be incited from the outside. There might be some sort of support from abroad but that could never lead to such a scale, systematic efforts, and organization. No, the Iranian society is just a very different society despite its religious and out clouts.

The Iranians are people with a specific mentality, culture, and self-confidence of one of the greatest nations in the world. They have a totally different paradigm about their place in world history. If I have to express my opinion about what is happening in Iran in a nutshell, the Iranians themselves are reconsidering the Islamic Revolution that was supported 30 years ago by the fathers of today's youngsters.

They are just rethinking what they have done, and at least the ones who are protesting say, "No, this is not the life that we want; we want another type of government, another society, and another role for our nation in the world." I think that this message is the main thing to be taken from what is going on in Iran.

We need your support so Novinite.com can keep delivering news and information about Bulgaria! Thank you!