Veteran US diplomat advises KDP, PUK to unite under President Masoud Barzani

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - The Kurdistan Region’s ruling parties must unite under the leadership of President Masoud Barzani to safeguard Kurdish rights, ensure the full implementation of the Iraqi constitution, and strengthen Kurdistan’s regional and international standing amid shifting global dynamics, former US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Rudaw.

The Kurdistan Region held its long-delayed parliamentary elections in October 2024. The ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by President Barzani, emerged victorious with 39 out of 100 seats, followed by the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) with 23.

As is customary, the two major parties are negotiating to form a coalition government, but a new cabinet has yet to be finalized.

Khalilzad expressed concern over the delay, saying, “I would like to see more of the two parties working together,” and called for “greater Kurdish unity.”

Recalling his experience during the drafting of Iraq’s 2005 Constitution, he said he had been a “witness to Kurdish unity” when President Masoud Barzani and the late PUK leader and former Iraqi President Jalal Talabani joined forces to safeguard Kurdish rights during that historic process.

The veteran US diplomat urged the KDP and PUK to “sit together” and follow the leadership of President Barzani, whom he described as the “father figure for Kurdistan” whose “role and responsibility is to convene, encourage and lead.”

“Kurdistan cannot reach its full potential, cannot wield its influence in Baghdad, and cannot achieve independence from regional influences - some of which are not to the interest of Kurdistan - if the Kurds can be used against each other and do not cooperate,” Khalilzad warned.

Iraq is set to hold crucial parliamentary elections in just five days, on November 11.

Praising Kurdish participation in the upcoming vote despite ongoing disputes with Baghdad, Khalilzad said a “strong, united Kurdish front” is essential to “give the Kurds more say” in Iraq’s political process. “More cooperation [is needed] as a federal unit vis-a-vis the federal government,” he stressed.

He added that “Kurdistan's strong presence in the future Baghdad government and in the Iraqi parliament will be very important and will increase Kurdistan's role globally and regionally.”

“A lot is at stake,” he continued. “The region is undergoing major changes, the balance of power is shifting and countries are charting new courses” and “the way the Kurdish parties conduct themselves will not only shape Iraq, but also have regional implications.”

Khalilzad emphasized the importance of fully implementing Iraq’s 2005 Constitution, lamenting that although longtime Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has long been toppled, “Saddam-era laws remain in effect.” He urged Kurdish and Iraqi leaders to make passing new laws and enforcing the constitution a “major priority” in post-election negotiations.
 
Turning to Syria, Khalilzad reaffirmed his long-standing support for the principle of federalism, advocated by Kurdish parties in northeast Syria (Rojava).

“I can only speak positively about federalism,” he said, noting that a more decentralized system appears most suitable for Syria’s complex situation, which remains deeply affected by regional interference.

While emphasizing that the ultimate decision rests with the Syrian people, Khalilzad suggested that the United States “should support” whatever arrangement the country’s various components agree upon - whether it is termed “federal” or “decentralized.”

He also praised the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as a model of a regional security structure - similar to state-level forces in the US - that could be integrated under a “national compact” ensuring stability and security for all communities in Syria.

The following is the full transcript of the interview with Zalmay Khalilzad, the former US Ambassador to Iraq:

Let's start from your visit to Kurdistan and Iraq. You've met Mr. [Masoud] Barzani. How was the meeting? What were the outcomes?

I want to start with your permission to mention our former vice president, Mr. [Dick] Cheney, who played a very important role in the United States, in the government as secretary of defense and as vice president, who played a very important role in decisions of the United States about Iraq, both with regard to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and then with the overthrow [of Saddam] and liberation of Iraq. He passed away today, so I want to remember him and offer condolences to those who supported him, cared for him, particularly his family. Now to your question.

May he rest in peace.

May he rest in peace. Thank you for that. Of course, I have known President Masoud Barzani for a long time. I regarded him as a very good friend, a great leader of this [Kurdistan] Region and even with influence beyond the Region. Naturally, we discussed the situation in Iraq, in Kurdistan, in the region because there is a lot of change since we talked last time that has happened in the region and important issues are on the table with the coming Iraqi elections and the regional situation. I am glad that Kurdistan will participate in the national elections. There was some fear that maybe Kurdistan won't because of the problems and relations between Erbil and Baghdad. I believe it's very important that the [2005] Constitution of Iraq, in which Mr. Barzani played a key role, is not only on paper everyone accepts, but in practice it is implemented. Because if the Constitution is not implemented, it has many negative effects on relations between Baghdad and Erbil. It has negative effects on political processes, on stability and on the future of Iraq. So I hope it will be a good election. I hope a lot of Iraqis, especially Kurds, participate in large numbers, and that they vote for those people who can deliver on what the people of Kurdistan need, and more broadly, what the people of Iraq needs.

Recently, the trend in the rest of Iraq has been negative in terms of level of participation. It's been quite down. If it continues with that trajectory, it then raises questions about the importance of the election. It's very important, and therefore participation is important. People have choices. Their decisions matter, and America, when it came here, gave an opportunity for democracy and freedom. It is the responsibility of the Iraqis - Kurds and Arabs, and others - to keep it and make it better and improve it with each election cycle.

We'll talk about Kurdish parties, but at first, Sunnis were also against the Constitution, if I can say that. But now they've changed their mind and they're also with the implementation of the Iraqi constitution. How do you see this development?

This is positive. In fact, one of the things that I was happy about when I was ambassador of the United States [to Iraq], when our role was very different at that time - we were much more influential in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, when the Constitution was front and center - I managed to have Sunnis participate in the election, and they participated in the discussions of the Constitution after they had boycotted the process earlier. And if they hadn't come in and three provinces had voted against the Constitution, then we would have had to start all over again. So it incrementally improved. They participated, the Constitution was not rejected, and now they embrace some of the concepts that they were very much against, like federalism. They accepted Kurdistan federalism, but for the Arab part of Iraq, they were very much against, and although some Shiite political leaders favored federalism for the Arab part of Iraq, and there was a proposal for three federal entities in the southern part of Iraq, but although Kurdistan has federalism with the rest of Iraq, but the mentality of a strong central government, some call it a Saddamist mentality, still has significant influence on all elements of the Constitution in terms of what powers belong to the center, what powers belong to the Region is not implemented as per the Constitution. And I think laws that are necessary and called for in the Constitution to regulate, for example, the production of oil, the constitution did not give oil production and development to the center as an exclusive power. So it is a divided issue with prominence given to the powers of the region or provinces, but it called for a law to regulate it in detail …

But yet the law is not implemented. There is no law.

It has not been decided on. The last draft, actually, I talked with President Masoud Barzani about this yesterday. The only draft of a law that was passed by cabinet was in 2007 when I was the US Ambassador to Iraq, and so many years have passed. It made it through the cabinet, but it didn't go through the legislature. Iraq needs to implement all elements of the Constitution and the laws that the Constitution has called for to be drafted and approved through the legal process that exists. If people don't want to change the Constitution, yes, they have the right, obviously, to do it, but there is a process for how you amend the Constitution. The US Constitution has been amended several times, so you can do it, but you have to follow the process. One person being the prime minister, he can't amend the Constitution by himself because he doesn't like something.

So which one do you prefer or do you favor, amending the Constitution or implementing it as is?

Both; implementation must happen until you amend it. If you can't amend it because you don't have the process that outlines how it can be implemented, which requires support through the process that it has outlined, then the current Constitution as it is must be implemented. That is what the law is. If you could amend it following the steps that the Constitution outlines, that's different.

So you agree with the Kurdish concerns that the Constitution is not being implemented by Iraq?

I think there is a clash of laws between Kurdistan. One of the problems is between Kurdistan and Baghdad, because Kurdistan, based on the Constitution, has passed some laws. But Iraq as a whole has not passed some of the laws based on the Constitution, so Saddam period laws are in effect. But Saddam is long gone, a new constitution was passed, and the laws must now reflect the current constitution. And I think this has to be, in my judgment, a major priority of the post-election discussions for the formation of the new government, that there must be a schedule agreed to of laws that must be passed and it has to be done seriously, not once again saying, yes, we will, but then nothing happens.

I think Kurdistan in particular has a significant role in, as we say in English, keeping people's feet to the fire, meaning that these laws and these agreements that are made are actually implemented because if federalism does not work as the Constitution outlines, it may raise to other questions of what should the future of Iraq be? It will increase distrust, it will increase prospects of instability. It will increase the prospects of discussing alternatives, such as should Iraq be a Confederal state?

Should there be some other options, it's not for me to decide or tell Iraqis what to do, but it is vital, in my view, as a friend of Iraq, friend of Kurdistan, looking from afar, that the gaps that exist that have caused this clash of laws must be overcome through the passage of laws that the Constitution has called for, such as the hydrocarbon law.

Seeing your stance and hearing your opinion, do you allow me to call you the father of federalism?

Well, I was here as the US ambassador in Iraq when the Constitution was passed, but my role was a catalyst trying to bridge the differences that exist. In fact, the fathers of the Iraqi constitution, including federalism, are Iraqis. President Barzani played a vital role. President Talabani played a vital role. There were others from the Arab part of Iraq who played a very important role. So we know [the late leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) Ayatollah] Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who has played an important role. There was also [Sunni Arab politician and former vice president] Tariq al-Hashimi and others from the Sunni Arab side who played roles. So I give the credit to the leaders that I named and others who played an important role from Iraq. I was a helper. I was under a lot of pressure from President [George W.] Bush who wanted the Constitution to pass as soon as possible and for power to be exercised by this new arrangement that the Iraqis had come to an agreement on. I think while there have been good things that have happened, but there are, as we have discussed before, gaps, laws that have not been passed, and, the Constitution in terms of the letter and the spirit has not always been implemented.

So you don't accept this name?

I think this name belongs to Iraqis. I thank you for honoring me with such a name.

No, not at all. So many years in Iraq and you've mentioned before that you're a friend with the Iraqis and Kurds.

Yes.

You spent 20 years I think in Iraq.

Twenty-two years actually.

Twenty-two years in Iraq and Kurdistan. OK. So tell me, seeing this collaboration and coalition before between Kurdish parties - I am talking about the Kurdistan Region - how do you see it right now, the connection and the coordination between Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)?

Not good. I have to be frank with you. I would like to see more Kurdish unity, see more of the two parties working together. Almost a year has passed since the election in Kurdistan. A government hasn't been formed. Why? That's not appropriate. more cooperation as a federal unit vis-a-vis the federal, the central government.

No, there is not always the unity that Kurdistan should have. A strong Kurdish united front in Baghdad would give the Kurds more of a say. I'm glad the Kurds are participating in the election, and I hope that as a coalition of Kurds. I know that right now there's competition, but competition will finish, elections will happen and there will be people elected. I hope that they can form a strong, influential bloc and work with other Iraqi parties on the agenda that we talked about, passing laws, requires the help of others. Kurds are not large enough in numbers to be able to pass laws on their own in Baghdad.

So this will also require skills and a willingness to work with others to convince them of the merits of federalism. I think a decentralized Iraq is a workable Iraq where the people that are closest to the government are the government of their province, the government of the region, they are closer to than to the government in Baghdad, but that will reflect the aspirations of the Iraqis, Kurds, and Arabs, and others.

So I believe that the challenge of how to get Kurds to cooperate - PUK, KDP, and even others - is an important challenge. Kurdistan cannot achieve all its potential, cannot achieve the influence that it can have in Baghdad, cannot even achieve independence from regional influences, some of which is not to the interest of Kurdistan. If Kurds can be used against each other and do not cooperate, I think it is important. on the part of the electorate of Kurdistan, on the part of friends of Kurdistan like myself, although it may seem like interference in Kurdish affairs, but I give myself that right to to say this, given our relationship, which goes back over 30 years, although we talk about 22 years, but I've had a relationship that goes further back to the [Operation] Desert Shield and [Operation] Desert Storm to the invasion of Kuwait and the American response, provide comfort, and what have you, to say that Kurdish unity coming to an understanding on key issues together and working together. It may be difficult to do, but it must happen.

How will it happen? How to overcome these challenges?

Well, they must sit together, and I think I call on everyone to listen, for example, to my very distinguished friend, Kak Masoud. He is now a father figure for Kurdistan. His presence is a great asset for Kurdistan. His role and responsibility is to convene and to encourage and to lead and I hope that without being more detailed than I have already been, this is an issue that the Kurds must resolve. I have been witness to Kurdish unity in the Constitution. President Barzani was the lead, but President Talabani was very much in the picture and supported and they would spend a lot of time together to make sure they come to an agreement on issues.

But you don't see this happening these days?

I am sorry to say, it pains me to say that out of some frustration that I'm speaking so clearly to you is that what should be is not. What should be is not right now. What is should be what should be. So they should be able to work to make this happen. A lot is at stake. The region is going through big changes. The balance of power is shifting in the region. Countries are setting their own course that one thought their course was clear. Syria is struggling to decide on a course for the future. Kurds are affected, since there are a lot of Kurds in Syria, obviously. Lebanon is charting a course. There is a struggle going on in Iran in the aftermath of development in the region where its influence has been reduced. And the focus could come on Iraq more as to the impact of all these changes. So what the Kurds do will shape Iraq and will have a regional influence, and I think working together in Kurdistan and with Iraqis generally in the future parliament, the future government, I think Kurdistan's strong presence in the future Baghdad government and in the Iraqi parliament will be very important. And that will increase Kurdistan's role globally and regionally, if it not only can influence this Kurdistan region, but also Iraq.

We are in the last days of campaigning for the election in Iraq.

Very exciting.

How do you see the campaign?

Very nice. I see speeches. I see big rallies. At this time, I haven't gone to any rallies. But in the past, I've been to some rallies as well. Very exciting. I was very encouraged, for example, to see that when President Nechir Barzani was speaking in a rally in Sulaimani a couple of days ago, there were a lot of people there, although that seems to be a rival territory. If you look at it only from that perspective, democracy is doing well here with rallies. But rallies are not everything. That's a key part, and participation in the elections. Then forming a strong bloc, strong representation, strong advocacy and effective advocacy for what the Kurds need and for shaping the future of Iraq will be important.

Do you think that these elections will change something in Iraq, especially for Iraq or any party's weight in the parliament?

It has the potential to do that. You can't speak 100 percent. It is really in the hands of the people. Do they take the election seriously? The first indication is level of participation. In some parts of Iraq, the level of participation, in the south, for example, has been quite decreasing, quite low. Will it go further towards lower numbers? It should be, if it's in the 40s, 50s percent, that's positive compared to what it has been in the past, in the recent past. Kurdistan generally has had about a 70 percent level of participation.

Will it be that or higher? Kurdistan has been good in terms of participation. The Sunni areas have also been better than at times in the past. But that's one indicator. Then who do they elect? Are they electing people who have a record of delivering for the people, who address effectively and have plans for the problems that exist? What's the plan for services if you are in southern Iraq? Who has delivered? This rich country still doesn't have electricity everywhere. Who has a platform and a record on dealing with corruption, for example. So there are issues that people must decide what's important and who will be better at delivering on commitments and to monitor that election interference [to ensure it] does not change the effective representation of the people that people sometimes in some countries people say, it doesn't matter who votes but who counts the vote, so it's very important that the electorate, as well as your role, the media, is very important to make sure that the elections are as transparent as possible that those who get elected are truly the people who were voted for. There are election problems everywhere. I remember the United States elections, not the last one, the one before, there was a lot of controversy.

But my message is democracy requires to preserve it and to strengthen it, and requires participation and vigilance by the electorate. It doesn't come from the sky. It isn’t that some others take care of it for you. You have to take care of it for yourself. And I see a lot of young people that give me hope. They're frustrated at times, but they're very committed to a positive future for themselves.

After the election, how do you see Iran's role in Iraq? Do you see that it will interfere in the formation of the cabinet?

Well, although Iran is weakened, broadly, regionally, it's not the Iran of a year ago when it was dominating Syria, when it was dominating Lebanon, when it hadn't suffered the kind of damage that it has suffered. But nevertheless, for Iraq, Iran is a neighbor, a big neighbor. Iran wants to be the dominant external power and this is an issue that is of great importance. We would like to see, I believe that Iraq being so rich, so a large country is not a small country and should be a fully sovereign, independent country, and shouldn't have a representative of the US or a representative of Iran telling Iraqis who should be their prime minister or not. I think that Iran probably has some red lines that it probably will watch that those are not crossed, but it is the Iraqis that should decide.

Speaking ideally, Iraq should have its sovereignty, right? But on the ground, will Iran respect that?

Well, Iran has its own expectations. Maybe it wants an Iraq that respects Iranian red lines, would not want to see a change such as in Syria or Lebanon in Iraq. But while, as neighbors, having good relations is understandable, subordinate and dominant relations are not acceptable, and shouldn't be an acceptable alternative for Iraqis.

Iraqis have a long history of their own dark pages of history, but also a glorious period. There are differences. Iraq is mostly Arab. What they have in common with Iran, which is mostly non-Arab, is the Kurds are in both countries and there are some Arabs in Iran. But there are two important countries in the region, and for circumstances over the last 20 years, Iran has gained some significant influence. It is time to start addressing that, to reduce that. Iran wouldn't like it for some other country in the region of Iraq to tell it what to do, who should be in its government, or what policies it should follow, or have militias in their country that are loyal to another country. Why should there be militias when you have security institutions of your own, especially militias that are loyal to another state. These are questions that should be addressed. And America, I think, has interest that Iraq becomes more independent from these militias and from negative Iranian influences.

Moving quickly to Syria. In the Kurdish Unity and Consensus in Western Kurdistan Conference held in northeast Syria’s (Rojava) Qamishli city, Kurds requested federalism for Rojava-Kurdistan. What do you say about this?

Well, federalism, America is federalism. I cannot say anything but positive about it. Our experience with federalism has saved our country, in my view. I know some people are negative towards federalism. When I was in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Constitution was being drafted, [and I was] helping, we discussed the Iraqi constitution. Some people there were also demanding federalism, and I remember [former Afghan] president [Hamid] Karzai, who is a good friend of mine, calling me - I was then serving as the American ambassador there - saying, you have to say something negative about federalism. I said, Mr. President, it is such a wonderful idea, except for one problem, I represent a federal country and I can't say anything negative about it. I can't say anything negative about federalism.

And not only the Kurds, but there are some other players in Syria who also favor a more decentralized system. And what sort of a balance between the center the specific regions, ethnicities, is one of the big issues, and unfortunately, the Syrians alone will not be perhaps in a situation to decide for themselves, although they should be, because neighbors and regional powers and others will also influence the outcome, because right now, given the circumstances in Syria, one should try to make sure that there is a national compact among Syrians on the formula for the future and federalism is one of the significant alternatives.

Do you think federalism is a solution for Syria's situation?

It could be. The Syrians have to agree. I think if you look at the situation, a more decentralized system seems to be appropriate to the circumstances and conditions as one sees this. But the decision is clearly one that the Syrians will have to make.

Do you think if Kurds stay on their ground and they keep on demanding or asking for federalism for their part. Do you think the US will support them?

Well, the US will support, should support - I'm not in the government, I don't speak for the administration - but if the Syrians come to an agreement, whatever they call it, some people have sensitivity to the word federal, although if you say decentralized, they say, oh, that's fine. They accept that. I don't know why the sensitivity to this word [federalism], we are talking about functions that should belong to the center, and functions that should belong to the local, to the federal units or to the provinces, whatever one calls it. It's not always a cookie-cutter approach. The Constitution of Iraq goes very significantly towards substantial decentralization, because it says what are exclusive powers of the federal government, and there are very few that are exclusive, and there's a lot, the rest belong to the federal unit that's dominant. There could be different balances depending on how the negotiations go and what their circumstances are in terms of natural resources, in terms of hydrocarbons, minerals, you know, there are issues that people will have to discuss and come to terms with.

How do you see the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces' (SDF) future in Syria?

Well, one model is having a regional security force. If it becomes federal, we have forces that in our federal system belong to the governors under the command of the federal governors of California or whatever. Others, for example, here, there is Peshmerga, that there was a lot of discussion in the Constitution and was given a federal role. Of course, one would like to see the Peshmerga being not personal forces, but regional forces, integrated. So there are things that need to be done even here. But there are various ways… Some parts of the local forces should be integrated into the central forces and parts should have a regional or local responsibility. There are various formulas. The key thing is to get a national compact, meaning an agreement that's workable for the key components so that it can ensure stability, avoid conflict and maintain security for the local people as well as for the country as a whole.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. It was my pleasure.

Very nice to see you. All the best. Thank you.