The Kurdistan Regional Government representative in Iran, Nazim Dabbagh was a guest at Iran Daily’s pavilion on the first day of the ongoing Exhibition of Press and News Agencies. He condemned the armed assaults by the PKK but refused to refer to the group as a terrorist entity.
In the interview with Iran Daily, Dabbagh spoke softly like a diplomat and when referring to Kirkuk he strongly defended the Kurdish identity of the city.
Like the President of Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, Dabbagh welcomed the American security agreement and said it was a choice between bad and worse. Excerpts follow:

Iran Daily: Turkey’s incursions into Iraq have increased, Why?
Dabbagh: Generally speaking, I consider military strikes as negative moves. No military strike has produced positive results. If we consider the past attacks by Turkey against the PKK, we see that the Turks carried out 26 military operations against PKK.

What is the basis of your calculation?a
In the past 16 years Turkey has carried out 26 military operations against the PKK. I believe that even if Ankara carried out another 26 military operations, the situation will not change and nothing positive will emerge. Such problems cannot be resolved by resorting to military force. Let me give an example. You see that at present global public opinion is against Al-Qaeda and many people support military confrontation with this terrorist network. Attacks have been made against Al-Qaeda from different fronts, but what is the result? We currently witness that Al-Qaedaaz is involved almost everyday in bomb blasts in different areas.

How do you think the conflict between Turkey and the PKK can be solved?
I think there are two solutions. One is political accompanied by talks. The other is that Turkey at least differentiates between the PKK problem and Kurds.
But the PKK claims that it is fighting on behalf of the Kurds.
Yes, this is what the PKK claims. It is not correct. To stop the clashes, Turkey should study the demands of the Kurds of this region. We are confident that such measures will contribute to security in this region.
Which forces currently patrol Iraq’s borders with the Kurdistan Regional Government?
The Peshmarga.
PKK fighters conduct operations inside Turkey and then escape to Iraq. How is it that the PKK forces easily cross the borders?
The truth is that some PKK forces live in the Iran, Iraq, Turkey border regions and some have set up a base inside Turkey. It is clear that under such circumstances crossing borders is inevitable.
Kurdish separatists carry out military operations in Turkey and also raise ethnic slogans. Your comment.
As I mentioned earlier I am opposed to violence in any form and fashion. I believe that the problems of Kurds in Turkey and Iraq should be resolved in a democratic manner. I must also say that in Turkey the issue at stake is not separation and they (the separatists) are demanding their legitimate rights.
But aren’t they seeking their rights with attacks and separatist slogans?
Perhaps a minority of Turkey’s Kurds has such an attitude, but this does not pertain to all Kurds and we also denounce it. We ourselves in Iraq want restoration of our rights through diplomatic and parliamentary means.
Would you elaborate on the rights issue?
We want a federal government in Iraq and pursue this goal, but unlike the past we will not resort to force.
As a whole do you consider the PKK a terrorist group?
We cannot say that the PKK is a terrorist group, but we condemn its militant moves.
Let us look at Kirkuk. How should the problems of this city where Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen live be resolved?
The Kirkuk problem was not born today. In the new Iraq there is one Kurdistan regional government and all historical documents show Kirkuk is part of Iraqi Kurdistan. Unfortunately, the former Iraqi regime did not accept the Kurdish identity of Kirkuk, and thought that oil will become a tool for the Kurds to seek separation from the central government.
The former dictator, Saddam Hussein, in order to harm the identity of this city, moved Arabs to this city. He was not content with this move and expelled Kurds and Turkmen from the area. Now in the free Iraq we should restore the conditions of this city and even return the Arabs, who were forced to come to Kirkuk, to their home. The meaning of a new Iraq is to restore the rights that have been violated.
If you are speaking of a unified Iraq, then why do you insist on the Kirkuk issue? Kirkuk and its resources do not belong to the entire Iraqi nation?
I am an Iraqi, but I also consider myself a Kurd. Emphasis on ethnic identity endangers national unity. Based on Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution, we have agreed that the fate of regions that are subject to dispute be determined through a referendum.
What percent of the people of Kirkuk are Kurds?
Above 50 percent.
Is this figure based on a census?
In 1957 the last census was carried out which shows over half of the population of the city are Kurds.
Do you want to see Kirkuk go back 50 years?
The Kirkuk issue is of paramount importance for us. Even when Molla Mostafa (Barzani, father of Massoud Barzani) was told that Kirkuk’s oil would dry up by 2015, he said that he wants Kirkuk for its soil and its own sake and not for the oil. Thank God that now more oil reserves have been discovered in Kurdistan.
If your pursuit of ethnic considerations harms the territorial integrity of Iraq, will you still insist on it?
If such a situation arises, the government is accountable and not us. We only want our legitimate rights.
Given your insistence on ethnicity, I’m a bit curious to know what kind of passport you hold.
My passport is Iraqi.
How is the budget for the Kurdistan Regional Government procured?
According to the Iraqi Constitution, some 17 percent of the annual budget pertains to Kurdistan Regional Government.
What is your stance on the US security accord?
We think this agreement is a positive development, or at least a choice between bad and worse. Accepting it is in our interest.
On what grounds?
Today the Americans are in charge of the entire security operations.
If the agreement is not approved by the parliament, the situation will linger. We must rectify these conditions and create restrictions for the US forces. The most pragmatic approach is to accept the security deal.
Critics say that since America cannot push the UN Security Council to approve an extension of its military presence, and since it is possible that Russia would raise serious objections , it wants to sign the deal in a bilateral manner and only with the Iraqi government and does not want approval of the parliament. The critics also say the agreement is not in Iraq’s interest.
If this agreement is not concluded then we have to beg the UN to exclude Iraq from Chapter Seven of its charter.
How do you think the parliament would respond?
I believe this accord will be passed with a majority