Op-Ed Columnist
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda


THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 14, 2007
Two dates — two numbers. Read them and weep for what could have, and should have, been. On Sept. 11, 2001, the OPEC basket oil price was $25.50 a barrel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the OPEC basket price was around $90 a barrel.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
In the wake of 9/11, some of us pleaded for a “patriot tax” on gasoline of $1 or more a gallon to diminish the transfers of wealth we were making to the very countries who were indirectly financing the ideologies of intolerance that were killing Americans and in order to spur innovation in energy efficiency by U.S. manufacturers.

But no, George Bush and Dick Cheney had a better idea. And the Democrats went along for the ride. They were all going to let the market work and not let our government shape that market — like OPEC does.

You’d think that one person, just one, running for Congress or the Senate would take a flier and say: “Oh, what the heck. I’m going to lose anyway. Why not tell the truth? I’ll support a gasoline tax.”

Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate:

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE: “My Democratic opponent, true to form, wants to raise your taxes. Yes, now he wants to raise your taxes at the gasoline pump by $1 a gallon. Another tax-and-spend liberal who wants to get into your pocket.”

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: “Yes, my opponent is right. I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.” If you can’t win that debate, you don’t belong in politics.

“Think about it,” says Phil Verleger, an energy economist. “We could have replaced the current payroll tax with a gasoline tax. Middle-class consumers would have seen increased take-home pay of between six and nine percent, even though they would have had to pay more at the pump. A stronger foundation for future economic growth would have been laid by keeping more oil revenue home, and we might not now be facing a recession.”

As a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the Harvard University economist and former Bush adviser N. Gregory Mankiw has argued: “the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to [U.S.] consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.”

But U.S. consumers would have known that, with a higher gasoline tax locked in for good, pump prices would never be going back to the old days, adds Mr. Verleger, so they would have a much stronger incentive to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles and Detroit would have had to make more hybrids to survive. This would have put Detroit five years ahead of where it is now. “It’s called the America wins program,” said Mr. Verleger, “instead of the petro-states win program.”

We simply cannot go on being as dumb as we wanna be. If you hate the war in Iraq, then you want a gasoline tax so you can argue that we can pull out of there without remaining dependent on an even more unstable region. If you want to see us negotiate with Iran, not bomb it, you want a gasoline tax that will give us some real leverage by helping to reduce the income of the ayatollahs.

If you’re a conservative and you believed that the Iraq war was necessary to drive reform in the Middle East, but the war has failed to do that and we need “Plan B” for the same objective, you want a gasoline tax that will reduce the flow of wealth to petrolist leaders who will never change if all they have to do is drill well holes rather than educate and empower their people.

If you want to see America thrive by becoming the most energy productive economy in the world — a title that now belongs to Japan, which doesn’t have a drop of oil in its soil — you want a gasoline tax, which will only spur U.S. innovation in energy efficiency.

President Bush squandered a historic opportunity to put America on a radically different energy course after 9/11. But considering how few Democrats or Republicans are ready to tell the people the truth on this issue, maybe we have the president we deserve. I refuse to believe that, but I’m starting to doubt myself.

More Articles in Opinion »

The Muslim Student Union: Where “Community,” “Prayer,” and Jew-Hatred Come Together

By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | 11/13/2007

If one were to judge the Muslim Student Union (MSU) of the University of California at Irvine (UCI) solely on the basis of its self-description and its stated mission, one would have no inkling of the volcano of Jew-hatred that animates this organization. Founded in 1992 by a small group of Muslim students who “desired to establish an Islamic presence on campus,” MSU says it aims to provide a “community” or “family” atmosphere for Muslims enrolled at UCI, and to build “an environment that enhances good, discourages bad, and provides networks of resources, knowledge, people, and companionship to its members.” Toward these ends, MSU offers “daily congregational prayers, daily free iftars [the evening meal for breaking the daily fast] during Ramadan that serve over a hundred Muslims, over eight weekly classes, a quarterly magazine Alkalima, coalition building with other clubs on campus, and a gateway to the larger Muslim community …” MSU also provides career advice and a study/tutoring program to help Muslims at UCI.

It all sounds very, very nice.

What the Muslim Student Union does not mention in its literature, however, is that its members commonly wear green armbands during the events it sponsors, to signal their allegiance to the terrorist group Hamas. Nor is there any mention of the fact that MSU has displayed posters on the UCI campus that equate the Star of David with the Nazi Swastika.

MSU’s promotional literature is similarly silent about a February 2001 event where the organization hosted the radical cleric Muhammad al-Asi, who told his UCI audience: “The Zionist-Israeli lobby ... is taking the United States government and the United States people to the abyss. We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to co-exist equally and brotherly with other human beings. You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew.”

It should be noted that MSU was not the least bit unaware of Mr. al-Asi’s radical views when it invited him to speak on campus. Al-Asi’s Jew-hatred had been widely known for many years. Indeed as early as 1981, he was removed as Imam of the Washington, DC Islamic Center at the request of several Middle Eastern governments that were troubled by his pro-Khomeini rhetoric. Al-Asi also has close ties to Ahmed Huber, the neo-Nazi Swiss convert to Islam who once lauded Khomeini as the “living continuation of Adolf Hitler.” And advocating an “Islamic World Order,” al-Asi holds that the 9/11 attacks were actually carried out by Israeli Mossad agents seeking to “criminalize Muslims.”

MSU’s alliance with al-Asi is hardly what one would expect from an organization that “enhances good, discourages bad.” But in fact, this alliance represents only the tip of a very large iceberg.

In 2002, a sign posted on the UCI campus by MSU stated: “Israelis Love to Kill Innocent Children.” That same year, MSU sponsored a speech by the radical Oakland imam, Abdel Malik-Ali, who said: “Israel wants Palestinians to have their own state. It’s beyond that now. No. That’s off the table. One state. Majority rules. Us. The Muslims.”

A favorite guest speaker of MSU, Malik-Ali is an African-American convert to Islam, a former Nation of Islam member, and a longtime supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. His more infamous remarks include the claim that Jews staged the 9/11 attacks “to give an excuse to wage war against Muslims around the world”; that “[t]he wars against Iraq [Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom] were manufactured by the Jews in America to avert attention from the two [Palestinian] Intifadahs”; and that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a “pretty good guy.”

On February 26, 2004, MSU again brought Malik-Ali to the UCI campus to deliver a speech titled “America under Siege: The Zionist Hidden Agenda.” According to UCI’s student newspaper: “[Malik-Ali] implied that Zionism is a mixture of ‘chosen people-ness and white supremacy’; that the Iraqi war is in the process of ‘Israelization’; that the Zionists had the ‘Congress, the media and the FBI in their back pocket’; that the downfall of former Democratic [presidential] front-runner Howard Dean was due to the Zionists; and that the Mossad [Israel’s intelligence agency] would have assassinated Al Gore if he was elected [in 2000] just to bring Joe Lieberman (his Jewish vice-president) to power.”

In the spring of 2004, MSU and the Society of Arab Students (SAS) co-sponsored their fourth annual “Zionism Awareness Week,” during which both groups again wore green armbands to signal their support for Hamas.

In June 2004, MSU asked UCI’s graduating Muslim students to wear green sashes inscribed with the word “shahada,” the Arabic word for the “martyrdom” of a suicide bomber, to their graduation ceremony. Two dozen students complied with this MSU request.

At a February 2005 MSU-organized event held in the center quad at UC Irvine, guest speaker Abdel Malik-Ali told his audience of some 150 mostly Muslim listeners: “Zionism is a mixture, a fusion of the concept of white supremacy and the chosen people.” He complained about Zionist domination of the American media, Zionist complicity in America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Zionists’ inclination to recount the horrors of the Holocaust “when you accuse them of their Nazi behavior.” “One state. Majority rule,” he said. “Check that out. Us. The Muslims.”

At a March 2006 panel discussion at UC Irvine, MSU led as many as 1,000 Muslim students in a protest against the decision of the event’s sponsors to publicly display some “offensive” Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, cartoons that had recently set off massive demonstrations and riots throughout the Muslim world. Donning their customary green, pro-Hamas armbands, MSU members initiated the protest by kneeling on their green prayer mats and reciting an Arabic prayer. When a crowd of counter-protesters sang “God Bless America,” the Muslim students responded with chants of: “Hey Republicans Stop the Hate! All You Do Is Instigate,” and “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho! The Prophet’s Cartoons Have Got to Go!”

MSU organized a May 2006 “Holocaust in the Holy Land” event featuring four days of anti-Israel lectures and presentations that portrayed the Jewish State as the modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany. The event was keynoted by the Holocaust-denier Norman Finkelstein, whose speech, titled “Obstacles to Peace: Israelis or Palestinians,” identified Israel as the world’s worst violator of human rights. Adjacent to a mock Israeli “apartheid” wall which they had erected in the center of the UCI campus, MSU students distributed fliers titled “Exploiting the Holocaust to Justify Genocide,” and bearing a quote from Finkelstein himself: “The Holocaust has become the ideological justification for the oppression of the Palestinian people.” Other guest speakers at the week’s festivities included Abdel Malik-Ali; Muhammad al-Asi, whose speech was titled “Hamas: The People’s Choice”; and Rabbi David Weiss of Neturei Karta (an ultra-orthodox, PLO-tied Jewish group that opposes Israel’s existence), whose speech was called “Zionism Hijacking Judaism.”

Abdel Malik-Ali was the featured speaker at an October 5, 2006 MSU event, where he told a crowd of some 200 cheering students: “They [Jews] think they are superman, but we, the Muslims, are kryptonite. They [Jews] know that their days are numbered.”

In May 2007, MSU sponsored an “Israel: Apartheid Resurrected” week which featured a series of speeches and demonstrations condemning the State of Israel. On May 17, MSU’s longtime favorite -- Abdel Malik-Ali -- delivered a lecture titled “UC Intifada: How you can help Palestine,” wherein he informed UCI’s Muslim students (who again wore green armbands as well as T-shirts reading “UC Intifada” and “Freedom Fighter”) that no other form of death is as honorable as that of the martyr who dies while trying to kill Jews. Refusing to recognize Israel’s existence, Malik-Ali referred to that country not by its name, but only as the “Zionist Apartheid State.”

In 2007, a UC Irvine student blogger identifying herself as “OC Apostate” (she had recently left the Muslim faith in which she was raised) was forced to shut down her blog (wherein she criticized Islam’s intolerance), for fear that members of the campus MSU would harm her family in retribution for her apostasy. She explained:

“I started a blog as way to express myself. Word finally got around that it was me [who was the author] and my family got threats that if I didn’t shut up something might happen. I didn’t want them to suffer for something I had done. So I deleted everything. … They [Muslim students] saw me with my hair out [of the hijab]. They knew who I was. The reaction was a lot of gossip and speculation about my upbringing. Women who I didn’t know gave me dirty looks. … I don’t underestimate them. … The notion of a traitor in your own community is the worse thing that could possibly happen. There is no room for ex-Muslims in a Muslim society. The punishment for being an apostate is death.”

Most recently, MSU invited Yvonne Ridley, a reporter and activist for Iranian PRESS-TV, to speak at UC Irvine on November 12, 2007. Ridley, who also writes a column for the New York-based publication Daily Muslims, is a member of the Respect Party led by British Member of Parliament George Galloway. She was formerly employed as a senior editor by Al Jazeera and helped launch that website’s English-language version in 2003.

Ridley first came to public attention in September 2001 when, while on an assignment for the Sunday Express, she was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan and was held captive for eleven days. After she was set free, Ridley studied the Koran and found it to be a “Magna Carta for women.” She converted to Islam in the summer of 2003.

In the wake of a British anti-terror raid against a Muslim house in June 2006, Ridley told a Respect Party gathering that Muslims should “boycott the police and refuse to co-operate with them in any way, shape or form.” “From today until this terrorization of the Muslim community is stopped immediately,” she elaborated, “I believe all Muslims should withdraw their support. This goes from asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer. We should enforce non-co-operation.”

Ridley supports divestment from Israel, a nation she has described as “that disgusting little watchdog of America that is festering in the Middle East.” She crows that her Respect Party “is a Zionist-free party,” adding that “if there was any Zionism in the Respect Party they would be hunted down and kicked out. We have no time for Zionists.”

MSU’s aforementioned Muslim student newspaper, Alkalima, once published a special report called “Zionism: The Forgotten Apartheid,” which lauded Hamas and Hezbollah for nobly standing up to Israeli oppression.

On September 9, 2001, Alkalima and Al-Talib (UCLA’s Muslim magazine) co-sponsored a dinner at UC-Irvine to honor Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, a.k.a. H. Rap Brown, former Minister of Justice for the Black Panthers. Al-Amin was on trial at the time for the murder of an Alabama deputy, a crime for which he would eventually be convicted. A featured guest speaker at the dinner was a Black Muslim named Imam Abdul-Alim Musa, who said the United States was “superior [to all other nations] in criminality and Nazism,” and who characterized “the American criminalizer” [sic] as “the most skillful oppressor that the world has ever known.”

In 2006 Alkalima published For Justice We Fight, a pamphlet which stated that Islamic terrorist attacks targeting civilians are entirely justified. “[T]he individual or community that participates in jihad finds itself between two blissful outcomes,” said the pamphlet, “either victory and the establishment of justice, or the reward of martyrdom and Paradise.”

This, then, is the Muslim Student Union --an organization that combines its devotion to "community," "friendship," "companionship," "prayer," and "tutoring" on the one hand, with pro-terrorist Jew-hatred on the other.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Iraqi Governor Calls Federalism Best Solution

PRAGUE, November 6, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The governor of the Iraqi province of Al-Najaf says that federalism offers the best solution for Iraq's regions to reconstruct and succeed economically.

As'ad Sultan Abu Kulal said on a visit to RFE/RL in Prague today that his region is using the decentralization of power in Baghdad to make many of its own decisions. He says the result it that Al-Najaf has achieved economic self-sufficiency, both in food and fuel.

The Al-Najaf governor acknowledged that his province has many starting advantages -- including a historically thriving tourism industry based on religious pilgrims flocking to the Shi'ite holy city of Al-Najaf.

The religious tourism has boomed since the overthrow in 2003 of Saddam Hussein's regime, which greatly discouraged it. Recent years have seen investors build more than 450 hotels to lodge the pilgrims, many of whom are from neighboring Iran. The trade also supports restaurants and specialty shops, generating enough revenue for the city to enjoy considerable economic security relative to much of the rest of the country.

Benefits Of Devolution

But Abu Kulal says Al-Najaf has prospered in recent years mostly because the decentralized government in Baghdad allows local authorities to make many key decisions on their own. He says the city's goal is to use this freedom to create self-sufficiency in fuel and food -- two key economic staples.

"Our theory as a provincial council and civil administration is to build complementary, self-sufficient institutions for this purpose," he said. "For example, we are building the health sector, to have hospitals, and have medicine depots. For energy, we are building power stations, in order not to need power transferred from other provinces. We are building oil refineries, so as not to be obliged to bring fuel from outside the province."

Al-Najaf has been relatively free of unrest since major fighting between U.S.-backed Iraqi forces and members of the Imam Al-Mahdi Army in 2004. The Al-Mahdi Army is loyal to radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Control of the city today is shared between supporters of al-Sadr and supporters of other Shi'ite religious parties, particularly the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. A major moderating influence over the sometimes violent rivalries between factions is the presence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the preeminent Shi'ite religious authority in Iraq.

The Al-Najaf governor told RFE/RL's Radio Free Iraq that federalism offers opportunities for other parts of the country, too, despite resistance to the idea in some quarters.

"We have tried during the last few years to practice a tiny part of decentralization, and you could see the huge change that happened when the state gave [us] a little bit of authority, and a little bit of funds," Abu Kulal said. "Despite the lack of local resources and human resources -- there was development. But the problem that we face is that a part of the Iraqi people lack a knowledge of federalism."

Federalism remains a divisive issue in Iraq, where the Sunni community says it could lead to unequal sharing of the country's oil wealth or even break up of the country. Most oil wells are in the Shi'ite-majority south of the country or in the Kurdish north.

Iraq's Kurds currently enjoy substantial autonomy under Iraq's federal system. Many Shi'ite parties are actively pressing for similar rights for southern areas.

Iraq: Threat Of Turkish Invasion Diminished, For Now

By Sumedha Senanayake

November 8, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- As representatives from Iraq's neighbors and other international organizations gathered in Istanbul on November 3 to discuss ways to improve the security situation in Iraq, Turkey's threats to send troops into Iraq to attack militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) dominated the two-day conference.

While Iraqi officials had hoped to use the Istanbul conference as a stage to highlight the sharp decline in violence in Iraq, the meeting was dominated by a flurry of diplomatic maneuverings between U.S., Iraqi, and Turkish officials to avoid a military confrontation in northern Iraq.

Even in the final communique, the issue reared its head, as conference participants called for combating terrorism, "including all efforts to prevent Iraqi territory from being used as a base for terrorists against neighboring countries."

This represents a stark contrast to what has been reiterated constantly by U.S. and Iraqi officials, who have urged Iraq's neighbors to prevent foreign fighters from infiltrating Iraq to carry out terrorist activities that have led to the spiraling instability. Now the reverse exists; Iraqi territory is perceived as being a base for terrorist groups that threaten its neighbors.

Turkey Appeased...

The high-level meeting in Istanbul bringing together the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighbors, and representatives of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrialized states, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference was seen as an opportunity to focus on the issues plaguing Iraq as it tries to rebuild, and to build upon initiatives discussed and adopted by the previous conference in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh in early May.

Among the resolutions adopted by the participants in the final communique was support for Iraq's "sovereignty, national unity, territorial integrity, Arab and Islamic identity," and for the Iraqi government's efforts to achieve national reconciliation and greater efforts "to protect and assist displaced Iraqis by addressing their immediate and foreseeable needs and safeguarding their safety."

While the focus of the gathering was meant to be on Iraq, the Turkey-PKK affair overshadowed everything. Moreover, Ankara’s threats to carry out a major military operation inside northern Iraq initiated a diplomatic push by the United States and Iraq that led to several breakthroughs that seemed to soothe Turkish anger.

First, Iraq promised to take additional steps to curb PKK activities in northern Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki insisted on November 4 that no terrorist group would use Iraqi territory to stage attacks against one of its neighbors and the Kurdistan regional government followed up those statements by shutting down the offices of the Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party's (PCDK) in Irbil. The PCDK are believed to have links to the PKK and Ankara has repeatedly called for the closure of all PKK offices in Iraq.

Also on November 4, the PKK released and handed over eight abducted Turkish soldiers to the Turkish government after mediation by both the United States and Iraq. The abduction of the soldiers on October 21 infuriated the Turkish public, which in turn urged the military to take decisive action against the PKK. Turkey's military amassed some 100,000 troops along the Iraqi border after it was given approval by the Turkish parliament for it to conduct operations inside Iraq if need be.

Finally, on November 5, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House. The two sides underscored their determination to work together against the PKK -- which Bush described as an "enemy of Turkey, a free Iraq, and the United States" -- by improving the intelligence-sharing capabilities between the two NATO allies' militaries.

In addition, Bush's pledge to offer Turkey "real-time" intelligence was seen as tacit approval for the Turkish military to carry out "surgical" strikes on PKK positions in northern Iraq -- a compromise allowing limited military action but staving off a major Turkish invasion, which would undoubtedly destabilize the most secure region in Iraq. More importantly, the enhanced intelligence sharing between the United States and Turkey against the PKK may soften Ankara's complaints that the Americans were not doing enough about the PKK.

...But For How Long?

It remains to be seen whether Bush's assurances to Erdogan that the United States will do everything it can to help Ankara curb PKK activities will defuse the crisis along the Iraqi border or only temporarily soothe Turkish anger. Given previously unfulfilled pledges by both Iraq and the United States to crack down on the PKK, it seems unlikely that Turkey will ease the pressure for immediate action completely.

This inability or unwillingness to act was the subject of recent comments by retired Air Force General Joseph Ralston, who until last month was the U.S. special envoy for the PKK issue in northern Iraq. Ralston allegedly resigned in frustration, citing the ongoing failure by Iraq and the United States to take any concerted steps against the PKK. In a November 2 interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Ralston stressed that ongoing inaction on the PKK situation may give Turkey no choice but to take unilateral military action against the group in northern Iraq.

"They're [Turkey] going to have to [intervene], in the absence of the U.S. doing anything," Ralston said. "The U.S. government should have made good on the commitments they have made to the Turks."

However, the mere threat of a military incursion has been a major bargaining chip for Turkey. It was the threat of such an action that led to pressure being placed on the PKK to release the eight Turkish soldiers, as well as the new pledges by Bush and action by the Iraqis. Therefore, it is doubtful that Ankara would take the military option off the table, unless the PKK in northern Iraq was eliminated completely.

But Turkish frustration may not be that easy to mollify. Following Erdogan's meeting with Bush, in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, he reiterated Turkey's impatience and called for concrete steps to be taken to rein in or eliminate the PKK in Iraq. Alluding to military action in northern Iraq, Erdogan insisted that Turkey has the legitimate right to defend itself against terrorist threats.

With winter approaching, the PKK fighters in based in the rugged terrain along the Turkey-Iraq are likely to be much less active. This could give a temporary respite to the tensions until a long-term solution to the PKK issue can be negotiated. However, if the PKK carry out another bold maneuver similar to the October 21 ambush that led to the death of 12 Turkish soldiers and the abduction of eight others, then Ankara may be left with no other choice but to bow to public anger and launch a full-scale incursion.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Iraq: Official Says Parliament Improving, But Parties Up Progress

PRAGUE, November 13, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The deputy speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Khalid al-Attiyah, says he expects the Council of Representatives to vote on key legislation, including the draft oil law, in the near future. Speaking with RFE/RL Iraq analyst Kathleen Ridolfo at RFE/RL headquarters in Prague on November 9, al-Attiyah also commented on political fissures, saying they stand in the way of national reconciliation, and said that there has been a noticeable improvement in the security situation.

RFE/RL: There are several draft laws yet to be ratified by parliament, including the draft oil law, the law on de-Ba'athification, and the draft law on federalism. How will these issues be resolved? We've heard many times that the drafts were going to be put to a vote, but that has yet to happen.

Khalid al-Attiyah: The four laws to which you have referred are in fact important and strategic, and need to be enacted at the earliest possible opportunity. Political leaders have been discussing these laws for some time, but there are regrettably some limited points of disagreement and contention between the political leaders that are still pending and have yet to be resolved.

That is why I am calling -- I called a few days ago -- for a new political initiative that depends on [convening] meetings between the political leaders, to engage in discussions [aimed at] identifying the pending matters with regard to these laws, in addition to other political issues, in an attempt at finding an understanding. Fortunately, these points are actually few and limited, although some are very important and fundamental.

With regard to the "Accountability and Justice Law," some major political blocs that are involved in the political process -- I mean the two Kurdish parties, in addition to the Islamic Al-Da'wah Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that are major partners in the United Iraqi Alliance, and the Iraqi Islamic Party and the [Sunni-led Iraqi] Accordance Front -- have agreed on an understanding regarding the articles of this law.

And now this law -- I think it will be presented for its first reading at the end of next week in the Iraqi parliament -- and I believe that its enactment is imminent. [It is hoped] that this law will play a part in the national-reconciliation process that we need at this time.

The oil law also involves some pending issues -- especially from the Kurdish side that is still steadfast in some of its positions on this law -- while at the opposite side there is the Accordance Front that has some negative positions with regard to this law. In fact, there are efforts under way now to seek an understanding and a solution to the points of contention. These are basically focused on the authority of the regions in signing investment contracts with foreign companies.

This law is important to Iraq because it guarantees a necessary legal basis for dealing with Iraq's oil wealth, which is a crucial and fundamental wealth that provides 95 percent of Iraq's income. The equitable distribution of this wealth between the various areas that comprise the Iraqi people provides a fundamental guarantee for the unity of Iraq. Thus the enactment of this law in its correct form will guarantee the unity of the Iraqi people and will, as a result, guarantee peace and coexistence between the various components of the people.

There is also the law pertaining to the governorates that are unattached to any region. It is also an important law that needs to be enacted, in order to delineate the authority delegated to the governorates -- to the governorate councils -- and define their responsibilities and commitments, while also defining the relationships between the seats of the governorates and the various local authorities within these governorates.

The agreement in principle in accordance with the constitution is to grant these governorates the broad authority that would enable their self-administration and to improve conditions [within them]. That would play its part in resolving the Iraqi crisis and in "clearing the air" between the various parts of Iraq and their inhabitants. There is also the need for a law that sets out the manner in which elections are to be held in the governorates. It is essential for new councils to assume responsibility in these governorates -- councils that are elected by the people of these governorates.

This law would be complementary to the law of the governorates that are unattached to any region. There is also a law relating to the distribution of incomes and oil revenues, in a manner that guarantees fairness in the distribution of financial allocations to all the areas and regions of Iraq in an equitable manner that is proportionate to the degree of deprivation in these areas.

I am very optimistic that there will be an accord with regard to these laws before the end of this legislative session, and that they will be enacted by the required time. Of course after that there will still be budget law -- the 2008 budget -- that must be approved by the Iraqi parliament before the end of this year. The budget -- as a result of the increase in oil income and the big increase in oil prices during the past months -- will be a huge one, which will include financial appropriations exceeding those of last year by about $7 billion.

This will certainly provide Iraq with an opportunity to carry out reconstruction and launch the investment process. The Iraqi parliament has [already] enacted an investment law that regulates investment in Iraq and encourages foreign companies to take part in investments in Iraq, while guaranteeing their interests and rights.

I believe that these are the most important laws that are awaiting [action in] the Iraqi parliament during this month and next month, in addition to some important decisions that need to be taken by the Iraqi parliament, especially with regard to the completion of the government's formation and filling the empty ministerial posts. These portfolios and ministries have for months been vacant and blocked, and they are related to providing essential services to the Iraqi public. Bringing in competent, independent, and honest technocrats who are anxious to do their duty is very important for the improvement of these ministries' performance toward the Iraqi people.

That is the overall picture of what awaits us now in the Iraqi parliament, with regard to the decisions and legislation of the coming phase.

RFE/RL: Do you think the parliament is as effective as it could be? We see many sessions where there is a lack of a quorum, which obstructs the parliament's ability to function. As a leader in the parliament, is there any plan to sanction parliamentarians who don't attend sessions?

Al-Attiyah: The fact is that I admit that a significant number of parliamentarians are not performing their duties and responsibilities in the required proper way. Despite that, and as a result of enforcing some disciplinary measures on the members, and also as a result of the awareness campaign that was conducted by the Council [of Representatives] leadership with the representatives of the various political blocs to emphasize the need for attendance and the avoidance of absenteeism except in extreme cases, there has been a resulting improvement in the level of attendance. Thus, from the beginning of this parliamentary session, there has not been a cancellation of any meeting due to the lack of a quorum; there has always been at least the minimum number of attendees to realize a quorum.

In spite of that, I believe that the level of parliamentary performance by the members is below what is required, and there are many who do not participate in the committees and who make no effort alongside their colleagues and brothers in the various committees to study the laws, observe the government's performance, or other duties required of council members.

This phenomenon can be justified in part by the security complications being faced by Iraq, and the circumstances that force parliamentarians to travel outside Iraq to meet with their families. Another aspect of the situation is that there are training and development programs for parliamentarians that are conducted by some international agencies and the UN, in addition to the invitations received by some council members from various world parliaments to acquaint them with their parliamentary experiences. As a result, some of those members are absent from some council sessions, since they are abroad in response to such invitations or to participate in the training and development courses.

Overall, however, I believe that this phenomenon is no longer having a negative effect at this time, given that the parliamentary sessions are ongoing. The real problem that obstructs the council's work is not from within the council, but is a result of the political differences between the blocs' leaderships over positions, decisions, and the legislation that must be enacted by the council. If we are to be fair, while looking at the overall view of the situation, we need to take note of all these elements together.

RFE/RL: Can I ask you about the Dead Sea national-reconciliation meeting that ended on November 8?

Al-Attiyah: The truth is that I did not attend that conference. When I came to the Czech Republic, the conference was still under way in Jordan, so I cannot talk about this conference or what was discussed there.

RFE/RL: There was a statement that came out of that meeting that said it is not suitable to talk about reconciliation until the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq. Is this a reasonable demand or is it an excuse used by some parties to the talks? Why is national reconciliation dependant upon the setting of a date for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq?

Al-Attiyah: Assuming that such a statement was issued by some of the parties attending the conference, I believe that this does not represent the fact of the matter. It is rather, as you described it, an excuse for these parties to obstruct the national-reconciliation process. Of course, no Iraqi wants the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil.

Everybody considers the occupation to be over, and that Iraq regained its national sovereignty some time ago, and the remaining forces are there with the concurrence of the Iraqi government, and based on the wishes of the Iraqi government, because security has not yet been achieved and it is still unstable in Iraq. Hence we need the international community to cooperate with us to rectify matters and to train and supply the security and armed forces so that they can take hold of the security file in a capable and efficient manner.

Therefore I don't believe that it is right for anybody to upstage the government or the existing blocs in the political process through such false nationalistic slogans. I also don't believe that the government and the leaders of the important political blocs are less caring than these parties with regard to the sovereignty of Iraq, and with regard to their wish that their country should be independent, enjoying calm and stability.

It is strange that these others -- instead of cooperating with the government and with the other political blocs in the national-reconciliation process, and helping the armed groups to join the political process, to renounce terror, and to renounce violence -- are fueling these groups and providing them with excuses to continue terrorizing the Iraqi people, in spilling the blood of the Iraqi people. I therefore believe that such statements do not serve Iraqi national interests nor do they enhance the reconciliation process. Rather, they fuel the conflict and keep it going, and I believe that what was said at that conference -- assuming that this was the case -- can be described at upstaging.

RFE/RL: How would you compare the level of sectarian violence in Iraq today to that of six months ago?

Al-Attiyah: I would say that there is no basis for comparison at all. There has been a tangible improvement. I don't feel that the conflict that went on -- especially during last year -- was really a sectarian conflict, or a religious conflict. It was, rather a political conflict in its entirety.

Despite that, the intensity of the conflict -- regardless of its description -- has decreased in intensity to a large extent, as witnessed by the fact that forced displacements have decreased immensely; on the contrary, many of the families displaced from some areas have returned. Kidnappings, assassinations, killings, explosions, have also in fact declined in their intensity, and the security situation has improved overall.

By the way, I must stress that component parts of the Iraqi people are brotherly and blend well among each other; the ties and relationships between the people of Iraq are very strong. That is why the people have lived for long centuries without the appearance of such phenomena; other political regimes have been replaced without resulting in what has taken place since the last [regime] change.

This most recent change has shaken Iraq and has overturned the political system by its roots, and the previous equations and balances have all changed, which is why the reaction has actually been a result of the political change, and the transformation of Iraq from dictatorship, from terror, from the suppression of freedoms, to democracy, freedom, respect for the principles of human rights, stressing the rights of minorities, and that every component of the Iraqi people has the right to participate in government.

This system is not liked by many of the political blocs, or by some of the regional parties: they would like to sabotage the political process, and it is they who have given rise to these sensitivities and sectarian conflicts, by providing them with fuel and encouragement. But, thank God, the Iraqi people have demonstrated that they are aware of the need for their national unity, and has listened to the voices of the authorities and the wise, who have called for the avoidance of being drawn into sectarian turbulence.

The truth is that it was possible for the acts committed by the terrorists -- especially the bombing of the twin shrine at Samarra -- to escalate into a most violent sectarian war in Iraq, had it not been for the intervention of our religious sources and scholars. The holding on of the Iraqi people to the principles of brotherhood, mutual love, and their readiness to reason to coexist indicates, in my view, that many of these phenomena did not originate with the Iraqi people, but rather with the political agencies -- whether from within, from without, or regional and international -- who have been behind the stoking of this phenomenon.

(Translated by Ayad al-Gailani)