Good morning, everybody. My name is John Harris. I'm the Global Editor-in-Chief of Politico. I've been asked by the World Economic Forum to lead our conversation today with the very distinguished guest, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq, who has been in his job since October 2022. He was well-credentialed before that, had a number of ministries, including I can't list them all, but you had the human rights. Did you have agriculture, sir? Hardly anybody. It's hard to imagine somebody would be better credentialed coming into the very difficult job that you now hold. We've got a half hour. This conversation is being livestreamed for people commenting on social media. Just a reminder, that's hashtag WEF24. And we will try to cover as much ground as we can in the next 30 minutes, sir, with great appreciation for the time that you've given us here in the room and given to the Web Forum at Davos. Sir, welcome. Many people, I believe, must have a, certainly this is true for many in my country in the United States, but I think it must be true for many visitors here at Davos. They have a picture of Iraq that is grounded in 20 years ago in the time of so much violence and war. We don't have an accurate picture or a contemporary picture of the state of Iraq now. Could you give us your view of the quality of life in Iraq, the degree of safety, the degree of optimism or fear or anxiety that your people feel as you try to lead them? No. In the name of God, the merciful and the compassionate, a very good morning to all of you. Thank you very much for having me. This is a great opportunity to meet you, Mr. Harris, to have this conversation here at the WEF at the Davos Forum and to ask the question that you have raised. It is true after 23, there has been a major change, which was complicated. It's true, difficult steps in building the institution of the state, and we moved from a dictatorship to a democracy, full-fledged democracy. The security was very high. Terrorism was caused mayhem in our country. Crisis also had a propaganda that threatened not only Iraq, but the world at large as well. So we had challenges and hard times. Iraq won. The people of Iraq won. They came out united with the help of our friends, partners from friendly countries as well, who stood with us to go through this crisis. And today, despite all these difficulties and despite of disparities in the political standpoints within Iraq, there is somehow we have adopted definitely democracy as a step and the rotation, the peaceful rotation of democratic changes at the federal level or at the regional level. And we have had local elections who had been standing still for years, who and in Karkuk, the elections in Karkuk were held up since 2005. And Karkuk, as you know, is a small-scale Iraq. This is a great indication that we have a political track. Today, the political narrative is not a political that is confessional, religious-based or regional-based. No, it is a full-fledged Iraqi to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. So we would like to implement the program in favor to work and to serve our citizens. So it is a citizenship-based political trend. The challenges are not security. We have economic climate and administrative reforms challenges. And this is an indication, a clear indication about the situation, the real situation in Iraq. We are trying to move forward specifically with this government that has five priorities that have been determined based on the aspiration of the people of Iraq, providing job opportunities, alleviating poverty, anti-corruption and reforms and reforming the economy today. Iraq is peaceful, stable, and this is a necessity for Iraq, for the region as well, very important region for Russia and for the world at large. Sir, Iraq has historically been heavily reliant on oil revenues. It's one of the big themes of the World Economic Forum over the past many years has been the transition away from a carbon-based oil economy. Tell us about your own efforts to modernize the Iraqi economy. By the time you leave and, of course, you don't know when that is, what will be different in terms of the modernization and diversification of the Iraqi economy? Now, it is true that in the past we have had an oil-based economy. That was very important for us, but that was also a weak point. That was in shortcoming because basically it was counterproductive. Because we were only based on oil revenues. That was the only target we had. Now, there is a transition to diversification. It is part and parcel of our program and also in part and parcel of our economic aspirations. We would like to go from 59% reliance on oil revenues to 80% and we are reducing the reliance on oil revenues. Therefore, this can occur based on different economic trends. So, reforming the oil economy, restructuring the oil infrastructure and we have not invested enough in gas because we import gas from neighboring countries. Byproducts are also imported from neighboring countries whereas we are an oil-producing country and therefore we have to guide, reorientate the economy with the right tracks and this is one track. The other track is that we have strategic, important, strategic economic tracks in addition to the reforms and we have leading economic programs aiming at complementarity, integration in the petrochemical and also renewables, clean air resources. We are on the right track of diversification to have different revenues. Sir, I'm in the news business and sometimes in the news business it's confusing we don't always get the facts exactly right or it takes time as positions evolved. I've been confused as I've read the news stories about your response to the recent US-backed drone strike that killed an Iranian target in Baghdad. It looked like you had reached the conclusion it was time for all US troops to leave Iraq but I've later seen news stories saying that's not your position. Could you clarify what your position on that is and did your position evolve or were the initial reports of that not giving credit to the nuance of your actual views? Indeed, one of the challenges that Iraq is meeting is that we don't have a proper picture of what is happening. Some agencies, even your agency lately, to be honestly, they take news and we don't know how correct, how accurate the information that are referred to when we say day in, day out through our foreign ministry we spoke about position regarding the presence of the international coalition. It is a good opportunity that we reiterate our position. Iraq, government and people are respectful and appreciate the position of the international community that contributed along with the Iraqi people who made a lot to defeat ISIS. This is a clear and good position specifically from the Iraqi people. The other issue, now the justification of the presence of the coalition is to face, fight ISIS. And today, with the testimony of all the people in Iraq, ISIS is no longer a threat to the Iraqi people. So there are some cells, some groups running away, hiding away who have hide out in the desert or in, and they are being tracked by the forces of Iraq. Now, the preparedness of our army is clear is we have the preparedness and this is a sign of stability and a guarantee to safeguard the situation in Iraq for this. And through these, based on these indicators, we started to implement a commitment made by the ministry council is that we negotiate with the coalition to discuss how to finish this mission in Iraq and this and that was the aim of the delegation of our visit to in 2023 in to the US to set up a bilateral group in order to implement the withdrawal of the coalition. Now, what happened on October the 7th stopped the meeting that were in line. And today, after the aggressions that are happening on Iraqi positions, we have now to start this discussion on the timeline on how the international coalition moves from Iraq. And then we will have bilateral partnership with the regional countries. We will all have a bilateral relationship with partnership with the coalition members. So we are a sovereign country and therefore it is only natural that we move towards this position. This is a request from the people and this is a democratic country. And therefore we have to reply to meet the needs of the people. And therefore this commission will have to work on the meetings for the withdrawal. Thank you. Reflecting the wishes of the people, but in terms of your personal priorities as prime minister, is your position the sooner the better? Or do you feel this transition should take place purposefully and not necessarily on end of that timeline? Indeed, indeed, yes. I believe that the sooner we withdraw the coalition, it is a necessity for the stability, the security of Iraq, and it is a necessity to safeguard bilateral, constructive bilateral relationship between Iraq and the countries of the coalition. This is my position as a prime minister. It is not the position of any other body, but it is myself directly. Sir, to state the obvious, it's a very dangerous time in the Middle East because of the Israel Hamas War. And there's a great concern that the war wouldn't become much more of a regional war. I think it's clear actually there's already quite a lot of regional violence and to some extent the conflict is already in a regional stage, but not in the acute regional stage that some fear it might become. Could you give us your view? What is the degree of risk right now that this very volatile situation with respect to Israel's military action in Gaza will spark something much wider in the region and possibly including your own country? Among the complexities of the security situation in the Middle East is that we ignore a clear situation, which is the fight of the Palestinian people. This is ignored. This is overshadowed, unfortunately. The aim for the Palestinians is to have a state with Jerusalem as a capital. Some people think that the war only started or the fight only started on October 7th, but it's not, in fact. This has been going on a long time. There was a blatant overshadowing of the Palestinian request and the plight has been overshadowed for years, and that led to what happened in October, a dramatic war in this situation. We are facing a real genocide to killing two million people who are found in this enclave, in this strip, under the silence of the international community who only say things and make declarations in the conference of Cairo after the attacks. We all said nobody wants to escalate the war. Nobody wants the escalation, but today, after 100 days, there has been some escalation to the Red Sea, to Lebanon, to Syria, and we don't know what is coming next, basically, because this may, yes, expand it. Excellent, this is a very sensitive area. It is the reserve area for oil. It has a strait, maritime strait, very important to the world, and therefore the international community does have a duty to take its legal and ethical position towards the occupation government, because their aim is to continue killing people, warring. We cannot leave somebody like Netanyahu, who is reckless, completely reckless and ethical. We cannot let somebody like that to continue doing what is he doing in Gaza. This is our position. This is what we say to everybody, and we're very much concerned that unless we leave, unless we do something, the war may expand and escalate in the region. The question you said, unless we do something, and my question is do what? Secretary of State Blinken was here in Davos yesterday. He's now gone home, but he was trying to make the case with my colleague Tom Friedman of the New York Times in their conversation that for all the trauma and the violence and the despair and the death of this moment that he sees the possibility of in the medium term more hopeful conditions, that this crisis actually will accelerate something that was maybe in the early stages of Arab countries wanting to normalize their relationships with Israel in exchange for help restoring the damage and the devastation in Gaza, participating in the recovery, and also getting back on a track for a two-state solution. So what seemed to most of us a very pessimistic moment, he was striking a surprisingly optimistic note. I'm curious what you think of that dynamic that he's describing. I'm curious more broadly of your own view of the end game of this conflict. Where does this go? There is nothing new on what Mr. Blinken has said, basically everybody says the same, same, but this is what is being said, but Blinken has been refused by the Israeli governments. Even the post-war scenario is refused from the Israelis. As we speak, children and women are being targeted and killed by the occupation army today. So there is a failure. The international community has failed. The international organizations have failed. The international institutions have failed in this unjustifiable, unacceptable death that is unraveling before us in Gaza. To bleed, at least in the near to medium term, much cause for optimism, something else that Secretary of State Blinken said seems to be self-evidently true, that he's never seen Israel so traumatized and so united in their pain, in their anger, in their willingness, in their eagerness to punish Hamas. So I don't... The middle ground and the exit does not seem obvious to me from your remarks. Is there something I'm missing? I have a question. Where are the Oslo decisions, the Madrid decisions, Sharma Sheikh decisions, the international binding resolution? 87 decisions have not been implemented. So what is the source of optimism? Because there is a stubborn Israeli government. They simply ignore any international resolutions and there is some kind of accomplices. People are covering the Israeli government, even the Palestinian Authority who accepted, who recognized Israel, even the Palestinians have now convinced that everything that is happening is only words and narrative and giving a carte blanche to Israel to continue doing what he's doing. And therefore, unless we realize that enough is enough and that we have to make sure that the international security council resolutions are binding are implemented, that all the resolutions are implemented, we will be facing, you know, basically a stalemate and we have to realize that. Iraq has often found itself at the crossroads of regional tensions, particularly between the very troubled relationships between the United States and Iran. I wonder if you could give me your assessment of the state of the U.S.-Iranian relationship now but also how that influences your decisions with your responsibilities to protect Iraqi interests? This is the question that is all being raised. This is this bipolarity between Iran and the U.S. because we have a relationship with other countries as well in the neighborhood and not only with Iran. Iran is a neighbor country. We have commonalities with Iran. We have social commonalities, cultural, historical, mutual interests. Iran has stood up with us in the war against ISIS and we have also interests with Iran. We have interests with the United States. We have strategic partnership that helped us to pull down the authoritarian regime that was in our country and therefore this is a status of Iraq. Iraq is specific in this position in one way and Iraq is one of the countries that can basically be a mediator between Iran and the regional countries and Iran and the international community and vice versa basically. Now we as government we believe in principles which is respect of others, good neighborship, respecting sovereignty and no-infiltration interference in internal affairs, domestic. Our constitution is clear. Iraq should not be a starting point to attack neighboring countries and this is the position of Iraq. This is the position of the national institutions and this is clear and therefore we are working towards security, safety. This region once again is a region that has an impact on the world and Iraq is a strong country in the stability of the region. Attention at Davos about this being an election year in many countries around the world but in particular in my own country in the United States where the likelihood is of a rematch of the 2020 contest between President Biden and former President Trump. Do you see and we've heard in the European context that many people feel there's great stakes in that election for the future of NATO and other alliances. Do you see similar consequences in your country or in the Middle East region in the outcome of that election? Well, any elections in any country we are going to respect the outcome of the agreement of the elections. We have strategic partnership with many countries. We have a strategic partnership with the EU sorry, EU countries. So I met the commissioners from the EU. We spoke about many projects. We have outstanding relationship with EU countries. We have mutual respect. There are major investments of EU countries and American companies in Iraq in relation to the programs and investments that are underway. Iraq believes in strengthening its relationship with all the countries based on the values that I just mentioned earlier based on our constitution. Davos are here because they're heavily involved in climate change and environmental issues. I wonder if you could describe some of the views that you're taking to mitigate the environmental impacts of climate change in Iraq and particularly in terms of water scarcity, a big issue in your country, and preservation of Iraq's unique natural heritage. Our region is one of the most vulnerable regions to the climate change and therefore we are going to have a joint committee between the Gulf countries and Iraq in order to work on the climate change. We have a problem of desertification. We have a problem of drought and scarcity of water and the tiger and Euphrates level of water also is diminishing. And therefore we are producing, we are oil producing countries and we have the problem of the flaring, flaring of the gas wells. And therefore one of the major steps in reforming the energy is to invest this flaring through cooperation with the Total and also with other international oil companies. And there are other investments in the sixth round to use these flaring. And now we have involved in a project of renewable energies through contracts to use solar panels in order to, and in Davos there were some concrete understanding between some major investments in using the wind energy and Iraq has got a very good big potential as well. We also started different proper management of water resources in our country so that we will be able to meet the livelihood needs and the agricultural and industrial needs. We have participated in COP28 with a negotiating delegation on the part of Iraq and our aim and our policy in COP28 is to reduce the carbon emission at the production level and this is part of the sustainability program that is underpinning the programs of energy in our country. A couple of minutes left and I was wondering if I could invite you to think a little bit philosophically both looking backward, looking forward. As you look back at the last 20 plus years of change and in some cases violent disruption in Iraq, is there any particular strategic decision that you wish had gone differently? And then as you look forward to the next 20 years of Iraq, what's going to be different about your country? What does your country look like 20 years from now that's going to make it a significantly different place with higher quality of life for your people? Yes, I would like to say that our country is going to be better, definitely better. Iraq is taking very solid steps in the future with the support of the Iraqis with all their components as a source of energy. We are moving forward based on citizenship, based on partnership and also complementarity and the standing between all the components of Iraq so that we have a new economic vision. We have a new Iraq with all its projects and partners. We invest the natural resources that we have. We are based on our heritage, on our civilization so that we are able to have a better, brighter Iraq, a united, independent, stable Iraq in the future. Sir, thank you. That's a great note to close on with just the remaining moments here. I wanted to thank everyone in the audience and everybody online for joining us. Sir, I want to thank you for giving your thoughts and your perspective very emphatically on several points and we're very appreciative of it. Thank you, sir.