First Deputy Speaker of Parliament: A statement on the constitutional and legal stance regarding the decision to implement measures banning Iranian civil aviation at airports in Iraq.
Iraq and Iran share geographical, religious, and social ties, as well as common positions and challenges.
These shared ties require us, the Iraqi state and its people, to stand by our Muslim neighbor and its people. Indeed, this is a legal duty.
"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves."
"And the believing men and believing women are allies of one another."
And a moral duty.
Iran was the first country to open its weapons depots and send its leaders and advisors to Iraq during the confrontation with the Takfiri gangs of ISIS, while other countries stood by and watched, and some even supported ISIS with money and weapons. It is the one that supplies Iraq with natural gas despite its own internal need for it, and despite Iraq's failure to pay the amounts. Its debts amounted to billions of dollars over the years. This hasty and ill-considered decision is inconsistent with the principle of calling for detachment and neutrality, and it violates the constitution, as Article (8) of the constitution stipulates that Iraq "fosters the principle of good neighborliness, is committed to non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, seeks to settle joint disputes and resolve its joint relations on the basis of peace, mutual interests, and respects its international obligations."
Unilateral American sanctions are not an "international obligation" for Iraq simply because they were issued. Therefore, it is not constitutionally sufficient to say: "America has imposed sanctions, so we are bound by them." Instead, there must be an Iraqi legal basis or an international obligation acting upon Iraq that justifies the action taken against Iran. This decision disrupts the advancement of economic and developmental reality. Since it has severely and directly harmed an important aspect of the national economy, which is religious tourism, as Iranian aviation is the main carrier of hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi visitors between the two countries, primarily through the airports of Baghdad and Najaf.
The ban leads to a direct decline in tourism and trade revenues, losses for airlines and travel agencies, the closure of tourism companies, and a drop in revenues from transit and air fees collected by Iraqi navigation authorities in exchange for providing ground and navigation services.
Here, in my parliamentary capacity, I pose a question to the Iraqi government:
What are your plans to compensate for the damage caused by this decision to the religious tourism sector and its workers, business and hotel owners, and the self-employed, whose businesses and interests will be harmed? What are your plans if Iran takes the retaliatory decision and stops supplying Iraq with natural gas, and the electricity system collapses because Iraq will lose a third of its energy production? Because a complete cessation causes a direct loss of about (30% to 40%) of the operational capacity of the national grid, and this means an increase in power outage hours in the capital, Baghdad, and the central and southern provinces, and the paralysis of vital sectors: hospitals, water treatment, filtration and pumping stations, and public service centers.
Finally,
I affirm that the House of Representatives is ready to hold an extraordinary session in the event that this decision is not rescinded, and that it has practical steps to take, as well as oversight measures against parties that violate the constitution. We affirm that Iraq's decision must be an independent national decision, stemming from its values and principles, and in accordance with its legal, moral, and constitutional duties. We will not allow, under any circumstances, for Iraq to be a partner in the siege of the Islamic Republic.