 OK. So good morning. Welcome. Marhaba. Marhaba. Bahayrbe. Thank you for joining us for this session today. It is entitled, Syria and Iraq, Ending the Conflict. Although I would say it should be entitled, Syria and Iraq, Ending the Conflicts, as there are so many conflicts, unfortunately, both political and military that trouble these two countries. My name is Mina Al Arabi. I'm honored to be moderating today's session. I'm from Iraq, so this is very close to my heart. And also, Syria is almost like a second home to me. So we hope we can come with some constructive ideas and to inform about a region that is really witnessing shifts and changes. Every time we call them unprecedented, we get even more outlandish moments. Of course, we have the all-important fight against Daesh in both Iraq and Syria. Since Daesh went into Mosul in June 2014, many people of Iraq have been waiting for this moment where we see the close of the ending of that presence. In Syria, we have multiple conflicts, but most importantly, of course, the ending of the presence of ISIS inside of Syria. We will focus mainly during our panel on the geopolitics, but it's important to keep the humanitarian cost in our minds as we are gathered here. There are people suffering on the ground. Over now, 12 million displaced between Iraq and Syria, millions more refugees, millions of rubble of houses that were homes to people now are standing in rubble. And so the humanitarian toll is really being felt, and societies are under threat. So we keep that in mind as we talk about the all-important geopolitics. I would like to introduce my panel, although most of them don't need much introduction. Immediately to my right is Mr. Mehmet Simsek, Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey. Mr. Aiman Asafadi, Foreign Minister of Jordan. Majid Jafar, CEO of Crescent Petroleum. And Mr. Masoud Barizani, President of the Kurdistan Regional Government. This session is being recorded, and of course it is on the record. I'd like to begin with you, Mr. Simsek. The developments in Syria were here in only a few days. There will be the meetings in Astana. And this week while we were here in Davos, there was the first joint strike between Turkey and Russia inside of Syria, which too many people came as somewhat of a surprise given the dynamics of the last few years. What is Turkey thinking about the resolution of the conflict in Syria today? Well, good morning everybody. First of all, I think it's about time that we put an end to this conflict that has caused hundreds of thousands of lives but also led to displacement of majority of Syrian population. We feel the conflict with, I mean, has been a human tragedy on a colossal scale. Turkey as of today hosts 2,840,000 Syrian brothers, but we also cater for a few hundred thousand of them literally just outside of our border within, you know, in Syrian territory. So we can see, and my constituency, I'm a member of parliament from Gaza and Tep, and it sits right on Syrian border. It's literally 110 kilometers away from Aleppo. And my constituency hosts about 450,000 Syrian refugees. So, you know, Turkey really feels the conflict, and also it feels that, you know, we need to do something about it from the very beginning. We tried very hard to prevent it from getting here, but we were unsuccessful back in 2011. The point is, there are high hopes from Astana summit. And I think there is, you know, not only hopes, but we can actually find maybe a juror or a lasting settlement, because all the critical players are gonna be at the table. Russia, of course, has a significant say. Russia is leading, is there. Iran, of course, is heavily involved, and they're gonna be at the table. Turkey is there, United States has been invited. So all the key players, regional and global, are gonna be at the table. So the prospects of some sort of, you know, a process, beginning of a process that would lead to a more permanent settlement actually is high relative to previous talks in Geneva and elsewhere. Big crowds shouting at each other. This time around, maybe we could go actually down to practical, you know, proposals and solutions. So that's why there are high hopes. I think it would certainly help. Geopolitics has been a big drag on the region and on Turkey, so not only referring to refugee crisis, migration. We're actually talking about very high risk, Crimea and terror. When it comes to terror, Turkey now has boots on the ground in Syria, combating Daesh. We were forced to do that because we needed to push Daesh away from our border. We've been successful. But of course, Daesh is not yet, hasn't been eliminated. It's good news that Daesh is cornered, is under siege in Mosul, in Raqqa, in Al-Abab. That really is very important because it is a barbaric terrorist organization and the world is not safe until we do the job. And yes, Turkey is cooperating with Russia on combating terror in Syria. That's a new angle. Of course, United States and allies are also helping. So the good news is that everybody is focused on dealing with terrorist organizations, including Al-Nusra, and which is a branch of Al-Qaeda, but also Daesh. So the fight against terrorist organizations is a very critical component of Syrian strategy. Of course, we have other issues, as far as Turkey is concerned. We've been of the view that Turkey has had this low-intensity conflict with PKK. PKK is on a terror list in United States, in Europe, and UN. And our argument has been that PYDYPG has PKK components. So it's complicated. As you said, there are too many conflicts there. But I think the priority for us is to put an end to human tragedy, human suffering in Syria and Iraq, and to find a more permanent settlement and to contain terrorist organizations and activities. And Astana can provide the beginning of this process in a meaningful way. High hopes are justified, I would argue. I just want to follow up on one. There are many issues here, but I want to follow up on one particular issue, which is you say Astana is a good starting point. How do you see the sequencing of trying to push towards the ending of this conflict? Is it about freezing the military conflict and then trying to come to a political one? And previously, Turkey was of the sentiment that Mr. Bashar al-Assad cannot be part of the future of Syria. Is that still your position? I think the first thing, we need to have a lull. We need it to have a lull in violence, in conflict. And that has been achieved with recent sort of relocation of moderate Syrian forces from Aleppo to Idlib. And of course, making sure that this conflict is, for now at least, the fighting is stopped and it's frozen as it is, is very, very critical because that's the beginning of anything else. So the process is to make sure that we translate the current lull into a more lasting ceasefire initially. And then of course, talk about more mundane stuff of settling the conflict and resettlements and all this kind of stuff. That's complicated, but you have to have a beginning and Astana is that. As far as our position on Assad is concerned, we think that the suffering of Syrian people and the tragedies clearly, you know, the blame is squarely on Assad. But we have to be pragmatic, realistic. The facts on the ground have changed dramatically. And so Turkey can no longer insist on a settlement without Assad and it's not realistic. So I think we just have to work with what we have. And that's where Russia, Iran and Turkey comes in in a big fashion in the United States. Thank you. Sir Asafit, if I can turn to you. Mr. Simsek said that all the key players will be present in Astana, but there is a clear absence of the Arab contingent and voice there. How do you explain that? And also if I can ask you, do you agree that it's about being pragmatic and accepting that Bashar al-Assad is part of the future of Syria in order to end the conflict or at least settle it? Thank you, Miran. Good morning, everybody. I'd like to start first by stressing that we're six years, half a million killed, 12 million people displayed late and attempting seriously to bring about and into this tragedy, to this miserable war that has had tremendously damaging repercussions within Syria and regionally as well. So we enjoyed and support any effort that could bring about and into the suffering of the Syrian people that could stop the war and that could put the country back in track towards peace and towards national reconciliation and towards rebuilding. And it is within this context that we look at the effort in Astana and we see it as an effort to at least start with stopping the killing, saving lives in Syria and hopefully being an essential important first step towards starting a political process that should be all-inclusive and that should bring together all concerned parties domestically within the country and regionally and internationally as well with a view to bringing about a peace that everybody concerned and particularly and essentially and first and foremost the Syrian people would accept and live with. And as such, when we look at the cessation of hostilities effort that has been established in Astana, I think it is extremely important for us to emphasize that it should not be a ceasefire that covers only the northern part of Syria. In order for the cessation of hostilities agreement to be really important and really a first step towards peace, it has to be comprehensive. So the fighting does not stop in the north and then shifts to the south and the same vicious cycle of violence is reignited and the south with all these sort of damaging and disastrous repercussions that could have. So that for us is extremely important that whatever cessation of hostilities you're looking at should be comprehensive, should cover all of Syria and should not be limited to one territory because simply it will not work if it was not that way. Simply the killing and the fighting will just shift and that means any goodwill that you need or any lull that you need to be able to go into the political track is not going to be complete. Second thing is that in as far as Afghanistan is concerned and as far as even Foreign Minister Lavrov has emphasized, it is a step that should lead to the Geneva process. And when we get to the Geneva process, everybody, all the region and internationally consent communities should be there, companies should be there and should be represented. So the Arabs are key players to that and the key players probably in as far as the military conflict is concerned that they're these are the countries that have leverage on the guard one way or the other. But in order for peace to be lasting, I think again, first and foremost, the Syrian people should be willing again, should be happy with it. And number two, original countries should also be involved because ultimately by the end of the day Syria is an Arab country, Syria is in the Arab world and the Arab world has suffered tremendously from the repercussions of the war and the Arab world and Arab countries will play a tremendously important role in the reconciliation, political reconciliation and then the rebuilding process. We in Jordan, I may say we're the closest to Syria. We have 365 kilometers of borders of the country. Already 20% of our population are Syrians. These are sharing our resources. We're happily providing whatever assistance we can to them. 1.3 million refugees, about 120,000 Syrian students are in our public schools. And we believe that the world is not doing enough to help those refugees. And we should be all working together in addressing this problem and not just in terms of providing humanitarian needs and food and water. We should be looking at these, are the people who are going to be rebuilding Syria, who should be going back to their country the minute a peace agreement is there. And we need to make sure that these are equipped, that these are well-trained and well-educated and do not feel bitter and betrayed and abandoned by the world. So ultimately, I'm not chill and I do want to take much more time than I should. Ultimately, peace in Syria is a must. Everybody needs to be working on that. It should start with stopping the killing, but it should end with a political settlement that leads to an all-inclusive political process, which the Syrian people believe can deliver the future that they want and represents their will and aspiration. Thank you for raising the point of reconstruction, rehabilitation for societies and bringing back those Syrians who want to go back to their country. I will come back to this point later on the panel, but I want to turn to Mr. Barzani because of course, Iraq is one of the countries that probably has been most affected by what is happening in Syria and the damage that is happening in Syria. But of course, we have our own internal conflicts. So I want to ask you about what is happening in Mosul now as we see the eastern part is largely liberated of Mosul. There are still 750,000 civilians practically under siege inside of the western part of Mosul and there's no clear plan or solution yet on to how Mosul will be governed once ISIS is taken out. So I'd like to ask you about how you see the possibility of a political settlement, at least for Nenawah province, for Mosul. How will it be governed the day we can hopefully declare that ISIS has been pushed out? Good morning. Obviously, the liberation of Mosul started on October 17th of last year, 2016. It was over two phases and that was included in the agreement between the Ministry of Peshmerga Baghdad and the coalition forces. The Peshmerga forces were at the forefront of this fight and then the Iraqi army was meant to go in in order to liberate the city of Mosul and purge it of Daesh or ISIS. The first phase was successfully implemented and it ended on October 27th. It started on October 17th and ended on October 27th and the Iraqi army then started implementing the next phase of the plan. And indeed, the Iraqi army was able to achieve many victories in addition to the victories achieved by the Peshmerga. We were able to liberate the coast, the coast to the left of Mosul and the next phase is to liberate the right coast to Mosul. And obviously when we planned for the military operation, we obviously had a plan for the post-liberation phase. We gave priority to the military plan because we wanted first to liberate Mosul but then there was an agreement between Erbil and Baghdad to contain any problems that may occur following the liberation of Mosul. We want to rely on the population, on the local population and of course we respect the choice of the people of this region and we want them to have ownership of this plan. As you know, Mosul is different from other regions in Iraq. It is multi-religious and multi-ethnic, multi-cultural region. So any plan to govern Mosul in the future must guarantee the rights of all the components of the population and we should avoid the kind of disasters and calamities that happened during the invasion of Mosul. Obviously you spoke about the possibility of having a referendum in order to hear the voice of the people of Mosul with regard to their system of governance. However, before holding a referendum, who in your opinion should be managing the daily affairs of this region? Obviously, when I spoke about the possibility of a referendum, this is in the future, but there are officials who will be governing before having a referendum. The agreement between Erbil and Baghdad was to help the current local government if they are faced with problems that exceed their abilities. I want to call you Mr. Jaffer, but it feels very unnatural. So Mr. Jaffer, I want to ask you about... We're talking about the kind of governance you could have inside of Iraq or Syria. We're talking about ending the conflict, but most importantly, people want their lives back and they will need their lives to come back to be able to move forward. So this relies on large parts on reconstruction. Some would say it's a bit too early to start thinking about it, but on the contrary, peace will only come when people have a stake in their future. So how do you see, and how does the private sector in the region, from the region, see the possibilities of reconstruction? And what are the possible sectors you can start with? And we have infrastructure needs and so forth. Thank you. Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here with such a distinguished panel and to bring the perspective of the regional private sector to this discussion and in particular the economic aspects. I think first we have to differentiate, although there are many similarities in what's going on in Iraq and Syria, there's one key difference, which is, at least in Iraq's case, there is a recognized government that is recognized by everyone in the world and everyone at least pretends to want to support in its challenges and it is getting international assistance even from the IMF recently and other institutions. In Syria, the case is very different and the level of destruction is very different. I don't think it's too early to start estimating what that's going to require and indeed many agencies have been doing that. In fact, both the IMF and Esquia have done ranges somewhere between 100 to 200 billion US dollars just for the physical infrastructure which has been destroyed in Syria. That's apart from the social investments, the education and rebuilding the society which is much larger than that, just the physical infrastructure and looking at how long it will take if we look at the Lebanese Civil War, which took 16 years. It took 20 years after the end of the war to restore the pre-war GDP, real GDP level. Now the Syrian war has been going less than that but the severity has been much more than that. So the estimates are showing if the war ended now, which of course it has not and we restarted the growth and the construction from next year, say 2018. Even if Syria grew at 4.5% per annum, which is much more than other countries in the region are achieving at the moment, it would take over 20 years to restore the pre-war level of the GDP. So the needs are huge and we need to be looking at sectors where you can get quick wins such as energy, such as agriculture, and sectors which are going to provide quick employment, food processing, agriculture also. And I do think the need is there to start now and it will also very much depend on the level of assistance that comes forward. 100 to 200 billion is actually nothing compared to how much has been spent on the war but if it doesn't come forward, then it's huge. And on the other necessary reforms because the reforms have to go hand in hand with the reconstruction. I mean, you focused on Syria, so let's focus on Syria for a moment. I mean, it's hard to imagine there'll be a peace deal where everything will settle down. It's expected that there will be some moments where you would have instability and security issues. So do you think the private sector or the major companies that will be needed will still go in and invest when they're still in stability or are they going to be more risk averse? So capital is a coward and needs certain level of stability but I would say that there is a lot of capital in the region in governments and in the private sector. And actually I think the private sector from the region is more likely to engage when there is a higher risk. I mean, from our own point of view where the oldest private energy group in the region, we have not invested in Syria but we have invested in Iraq in a major way, over two and a half billion dollars over the last decade. And more than half of that has been in the Kurdistan region. In the gas sector, we've been producing gas since 2008, provides electricity for four million Iraqis in the region. We've achieved savings to the regional government of 13 billion dollars in fuel and economic value out of another 15 billion dollars according to an independent report by PWC. We've had challenges after 10 years, we still haven't recovered our investment or made any profit and other challenges but we remain totally committed. And an interesting case when the Daesh threat came to the region two years ago, all the multinationals, Chevron, Exxon, Total, went running straight to Erbil Airport and left the Kurdistan region. Whereas we were 20 kilometers from the front line, the kernel of our oil police was killed on the third day of fighting against Daesh and I slept with my phone next to my head for several days and we never stopped producing, we never withdrew one, we have about a thousand staff, including some experts, mostly local staff, we never withdrew one employee and we're proud to have continued and I think the regional private sector does look at the risks and ability to manage the risks a little bit differently from the multinational companies. So we should start with the region and then with some government guarantees and support we'll be able to bring in investment from outside. Mr. Asafad, you had raised this issue previously about the needs for reconstruction but also providing a way back for people to go home. How do you see this happening, especially in terms of having the trust for people to go back? Many people don't trust that they might be protected once they go back, if they go back. Basically I think it's key when we talk of reconstruction. I think the easiest part to rebuild will be cities and roads and neighborhoods. The hardest part is going to be to rehabilitate damaged souls and damaged people who have been hurt and people have been left to feel abandoned and destroyed and I think this is where the reconstruction needs to start. Probably in Syria it's gonna take some time before things stabilize, before the private sector can go in and start reconstructing but in refugee communities, whether in Turkey, whether in Lebanon, whether in Jordan, you have millions of Syrians, these are the people who are gonna have to go back and contribute to the rebuilding process. I mean the Syrians are gonna have to build Syria and these are the Syrians who are here. So we need to start investing in these very, very early on. We in Jordan are at capacity. We cannot continue to provide the level of services that we're providing. We do not want to be in a position where we have to choose of whether we give the one remaining seat in a classroom, class to a Jordanian or to a Syrian. And therefore I think the kind of support that's needed from the world now is to come and start reconstructing within those refugee camps. Make sure that we decade those people, make sure that we train them, make sure that we give them skills and then these are going to be people who are ready to go back and rebuild. The alternative to that is to leave them uneducated, unskilled, feeling betrayed, feeling angry, feeling hurt, feeling abandoned. And remember the crisis has been going on for six years. So somebody came to our refugee camp when he was 10 or she was 10, now they're 16. So now they are of a fighting age. So it is key that we invest in rebuilding these communities and rebuilding those people. It is key that we come in and start at least investing in infrastructure and education and health so that we have people who are healthy in their minds and healthy in their bodies so that when they go back because they ultimately are going to have to go back. The other thing, if we do not do that, then we're talking about a lost generation and in 10 years from now, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of kids who are again ignorant, angry, bitter and who are going to be disparate and what is better than despair for dark ideologies like ISIS to come in and penetrate their minds and recruit their army for the next generation. If we learned anything from the experience of Iraq, and if I may speak on the presence of three Iraqis here, if we learned anything is that it's not enough to win the military battle. It is key to follow that immediately with a political process that make everybody feel that they're part of the government, that the government works for them, that they are included and then it took work. When we did not do that, remember Daesh started in Iraq and the recruits that Daesh first had were those Iraqi kids who felt abandoned and betrayed and educated and... The story of Daesh, the story is... And I'm sorry, I did not feel justice, so this is what we need to do. I'm sorry, construction needs to begin. Now go to refugee communities, provide schools, provide infrastructure, provide clinics and make sure we have able generation of Syrians who will go back and who reconstruct their countries. Thank you. Mr. Sinsik, I want to ask you about this point because it's also, and we're talking about trust, we're talking about reconstruction societies, but at the end, how do you build the confidence for people who have been at war in a bitter war in Syria and may feel that actually they have been abandoned by the countries that support them, especially for those that rose up against the government in Damascus, whether it's Turkey, whether it's America, of course today is the inauguration of the new president, so we still don't know how that policy will be. How do you rebuild the trust that there are some sort of guarantees for their safety? Well, first of all, to clarify, we have never betrayed Syrian people. In fact, without discriminating against, you know, I mean, on ethnic or sectarian grounds, we have embraced all of them. And that's why Turkey is now the world's largest refugee hosting country in the world. We've so far spent directly from treasury coffers and local administrations, probably no less than $25 billion. And that's perfectly fine because they're running for their lives and we have responsibility to embrace these people. So I think the issue is that, first of all, some of these refugees may never ever go back. That should be taken into consideration. And I agree with my colleague from Jordan. I mean, we can't wait for a full settlement to continue to address for, you know, in terms of rehabilitation. We have about 800 to 900,000 school-aged kids. And unless these kids get decent education, you know, they can dream about future, have a good future. The world is never safe. I mean, I don't believe that as long as we can understand and comprehend the significance of addressing this conflict, that, you know, if we do that, I think there will be plenty of resources and there will be plenty of players that would help. European security doesn't start, you know, at European borders, it actually starts in Middle East. Turkey's own security starts there. So we have all, not only, you know, as a human being's responsibility to be a constructive player, but also it's in our interest to actually rebuild and help, resettle, and solve this conflict on a permanent basis. It's doable. It can be done. Yes, the financial assistance that will be needed. It's significant, but I don't think it's significant relative to, you know, what we spend on security and fighting this conflict. So I would agree that there will be need for resources, but those resources, I mean, as a neighboring country, we're ready to help in any way we can. Just the way we have helped so far, we will help. In fact, the towns that we have cleansed of Daesh in recent months, like Jarablus and other places, the first thing we did was to quickly sort of restore electricity, infrastructure, basic infrastructure, schooling. In fact, local administrations, and we continue to cater for the basic needs from healthcare to food and shelter. This is a huge task, but it's doable. So we, as a country, we're ready to rebuild those towns, to help rebuild those towns. In fact, we've suggested to our European and Western partners that we should begin quickly in areas where it's cleansed of Daesh. But again, I mean, a temporary, not a temporary, but a permanent ceasefire, and then a path to a permanent settlement would be the trigger for return. And, you know, you should never assume that all of them will return. We have to continue to create economic interdependence in the entire region so that these conflicts can be prevented. People can prevent this conflict. You know, governments, despite their bickering, I mean, we can. And that's why Turkey, prior to this crisis, was talking about an almost, a customs-free, that included freedom of movement as well, a Levant project. But sadly, it became a victim of Arab winter, I would say. You know, spring had high hopes. We believed in those aspirations, but there has been disappointments and there's been chaos. But we have to, you know, look forward, not look back. And I think there's a lot we can do and Turkey will play a very constructive role and help. Okay, I want to turn to the audience for questions. But I have one question to Mr. Barzani and then prepare your questions. There'll be mics coming ground. Mr. Barzani, I want to ask you, of course, today we have a new American administration will be taking over the inauguration of President Donald Trump. How do you see the change in the United States impacting Iraq and the, in addition, of course, the military fight against Daesh, but the bigger political thinking in Washington how it infects us in Iraq? According to the context that have taken place with the new administration and according to what we have heard and what they have said, they said that there would continue supporting the Peshmerga's and the Iraqi army that is fighting Daesh. And we're expecting this administration will be more interested in fighting terrorism more than the previous administration. This is what we're expecting, but we have to wait. The inauguration hasn't taken place yet, so we need to wait and see. The question, the new foreign secretary Rex Tillerson had a major role to play. Do you have good relations with the foreign secretary-elect? Will you have a good relation, Mr. Barzani? Yes, we know him and he has indeed visited Kurdistan and I met him in other places as well. He is somebody who knows exactly what's going on in Iraq and in Kurdistan. And we expect that he's going to make a huge transformation in the foreign policy of the United States. Hello, everyone. My name is Maha Salihi. I'm a global shaper from the Habufis. It's not a question, but rather a comment. Something that we're really missing is the conflict in Yemen and it's not being discussed. It's under-covered and according to the Ocha there are around 21 million Yemenis who need humanitarian assistance. That's the number of people in Syria and Iraq put together. So please, please, please, I appeal to you through this forum to include Yemen because they're the same actors and yeah, please cover what's going on. It's unfortunately too many conflicts to be mentioned from the region, but you're right, the people of Yemen and inshallah we will find a resolution soon. Okay, there's a gentleman here and then we'll go there. Yeah, hi, I'm Ben Hubbard of Middle East Correspondent for the New York Times. Thank you very much for all of your comments and for your efforts to end these terrible, terrible conflicts. I'd like to ask a question about the presence of Bashar al-Assad in the future. I mean, I understand how most of the regional powers involved have come to an accommodation with the idea that he's going to remain, but I'm curious more on the practical level of to what extent a refugee is going to be willing to return to a country in which Bashar al-Assad remains the president after the things that his military has done to the people and then also in terms of reconstruction. I mean, this is somebody who's been kicked out of the Arab League. He has sanctions from many, many countries in the United Nations. If he remains the president of Syria, how is this going to impact the willingness of the private sector to come in or for international organizations connected to the UN to come and invest in redevelopment in Syria? Thank you. Thank you. APPLAUSE On the reconstruction side and the sanctions? Sure, I'm not going to comment on the politics. I'll leave that to my... Yeah, we've... I'll leave that typical job to my more able colleagues. But on the investment side, I do think it is, generally speaking, it is important to depoliticize the investments. And otherwise, if the politics leads the economics, it's usually a negative cycle. If the economics leads the politics, it can lead to more stability. Taking one example, the energy sector, something I know about, we have half the world's oil and gas in our region. And yet we're producing less than a third of the oil, less than a sixth of the gas. So we're way, way below our potential. And a lot of that is because of politics. For example, in energy, through our exploration activities in the Kurdistan region, we've discovered reserves that are up to 75 trillion cubic feet. That's 15% of the gas in Qatar in these two fields. That could easily be supplying all of Turkey's needs, not that we want to take the whole market, but all of Turkey's gas needs much cheaper than their existing suppliers and create huge revenues for Iraq between the federal government and regional government, according to the constitution. I think people know the potential that we have, but often it's the politics that undercuts it. So can you still think of a reconstruction? So my point there is exactly that. After nine years of discussing it, we have the potential to produce 10 times what we're producing today, but it's not happened because of politics. Regional politics and insufficient enabling government action, including from Turkey. So this is, I think if regional governments can try and depoliticize the energy flows and other economics, it would be better. Excellent, thank you. Can you envision Syrian refugees moving back with assets still in power? Or feeling safe even for those who are displaced within their own country? I know this is tough. That's why we've insisted for a very long period of time that any solution has to be without the person who is responsible for these atrocities. But sadly, that did not materialize. And here we are, there are facts on the ground, there's reality, United States did not do what should have done. Iran and Russia has played a very significant role in ensuring sort of a longer reign of the current regime. And so that's why for the sake of a permanent ceasefire and a process towards a settlement to put an end to the suffering of people, I guess you just have to continue with realities on the ground. So that's all I'm going to say. So you know it's not something that we can internalize. It's not something that we happy with it. And it's not something that refugees are happy with it and something that is going to make them extremely uncomfortable. But the question is, we've not been able to change the situation. Does this mean that the time of calling for no fly zones or safe havens is over? Well, if we're talking about having the critical players who have leveraged on the ground talk about a permanent ceasefire and then hopefully a settlement, then of course the call, which is a Turkish call for years and years to have a no fly zone to protect Syrian people who are running for their lives. Obviously, I don't want to, assuming we don't go back to the real conflict, then yeah, probably there won't be much support for that idea. I think the number one priority for everybody right now is to stop the killing and save the Syrian people more suffering in vain. You know, that is not leading to any sort of objective. Everybody knows from the very, very beginning that there was no military solution to this conflict. We in Jordan have always said that. His Majesty has always insisted on that. There's only a political solution. So we all agree that the only way to solve this conflict is to go the political track. We have two choices. Keep fighting and talk politics and if that is the situation, the whole world is watching but who was paying the price, the Syrian people and probably countries, certainly countries next to them. So the situation that we find ourselves now, real politic, that is the situation to find ourselves and now is that the best, what is it that we can do? What is achievable? And I think one of the problems of why the Syrian conflict has deteriorated thus far is that people really who are sponsoring the war, who are pushing the war, had very low cost to themselves. The highest cost was paid by the poorest, by the weakest component of this, which is the Syrian people. So reality is now, I think what we need to do is ensure that we work for a cessation of hostility, a comprehensive cessation of hostility, not one that's driven by political, narrow political agendas of this party, of that party, but one that is rooted in a genuine willingness to stop the killing and save the Syrian people more suffering and more death. As you do that, you start a political track and for that political track to work, it needs to involve everybody. It cannot be limited to the parties to Astana, even though probably starting with the parties to Astana to create a ceasefire could probably be the best model because it's the only model that has worked thus far in terms of creating a sustainable ceasefire in the ground. So expand the group and go a political track that seeks a political solution because we all know it has to end in a political solution, a political solution that would be workable, that be realistic and that be accepted by the Syrian people because ultimately, unless it is accepted by the Syrian people, it's not going to bring about peace, it's not going to bring about construction. You could have an end of war, you could have a stop in immediate fighting, but you're not going to have peace and that is what Syrian need. And from experience within the Syrian context, the Iraqi context or the global context, we know that unless it is a win-win situation, unless there's a real reconciliation process that everybody feel willing to accept and particularly the people feel willing to accept, it is not going to work and it's going to be deceived for yet a further and probably more vicious conflict. So that is where we find ourselves right now. So the priorities would be is stop the killing, work on a political track that deliver a solution that would be accepted by the Syrian people and endorsed by the region and the international community and do good where you can and where all of us can do good is in as far as helping the refugees. And I think people should not look at the refugee issues as humanitarian handouts. Investing in the future of refugees and is investing in the security of the world because as my colleague have said, our global security is so interconnected to the extent that not even European security but also American security starts in any other spot in the world, in the Middle East in particular. So investing in refugees, making sure that we provide education is really is investing in a safer future for all of us because again, the alternative is more death, more killing and that will save no one, not us in the region, not our European partners and colleagues and not the world at large. So again, realism dictates that we look at what's possible and our single most priority should be the Syrian people and stop their suffering and stop their misery. They've suffered far too much I think and we have to do something about that. Mr. Barzani, if I can come to you on the issue of Syria, do you envision an autonomous Kurdish region within Syria and of course you have your contacts within the various Kurdish actors in Syria in order for there to be a peaceful future? Do you think that this is now, it's a set thing, there has to be an autonomous region inside of Syria or not necessarily? I will support what is endorsed by the Kurds in Syria and according to the agreements that are going to take place, I cannot speak in their name but I will support what they decide and today we have 300,000 Syrian refugees in Kurdistan which is why we hope that peace is established in Syria so that these people can return to their country. Okay, so you take the next question from here and then there's a gentleman here please. Thank you Mina, Faisal Abbas from Arab News. I'm glad Mr. Simsek mentioned Iran because we seem not to have mentioned it so far and the common factor in between all these conflicts and including the one in Yemen which the lady happened is Iranian intervention and meddling with regional affairs. Now I'm not making a statement, I'm making a question. The era of President Obama has finally come to an end where Iran was actually being rewarded for being a bad boy. Now we have a conservative government coming in in the United States, we have a president, he might have a lot of faults. Faisal, the question please. He might have a lot of faults but he seems determined to put Iran in check. My question is with regards to the three representatives of the countries available, would you support a more aggressive attitude towards Iran and how could you leverage your own bilateral relations with them to put them in check in Syria, in Iraq and in Yemen? Okay, we'll answer the question but I just want to go to the gentleman here so that we take two because we're running out of time. Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you. I'm from Syria. I am from Syria, I'm the head of the White Helmets Network in areas that are not under the control of the regime to save the civilians that are being attacked from the air. Everybody talked about the crisis, the refugee crisis and the investment in human resources in the neighboring countries but we mustn't forget that the same number of people are the displaced people, six million displaced people inside Syria and the majority are on the Turkish-Syrian border. There are about three million in camps. We have to think about them. We have to think about them seriously. We have to invest in human resources that exist in the camps. And secondly, we have to close those gaps that have happened in Syria and also the forced displacement that haven't stopped. There is another forced displacement happening in Zakhia and Idlib. Anybody who's against Assad is being forced to be displaced. We don't know what's going to happen in Idlib. Are they going to attack? Are they going to commit genocide against the people of Idlib? Is Idlib going to become another Gaza? And the Syrians are thinking about all these hypotheses. What's the future for Idlib that has hosted more than 400 to 500 million displaced persons? I've been a refugee for a long time and we support investing, training, vocational training of refugees so that they become fertile ground for extremists so that they're not exploited by extremists in Syria. I would like to thank you and I would like to thank Mr. Aiman Safadi, Mr. Semsik and Mr. Barazani. I would like to thank you for all your proposals because these are solutions that are possible and for the Syrian crisis. But we have to think about the sectarian strife and the sectarian divide that has come as a result of this extremism. It's good it's coming as we needed to raise the issue of the sectarianism and the Iran factor in the region, the mass displacement. I'd like this to be our focus for what time we have left in the session. So please, we start with you. I think the only way forward for Middle East which is extremely rich in terms of culture, ethnicity and beliefs, the only way forward is not new borders or new perpetual, I mean that would provide the basis for perpetual conflict is the coexistence in a European way. Look in Europe today you have, as of today at least, you have 28 nations, maybe hundreds of different ethnic groups and it doesn't really matter. Ultimately you have fundamental rights and freedoms for everybody. You have high standards of democracy. You have rule of law. And that brings about prosperity. And so peaceful coexistence is critical and that's why we should not fall into the trap of sectarian or ethnic strife. Just to give you some color, I mean in the case of Turkey for example, globally usually Turkey is portrayed as if like we have quarrel with Kurds. I'm a Kurd myself. Turkey has no quarrel with Kurds. Exactly the opposite. The largest Kurdish city in the world is not in Southeast part of Turkey is in Istanbul. It's Istanbul actually, the largest population of Kurds. But you can't divide Turkey along ethnic lines. My wife is a Turk, I have three children, who are they? That's why exactly we need a new model that is built on fundamental rights and freedoms, rule of law and handstanders of democracy, stability, peace and prosperity for them. And I think this has to be recognized by Iran, by Turkey, by Iraq, by Syria, but by all other countries. That's the only way forward. That's my first arguments that I would make. And secondly, I really think that for now, of course there are all sorts of considerations, fears about what happens next. But let's give the peace, or at least the ceasefire, a real chance. Let's try everything because the alternative, as my colleagues have referred to, is further suffering. Tragedies on a huge scale and lack of security for the rest of the world. We cannot essentially allow that to continue. So let's focus on the immediate issues. Let's resolve the immediate conflict. And let's rebuild confidence. Let's build trust. And let's work together. And it is doable. There's a lot of resources, a lot of potential. And it can be solved. But Idlib is immediate for many Syrians. Will it be protected? The settlement, any immediate ceasefire will definitely cover the safety of those who are displaced and in various sort of enclaves, including Idlib. As we speak today, Turkish humanitarian groups are on the ground, in Idlib, catering from health care to food and other sort of services. Yes, of course. And I think Russia has a good understanding of that. Turkey clearly is the biggest advocate of that. No question about it. And I'm sure Iran has to recognize that ultimately this won't look good. And that's how they came about actually stopping, you know, providing the exit for Eastern Aleppo, I mean, in the moderate opposition. It was global pressure. It was our efforts and Russia's recognition that this situation on the ground was as untenable. So that's why I think while there are worries, you know, I think Astana may provide some beginning. And then, of course, there needs to be follow-up. Mr. Asafadi, about Iran's role in the region, many Arabs and non-Arabes are concerned about this. Look, reality is we've got to accept that foreign intervention in Arab affairs, particularly negative foreign intervention in Arab affairs and the internal affairs of Arab countries, is not going to produce any better conditions. It will only lead to conflict. So we definitely are against either Iranian or anybody else intervention of the internal affairs of sovereign states in the Arab world. And that is a rule that I'm sure everybody agrees to, that no country should have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. That's one. So we do not accept Iranian meddling in the region. And we definitely urge Iran to engage with the Arabs on a dialogue that would ultimately work together for the betterment of the lives of both people. Because we share the region. We cannot say Iran is not part of the region. Iran is the region. And I think it's in the interest of Iran to work with the Arabs towards creating common grounds for working together without trying to influence or trying to expand or trying to further its ambitions. And that applies, I think, as a formula that applies to every region. So that is a case. Number two is that we need to emphasize is that we need to recognize the interconnectedness of all the problems in the Arab world, from Syria to Iraq to Yemen. And let's not forget the core issue, the root cause of conflict in the region, which is the Palestinian issue. Which, five years ago, six years ago, we would not be talking about the Middle East without having mentioned the word Palestine probably in the second of the conversation. Now look, we have not. But we've got to remember that this is a root cause of conflict and resolving it in a way that delivers justice to the Palestinians and in accordance with internationally accepted terms of reference is essential as well. Third point is that while the problems are interconnected, the solutions are interdependent as well and interconnected. So we cannot solve one problem without having some sort of a holistic view of what fuels tension in the region and really work together genuinely to try and find ways of compromising and reaching common grounds that could be the seeds of agreement. The sectarian conflict that the gentleman from Syria spoke of and you spoke of is definitely a plague that's dividing the Arab culture at this point. My colleague spoke of, again, physical reconstruction. Let's speak of mental reconstruction, of cultural reconstruction. And there's a lot of damage there, probably more damage than the physical damage that we've seen. So that's something that we need to approach. Exclusionist policies, no matter what, that are rooted in sectarian or ethnic or territorial narrow agendas is not going to work. Collectively, we have to start working on creating national identities where every Iraqi feels Iraqi, every Syrian feels Syrian. And that's the only way that things could work. And allowing multiple identities to work. And of course, for that, within that, but I mean, and you know, that's not exclusionist, you know? That's the problem. But there needs to be a sense of belonging and ownership to the country. And that could only come around by people feeling that they are part of a whole that respects them, that respects their right, respects their identity, respects who they are, and provides good governance that deliver justice and equality to all. The region has suffered so much. We need an industry of hope. And I mean it. We cannot continue to sort of push down the gloomy narrative. Yes, we have conflicts. But if we work together, we can make things work. The youth need to feel some hope. Otherwise, we speak of Daesh. And we speak of other terrorist organizations. They feed on despair. They feed on anger. And we are going, I'm sure, very soon we'll be able to defeat Daesh militarily whether in Iraq or in Syria. The security threat will probably take much longer. But ultimately, we'll be able to triumph over that if we work together. The big battle is the cultural battle, is the intellectual battle. How do we convince our young frustrated youth that this is not the answer? I think the answer is by providing a model that they can feel and that they can live with. By providing narrative that is all-inclusive and not narrative that's going to divide people. That is something that we have to work on together. We need to invest in models in the region to provide such examples where people can have good life here on Earth within countries that they belong to. So again, it's a long list of things that I need to do. But I think the underlying promise is that we've got to solve the conflict. The only way to solve the conflict is to get people hope. And that hope should be rooted in an offer of good governance and a good life that would respect their dignity and respect who they are. OK, I wanted to take more questions and really wanted to hear from Mr. Barzani and Mr. Jaffar in just one minute because we're running over time now. Just one minute, your point about the sectarian tension. Sometimes it's ethnic tensions in the region. Can we move past it or is it too difficult? Sectarian conflict is a reality in Iraq and Syria. And in order to deal with the sectarian divide, we have to take into consideration that this is a very complex issue, but we must at the same time tackle it because unless we do so, there can be no stability in both countries. And Syria and Yemen are fundamentally about a failure to build exactly what was said, inclusive and accountable institutions, which are not based on loyalty to a leader or a party or a sect. So that's where the focus for the international community should be. And that's what the economy needs. And guess what? When the economy is doing well, people don't fall back on such identities. In successful economies without poverty, these identities don't matter. It's when the state is fragile that they come forward. So I think that's where the focus should be. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you to the audience. Apologies for those with intake questions from. Thank you to the panel.