The Iraqi Press on the Confrontation Coming
Iraq NewsMAY 11,, 1998
By Laurie MylroieThe central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .
I. SAHHAF, OUR NEXT STEP IS PLANNED, AL SHARQ AL AWSAT, MAY 1
II. AL THAWRA WARNS OF DIRE CONSEQUENSES, APR 30
III. BABIL, IRAQ'S DISSATISFACTION WITH ITS UNSC SUPPORTERS, MAY 2
IV. AL THAWRAH, ONLY IRAQ KNOWS WHEN AND HOW IT WILL ACT, INA, MAY 7
One reader, retired from the Pentagon, commented on the "bizarre
nature" of events. On Apr 30, Iraq sent the UNSC a letter, demanding a
lifting of sanctions, threatening "dire consequences," and speaking
openly of war; six days later the US announced it would probably reduce
its carrier presence in the Gulf [see "Iraq News," May 5 & 7].
Another reader, formerly of the State Dept, commented on how the US
had ignored Iraq's ultimatum and opted instead to squeeze Israel for
more concessions to Yasir Arafat, even as that violates a US commitment
made only last year in the context of Israel's withdrawal from Hebron,
that the extent of Israel's next withdrawal would be up to Israel. The
reader remarked, "Absolutely chilling."
An Iraqi reader commented on the Koranic verse that began Iraq's
letter to the UNSC, "Go both of you, unto Pharaoh, for he has indeed
transgressed all bounds," explaining that Saddam increasingly speaks as
if he saw himself as a new prophet. The Iraqi letter is posted on the
website of Iraq's UN mission: http://www.undp.org/missions/Iraq/ It
identifies the verse as Taha XX, 43. The next verse is, "And speak to
him a gentle word, that peradventure, he may heed or fear."
Yet the administration, it seems, has embarked on the course of
retreat, first described by Jim Hoagland, in the Wash Post, Apr 23, and
most recently criticized by Fred Hiatt, in the Wash Post, May 3. It
appears that the administration intends to play down the kinds of Iraqi
challenges that precipitated the previous two rounds of confrontation
hoping, thereby, to avoid the next confrontation.
The change in US policy was also described in the Forward, Apr 24.
And as the Forward explained, "The new policy's most vocal advocate is a
former Bush administration official who is now the director of foreign
policy studies at the Brookings Institute, Richard Haas." Haas told the
Forward, "I don't think right now we have domestic, much less
international support for a policy dedicated to removing [Saddam's]
regime. . . The message I would send is if he ever uses unconventional
weapons, that would become the declared total purpose of our policy."
In contrast, AEI's Richard Perle told the Forward that the new
Clinton policy was "a complete surrender . . . It's a catastrophe.
We've always had the option of retaliating. What they're really saying
is our policy with regard to Iraq will consist of retaliation if they
attack." And the executive director of the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs, Tom Neumann, "blasted the new policy. 'The
administration is about to move from the concept of containment to the
concept of deterrence. What it really means is not to have to have a
short-term confrontation with Iraq. It's really a retreat.'"
On Sun, Iraq launched a new diplomatic campaign. The Foreign
Minister, Muammad al Sahhaf, is to tour a number of African states.
Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, who just arrived in France, is to go
on to Belgium and Italy. The Iraqi efforts aim at strengthening
Baghdad's position in advance of its next challenge.
An experienced and knowledgeable reader cautioned that the next
challenge could even include military action in the Gulf, perhaps
seizing strategic oil facilities, particularly if Iraq were prepared to
use its unconventional weapons.
Some two weeks ago, Foreign Minister Sahhaf in Jordan, on his way back
to Baghdad after his meetings with the UNSC in NYC, told the Saudi-owned
Al Sharq Al Awsat, in comments published May 1, that "the Iraqi
leadership's decision to take certain steps if the blockade is not
lifted or eased was taken before the recent Security Council decision
that recommended the continuation of the blockade." Thus, Saddam's next
step was planned well in advance. Sahhaf also "emphasized that
continuing the blockade as it stands is a mistake that does not promote
a stable relationship between Iraq and the United Nations Special
Commission." That's another possibility--dramatic action against
UNSCOM, perhaps even expelling it from Iraq.
"Asked what decisions Iraq could take in retaliation for the
continuation of the blockade, [Sahhaf] said: Every child who dies as a
result of shortages of medicine or food, every student who is unable to
get his educational needs met in full, the suffering of all Iraqi
citizens . . . all this is the basis for any future Iraqi decision or
measure to prevent the US and British administrations from continuing
the war of annihilation against the Iraqi people. . . . We will take the
steps and measures that protect our people and nation, the steps that
will awaken those who are asleep and or are remaining silent. "
The Iraqi press is sometimes used to elaborate on major government
decisions. On Apr 30, three days after the UNSC sanctions review, Al
Thawrah wrote, "The rash and irresponsible conduct of the US
administration at the UN Security Council shows ignorance of basic facts
which impose themselves on the Iraqi, Arab, and international arenas and
an underestimation of the possible reactions that might arise. . . .
The statement issued at the end of the joint meeting of the
Revolutionary Command Council and Iraq Command of the Arab Socialist
Baath Party on 16 April 1998 stressed that there is no more time for
procrastination and maneuvering. . . The Iraqi cabinet in its 12th
session [Apr 23] clearly summed up the Iraqi stand when it said that the
world faces two options: either to lift the sanctions on Iraq or to
perpetuate them. The first option requires a particular kind of
relationship based on understanding and cooperation. The second leads
us to a new state of affairs. . . When Iraq finds that its relationship
with the UN Security Council is unbalanced, particularly that there are
those who prevent the UN Security Council from lifting the sanctions on
Iraq for political reasons that have nothing to do with UN Security
Council resolutions, Iraq then will have the right to do what it finds
appropriate to protect its rights and avert harm and to forcefully and
firmly resort to the necessary measures that will shatter what remains
of the US illusions and block its conspiracies against Iraq and the Arab
nation. The US threats to veto a demand by the majority of permanent
and non-permanent UN Security Council member states to implement
Paragraph 22 will have dire consequences on Iraq's relationship with
UNSCOM in addition to many other negative effects. These will be
followed by crises and tension which will endanger the basic US
interests in the Arab world, at least. Those who unjustly treated
others will likewise be treated."
Terrorism may also be part of Iraq's next move, particularly
terrorism which the US would not recognize as Iraqi-sponsored, but
others would. That would contribute to weakening the coalition, even as
"Iraq News" believes that that has already occurred, as it has explained
to several Muslim readers.
The Clinton administration has become accustomed to, and has gotten
away with, relegating almost every major act of Middle East terrorism to
Iran and/or Militant Muslims, who float around the world, ghost-like, in
loose networks, like spaghetti. Intellectually, that is not a very
satisfactory explanation, even as it addresses a deep and understandable
emotional antipathy that Americans bear toward Muslim extremists,
including in Iran, who constantly affirm their own hatred for the US and
Israel. Yet to misunderstand the source of a terrorist threat is to
invite more and it is worth noting the observation of Prof. Emmanuel
Sivan, of Hebrew University, in "The Holy War Tradition in Islam,"
Orbis, Spr, 98, that the antagonism between Sunni and Shi'a radicals is
so extreme that "the notion of a Tehran-based Islamic comintern is,
consequently, a chimera."
Iraq's dissatisfaction with its supporters on the UNSC was a prominent
theme in its letter to the UNSC. On May 2, Babil expanded, "At the last
Security Council meeting on Iraq, the voice of Kofi Annan was absent;
the recent government crisis in Russia dominated the meeting. . . . The
promises made by some big powers to seek to implement paragraph 22 of
Resolution 687 were also absent. They were replaced with the call to
transfer the nuclear file to the monitoring and verification system,
whereas what should have happened was the closing of all the files. The
voice of China was the strongest alongside Iraq and the impotent members
of the Security Council justified their impotence by citing fears of a
US veto. However, a veto would have been better than a political
cat-and-mouse discussion because it would have increased America's
isolation and solidified international solidarity with Iraq."
Yet the result of the UNSC review was not unanticipated. On May 7,
INA summarized Al Thawrah, "The Security Council's submission to an
appeasement of the United States, without any due consideration for the
gross harm that is being done to Iraq, can no longer be tolerated or
endured, unless the council lifts the embargo, beginning with the
economic embargo, in response to Iraq's open letter. Otherwise, Iraq
will have the right to adopt the position it deems suitable . . .
Whoever thinks that he can imprison Iraq in the embargo tunnel for an
indefinite period under different, futile excuses must remember that
there is more than one way to get out of this tunnel. . . Iraq's open
letter to the president and members of the Security Council is clear.
Unless justice is done by lifting the economic embargo at the minimum,
there will be some other action. This action is a private matter, which
only Iraq knows and will decide when and how to take."
I. SAHHAF, OUR NEXT STEP IS PLANNED
FBIS-NES-98-121
London Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic 1 May 98 p 2
Subslug: Unattributed report: "Al-Sahhaf Tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat: We
Will Intentionally Break and Fragment Blockade, Since We Have Lost 1
Million Iraqis as a Result of It"
Amman, Al-Sharq al-Awsat -- Iraqi Foreign Minister Muhammad Sa'id
al-Sahhaf has said: "We will intentionally break and fragment the
blockade imposed on Iraq." In an exclusive statement to Al-Sharq
al-Awsat during his stopover in Amman while en route for Baghdad from
New York, al-Sahhaf said that the Iraqi leadership's decision to take
certain steps if the blockade is not lifted or eased was taken before
the recent Security Council session that recommended the continuation of
the blockade imposed on Iraq.
He added: "U.S. and British endeavors focused on maintaining the
blockade in order to kill more of the Iraqi people ensure that the
region remains weak under U.S. hegemony and [these endeavors] blackmail
the states of the region."
Al-Sahhaf emphasized that continuing the blockade as it stands is a
mistake that does not promote a stable relationship between Iraq and the
United Nations Special Commission in charge of the scrapping of
mass-destruction weapons [UNSCOM]. He said: It seems that this is the
U.S. aim, embodied by UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler's report, which was
prepared and written with one objective -- to maintain the blockade.
Al-Sahhaf pointed out that Butler is adopting this method for
political reasons; it has nothing to do with any technical view or
assessment of the issue. However, despite all this, the U.S.
Administration has not been able to conceal the full truth. There is--
despite everything--recognition on the part of major states of the
necessity to close the nuclear file, ease the sanctions, and recognize
the progress made with regard to the weapons.
Asked what decisions Iraq could take in retaliation for the
continuation of the blockade, he said: Every child who dies as a result
of shortages of medicine or food, every student who is unable to get his
educational needs met in full, the suffering of all Iraqi citizens...
all this is the basis for any future Iraqi decision or measure to
prevent the U.S. and British administrations from continuing the war of
annihilation against the Iraqi people.
He added: "It really is a tragedy that the Iraqis should be killed by
continuing the blockade merely because the United States told Butler:
Write your report in a manner that ensures the continuation of the
blockade. But it is we who will intentionally break and fragment this
blockade. We will find that Arab and world support is going to be a
factor in helping to end the suffering of the Iraqi people, who have
lost more than 1 million people as a result of this blockade. But this
support should be stronger; it also should take place at the right place
and the right time."
Concluding, al-Sahhaf said: "We will take the steps and measures that
protect our people and nation, the steps that will awaken those who are
asleep and or are remaining silent. And we will take on our side the
brothers who are fair and all those who believe in God and human
values."
II. AL THAWRAH WARNS OF DIRE CONSEQUENCES
FBIS-NES-98-125
Baghdad al-Thawrah in Arabic 30 Apr 98 p 3
Subslug: Article by Malik Mansur: "The Black US Resolution"
The UN Security Council discussions on Iraq and the black resolution
to perpetuate the sanctions on our people and country, in view of the
failure of UN Security Council members to reach a consensus on the
implementation of Paragraph 22 of Resolution 687, are an indication that
the US Administration still clings to its illusions which the Iraqi
people have buried with their steadfastness, resistance, struggle, and
rallying around leader and struggler Saddam Husayn. Washington believes
that it can still play the game of maneuvering, deception, and
procrastination to prolong the sanctions on Iraq.
In fact, the rash and irresponsible conduct of the US Administration
at the UN Security Council shows ignorance of basic facts which impose
themselves on the Iraqi, Arab, and international arenas and an
underestimation of the possible reactions that might arise as a result
of the opposition of Washington and those who support it to implement
Paragraph 22 of UN Resolution 687 though almost eight years have passed
since the sanctions were imposed on Iraq and despite the fact that Iraq
has complied with all requirements of Paragraph C of UN Resolution 687
and has shown that it effectively cooperates with the UN Special
Commission [UNSCOM]. This was substantiated by the implementation of the
memorandum of understanding Iraq signed with UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan on the visits to the presidential sites.
Although the US stand in the UN Security Council led to a resolution
to prolong the sanctions which in fact does not add anything new to the
facts on the ground, the issue now is in the hands of the Iraqis and it
is up to them to make their decision which is backed by legitimacy,
justice, steadfastness, and willingness to defend their will, and
protect Iraq's sovereignty and national independence no matter how great
the sacrifices.
This was tangibly confirmed by the Day of Chivalry when more than 3
million volunteers responded to great struggler Saddam Husayn's call for
military training. They wait unwaveringly for the call of duty,
reassured about the present and the future at the same time.
The statement issued at the end of the joint meeting of the
Revolution Command Council and Iraq Command of the Arab Socialist Ba'th
Party on 16 April 1998 stressed that there is no more time for
procrastination and maneuvering, and that the time has come for the
discussions on the sanctions issue at the end of April 1998 to lead to
the immediate implementation of Paragraph 22 of UN Resolution 687 as an
introduction to a comprehensive and complete lifting of all types of
sanctions.
The Iraqi cabinet in its 12th session clearly summed up the Iraqi
stand when it said that the world faces two options: either to lift the
sanctions on Iraq or to perpetuate them. The first option requires a
particular kind of relationship based on understanding and cooperation.
The second leads us to a new state of affairs because this
practically means that any attempt to make the UN Security Council
prolong the sanctions, continue the procrastination, and exploit the
UNSCOM to misinterpret and confuse facts only aims at stopping the UN
Security Council from fulfilling its reciprocal commitments under UN
Resolution No. 687 and which begins with the implementation of Paragraph
22.
Therefore, the United States is directly and fully responsible for any
crisis that might arise as a result of the UN Security Council's
noncompliance with the reciprocal provisions regarding Iraq,
particularly that Iraq implemented all its obligations under Paragraph C
of UN Resolution 687. When Iraq finds that its relationship with the UN
Security Council is unbalanced, particularly that there are those who
prevent the UN Security Council from lifting the sanctions on Iraq for
political reasons that have nothing to do with UN Security Council
resolutions, Iraq then will have the right to do what it finds
appropriate to protect its rights and avert harm, and to forcefully and
firmly resort to the necessary measures that will shatter what remains
of the US illusions and block its conspiracies against Iraq and the Arab
nation.
The US threats to veto a demand by the majority of the permanent and
non-permanent UN Security Council member states to implement Paragraph
22 will have dire consequences on Iraq's relationship with the UNSCOM in
addition to many other negative effects. These will be followed by
crises and tension which will endanger the basic US interests in the
Arab world, at least.
Those who unjustly treated others will likewise be treated.
III. IRAQ'S DISSATISFACTION WITH ITS UNSC SUPPORTERS
FBIS-NES-98-127
Baghdad Babil in Arabic 2 May 98 p 1
Subslug: Article by Mazhar 'Arif: "We Will Cross That Bridge When We
Come to It"
The open letter sent by the Revolution Command Council [RCC] and the
regional command of the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party to the UN Security
Council [UNSC] expresses Iraq's human, pan-Arab, and national
responsibilities in a world of US evil, treachery, and aggression, and
in a world of sheep based on injustice and silence toward the crime
being committed for political considerations with America. Iraq had its
say and it is now the turn of the Security Council to have its serious
say. More than two months after Baghdad had its say, the Security
Council failed again in justifying its existence as an international
organization that indeed cares for protecting peoples and achieving
regional and international peace. Despite all that was said and despite
all the official statements made in the capitals of several big powers
on multipolarism, the unipolar US force continues to be absolutely
sovereign in the workings of the UN Security Council.
The wager on the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the
self-deception regarding what is sometimes termed differences in
viewpoints among the big powers in the Security Council are the
strongest causes for the Arab nation's losses. The Arab nation has
often been the victim of those with varying opinions who describe
international politics as being sometimes idealistic and sometimes
realistic and rational. The Arabs have often been the victim of alleged
changes and transformations in international political life. This
situation has made some Arabs pawn pan-Arabism and nationalism to others
and sell homelands to Tel Aviv and Washington as well as to all the
resolutions accepted by the Arabs from the Partition Resolution [in
1948] to the latest meeting between some Arabs, Israelis, and Americans,
and to all past and future agreements.
At this point, we should emphasize that at the last Security Council
meeting on Iraq, the voice of Kofi Annan was absent; the recent
government crisis in Russia dominated the meeting. At the periodic
meeting to review the sanctions imposed on Iraq, the promises made by
some big powers to seek to implement Paragraph 22 of Resolution 687 were
also absent. They were replaced with the call to transfer the nuclear
file to the monitoring and verification system whereas what should have
happened was the closing of all the files. The voice of China was the
strongest alongside Iraq and the impotent [members of the Security
Council] justified their impotence by citing fears of a US veto.
However, a veto would have been better than a political cat-and-mouse
discussion because it would have increased America's isolation and
solidified international solidarity with Iraq.
The Iraqi people paid for the visits of the diplomats and others to
the presidential sites out of their own pocket but everything went
backward because the Security Council stuck to the report of Butler and
the Special Commission and ignored the reports of other international
quarters as if these came from another planet. The Arabs forgot about
the issue of Iraq and busied themselves with the game of the conditional
Zionist withdrawal from southern Lebanon. This is what America planned
and wanted in order not to have another case of official and popular
Arab solidarity with Iraq.
IV. AL THAWRAH, ONLY IRAQ KNOWS WHEN AND HOW IT WILL ACT
FBIS-NES-98-127
Baghdad INA in Arabic 0625 GMT 7 May 98
Baghdad, 7 May (INA)--The newspaper al- Thawrah affirms that what Iraq
has accomplished in disarmament, the application of the long-term
monitoring regime, the inspection of sites, and the submission of data
and reports should prompt the Security Council to take a reciprocal
measure, which is not less than the implementation of Paragraph 22 of
Resolution 687.
The paper, which speaks for the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party, says, in
an article today, that the Security Council's submission to and
appeasement of the United States, without any due consideration for the
gross harm that is being done to Iraq, can no longer be tolerated or
endured unless the council lifts the embargo, beginning with the
economic embargo, in response to Iraq's open letter. Otherwise, Iraq
will have the right to adopt the position it deems suitable.
Al-Thawrah says that whoever thinks that he can imprison Iraq in the
embargo tunnel for an indefinite period under different, futile excuses
must remember that there is more than one way to get out of this tunnel.
The paper says: Iraq's open letter to the president and members of
the Security Council is clear. Unless justice is done by lifting the
economic embargo at the minimum, there will be some other action. This
action is a private matter, which only Iraq knows and will decide when
and how to take. The paper continues: As far as Iraq is concerned, this
is not a political game, but the question of a people who have been
exposed for eight years to the most severe and inhumane embargo in
history. They have suffered more from this embargo than the
international community can know precisely. This suffering is increasing
with the continuation of the embargo without any legal or moral reasons.
Al-Thawrah wonders: Why is the Security Council submitting to US
influence and appeasing the United States at the expense of Iraq and its
people's suffering? Why don't the council members exercise their rights
by stopping the United States from causing further injustice to this
country, which has served humanity, and continuing to annihilate its
people?
Concluding, the paper says: The removal of the embargo is a legal
Iraqi right under Paragraph 22 of Resolution 687. Moreover, it is a
human right of this ancient people, who have served humanity and
elevated its cause. The UN committees have admitted before anyone else
that economic sanctions are a blind and inhumane weapon that exposes
people, especially the poor and weak, to unjustifiable suffering.
Sanctions are useless and conflict with human rights and UN aims for
economic and social development.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
