Tariq Aziz Nov 12 Press Conference
Iraq News, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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. TARIQ AZIZ NEWS CONFERENCE, IRAQ TV, NOV 12
Although today, Iraq has adopted a slightly different tone,
testerday, Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz held a blustery press
conference, in which he charged that the US was blocking the lifting of
sanctions, while Iraq had complied with UNSCR 687.
In his opening remarks, Aziz asked rhetorically, why sanctions
remained in place. He said, "Because the government of Mr. Clinton has
blocked any attempt during all this period to reduce and lift sanctions.
The American representative in the Security Council has stubbornly
rejected any reading, any legal reading of Security Council resolutions.
He has always manipulated the reading of those resolutions according to
the American policy, and he has refused any suggestion to reduce and
lift the sanctions. . . . The road is being blocked continuously,
stubbornly, illegally by his government. . . The core of the matter is
that there has been [Iraqi] compliance with UN resolutions, there has
been cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA; but the other commitment of
the Security Council resolution, which is stated in Resolution 687
[lifting sanctions] has not been fulfilled by the Security Council
because of the American position"
Aziz also attacked the Iraq Liberation Act. "Is it international law
to allocate $97 million to topple a national government? What does the
American Congress and the American administration have to do with the
Government of Iraq?"
He also charged that the US blocked Iraqi imports in the UN Sanctions
committee. "Look at the record of Committee 661 and see how many times
the American representative there blocked and refused and put on hold
scores and hundreds of contracts to buy food and medicine and other
essential needs to the people of Iraq. Till now, there are contracts
from the first phase in 1996."
He also attacked UNSCOM, "Let [UNSCOM] be an honest, professional
body, not a dishonest body, which is lying, creating crises, fabricating
crises, and showing the whole world that UNSCOM is a subsidiary organ of
the CIA and the Mosad, not a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, of
the Security Council. . . .This is the core of the crisis we are facing
now, UNSCOM is not honest, UNSCOM is not a professional body, it does
not admit the realities of compliance, it does not admit the realities
of implementation, and the Untied States Government blocks the road, and
is still blocking the road towards reducing and lifting the sanctions."
During Q & A, Aziz explained, "The war has been waged on our people
since 1991, and it has not stopped. . . . War means destruction of
material and the death of people. The material--Iraq's capabilities,
material capabilities--are deteriorating year after year; so, they are
being destroyed. Iraqi people are dying; so, they are dying either in
hospitals that lack medicine and equipment, or by American bombs. It is
the same for the Iraqi people."
Asked whether Iraq was looking for the intervention of the UNSG, Aziz
replied, "When we are in this sort of crisis, who on earth is going to
solve it, if there is a sincere way to solve this crisis? Who? As long
as it is, at least in form, it is a United Nations business, it is a
United Nations problem. So who is capable of finding a way out of this
crisis? It is the secretary general of the United Nations . . . If he
intends to do anything productive and positive in this regard, yes, in
principle, in principle, we welcome that. . . . If anybody want to solve
this crisis by peaceful means, and to avoid the American aggression
against Iraq, let him do it, and he is the best person in the world to
do it in his capacity as the secretary general of the United Nations.
. . . [but] there will be no peaceful solution to this situation unless
the United States agrees to the principle of lifting the sanctions and
agrees to respect Resolution 687 and its terms. . . A peaceful solution
has to lead to two objectives, resumption of cooperation, yes, and
lifting the sanctions."
Regarding contacts with Egypt, Aziz explained, "President Mubarak
sent a message to President Saddam Husayn. President Saddam answered
the message sent by his brother, President Mubarak. The foreign
minister and I were in touch with Mr. Amr Musa. Yes, the contacts are
continuous."
I. TARIQ AZIZ NEWS CONFERENCE
Baghdad Iraq Television Network in Arabic 1937 GMT 12 Nov
[News conference by Tariq 'Aziz, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, with Arab
and foreign correspondents, in Baghdad on 12 November]
[FBIS Translated Text] ['Aziz] I would like to start this meeting with a
comment on President Clinton's speech yesterday. I heard him on
television saying that if President Saddam Husayn is serious about
lifting sanctions, he should cooperate with UNSCOM [UN Special
Commission] and comply with UN resolutions.
That was the gist of the statement of President Clinton. I would like
to say that we are serious about lifting the sanctions. Of course, this
is the main objective of the people and of the leadership of Iraq;
and I would also like to say that we did comply for seven and a half
years or more, and we did cooperate with UNSCOM, and we did let UNSCOM
do its job. UNSCOM entered each and every place it wanted to enter, and
you remember the last episode of February when we agreed with the
secretary general, that UNSCOM could enter the presidential sites; but
after more than seven and half years, sanctions were not reduced and
were not lifted. Why? Because the government of Mr. Clinton has blocked
any attempt during all this period to reduce and lift sanctions. The
American representative in the Security Council has stood firmly,
stubbornly, against any suggestion by many, many members of the Security
Council to acknowledge the progress that has been made in the
implementation of the requirements of Resolution 687. His representative
in the Security Council has stubbornly rejected any reading, any legal
reading of Security Council resolutions. He has always manipulated the
reading of those resolutions according to the American policy, and he
has refused any suggestion to reduce and lift the sanctions. So we know
that compliance and cooperation is the road towards lifting the
sanctions.
But who is blocking that road? That road is being blocked
continuously, stubbornly, illegally by his government, by the government
of the president who was speaking yesterday. If he is ready to change
course, if he is ready to read the Security Council resolutions legally
and fairly, if he is ready, he himself and his government, to respect
those resolutions, to respect Resolution 687, then there will be no
problem, because he and his government are the problem, not Iraq, not
the president of Iraq, not the Government of Iraq.
The core of the matter is that there has been compliance with UN
resolutions, there has been cooperation with UNSCOM and with the IAEA;
but the other commitment of the Security Council resolution, which is
stated in Resolution 687, has not been fulfilled by the Security Council
because of the American position.
If the American Government is sincere about lifting the sanctions,
why did his representative in the Security Council refuse to mention
Paragraph 22 when the discussions took place in the Security Council
about applying the concept of the secretary general about the
comprehensive review. The secretary general of the United Nations
mentioned in the paper he sent to the Council that this comprehensive
review is about Paragraph 22. The American ambassador insisted
stubbornly on omitting any mention of Paragraph 22, which is one of the
provisions in Security Council Resolution 687 about lifting the oil
embargo. He refused to mention Paragraph 21 in Resolution 687, which
speaks about reducing and lifting sanctions. So who is blocking the way
towards sincere cooperation? Who is blocking the way towards lifting the
sanctions?
It is he and his government, not the president of Iraq, not the
government of Iraq. He says that this is easy. It is not easy. It has
not been easy for the people of Iraq. For seven and a half years we have
been working with UNSCOM. The work with UNSCOM is not easy. It is
bitter, it is difficult, and even it is disgusting, but we tolerated it.
We tolerated it in great patience because we wanted to alleviate the
hardships of the Iraqi people. We wanted our people to live normally.
Who is preventing the Iraqi people from living normally? It is he and
his government with the support of the British Government. So, when you
speak about compliance, it is the United States that is not complying
with the United Nations resolutions. It is the United States by its
policy against Iraq, which is poisoning the whole situation. Is it
international law to allocate $97 million to topple a national
government? What does the American Congress and the American
Administration have to do with the Government of Iraq? Why do they spend
the taxpayers' money to finance subversion in Iraq? Is that sincerity in
dealing with the United Nations resolutions? The United Nations
resolutions themselves speak about respecting Iraq's sovereignty and
territorial integrity; and they shed crocodile tears over the life
of the Iraqi people. They care about the Iraqi people more than Saddam
Husayn cares, how? By blocking all the many contracts in the Committee
661 and preventing the Iraqi people from getting its essential
requirements of food and medicine and the other civilian requirements.
Look at the record of Committee 661 and see how many times the
American representative there blocked and refused and put on hold scores
and hundreds of contracts to buy food and medicine and other essential
needs to the people of Iraq. Till now, there are contracts from the
first phase in 1996. If he is serious, if President Clinton and his
government are serious about respecting the United Nations resolutions,
let them remove the block they have been putting in the road of
compliance and in the road of reducing and lifting the sanctions; and
let them, on the other hand agree that UNSCOM, which is supposed to be a
subsidiary organ of the Security Council, the United Nations
organization. Let it be an honest, professional body, not a dishonesty
body, which is lying, creating crises, fabricating crises, and showing
the whole world that UNSCOM is a subsidiary organ of the CIA and the
Mosad, not a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, of the Security
Council.
The decision of yesterday is another flagrant example of the
situation. Butler, who is supposed to be an appointee of Kofi Annan,
decides to withdraw his officials from Iraq without telling the
secretary general who was asleep in Marrakesh in Morocco. He heard the
decision of his appointee from the media. Is this the behavior of the
chairman of the subsidiary organ of the Security Council? The Security
Council knew about the withdrawal from CNN, not from Butler.
They heard it on CNN. He admitted shamelessly that he did that upon
strong recommendation from the American Government. So, to whom does he
belong? To the American Government or to the Security Council and the
United Nations? This is the core of the crisis we are facing now. UNSCOM
is not honest, UNSCOM is not a professional body, it does not admit the
realities of compliance, it does not admit the realities of
implementation, and the United States Government blocks the road and is
still blocking the road towards reducing and lifting the sanctions. So,
both of them, the United States Government and its creation, UNSCOM, are
responsible for this crisis. If this crisis is going to escalate to an
aggression, it is their decision and their intention and it is not the
responsibility of Iraq because Iraq showed sincerity in cooperating with
the Security Council. Iraq made great sacrifices, moral and material,
during eight years.
Iraq worked sincerely with the UN secretary general in February to
reach a solution to the previous crisis. We fully abided by the terms of
that agreement, that memorandum of understanding, and his representative
then, Mr. Dhanapala, knew who violated the terms of the memorandum of
understanding. It was Duelfer, the deputy of Butler, the American deputy
of Butler and the Anglo-Saxon so-called expert among the group, which
entered the presidential sites who were in the presence of 20
international diplomats, who were shamelessly violating the terms of the
agreement and trying to provoke Iraq; but we acted patiently in
order to prevent them from creating a fabricated crisis and undermine
the memorandum of understanding.
Mr. Annan knows all the details about what happened when that group
entered that presidential site. So it was not Iraq who violated the
memorandum of understanding. It was Butler and his gang in UNSCOM who
did that. They did so upon instructions from the US Government because
this kind of behavior serves the general policy of the US Government.
Yes, we are serious about lifting the sanctions, we are serious about
living normally in this world, but let us do it, remove the blocks,
respect the same resolutions you wrote in 1991. Resolution 687 says
that when Iraq implements Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, then
Paragraph 22 will be implemented. This is how the resolution reads.
Respect it.
When the secretary general of the United Nations made, or suggested
the idea of a comprehensive review, we accepted that idea in principle.
We told him yes this in principle is a good idea and I went and stayed
two weeks in New York to discuss with him, with his staff, and with the
members of the Security Council how to conduct a correct -- according to
the law - and honest comprehensive review. How it turned out to be?
It turned out to be what you know. You know very well, the documents,
the letter of the president of the council who was sent to Mr. Annan and
Paragraphs 22 and 21 were omitted because the American ambassador
flagrantly said during the previous meeting that the comprehensive
review is not about lifting sanctions.
What is it? A theatrical exercise? Do we go and enjoy speaking about
the implementation of the resolutions?
Do we go and enjoy attacking each other? Or do we go in order to
observe the law as they put it to see to what extent the requirements
have been implemented and then take the legal decision of lifting the
sanctions.
So, who made a mockery of the idea of the secretary general? It was
the representative of President Clinton in the Security Council with the
support of the British ambassador; and all the members of the Council,
almost all the members of the Council, were against that. They were
serious. The Russians, the French, the Chinese, the Brazilians, and the
others were sincere and serious about presenting ideas to build upon to
create the framework and the basis for a good review, a correct review
that tells the Council exactly what has been implemented and what
remains to be followed up. So, they undermined this process, which was
suggested by the secretary general and welcomed by Iraq.
I wanted to make this explanation and I am ready, ladies and
gentlemen, to receive your questions.
[Amanpour] Christiane Amanpour, CNN, I have a question and a
follow-up. Mr. 'Aziz, you speak about a letter that made no mention of
sanctions. Is it not true though in a verbal message to the Iraqi
Government on the instructions of the United States, the British
ambassador said that if UNSCOM was allowed to resume its operations
after the August suspension an after a comprehensive review within all
the United Nations Security resolutions that would then lead to review
of the sanctions. Surely, that was the light at the end of the tunnel
that you have so long asked for.
['Aziz] Christiane, I am aware of that. I am aware of the conversation,
which took place by Ambassador Greenstock of Britain and Ambassador
Hamdun. If Greenstock and the American ambassador were sincere in this
explanation, why didn't they put it on the paper. Putting Paragraph 22
and 21 on the paper is not a gift to be given to Iraq, because these two
paragraphs are part and parcel of Resolution 687, which they drafted and
they pushed for adoption in 1991. When they do not write on the official
paper and speak about it in closed rooms, allow me to say I am
skeptical.
[Amanpour] But, sir is not a lot of diplomacy conducted precisely that
way; and are you saying that you have then cut off your relations with
UNSCOM, because it was not put on paper even though this was
something more than you had been given to receive previously?
['Aziz] We did not cut off our relations with UNSCOM because we want to
cut off that relations. We had to take this bitter and difficult
decision, because after more than seven and a half years the diplomacy
you are speaking about did not bring any result. I am seriously
skeptical about the explanations made by Greenstock to Nizar Hamdun,
because he was the man who drafted that paper. Why didn't he mention
that? Why didn't he put it in the first draft, and the second draft, and
the last draft, that he means Paragraph 22 and paragraph 21? So, I am
skeptical. This is a diplomatic game in order to cover the real position
of the United States that the United States is not prepared to admit the
reality that sanctions have to be lifted, because Iraq has already
complied with the resolutions. This is a game. And we were sincere in
explaining the whole question to Mr. Annan through his representative
Mr. Shah.
Are they planning to postpone the crisis, or are they sincere in
solving the crisis? If they are planning to postpone it for any reason,
this is not going to solve the problem because if we go into the
comprehensive review--and the comprehensive is undermined by the tricks
of Butler and by the blockade made by the United States--we will find
ourselves in the same place as we are now. So, why do we go that way? If
they are sincere, let them say it. Let them say now, now, now, in the
heat of the crisis: Yes, we are ready to lift the sanctions, we are
ready to implement Paragraph 22 and Paragraph 21, and let us get into an
honest and correct comprehensive review, not tricks and maneuvers which
cover the real position behind this crisis, which I explained in the
beginning of my statement.
[Amanpour] Is there anybody's assurance that you would take to allay
what you called skepticism again over some proposal that you have never
had before? And are you ready to allow skepticism to bring war on your
people?
['Aziz] Well, the war has been waged on our people since 1991, and it
has not stopped, Christiane. What does war mean? War means destruction
of material and the death of people. The material--Iraq's capabilities,
material capabilities--are deteriorating year after year; so, they are
being destroyed. Iraqi people are dying: So they are dying, either in
hospitals that lack medicine and equipment, or by American bombs. It is
the same; for the Iraqi people, it makes no big difference. That is why.
You are all here in Baghdad, foreigners and Arabs, go and ask the men
and women in the street whether they are scared of the American bombing.
They are not. For a simple reason, not because they are defiant: They
are human beings, they are fathers and mothers, and they would like to
live in peace, but they are not scared because it makes no difference to
them. Sanctions is a war by itself. It is killing Iraqis and it is
destroying Iraq. So, the American threat to use force does not make any
difference to the ordinary citizen of Iraq. It makes no difference.
[BBC correspondent] President Clinton said yesterday that if Iraq wanted
sanctions to be lifted that it must allow the inspectors to do their
work. That seems to be as faraway from likely as anything. What is your
comment on that? Secondly, are you looking for the personal intervention
of the UN secretary general now to resolve this crisis?
['Aziz] I think I addressed the first half of your question, my friend.
UNSCOM was here, UNSCOM was here. I met with Butler on the third of
August in order to review the work that we had done before; and Butler
was not ready to admit any real progress in our work. He refused to
answer the legitimate questions I made to him. Mr. Butler [changes
thought]. Let me read those three simple questions I made to Butler and
he refused to answer them. I asked him: First, are you prepared to
inform the Security Council that Iraq is entirely free from all the
weapons proscribed under Resolution 687 in the three areas, missiles,
chemical, and biological, or have you tangible evidence to the
contrary?
If you have tangible evidence to the contrary, say it, and I am ready
to address it. If not, go and tell the Council the reality. Are you
prepared to inform the Security Council that the factories, equipment,
and devices that the Special Commission regarded as being connected with
the weapons have been destroyed, and that factories, sites, equipment,
and devices that remain, which are referred to as being of dual use,
are all being strictly and comprehensively monitored, and that
consequently Iraq is not capable of resuming production of such weapons?
Are you ready to tell that, to say that to the Security Council? He said
no.
Are you prepared to inform the Security Council that the Special
Commission, since the establishment of the monitoring regime in 1994,
has not detected any serious violation by Iraq with respect to the
resumption of production of proscribed weapons? He said: No. I have to
make more verification. I asked him these three legitimate and clear
questions after seven years and half of his work in Iraq. So, he has
been here in Iraq and the work with him was futile, because it did not
bring any step towards easing and lifting the sanctions, first. Second,
when we are in this sort of crisis, who on earth is going to solve it
if there is a sincere way to solve this crisis? Who? As long as it is,
at least in form, although not in substance, at least in form, it is a
United Nations' business, it is a United Nations' problem. So, who is
capable of finding a way out of this crisis? It is the secretary general
of the United Nations. We know that.
Are we interested in any [changes thought] in his initiatives? Yes,
and we have an example of that in February. He came in February and we
dealt with him respectfully, sincerely, and seriously. So if he
intends to do anything productive and positive in this regard, yes, in
principle, in principle, we welcome that.
[Correspondent] But are you actively courting his help in bringing an
end to this crisis?
['Aziz] I am not courting anybody. I have to be frank, with all respect
to Mr. Annan, who is an old friend of mine, and I respect him; but, I am
not courting anybody. I am making a plain analysis of the situation:
That there is a crisis. If anybody wants to solve this crisis by
peaceful means, and to avoid the American aggression against Iraq, let
him do it, and he is the best person in the world to do it in his
capacity as the secretary general of the United Nations. It is his
responsibility. It is his legal and moral responsibility according to
the Charter of the United Nations, and when he decides to do that, I can
tell you yes he is welcome and we are ready to work with him as we did
in February. He knows, and everybody in the Security Council knows, and
everybody in the international community knows that it is the United
States who is blocking the peaceful solution, because there will be no
peaceful solution to this situation unless the United States agrees to
the principle of lifting the sanctions and agrees to respect Resolution
687 and its terms. If they arrogantly refuse to admit that, how could we
find a peaceful solution? The peaceful solution would be, in reality,
the continuous death of the Iraqi people and the continuous destruction
of Iraq by keeping the sanctions. A peaceful solution has to lead to
two objectives, resumption of cooperation, yes, and lifting the
sanctions.
[Name indistinct] Deputy prime minister, today eight of your brother
Arab nations asked you to resume full cooperation with UN inspectors,
and said that if you did not, you would bear full responsibility for
what happens. In simple terms, are you going to take a [word
indistinct]?
['Aziz] Well, with all respect to what they said, if they are sincere in
dealing with this situation, and if they are sincere in dealing with the
truth, they should play the main block, the main government, which
is behind this crisis. They should criticize the United States. If they
do not criticize the United States for reasons of their own, that is up
to them; but that does not change the truth. The Arab world and the Arab
nation know exactly who is the reason behind this crisis, and who is to
blame, not Iraq. If politicians do not want to admit that, well, that is
up to them.
[Ron] Ron from the MBC. Sir, I think that I understand your desire to
have the sanctions reviewed and lifted as soon as possible, but in what
appears to be the 11th hour, that seems very unlikely. Is there anything
that you can offer at this moment that we have perhaps not [words
indistinct] what seems to be imminent air strikes?
['Aziz] I am on the receiving end, I am not on the offering end. What do
I offer? I need sanctions to be reduced and lifted. Nobody is giving me
that. What could I offer to the others, you see? We have offered
compliance, we have offered cooperation for eight years and got nothing.
So, now, it is the duty of the other party, the Security Council, to
offer me reduction and lifting of sanctions.
[Correspondent] Mr. 'Aziz, you said that your stated objective is to
have the sanctions removed from Iraq. How does enduring air strikes in
any way take you closer to that goal?
['Aziz] Well, I am not saying that it is going. I did not say that. Did
I say that the American bombing is going to bring closer the lifting of
sanctions? No. It's just a sheer aggression against a nation. I hope
it does not happen. We are not courting it, as one of your friends used
that word. We are not courting it.
We refuse it, we are against it, we condemn it, but if they do it, if
an arrogant nation in this world wants to use force blindly against
another nation, it bears the responsibility of the crime it is going to
commit against Iraq; but, simply, simply, if we avoid that, and we hope
to avoid it, that does not happen by keeping the sanctions because
sanctions, as I explained, are killing the Iraqis, are destroying
Iraqis.
[Correspondent] CBS News. Mr. 'Aziz, what steps could Secretary General
Kofi Annan take that would be in your words productive and positive
towards easing the tension or ending the crisis?
['Aziz] Well, in New York, they are saying well this comprehensive
review is a good review and etcetera, etcetera. If that is true, if the
comprehensive review is serious about judging honestly and correctly
Iraq's implementation of Resolution 687, and if that review is honestly
going to lead to lifting the sanctions, why does not he say that to the
Iraqi leadership? Not saying it directly, openly, publicly, raises my
skepticism about how they are defining the so-called comprehensive
review.
[Correspondent] Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, do you realize that while
your government's decision tonight not to go back on your plans to
cancel cooperation with the UN that you could very well be unleashing
the US military strike, and you could very well then be ending any
possibility of UNSCOM ever coming back here and very well be eliminating
any chance of lifting the sanctions, at least during the administration
of your government?
['Aziz] Yes, the logic of your question is the logic of all the tyrants
in the world. It has always been said that the victim is responsible for
his own killing, so I am not going to address your question in that way.
Put it in an honest logic. Why does the United States attack Iraq? Why?
Who has authorized the United States to attack Iraq? Say it as a person
first and as a media. Who do you represent? Say it. Why is the United
States is preparing to bomb Iraq? Is that a United Nations resolution?
Is that international law? Is that a civilian mission, a humanitarian
mission to be conducted by the government or it is a sheer aggression of
criminals?
[Correspondent] With all due respect.
['Aziz] Say that way. Iraq is not responsible for that. Iraq is seeking
lifting the sanctions because Iraq has complied with the laws of the
Security Council and with the laws of the United Nations. For eight
years. For eight years. Those three questions give you the real picture
of the situation. The arms were destroyed; the companies, the equipment,
the instruments have been destroyed. What has remained in Iraq has been
monitored for eight years without any violations on the side of Iraq.
What else do they want if they are sincere in speaking about
disarmament? The job of disarmament is complete. It has been complete
for years and Iraq is entitled to lifting the sanctions. Why do they not
admit that? Why do they not respect the resolution itself, which they
wrote in 1991. Why do they not alleviate the hardships of the Iraqi
people? How could you blame Iraq for that? You blame the criminals who
are behind this policy and the crooks who are putting the hats of the
United Nations on their heads and they are serving the purposes of the
CIA and the Mosad, and I mean UNSCOM?
[Doha al-Jazirah correspondent Shakir Hamid] Mr. Deputy Prime Minister,
you have expressed your sincere desire to try to benefit from all the
gains you have had all these years to lift the sanctions. Are you
prepared to promote what Kofi Annan has proposed? Are you ready to
receive him unconditionally to contain the crisis? Then what about the
Arab stand and support. The Damascus Declaration countries said that
Iraq has to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions and they did
not express their clear objection to the use of force against Iraq. Does
this imply that they approve of using their territories to use force
against Iraq?
['Aziz] I will not talk on behalf of these states. Let them say whatever
they want to say, what they mean exactly; but I would like to say that
the idea that has been raised by the secretary general regarding the
comprehensive review that has been welcomed by Iraq in principle. We
have cooperated with him so that it might be crystallized in its correct
form. I have stayed in New York with a large delegation for two
weeks to achieve this purpose, but what was the result? The result was
an ambiguous paper presented by the British president of the Security
Council that does not indicate linking the comprehensive review
with lifting of the sanctions as the resolutions stipulate. Yes, of
course we welcome the secretary general if he wishes to come to Baghdad
and we did not impose any preconditions on that but the main thing is
lifting of sanctions. The memorandum that I have signed with him in
February mentions two sides: cooperation and lifting of the sanctions on
Iraq. If he has the guarantees that the comprehensive review will take
place in a fair, professional manner leading to lifting the sanctions,
then let him tell us that, frankly and in the open. Let him say this
here in Baghdad.
[CNN's Amanpour] Mr. 'Aziz, we have been listening to you now for quite
a long time lambasting the United States, however ... [question
incomplete]
['Aziz, interrupting] It deserves that.
[Amanpour continues] However, how does it make you feel that your
traditional allies and friends at these moments--Russia, France, the
Arab nations--are simply quiet. They have not come forth in your defense
and this is the first time that we have seen that. How does that make
you feel?
['Aziz] Well, Christiane, most of the countries you mentioned are in
favor of lifting the sanctions. They are for lifting the sanctions. They
support the legitimate request and demand of Iraq to reduce and
lift the sanctions and they had made proposals-those members in the
Security Council. They have made proposals recently and in the past and
they are ready to make such proposals. They might not agree fully
with us about our tactics. Well, that is natural. I do not think that
any one of them agrees with the other about all the tactics he chooses.
The tactics is the choice of a person, of a government, but we do not
disagree about the substance. We do not disagree about the substance,
and they tells ... [pauses] and the facts of ... [pauses] in politics
when we speak about the Arab governments, when we speak about this or
that government--they emphasize the fact, well, the United States
refuses this and refuses that and it is difficult to do anything as long
as the United States takes that position. This is pragmatism, yes, I
understand it, but this pragmatism is not bringing lifting the
sanctions.
[Amanpour] But sir, is it not true that many of them have expressed
dismay or at the very least surprise that at this very moment when it
appeared that there was the light at the end of the tunnel that you had
so long asked for, this moment you chose to break cooperation with
UNSCOM and that they cannot understand what they say?
['Aziz] We do not see a light at the end of the tunnel, Christiane. With
all respect to them, they have not shown us, nobody has shown us, the
light at the end of the tunnel. There is a tunnel after the tunnel. Each
time we cooperate and work with Butler and is group, a new tunnel is
being built after the first one and a third one after the second, and
that is the experience, the conclusion I reached--and the Iraqi
delegation reached--on the third of August in our last meeting with
Butler.
[Correspondent] Some politicians talk about the possibility of an
agreement between Iraq and the United States. President Carter yesterday
said something to this effect. You said that the problem is an Iraqi-US
problem, so, why there should there not be direct talks or an agreement
in this regard?
['Aziz] The problem from the beginning was an Iraqi-US one. During a
meeting with former US Secretary of State Baker in Geneva on 9 January,
he told me that there is a conflict between Iraq and the
international community. I told him: Mr. Secretary, where is the
international community? I cannot see anyone in this room except the US
and Iraqi delegations. The international community is usually
represented by the United Nations or the secretary general. The
secretary general is not with us and there is no one with us. So, the
problem is a US problem against Iraq, not Iraqi-US problem, meaning
that Iraq has an objective against the United States. Despite this, we
do not reject dialogue with the United States, and our stand toward this
issue has been known for many years.
We have consistently said that we are ready for dialogue. Mr. Carter
himself knows, through middlemen who contacted him and met with us, that
we are for dialogue. Iraq wants to have dialogue, but it is the United
States that is opposed to dialogue, for a simple reason, as I see it:
The United States is not seeking a solution to the crisis in this
region. The United States wants to maintain the status quo in the
region, because the US Administration believes that this status quo is
financially beneficial to it; the same holds true for Britain. The
British defense secretary toured the Gulf region and talked about
military action against Iraq.
Why? Because he wants to sell arms. The Americans are massing their
troops in the Gulf because they want to sell arms. The latest deal they
have secured in this regard is the one under which they sold guns to
Kuwait at a cost of $500 million. It has become business [preceding word
in English].
[Correspondent] Is it your government's position never to allow UNSCOM
back into the country and not to have any cooperation at all in terms of
these disarmament talks and inspections?
['Aziz] This is hypothetical, because the aggression is a violation of
international law. There are facts, however, you see, that should be
known by everybody. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have
cooperation and compliance and the continuation of sanctions and the
continuation of military aggression.
You see, it will be quite difficult, quite illogical to accept that
situation. So, it is true those who are saying that this is going to
lead to complications Yes, they are correct in that. It is going to
lead to further complications than the present situation. It is not
going to solve that situation.
[Correspondent] Deputy Prime Minister: Yesterday, we listened to
Prakash Shah in front of the UN Office. He said that he has in the past
few days discussed with you some alternatives to work out a solution to
the crisis; but it seems that no agreement has been achieved on these
alternatives. Will you give us an idea about these alternatives? Why has
Iraq not responded favorably to them?
['Aziz] As a matter of fact, there are no alternatives per se. The
things discussed were the well-known papers: The letter the UN Security
Council [UNSC] president sent to the secretary general, the most recent
UNSC resolution, and the conversation that took place between the
British and Iraqi ambassadors. Demonstrating a large measure of accuracy
and a great sense of responsibility, I told Mr. Shah that these
papers and conversations do not mean to us that there will be an honest
and serious comprehensive review that will lead to lifting the
sanctions. If this is how the secretary general understands the
situation and if he obtained guarantees to this effect from the
concerned parties, then let him say this to us directly. We are willing
to listen to him. We are not intransigent on this issue. On the
contrary, we are open-minded. If there is a serious and honest
opportunity to have the embargo lifted in a short while, how can we kill
such an opportunity? But as a matter of fact, there is no such
opportunity. Thus far, there is no such opportunity.
[Correspondent] For some time, when queried whether they will allow
their people to become the target of a military strike, Iraqi officials
have said that the Iraqi people have been dying for a long time. Is this
a suicidal operation aimed at putting a tragic end to the Iraq question?
['Aziz] No. Iraq does not have the intention of committing suicide. Iraq
does not commit suicide. Iraq is a country with a history that dates
back to thousands of years. It will hold out against the aggression if
it takes place. Iraq does not commit suicide. Iraq is engaged in
struggle. There is a difference between struggle and suicide.
[Correspondent] [words indistinct] But there may be a strike. Iraq may
be compelled to backtrack. There may be a new host of conditions. Then,
the tragedy will be aggravated further.
['Aziz] This is your interpretation of the situation, not mine.
[Jane Arraf for CNN] Every minute that passes here could be closer to an
attack. Kofi Annan seems to be waiting for some sign of movement, partly
from the Iraqi Government. What is Iraq willing to offer?
['Aziz] Jane, we are on the receiving end; we are not on the offering
end. We would like to receive a signal that says that the sanctions will
be lifted. We want this to be couched in simple words. We are on the
receiving end, and not the offering end.
[Correspondent] Judging from current calculations, if the confrontation
between Iraq and the United Nations continues, and if, God forbid, a
military strike materializes, what can Iraq do to confront forces that
hit from long distances? How will Iraq react? What will Iraq's new
methods of confrontation be?
[Aziz] I will not delve into details about these issues. I would only
like to tell you that Iraq will hold out and that it will defend itself.
God willing, it will stand fast.
[Correspondent for Newsweek Magazine] When you say that you are looking
for a signal, can that signal be a letter that gives a timetable for
lifting the sanctions? Is this for what you are waiting for?
['Aziz] No. We never asked for the immediate lifting of the sanctions
before a comprehensive review is conducted. We have been and are still
ready for a comprehensive review that leads to lifting the sanctions. We
have made this position very clear.
[Correspondent] If you obtain a promise from the secretary general or
the Security Council, will you resume your cooperation with UNSCOM?
['Aziz] Well, I cannot say if it is a letter, or if it is a word, or if
it is a declaration: It is up to the delivering side. It is up to the
secretary general and the UNSC president. They are aware of the proper
and best way to achieve such an end and address this situation.
[Correspondent] [words indistinct]
['Aziz] Yes. President Mubarak sent a message to President Saddam
Husayn. President Saddam answered the message sent by his brother
President Mubarak. The foreign minister and I were in touch with Mr.
'Amr Musa. Yes, the contacts are continuous.
[Correspondent] Iraq's decision is a sovereign decision taken after more
than eight years of the embargo. President Clinton meanwhile is massing
troops and threatening to stage a military strike to force Baghdad to
retreat. What would you tell him at this point, and before...?
['Aziz, interrupting] I tell them: If you are looking for respect to the
UN Security Council resolutions, it is you who do not respect the UN
Security Council resolutions. Iraq implemented these resolutions
seriously over the past eight years. It is you who maintained the
sanctions against Iraq. If you are going to stage an aggression against
Iraq, then you are criminals.
[Correspondent] If the United States agrees to enter into the
comprehensive review, will you change your position?
['Aziz] I do not say comprehensive review as such. I want a sincere
comprehensive review that will lead to the lifting of the embargo. This
is what I wanted from the beginning. This is what I demanded from the
United Nations when I went to New York. I sought to achieve that goal,
but I did not get anything of the sort. This was our position.
[Correspondent] [question indistinct]
['Aziz] I said I have been skeptical about what has been offered to Iraq
thus far.
[Correspondent] [word indistinct] from the Middle East News Agency.
[word indistinct] to dispatch its head of mission in Baghdad to the
Iraqi capital as soon as possible [words indistinct]. Can we understand
from this that there is a French initiative to resolve the current
situation?
['Aziz] I have no knowledge of any French initiative. If there is an
initiative, we will deal with it in all respect.
[Correspondent] Under such circumstances, what role do you think Russia
can play?
['Aziz] I cannot speak on behalf of other governments; but all members
of the Council, and mainly the permanent members of the Security
Council, have a special responsibility toward this situation. They
adopted these resolutions in 1991 and they have to guarantee their
correct and honest implementation.
Iraq has fulfilled its obligations, while the other party, the
Americans, has not done so. The Americans do not respect their
commitments as stipulated by these resolutions. They have to tell the
Americans that it is you who violated these resolutions.
[Correspondent] Turkey has sent troops to northern Iraq, what do you
think? One more question, do you have any comment on Japan's position?
['Aziz] Regarding the first question, Turkey has been involved in this
aggression against Iraq for a long time. We protested this violation of
the Iraqi territory. We are now talking about UN resolutions, but no one
is talking about these violations. Why? I do not know. I know that
Turkey has strong ties with the United States and I cannot judge these
ties at this moment. Japan is not taking a balanced or good position in
the deliberations of the Security Council. Japan is standing with the
United States and this is unfortunate.
[Correspondent] In the past few days, you have met the president. What
does he think about the subject and about the military strike?
['Aziz] The reactions of the president of Iraq are incorporated in the
resolutions of the Iraqi leadership.
[Correspondent] You say you want a dialogue with the United States. What
would you talk to the table of negotiations?
['Aziz] I did not get your question. Could you repeat it?
[Correspondent] You say you are ready for dialogue with the United
States, but they refused. What would you take with you to the table of
negotiations?
['Aziz] We did not break our agreement of February. We will place all
facts on the table and we are serious about implementing the UN Security
Council resolutions. There is no problem in this regard. We were
implementing the resolutions for eight years and we have nothing against
this; but the resolutions have two parts. The implementation on one
side, and the easing and lifting of sanctions on the other. You
cannot consider only one side, or say that Iraq should respect its
obligations while the other party does not have to respect its
commitments toward Iraq. I think that we have spent one hour in this
conference. I do not want you to get bored. Thank you and good night.
[Description of source: Official television station of the Iraqi
Government]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
