• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Tariq Aziz, Pt 4, Iraq Radio, Jan 14

Iraq News, Thu, 14 Jan 1999

The 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 .

Tariq 'Aziz Al-Thawrah Article, Part 4
Baghdad Republic of Iraq Radio Network in Arabic 1150 GMT 14 Jan 99 
[FBIS Translated Text] Here is the fourth episode of [Iraqi Deputy Prime 
Minister] Tariq 'Aziz's article entitled "Who Should Apologize to Whom?" 
as published in the newspaper al-Thawrah this morning:
   What has been going on for the past eight years since the 30-state 
aggression in which the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the ruler of Egypt, and 
others took part? How did the rulers of Kuwait behave after that 
aggression which sought to destroy Iraq, strip it of its strength, and 
kill its people? How did the grandchildren of Mubarak al-Sabah behave 
toward Iraq after they returned to power in Kuwait? What was the stand 
of the other rulers on that behavior?
   The ruler of Egypt, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the rulers of Kuwait, 
and others who joined them in the 30-state aggression against Iraq 
justified their participation as being in line with international 
legitimacy and the Arab League Charter. Did the rulers of Kuwait abide 
by this legitimacy and the Arab League Charter throughout the past eight 
years? Everybody knows that after the 30-state aggression and their 
return to power in Kuwait and until this very day, the rulers of Kuwait 
have been pursuing a rancorous, malicious policy of hurting the Iraqi 
people and leadership without any limits. They violated all Arab and 
international conventions in their behavior toward Iraq. And even after 
Iraq decided on 10 November 1994 to recognize Kuwait as a state and 
Resolution 833, which imposed the border between Iraq and Kuwait, the 
rulers of Kuwait did not change this malicious course toward Iraq. 
Following are some examples and facts:
1. Throughout the past eight years, the rulers of Kuwait flagrantly took 
part in all US-British and regional schemes aiming to change the 
national government in Iraq. They financed and continue to finance agent 
elements and welcome them in Kuwait publicly. Days ago and after their 
direct participation in the recent US-British aggression against Iraq, 
the shaykh of Kuwait received Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim. It was announced 
that discussions during the meeting dealt with action inside Iraq; that 
is, pursuing the Anglo-American scheme of changing the Iraqi leadership.
2. Since August 1992, the United States and Britain have been using the 
air bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to impose a no-fly zone in southern 
Iraq. The entire world and the UN Security Council member states know 
and declare that this no-fly zone is not based on any UN Security 
Council resolution or on any international legitimacy. It is a 
unilateral decision whose aim is to partition Iraq. There is a similar 
no-fly zone in the north and for the same purpose. During the past 
years, we sent hundreds of memorandums to the Arab League and its 
secretary general referring to this flagrant violation of Iraqi 
sovereignty and to this threat to its national unity by the governments 
of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Arab League secretary general did not 
make any move.
   The ruler of Egypt also kept silent on that, but kept calling on Iraq 
to abide by international legitimacy and declared in words only his 
commitment to Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Arab 
League secretary general was disturbed because an Iraqi National 
Assembly member raised the legitimate question:
  Why do we continue to abide by our commitments toward Kuwait, while 
Kuwait is not abiding by any commitment toward Iraq? He was also 
disturbed by these articles which I am writing, although they
are nothing but a historical recounting of facts and events. We ask him: 
Why did you not express your anger and protest over the Kuwaiti rulers' 
flagrant interference in Iraq's domestic affairs and receiving and 
financing agent elements which work to destabilize Iraq? Why do you not 
speak against the participation of the rulers of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia 
in the scheme of partitioning Iraq by providing military bases for the 
United States and Britain? We pose the same questions to the ruler of 
Egypt. If the ruler of Egypt sincerely adheres to Arab and international 
legitimacy, then why did he not ask the rulers of Kuwait to stop such 
acts? Why does he not brandish his sword against them when they violate 
this legitimacy? Is Iraq alone required to respect Kuwait's sovereignty, 
while the rulers of Kuwaiti are allowed not to respect Iraq's 
sovereignty and finance schemes to destabilize the domestic situation in 
Iraq and attempt to partition it?
3. Returning to the border issue, Resolution 833, which was passed by 
the UN Security Council in an unprecedented case in the history of the 
international body, cuts off Iraqi territory and half of the Iraqi port 
Umm Qast and gives them to Kuwait. This is despite the fact that all the 
talks that were held between Iraq and the rulers of Kuwait from the 
1930's up until 30 July 1990 were in the direction of expanding Iraq's 
coastal area based on its historical rights. The result ended with the 
expansion of Kuwait's coastal area at the expense of Iraq and reduced 
its access to the sea.
   Did the secretary general of the Arab League intervene at the time to 
defend the rights of an Arab state? Did the ruler of Egypt intervene in 
this matter along with his American friends to prevent those people from 
going too far in doing Iraq an injustice and to prevent them from 
planting a mine that might explode in the future? Why did the Kuwaiti 
rulers accept this arrangement and see it as something to benefit from? 
Does this not mean that they purposefully intended to harm the Iraqi 
people, who -- in the final analysis -- are the owners of the land and 
the coast?
4. Finally, when the US-UK aggression took place in December 1998, why 
did Kuwait participate in it? And why did it allow the UK Tornado planes 
to be launched from the 'Ali Salim base in Kuwait and to fire its 
missiles and bombs on Iraq -- state and people?
   Was Iraq threatening Kuwait at the time? The answer is well-known; 
yet Kuwait went ahead and participated in the aggression. By all 
international standards, Kuwait's direct participation is considered a 
blatant aggression. Iraq -- the victim -- had the right to respond to 
the aggressors right on their bases; namely Kuwait. But Iraq did not. 
What was the position of Egypt's ruler vis-a-vis the tangible violation 
against the Arab and international legitimacy and agreements as so 
blatantly committed by the Kuwaiti rulers -- something which Saudi 
Arabia participated in as well? What was the position of the Arab League 
secretary general on this?
   The Kuwaiti rulers have tried to cover up for the fact that the 
British planes were launched from Kuwaiti bases to attack Iraq.
   Saudi rulers tried to cover up for their participation in the 
aggression. However, their ally and friend Cohen exposed them, for he 
visited Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Here is what Cohen said on 22 December 
1998 while he was on board the carrier Enterprise: The Desert Fox 
Operation was a success and Kuwait's cooperation has helped make the 
raids successful. On 9 January, the commander of the US Central Command 
Forces in the Gulf Anthony Zinni, said the following: I felt that we got 
a great deal of cooperation from our friends in the region; however, I 
do not prefer to get into the details. He concluded by saying that he 
was satisfied with the level of cooperation which was quite sufficient 
for getting the mission accomplished. Answering a question about the 
expenses of the aggression and who bears them, Zinni said that friends 
in the region share the expenses with us. After Cohen, Blair went to 
Kuwait and visited the base which he used to attack Iraq. He hailed the 
British pilots who were shelling Iraq with missiles and bombs. While 
standing on Kuwait territory, he threatened to launch a new aggression 
on Iraq.
   The secretary general of the Arab League and the ruler of Egypt heard 
all that was being said and saw it on television but neither of them 
lifted a finger. Meanwhile, a mere comment by a member of the Iraqi 
National Assembly triggers their indignation and concern. Is this not 
applying double standards and criteria --something which not just the 
Americans practice, but the Arab League secretary general and the ruler 
of Egypt as well who so arrogantly speaks about international 
legitimacy.
   Now preparations are under way for the consultative Arab foreign 
ministers meetings. Various meetings are being held in a rush between 
this foreign minister and that. All this for what? If the aim behind the 
meeting is to adopt a clear-cut principled stand on the US-UK aggression 
in accordance with the Arab League charter, then the matter does not 
require going through all this trouble.
   All it takes is issuing a one-line decision the writing of which 
would not take more than a few minutes. If the aim behind these series 
of meetings is to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, then why 
do they not [the Arab foreign ministers] contact Iraq and propose their 
ideas and projects?
   The foreign states that know the law and know the proper way to act 
do this; that is, they contact Iraq whenever they have an opinion to 
express or a suggestion to make. But the brothers who care about Arab 
and international legitimacy have appointed themselves as the guardians 
of the Iraqi people. We would like to ask them: If they have appointed 
themselves as guardians over the people of an Arab state, why then do 
they get upset whenever we call on the people of one of those states to 
rectify the policy of their rulers? Why do they attack the leadership of 
Iraq because --as they claim -- it does not respect legitimacy and 
agreements?
   The Kuwaiti rulers and those who took part in the 30-state aggression 
were all partners in the crime of the century, which they committed back 
in 1991 in alliance with America and Zionism.  The crime was committed 
in order to destroy Iraq and its resources and to achieve a balance with 
Israel by keeping Zionism superior to the Arab nation and to themselves 
as well. Over a period of eight years, they have secretly and publicly 
used various ways and means to continue to perpetuate this crime. They 
then were partners and accomplices in the crime of the recent 
aggression, and they continue to conspire against Iraq to this day.
   We are not the only ones asking these questions. All honorable Arabs 
are asking. All free Arabs are asking and they will continue to ask: Who 
is it who conspires against whom and who is attacking whom? Who should 
apologize to whom?