Iraq News by Laurie Mylroie
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 .
V. IRAQI PRESS STEPS UP ATTACK ON KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA, REUTERS, FEB 15
VI. IRAQI PRESS AGAIN THREATENS KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA, INA, FEB 16
VII. SADDAM LETTER TO THE ARAB LEAGUE, AL QUDS AL ARABI, FEB 20
V. IRAQI PRESS STEPS UP ATTACK ON KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA
Iraq Papers Steps up Attack on Kuwait, Saudi
BAGHDAD, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Iraqi newspapers stepped up their attacks on
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait on Monday, saying Baghdad was able to target
bases in the two Gulf states used by Western warplanes to patrol a
no-fly zone in southern Iraq.
"We warn the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait against allowing the
warplanes of the American and British aggressors to violate our airspace
and we are able, after relying on God...to minimise and harm the bases
of aggression," the government newspaper al-Jumhouriya said.
"The rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait should understand and read
carefully what is inside the lines of the Iraqi leadership's statement
(on Sunday)," the paper said in a front- page editorial.
President Saddam Hussein and his top aides warned on Sunday that Iraq
was able to attack Saudi and Kuwaiti bases which U.S. and British
fighter jets use to patrol the no-fly zone in southern Iraq. . . .
"We warn the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and tell them 'you
are now involved in an aggressive war which the peoples of Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait have no interest in, but America and Zionism do,"' said a
statement issued after a meeting of top Iraqi officials led by Saddam.
"If you are helpless and you have no desire for the aggression, we
are able to target sources and means of aggression, and from anywhere it
is launched, after relying on God and the support of our Arab nation,"
the statement said.
The ruling Baath party newspaper al-Thawra said: "Iraq has the
legitimate right to defend its sovereignty and national airspace.
"What is being launched by the United States and Britain against Iraq
is an act of aggression," it said.
The paper called on the United Nations and international
organisations to "confront the American tyranny." . . .
VI. IRAQI PRESS AGAIN THREATENS KUWAIT, SAUDI ARABIA
Baghdad INA in Arabic 0925 GMT 16 Feb 99
[FBIS Translated Text] Baghdad, 16 Feb (INA)-- An Iraqi paper advises
the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to make use of the farsighted
enlightenment of the Iraqi leadership and urges them to heed its call to
act slowly and come to their senses in order to satisfy God and the
people of the land under their rule. In an article on its front page by
Chief Editor Hani Wuhayyib today, the newspaper al-Qadisiyah says that
those rulers must realize that Iraq is determined to continue its
valiant national and pan-Arab resistance of the aggression regardless of
the sacrifices. It adds: Whoever continues to be involved in a
despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient
party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price.
In conclusion, al-Qadisiyah stresses that the independence,
sovereignty, and pride of Iraq and the dignity of the nation depend on
its historic leadership, proud people, and courageous armed forces, who
expressed determination -- with one mind, conscience, and strong action
-- to safeguard the sovereignty and independence of Iraq, deter the
aggression and aggressors, and let their plots rebound.
VII. SADDAM LETTER TO THE ARAB LEAGUE
London Al-Quds Al-'Arabi (Internet version) in Arabic 20-21 Feb 99 p 4
["Text" Iraqi President Saddam Husayn's message to Arab League Secretary
General Dr. 'Ismat 'Abd-al-Majid]
[FBIS Translated Text] I have read your letter dated 26 January 1999 and
I would like to express my appreciation for this initiative. Regarding
what came in your letter concerning the results of the Arab foreign
ministers meeting, which was held in Cairo on 24 January 1999, I would
like to state the following:
His excellency brother President 'Ali 'Abdallah Salih, president of
the Republic of Yemen, called for an Arab summit in the aftermath of the
US-British aggression.
You convened a consultative meeting of the Arab foreign ministers in
order to prepare for this summit.
Thus, one would assume that the main subject at the consultative
meeting --and the summit later on --would have been the aggression
against Iraq, in addition to tackling the conditions and challenges
facing the Arab nation.
It is clear that this aggression was not committed under the cover of
a dispute between Iraq and another Arab state or states, but under a
separate, feeble excuse, which the Security Council itself would not
accept. Therefore, the inclusion of other subjects in the meeting's
agenda and their reflection in the final statement was, in itself, an
inclination which was meant to change the main subject, reduce the
necessary pan-Arab reaction to it, and thus distort the Arab and
international stand. This, in itself, was a negative inclination. It was
confirmed by the meetings that were held by some Arab states and their
decision, which was not authorized by anyone, to prepare for the
consultative meeting. In fact, these states also prepared in advance the
statement that was to be released after this meeting. This behavior in
itself, as you know, calls for suspicion.
1. The condemnation of an aggression that occurs against any Arab
country must not be linked to the attitude of this state or that state
toward the government of the country that is exposed to aggression. The
adoption of a clear stand on the aggression against Iraq is both an
Iraqi right and a duty by the Arab league that are based on principles,
values, pacts, and the existing rules that govern joint Arab action.
Iraq used to firmly condemn aggression against any Arab country
regardless of its attitude toward the ruling regime in that country,
because this is one of the clear axioms on which any Arab stand must be
based, especially within the framework of the Arab league. This is if
this organization is intended to play a reliable and influential role in
the Arab arena both now and in the future. Based on this principle, I
would now like to cite the following Iraqi stands:
A. Iraq supported Egypt politically and militarily in its battle against
the Zionist aggression and occupation in 1973 through the participation
of its aircraft without considering its attitude toward the Egyptian
Government at the time.
B. Iraq supported Syria in its battle with the Zionist enemy in 1973 by
dispatching its forces to fight alongside the Syrian Army, despite what
was known then about the relations between the Syrian and Iraqi
Governments.
C. When the US aggression occurred against Libya in 1986, Iraq condemned
that aggression despite the fact that Libya was allied with Iran in its
war against Iraq.
D. When Turkey issued its recent threats against Syria, Iraq condemned
these threats and expressed its solidarity with Syria despite the
complex relations with Turkey.
Using Arab differences -- no matter what they are --to avoid the duty
of condemning aggression, is an attitude which is neither principled nor
acceptable.
2. The positive points contained in the statement and to which you
referred in your letter are a minimum stand. It is as if those who met
and issued this statement are distant observers of events that take
place in different world. Its language conflicts with one of the basic
principles of Arab national security, which affirms that aggression
against any Arab country is aggression against the entire Arab nation.
It is strange for the statement to overlook the violation of
international legitimacy by the US-british aggression against Iraq and
still call upon Iraq to abide by this international legitimacy!
This statement did not, from the practical aspect, have any effect on
the behavior of the United States and Britain toward Iraq, because they
welcomed it and continued with the aggression against Iraq.
3. The inclusion of a Kuwaiti plan in the deliberations of the meeting
and its impact on the statement called for suspicions, showed
premeditated ill intentions, and thus led to the results which came
out of this meeting. It is strange for the statement to include a charge
accusing Iraq of provoking its neighbors and to ask Iraq, on the basis
of this false charge, not to pursue policies that are aimed at
provoking its neighbors. It is as if all of Iraq's neighbors hold the
same view on this fabricated issue.
As for the question of giving assurance under firm Arab and
international rules, this should have take place on the basis of
reciprocity and equal treatment.
For it is not right to ask one side only and not the other. Why
didn't the meeting ask from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia what it asked from
Iraq, especially since there are well-known facts, which cannot be
denied or overlooked? Britain used its military bases in Kuwait ('Ali
al-Salim Base) in launching the aggression against Iraq. US officials
announced that they received big support from their "friends" in the
region in what they termed the "Desert Fox Operation."
They also spoke openly about splitting the cost.
Moreover, the aircraft, which impose the no-fly zone and carry out
aggression, including the one against al-Basrah over which you expressed
your regret and concern in the statement, take off daily from bases in
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Ignoring these facts and events and concentrating on Iraq only, by
asking from it what you do not ask from others, is a stand about which
the least that can be said is that it is biased. What came in the
statement in this respect is actually in harmony with the US stand,
which uses this logic to justify its aggression against Iraq.
4. The foreign ministers meeting was held for the purpose of holding
consultations and preparing for an Arab summit, as proposed by the
brother Yemeni president. But, this meeting turned into a different
thing, making proposals and working out mechanisms, which are intended
to arrange certain practical regional and international obligations
against a founder member of the Arab league. The records of the
Arab League, for example, clearly show that discussions over the
Palestine question were held in the presence of the PLO. The PLO was a
key member in any committee that discussed any idea or measure
pertaining to Palestine. The others had to hear the PLO's viewpoint
first as a sign of respect for its sacrifices and also because it is the
party directly responsible for the cause, although several Arab
armies fought for Palestine. Therefore, how can we explain the formation
of an Arab league committee to lift the "economic sanctions" on Iraq
without the participation of Iraq in it? How can you agree, Mr.
Secretary General, on such an arrangement that conflicts with the rules
of action within the league and also with the following previous
examples: On 14 March 1984, a seven-member committee was formed within
the framework of the Arab league for solidarity with Iraq during the war
with Iran. Iraq was a member in that committee.
On 14 January 1988, a committee was formed in support of the
Palestine question. Palestine was a member in it. Under what excuse was
the decision made to exclude Iraq from a committee, which is aimed at
lifting the "economic sanctions" on it? And why did you stress "the
economic sanctions" only and ignored the other forms of embargo?
The preludes to the consultative meeting and the results they produced
justified the stand, which was taken by the Iraqi delegation under the
foreign minister to withdraw from that meeting. For our delegation had
no other choice, in view of what happened, but to express its protest.
Mr. Secretary General, if we want to talk about Arab security, and
the deterioration and accumulations from which the general Arab
situation is suffering, with the view to tackling past mistakes and
pains through a calm dialogue an objective method; and if we want to
expedite the settlement of the problems resulting from the Gulf crisis
with the view to fulfilling pan-Arab obligations, etc., as mentioned in
your letter, I would like to inform you that Iraq is ready to attend any
Arab meeting, whether on the summit level or any other responsible
level, in order to discuss all these matters in an objective and
transparent manner and on the basis of frankness and justice and without
any discrimination. I do hope that this would take place.
I also believe that the work of the committee, which was set up by the
consultative meeting, ought to be postponed until the convocation of
this meeting so we could come out with a real, unified Arab stand that
does not arouse anyone's suspicion. The principles, which Iraq upholds
and declares are not new; nor are they a reflection of the present
circumstances. They are principles that Iraq has advocated for a long
time with sincerity and objectivity. I would like to point out here just
two out of several examples witnessed in the past:
1. In February 1980, we announced a document called the "Pan-Arab
Declaration," of which a copy is hereby attached. In this declaration we
set forth principles that would serve as a charter for organizing
relations between the Arab countries. These principles included
rejecting the presence of foreign armies in the Arab homeland and
banning the use of force by any Arab state against another Arab state.
Iraq is ready to discuss with the other Arab countries within the
framework of the Arab League this document, or any other equally
balanced document, with the view to placing the Arabs on a better
course, and enriching this document with an objective dialogue for the
sake of reaching the best formula for approving it and abiding by it in
Arab relations.
2. In 1989, Iraq called on the Arab states, especially the neighboring
ones, to sign a non-aggression pact, ban the use of force, and refrain
from interference in other people's internal affairs. It signed this
agreement with Saudi Arabia, of which a copy is hereby attached. It also
offered it to other states, including Kuwait, which evaded signing it.
This is the course if we actually and truly want to turn a new page in
Arab relations and come out with a unified stand on the subject of the
aggression and the embargo against Iraq, as well as all Arab issues; an
objective and constructive dialogue that is based on facts and looks
more to the future than remaining captive to the past without ignoring
the lessons of the past.
[Signed] Saddam Husayn, president of the Republic of Iraq
Baghdad, February 1999
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
