News

Iraq Threatens Kuwait

Iraq News, MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1999

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 .



I.  TARIQ AZIZ REITERATES IRAQI CLAIM TO KUWAIT, INA, JAN 10
II. SAHHAF SLAMS SAUDI, KUWAIT ROLE IN US/UK AGGRESSION, REUTERS, JAN 10
III. BELLICOSE DEBATE OF NAT'L ASSEMBLY, RADIO MONTE CARLO, JAN 9
IV. "IRAQI MPS CALL FOR SCRAPPING OF KUWAIT BORDER," AFP, JAN 9
V.  NAT'L ASSEMBLY ISSUES RESOLUTION, BBC, JAN 10

   In the Jerusalem Post, Dec 24, columnists Uri Dann and Dennis 
Eisenberg, writing about Israel's relative passivity on Iraq, said, 
"What our leaders told us during the bombardment [Operation Desert Fox] 
was restated again and again: 'Iraq does not affect us.  It is none of 
our business. We are not involved.'  Not involved?  Are our leaders so 
divorced from reality that they believe Saddam Hussein is not out to 
avenge the destruction of the Osirak reactor--which, if we had not 
bombed it in 1981, would have given him atomic weapons by the time he 
invaded Kuwait?  Did they not hear Tariq Aziz last Friday when he 
coupled Israel and 'the Zionists' with Britain and the US in their 
'plot' to attack Iraq, which was followed by a verbal assault on the 
'Zionist clique of the Jewish advisers surrounding President Clinton?'  
Were their ears stuffed with cotton wool as Saddam Hussein, in his 
'victory' speech on Sunday saluted the Palestinian Arabs for their firm 
stand against the Zionist state and for their burning of the US flags 
they had been waving during Clinton's visit to Gaza only days before?   
. . . Military and government leaders seem to have forgotten that as 
recently as six years ago, steps were being taken to handle the Saddam 
Hussein menace via the Tze'elim-2 guided missile project, although the 
operation's dress rehearsal went tragically wrong.  Foreign newspapers 
made much of the Tze'elim-2 disaster, maintaining that the operation was 
part of an Israeli plan to assassinate Saddam.  To the West, Saddam 
Hussein is a threat to the sources of oil.  But to Israel he is a deadly 
enemy--as deadly as any the country has faced since its founding.  
Today, Iraq has pilotless planes that can carry biological or chemical 
weapons.  If that isn't a deadly threat to all Israel, then what is?" 

   "Iraq News" can only underscore A.M. Rosenthal, Jan 8, "The UN is 
carpeted in contempt for the US, for failure to use its material power 
or what remains of its intellectual power to eliminate a minor dictator 
wirth major plans for mass slaughter. . .  The American public, as 
always, must share responsibility with its elected Government on what it 
does or does not do.  Despite the reports by UN inspectors about 
Saddam's concealment, despite his decision to force Iraqis to suffer 
sanctions rather than reveal his weapons of mass destruction, Americans 
seem entirely relaxed.  Yes, there was the World Trade Center bombing.  
But you don't really think terrorists would also use anthrax over here, 
actually use it?"  

   During a Jan 8 briefing on the revised US assessment of damage caused 
by "Operation Desert Fox," Centcom commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni, said, 
"Probably the most remarkable thing in my mind was the Army day speech 
by Saddam.  I think that was clear evidence of his isolation.  The 
language he used, his attack on all the other leaders in the region I 
think showed a degree of desperation that we hadn't seen before."  
   Of course, it is impossible to know Saddam's thoughts and he 
miscalculates.   But as "Iraq News," Jan 6, suggested, it is doubtful 
that Iraq's continued escalation of this confrontation is driven by 
desperation and/or extreme weakness. It seems part of a plan.  Moreover, 
given Saddam's vengeful and vicious nature and the nature of the 
proscribed unconventional weapons he retains, it would only be prudent 
to consider other explanations, besides desperation, of what Iraq might 
be doing.  "Iraq News" invites readers to offer scenarios for what it is 
that Saddam may have in mind.
 
  In Al-Thawrah, Tariq Aziz, in the first of a two-part article, 
reported by INA, yesterday, reasserted Iraq's claim to Kuwait and 
accused Kuwait of having committed "treacherous aggression against 
Iraq," prior to Aug 2, 1990.  Aziz said that "certain Arab circles" had 
called on Iraq to apologize for occupying Kuwait to facilitate Arab 
reconciliation.  Aziz responded, "Those who have been falsifying facts 
since August 1990 are trying in vain to cover their crime of 
participation in word and deed in the crime of aggression against Iraq 
and in placing the region under US and Zionist military, political, and 
economic hegemony by blaming Iraq and its leadership.  . .   The first 
question that must be strongly posed forcefully and bluntly is this: Are 
the rulers of Kuwait a victim, or are they colluding criminals who 
deliberately harmed Iraq and committed an aggression against it?  Are 
the rulers of Kuwait rulers of an Arab entity, just like other entities? 
Or are they British and later US tools for besieging and weakening Iraq? 
The facts of history cannot be concealed by empty propaganda . . .  
Those facts date back to the 19th century and early 20th century.  All 
these facts confirm beyond any doubt that 'Kuwait' was established as an 
entity by Britain in order to besiege Iraq and deny it its historical 
coasts, which had been part of it since the Sumerian era.  And so were 
they under the Ottoman state, which was the last state to rule Iraq and 
the region before Iraq was established as an entity in 1921.
  "As the rulers of Kuwait are today committing crimes against Iraq, the 
start of this behavior began with the crime of Mubarak al-Sabah, the 
grandfather of the present rulers of Kuwait, who killed his two 
brothers, Muhammad and Jarrah, in collaboration with the British.  His 
objective was to sign the secret agreement of 1899, in accordance with 
which he linked the fate of Kuwait with Britain, instead of the Ottoman 
state, which had tutelage over Kuwait, which was one of the districts of 
al-Basrah Province.
  "President Saddam Husayn is not the only Iraqi leader who noted this 
fact. . . . All those who assumed power in Iraq since 1921 said the same 
thing. . . . Who amongst all those should apologize to the rulers of 
Kuwait?  Shall we ask those who are dead to come out of their graves to 
apologize to the grandsons of the killer of his brothers, Mubarak 
al-Sabah, and to thank them for linking part of the Arab homeland with 
Britain and for turning it into a British base, and then to a US base, 
for plotting against Iraq, with the aim of weakening it?
   Aziz then cited a memo that had served as part of Iraq's 
justification for invading Kuwait, "On 15 July 1990, I addressed a 
memorandum to Arab League Secretary General Chedli Klibi on the 
conspiratorial and aggressive behavior of the Kuwait rulers against 
Iraq.  Here are some excerpts of this memorandum.
   "With deep regret, we have been noticing that the acts of the 
Government of Kuwait toward Iraq have deviated from the framework of 
pan-Arab concepts.  In fact, these acts . . . threaten the pillars of 
inter-Arab relations.   . .  The Kuwaiti officials have tried--through a 
continuous and premeditated way--to encroach upon Iraq and to harm it.  
They intended to weaken it after emerging from the eight-year grinding 
war [with Iran]. . . . The Government of Kuwait followed this policy, 
which aims at weakening Iraq, at a time when Iraq is facing a fierce 
imperialist-Zionist campaign as a result of its pan-Arab stands in 
defense of Arab rights . . .
  "In this memorandum, I presented an account of the acts, which the 
rulers of Kuwait carried out against Iraq at that time.  
  "1. The issue of borders.  The memorandum states that the demarcation 
of borders has been an outstanding issue between Iraq and Kuwait since 
the epoch of colonialism and the divisions it imposed on the Arab 
nation.  . . . During the long years of war in particular, and while the 
valiant sons of Iraq were sacrificing their dear blood on the fronts in 
defense of the Arab land, including the land of Kuwait, . . . the 
Kuwaiti Government exploited Iraq's preoccupation and its genuine 
pan-Arab principles and noble approach in dealing with the brothers and 
the pan-Arab causes in order to implement its scheme through speeding up 
its gradual and systematic incursion into Iraq's territory.  Thus, it 
started setting up military facilities, police stations, oil facilities 
and farms on Iraq's territory. . .
   "2. Economic plotting:  The Kuwaiti Government started for months and 
specifically after Iraq had raised its voice--during the Arab 
Cooperation Council summit in Amman in February 1990--calling for the 
restoration of Arab rights in Palestine and warning against the dangers 
of the US presence in the Gulf, to pursue an unfair policy whose aim was 
to harm the Arab nation, particularly Iraq.  The Kuwaiti Government had 
implemented a premeditated plan to inundate the oil market with more 
production in excess of its quota which was specified by OPEC.  . . . 
The Kuwaiti Government further harmed Iraq in particular.  Since 1980, 
particularly during the years of war, it installed oil installations on 
the southern part of the Iraqi al-Rumaylah oil field to pump oil from it 
. . . 
   "This is what the grandsons of Mubarak al-Sabah did to Iraq before 2 
August 1990. . .  In whose favor did they do this other than the United 
States and Zionism?  Those who accuse Iraq of launching an aggression 
against Kuwait deliberately ignore the defining of the word aggression 
in international law and relations between states.  Aggression has many 
forms and methods, not only military action.  Economic aggression is as 
harmful as military aggression.  The Kuwaiti rulers did not have 
military power through which they could harm Iraq.  So, they used their 
superior power; namely, the economic power, to launch a mean and 
treacherous aggression against Iraq. . . 

   Also, yesterday, Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Sahhaf, gave a press 
conference in which, he assaulted Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for their 
cooperation with the US and UK, which he branded as "thieves and 
outlaws."  Saudi Arabia has floated some notion of easing sanctions, by 
allowing Iraq unrestricted, and perhaps unsupervised, import of food and 
medicine.  
   As Reuters reported, after condemning the US/UK, Sahhaf said, "It 
created a very odd and dangerous situation because those two aggressors 
were taking with them two states in the region, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 
. . This imposed a real danger for stability in the region."  Sahhaf 
"urged Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to stop cooperating with Washington and 
London in imposing no-fly zones over Iraq.  'Before they (Saudi Arabia) 
propose lifting sanctions, first they should stop . . . imposing the 
no-fly zone and prevent American and British forces who are in their 
land to commit crimes against Iraq. . .  We have informed our brothers 
in different Arab countries that reasonable and minimum steps which can 
be taken by the Arab League member states is to lift the sanctions 
unilaterally."

  And, over the weekend, Iraq's Nat'l Assembly met in a two-day 
extraordinary session.  The reporting from the first day, Sat, was 
extremely bellicose.  According to Radio Monte Carlo, Jan 9, "Members of 
the Iraqi National Assembly were today unanimous in their call on the 
Iraqi leadership to reconsider Iraq's cooperation with all relevant UN 
Security Council resolutions. . . . Some National Assembly members 
explicitly demanded that Iraq reconsider its acceptance of Resolution 
633, under which Iraq recognizes Kuwait and demarcates its border with 
it.  . . . Iraqi National Assembly Speaker Sa'dun Hammadi said it is 
likely the Assembly will propose that the Iraqi leadership adopt these 
recommendations. . . . Observers believe that the recommendations the 
National Assembly will make concerning Iraq's relationship with the 
Security Council will usher in a new stage in Iraq's policy on the 
grounds that Iraq was not rewarded for cooperating with the Security 
Council . . ."
   And as AFP, Jan 9, reported, "Dozens of Iraqi MP's on Saturday called 
for the scrapping of a UN resolution demarcating the sanctions-hit 
state's border with Kuwait, during the opening of an extraordinary 
two-day session.  The resolution is 'without precedent, unfair and 
arbitrary . .  . (it) is not a prerogative of the Security Council, but 
should be solved bilaterally or by arbitration,' said MP Ibrahim Yussef 
Turki Jaddua. 'The Security Council imposed this decision on the basis 
of a British map never recognised by Iraq. . . Iraq was amputated of 
territory and oil fields.  Why must Iraq continue to accept this unjust 
situation?' he said."
   But the Nat'l Assembly resolution, when issued Sun, while defiant 
enough, was not as bellicose as the previous day's discussion would have 
suggested.  As the BBC, Jan 10, reported, "The Iraqi National Assembly 
has voted to suspend all co-operation with the United Nations and has 
declared it holds Saudi Arabia and Kuwait fully responsible for the 
consequences of last month's air attacks by the United States and the 
United Kingdom. . . However, it stopped short of demanding that the two 
countries be punished, as some MPS had urged.   . . The result of the 
special session was not unexpected, but it shows Iraqi resolve is 
strengthening rather than weakening a month after the wave of strikes."

I. TARIQ AZIZ REITERATES IRAQI CLAIM TO KUWAIT
Baghdad INA in Arabic 0845 GMT 10 Jan 99
 [FBIS Translated Text] Baghdad, 10 Jan (INA)-The newspaper al-Thawrah, 
mouthpiece of the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party, publishes an article today 
by Tariq 'Aziz, titled "Who Apologizes for Whom?"
   The article reads: Within the framework of avoiding any condemnation 
of the United States and Britain for committing the crime of aggression 
against Iraq, ignoring the calls of the Arab masses and their
nationalist forces and conscientious groups for an Arab decision to 
break the unjust blockade imposed on Iraq, and within the suspicious 
campaign aimed at avoiding those substantive subjects and directing
unfounded blame at the Iraqi leadership, certain Arab circles have 
launched suspicious calls, demanding Iraq apologize for its "occupation 
of Kuwait" and express regret for what has happened. If that takes 
place, they say, then the path will be opened toward Arab 
reconciliation. Subsequently, they maintain, the Arab states will call 
on the UN Security Council to lift the blockade, provided that that be 
coupled, as they say, with adherence to "international legitimacy" and 
the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions.
    The advocates of such a call -- by whom I mean those who have since 
1990 been colluding with the US-Zionist scheme to destroy Iraq and 
control the region--are circumventing the facts of the near and far 
history, believing that they can deceive the masses and circumvent the 
basic facts of the situation and the core of the conflict witnessed by 
the entire Arab arena against the US-Zionist hegemony, of which the 2
August events were a chapter.
    The advocates of such a call also try to fool Arab public opinion by 
saying that there is an "Arab" side who was deeply wounded and that the 
wound cannot heal unless Iraq declares its regret and apology to those 
who were wounded.
   Those who have been falsifying facts since August 1990 are trying in 
vain to cover their crime of participation in word and deed in the crime 
of aggression against Iraq and in placing the region under US and 
Zionist military, political, and economic hegemony by blaming Iraq and 
its leadership. However, the logic of those people cannot convince Arab 
public opinion, the conscientious forces in the Arab homeland, and the 
intellectuals in the Arab homeland and the world. Those of goodwill who 
are involved in such suspicious calls should be aware of their true 
reasons and purposes.
   The first question that must be strongly posed forcefully and bluntly 
is this: Are the rulers of Kuwait a victim, or are they colluding 
criminals who deliberately harmed Iraq and committed an aggression 
against it?
   Are the rulers of Kuwait rulers of an Arab entity, just like other 
entities? Or are they British and later US tools for besieging and 
weakening Iraq? The facts of history cannot be concealed by empty
propaganda and suspicious and thoughtless calls. Those facts date back 
to the 19th century and early 20th century. All these facts confirm 
beyond any doubt that "Kuwait" was established as an entity by Britain 
in order to besiege Iraq and deny it its historical coasts, which had 
been part of it since the Sumerian era. And so were they under the 
Ottoman state, which was the last state to rule Iraq and the region 
before Iraq was established as an entity in 1921.
   As the rulers of Kuwait are today committing crimes against Iraq, the 
start of this behavior began with the crime of Mubarak al-Sabah, the 
grandfather of the present rulers of Kuwait, who killed his two brothers 
Muhammad and Jarrah in collaboration with the British. His objective was 
to sign the secret agreement of 1899, in accordance with which he linked 
the fate of Kuwait with Britain, instead of the Ottoman state, which had 
tutelage over Kuwait, which was one of the districts of al-Basrah 
Province.
   President Saddam Husayn is not the only Iraqi leader who noted this 
fact. And the present leadership in Iraq is not the only one which said 
that Kuwait was established to besiege Iraq, to turn it into a land- 
locked state, and consequently to weaken it militarily and economically. 
All those who assumed power in Iraq since 1921 said the same thing: 
Faysal I, Ghazi Bin-Faysal, Faysal Bin-Ghazi Bin-Faysal, Nuri Sa'id, 
Yasin al-Hashimi, Tawfiq al-Suwaydi, and the other prime ministers and 
ministers who took office until 14 July 1958. The rulers at the time of 
the monarchy, like some Arab rulers today, were the friends of Britain 
and then of the United States.
   Despite this, they could not ignore this fact because it was amply 
clear. The matter did not stop on 14 July 1958 as the rulers of Iraq 
afterward maintained this firm Iraqi stand.
   Who amongst all those should apologize to the rulers of Kuwait? Shall 
we ask those who are dead to come out of their graves to apologize to 
the grandsons of the killer of his brothers, Mubarak al-Sabah, and to 
thank them for linking part of the Arab homeland with Britain and for 
turning it into a British base, and then to a US base, for plotting 
against Iraq with the aim of weakening it?
   On 15 July 1990, I addressed a memorandum to Arab League Secretary 
General Chedli Klibi on the conspiratorial and aggressive behavior of 
the Kuwait rulers against Iraq. Here are some excerpts of this 
memorandum:
   With deep regret, we have been noticing that the acts of the 
Government of Kuwait toward Iraq have deviated from the framework of the 
pan-Arab concepts. In fact, these acts contradict with and threaten the 
pillars of inter-Arab relations. Despite our faithful fraternal stands 
in dealing with them at all times, the Kuwaiti officials have tried -- 
through a continuous and premeditated way -- to encroach upon Iraq and 
to harm it. They intended to weaken it after emerging from the 
eight-year grinding war. All honest Arabs, including leaders, thinkers, 
and citizens, as well as the leaders of the Gulf states, asserted that 
in this war Iraq was defending the sovereignty of the entire Arab nation 
and the Gulf states, particularly Kuwait. The Government of Kuwait 
followed this policy, which aims at weakening Iraq, at a time when Iraq 
is facing a fierce imperialist-Zionist campaign as a result of its 
pan-Arab stands in defense of the Arab rights. In doing so, the 
Government of Kuwait, regrettably, is motivated by selfish motives, 
narrow views, and objectives that can only be viewed as suspicious and 
serious.
   In this memorandum, I presented an account of the acts, which the 
rulers of Kuwait carried out against Iraq at that time.
   1. The issue of borders: The memorandum states that the demarcation 
of borders has been an outstanding issue between Iraq and Kuwait since 
the epoch of colonialism and the divisions it imposed on the Arab 
nation. The contacts which were held in the 1960's and 1970's failed to 
reach a settlement to this issue between the two sides until the 
eruption of war between Iraq and Iran. During the long years of war in 
particular, and while the valiant sons of Iraq were sacrificing their 
dear blood on the fronts in defense of the Arab land, including the land 
of Kuwait, and Arab sovereignty and dignity, including those of Kuwait, 
the Kuwaiti Government exploited Iraq's preoccupation [with the war] and 
its genuine pan-Arab principles and noble approach in dealing with the 
brothers and the pan-Arab causes in order to implement its scheme 
through speeding up its gradual and systematic incursion into Iraq's 
territory. Thus, it started setting up military facilities, police 
stations, oil facilities, and farms on Iraq's territory.
   We remained silent on all of that. We only hinted at these actions, 
thinking that this was enough within the framework of the principles of 
brotherhood which we thought everybody believed in.  However, these
measures continued through deceitful methods and determination on 
escalation.
  After the liberation of al-Faw and specifically during Algiers summit 
in 1988, we informed the Kuwaiti side of our genuine desire to settle 
this issue within the framework of fraternal relations and the higher
pan-Arab interest. However, we found ourselves facing an extremely odd 
situation. According to logic, the Kuwaiti officials should have been 
pleased with this kind fraternal initiative of ours, and should have
sought to settle this issue speedily.  Nevertheless, we noticed a 
deliberate hesitance and procrastination on their part through 
prolonging the talks and contacts.
   They also raised fabricated obstacles, while continuing to violate 
and set up oil and military facilities, police stations, and farms on 
the Iraqi territory.
2. Economic plotting: The Kuwaiti Government started for months and 
specifically after Iraq had raised its voice--during the Arab 
Cooperation Council summit in Amman in February 1990--calling for the  
restoration of Arab rights in Palestine and warning against the dangers 
of the US presence in the Gulf, to pursue an unfair policy whose aim was 
to harm the Arab nation, particularly Iraq. The Kuwaiti Government had 
implemented a premeditated plan to inundate the oil market with more 
production in excess of its quota which was specified by OPEC. This was 
done under feeble pretexts that were not based on any foundations
of logic or justice. These pretexts were not shared by any other 
fraternal OPEC member.
   This devastating policy led to a serious drop in oil prices. After 
the drop that took place a few years ago from 24, 29, and 28 dollars per 
barrel, the Kuwaiti Government's actions led to the collapse of the
minimum price, which was recently agreed upon in the OPEC; namely, $18, 
to 11-13 dollars per barrel. So, a simple calculation will show the 
heavy losses the Arab oil-producing countries have sustained.
   In its memorandum, Iraq said that the drop of every dollar in the oil 
price makes Iraq lose a billion dollars per year. This meant that Iraq 
would lose several billions of dollars from its revenues for that
year at a time when Iraq was suffering a monetary crunch due to the 
costs of the legitimate defense of its land, security, and holy places, 
and of the land of the Arabs, their security, and holy places
throughout the past eight years. These losses also affected all the Arab 
oil-producing countries.
   The memorandum also reads: In addition to its premeditated harm, the 
Kuwaiti Government further harmed Iraq in particular. Since 1980, 
particularly during the years of war, it installed oil installations on 
the southern part of the Iraqi al-Rumaylah oil field to pump oil from 
it. It was clear that it used to flood the international market with 
oil, plus, it stole oil from the Iraqi al-Rumaylah oil field, thus, 
premeditatedly harming Iraq twice; once by weakening its economy at a 
time when it was in dire need of its revenues, and again by stealing its 
resources. The oil the Kuwaiti Government pumped from al-Rumaylah oil 
fields in this way, which conflicts with fraternal relations, based on 
1980-1990 prices, totals $2.4 billion.
   This is what the grandsons of Mubarak al-Sabah did to Iraq before 2 
August 1990, although it had emerged from a bloody war in which it 
sacrificed the blood of its sons in defense of the eastern flank of the 
Arab homeland, the Arab Gulf, and the Arabian Peninsula, including 
Kuwait. This is what they did with the Arab wealth. In whose favor did 
they do this other than the United States and Zionism?
   Those who accuse Iraq of launching an aggression against Kuwait 
deliberately ignore the definition of the word aggression in 
international law and relations between states. Aggression has many 
forms and methods, not only military action. Economic aggression is as 
harmful as the military aggression. The Kuwaiti rulers did not have 
military power through which they could harm Iraq. So, they used their 
superior power; namely, the economic power, to launch a mean and 
treacherous aggression against Iraq. So, who should apologize?  [end of 
article]
The newspaper al-Thawrah will publish the second part of Tariq 'Aziz' 
article tomorrow [Monday, 11 January]



III. BELLICOSE DEBATE OF NAT'L ASSEMBLY
Iraq's Hammadi: UN Resolutions 'Unfair', 'Illegal' 
Paris Radio Monte Carlo in Arabic 1600 GMT 9 Jan 99 
[Dispatch by Ahmad Sabri in Baghdad--recorded]
[FBIS Translated Text]
   Members of the Iraqi National Assembly were today unanimous in their 
call on the Iraqi leadership to reconsider Iraq's cooperation with all 
relevant UN Security Council resolutions. They said these resolution are 
unfair and will not lead to the lifting of sanctions on their country. 
They also held Kuwait and Saudi Arabia responsible for the recent attack 
against Iraq and the damage it caused.
   In an extraordinary session devoted to discussing national and 
pan-Arab requirements to confront US and British threats, some National 
Assembly members explicitly demanded that Iraq reconsider its acceptance 
of Resolution 633, under which Iraq recognizes Kuwait and demarcates its 
border with it.
   Answering a question by our radio, Iraqi National Assembly Speaker 
Sa'dun Hammadi said it is likely the Assembly will propose that the 
Iraqi leadership adopt these recommendations:
[Begin Hammadi recording] Members of the Assembly discussed all Security 
Council resolutions, not only in this session but also in previous 
sessions. I cannot predict what decisions the Assembly will make, but, 
through previous meetings and decisions, I sense that the National 
Assembly believes that the Security Council resolutions were politically 
motivated and passed under the influence of an influential Security
Council member. The resolutions harmed and wronged Iraq. At any rate, 
the sanctions should have been lifted because Iraq implemented those 
resolutions. But the sanctions were not removed, and the implementation 
of those resolutions was accompanied by a spying operation that is now 
well known to the world and the international media. The National 
Assembly finds the Security Council resolutions unjust, unfair, and 
illegal because they were passed under the political influence of the 
influential members of the Security Council. We will wait to see what 
results the Assembly will produce. [end recording]
   Political observers see in the timing of the extraordinary National 
Assembly meeting--in the middle of the confrontation between Iraq and 
both the United States and Britain--a sign that the Iraqi leadership,
based on President Saddam Husayn's recent speech, is about to make 
decisions concerning the future of Iraq's relations with the Security 
Council and its resolutions.
   Observers believe that the recommendations the National Assembly will 
make concerning Iraq's relationship with the Security Council will usher 
in a new stage in Iraq's policy on the grounds that Iraq was not 
rewarded for cooperating with the Security Council, as the Council 
failed to implement Paragraph 22, which explicitly calls for the lifting 
of the oil embargo against Iraq.
  The Iraqi National Assembly is expected to issue its recommendations 
tomorrow, Sunday, after completing the discussion of all aspects of the 
subject.