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?