NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Interview/ Iraqi Ambassador Salah Al-Mukhtar

'We must unite to convince the West that they cannot dictate terms to us'

August 2, 2000 marks 10 years since Iraq invaded Kuwait and then went to war with the United States and her allies. It is a decade since the bipolar world began to crumble and a new world order, that is still taking shape, emerged. Ever since that war, Iraq has been under sanctions, backed by the United Nations but enforced primarily by the US.

The past decade has also seen a shift in India's foreign policy. In 1990, then foreign minister Inder Kumar Gujral created headlines worldwide when he warmly embraced Saddam Hussain during a visit to Baghdad after Iraqi troops entered Kuwait. But a few months later, when the war was raging, US planes involved in Operation Desert Storm stopped over in Bombay for refuelling, creating a stir in India.

Iraqi Ambassador to India Salah Al-Mukhtar spoke to Associate Editor Amberish K Diwanji about the changing sands of Indo-Iraqi relations.

How do you look back on the Iraq-Kuwait war?

First, it was not an Iraq-Kuwait war but a war between Iraq against America, supported by 32 other countries. Secondly, everyone knows that the embargo was imposed upon Iraq because of the Kuwaiti crisis. Until the resolution of 687, which had been adopted in April 1991, one month after the cease-fire. The resolutions adopted before and during the war were designed to solve the Kuwaiti problem. We accepted these resolutions on that basis.

Normally, when there is a crisis, the United Nations intervenes and after the crisis, the measures adopted to resolve the crisis becomes obsolete. This has been the UN practice since 1945 except in the case of Iraq. In 1991, Iraq had withdrawn almost all its forces before the outbreak of war. And when Iraq was almost completing its withdrawal from Kuwait, the war began and that is why the battles took place in southern Iraq and not Kuwait.

The battle lasted four days and on February 28 the US declared a unilateral cease-fire. We hoped that after negotiations the embargo would be lifted because we had withdrawn from Kuwait. We even accepted the new boundary line imposed upon us in the name of the UN. Border issues should be solved only by the parties concerned, but we still accepted the situation.

We accepted the principle of compensation and to destroy our weapons of mass destruction. Iraq hoped that the embargo would be lifted, but unfortunately, they started adding conditions according to US designs, and today, after one decade, the embargo still exists.

The embargo is more dangerous than the war of 1991 and the embargo of 1991 and 1992. The rate of death is higher, the suffering of Iraqis is more complicated.

When the war broke out, India was seen as being close to Iraq and yet later allowed US planes to refuel. How does Iraq views this?

India is a close friend and played a positive role in the crisis, but unfortunately after the outbreak of war, many American fighters had refuelled from Bombay. We do not know the role of the Indian government in that incident or whether there was government permission for the refuelling. But it was painful for us.

Talking about the sanctions, how do you view India's role?

India has kept a normal attitude towards Iraq between 1991 and 1998. It was not hostile because India kept the embassy in Baghdad, kept political relations, kept technical co-operation, and supported Iraq in some international organisations.

But the relations were not warm. An Indian official described it as low profile. We thought that in the first years of the embargo, maybe India does not understand what is happening in Iraq and our relation with the UN. We kept contact with India, both at the official and non-official levels, to exchange views with the government and other parties.

But in 1998, we felt that India is not playing a role corresponding with our special relation, as was being played by Russia, China, France. France participated in the war against in Iraq in 1991 and was part of the coalition that attacked Iraq (over the no-fly zone). But since 1995, France has changed its policies to adopt an active policy towards Iraq. France has started opposing American policy, proposed solutions, co-operated with Russia and China and tried to influence US and UK on Iraq. If you compare France and India, you will see the difference between the roles. Till 1998, India adopted a cold policy.

After 1998...

Both parties started moving towards each other. We started a free and brotherly dialogue, we spoke candidly about our beliefs, and about India's attitude and India responded positively. New Delhi started to move slowly, but faster than before. It started with commerce, technical and cultural initiatives.

What role can India play vis-a-vis the sanctions?

We believe India can play a major role in lifting the embargo. First, India can make its own judgment about whether Iraq has finished its obligations towards the UN Security Council, because this is the main issue for Iraq. The US says Iraq has not finished its obligations to the UN, Iraq says it has and a majority of countries support Iraq.

India till this moment has not made a judgment on this issue. India is only calling for the lifting of the economic embargo, without saying whether or not Iraq has finished its obligations to the UN. Maybe India has not studied the implementation by Iraq of its obligations, and is only calling for the lifting of the embargo immediately without saying whether Iraq has completed its obligations.

That is why we have asked India to study the steps taken by Iraq on fulfilling its obligations and after that, India can comfortably make a judgment. On that basis, India can argue with other US and other parties -- like Russia, China and France are doing now -- by saying that Iraq has finished its obligations and these are the evidence. But till this moment, unfortunately, there is no such judgement.

The second point is the no-fly zone. There is no vague issue here or legal basis for it. The no-fly zone have been imposed by US, Britain and France without authorisation by the UN. There is no UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone. France has withdrawn and officially admitted that these no-fly zones are illegal. An overwhelming majority of the countries have made their own judgment except the US, Britain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and India.

Till now, there is no official statement in India condemning the no-fly zone. India spoke with us about and said it was illegal but officially, it has not spoken. We hope all our friends, all free nations should condemn any illegal measure adopted to injure or violate the sovereignty of another nation. Because if we keep quiet, it will encourage the aggressor to do more such aggression.

If you remember, the Indian Airlines hijacking witnessed no condemnation. India wondered why. The governments of the world are adopting the policy of not supporting anyone without believing that that party is ready to support them during their hard times.

Third, when US and UK started the bombardment in 1998, they stopped it after four days and started another tactic: to attack Iraq militarily everyday. And from 1998, till date, there is daily bombardment. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians have died, but there is no condemnation of that bombardment.

Finally, India has not joined the other nations who are working to find solutions to the crisis between the US and Iraq. India has shown a very cautious manner, but we hope that India will join these parties.

When I talk about these points, I am talking because India is a very close brother and friend. As you suggest to your brother to join in defending your home and dignity, we are calling on India to join other parties to defend not just the dignity of Iraq but the principle of sovereign states.

Why do you think India is taking such a cautious approach? Is it because India is trying to forge a better relation with the US?

It is difficult for me as a diplomat to answer that question. Maybe you should ask the Indian government. My aim is to develop the relation between India and Iraq.

Has there been any improvement since you took charge in early 1999?

Recently we agreed on starting a new phase in our relation and I hope the steps agreed upon will be implemented to start a new initiative and put a concrete basis for brotherly and friendly relationship. I think the Indian government is doing its best to improve its relation with Iraq and I think the Indian officials are truly concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Iraq has always supported India on Kashmir, but recently the Organisation of Islamic Countries passed a resolution against India on Kashmir. What is Iraq's reaction to that?

The OIC at Kuala Lumpur has also adopted a resolution against Iraq! We criticised that resolution, and said that this organisation is controlled by specific parties to implement and serve the illegal objectives of that parties. When Iraq was not under the embargo, it was easy to foil the attempts by some OIC members to inflict harm on India. But under the embargo, Iraq is weaker, because of the coalition established by the US and thus Iraq is not able to convince some governments who receive money from Saudi Arabia and aid from US. Earlier, we could balance the other parties attempt against India.

Of late, India has been aiming at improving ties with Israel. How do the Arabs and Iraqi view this development?

India is a sovereign state and has the right to whatever relationship she wants to. This is a purely an Indian issue. But Israel is not an entity located in Latin America. It is an entity within our heart, in the middle of the Arab homeland. Also, Israel is an aggressive entity, and is still occupying the Golan Heights of Syria, the whole of Palestine, and part of Lebanon. Israel has never, never given up its expansionist policies against the Arab, it is a regional superpower and, most dangerously, it is the only nuclear superpower in the Middle East.

According to American sources, Israel has 200 nuclear warheads and delivery systems with long-range missiles or fighter jets, both of which reach Baghdad. So we are very concerned when it comes to the nuclear or security co-operation [of India] with Israel because these two issues are for us taboo.

Whenever Israel co-operates with some party on nuclear or security issues, it tries to use the other party against us. Thus we are concerned not about the bilateral relation between India and Israel but security co-operation. By security co-operation, I don't mean the fight against terrorism but other aspects such as exchanging information. Israel has not limited herself to give information about terrorism because I am sure Indian government has more experience here. The Israeli experience in fighting terrorism was a total failure. The last example was the shameful withdrawal of Israelis from southern Lebanon after 23 years because it had been defeated.

Anything else you would like to say before we end the interview?

I would like to say that the relation between India and Iraq does not depend upon the traditional superpowers or big powers but depends on our, the Third World, potential. First, we should develop ties among ourselves within the Third World and then with the First World because in the latter, it is an unequal relation. We cannot avoid the First World, especially when this world is now a big electronic village.

We hope that we can develop a good basis for coexisting with the West, but the ball is in the court of the West. The West is insisting on imposing its hegemonic scheme on us, so we must unite to convince the West that they cannot dictate terms to us but [has to] accept us as equal partners.

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview