"America Has No Business To Interfere"

Iraq's Ambassador to India Mohammed F.H. Al-Haboubi speaks to Sunil Narula

What provoked the American attack on Iraq?

The latest American aggression is part of a chain of attacks since 1990. The Clinton administration, and before that the Bush administration, have imposed continuous sanctions against Iraq. Besides, this particular incident coincides with the US election campaign—one of the reasons for the attack. In late August, there were many scandals involving President Bill Clinton. Bob Dole even called him a weak president; I think Clinton is trying to show that this is not the case at all.

What kind of power does the UN Resolution 688 give to the international community and how has it been violated?

Resolution 688 was passed in 1991. It asked the UN member-states to extend help to the Kurds and to the Iraqi people. It also criticised the Iraqi stand and said the Iraqi government had violated human rights. But one paragraph of this resolution clearly says that the Security Council (SC) calls on all member-states to respect Iraqi sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity. Second, the US action is against the resolution itself because it hasn't been adopted under Chapter VII of the UN charter—the only chapter which allows the use of force to enforce SC resolutions. So it is just an American lie to refer to this particular resolution.

When the Iraqi forces went into Irbil, did you expect the Americans to come down so heavily on you?

Well, it is our sovereign right to move our forces in our territory. And this step was taken when the major party in Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, sought President Saddam Hussein's help to counter the Iranian aggression which began on August 17 with the help of Jalal Talbani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. It's our duty not to allow any outside interference in our affairs.

But did you expect such a reaction from the US?

We asked them—and still ask them—and we urged the international community to put pressure on the US and the UK to stop interfering in our internal affairs and to abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions.

At a time when the 'oil for food and medicines' deal is being worked out in the UN, was it a tactical error on Iraq's part to go to Irbil?

We agreed to start negotiations with the UN on oil for food and medicines early this year. Five rounds of talks had been held from February to May when a memorandum of understanding was signed between the two sides. Even then, the Americans spared no effort to disrupt it—although after we signed the agreement and it was approved by the Security Council they claimed they were the sponsors of this MOU. We have done everything to expedite the implementation of this agreement. But the Americans have always tried to put hurdles. As for our action jeopardising the deal, I must make it clear that if it is a question of our integrity and sovereignty, we will stand against external aggression.

The Americans have been trying to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

They have been trying to accomplish this task but they have failed. The Iraqi people completely support the Iraqi leadership and President Hussein in particular. The referendum in October last year clearly showed the support for the President.

What explains Hussein's popularity?

Saddam Hussein is working only for the benefit of the Iraqi people and the Arab nation and his party policy rejects any imposition of any policy or dictates from outside. Of course, the Americans want domination over the oil reserves. Two-thirds of the global oil reserves of the world lie in our area and Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. They want to have complete control of the oil so that they can control the whole world.

What do you think about the Indian reaction?

You have read the statement of the Ministry of External Affairs. We hope that after the second and third attack we will hear from the Indian Government—something disapproving of or condemning this aggression against Iraq.

Are you disappointed?

You can't expect an envoy to express his opinion on these matters. I should hope now that the Indian Government—as a peace-loving nation and important member of the non-aligned movement—will take a stand they find proper.