Tarik Aziz : Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Struggles Against the U.N. Embargo

WASHINGTON â€”  For a nation deeply suspicious of the outside world, Iraq has produced a remarkable crop of diplomats. Controlled by a dictator, Saddam Hussein, who has spent only five days outside Iraq, and run from a capital, Baghdad, that has been described as an Arab East Berlin (before reunification), over the years the Iraqi Foreign Service has still managed to assemble a corps of diplomats often acknowledged to be among the best outside Europe and the Americas. In a further anomaly, it was a Christian, Tarik Aziz, who in 1983, became this overwhelmingly Moslem country’s chief foreign-policy spokesman.

First as foreign minister, and now, as deputy prime minister, the courtly, 57-year-old Aziz runs Iraq’s day-to-day diplomacy. Last month, he was in New York for meetings at the United Nations. And for the first time since the end of the Gulf War, he is able to report progress in his efforts to free Iraq from the ring of economic and political sanctions that the United States has managed to maintain. Clearly relishing the prospect that Iraq may soon be able to export millions of barrels of oil, Aziz was only too pleased to describe the ways and means of his successful diplomacy.

Eighteen times previously, the U.N. Security Council had met and ruled--without dissent--that Iraq had not complied with a post-war resolution requiring that all its weapons of mass destruction be dismantled. These include chemical and biological weapons and, of course, its nuclear-weapons program. Without such a finding, and an agreement allowing a permanent outside monitoring system, Iraq would continue under a world-wide embargo.

Until last year, the Iraqis were anything but cooperative. They repeatedly challenged U.N. teams sent to inspect military sites and blustered about violations of their sovereignty. But during a visit by a senior U.N. official last summer, Aziz extracted a pledge that if Iraq were to cooperate, the United Nations would allow Baghdad to resume unrestricted sale of its crude oil. With oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia, a return of Iraqi oil exports will mean a shift for commercial markets, not to mention Middle East politics.

The interview took place in an elegant townhouse on Manhattan’s upper East Side, the official residence of the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations, Nizar Hamdoon. Burly security guards patrol the hallways. Hussein’s ubiquitous visage stares down in nearly every room. However, there was a slightly jarring detail in the reception room where the conversation took place. On a small table where Aziz placed his cigar and pipe and Hamdoon his cigarettes--both are big smokers--was a silver-framed picture of Hamdoon, then ambassador in Washington, with a smiling President George Bush.

Question: Do you believe the Security Council members see a shift in your behavior?

Answer: We have been cooperating with the council. We have been implementing U.N. resolutions--but this has not been acknowledged in the past. Under the pressure of the Americans, all the achievements of Iraq were obscured, were denied. But that has come to an end. That biased attitude has come to an end. Now more and more delegations in the Security Council are listening to us . . . . The only obstinate position is the position of the United States.

Q: And Britain.

A: And, of course, Britain is supporting the United States. Though Britain is showing a . . . limited understanding of the position of Iraq--they listen to us at least. I met with the British ambassador and we had a session with the British delegation in which we explained what we have achieved. So this is a bit positive.

Q: What about France? Key U.S. officials single out France, and go so far as to say there has been coordination between France and Iraq on a common approach to get the United Nations to lift the embargo.

A: Well, technically speaking, there has been no coordination . . . . But we have explained our position to the French . . . and they showed understanding.

Q: In Washington, the French are singled out in part because two of their oil companies are thought to be in a position to benefit from Iraq’s return to the oil market.

A: Well, the French do have interests in Iraq . . . . It’s not strange that a country like France would look at its legitimate interests with Iraq. We used to do clean business with them and we intend to resume a clean business.

Q: You must be aware of the talk in the oil industry of deals you are on the verge of signing with the French.

A: Yes, yes, this is correct.

Q: In your letter to the Security Council president, you only make an oblique reference to an issue even the French emphasize--the need for Iraq to recognize Kuwait’s border. How do you plan to address this issue?

A: Well, I understand the French position and the position expressed by other members . . . . (But) we said now the main issue for Iraq is to see that its rights and its sovereignty are respected.

When the sovereignty of Iraq and the legitimate rights of Iraq . . . are respected by the council, then Iraq will abide by the rules of international law . . . .

Q: So, if I understand you clearly, the embargo against Iraq would have to be lifted before you will address the question of the border between Iraq and Kuwait.

A: Well, we are not putting it in the sense of before and after, because there is a biased treatment by a number of members of the council--mainly the United States, first and foremost. This treatment is, first of all, infringing on the sovereignty of Iraq by the implementation of no-fly zones in the north, no-fly zones in the south, the interference in our internal affairs--as it has been officially acknowledged by (National Security Adviser) Tony Lake in his article in “Foreign Affairs�--without justification, against the letter and spirit of U.N. resolutions, is blocking the lifting of the sanctions.

So in such circumstances, Iraq would like to see that its rights are respected . . . . When that is the case, of course, Iraq would feel that it’s not being threatened, Iraq would feel that it’s not being hurt. In such a climate Iraq would be ready to consider solving all of the remaining problems.

Q: One problem the British and Americans have is Iraq’s seeming inability to accept the permanence of Kuwait. For example, the Iraqi media continue to refer to Kuwait as Iraq’s 19th province.

A: The media does not always represent the official position of the government of Iraq. The media is the media.

Q: But it’s hard to believe--

A: I’m the spokesman of the Iraqi government. I have said that this chapter is closed. This is the position of the government of Iraq. No official spokesman on the side of Iraq contradicted what I said. About the media, . . . this talk has stopped. If you will follow and observe what’s being said in the Iraqi media, you wouldn’t find these things. . .

Q: Now that you’ve made some gains at the U.N., what is the next part of your strategy, particularly toward the United States?

A: We would like to have normal relations with the United States of America. We have said that we would not want to be enemies of the United States . . . . But we think the United States has to reconsider its position because it’s wrong, it’s illegal and its becoming a minority position in the Security Council.

Q: As a practical matter, can you imagine the U.S. government, just three years after the end of the war when the same leadership is still in place in Baghdad, changing its policy toward Iraq and allowing you to sell massive amounts of oil?

A: Well, that’s up to the Administration to decide. This is the right of Iraq according to resolutions that were written by the United States itself. The United States wrote those resolutions and we have implemented those resolutions, so (if) they change their positions they will find themselves in an awkward situation.

Q: OK, but I don’t understand how that gets you to your goal of selling oil.

A: I think that if the United States continues its position in blocking the process in the Security Council, the very rationale, the raison d’etre of the resolutions would be damaged. And they will lose their credibility. And when a resolution loses its credibility because of the behavior of a single member, then the result will be that international public opinion will change its attitude toward Iraq. This will be similar to the unilateral position of the United States vis-a-vis Cuba. The United States is imposing an embargo on Cuba but the world is not imposing an embargo on Cuba.

You see, now Iraq is under embargo because there is a U.N. resolution. Even the Philippines is implementing it. Argentina is implementing it. Venezuela, Norway. But when Iraq implements its obligations according to the U.N. resolution, then why should the international community boycott Iraq? It will be just an American position, and if I were in the place of the American Administration I wouldn’t love to find myself isolated and in the minority.

Q: Considering your experience in dealing with the previous Administration, especially in the negotiations before the war, how do you rate the performance of this Administration’s--

A: Amateurs!

Q: --who are running day-to day policy.

A: They have this foolish policy of dual containment. That’s just a theory put on paper--but in practice who is being contained? First of all, Iran is not contained by any means. Iran can buy whatever it wants from all over the world. It has money. It has borders. It has ports. There is no containment on Iran.

And even Iraq is not contained in the sense Tony Lake mentioned in his article. A nation is not a bunch of chickens to put in a cage and contain it and feed it, give it the small amounts of food you would like to give it. This is very arrogant and shallow kind of thinking.

Q: Is there a point when you will no longer take the diplomatic approach you are taking now? Is there a time limit?

A: We are told, “You have to comply with this resolution.� We comply. Then, in spite of the compliance, one powerful member says, “No, I’m not going to do my share.� So then why should we comply with (other) resolutions? Then Iraq will act according to what the situation is. They have to know that, you see.

Q: Do you have any doubt that the United States will do all it can to isolate Iraq as long as the present regime is in power?

A: But Iraq is not isolated. The isolation is breaking gradually. Now we are reviving our contact with many countries who were boycotting us in the past . . . .

The other countries are not acting according to this obsession. Iraq is Iraq, you know, whoever leads Iraq that’s up to the Iraqi people . . . . I don’t know what’s behind this obsession in the position of the United States. They have been just wasting their time and efforts and money trying to achieve what they cannot achieve. The Iraqi people are not going to change their government because some people in the White House or the State Department don’t like their government.

Q: Does the government feel any pressure because of the economic situation ?

A: No, the pressure will not be in the direction to give concessions at the expense of sovereignty. No, no the people of Iraq will not accept to give up their sovereignty. Somalia didn’t accept to give up its sovereignty, and Iraq is much better than Somalia.

Q: Do you now believe that in six months or so Iraqi oil will be back on the international market?

A: Iraq cannot be excluded forever from that market. It’s up to the other parties to accommodate themselves.

Q: How do you think other countries, like Saudi Arabia, feel about the return of Iraq ?

A: They will have to accommodate themselves to reality. Iraq will be back. Sooner or later, Iraq will be back.