Iraq's perspectives on the Middle East situation A talk by H.E. Salah Al-Mukhtar, The Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq The Middle East situation can be viewed from the political and strategic context of the developments that have taken place. Political context The root cause of the crisis in Iraq is the UN Security Council's Resolution. After the Kuwaiti crisis, more than 50 resolutions pertaining to Iraq were adopted by the UN, the main aim of which was to oblige Iraq to leave Kuwait. Iraq cooperated with the UN in the implementation of the Resolutions from 1991 to 1998. However, the problem was not the implementation of the Resolutions but the problems created for Iraq during the inspections. Between 1991 and 1998, 13,600 rounds of inspections were made in Iraq which included religious sites, scientific sites, universities, individual houses and finally the Presidential Palaces which are regarded as national assets. The Resolution adopted after the ceasefire added more conditions which were not related to the Kuwaiti crisis. The UN Security Council adopted the new resolution, which was mainly designed to disarm Iraq and other parties, more than one month after the ceasefire. The resolution dealt with the disarmament of Iraq from two kinds of arms - the Mass Destruction weapons and Missiles longer than 150 kms. All other weapons were permitted. Other nations were urged to cooperate and Arab countries, especially Egypt was promised that, after Iraq, Israel would be disarmed from Nuclear weapons. Iraq cooperated with the UN hoping that the embargo would be lifted once the prohibited arms were removed. The inspection was however prolonged as the services of some members of the team were terminated. A European expert had commented in 1998 that the number of inspections made in Iraq were enough to inspect all the military installations of the Soviet Union and the United States together. However, a final conclusion with regard to the work in Iraq was not reached as the team refused to finish the job in Iraq. The decisive work had been done by 1993 as, by this time, the UN had prepared a list of the banned materials which Iraq should cooperate in destroying. In 1995, Iraq strongly objected to the continuation of the work and wanted reasons for the delay. At this stage, the UN and Iraqi delegations jointly checked, article by article, the list prepared by the UN mentioning the prohibited arms and materials. It was concluded that there was nothing more that Iraq had to destroy. When this was reported to the UN Security Council, USA and Great Britain had questions related to the purchases of certain civilian materials which they felt were being used for military purposes. However, the receipts of these purchases were not available as these documents are periodically destroyed in Iraq. They were also not convinced with Iraq's replies to questions about earlier programmes. Therefore, no final decision was taken by the Security Council. The investigating team did not certify that Iraq had become free of mass destruction weapons although the reports written by UNSCOM regarding inspections in Iraq do not give any evidence of Iraq hiding any mass destruction weapons. Iraq was also asked to prove that missile engines destroyed by the UN team were the originals. The video documentation was sent to Russia where it was certified that the engines were original. It was also said that some chemicals were missing. However, the chemicals listed would have expired in three years and the inspections lasted more than seven years so they could not have been used anyway. This was also certified by the UN scientists. The UN also wanted to know what was done with regard to the biological weapons but were not satisfied with the answers. The Chairman of the investigating team recently repeated what had earlier been said in 1993, that 95 percent of the work of disarming Iraq was done in 1993 and also admitted to being used by the US for spying on Iraq. The allegation of USA and Great Britain that Iraq is still hiding mass destruction weapons is based on political motivation as they know that Iraq does not have these weapons and could not use them even if it did have them. In February 1998, President Clinton claimed that the mass destruction weapons were not found as they were hidden in the Presidential Palaces and asked for them to be inspected. Subsequently, Iraq made an agreement with the Secretary General of the UN that the palaces could be inspected with diplomats/ambassadors being witness to the inspections and that the embargo would be lifted if nothing was found. The team visited 16 palaces, but were unable to find any evidence. These results were however, never published. In December 1998, president Clinton ordered that the monitoring system built by UNSCOM in Iraq be destroyed as the inspectors were leaving. The United States is now pressing for the return of the inspectors. This was initially being opposed by Iraq. However, it has now decided to let them return in order to prevent them from having an excuse to launch an attack. The real agenda of the United States and Great Britain is to remove the Government of Iraq for which they are employing the delaying tactic and not ending the embargo. The idea is to provoke the government of Iraq. Strategic context The United States has developed a new geo-political theory on the basis of the Carter Doctrine which was formulated in the 1970s. This calls for protection of the flow of oil from the Gulf to the world. Any threat to this flow by any country would invite American retaliation. The party which controlled the oil reserves of the world would, in fact, control the world. The driving factor behind the US campaign on Iraq is its oil reserves. Their armed forces lack the morale to fight outside the USA. If USA controls the oil reserves, it can use this to dictate terms to other countries. Iraq is discovering new oil fields which will eventually make it the nation with the highest oil reserves. The aim of the USA is to control Iraq's oil reserves for which they will have to remove the government of Iraq which as an independent nation can provide oil to other states which in turn will lead to a decline in the power of the United States. The US preparation for war is a national challenge to Iraq. Iraq is prepared to fight as it is defending its homeland, its children and its future. In the discussion which followed, the speaker was questioned on what Iraq had done to publish or bring to international opinion, the documents signed with UNSCOM and UN. It was suggested that this may help in increasing awareness of Iraqi position. Another view expressed concerned Iraqi delays and technical objections to return of UN inspectors. A greater readiness to do so by Iraq would further increase the credibility of its case.