Not always popular but adept at survival, Ahmed Chalabi talks to Mohamed Al-Anwar in Baghdad Leader of the Iraqi National Congress Party, Ahmed Chalabi, may be a controversial figure, but he is also a force to contend with in today's Iraq. He came to the spotlight as a staunch supporter of the US invasion and has since continued to influence the course of events. Chalabi was born in Baghdad on 30 October 1944 to an influential Iraqi family. His grandfather was member of Iraq's first ever National Assembly and education minister. His father was a member of parliament, minister, and speaker of the senate. His brother was a member of parliament and minister of economy, agriculture, and communication until 1958. Chalabi studied in Baghdad, the UK and the US. He was a professor of mathematics at the American University in Beirut. He lived in Jordan from 1977 to 1989, where he founded the Bank of Petra. He then moved to the UK, returning to Iraq in 1992. He stayed in Iraq until 1997, during which time he became an outspoken opponent of Saddam Hussein. After that he left for work in the UK and the US. He came back to northern Iraq, via Iran, in January 2003. How do you assess the current situation in Iraq? I see the current situation as tragic. The Iraqi people are living a long-running tragedy because of the legacy of the old regime, the Americans and their actions that are unsuitable for Iraqi society, and the weakness of national resolve. How do you respond to rumours that a US intelligence officer has been, and still is, in charge of you and your security and is always by your side? Utterly untrue. We used to have Colonel Seale, who is now a military attaché at the US Embassy in Cairo. He was appointed by the US secretary of defence as coordinator of relations between us and Central Command during the war. He came to us in northern Iraq in March 2003 and left five months later. My position depends on how I see Iraq's interests. I was accused of extremism and my relations with the Americans shifted. The only explanation is that when something imperils Iraq's interests I don't accept it. They broke into my home at one point because I began to question Paul Bremer, the former US civil administrator about the manner in which Iraq's money was being dispensed. I also insisted that an investigation be conducted into the oil-for- food programme and disclosed what may seem as the seeds of the recent UN report on financial irregularities in that programme. Does Iraq and the new government intend to keep paying compensation the UN Security Council approved for individuals, institutions and countries harmed by the 1990-91 Gulf War? Some $17 billion have gone to the compensation fund, from a total of $64 billion that was the revenue of Iraqi oil exports between 1996 and 2003. Many individuals took money they didn't deserve. I'd say the Iraqi people were violated once by Saddam and again by the international community; that their life, wealth and living needs were mishandled. This situation remained unchanged through the corruption under Bremer and also under Iyad Allawi, who came afterwards. Administrative corruption turned into a worse problem than the security crisis, one that actually exacerbates the security crisis. What kind of compensation is this? I call on the international community to be fair to the Iraqi people. My position is that we respect international resolutions but in return demand justice and accountability for those who stole Iraq's money. Many were puzzled by your idea of dialogue with the Iraqi resistance. You used the word "resistance" and some say that this is just another manoeuvre on your part. Nothing is puzzling here. There are people in Iraq who believe that the Americans had no good reason to invade and must be resisted until they leave. These people are not Baathists and they are not terrorists. They do not kill Iraqis nor do they blow up mosques, schools and churches. They have their own views and we must talk to them. We did the same with the Al-Sadr movement during and following the crisis in Najaf, and the dialogue was successful. Al-Sadr's supporters became part of the political process and now have 23 members in the National Assembly. Now we talk to others, in order to persuade them that resistance is not only a matter of taking up arms. There are political and other methods, including the use of all possible means, through dialogue, with legitimacy, to end the state of affairs that followed Saddam's fall. Some say that the de-baathification Committee, which you formed, is just settling accounts; a grave error at a time when Iraq needs reconciliation. The number of people who must be taken out of public life is no more than 10,000. No random actions are taking place. The Baath Eradication Committee has not detained any Baathist and has no power to do so. On the contrary, it protected the Baathists and saved them from public wrath. The Baath Party has committed crimes and accountability is in order. This is the problem now between Sunni Arabs and the rest of the Iraqis. You're against the resurrection of the Baath Party within the political process in a new Iraq? The Baath is a chauvinist and racist party, just as the fascists and Nazis were in the 1920s and 1930s. If you read the minutes of the meetings at which the issue of Arab unity was discussed in 1963, and the exchanges between President Gamal Abdel-Nasser and the Baath Party in Iraq and Syria in 1964, you'd be appalled at the way the Baathists treated the late Egyptian president. They called for unity and then staged the secession in Syria. As for democracy and the political process in Iraq, isn't there democracy in Germany? And yet is the Nazi party allowed back? How do you view foreign military presence in Iraq? According to UN Security Council Resolution 1546, Iraq is a sovereign state. There are multinational forces in Iraq and I want these forces to be of assistance to the Iraqi government. I want their role be specified and regulated in an agreement. I am against these forces arresting thousands of Iraqis, acting as they wish in Iraq, and bringing to power Iraqi parties that endorse what they do. The current situation is not one of occupation, but the Iraqi government is accepting acts by foreign forces that give the impression of occupation. The occupation is over, but the context in which foreign forces operate has not changed. When should the foreign forces leave? Before asking this question one has to ask about the rehabilitation of Iraqi security services, both the army and police. The Americans are unfortunately in charge of the rehabilitation. I want a bigger role for the Iraqi government in rebuilding these institutions. The government should be in control of security services, army, and intelligence, from recruitment to training, equipment and deployment. Secondly, total control of public expenditure by the government is a must. Thirdly, control of administration by the government is essential, through the dismissal of the advisers who were appointed by the occupation authorities and who are still acting as they did in the past. Iraq should control its foreign policy. I called on the US Embassy to vacate the Iraqi presidential palace, for the latter is the country's symbol of sovereignty. I called for ending the presence of foreign security service companies that operate in Iraq employing 22,000 people. Do you use any of them? Not one. All my bodyguards are Iraqis. So that you know, each one of those 22,000 makes $1,000 a day. This is $22 million a day, or $7 billion a year. Why is that necessary? They are not answerable to anyone and move around bearing weapons in a provocative manner. Some believe that the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), of which you are part, is short-lived and going to collapse. What is your comment? The UIA contains conflicting and competitive parties within its ranks. It has lasted so far without divisions, but there are ideological and intellectual differences among various parties. With political deftness, it is possible to control the ideological differences and hold the UIA together. If selfish partisan attitudes were to prevail, the parties would drift apart. So far this hasn't happened and we're trying to keep the UIA vibrant and alive. Many believe that Iraq's new leaders, including yourself, are responsible for the spread of sectarianism. Can you comment on the dialogue you're conducting with the Association of Muslim Scholars? The dialogue is continuing. The Sunni Arab figures that joined the UIA did so as a result of the dialogue the Shia Political Council held with them. We're all Iraqis. We're holding dialogue with them. We don't want sectarianism in Iraq, because the building of a new Iraq mustn't take place on a sectarian or factional basis. But the Political Council, of which you're part, is created on a factional basis. No, it was created because in the past the Shia was too shy to admit that there was a sectarian political problem. As for fuelling sectarianism and us being responsible, the answer is easy. We fight sectarianism through convincing components of the Iraqi people that they all have the right to be in power and that no one is excluded -- the evidence being that Jalal Talabani became president of Iraq. Despite all allegations, we're keeping Iraq united, and this is something I hope people will understand. Media campaigns have recently targeted the Iraqi public relative to their perception of Arabs. Who is responsible for such campaigns? Believe me, I have no idea. I am against those campaigns and call for the restoration of normal ties between Iraq and Arab countries. You may say that the Iraqis are overcompensating for Saddam's deceptive pro-Arab slogans. This does not justify what is happening, but might explain it. Saddam used to give the Arabs privileges in Iraq while depriving the Iraqis of similar privileges. There is a reaction in the street and it should be contained. We cannot turn our backs on our Arab milieu. When will Saddam's trial begin? I cannot give you an exact date, but in my opinion this case has been delayed for too long already. The trial must take place because it will unify the Iraqi people. I call on the National Assembly to amend the law that was passed to prosecute Saddam, so that it becomes more practical and legitimate. The law should have the stamp of the National Assembly, otherwise it would be a law passed under occupation. Incidentally, I am not involved with the trial. You said you met Saddam in jail. I didn't say so. Only the day he was detained I saw him and didn't talk to him. I just looked. I was half a metre away from him and did not talk to him. Most of Iraq's new leaders, including yourself, hold foreign passports. Do you have a comment on this? When the old regime prevented us from using Iraqi passports and withdrew them we took passports from other countries to be able to travel, not for any other reason. Patriotism is not a piece of paper. Had we wanted to live in other countries, we would have stayed there. But we came to Iraq.
