On a recent visit to the US, , leader of the INC and member of the Iraqi Interim Governing Council, spoke to Amr Shalakany Why is it that in today's Arab political scene there are only two available options: either neo-liberals who speak the language of the World Bank and the IMF or Islamists who dream of creating an untenable paradise of conservatism and intolerance. Whatever happened to the Arab left as an alternative option? Those questions were on my mind as I sat down to interview , head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). And if I tried to push them from my mind, his conversation, arguments, and general attitude brought them back with a vengeance. Chalabi is not an Islamist, obviously. Rather, he represents the other choice: the imminent triumph of neo-liberalism. And he is not alone. Throughout the Arab world, from Morocco to Egypt, Jordan, and now Iraq, a new ruling elite seems set to take control: The neo-liberals are coming! Unlike the dilly-dallying economic reforms of current Arab governments, this new and emerging elite, of which Chalabi is an excellent representative, will not stall, hedge, or defer. They want to privatise everything and integrate into a global capitalist system. And for our compatriots concerned about the loss of our culture, don't worry, we can keep that, as long as we give up the market-place. A little Islamic patina, sprinkled here and there, will not disrupt the economic reform agenda. Actually, it adds legitimacy. Backs turned on Arab nationalism, peace with Israel inevitable, a free-trade agreement with the US, and strategic military alliances -- if not US military bases. No radical gender equality reforms, redistribution of wealth or otherwise here. And this new elite has new allies in the US today. Welcome to the future: neo-cons in Washington and neo- liberals in Arab capitals; a little Islam and a lot of market reform. Please forgive my prophetic tone, but behold our new rulers, for the neo-liberals are coming, and Chalabi is at the vanguard! What should one ask Chalabi? First, there are rumours about a dubious past circulated by the Arab media. We are told he is a crook who swindled money in a big bank fiasco in Jordan. We are also told he's a CIA agent and his opposition party is on the payroll of the world's biggest imperialist power. We also know his response, on both accounts: the bank fiasco was concocted by the Jordanian ruling elite, wanting to avenge itself against him; and yes, he did use CIA money to finance the INC, but that was for a good cause, to remove Saddam Hussein. Besides, the CIA has treacherously double-crossed him, cutting off funding and abandoning him when Saddam's downfall appeared imminent. In light of predictions that Chalabi is being groomed for leadership, what really matters are his plans for Iraq. How would you describe the reaction in Iraq to the American invasion? We have won. The Iraqi people have won. But at the price of your being used as a tool of American foreign policy? Saddam is gone. This is, I think, excellent from the point of view of Iraqis. We've persuaded the United States to come and help us liberate Iraq. They sent hundreds of thousands of troops to achieve that purpose. For the US to do this is a major achievement. The US is usually very reluctant to deploy any resources to change a regime. It hasn't happened since World War II. For those saying we were used as a tool of American foreign policy, I ask you: who used who? So, what do you think made it click? Iraq became part of US domestic political issues, especially terrorism. Those were compelling reasons for the US to act, and I think they acted wisely and well. They won, and we won with them. You mention terrorism. The US has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Why haven't they found them? The big argument of whether there are weapons of mass destruction or not, is a US issue, not an Iraqi issue. The Iraqi issue -- the main Iraqi issue -- is that the mass graves were there, the violation of human rights of the Iraqi people is there. Saddam was responsible for all of this and he has been removed. The Iraqi people have won. Do you have any concerns about the repercussions of this American invasion on global politics? I don't think that anybody liked Saddam. And I don't think that the US is about to replicate this. So if the invasion was so popular in Iraq, why is the security situation still so bad? American forces in Iraq have overwhelming military superiority. But they are not responsive, they're very restrained in responding to provocations. They've not used heavy firepower or airpower [..]. The way to maintain security is to transfer responsibility to Iraqis themselves. We have been demanding that constantly. People in Iraq are not intimidated. You see, this is the point. Iraqis are not a vanquished people. They've been fighting Saddam for many years. They feel they are victorious, they have won. People who have won are not compliant with orders which are contrary to what they expected. What has been disappointing for Iraqi people is that the Americans now choose to call this an "occupation" after President [George W] Bush said, "This is liberation, not occupation." The consequence is the taking away of the Americans' moral high ground in Iraq. And of course, there are the various cultural insensitivities by American troops who are not used to our culture and traditions. You mention "de-Ba'thification". What does that mean? People hate the Ba'th, and even Ba'thists hate the Ba'th. Its slogan "Unity, Liberty and Socialism" is a big lie. There is no Arab unity, Iraqis were unfree under Saddam, and Saddam ruined the economy. You must remember the Ba'th was a totalitarian ideology based on favouritism, benefits, corruption. Members of the party, their children get 10 per cent over and above their average [school results], because they are the sons of Ba'thists. So sometimes students applied to university with 120 per cent averages. So the Ba'thists are not now eager to say "we are Ba'thists". And even schoolchildren, there is an incident of a school that was reported to me, where teenagers stoned the principal because he was a Ba'thist. De- Ba'thification means uprooting the Ba'th Party and its organisation from Iraqi society. On democracy, analysts point out that democracy in Iraq is not in the best interests of American foreign policy. Democracy in Iraq would bring a disenfranchised Shi'ite majority to power with a political orientation inimical to American interests. What do you think? The Shi'ites are not the enemy of the US in Iraq. The Shi'ites work with the US in Iraq, and the Shi'ites are not against an institutionalised relationship between Iraq and the US based on mutual benefits and respect for Iraq's independence and Iraq's constitution. This is a position that should be known, and I do not think that the enfranchisement of Shi'ites will bring an extremist government or necessarily exclude other communities. The Shi'ites will behave politically as Shi'ites only when they are oppressed as Shi'ites. A major point. Remove oppression from them as Shi'ites, then they will go their separate ways. Some are democrats, some are socialists, some are Islamists, etc. You sound very critical of expert opinions. First of all, I should tell you that most expert opinions in the United States and the West and the Arab world, about how Iraqis would behave in the face of the US campaign, have not been very correct. The Iraqi opposition was much maligned, yet it had a much clearer vision of what happened than all the Western and Arab experts. The major point to make here is that the Iraqi opposition said that the Iraqis will not defend Saddam, and they did not. It is astounding that as a result of this war the US has only 2,000 Iraqi prisoners of war. The rest of the Iraqi soldiers and the Republican Guard went home. Given the daily casualties sustained by the American forces of occupation and their failure to maintain security, do you think formal UN intervention would improve Iraqis' lives until sovereignty is returned to the Iraqi people? The UN has no credibility with the Iraqi people. The UN was an accomplice to Saddam's regime. They ran the most expensive programme in the history of its international operations, the Oil-for- Food programme. While UN bureaucrats working in Iraq earned thousands of dollars, the Iraqis were getting a pittance. They [the bureaucrats] were as corrupt as the Ba'th regime. There is a programme, for example, which is, that any supplier gets a letter of credit for the Oil-for-Food programme for 10 per cent of the value of the contract. This money was cashed and 10 per cent went into some account, which ended up being transformed into cash and taken to Saddam's coffers in Baghdad. And the 10 per cent was added by the supplier over and above the price of the goods. So, first of all, the Iraqi people were cheated out of 10 per cent of the medicine and the food that they were supposed to be getting, and the money went to enhance Saddam's capacities, and the UN said nothing about it. The evidence was glaring, and they were allowed to do it. There has to be an accounting for these funds. We urged them to actually conduct such an investigation. And no, they don't respond. They think they are above the law. What does the future hold for your organisation, the Iraqi National Congress? The constitution of the INC says the INC is to be disbanded as an umbrella organisation for opposition parties after the overthrow of Saddam. But there are people in the INC, including some of the party leaders, [who] are very attached to the principles of the INC and the method of work of the INC, and they want it to continue to play a role on the Iraqi political scene as a political force with its own identity and its own programme. The INC will continue to exist as a political force and play a significant role in Iraqi politics, but not as an umbrella organisation. What exactly will be the platform for this political force? Our platform is this: The INC wants a democratic, juridical, federal structure of government in Iraq, based on free elections under a constitution that is liberal and democratic and that maintains values of Islam. And Islam would be one of the sources of legislation -- not the exclusive source, but one source of the legislation of modern Iraq. The government would also be based on the separation of powers between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The INC is committed to the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, and the independence of Iraq, and the sovereignty of Iraqis over Iraq. The INC is committed to renouncing weapons of mass destruction, renouncing terrorism and establishing the best possible relations with Iraq's neighbours. This is the platform of the INC. What about the economy? On the economic side, the INC is committed to a free enterprise system with a welfare system for the Iraqi population. What about your own political future? Why don't you want to run for political office? I have deep reservations about running for political office in Iraq. I think it's not right to vie for power in Iraq now. The most important focus of activity in Iraq is actually building the institutions of civil society. So my view is that I can be of service -- not from a position of political power, or political leadership institutionalised in a job in the government. My main job is to energise civil society in Iraq. How do you see yourself doing this? Very easily. Helping with education, helping with voter registration, working to tell the people about their legal rights, doing work to help the victims of Saddam, working on de-Ba'thification. All these things are very important aspects, and I see myself playing a role in those rather than wasting time being a candidate for a political job, which I believe is not that important. What about Iraq's future foreign policy, its relations with the Arab world and its non-Arab neighbours? You see, another issue, which I should cover with you, is this: Iraq now, as a state, is out of the club of Arab rulers. What does that mean? The Arab rulers are a club. The republicans, the totalitarians, the kings, the princes, all of them form a club. It's a club that meets at Arab summits. Sometimes they use each other, their ministries of interior cooperate with each other. Iraq is out of this club now. The Arab rulers really don't know what will emerge in Iraq. This is a worrying situation for Arab leaders. Can you be more specific? What does that mean for Iraq's future relations with its neighbours? First of all, let's take Turkey and Iran -- non-Arab states. Each of them is much stronger than ever. It is a fact of geography, if you travel from Baghdad to any Arab capital by car, you have to cross hundreds of miles of desert. If you travel from Iraq to Iran or to Turkey, you cross no desert. You cross villages, green land and farms, and countryside. It's a fact of geography. Which translates to what? Which translates into the fact that the population of Iraq is much closer geographically to the populations of its non-Arab neighbours than it is to those of its Arab neighbours. It's an important fact of geography. We will no longer be bases or gateways for terrorism and conspiracy against neighbouring Iran and Turkey. And Iraq's Arab neighbours? Iraq will not be a gateway for any conspiracy or any act of sabotage against any Arab states. Iraq will seek excellent relations with them, provided they seek excellent relations with Iraq. But Iraq will have a free press, and they will have to learn to live with Iraq. Already, issues are being discussed in Iraq's free press. It will be hard, because I believe that Arab regimes do not want democracy, and I believe that Iraq has broken out of this now because of the American presence. On Palestine, in the lead-up to the war there were rumours of plans to reopen an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel. Are they true? How do you see Iraq's foreign policy vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict? All this is hogwash. I cannot claim anything about how Iraq will behave with Israel. This is a matter for the future government of Iraq, which I hope will not be like the members of the Arab club. But my view is that Iraq cannot be more royalist than the king. If the Palestinians accept the roadmap, or accept negotiations with Israel, who are we to say that the Palestinians should not? We do not appoint ourselves guardians of the Palestine people. How would you describe your relations with the Americans in Iraq today? We meet with them, we discuss things with them, we debate with them, we disagree with them. Our main disagreement with them is this: We think there should be no [time] gap in the sovereignty of Iraqis over Iraq. We think that there should be an Iraqi security force charged with keeping security in Iraq. What about Paul Bremer [US civilian administrator in Iraq], is the situation better in Iraq now that he's taken over from his American predecessor? What the US has done in Iraq -- really what Bremer has done -- from my point of view, is a major, major achievement. First, he dissolved the Ba'th Party, he declared de- Ba'thification. He dissolved all the secret security services, and he abolished the Ministry of Information. Those things are enough for me to say Bremer has done great things in Iraq. How do you see future relations between Iraq and the US? Americans don't want to stay in Iraq. There is no North Korea in Iraq. The South Korea model doesn't work here. Furthermore, Americans cannot solve Iraq's problems. The problems of Iraq can only be solved by Iraqis themselves. And the American military presence currently in Iraq? Do you think the US military will just pack up and go in a couple of years? We are prepared to advocate that America should maintain a military force in Iraq by treaty. The Iraqi people, after elections, with an elected Iraqi government will propose a treaty for defensive security with the United States. Look, other Arabs have US forces in their countries, sitting in their countries for decades, without a treaty. This will formalise our relations with the US and protect our interests as Iraqis. Won't a US military presence act as destabilising force in Iraq and the region? No, not at all. Why not? American forces have staged military coups all over the world, from Iran to Chile. US military bases in Iraq give them an excellent launching point for future intervention in domestic politics. You are comparing the [influence of the presence of the] US military with an Iraqi coup? Why not? No, you are wrong. There is a huge difference. Your argument is false. First of all, the US military is under the command of the president of the United States who is accountable to the US Congress. The US military cannot do remedial acts of any large nature. How many US soldiers were in Iran? How many US soldiers were in Nicaragua? How many US soldiers were in Guatemala? The American troops in Iraq are different; they came with a different agenda, and their actions are not covert. This is much better than the covert [presence of] US soldiers in the rest of the Arab world. Are you telling me the majority of Iraqis accept them? In Iraq they do, among the Iraqi people they do. Well, you've not been there. You're reading the Arab press. (Additional reporting Hani Sayed)
