Saad Qassem Hammoudy, a leading member of the Ba'ath Party and secretary-general of the Iraqi Conference of Arab Popular Forces, discusses allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and explains why he thinks the US and Britain are intent on war "Would the US endure the expenses of war and the sacrifices a war would entail for the benefit of others? Of course not. The US seeks complete and direct control of Iraq." Will Iraq be able to avert a military strike by the US and Britain? Iraq has exerted all efforts to avert a strike. It accepted the return of the weapons inspectors; it complied with UN resolution 1441, cooperated with UNMOVIC [the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Committee] and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and did everything necessary to facilitate their mission within a short period of time and without any provocation. The fact that Iraq is cooperating -- in compliance with the demands of the international community and our Arab brethren -- has been acknowledged by the UN secretary-general and all forces that support justice. Hence, Iraq has rendered invalid all pretexts for a strike. Unless the US's insistence on launching a war is for reasons that have nothing to do with guaranteeing that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. But despite such cooperation, US and British officials have said the Iraqi weapons dossier falls short of UN requirements. Meanwhile, there are daily reports of a military build up by both countries in preparation for war. What is your view on these matters? They [the US and Britain] only make these accusations as a pretext for a strike against Iraq. If the US has any information [that Iraq possess weapons or materials in violation of UN resolutions] it should share it with UNMOVIC and the IAEA who can verify the credibility of the information on the ground during their inspection mission. The fact that Washington is playing the role of the UN's guardian and is unilaterally judging the Iraqi weapons dossier -- which is comprehensive -- instead of the UN shows the US's arrogance. We should wait for the entity that the Security Council assigned to carry out inspection to finish its investigation and write its report about whether Iraq is free from weapons of mass destruction, as it has repeatedly stated. Till today, inspection operations in Iraq are a daily and practical refutation of the allegations by [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair and Bush that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The US is not the party concerned with judging the inspectors' work. But the US was able to grab the Iraqi weapons dossier against the will of the international community... According to the UN Charter and international law, the US is not authorised to act unilaterally and in an aggressive manner against others because they are not in harmony with its political agenda. Its grabbing of the report was an instance of flagrant piracy and was a humiliation of the UN and the international community. It also exposed the cowboy mentality at the White House. Will Iraq agree to having its scientists questioned abroad? This is one of Washington's provocative demands by which it sought to explode the situation after it found itself forced to refer to the UN and the Security Council [before taking any action against Iraq]. The head of UNMOVIC said he does not want the committee to become an organisation for refugees by pressuring scientists and their families to leave Iraq. Iraqi scientists will have absolute freedom to answer the inspection committee's questions without any pressure [from Iraq] because if we let our elite scientists leave Iraq we cannot guarantee their safety and security. They will be targeted and assassinated by the CIA and the Mossad the same way those organisations assassinated the Egyptian scientist Yehia El-Mashad in Paris. Why do you think the US seems so insistent on launching a war against Iraq? The US has many aims. It seeks to control Iraq and its oil, protect Israel's security, and reshape the Middle East's political map along ethnic and sectarian lines, in other words along the lines of the Sykes-Picot colonising plan [a 1916 agreement between the British and French assigning each mandates for territory in the Middle East]. Moreover, through controlling Iraqi oil, the US seeks to control the decisions of the EU [European Union] and Japan -- that is, to tighten its grip on the world through militarising globalisation. This will happen not only by targeting Iraq but the entire world. Iraq is only the first step; the entire Arab nation is targeted. [The Arabs] must support Iraq to help it overcome the first step in the US aggression. Are the Arabs aware of this scenario? Unfortunately, the official Arab stance has not even reached the minimum level [of support] expressed in the Arab League charter, and the resolution of the [Arab League's] Beirut summit [in April 2002] which expressed the Arab rejection of a US aggression against Iraq and called for an end to sanctions. The official Arab stance has to be more dynamic and effective to send a message [to the US and Britain] that an aggression against Iraq is an aggression against the entire Arab nation. In Iraq, we have placed our bets on the patriotic Arab people and we still do. The Arab street has openly and forcefully expressed its support for Iraq and rejected a strike against it. However, there is still a huge gap between the Arab people and their regimes. Iraq's long-awaited apology to Kuwait, which was televised, has been criticised as being void of conciliatory tones and of actually pouring salt on the country's wounds, would you comment on this matter? The apology was to the Kuwaiti people, not the Kuwaiti rulers who were the reason behind the deployment of US troops on 2 August 1990. Now they [Kuwait's rulers] are conspiring with the US again; US military exercises are taking place only a few kilometres from Iraqi borders; US and British planes take off from Kuwaiti bases; Kuwaiti rulers are openly conspiring with traitors and enemies of Iraq such as Ayatollah Baqer Al-Hakim and Jalal Talabani through funding them and by participating in the London meeting with the opposition. It is the Kuwaiti rulers who have chosen this stance, not us. However, we have turned over a new leaf and are committed to overcoming differences with Kuwait and all our Arab brethren in the face of the US-Zionist threat which targets all Arab countries, including those who are labelled as US supporters like Saudi Arabia. But others argue that Iraq forced Kuwait to take such a stance as a result of the 1990 invasion, what do you think of that view? Did Iraqi forces invade Kuwait without a reason? Is there a wise man anywhere who would believe this. The invasion was a result of the provocations by Kuwaiti government before 2 August 1990 and they are now repeating the same scenario. That is why we called upon the Kuwaiti people to be aware and not to slide towards danger as a result of their rulers' choices. Some Iraqi opposition figures suggested that Saddam Hussein should resign to strip the US of any pretext for war, what do you think of that argument? Why should he resign, renounce his duty and by doing so leave Iraq to the Americans, Zionists and collaborators? The argument that this would strip the US of any pretext for launching war is a lie. The US is seeking to control Iraq. This is obvious from the US's [alleged] plans for a military government and the appointment of Tommy Franks [commander in chief, US Central Command] for that purpose; namely, a return to colonialism. And any talk about reconsidering the establishment of a military government or that the future rulers of Iraq will be Iraqis is nonsense. The US seeks to shape events according to its interests and not those of anyone else. Would the US endure the expenses of war and the sacrifices a war would entail for the benefit of others? Of course not. The US seeks complete and direct control of Iraq. Would you describe the current situation in Iraq and how people are preparing for war. Our people do not fear US threats, and are ready for the worst-case scenarios. Seven million men and women are trained to use weapons in the Al-Quds Army. We are ready to face the invaders and turn Iraq into their wide grave.
