I'd like to say that we are serious about lifting the sanctions. Of course,
this
is the main objective of the people and of the leadership of Iraq.
And I would like also to say that we did comply for 7 1/2 years or more.
And we did cooperate with UNSCOM. And we did let UNSCOM do its
job. And UNSCOM entered each and every place it wanted to enter. And
you remember the last episode of February when we agreed with the SG,
with the secretary-general, that UNSCOM could enter the presidential sites.
But after more than 7 1/2 years, sanctions were not reduced and were not
lifted.
Why? Because the government of Mr. Clinton has blocked any attempt
during all this period to reduce and lift sanctions.
The American representative in the Security Council has stood firmly,
stubbornly against any suggestion by many, many members of the Security
Council to acknowledge the progress that has been made in the
implementation of the requirements of Resolution 687.
His representative in the Security Council has stubbornly rejected any
reading, any legal reading, of Security Council resolutions. He has always
manipulated the reading of those resolutions according to the American
policy. And he has refused any suggestion to reduce and lift the sanctions.
So we know that compliance and cooperation is the road toward lifting
sanctions. But who is blocking that road?
That road is being blocked continuously, stubbornly, illegally by his
government, by the government of the president who was speaking
yesterday.
If he's ready to change course; if he's ready to read the Security Council
resolutions legally and fairly; if he's ready, he himself and his government,
to
respect those resolutions, to respect Resolution 687, yes, then there will
be
no problem -- because, he and his government are the problem, not Iraq,
not the president of Iraq, not the government of Iraq.
The core of the matter is that there has been compliance with UN
resolutions. There has been cooperation with UNSCOM and with the
IAEA. But the other commitment of the Security Council resolution, which
is
stated in Resolution 687, has not been fulfilled by the Security Council
because of the American position.
If the American government is sincere about lifting the sanctions, why
did his
representative in the Security Council refuse to mention paragraph 22 when
the discussions took place in the Security Council about replying to the
concept of the secretary- general about the comprehensive review?
The secretary-general of the United Nations mentioned in the paper he sent
to the council that this comprehensive review is about paragraph 22. The
American ambassador insisted stubbornly to omit any mentioning of
paragraph 22, which is one of the provisions in Security Council Resolution
687 about lifting the oil embargo.
He refused to mention paragraph 21 in Resolution 687, which speaks about
reducing and lifting sanctions.
So who is blocking the way toward sincere cooperation? And who is
blocking the way toward lifting the sanction? It is he and his government,
not
the president of Iraq, not the government of Iraq.
He says that this is easy. It is not easy; it has not been easy to the
people of
Iraq. For 7 1/2 years, we have been working with UNSCOM. The work
with UNSCOM is not easy. It's bitter. It's difficult. And even it is disgusting.
But we tolerated it. We tolerated it in great patience because we wanted
to
alleviate the hardships of the Iraqi people.
We wanted our people to live normally. Who is preventing the Iraqi people
from living normally? It's he and his government with the support of the
British government.
So when you speak about compliance, it's the United States which is not
complying with the United Nations resolutions. It's the United States by
its
policy against Iraq which is poisoning the whole situation.
Is it international law to allocate $97 million to topple a national government?
What does the American Congress and the American administration has to
do with the government of Iraq? Why do they spend the taxpayers money to
finance subversion in Iraq? Is there sincerity in dealing with the United
Nations resolutions?
The United Nations resolutions themselves speak about respecting Iraq's
sovereignty and territorial integrity. And they shed crocodile tears every
time
about the lives of the Iraqi people. They care about the Iraqi people more
than Saddam Hussein cares. How? By blocking all the contracts, many
contracts, and the committee of 661, and preventing the Iraqi people from
getting its essential requirements of food and medicine and other civilian
requirements..
Look at the record of the committee of 661 and see how many times the
American ambassador, the American representative there blocked and
refused and put on hold scores and hundreds of contracts to buy food and
medicine and other essential needs to the people of Iraq.
Until now, until now, there are contracts from the third phase in 1996,
until
now.
If he is serious, if President Clinton and his government are serious about
respecting the United Nations resolutions, let them remove the block they
have been putting in the road of compliance and in the road of reducing
and
lifting the sanctions.
And let them, on the other hand, agree that UNSCOM, which is supposed
to be a subsidiary organ of the Security Council, a United Nations
organization, let it be an honest, professional body -- not a dishonest
body
which is lying, creating crisis, fabricating crisis and showing to the
whole
world that UNSCOM is a subsidiary organ of the CIA and of the Mossad,
not a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, of the Security Council.
And the decision of yesterday is another flagrant example of the situation.
Butler, who is supposed to be an appointee of Kofi Annan, decides to
withdraw his officials from Iraq, without telling the secretary- general
who
was asleep in Marakesh in Morocco. And he heard from the decision of his
appointee from the media.
Is this the behavior of a chairman of a subsidiary organ of the Security
Council? The Security Council knew about the withdrawal from CNN -- not
from Butler. They heard it on CNN.
And he admitted shamelessly that he did that upon strong recommendation
from the American government. So to whom he belongs? To the American
government or to the Security Council and the United Nations?
This is the core of the crisis we are facing now. UNSCOM is not honest.
UNSCOM is not a professional body. It does not admit the realities of
compliance. It does not admit the realities of implementation. And the
United
States government blocks the road and is still blocking the road toward
reducing and lifting the sanctions.
So they both -- the United States government and its creation, UNSCOM
-- are responsible for this crisis. And if this crisis is going to escalate
to an
aggression, it's their decision and their intention, and it's not the responsibility
of Iraq: because Iraq showed sincerity in cooperating with the Security
Council.
Iraq made great sacrifices, moral and material, during eight years. Iraq
worked sincerely with the secretary-general of the United Nations in
February to reach a solution to the previous crisis. We fully abided by
the
terms of that agreement, that memorandum of understanding. And he and his
representatives and Mr. Dhanapala know who violated the terms of the
memorandum of understanding. It was their fault: the deputy of Butler,
the
American deputy of butler, and the Anglo-Saxon so-called "experts" among
the group which entered the sites who were in the presence of 20
international diplomats who were shamelessly violating the terms of the
agreement and trying to provoke Iraq. But we acted patiently in order to
prevent them from creating a fabricated crisis and undermine the memo of
understanding.
And Mr. Annan knows all the details about what happened when that group
entered the presidential sites.
So it was not Iraq who violated the memorandum of understanding. It was
Butler and his gang in UNSCOM who did that and did that upon instructions
from the United States government, because this kind of behavior serves
the
general policy of the United States government.
Yes, we are serious about lifting the sanctions. We are serious about living
normally in this world. But let us do it; remove the blocks; respect the
same
resolutions you -- you -- you wrote in 1991.
Resolution 687 says that when Iraq implements paragraphs eight, nine, 10,
11, and 12, then paragraph 22 will be implemented. This is how the
resolution reads. Respect it.
When the secretary-general of the United Nations made or suggested the
idea of a comprehensive review, we accepted that idea in principle. We
told
him, yes, this is in principle a good idea, and I went and spent two weeks
in
New York to discuss with him with his staff and with the members of the
Security Council how to conduct a correct -- according to the law -- correct
according to the law and honest comprehensive review.
How it turned to be? It turned to be what you know the documents you
know very well: the letter of the president of the council who was sent
to
Mr. Annan. And paragraphs 22 and 21 were omitted because the American
ambassador flagrantly said during the meeting, the previous meeting, that
the
comprehensive review is not about lifting sanctions. What is it? A theatrical
exercise?
We go and enjoy speaking about the implementation of the resolutions. We
go and enjoy attacking each other. Or we go in order to observe the law,
as
they put it; to see to what extent the requirements are being implemented;
and then take the legal decision of lifting the sanctions.
So who made a mockery of the idea of the secretary-general? It was the
representative of President Clinton in the Security Council, with the support
of the British ambassador. And all the members of the council, almost all
of
the members of the council, were against them. They were serious. The
Russians, the French, the Chinese, the Brazilians and the others were sincere
and serious about presenting ideas to build upon, to create the framework
and the basis for a good review, a correct review, that tells the council
exactly what has been implemented and what remains to be followed up.
So they undermined this process of -- which was suggested by the
secretary-general and which was welcomed by Iraq.