Interview with Dr. Muhammad Aldouri, Ambassador of Iraq to the United Nations (New York). April 17, 2002.

Q: Thank you so much, Ambassador Aldouri, for agreeing to talk to World Affairs Monthly. In the coming weeks and months we will be having frequent discussions about Iraq and the Arab world, all of which will be published exclusively by World Affairs Monthly. But today I would like to explore with you four general subjects -- oil, Israel, the West's dominance of the Middle East, and the political and economic conditions in the Arab world. I would first like to ask you specifically about the “oil-for-food” program which the UN has imposed on Iraq. Could you please explain to me, and just in general terms, what exactly this means for the Iraqi people. We have talked about these contracts being put on hold. Could you elaborate?

A: Thank you very much Tom. You are probably aware that the main resource for Iraq is oil. We have about 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, an extraordinary amount, and we may have some 200 billion barrels, though this is not clearly established by the experts. Only the Saudis have more proven reserves, but it must be remembered that Saudi fields have been explored fully while our fields are still not fully explored.

Since the outset of the Gulf War, Iraq was forced to stop producing oil for export. We never reached an adequate arrangement with the United Nations regarding the “oil-for-food” program, the UN-administered program that enables us to export our oil and in return buy our essential needs from the world markets be it food, medicine, or other humanitarian goods. The program has achieved some success. It was working to some extent. But, now, with the increasingly aggressive behavior of the United States in putting on hold many important contracts for Iraq, the “oil-for-food” program itself has become a real problem. Not to forget the problems of the procedures adopted by the program which complicate very much how we sell our oil and how we buy products.

As for the contracts on hold, the numbers are unbelievable. We now have over 2100 contracts put on hold by the US government, amounting to more than $5.2 billion. More than 80% of that amount is related to the “oil-for-food” program, that is, contracts to buy food and medicine; 1454 contracts for humanitarian supplies totaling $4.5 billion and 656 contracts in oil industry-related spare parts and equipment totaling $724 billion. This of course means that the real needs in terms of food and medicine have been put on hold by American politicians and that complicates and aggravates the situation which is already complicated and aggravated by the sanctions imposed on Iraq since August 1990.

So the American government is on one hand always stressing the humanitarian situation and urging us to ameliorate this situation, yet on the other hand is putting Iraq in a more difficult position by impeding its ability to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people.

As for the procedural problems, these are equally unbelievable. Now we have a very complicated procedure which is characterized by many other countries as very dangerous to the “oil-for-food” program. It could cause the failure of this program and could trigger a very wide range of problems for the implementation of this program. The American government wants to add more and more complications to the general procedure, and wants to put them into a more bureaucratic system so as to create further delays and difficulties and that means further delay in implementation of the “oil-for-food” program.

Soon before the end of May 2002 the Security Council will be discussing the Goods Review List -- known as the GRL -- and the procedure of the implementation of the whole “oil-for-food” program. This means for us more restrictions, more bureaucratic process to muscle our way through, and certainly more technical difficulties to overcome.

Q: These added difficulties, when were they first imposed on Iraq? When did this system of putting on hold contracts first come into play?

A: Since the beginning of the implementation of the “oil-for-food” program, which was in 1996.

Q: So there is nothing new in the system, or in the past months? Nothing has changed?

A: Nothing has changed, only that the amount of these contracts on hold has become insupportable, as I mentioned it has now reached than $5 billion.

Q: This “oil-for-food” program is obviously insufficient for Iraq. As you said, Iraq has only oil to sell. Can Iraq survive this kind of system indefinitely?

A: No, certainly not, we will not be able to tolerate this forever. We accepted it because it's the only way to provide our people with some food and medicine. But certainly this program is not sufficient for us.

I'll cite some figures. The total revenues generated from the sale of Iraqi oil from 1996 until now is more than $50 billion. The share the government of Iraq and the people of Iraq received from that is less than $21 billion. The rest is divided up roughly like this: 30% went to pay for claims through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), to those who presented their claims to the Committee in Geneva; this comes to $13.5 billion; $22.4 billion in total compensation has already been awarded but not paid by the said committee; the amount of additional claims not yet decided upon is now more than $270 billion; 13% for the three governorates in Northern Iraq; and the rest goes to the United Nations to cover its expenses in administering all the relevant programs established to oversee the implementation of the sanctions, and so forth and so on.

It's now been 6 years since the “oil-for-food” program started. The program went through 12 phases -- all for less than $21 billion. And with this $21 billion (or $3.4 billion per year), we bought food and medicine and tried to take care of the other civilian needs for the Iraqi people.

You are no doubt aware of the conditions in Iraq, and the strength of our people, in all respects, before 1990. The war waged against us destroyed our infrastructure. So we have a great monetary need for reconstruction, which is well-known now by the United Nations and other countries around the world. We have a huge job ahead of us, as we must reconstruct the infrastructure, and still meet the daily needs of the people for food and medicine.

Q: Could you describe Baghdad as coming back to life despite the UN sanctions, despite the extraordinary suffering and deprivation?

A: The Iraqi people never lacked intelligence or drive, they are hard workers, and this has been the case throughout history. Iraqi society is recognized for its dynamic nature and resourcefulness. So we rebuilt our roads and bridges, all that has been destroyed. But it has not been possible for us to reconstruct all the factories destroyed during the war. Life in Iraq is getting better, but the population is still suffering from a lack of food and medicine. There is not only an overall shortage in general medications and medical supplies but also a more acute shortage in the specialized medicines and medical supplies for cancer and other serious ailments.

You know, we have lost more than 2 million people from the direct impact of sanctions, from 1991 until today. I repeat, 2 million Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions. We need to reconstruct hospitals, schools, factories, the sanitary and water system, electricity, etc. There is a huge shortage of electricity throughout the country, and even in Baghdad. Electricity is interrupted twice or three times daily. Outside Baghdad they receive only two or three hours of electricity. You can imagine the impact such a shortage has on the industry and the daily lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Q: That is quite extraordinary. Iraq is one of the leading exporters of oil, and yet it cannot supply sufficient electricity during the day. How would you characterize the diplomatic support you are getting from the other Arab governments in the region? Are they increasingly concerned about the situation in Iraq? And are your discussions with them through diplomatic channels very strong and promising?

A: Well, I can characterize our relations with our Arab brother countries as very good. The latest developments are promising. Our relations with Saudi Arabia have been normalized after the meeting at the Beirut summit between our vice-president and Prince Abdallah. So now I can say that we have very good relations, political and diplomatic relations with all the Arab countries, except Kuwait, which is still outside the circle of our relations. But we hope that one day they will be reestablished.

And in the economic area we have concluded a free trade zone with several countries, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Oman, and also with the Emirates. This means that our commercial relations with the Arab world will improve. Of course, with a free and larger economic zone there are no restrictions on the circulation of goods between these countries. Certainly these countries are fearing the reaction of the United States, but we hope that we can overcome this threat.

Q: Yes, the threat looms against them for working with you, and helping you. But what about the threat of being bombed? The United States government has expressed openly its desire to change the Iraqi regime, which I find an extraordinary policy in the 21st century. How do you think the Arabs in the region, both in the ministries and on the Arab street, view the plight of Iraq and the suffering of its people?

A: Well, I can say, and we are very fortunate and lucky, lucky in the sense that now the Arab governments and the Arab people are 100% behind Iraq and they refuse to support any kind of threat to change the government of Iraq. Even the Cheney (the vice-president of the US) visit to the Arab countries, which had this goal in mind, and which was designed to put forward America's ideas for toppling the government of Iraq, met with resistance. There was a refusal to accept this idea in any way.

Even Saudi Arabia refused to go along with the American plans to change the government in Baghdad.

So we are really lucky and we are happy. The Arab street is behind us, the Arab people are behind us, and moreover we have the support of the Arab governments. There has been a negative reaction in the Arab countries to America's plan. During the Arab summit in Beirut, it has been declared very clearly that the Arabs are against any kind of attempt to change any regime in the area, including Iraq.

So this was excellent for us really, and we consider this a big achievement of Iraqi diplomacy and Arab diplomacy. The Arab world is really moving forward, despite the huge obstacles.

Q: Yes, I agree. I see it as major turning point. Arab diplomats have obviously made remarkable progress in the past two years. I'm not really surprised because I anticipated this kind of success. And I am very excited by this progress. But there is still cause for concern. Let's move the discussion towards oil and the issue of Palestine. Palestine has been savagely attacked by the Israeli army since March 29, and Israeli politicians appear to completely formulate and control the Middle East policies of the US government. Israel imposes its will, its dictates, its terms, its policies on the US government. And of course in reaction the Iraqi government has expressed an interest in pursuing an oil embargo. How are the other Arab governments responding to this decision by President Saddam Hussein? Iran and Libya have expressed support for the embargo. What do you see happening in this regard?

A: You are probably aware of the nature of the relations between Iraq and Palestine. We have always been close, not just now, but from the start of their plight in 1948. We are very close to the Palestinian people, and we fully support their ambitions. So we try to help them with all the means we have at our disposal. This has been the case from 1948 onwards. We have made this commitment to them since 1948.

Their plight is horrendous. This has always been the case, not just since the 29th of March. We have severe limits imposed on us, however.

Now our ability to help is very limited, especially in terms of money. How can we help them? They are desperate for our help, so we have chosen the one obvious weapon, the weapon which has already been used by the Arab world -- I mean the oil, the oil as a weapon, or used in such a way to pressure those who are helping Israel.

We have done this, and we are happy for doing this -- we are suspending export of our oil for one month and perhaps it might be prolonged a little more than that until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories.

But, regrettably, other oil-producing countries are not free to make such decisions, and this is a national decision. They are not free because of their very special relations with the United States, and Israel, direct or indirect. But we have no illusions that most countries will find difficulties following Iraq's decision.

I am not certain what the new situation will look like. I think the atmosphere in the Arab world is already very dangerous. Now it will be very explosive, and in that context I really don't know what the reaction will be in the rest of the Arab oil-producing countries.

We certainly hope that they will follow the Iraqi step, and perhaps this unity in the oil policy will constitute a kind of pressure on the United States to impose on Israel some realistic policies, some sanity, and to force Sharon to abandon the Israeli policy of genocide against the Palestinian people. This horrendous crime committed by the Israeli government violates every basis of international law, the UN charter, and the humanitarian principles of the 21st century.

Q: I have expressed in my writing that I fear the Western presence in the Middle East is in the process of collapsing, and I see this escalation by Sharon's government and even by the American government as one which indeed confirms this. Their escalation in my view confirms that this collapse is under way. I believe they recognize that their traditional diplomacy with the Arab world is no longer effective. What is now going to happen? Are we perhaps really reaching a crisis? Do the Palestinian people have really nobody helping them except the Iraqi government? Would you generally agree with how I describe the situation that is now evolving in the Arab world?

A: I think Western diplomacy in the Arab world is a failure. We have witnessed the inappropriate and reckless behavior of the Western nations vis-a-vis the Arab world. A tragedy has taken place: the West has not understood and appreciated the real change in the mentality of the Arab world. The Arabs are now viewing the West in completely different terms, and they are viewing the question of Palestine in different terms. Fundamental changes have taken place in the Arab world.

So I think they will have to revise their policy towards the Arab world. The opportunity is there for them, especially in the case of the Palestinian people. What is going on there is truly horrifying, and the Americans have had an opportunity to change their policy. They could identify with the plight of the Palestinian people.

But have they? Unfortunately, the American foreign policy in the Middle East is a mistaken one, and it is one which in the long run will cause them great problems. This is now obvious. I believe they should expect that their relations with the Arab world will never be the same, and that these relations are deteriorating rapidly.

We are looking at one thing carefully, however, and that is Mr. Powell's recent visit to the region. This visit is now seen as a failure, and we are assessing the consequences of this failure.

What about the Arab world? I think that the Arab street is now very anxious, and very concerned. The Arab people are in an excited, agitated mood. They are stimulated, and thinking about their situation. They are stimulated to help the Palestinians -- by any means possible.

We hope that the Arab governments that have close relations with Israel and the United States would reconsider their policies. We hope that they rethink this grave situation, and find a way to reconcile themselves to working for the Arab people and not Israel and the West. They must find a solution for themselves, and there is no other alternative than helping the Palestinian people. They should follow the general line of Iraqi policy, which has proved itself in the eyes of the Arab people, and even to the Arab governments.

Q: That's very interesting. I also sense that the Arab world is going to change dramatically, and I do not see the Western governments, as you say, recognizing this. I find it very interesting that the price of oil is essentially the most important factor in this development, and indeed it is a reflection of this change. In 1999 when President Hugo Chavez became the leader of Venezuela there was suddenly a change of heart within OPEC and we saw the price of oil rise very fast. And in fact if you look at the feelings in the Arab world -- the rising confidence, the successful Arab diplomacy, and the strong feeling that the Arabs around the region must help the Palestinians -- could you not say that these changes are perhaps linked to the higher cost of oil? Or that OPEC became for the first time in 1999 a truly viable cartel which could regulate the price of oil on the world market?

A: To some extent I can agree with you. But you must remember that OPEC is still an organization operating in a larger game played by others, by the big powers. A number of OPEC member states are, unfortunately, not totally independent to decide what is good for themselves. They are forced to neglect what is in their national interest.

I cannot really say that OPEC is a success, for they are always influenced by American decisions or even European influence. I cannot really say that this economic and political cartel, OPEC, which tries to represent the oil-producing countries of the world, is a real cartel, and an independent cartel.

It is still very much an organization following the pattern of rules set by the big powers, and by multinational corporations. So it is a part of the international game. Their behavior is always a reflection of what is going on here in the United States. If the United States is in favor of a higher price of oil, then OPEC will follow that policy. Perhaps not 100% but to some extent. And if the United States should decide to allow the price of oil to fall, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other petroleum exporting countries will allow this. I think these countries do not have the freedom and the will to do what is in their national interest.

Q: I have to say that I largely agree with you. But I am looking at this issue in relative terms, in terms of history. OPEC was never a real cartel, but I can see much improvement in the past several years. Certainly OPEC is not functioning in an ideal situation -- and there are members of OPEC that do not give the cartel the power that it could have -- but given the depressing circumstances of the past 40 years wouldn't you say there has been remarkable change for the better? There is indeed a lack of independence in the Gulf, as everyone can see, but we still see some positive signs, no?

A: I think this movement towards independence and liberty is taking place, but they do not have much freedom to push their efforts in this way. For these countries in the Arab world, even for OPEC, there are severe limits. Their national interests are forgotten. The United States is very intelligent not to give them too much liberty, and their quest for more movement is discouraged.

I must say that I am not really optimistic that OPEC will achieve its destiny. But we can say that they have a small margin of liberty, and so they can move a little here, a little there, and therefore give the impression that they are a real cartel or that they can play an important role in oil policy in the world.

I would like to believe that OPEC has this power, but it is not my conviction at the moment. We still hope, however, that one day OPEC will have this power. What is certainly true is that they are worried about the oil situation around the world -- so worried that they have built a little courage to ask for a marginal change in the oil pricing policy.

Q: So they are moving in the correct path?

A: With the permission of the United States.

Q: A general question. Do you see the Arab world moving towards independence and forcing the West to accept the reality that the Arab world has been grossly exploited and treated harshly and unfairly? For example, all the Arabs know that Kuwait is a British invention, that the borders in the Middle East are British and French, and so on. Do you see the Arabs, both the leaders and the people, realizing that a new era must begin?

A: Well, a new era must indeed begin. And it will, though I cannot say whether this new era is imminent. But the Arab people want this new era, they desire it very much. The street -- the ordinary Arabs -- are always asking for it. They are talking about it, as never before.

And, you know, there is no democracy in the Arab world. So what we have to achieve first of all is a sense of democracy. The Arab people in some Arab countries are longing to choose their own leaders, and these leaders need to be thinking about the welfare of their people. The Arab regimes must accept the will of their own people, and when this is the case I think we will move in the right direction.

There is a lack of independence, there is a lack of liberty, there is a lack of movement. It is our belief in the Iraqi government that many people all over the world, and all over the Arab world, do not have real independence. They do not decide for themselves what is in their national interests. They have their links with the West, with the United States, and they accept the pressure of the West and the United States. Only Iraq now is outside of this circle of influence.

Q: And paying a heavy price.

A: Paying a very heavy price, yes. Unfortunately, this is really very heavy, and very tragic, and it is not a price which is supportable by anybody, and any country. But this is the case, this is the situation, we hope that one day we will reach our goals.

Q: Don't you think sometimes that the oil, although a wonderful gift -- nature's gift to the Arab people -- is almost like a curse. It's so valuable, and the Western world wants it, and it's been very difficult for the Arab people to defend it in the past century. Would you agree with that?

A: I certainly agree with you, totally. It is a gift from God because we have no other resources. No rain, we have no water, so this is a compensation to the Arab world.

We must use this valuable gift rationally and intelligently. It is all we have, and it is so valuable. Certainly the oil wealth has been squandered and mismanaged, and this has been the case for several countries. It has not been easy to manage this valuable resource.

We will have to learn to manage it in a correct way in the future, in a way that will benefit our people, and not just benefit those who want to buy our oil.

They want our oil, and badly, but they want it at a very low price, and they also want to see that the money we earn from our oil is invested in the West, and not in the Arab world.

We have to resolve this dilemma, so that our people will one day bring their governments to respect what is best for them. The Arab governments must be held accountable before the people for taking these decisions. They must be held accountable for these investment policies and also for the pricing of the oil. These policies have harmed the Arab world enormously.

Q: I will now ask you my final question. Why do you think that Iraq has been resisting Western pressure more than any other Arab nation? What are the characteristics of Iraq that make this resistance so impressive and resolute? President Saddam Hussein has over the years been rather strong in his denunciations of the Western domination of the Middle East and the Israeli attacks on Palestine. Why is Iraq alone?

A: Well, this is the destiny of Iraq. From the time of the Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians and the Abassids we have had this destiny. We have been the center of civilization, and we have always resisted external pressures and influences.

Actually, in the modern era Iraq has one important expression of resistance, and that is the Ba'ath Party. It is a pan-Arabic party, and the ideology of this party is to strive for an Arab world free from any kind of colonialism -- free, independent and unified.

Certainly this goal has been difficult to achieve. We have to resist the West's ambitions in the region. And we must also contend with the fact that if the Arab world could indeed unite and merge into a political and economic bloc -- even a religious bloc -- that would certainly have a devastating effect on Israel, and would throw into doubt its very existence.

But this is a question not of one person, of President Saddam Hussein, this is the psychology of our people in Iraq. And, also, this is a question of the real feeling of our people towards the Arab world because we don't see the issues in terms of the nation of Iraq, and only Iraq. We see the issue being one thing -- independence and liberty of the Arab Nation. We want the freedom to shape our own future. We don't want to be controlled and dominated by others.

Q: Thank you very much Ambassador. We will talk again, within several weeks, and explore in more detail the West's interest in gaining unhindered access to Iraq's oil.

A: It was a pleasure, and I look forward to our next discussion.