Interview: US views on Iraq
Iraq-USA, Politics, 4/21/2000

This is an interview by U.S.A. based ArabicNews.com with a senior US State Department Official regarding some of the main issues relating to US policy and views on Iraq. The interview was conducted last months and focuses on general policy.

ArabicNews: We¹re starting out right now with the oil prices being very high and there¹s great US concern and a lot of action in terms of trying to get the Gulf states, OPEC countries, to try to lower their oil production. Can you tell us what is the latest effort regarding this and now does this relate to the Iraq and its oil production.

Senior State Department Official: It has no relation to it whatsoever, Iraq¹s oil production. Security Council resolution 1284 passed in December effectively lifted the ceiling on Iraqi oil production well before the current spike in oil prices. I¹m also not in a position frankly to discuss US policy on oil prices.

ArabicNews: I understand this. But I was wondering -- in terms of as far as the sanctions were concerned have-- if there¹s a change in sanctions policy towards Iraq. That would not effect oil prices as far as you¹re concerned.

Senior State Department Official: That would not be the objective.

ArabicNews: What is the latest on the US-Iraq policy. Where do we stand regarding the sanctions. Has there been any change?

Senior State Department Official: There have been no changes in sanctions, and from the US perspective, there will be no changes in sanctions. What is going to change is what has changed more or less continuously since the establishment of the oil-for-food program, and that is an effort to make the oil-for-food program better so as to meet more completely the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.

ArabicNews: The US has repeatedly stated that that¹s what it intends to do. However a recent report by the UN Secretary General, Annan, has had some very harsh words towards the US in terms of putting impediments towards that program in terms of facilitating contracts, facilitating humanitarian-related type items such as food and medicine. They mentioned oil equipment and stuff they need for the basic infrastructure.

Senior State Department Official: Let¹s put things in perspective. First let¹s remember why the sanctions are in place. Sanctions are in place in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining the means to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction or the resources necessary to purchase them. That is the primary responsibility of the sanctions committee. What we are trying to do now is to improve first in-- consistent with Security Council resolutions and particularly resolution 1284-- to improve the way the oil-for-food program operates.

At the same time we have to keep in mind what the objective is with respect to keeping the means to make weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam¹s hands.

ArabicNews: The Iraqis repeatedly complain that the US is putting impediments before the contracts under that food-for-oil program. And the-- Annan¹s report also confirmed this and the several people who have resigned who worked in Iraq under UN umbrella has also complained of similar situation.

Senior State Department Official: I think the oil-for-food program has been a huge success ever since the US introduced it. The fact that it did not begin to operate until-- effectively until the beginning of 1997 is because Iraq rejected it. So I don¹t see that Iraq really has the grounds for complaint. They know--

ArabicNews: Why is the UN complaining that the program is not doing the job that it is supposed to do in terms of providing for the Iraqis?

Senior State Department Official: I don¹t think that that is the complaint. I think the one complaint is that it is not doing as well as it could, and in that sense we agree, which is why we are trying to improve the way it works.

ArabicNews: And how are you trying to improve it?

Senior State Department Official: We are working with the UN secretariat and the other members of the security council sanctions committee to prepare the list of items that would be exempt from sanctions committee review. Two of those lists have been approved. And we are looking again at our own procedures to see if there¹s a way we can more efficiently and quickly review the contracts we are called upon to review.

ArabicNews: The stated US objective has been in the past to contain Iraq and the government of President Hussein, another objective is to remove the government. What is the currently stated objective of US policy towards Iraq by having the sanctions on...

Senior State Department Official: The sanctions are -- represent US containment-- the containment aspect of US policy. That is that the Saddam Hussein regime must be prevented from getting its hands on the means to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. That¹s why the sanctions are there.

ArabicNews: But is that the US objective? US policy is to prevent him from obtaining those weapons-- That¹s the major objective?

Senior State Department Official: Correct.

ArabicNews: So, basically, how does that conflict with having UN inspections there (in Iraq) and what are the impediments of having UN inspections on a permanent basis as a solution to the Iraqi problem so that the US can have -- be able to monitor this issue and at the same time have the sanctions lifted if that is the major concern?

Senior State Department Official: Well, the sanctions will not be lifted until Iraq complies with its obligations under the UN resolutions. We want the inspectors to return to Iraq, which is why we voted in favor of resolution 1284 which allow-- provides the means to do that. Because we think that¹s the best means, first of all, of monitoring what Saddam has in terms of weaponry and to insure that he doesn¹t acquire the means to get more. I don¹t see why you would represent it as a conflict in policy. It makes no sense.

ArabicNews: The Iraqi assertion is that the sanctions are being used -- along with the oil-for-food program as a pretext to show a humanitarian side in order to prolong the sanctions indefinitely. And Iraq specifically told us in one of the interviews that the US policy¹s aims is to subjugate Iraq, basically put it under its total control through the sanctions program by controlling the funds that flow into Iraq and that it has nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction, etcetera.

Senior State Department Official: That¹s totally ridiculous.

ArabicNews: Do you want to expand on that?

Senior State Department Official: The US objective is as I have stated it. If Iraq wishes to see the sanctions lifted, all it needs to do is comply with the UN Security Council resolutions. The US will respect that. However, the US also believes that Iraq never intends to comply with the Security Council resolutions. And because of the threat that Iraq poses, in the absence of that compliance, we believe the only conclusion is that in order for our first objective to be achieved, the Iraqi regime has to be changed.

ArabicNews: And do you realistically expect to be able to change the Iraqi regime?

Senior State Department Official: It¹s not going to be up to us to change the Iraqi regime.

ArabicNews: ... Do you see it as a realistic option?

Senior State Department Official: Of course.

ArabicNews: You do. And do you have a time frame on your expectations--

Senior State Department Official: No. I cannot predict.

ArabicNews: And in the absence of a change of that regime, you expect the sanctions to continue.

Senior State Department Official: We expect the sanctions to continue because we do not believe Iraq will meet its international responsibilities or obligations. If it does, that¹s another story.

ArabicNews: Is this kind of a continuation of the previously-stated policy of dual containment as it relates to Iraq and Iran on a long-term basis?

Senior State Department Official: It¹s a continuation of Iraq policy. I¹m not quite sure what your question is.

ArabicNews: Well, the US State Department officials repeatedly mentioned in the past that one of the US stated goals-- policy goals is the dual containment of Iraq and Iran. And I¹m simply asking if this is a continuation of that policy if there¹s been a change in that policy.

Senior State Department Official: There¹s been a change in the sense that we recognize that the circumstances in Iraq and the circumstances in Iran are different, and therefore containment of each has to be different because it addresses different circumstances.

ArabicNews: Can you expand on this? How are the circumstances different and how is the containment going to be different?

Senior State Department Official: The premise is that both because of the level of military development, the hostility to some neighbors are threats that need to be contained. Iraq has-- our recent experience with Iraq indicates that it is a more active threat and moreover it is in violation of United Nations sanctions. In other words, sanctions imposed by the international community. And that presents one set of circumstances.

The situation in Iran is different. It is not in violation of any international sanctions. And the recent political changes in Iran suggest that it may be possible for its full reintegration back into the international community. It has reached out to some of its neighbors. It¹s improved its relationships across the Gulf. And I think that circumstance is one that the United States needs to recognize.

ArabicNews: A couple of days ago, Iraq commented towards the US gesture towards Iran in terms of the removing of some of the sanctions as the US trying to play Iran against Iraq. What do you have to say about that?

Senior State Department Official: That¹s not the case. It was a strictly bilateral US-Iran gesture.

ArabicNews: With regard to the several people who left who worked for the UN in Iraq, some of the major kind of contention points and the points that they¹ve described for their cause to leave the programs have been the enormous amount of destruction the sanctions have caused upon the civilians in terms of death for children, lack of availability of medicines, etcetera. And the US response has been -- that in part -- putting the blame on the government not doing the distribution and citing the Kurds as having better distribution systems, etcetera. My question is going to go a little bit in a different direction. A lot of people have talked about that the US in effect by doing so -- what it is doing -- is that it is corrupting the middle class of Iraq. There was a vibrant middle class that was surviving in Iraq, and that seems to be in the process of being completely destroyed with all the ramifications, politically, socially, economically, etcetera. Do you care to kind of tell us your views on that subject.

Senior State Department Official: I think that the actual destruction of the Iraqi middle class began with the accession to power of Saddam Hussein. With respect to the economic hardships imposed by sanctions, those we recognize and have recognized from the beginning and have done our best as I have described earlier to improve their operations. With regard to their political role, it¹s entirely, entirely the responsibility of the Iraqi regime, which has made a point of removing all rivals, including the vibrant middle class from the political scene.

ArabicNews: Do you realistically, since the US objective is to change the regime, do you expect that the US will help its objectives by helping in the process of destruction of this middle class, by having a lack of availability of all their needs and a decent political structure that even under previous circumstances at least they had some of that where now none of it exists.

Senior State Department Official: They never had any kind of decent political structure since the arrival on the scene of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein. And so I think this is a total lie -- and as I said I do not think that-- I think that all the efforts that we are making now and all the efforts we have made since 1991 are to help the Iraqi people in their economic need and meet their economic needs. That¹s our purpose here, with respect to the Iraqi people themselves. And I think we¹ve been fairly successful.


ArabicNews: One of the points in that I¹d like to get more about is this middle class and not to kind of try to be redundant, there is in essence if the US policy is to change the regime from the inside, then it¹s destroying the very people who will have the power or the will to do something about it because it¹s changing the political power structure inside Iraq and making everyone subservient to a great degree now on the cronyship of those who are in power, as opposed to having a middle class that despite the fact that they didn¹t have much political freedom, they were able to have political pressure and they had their concerns and views having to be taken into account before, where now that is not the case anymore.

Senior State Department Official: Why not? I don¹t quite understand what the connection is.

ArabicNews: Well, the from the many -- that make this point is basically because if they (Iraqis) want food, if they want gasoline, if they want anything for their survival, they have to go to officials and beg for it, and that may turns their alliance totally towards the regime whereas before, they had some say, and the regime had to take their views into account. And now, they¹re just in such a poor shape that basically there isn¹t a whole lot that they can do except go and plead for all their needs and that¹s what the end result has been.

Senior State Department Official: I¹d like to consider that question further because I don¹t have an answer for you. I don¹t think that if you weigh it on a scale of how much the political -- the lack of political power of the Iraqi middle class is attributable to the regime¹s own actions and how much of it is to economic deprivation, I¹m frankly not in a position to judge that. It¹s a difficult question. And so therefore I can¹t really answer a question that is premised on that.

ArabicNews: How do you see this issue resolved? Do you expect the sanctions to be on indefinitely or do you see a solution, basically what I hear from you is-- and from US policy statements is the sanctions will stay on Iraq indefinitely.

Senior State Department Official: That¹s up to Iraq-- entirely up to Iraq how long they stay on.

ArabicNews: But when you say nothing is going to change unless the government is changed and we know that the end result is that the government is not going to change unless it is removed violently and that doesn¹t look like it¹s an option, so therefore we¹re in effect saying either that is our policy is really to keep Iraq in that condition or we want to work with the system to try and find a solution through inspections, etc., etc., etc. So I¹m just kind of going backward a little bit here and trying to see if there are any openings that kind of reflect that the US is interested in having a solution to this problem or is the US solution the way it is described really kind of shuts the door out on any practical and realistic solutions to that problem?

Senior State Department Official: Well I won¹t agree with your characterization. I think that the solution has always been there. The solution is as it is laid out in Security Council resolutions. The solution is for Iraq to comply. The door has always been open in that respect.

ArabicNews: Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us.

Previous Stories:
  Congressman Tony Hall concludes visit to Baghdad   (4/19/2000)
  Canadian committee calls for halting the sufferings of the Iraqi people   (4/15/2000)
  Iran releases 2,000 Iraqi prisoners, increased call to lift sanctions on Iraq   (4/13/2000)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search