Then Iraqi Ambassador to Russia Abbas Khalaf Kunfud attends a briefing about the US operations in Iraq and their consequences for Russia in October 2002.
Photo: Andrey Stempkovsky
|
 |
Death Sentence for Saddam Hussein a Symbol that Americans Lost Iraq War
// An Interview with Abbas Khalaf Kunfud
Former Iraqi Ambassador to Russia Abbas Khalaf Kunfud, who served from 2002 to 2003, comments on the possible consequences of the punishment of Saddam Hussein in an interview with Vlast magazine columnist Nargiz Asadova.
– Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is getting what he deserves?
I believe that it is an unjust sentence. Because that court was created by the occupying authorities. When the occupation of Iraq had only just begun, the Americans created that court for the president and his comrades-in-arms. It is an American court, not an Iraqi court, and it bows to American orders. And they couldn’t prove that Saddam was a participant in any crimes. They found nothing but mass graves. And they began a trial in the case of mass murder in the village of ad-Dujail in 1982. But the fact of the matter is that it concerned an assassination attempt on Saddam. And any president in any country can take such measures against enemies who carry out such an act against him.
– But you yourself said that 150 people were killed [in ad-Dujail] without a trial and without an investigation.
They couldn't prove that. Many witnesses were simply taught to give the necessary evidence. How is it possible that someone who was 10 years old in 1982 could remember names and birthdays for almost 100 people after more than 20 years?
– Who in Iraq will benefit from Saddam's sentence?
The sentence is beneficial for the forces who came to power with the help of the Americans. That is, the current new authorities in Iraq. Both the Americans and the new authorities have a chronic illness that is called "Saddam Hussein." He is in prison, and they say that he is masterminding the rebellion or terrorist acts. How could a man behind bars lead all of that? Anyway, the majority of the population will not benefit from the sentence. The current government of Iraq does not represent the interests of the Iraqi people. We see that they are now committing a crime against the Iraqi people.
– What do you mean?
The civil war that is currently going on in Iraq is the work of the Americans and the current Iraqi government. The Shiites and Sunnis have gone many long years without fighting each other. Why have they suddenly started fighting? This is one of the "achievements" of the new government.
– Why has the reaction to the sentence been so varied? The Europeans, while they admit the necessity of punishing Saddam, have spoken out against the death penalty. Russia is also against it. But the United States and Iran are in favor.
The US reaction is understandable. Iran is a long-standing enemy of Iraq – we fought for eight years in order to protect our territory from Iranian aggression. What is more, the political parties who have now come to power in Iraq are all Shiites, and all of their leaders are pro-Iranian and have studied in Iran. Iran has its own territorial ambitions. Not long ago former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said straight out that the Americans have served Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. The war in Iraq was won not by America, but by Iran.
– But why is Europe reacting so cautiously to Saddam's sentence?
Europe has its own interests. During Saddam's time, Iraq was a serious economic partner for them. As a result of the war, they lost their contracts, and now the United States rules the roost. But the Americans can't afford to do nothing in Iraq, since they are being harassed by the growth of the insurgency and increasing vandalism and terrorism.
– And how would you explain Russia's position?
It's no secret that from the very beginning Russia was against the American military overtures. In the United Nations Security Council Russia, together with France and Germany, refused to give its permission for the war in Iraq – it didn't allow that aggression to dress itself up as something legal. That's why the Americans detoured around the UN Security Council and went forward without international support.
– In your opinion, what kind of punishment would have been just for Saddam Hussein? How should a dictator be judged?
In the first place, if a real Iraqi court had tried Hussein, no one would have been against it. But that court was created by the current occupation powers. Saddam Hussein was not overthrown by the people or by the Iraqi army. He was toppled from without – in defiance of a UN resolution that denies anyone the right to impose a change of government from without.
Secondly, Saddam Hussein was not a dictator in everyone's eyes. Unambiguous assessments do not exist. Iraqi society is now divided down the middle: there are the opponents of Saddam Hussein, and there are his supporters. Despite the almost four-year presence of American troops in the country, he still has supporters. When the sentence against Saddam was being announced, the current government and the American occupying troops imposed a curfew on most of the regions of Iraq. They feared that there would be unrest. That means that their propaganda campaign, in which they claimed that Saddam Hussein has no support among the people, didn't work. With their actions, they proved that he still has supporters.
– Supporters – that means mainly Sunnis?
No. I'm not a Sunni – I'm a Shiite. Saddam is supported not only by the Sunni triangle. Just recently the British chief of staff said that the troops will be withdrawn from the south of Iraq, from the city of Basra and other cities [traditional Shiite territory], because people are rebelling there. In other words, the American administration and the occupying forces want to make Iraq a repeat of Yugoslavia. Iraq is my homeland, and I can say that Saddam Hussein had support in Iraqi society among Sunnis, among Shiites, among Kurds, among Turkmen – among everyone. Almost four years have gone by, and still his allies are working. It's not one person, not two people. It's not even 100 people.
– Do you think that the sentence will be carried out?
I think so, yes. Both the American administration and the current Iraqi government want to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein for the simple reason that they want to show that they really won. But I want to warn them in advance that the American occupying troops will regret it later if they go ahead with punishing Saddam, just like they're right now regretting starting this military operation against Iraq.
– Why?
First of all, they have turned Saddam Hussein into a shahid, an eternal martyr, a hero. Not only for Iraq, but for the whole Arab and Islamic world. The punishment of Saddam would drive his ranking up by a hundred points. Secondly, the unification of the Iraqi people, both Shiites and Sunnis, is going on against the occupying forces. Because the Americans are against the Iraqi people.
– But right now a war is going on between Sunnis and Shiites.
It is the Americans who divided Iraq along nation and religious lines. Under Saddam, an understanding of the "Iraqi people" existed. No one fought against anyone else. Saddam Hussein was just: he punished all of his enemies equally. You yourself know that he ordered his own son-in-law to be shot when he ran away to Jordan. That's Hussein. Saddam Hussein held together the government; he held together the country for all of those years. And these people [the Americans and the new Iraqi leaders] have destroyed the country in three and a half years. Do you understand what the difference is? Not long ago I met with American journalists. They themselves said, we don't know how Saddam could have ruled such a country for so many years.
– George Bush called Saddam Hussein's sentence a triumph of Iraqi democracy. What does that death sentence symbolize for you?
That the Americans have lost the war. He has become a symbol of the international terrorism that George Bush has embraced in unfurling his military campaign against an independent state and overthrowing the head of that state by force and without the mandate of the United Nations.
Nargiz Asadova
All the Article in Russian as of Nov. 13, 2006
|
|
|
