Issue No. 605
Region
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
26 Sept. - 2 October 2002 Issue No. 605 Region |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
American dissent
Democratic Congressman of Arab origin Nick Rahall told Al-Ahram Weekly, in Baghdad, that his recent visit to Iraq was to prove that not all Americans want war. While United States President George W Bush was lobbying Congress to grant him open approval to wage war against Iraq, Democratic Party Congressman Nick Rahall, of West Virginia, visited Baghdad, delivering a speech before members of the Iraqi National Assembly, and meeting Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. In his speech Rahall said that a US war against Iraq would have disastrous consequences for the whole Middle East region. "For that reason I come as an advocate of peace through dialogue. I come, not as the Secretary of State, and not as a weapons inspector, but as a member of Congress concerned with peace. Basically, I want America and Iraq to give peace a chance," he told the Assembly members.
Following are excerpts from a lengthy interview conducted last week with Rahall in Baghdad.
What is the chance you want Iraq and the United States to make use of?
Instead of assuming that war must come, let us find ways to discover how to prove that war is unnecessary. A key to this terrible box that we're now locked in is dialogue. We are here to try and help open doors. Doors to genuine dialogue. It is time and, in my opinion, far past time that American and Iraqi officials talk to each other without threats. We want to open doors to possibilities that will protect life instead of maiming and killing, doors that will give peace a chance.
Like other key world figures who have visited Iraq recently, you also called for the return of UN inspectors to Iraq. What are the guarantees that the new inspectors will not act in the same manner as previous UNSCOM inspectors?
I must say that I believe the first step to restoring a relationship of mutual friendship and respect must be for Iraq to fully comply with United Nations mandate by allowing the return of weapons inspectors. That step would at least check the crisis that threatens to engulf us all. Then, over the next weeks and months, the participation of the international community may have an opportunity to succeed in diffusing the tension altogether. Perhaps this could be done by finding a some specific nations not directly involved in the dispute to serve as "honest brokers". Perhaps, for instance, Canada and South Africa. But time is now terribly short to reverse the momentum toward war. To make that reversal possible, Iraq must cooperate by giving UN weapons inspectors unfettered access. The UN as an institution must proceed differently, so that there will be no abuses of the mandate of the arms inspectors. If this work proceeds properly, Iraq will be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
But Iraq presented 19 questions to the Security Council regarding the work and schedule of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC)-- the new inspection team-- and received no answer. Who is going to guarantee that there will be light at the end of the tunnel, and that inspections would lead to lifting sanctions?
There are no guarantees. Still, the people of the US expect a dramatic move on Iraq's part. If that move is made then the American people will put a pressure on President Bush and it will be hard for him, as well as for the UN, to allow to this military strike to take place.
Former UN weapons' inspector Scot Ritter said that 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been destroyed. So how could Iraq continue to be a threat to the United States or any other country in the region?
I understand that, and there are lots of questions addressed to President Bush on what is the immense threat Iraq poses to the US? And why now, only six weeks before congressional elections in America? Why, a year ago, was there no such a threat? Has it occurred within six weeks? I think not. But as I said both sides are now in the box, and it is hard for them to get out of it without other people helping.
Do you agree with claims that Bush wants to wage his war against Iraq mainly to win the upcoming congressional elections?
There are lots of facts coming together, and in my opinion: yes. Because if the president sends American troops abroad it is very hard for the Americans, even if they disagree with the president -- as they do now -- to oppose him while the country is at war. If the decision is made before the elections of 4 November, it will be to Bush's benefit, because the Americans will not criticise this decision while their troops are fighting abroad.
Do you think that the Congress will give Bush the approval he needs to wage a war against Iraq?
There will be heated debates. There will be opposition, maybe more than was the case four years ago. However, I still believe the president will get the backing he needs, especially in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by the president's [Republican] party. They will give him the support he needs.
Do you think that Iraq threatens America?
I found Iraqi people very pro peace. They do not want to go through the war they saw in 1991. This will be my message to the Americans. I have not seen any evidence of a threat. The president must share evidence with the American people, but I think that he does not have any evidence. Meanwhile, I do not see that Iraq threatens the United States, and I cannot envisage that Iraq would attack the United States.
After Iraq agreed to allow the return of inspectors, do you think President Bush will still go ahead with his strike?
He cannot strike if the weapons inspectors will be in Iraq doing their job. That will take some time, allowing those who oppose the war to try to persuade him to take other options. However, I am not sure we can convince him.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
