Neo-Conned! Again

by D Liam O'Huallachain

  FB: Tariq Aziz repeated on several occasions to the Holy Father that Iraq no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that the Baghdad government had accepted all the provisions of U.N Resolution 1441 without condition. Aziz told the Pope: “What more can we do?” He also gave a letter from Saddam Hussein to the Pope.

  LID: We understand that you had visited Iraq on a number of occasions before the outbreak of this round of hostilities. Were you on good terms solely with Mr. Aziz, or were you acquainted with others in the Ba'athist government? How did you view the people that you knew: honest, open and cultured, or did you see them as substantially the bureaucrats of the ruthless regime that Mr. Bush has declared dominated the country before “Operation IRAQI FREEDOM”?

  FB: During my many trips to Iraq between 1997 and 2003, I was in touch with Tariq Aziz, the health minister, Dr. Omeid Mubarak, and on only a couple of occasions with Mr. al-Sahaf, the minister of information. I did not meet Saddam Hussein at any time, nor did I seek to do so. But when I went to Iraq I was in touch above all with the population, as much with the Shiites of the south as with the Sunnis of the center and north. I also had the chance to meet some of the leaders of the Ba'ath Party on a couple of occasions.

  From the Ba'ath Revolution of 1968, Iraq had a Constitution guaranteeing the same rights to all Iraqi citizens of the three monotheistic religions: Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Women had the same rights as the men, and took up positions of responsibility, even within the government. It was the foremost Arab country in terms of having the highest number of women in ministries, embassies and in positions of public office. The Republic of Iraq was a secular republic – that is, a state without any one official religion – and the Ba'ath Party ensured that the secular nature of the state was completely respected. Islamic extremists were persecuted and driven from the country – a hard experience for the Shiites. School education was entirely free. For the poor villages of the south, electricity was also free. Social welfare was available to all classes in society. The Iraqi dinar was one of the strongest currencies in the world. Then, one Iraqi dinar was worth three American dollars. Today, one American dollar is worth 1,800 dinars.

  The UNICEF report for 1989 confirms that the child mortality rate for the under fives was the lowest in the Arab world, and one of the lowest in the world. Today, child mortality is the highest in the Arab world and in the world at large.

  Baghdad was regarded as one of the most important cultural centers of the Arab world. Universities in Iraq were attended by students from numerous Arab countries. The leading Iraqi scientists and doctors were the most advanced in their field in the world, whilst today they have practically all fled abroad. The man who was minister of health, whom I knew well, Omeid Mubarak, is a Kurd who has two doctorates in medicine from the United States. About thirty percent of the personnel in the Iraqi ministries were Kurds. Mr. Bush forgot to mention all these facts to the American people, or perhaps he never knew them.

  LID: In your visits you undoubtedly met many ordinary Iraqis, Christian and Muslim. Did you ever hear them – or even sense in them – say that the country was a terrible oppression, or dominated by a small corrupt ruling class? In other words did you feel, as a Catholic priest and before God, that the place was a hellhole to live in?

  FB: There was no more corruption in Iraq than there was in Italy, with its numerous scandals, like Parmalat, in recent years. There was never corruption in Iraq like the Enron affair in the U.S., or the ELF affair (oil-company money for the political parties) in Paris, or in Germany or Japan where bribes and financial rip-offs are at the head of the international corruption league. There was corruption just as in the rest of the world, and one thing is for sure: the administration in Washington was in no position to cast the first stone.

  The kind of political oppression in Iraq under Saddam might be compared to that of certain Latin America countries during the last fifty years. Political opponents of Saddam Hussein were generally eliminated just as the CIA organized the elimination of certain political powers in Latin America or Asia, governments which were in opposition to Washington policy or which threatened the interests of the United States. In Iraq, however, political opposition to the status quo was not tolerated and was put down.

  Of course this is not to put the actions of Saddam Hussein in his country on the same level as those of the CIA around the world. What it is important to remember is that the countries, governments, states, and individuals who opposed the policies of Washington have been eliminated: the states through aerial bombardment; the political leaders by the financing, organizing, and implementing of coups d'état and the overthrow of regimes; the individuals by paid assassins or members of the security services. It is for this reason that the United States is the last country in the world to lecture others about morals.

  LID: Undoubtedly, you met many of the leading Christian dignitaries on your visits to Iraq. Did you feel that as a Christian minority they were being oppressed, or did they breath the air of freedom? We ask this question because Messrs. Bush and Blair made great play of their alleged “Christian faith,” and because it appears that Christians are now suffering disproportionately under the occupation.

  FB: Iraq was a model for peaceful co-existence between Christians and Muslims. For the last thirty years there was not a single example of conflict or rivalry between the two communities. There is nothing very Christian about either Tony Blair or George W. Bush, and I believe that for them to understand the true relationship between the Christians and Muslims of Iraq, they should spend several weeks holiday in Baghdad, Basra, or Mosul. In this way they would discover that the situation is no longer what it used to be. Today bombs are exploding in churches, and every week the children of Iraqi families are being abducted and held for extortionate ransoms. Since the occupation of Iraq, more than 80,000 Christians have fled the country. As one can see, this is the opposite of “democratization.”

  I think that it is useful to recall that it was in Iraq that the dialogue between the Muslim and Christian worlds began. A thousand years ago the dialogue between Christians and Muslims really began, and it is precisely in Baghdad that there took place the first attempt at rapprochement, of the study of Christian thought, of research on Western culture. It is precisely in Baghdad, during the ninth and tenth centuries, that a cooperation between Muslims and Christians grew up which took concrete form in the translation into Arabic of the science and philosophy of the Greeks. The close contact established between Muslim and Christian intellectuals resulted in the first theological efforts to pin down the points of agreement between the two religions. The work and the example of the intellectual community of Baghdad inspired Spanish and Sicilian thinkers to work for a new dialogue between the two communities at the height of the Middle Ages. The first translations of Arab philosophy into Latin were used in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

  In 1076, the Sultan of Andalusia, al-Nasir, sent gifts and freed Christian slaves to Pope Gregory VII. The Pope replied to him by letter in terms which are surprising for the age:

  The Good Lord, Creator of all things, without Whom we would be unable to do anything or think anything, has inspired this gesture of your heart. He who enlightens all souls come into this world has enlightened your spirit. Because Almighty God, who seeks the salvation of all men and wishes to lose none, approves especially in us the fact that after loving oneself we should love our neighbor, and that we might do nothing to others that we would not wish done unto ourselves; and above all because we believe and confess equally one God who reveals Himself in different ways, and whom we praise and venerate daily as the Creator and Lord of this world. We pray, with our hearts and our lips, that after long life on earth, this same God will lead you to the bosom of happiness of the Most Holy Patriarch, Abraham.

  This remarkable document, which predates the Second Vatican Council by nine centuries, contains all the elements of dialogue with Islam, proposes the unity of believers based upon the cult and pr
ayer of one God, regarded as the basis of common belief in Abraham and in the hope of eternal happiness for Muslims and Christians. But the letter of the Pontiff goes beyond the belief in one God, and expresses concrete proposals: to seek to do good, to love one another reciprocally, to seek a peaceful world for the good of all.

  Prior to the American invasion, Iraqi Christians could tell you that it was precisely on the basis of these proposals that they maintained and nourished a dialogue and a cooperation with their Muslim brothers. Iraq was one of the few Arab countries where this understanding and cooperation was carried out fully and openly. Today, everything has changed. It is, then, all the sadder to see this country, the first to have begun a religious dialogue between Christians and Muslims, attacked and persecuted so cruelly today by a “Christian” superpower. It is distressing to see thus compromised the work of centuries aimed at an authentic dialogue, and a reciprocal understanding and mutually beneficial cooperation for both religions.

  LID: How were you received by the Muslim authorities in Iraq both before and after the invasion?

  FB: In 1998, on a trip to the south of Iraq, I visited the Shiite Mosque of Najaf. Inside the Islamic sanctuary is the tomb of Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed, and the founder of the Shiites. I asked the sanctuary's authorities if I might enter to see the tomb of Ali. After a few minutes of discussion between the Muslim authorities, I was granted permission. I think that I am the only Catholic priest who has ever entered this shrine, holy to Islam. I requested, too, that the cameraman who was accompanying me might enter likewise in order to film. They agreed and the splendid images that are to be found within the mosque are unique. I did not obtain this favor through menaces or arrogance, but through simplicity, through extending a friendly hand and speaking kindly. It is the anti-Arab politics of the United States this last thirty years which has created Islamic extremism, and a reaction from a good part of the Arab world against America. Only discussion, cultural and religious contact, and reciprocal respect and cooperation can destroy Islamic extremism and groups like al-Qaeda. The attack upon, and the invasion of, Iraq has only heightened the risks of terrorist action, exasperated the Arab peoples, and nourished the networks of Islamic organizations.

  LID: Do you feel that Iraq under either of the puppet governments put in place by the Anglo-American forces possesses any legitimacy with the Iraqi population, be they Shiite, Sunni, or Christian?

  FB: The Interim Prime Minister, Allawi, was not liked nor accepted by a large majority of the Iraqi people. The country no longer has a constitution. The main party in the country, the Ba'ath Party, has been forcibly dissolved and excluded from the life of the country. Many new parties were unable to present a candidate. Thanks to the chaos and anarchy which reigns throughout the country, the populations of several regions were not able to vote. In such a context, how can we imagine that these elections were democratic and representative of the wishes of Iraqis? It is not possible. These recent elections cannot be accepted nor seen as valid by the vast majority of the Iraqi people, and this has made the situation even more confused and dangerous.

  LID: Do you believe that the country is better off or worse off since the overthrow of Saddam's government, as far as the population at large is concerned?

  FB: When I used to go to Iraq, I could go out at 10 o'clock at night, call a cab by a simple gesture of the hand, travel to the other side of a town, and return to the hotel in the same way. I offer a free trip to Iraq to anyone who agrees to do the same thing today. I do not believe that I will have many takers! In the past, there were no bombs at the offices of the UN, or of humanitarian organizations, and no one was kidnapped. Now bombs are not merely aimed at the UN, at humanitarian groups, and at churches. People are kidnapped, bombs are exploding everywhere, and disorder and insecurity reigns throughout Iraq. And against this background, American planes continue to bomb villages and massacre hundreds of men, women, and children.

  LID: Many have said that they expect that Saddam and the members of his government will be brought to trial soon, and that Saddam, at the very least, will be executed. How do you view this from a constitutional and legal point of view on the one hand, and from the moral and practical (in terms of how it will be received by Iraqis and the Arab world in general) point of view?

  FB: I do not know how a country which does not possess a real constitution could possibly have an efficient legal system. I do not see what national legitimacy a court could have when it has been put in place by “a government” which is subservient to a force of military occupation. The secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, has stated that the war against Iraq was illegal. Numerous countries have stated the same thing about the war against Iraq and her occupation. If the war against Iraq and the military occupation of the country is illegal, what legitimacy could a court possibly have to judge the President of a country – a member of the United Nations – who has been arrested illegally?

  The Washington government does not want a trial of Saddam Hussein before an international court because, their war being illegal and in violation of international law, this would also necessitate bringing George W. Bush and his administration before the same court.

  LID: What do you believe is the cause – or are the causes-for this Second Gulf War, and whose interests do you think they serve?

  FB: I believe that this war has been, above all, a personal vendetta of the Bush family against Saddam Hussein. This whole gruesome affair has nothing whatever to do with weapons of mass destruction, or with “dictatorship,” or with the “liberation of the Iraqi people.” And it is no way a war against terrorism. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, not an Iraqi, and there was no connection whatever between Iraq and al-Qaeda and its attack on America on September 11, 2001.

  Also, there is a strategic factor: American military forces could no longer remain in Saudi Arabia; the American military presence in Iraq straddles the Arab countries of the Middle East; and with the same military presence in Afghanistan, it means that Iran finds itself with American forces on a couple of its borders. Nor is the question of oil an indifferent one. With oil at a record high in price, controlling Iraqi oil is most certainly good business.

  LID: We understand that you were quite recently in Syria, and that you spoke to a large number of Muslims and their clerics? What did you say to them, and what do you hope came from such a meeting? Do you intend to continue such work?

  FB: I travel regularly to Syria, but also to Lebanon and other Arab countries. I am often invited to conferences of religious exchange between Christians and Muslims. I have been invited to speak to Muslims at Friday prayer in Syria and other Arab countries in order to extend a fraternal hand to the Muslim world and to deepen and strengthen the contacts between Europe and the Arab world, and between Christians and Muslims.

  LID: It seems increasingly possible that the Americans are going to try to force themselves upon the Syrian Ba'ath government. Do you think that the Syrians will fight if push comes to shove, especially in the light of the fact that American forces are not doing especially well fighting the Ba'athist insurgents in Iraq?

  FB: Syria is not Iraq, and even less is it an Afghanistan under the Taliban. Another attack against an Arab country would be considered as an attack upon the entire Arab world. Such stupidity risks unleashing a terrible cataclysm throughout the Middle East and even beyond. On the other hand, Europe has important economic and cultural interests and exchanges with Syria and Lebanon, especially France. An attack on this Arab country could conceivably provoke a definitive split between America and Europe, which no one wishes.

  LID: What in your opinion is needed to bring peace back to Iraq?

  FB: The only way to bring peace back to Iraq is, firstly, to give it back to the Iraqi people. That means the withdrawal of all the occupation forces from the country and leaving the Iraqis to determine their future. Freeing the country of such occupation forces does not mean abandoning it; quite the contrary. Once the military forces hav
e returned to their respective countries, an economic, industrial, social, and cultural cooperation could be developed between Europe and America, and Iraq, which could grow and flourish to the benefit of all. Throughout human history, a country occupied by the military forces of another country has only recovered its peace when the occupation forces left the country. Iraq will be no exception to this rule. One does not export “democracy” through bombing populations, through imprisoning and torturing those who oppose the occupation. Did not Jesus Christ Himself say: “Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you”? Jesus Christ taught peace. George W. Bush taught war. It is for each of us to choose our camp.

  1. See http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.

  THE EDITORS' GLOSS: Milton Viorst's recollection of the last months of 2002, and indeed the last months of Saddam Hussein's government, makes for sad reading. Tariq Aziz possessed, evidently, a clear sense of foreboding even though, in November of 2002, there was good reason to be optimistic. UN weapons inspectors had just returned to Iraq. France and others in the UN Security Council had succeeded in keeping the requirements of the “last-chance” UN resolution – 1441 – relatively moderate in form, over and against the “blustery and bellicose original draft,” as Robert Dreyfuss put it in his December 30, 2002, piece for American Prospect. But Aziz seemed to know the future instinctively. He had seen it before in the frankly mendacious treatment he had had at American and British hands in the past.

  In retrospect there's plenty of reason to understand why Aziz felt the way he did. Dreyfuss's chronicle of the background to Resolution 1441 should have been indication enough of what was to come for anyone paying attention. Kofi Annan warned of “hidden triggers” that the U.S. sought to implant in the resolution, providing an excuse for unilateral military action. “I think the discussions in the council made it clear we should be looking for something meaningful and not for excuses to do something,” he said, knowingly, of American designs. In case that's not clear enough, Dreyfuss reports a comment that was overheard at a November 2002 meeting at the American Enterprise Institute, where, he says, the “mood wasn't good,” thanks to the return of UN inspectors to Iraq, who might have defused war fever. “We can only hope and pray that this doesn't mean we are boxed in,” Dreyfuss reported a high-level Department of Defense official, involved with planning Bush's war, as saying. With sentiments like that, one can only speculate as to who it was he was praying to.