Having made several official visits to Iraq, former
Union minister of state for external affairs Eduardo Faleiro was among
the few foreign leaders allowed inside Baghdad during the first Gulf
war.
Faleiro, as a representative from the Opposition at
that time, and then foreign minister Inder Kumar Gujral, met Saddam
Hussein to work out a repatriation plan for Indians living in Iraq.
Looking back at that visit, the former minister remembers the special
treatment meted out to them and says he was deeply impressed by the
secular character of the country.
Q: How credible is the U. S. assertion that its war
in Iraq is because President Saddam Hussein still conceals weapons of
mass destruction?
Faleiro: The U. S. allegations against Iraq are not
based on facts. The International Atomic Energy Agency in its recent
report categorically stated that Iraq no longer has a nuclear weapons
programme. Last month (Russian) President Vladimir Putin declared that
his country had not seen any evidence of Iraq developing weapons of
mass destruction.
Several United Nations weapons inspectors said Iraq
has no such weapons and no longer has the necessary infrastructure or
access to technology for WMD. Among the inspectors was Scott Ritter, a
former U. S. Marine intelligence officer. He underscored that Iraq’s
weapons were identified and destroyed across the country.
Iraq is willing to allow U. N. weapons inspectors
to return and give them unrestricted access to all its facilities so
that no doubts remain. Therefore, the U. S. assertion is totally
unjustified.
Q: What could be the reason behind the U. S.
campaign for the war in Iraq?
Faleiro: I am not given to using strong words but
the U. S position on Iraq is what we in India call total ‘dadagiri’
(bullying). President George Bush feels that his country, as the sole
superpower, has the right to use its awesome might, without a thought
to reason or ethics. He embodies what I feel are the new imperialists.
They should be deterred and discouraged. The
rationale and the sane must stand up against such people.
Q: It is said you enjoy a personal friendship with
President Saddam Hussein.
Faleiro: I first met him not when I was a minister
but when I was in the opposition during the Kuwait war. I was among
the dozen foreigners who were allowed inside Iraq. I was chosen
because I was the representative of Rajiv Gandhi who led the
Opposition during the Vishwanath Pratap Singh government. (Inder
Kumar) Gujral was the foreign minister. The two of us met President
Hussein and Vice-President Ramadan.
I asked for a meeting (with President Hussein) as a
representative of the Congress Party to oversee the repatriation of
Indians who were held up in Kuwait. I must say I was given special
treatment in meeting President Hussein. I suppose this was because his
Baath Party had fraternal relations with the Congress.
I was deeply impressed by what the president had
been able to achieve for his country. One of the things that struck me
most was the secular character of Iraq. It was and continues to be
extraordinary. I visited a few churches, a gurdwara and a temple. The
spirit of secularism is alive and thriving in Iraq.
Incidentally, Tariq Aziz (foreign minister and now
deputy prime minister) is a Christian. The prosperous Christian
community in Iraq told me that they were comparatively better off than
their Muslim brethren. And what they said next was fantastic! They
said Saddam Hussein was their protector!
This was reiterated when I went to Iraq two months
ago. They said they were greatly afraid of this war because if Saddam
Hussein goes, the fundamentalists would take over and they would be in
deep trouble. They said the president and his Baath Party are for the
people.
They also pointed out that apart from oil, the
president developed agriculture and other sources of revenue. Then
health and education, including study abroad, is free for all Iraqis.
Even two months ago, when the war clouds made Iraq cash-strapped, the
government heavily subsidised food and made it practically free. Other
basic needs like garments are practically free.
Saddam Hussein’s mistake was that he wanted to make
his country self-reliant, not merely to have the paraphernalia of
independence. But that does not suit the U. S. and its allies, the new
imperialists. They continue in their desire to browbeat their
erstwhile colonies and make their economies at their beck and call.
Q: Are you referring to the U. S. president?
Faleiro: Regrettably, yes. There is no doubt that
this act of aggression, the invasion of Iraq is illegal according to
international law, and immoral. One is compelled to say it but it must
be said.
Q: How do you describe the U. S. president now?
Faleiro: George Bush is now terrorist number one.
What he has done is to create conditions wherein it will be very
difficult to criticise rich and powerful nations.
Q: What do you think of the United Nations’ role in
this context?
Faleiro: Bush has destroyed the United Nations and
international law. He has created the dangerous precedent that might
is right. It is leading to the law of the jungle. I can see
international anarchy in the making. It is the worst thing any
president has ever done.
Q: What do you think about the growing opposition
to the war in Iraq?
Faleiro: Mankind, as a whole, including American
citizens themselves, has come out emphatically against the war. In
Manhattan in New York on March 24, 300,000 people demonstrated against
it. Never in the history of the West have so many people gathered in a
demonstration of any sort whatsoever. It is their revulsion and thumbs
down signal to the war foisted on Iraq on flimsy excuses. It is a
criminal act.
Q: What do you think about the divisions in the
European Union over the war?
Faleiro: That division is very much welcome.
Q: Isn’t that simplistic?
Faleiro: What the compulsions of these European
countries in this regard are is difficult to answer. But what France
and Germany have done is commendable. Whether they have opposed the
war to uphold the rule of international law, humanitarian causes or
whether they have their own agenda is hard to tell. But it is not
important what their agenda is; what is important is that they have
stood up against this unilateral act of aggression by the U. S. A. and
its junior partner, Britain.