May I broaden the question out, Mr. President, to the relations between Iraq and the U.N., and the prospects for peace more broadly, and I wonder whether with all its weaknesses and all the difficulties, whether you see a way in which the U.N. can reach that objective for the benefit of humanity?

The point you raised can be found in the United Nations charter. As you know Iraq is one of the founders and first signatories of the charter. If we look at the representatives of two superpowers -- America and Britain -- and look at their conduct and their language, we would notice that they are more motivated by war than their responsibility for peace. And when they talk about peace all they do is accuse others they wish to destroy in the name of peace. They claim they are looking after the interests of their people. You know as well as I do that this is not the truth. Yes, the world would respect this principle if it was genuinely applied. It's not about power but it is about right and wrong, about when we base our human relations on good, and respect this principle. So it becomes simple to adhere to this principle because anyone who violates it will be exposed to public opinion.

There are people who believe this present conflict is about oil, and I wonder if you could say something about how you see the enormous oil reserves of Iraq being developed, first for the benefit of the people of Iraq and secondly for the needs of mankind.

When we speak about oil in this part of the world -- we are an integral part of the world -- we have to deal with others in all aspects of life, economic as well as social, technical, scientific and other areas. It seems that the authorities in the U.S. are motivated by aggression that has been evident for more than a decade against the region. The first factor is the role of those influential people in the decision taken by the president of the U.S. based on sympathy with the Zionist entity that was created at the expense of Palestine and its people and their humanity. These people force the hand of the American administration by claiming that the Arabs pose a danger to Israel, without remembering their obligation to God and how the Palestinian people were driven out of their homeland.

The consecutive American administrations were led down a path of hostility against the people of this region, including our own nation and we are part of it. Those people and others have been telling the various U.S. administrations, especially the current one, that if you want to control the world you need to control the oil. Therefore the destruction of Iraq is a prerequisite to controlling oil. That means the destruction of the Iraqi national identity, since the Iraqis are committed to their principles and rights according to international law and the U.N. charter.

It seems that this argument has appealed to some U.S. administrations, especially the current one, that if they control the oil in the Middle East they would be able to control the world. They could dictate to China the size of its economic growth and interfere in its education system and could do the same to Germany and France and perhaps to Russia and Japan. They might even tell the same to Britain if its oil doesn't satisfy its domestic consumption. It seems to me that this hostility is a trademark of the current U.S. administration and is based on its wish to control the world and spread its hegemony.

People have the right to say that if this aggression by the American administration continues, it would lead to widespread enmity and resistance. We won't be able to develop the oil fields or the oil industry and therefore create worldwide cooperation as members of the human family when there is war, destruction and death. Isn't it reasonable to question this approach and conclude that this road will not benefit anyone, including America or its people? It may serve some short-term interests or the interests of some influential powers in the U.S. but we can't claim that it serves the interest of the American people in the long run or other nations.

There are tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people in Britain and America, in Europe and worldwide, who want to see a peaceful outcome to this problem, and they are the real Americans in my opinion, the real British, the real French, the real Germans, because they think of the world in terms of their children. I have 10 grandchildren and in my family there is English, Scottish, American, French, Irish, Jewish and Indian blood, and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?

First of all we admire the development of the peace movement around the world in the last few years. We pray to God to empower all those working against war and for the cause of peace and security based on just peace for all. And through you we say to the British people that Iraqis do not hate the British people. Before 1991 Iraq and Britain had a normal relationship as well as normal relations with America. At that time the British governments had no reason to criticize Iraq as we hear some voices doing these days.

We hope the British people would tell those who hate the Iraqis and wish them harm that there is no reason to justify this war and please tell them that I say to you because the British people are brave -- tell them that the Iraqis are brave too.

Tell the British people if the Iraqis are subjected to aggression or humiliation they would fight bravely, just as the British people did in the Second World War, and we will defend our country as they defended their country each in its own way. The Iraqis don't wish war but if war is imposed upon them -- if they are attacked and insulted -- they will defend themselves. They will defend their country, their sovereignty and their security.

Recent Stories