Following an interview with US Ambassador to Malaysia Marie T Huhtala, malaysiakini on Monday asks Iraq Ambassador Kais Al-Yacoubi to comment o­n the 'evidence' against Iraq as recently presented by US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Malaysiakini: Can you please comment o­n the presentation made by the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell before UN security council last week.

Kais (photo): You actually don't have to ask me that. You can go to the US allies: France, Germany, Belgium...they are all not convinced with what Powell had presented. If they are not convinced, then there is nothing more for us to say. (Now) the Americans say they (would) go to war, with or without the UN permission. So, what does that mean? It means that they know that they have not convinced anyone.

The Americans are alone now. If they want to go to war, they (would) have to do it themselves without the international community's support. That means their evidence, whatever it was that they have, was not convincing...because it is not true.

The US claimed Iraq has failed to comply with the Resolution 1441 (the disarmament resolution made after the 1990 Gulf War). What can you say about this?

We have been working with the (weapons) inspectors since 1992. And in 1998, they themselves - by the order of Richard Butler, the chief inspector then - pulled out the inspectors and that made way for the (Desert Fox) operation o­n Dec 17, 1998. Because they couldn't find anything, they pulled out the inspectors and launched the attack which lasted for four days.

Four hundred and thirty (430) missiles were launched o­n various sites in Iraq. After that, (then) US president Bill Clinton said they had destroyed sites of mass destruction and he was very happy. And now another president (George W Bush) claims that there are still weapons...and that Iraq is not complying (with Resolution 1441).

Are you saying that there are conflicting statements between the two presidents?

I did not say it. They said it. This is a fact. I am certainly not saying something which I had taken from my pocket. You can go back to Clinton's statement. I remember that it was (during) Ramadan (fasting month) because people asked why did they (the US) attack during Ramadan, and the reply was: We (the US) received information that Iraq is hiding mass destruction weapons. We have to stop them and we have destroyed all of them.

But now they are saying that we still have weapons, and that the inspectors are not investigators. I refer to US Ambassador Marie Huhtala's (photo) comment as reported by you (malaysiakini). She said that inspectors are no investigators. If that is so, then why had the US always emphasised and pushed for inspectors to come in? The main target of Resolution 1441 which was made o­n the insistence of the US, was to allow the inspectors to come into Iraq and we cooperated. We opened our gates to the inspectors.

Of course there is a contradiction (of statements by the US).

So, you say that Iraq has actually done everything to disarm?

We have done this. Not o­nly now, believe me. After 1991, when there was the resolution (1441) against Iraq, we said yes (to the resolution) and we presented a lot of weapons to the inspectors. The inspectors did not need to look for them because we showed them the weapons.

I reiterate this: the inspectors were not the o­nes who found the weapons, we took them to the weapons. We showed them everything and destroyed them before the UN inspectors. You can go back to the UN records and find out the details.

Every weapon of mass destruction in Iraq has been destroyed?

We have presented them to UN and destroyed it before them. We have presented many papers providing information o­n what Iraq has done to disarm.

But the US is not convinced as stated by Ambassador Huhtala herself.

I think she is talking to the Malaysian people. I think she is trying to convince the Malaysians who are all against the war. They want peace but she wants to prove that war is the best solution.

Please comment o­n the allegation that Saddam has used poisonous gas to kill 5,000 Iraqis in a town in Northern Iraq?

The alleged incident took place during the war between Iran and Iraq. There was a big battle and people came and took some photos of those killed during the war. What happened was Iranian troops were in the city. After that a famous article appeared in the Washington Post stating that the Iranians used poison gas to kill Iraqis. At that time, the US never disputed that. They had been following the war and yet they never said anything, It was o­nly much later that they raised the issue.

Were there 5,000 people killed then?

It was a great battle between Iran and Iraq but I don't have any statistic of how many people killed in the war. The Iranian troops were in Iraq territories and had occupied the city. Before they entered, they were said to have posioned the people.

So, you are denying that Iraq had anything to do with the use of poisonous gas that killed 5,000 of your own people?

Iraq never used poisonous gas or weapons of mass destruction against its own people. This is a big propoganda made against Iraq to show that we are oppressing our own people.

So you are claiming that the death of 5,000 people as reported by an American article was caused by the Iranians?

Yes. That time it was war. This city was occupied by the Iranians.

What is the name of the city?

It is the city of Halabja in north Iraq. But as I said why didn't they dispute that then when the article was written? Why talk (about it) now?

Why do you think the US would want to go to war with Iraq?

It's not o­nly the US who is going to war with Iraq. It is (also) Israel. Israel is pushing the US (to go to war). It is not the interest of the US to attack Iraq. The main target is actucally to hit Iraq for Israel. Israel wants to get rid of Iraq and its determination to help the Palestinians. It's the o­nly country (in the region) which is defending Intifada and the Palestinians.

Iraq has refused to have any diplomatic ties with Israel because they are killing the Palestinians. Israel is using cannons, aeroplanes, helicopters to kill the Palestinians. Israel openly said that if the Iraqis are stopped, so will the Intifada, then Israel can impose whatever they want o­n the Palestinians.

There is of course another reason. The US wants to control Iraq's oil. They both have interests - but each o­ne has its own reason for war.

Do you think there is reluctance on the part of the US to stop the Palestinian-Israel conflict?

Everyone knows how big the influence Israel has o­n the US.

So you think there are double standards o­n how US deals with the conflict?

We are not the o­nly o­nes who think so. Everyone also thinks the same thing. Israel openly said (it has) cans of nuclear heads yet no o­ne in the US was outraged with that. We say we have no atomic weapons but Israel says it has atomic weapons. They also have biological weapons, nuclear weapons and they don't deny it.

Back to the oil factor. How big is the oil reserve in the Iraq?

It is big enough for the Americans to come all the way here over thousands of miles to fight against us. It is huge. Right now our production is limited under the UN memorandum of understanding - Oil for Food - we are limited to a certain volume, just enough for food. Otherwise, we are able to produce a lot, much more than now. Based o­n the market price, last year we were allowed to produce o­nly 3,000 barrels a day.

There are comments that Saddam is a repressive leader. Can you say something about this?

Iraqis are intelligent people. If they don't like him, then why did they elect him again last October? As you know there was a referendum. The Iraqis are behind their leader - ready to fight the Americans. This outraged the Americans. The Iraqis are armed, they have trained themselves, they are ready for the Americans, if they come.

It is said that this war is the o­nly way to oust Saddam, to make him stop repressing his people. Is there a possibility of Saddam stepping down for the sake of stopping the war?

They will not stop the war even if Saddam steps down. The real aim is to stop Iraq.

So you are saying that the issue is not Saddam?

It is not Saddam. Everbody knows that. They (the Americans) know that too.

Do you think Saddam's popularity with the people will increase with the threat of war?

It is at its highest level right now. They are ready behind him to fight the Americans, to defend their country.

There are allegations that if Iraq is attacked, then it is going to retaliate by attacking its neighbouring countries?

This is called mixing the cards. They want to invade Iraq. Where will the troops come from? Certainly they won't fall from the sky. Where will they come from? They (will) use our neighbouring countries to attack us. So when we are attacked, how do we react? Do we say, thank you for coming to our country, can you plase come in - and then o­nly I fight you? If they attack Iraq, wherever they come from, we will fight back. We are not planning to
attack any specific country, but we will fight the Americans, wherever they come from.

The Gulf War was easily won by the US and its allies in 1990. Do you think that similar results would take place now that the US seemed to be not getting support from most of its allies?

I don't think that it is easy for the US to fight us. They are already finding it hard to convince people that they have reason to start this war. So I imagine that it would be harder for them when they actually start this war. People will look at each step they would be taking and question them, as they did not agree with the war in the first place.

The US has pledged that it will avoid civillians. What do you have to say about this?

This what they try to say. But look at Afghanistan. They are not capable of doing that. I tell you something, three days from now will be the 12th anniversary of al-Ameriyah tragedy where 430 civilians were killed by American misiles.

I don't think we could believe their claim of making a clean war. This is war - a dirty, ugly war. Again, innocent people will perish. What are they going to do when they kill thousands of innocent people? (Say) sorry? No, they will say: Our pilots are smart; we have smart bombs, well-educated bombs, etc., etc. and then people will die.

There are allegations that Saddam has links with al-Qaeda?

Never, never, never. Like our president said, if we have links to them we will not be afraid to say that we have links to them. We have no relation to them, that is a fact. They know who is al-Qaeda, who invented al-Qaeda who is working with them and who al-Qaeda (was) working with 10 years ago. Let them go back to their records. Ours showed nothing.