|
CHAPTER SIX
THE NUREMBAGHDAD
"The Pasdaran (guards) of Khomeini should be treated as war criminals. However, before their execution, the following information should be obtained from them:
1. The number of their forces.
2. Type of troops and their weapons.
3. Front locations they have served at.
4. Type of their communication media.
5. Location of their higher command post.
6. Amount of their rations, arsenals and the time necessary for its procurement and storage.
7. Approaches for supports.
8. The morale of Iranian enemies and Khomeini's Pasdaran.
Please obtain and relay the information. That is all!”
Staff Major Khattab Umar Najm, for commander of the Ibn Al Valid Green Berets Support Regiment, affiliated with the Army of Iraq
* This major is presently a prisoner of war in Iran. The above cable, as recounted by senior Iraqi Army officers is a personal military order of Saddam that had to be relayed through them to Iraqi officers for the information of the soldiers. This cable was found in an Iraqi military command post when it was overtaken by Islamic forces. The Pasdaran of Khomeini refers to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
In previous chapters we noted how Saddam paved the way for aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran between the years 1356-1359 (1977-1980). He started his aggression in 1977 by offering forged excuses, none of which has any legal, scientific basis or value. However, later on Saddam gave up his claims and settled with his peace proposal of 2/8/1986 (11/5/1365), asked for withdrawal of Iranian and Iraqi troops to international borders and the signing of a peace treaty between the two countries. His proposals were confirmed by some of the Arab and world governments. These governments regarded Saddam's proposals as a wise solution to an aggressive war which Iraq had started. Although some governments did not dare establish the aggressiveness of Iraq for the peoples of the world and ignored its outcome which was the destruction of towns and cities, occupation of vast areas of territory and sacrifice of thousands of lives.
Is there a man who will agree to the entry of a criminal into his home to kill several members of his household, burn his property and upon apprehension claims he has repented and asks forgiveness, to forgive and let him go ? In such a case if that man does not accept the false repentance of the criminal and insists on his punishment, is it fair to say to the owner of the house that "You are the wrongdoer and you should have accepted the proposal of the criminal because he had repented and asked for forgiveness?
Another instance of such an event is the assumption of power by Adolf Hitler and his invasion of European countries resulting in extensive losses of human beings and assets and misery with which the present generation will be afflicted for a long time.
When time came for the Allies to advance on Berlin, no one could tell their forces to accept Hitlerite repentance and try to make peace with him, or to afford him an Opportunity to state his positive demands, that maybe he had changed. No one dared to even suggest that the Allied Forces stop their approach on Berlin. The armies that were marching on to Berlin, comprised the armed forces to countries that were devastated in the war by the Nazi forces and their people had withstood the savage treatment of the enemy in their occupied, cities, towns and villages. The fall of Berlin at the hands of the allies gave the world an opportunity to become aware of some of the Nazi crimes, crimes such as gas chambers, prisoner camps, etc. which might not have become publicly known had the Allies decided not to enter Berlin. At the same time it was announced that one of the reasons for the Allies' entry into Berlin was to prevent the formation of another Nazi government.
Also, the Allies instituted the Nuremberg tribunal in the same town where major Nazi conferences were held so as to condemn Hitler’s policies and question the Nazi Party policies.
The Nuremberg Tribunal which lasted from Oct. 20, 1945 to Nov. 1, 1946 was composed of the following members:
1. England: Lord Lawrence (President)
2. France: Prof. Dandief Deviber (Judge) Substitute: Robert Falco
3. U.S.A.: Jackson (Judge) Substitute: John Parker
4. U.S.S.R.: General Nikchenkov (Judge) Substitute: Colonel Wolkhoff
Each of the above individuals carried his country's banner behind him upon entering the court room, the U.S.S.R. delegates, being military men, attended court sessions in uniform. The tribunal sentenced twelve (12) of the 23 accused persons to death.
Once more we point out there exists a perfect semblance between the crimes committed by the Aflaqi Ba'ath Party of Baghdad and those of the Nazi Party. Both parties have committed crimes against humanity and world peace and have used similar methods and tools. However, Saddam's tools are more modern and up to date than Hitler's.
Below we offer a few samples of the crimes perpetrated by Saddam:
1.Bombardment of Residential Districts
This crime has been established in the reports of international missions and its instances can readily be seen. Anyone can see the devastation of cities and of economic and industrial areas caused by the order of Saddam. He himself does not deny having perpetrated these acts.
However, we would like to mention Saddam's excuses for such bombardments so that the world may realize the mentality and spite of this enemy of humanity.
On 6/2/1983 (17/11/1361) following the Iraqi Air Force bombardment of Iranian cites killing several hundred innocent people, Saddam voiced the claim that the Iranians had staged air raids first. Of course his claim was not substantiated by any evidence or proof. But, certainly Iran retaliated after a relatively lengthy period of several months waiting. To justify his devastating action, Saddam stated his real reason:
"The Iranian command does not care for its nation; it wants us to retaliate in kind for the aerial attacks on Iraq's non-military objectives so as to be able to muster all the Iranian nations [1] around itself to serve its malicious and aggressive objectives. In spite of this, we are able to destroy their large cities with our air force and missiles.[2] However we ought to do something to make them lose their control of their nerves and act foolishly so that we may be able to destroy their main forces."[3]
On 23/10/1983 (2/8/1362) Saddam made other frank statements using the expression "Depth of Iranian Territory" for Iranian cities and expressed pride over the stepped up bombardment of Iranian cities in answer to "Iran's aggression" which means "the continuation of the war." Saddam had really meant to fool his listeners by suggesting that Iran has started this war of aggression.
"Therefore, anyone who inflicts injuries on Iraq shall not be immune to our blows in the defense of Iraq, even if such blows are to be meted out deep inside Iranian territory. We have acted in this manner the last couple of days and we will continue in this way. If their aggressive acts continue, we shall increase our devastating blows. "[4]
In a gathering of Iraqi pilots who had non-military and economic targets in Iran, Saddam told them:
"I say that anyone of you and your friends in the air force who deliver accurate blows to the head of this dying... and its economic targets, bring the war closer to its end.
"And when the end of war is drawn closer, it prevents the bloodshed of his military pals.[5]
But, if he misses, even slightly, the blood that is shed because of continuation of war shall be his responsibility.[6]
Saddam's insults to the bloodshed of Iranian civilians are already narrated. However, it seems strange that (in Saddam's opinion) shedding the blood of non-military Iranian people, that runs into thousands, shortens the war and as a result prevents the bloodshed of Iraqi soldiers while Saddam, the perpetrator of the war asks Iran to terminate it! ! !
On 14/6/1985 (25/3/1364) in a message to the Iranian people, Saddam asked them to pressure their government to terminate the war. With a view to his words, let us see how the bombardment of non-military targets and the killing of civilians in Saddam's logic is considered as the way to peace:
"To prove to you that bombing targets deep inside Iranian territory [7] is not aimed at hurting the Iranian nations or as insult to their lives, sovereignty or generosity. Rather it is used as a means to stop the war, and, in order that you (the Iranians) may enjoy your holidays we will stop bombing specific targets deep within Iranian cities for the period 0800 tomorrow June 15 through the 30th of this month (25/3/1364 to 9/4/1364).
"In fact our withholding of bombardments is to give authorities in Iran a new opportunity to think of peace and so that you may have another chance to pressure your government to stop the war for the sake of peace."[8]
On 22/9/1985 (31/6/1364) Saddam spoke with those Iraqi pilots who had participated in the bombardment of the Kharg Island. He told them he had given the Iranians one more chance but they had not taken advantage of it (he meant stopping the war that he himself had started and had termed it: "The National Liberation War" and had pronounced himself "National Liberation Hero" and therefore the bombardment of economic and industrial centers of Iran would continue:
"I give them a chance and when they don't take advantage of it, with God's assistance, we shall bomb all of Iran's vital economic and industrial centers."[9]
This extortion and coercion was used by Saddam to save himself from the abyss he had cast himself into:
"If they (the Iranians) are interested in saving what is left of their industrial and economic facilities, though the blood that has been shed indicates they are not, as if they have men they want to get rid of through the war, [10] I say if you don't avail yourself of the opportunity to stop the war, with the grace of God, certain destruction shall befall the sources that have enabled you so far to take up arms and continue a pointless war..."
To understand the extent of damages incurred on civilian targets in Iran, above all the martyrdom of thousands of metropolitan residents and the injury to countless numbers of people, we must point to the rest of Saddam Hussein's (the hero who is interested in Iranian blood) words in this same speech dated 22/9/1985 (21/6/64).
"The targets bombarded in the past two months equals the number of targets bombarded in this country by the air force during the entire period of war."
Thus, the Iraqi regime has made targets of economic and industrial institutions and has, from the start of the war, showered hundreds of tons of explosives upon the people. However, the amount of devastating material used during the two months of July and August is equal to the amount it has used from the start of the war until July of that year (1985).
Here we take another look at the criminally inclined mentality of Saddam in his speech of 22/9/1985:
"The more we blast the economic arteries of the enemy, the closer peace is and the prevention of further bloodshed of Iraqis as well as those Iranians who do not want war or aggression.
The above evidence quoting Saddam will suffice this point.
2.Use of Chemical Materials and Weapons
The use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi Army has been upon the direct orders of Saddam Hussein. This point is confirmed by high-ranking Iraqi Army commanders and officers who were taken prisoner. On the international level, it is an established fact without a doubt. It is also confirmed by international agencies and by the authorities in some of the countries supporting Saddam, although some other states supporting Saddam, in his war against the Islamic Republic, have not confirmed it; this includes countries that provide financial and military aid to Iraq; Countries that are friends with Saddam but have condemned the use of chemical weapons on a worldwide basis. In this way such countries have sought an excuse for removing any probable doubts that affect their relations with Iraq.
To be sure, some of these countries have condemned Saddam (for use of chemical weapons) out of fear of rival political parties. And, since condemnation is inexpensive, they announce it and at the same time they send him specialists, arms, and even chemicals that are used in manufacturing bombs.
Saddam has himself cited a reason with which he undoubtedly has meant to make fools of his listeners and deny the use of chemical weapons and poisonous gases:
"The U.S.A. has announced it is upset over Iraq's use of all that is called poisonous gas. This country is quoting a news broadcast by Iran. The U.S.A. knows quite well that such claims are baseless and that Iran resorts to them in order to cover up for up its defeats.[11]
"You saw the films and the corpses shattered by Iraqi bullets. I don't think it had been censured to eliminate victims of chemical gases. Such scheming is intended to conceal truth, honor and principles. They (the Americans) conspired with authorities in Tehran in order to establish an emotional bridge with them.[12]
It is regrettable that none of the delegates to the Arab Labor Conference raised a voice in protest to what Saddam had said in his speech at that conference. None even asked how one can decide whether corpses fallen on the ground and shown on the television were killed by bullets or by poisonous gas. Also, no one asked Saddam about the nature of the emotional bridges between the U.S.A. and Iran, nor how the scheming between these two countries had taken place?
In his last statement about the scandal over using chemical weapons by Iraq, on 30/4/1984 (10/2/1353), Saddam has said:
“The question of chemical warfare and chemical bombardment which the world mass media talks about... naturally, if we carefully observe this media, they all have considered the problem unilaterally. Whether in Europe or America the mass media is influenced by Zionist circles and have co-ordinated with Iran's news and information media. One time they say cargo shipments with Iraqi destination arriving at the Port of Aqaba are chemical gases. Another time they say that the Akkashat industrial complex is manufacturing chemicals.”
"The purpose of these statements is quite clear- it is aimed at preparing grounds for delivering blows to major Iraqi economic centers." [13]
Truly, what can one do with a speaker who wants so much to beguile his listeners?
3. Crimes Committed Against Prisoners:
The crimes committed by Iraqi soldiers against Iranian prisoners are indicated in International Red Cross reports. Some of the crimes have been reflected in Persian books and pamphlets and other crimes by anti-Iraqi wings. Here we relate a very strange incident:
Baghdad Television on 28/12/1983 (7/10/1362), in a special program, showed ceremonies for awarding medals of honor and bravery to Iraqi officers and enlisted men who had performed great and honorable feats during the war. Upon distributing the medals, each recipient was asked to tell of his brave acts at the war fronts that made him merit the related medal. When his turn came to narrate such a story that made Saddam laugh out loud, a soldier related the following incident: Saddam asked: "Did you remove the flesh of the prisoner whom you killed?" The soldier replied:
"I recall that our company lieutenant had taken an Iranian soldier as prisoner [14]. Lt. Mahmood was with us in the bunker. We stoned the prisoner to death for we did not wish to waste a bullet."
Cachinnating Saddam then asked: "Was not his flesh severed from his bones during the incident?"
The soldier replied: "Well, Sir, to tell you the truth, company heroes are all lions including Lt. Mahmood!"
They claimed that the reason for stoning the soldier to death was that they did not want to waste a bullet or hand grenade. Of course reasoning is not in tune with the immense Iraqi arsenals. Anyhow the Iranian soldier had been left in the bunker with his hand and feet tied up before his death by stoning. He would have attempted to escape if his feet and hands were not tied.
When this criminal act is recounted, the headman of the Iraqi regime, who is also, the permanent secretary of the Ba'ath Party as well as commander-in-chief of all the armed forces and president of the Revolutionary Command Council, guffaws and asks whether they had peeled the flesh off the prisoner's bones?!
It remains for us to see how the following news, broadcast by Radio Baghdad early in the war and published by the Al Safir in its issue of 4/10/1980 (12/7/1359) can be interpreted.
"Baghdad Radio announced that the Iranian pilot who meant to bomb targets in Basra was killed by local inhabitants after his plane was hit. This radio also said that one of the pilots was shot during descent and the other captured and killed by local people."
If we study the story related by the Iraqi soldier describing for Saddam the manner of killing an Iranian prisoner of war, we will recognize the people who, according to Radio Baghdad, killed the Iranian prisoner.
These "local people" included policemen, the militia or belonged to the "People's Army" and so we can doubt the manner in which the co-pilot of the aircraft, that had met with an accident, was killed.
On the other hand, we have a communiqué that has been issued by the Iraqi Armed Forces on 23/9/1980 (1/7/1359):
"At 13:30 five enemy aircraft appeared in the Kirkuk sky and attacked the city's airport. Our ground-to-air fire shot them down. Another (enemy) aircraft that appeared in our sky after those (already downed), was also hit by our ground-to-air fire. Our forces, together with the help of men from the 'People's Army' were able to capture the pilots alive. "[15]
We note, therefore, that usually the armed forces plus members of the People's Army with the help of some ordinary people capture the pilot of a downed aircraft. Ordinary people alone are forbidden to do that by themselves, otherwise, they will face harsh punishments decreed by responsible authorities of Iraq. Fear of these punishments makes it very difficult for ordinary people to undertake such arrests, if not prevent them entirely altogether, particularly in the middle of a city such as Basra with all the military personnel, the police and the People's Army who roam around in that city.
It follows then that the military personnel have killed the prisoner and it is very likely that the other pilot, too was murdered by them.
And finally, it must be said that Saddam, in his war as well as peace campaigns with Iran, has not overlooked the commitment of any action banned by international organizations. His trial, therefore, in a court of justice by fair and impartial prosecutors from neutral states and his punishment are called for. He deserves to be punished, for, one tenth of the crimes he has committed against the Iranians and the Iraqis, is enough for his prosecution and conviction. Surely Saddam's trial shall make his supporters, and all those who insist that Iran sign a peace treaty with him, blush. It is like asking a Pole who has spent time in Nazi prisons; or an Englishman who has lived through the Nazi bombardment of London; or a Parisian who has lived under Nazi occupation, to make peace with criminals like Hitler, Goering, Hess and Rosenberg and sit at the negotiation table with any of them.
We are sure that if Hit1er could come alive after 41 years, a Nuremberg Tribunal would be set up for his trial and sentence him to death while feeling sorry for not having a more fitting way to mete out his punishment.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Here Saddam admits that bombing the cities will result in mobilization of the Iranians.
[2] At that time Saddam tried to pretend his object was to bombard non-military targets, assuming perhaps that the world has forgotten the destruction he brought to the southern and border cities and towns of Iran when his armies invaded these points on Shahrivar 31, 1359 (Sept. 22, 1980).
[3] A part of Saddam's talk with the Iraqi news agency distributed 6/2/1983.
[4] Conversation with the delegates from the city of Diali.
[5] Iraqi pilots should shed the blood of the Iranian so as to prevent the shedding of Iraqi blood.
[6] Saddam's speech on 7/6/1984 at a feast arranged in appreciation of Iraqi pilots who had bombarded non-military targets.
[7] One expression used with a special meaning by Saddam and in Iraq's military communiqués is this: "Bombardment deep inside Iranian territory and by that they mean bombarding non-military targets and the phrase "bombing selected targets" also means bombing non-military targets.
"Destruction of sea targets" means the bombing of an oil tanker. The international news media will have understood these phrases.
[8] This message was broadcast in the evening of 14/6/1985. It was titled: "A message for the Iranian nations."
[9] In conferring medals to pilots, Saddam did not settle with the bombardment of economic and scientific centers. He also had cultural centers bombed. As an example, the archeological sites at Isfahan. This barbaric act was condemned by the UNESCO.
[10] Same as previous speech, in Saddam's thinking and mentality, the Iranians who defend themselves, do not value their life and blood. The destruction of non-military targets by bombs or missiles is done to prevent the bloodshed of innocent people.
[11] We wonder why the Iranians want to ascribe their defeat to the use of chemical weapons. Why doesn't Saddam talk of repeated tactical defeats at the fronts, the last of which occurred July 1, 1980 at Mehran, with excellent morale they retreated. In the words of an Iraqi Army commander, already mentioned, that is how it happened at Mehran. Truly, is it not the Iraqi regime that tried to make up for its defeats at the fronts by using chemical weapons?
[12] Saddam's speech at & gathering of the delegates to the Arab Labor Conference dated 7/3/1984.
[13] Saddam's press conference with Kuwaiti reporters broadcast on Baghdad Radio, 30/4/1984.
[14] The dotted part of the original tape broadcast from Iraq's Radio and Television had been intended to conceal the name of that lieutenant. However after a couple of words, the television had been unable to erase all of it and subsequently, it became clear that the lieutenant's name was "Mahmood" and all the military men who were accomplices to this savage crime, had been men of the 3rd and 4th battalions of the special brigade of the republic.
[15] The book entitled: "The Communiqués of the General Command, the Armed Forces of Saddam's Qadessiah," page 19.
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
NOTE
The Iraqi regime has consistently claimed that its aggressive, imposed war on the Islamic Republic of Iran is the outcome of its nationalistic stance and its purpose has been to defend the rights of the Arabs. In other words, it is a war between Arabs and Iranians. Although in the Arab world, many of the regimes and forces affiliated with the arrogant world powers have confirmed and helped the Iraqi regime in its imposed war on Iran and have propagated this trend of thought in their mass media, Arab nations and so political regimes and powers have supported Iran in its just position.
In our conclusion of the discussions at the end of the book we have pointed out, as an example two points of view by two Arab wings regarding the war. What Hafez Assad has said clearly shows that the Arabs and particularly advanced Arab nations and regimes have not confirmed Saddam's crimes nor assisted him in performing them.
CONCLUSIONS
The war of aggression which Saddam Hussein has started is approaching its 8th year, a war whose outcome for the nations in the region, particularly the two Muslim nations of Iran and Iraq was devastation and ruin. The war swallowed all the wealth which could have been used for the present and future progress and development of the area.
When our dear reader takes a look at the massive pile of papers on which the slogans of Saddam's war of Qadessiah are printed, in newspapers, magazines, etc. have "Iraq starts the national war of liberation." Or, he reads: "Saddam, the National Liberation Hero." And still further: "There is no difference between the liberation of Palestine and Arabistan because territory does not differentiate between one occupier and another. But when the reader compares what he has read with what he reads in Baghdad's mass media today, he notes that the phrase "Iraq's war is a defensive war", is often repeated.
Truly, what happened that the national liberation war changed into a defensive war? What makes the peace mediators insist so much on stopping the war?
Is it true that they wish to prevent the bloodshed of Iraqi and Iranian Muslims? Where were they (the mediators) when Saddam and his propaganda apparatus were calling the Iranians magus or magian (sun or fire worshippers), while Islam has bestowed on it the honor of being its standard-bearer in whose path they readily sacrifice themselves.
To destroy the Iranian nation, Saddam made use of any weapon that Eastern and Western arsenals made available to him, even weapons that were internationally banned. But, the honorable mediators and peace enthusiasts give equal standing to him who has started the conflagration in which he is burning, with Iran who has been invaded. Now that Saddam is losing the war that he himself has started the mediators are hard at work to make Iran agree to a cease- fire and sit at the negotiating table with Iraq. They also encourage the delegations of both sides to meet each other with smiles and sign a peace treaty which Saddam may tear up any time just as he tore up the Algerian Accord of 1975.
He who, at the time of invading the Islamic Republic admitted no mediators, particularly the Arab mediators, now sees unfavorable winds blowing, that he has been beaten in trying to fulfill his aggressive aims and is eagerly seeking the assistance of anyone who might be able to do something.
We know very well that the respectable peace enthusiasts who now talk of the dangers of war and regard it as a threat to regional and international peace, are those who helped prolong this war of aggression with money and material which they unsparingly made available to Saddam. None of these people uttered a word when Saddam's armies invaded and occupied and devastated the lands and cities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They did not seek peace then. Rather, they considered Saddam's action the natural and historical right of the Iraqi regime. Now they realize they have forfeited their popular base and their people openly demand that they explain their reasons for supporting Saddam. Their unlimited support has resulted in economic and social crises in their countries and therefore, they emphatically seek peace.
Those who started this war wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic regime in Iran. We have ample evidence to prove this. Saddam Hussein has personally told Jacques Chirac (present French prime minister) that the Islamic Republic will fall in six days." Therefore the demand to stop the holy defense of the Islamic Republic vis-a-vis the aggression that has been launched against it, in reality, amounts to belittling the criminal plot that was implemented with the objective of overthrowing the Islamic Republic.
*This point has been revealed by Jacques Chirac in an interview with the Washington Post newspaper which printed the matter in its issue of 7/11/1986 (16/9/1365). The said newspaper has added that not only this objective was not realized but it increased the power of the Islamic Republic in the matter.
It must be said that the ruling regime in Baghdad, who has violated the valid treaty with excuses and has attacked Iran, is not competent to sign a new treaty. In addition to its disregard for and breach of contract, Saddam has committed such crimes against Iran and Iraq that cannot be ignored. The Iraqi regime must be punished for its dirty acts.
The ruin, devastation of towns, villages, cities and farms as well as the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by the Iraqi regime can never be forgotten. It is a positive proof that the Baghdad regime lacks the honor and courage necessary to conclude a peace treaty. Anyone who does not respect humanity will surely have no respect for peace.
The Muslim nation of Iran should be proud to have been able to withstand a deaf and blind aggression supported by the spiteful enemies of Islam. The epic actions of this war should make any Muslim anywhere feel proud. These epic narrations shall be cherishing in the hearts and minds of all the men of goodwill who have repeatedly witnessed devotion and sacrifice all over Iran. We have children who have donated all their savings, given to them by their parents, for the cause of this holy defense. We have teenagers who grenade in hand, throw themselves under enemy tanks, destroying the enemy and attaining martyrdom. We have millions of faithful people who are devoted to the Holy Prophet (SAWA) and to the innocent, and infallible Imams (AS.) and their companions (Sahabah) and aids, who though few in number, effectively challenged enemies far superior to them in number and equipment. Anyone who is like that, will not lay down his arms but will continue his sacred defense until his just conditions for an honorable peace in the region are fulfilled.
The believing and faithful hands and hearts that were able to shake the palaces of the cruel oppressors and add new page to history are also capable of cutting off the hands of anyone who may seek to mar the honor and dignity of this Islamic homeland.
APPENDIX ONE
Selected portions from the statement of the "The Civil Leadership Council of the Ba'ath Party of Lebanon (supporters of Iraq);
"Our great nation!, amid the rising fire of war -by the Eastern gateway to the Arab homeland, eyes are fixed on the matchless, heroic acts and shining victories which the Arab Army scores by the revolutionary Iraq against the enemies of the homeland and its people. The grandeur and eminence of the Arabs is crystallizing in a new Qadessiah and Ziqar. Ba'athist warriors draw their sword to clean the Arab land from the impurity of occupation and to return to the Arab ummat (nation) its prestige and credibility.
The Al Amal newspaper, Lebanon 26/9/1980 (4/7/1359 A.H.).'Liberating the lands that Iran had occupied is not merely retaking Iraqi territory. Rather, it is regaining the rights of the Arabs to every square foot of their usurped lands. In fact, this move is a re- demonstration of the will of the Arabs and their right to decide their own destiny on the basis of national selection and the expediencies of the Arab nation (ummat).
In this connection it must be pointed out that the decision of the Iraqi Revolutionary Council to retake the occupied Iraqi lands is nothing but to return the right to the usurped lands and to secure natural rights acceptable by international laws and practices.
"The army of Iraqi warriors has risen with the incentive to regain the usurped rights and to hoist the Iraqi banner up high in the freed territories after the return of sovereignty to the nation and the homeland so that it may be able to stand up to the nonsense that Iranian authorities are jabbering against Iraq and the Arab ummat. This army does not need permission to carry out its national duties, especially because the Tehran regime insists on its aberrations, on ignoring all international laws and disregarding the simplest human value and good-neighborly relations.
'"It was obvious from the start that what is called the Revolution of Iran is nothing but a gathering of anarchists with a revenge program in a new form against Arab nationalism and its pioneering revolutionary forces. This political frivolity became manifest in the form of racist behavior and expansionist dreams of the new Tehran rulers, after dethroning Reza Shah (Muhammad Reza) Pahlavi who was appointed gendarme by the U.S.A. to curb all liberating Arab movements and Arab revolutionary forces.
"To be true to its nature the latent racial spite and animosity of the Iranians toward Arab nationalism showed up in the words of the new rulers of Iran. They equated Arab nationalism with Zionism. And since increased exports requires increased production, the rulers in Tehran, began to export their troubles while claiming they were exporting their revolution. To this end, they used fancy slogans and multifaceted lies which became evident in their first contact with the rights of Arabs.
"How we and all the sincere Arabs wished that authorities in Tehran would, immediately after assuming power, attend to the relations between themselves and the Arab nation which had been tarnished with malice and enmity?" How we wished they would return all that the imperial regime had clutched, whose fall we regarded as auspicious!? We wished that Iran would play its part in support of the Arabs and not against them.
'"But, none of these expectations were realized. The new regime insisted on its occupation of the three Arab islands and Iraqi territories and resumed the claim on Bahrain and questioned the Arab identity of the (Persian) Gulf and showed disregard for the treaties signed between Iran and Iraq. Such conduct is tantamount to violation of Iraq's national sovereignty and the nationalist prestige of the Arabs. Also, it is against international laws and practices.
"Therefore, Iraq's action should be regarded as a defense measure which extinguished expansionism in its embryonic stage and promised the realization of the return of lawful rights to those they really belong.
"Our great nation! The almost crusading role that Iraq performs today together with its armies of warriors and generous nation under the leadership of Saddam Hussein means acceptance of the responsibility for the war of the Arab ummat and activating the Palestine liberation movement.
"The Ba'ath banners that are hoisted in the land of Rafadain (Iraq) have projected in our heart and in the hearts of all Arabs such fighting values and mass mobilization that render the eyes anxious and draws all feelings, emotions and hearts toward Baghdad, this bastion of Arabism, the bastion that protects the Arab ummat (nation) from the spiteful and challenging breaches of law which harms the revolutionary structure of the Arabs.
"Those who still have doubts and misgivings as to the stance they should take, and we especially mean some of the Arabs, should know that their assumed position is not an effort to stay away from bloodshed. Rather, their apprehension is due to the radiating revolutionary flames of nations who can no longer stand encroachments of their rights and liberties. Iraq's war, is the war of all Arabs because, revolutionary Iraq is the manifestation of the wishes and demands of all the Arabs to obtain unity and freedom. This war is the war of all those who love peace. The purpose of all liberation wars is to secure an eventual peace, a peace based on justice and equity and the return of peoples' rights to them. Anyone who does not voice his confirmation and support of this war, which in itself is the least demand, is like a traitor who takes part in the designs for occupation of national territories. Such a party cannot be admitted under any circumstances, to securing the sovereignty of the national territory.
Just as territory does not differentiate between occupiers and as colonialism in any form is eventually the same thing, the people too, do not differentiate between occupiers. The difference between occupiers lies in their status and degree and not in their nature. I declare to all those who are silent today and think of the strategic attack against the "Camp David" agreement -that such attack cannot be launched through compromising methods. But, it can materialize with machine guns of the revolutionaries at Abadan, Shatt al Arab and Zein-al Ghoas.
APPENDIX TWO
The Report of Al Safir Newspaper Concerning the Statements of Mr. Hafez Assad, President of Syria, About the Aggression of Iraq Against Iran*
Hafez Assad pointing to the Iraq-Iran war made the following remarks: "All that goes on at the Iraq-Iran borders is most regrettable."
He (Hafez Assad) added: "Iraq is an Arab country whose nation, army and destiny are ours and Iran is a neighboring country in which an Islamic Revolution has taken place and is tied to the struggle of Arabs against Israel. The Arabs regard the victory of the Iranian Revolution as their own victory." The Syrian President continued:
Al Safir newspaper dated 8/11/1980 (Aban 17, 1359 A.H.) "Iran had a dictatorial monarchy which was opposed to the Arab ummat. The former Iranian regime was cooperating with Israel. It had established a political and military base in this strategic region that has been actively implementing the plans of world imperialism. The expansionist drives of that dictatorial monarchy was a constant and increasing threat to the Arab ummat (nation) and homeland.
"Then a national revolution with Islamic mottos took place. It dethroned the shah; called off the imperialistic foreign relations; folded up foreign military bases, removed the influence and domination of imperialism from the country; severed all relations with Israel and, with an orbital move, found its place in the body of the Non-Aligned countries. It demonstrated its all-out support for Palestine and Jerusalem (Quds) as well as occupied Arab territories. All this has had widespread, positive repercussions in all the struggles of the Arabs on both regional and worldwide scales. It (the new regime of Iran) has produced a valuable strategic balance, in the real sense, in the region as well as the world at large. It (Iran) undoubtedly stands by us in the liberation of our occupied territories and in regaining our national rights in Palestine.
"Such was the conduct of Iran then and now, it is as we said above. After such drastic changes, is it fair that we do not rejoice in the victory of this (Islamic) Revolution? Is it fair that we show no interest in the perpetuation of this revolution?
President Assad went on to say: "In the wake of this change, many Arab national personalities, parties, governments and other Arab organizations entered into relations of friendship and cooperation with the revolution. Some of these have had contacts with this revolution before it took place and had cooperation with it. Others established relations with the revolution after its triumph. After knowing all these facts, is it unfair to ask why this revolution was made the object of invasion, why such a sudden war waged against it? Why did the Iraqi regime start this uncalled for war? If the problems which spurred the war concerned that Arabs, why was no Arab country consulted in advance? We, in Syria cannot conceive of an Arab foregoing his rights but no Arab should impose a war on other Arabs unless it is a recognized enemy and we be in a defensive position.
'He (Mr. Assad) continued: "The declaration of war on Iran was as sudden and unexpected to us as it was to the Iranians... it was necessary for the Arabs to meet and analyze the matter of their rights and find a political solution before Iraq undertakes such a dangerous war. He went on to say:
“The question is clear and there is no doubt that this war is not related to the rights of the Arabs in a positive way. If the question concerned the Iraqi nation and territories, we would not hesitate to help Iraq, hand in hand with our nation there and partake in the war wherever it might be. But, a border dispute should not be solved on a struggle for survival basis.
As a result of this war, the Palestinian issue lost its importance for the Arabs as well as worldwide and assumed secondary significance. Also, Iraqi military and economic resources were deleted from the Arab-Israel scene of conflict and this delighted Israel.
'It is required of anyone who becomes involved in a war in the name of the Arabs to present his evidence and reasons thereof to all the Arabs and convinces them that such and such a war is undertaken for the sake of the Arabs.
"Cur brothers who rule in Iraq today are the ones who, in 1975, signed a treaty with Iran. They are also the ones who now annul that treaty .After the conclusion of the 1975 Treaty with the shah of Iran, they rejoiced and celebrated the occasion in many places in Iraq and termed this treaty a great success for them but now, they rescind it... that may be alight. Perhaps they were not serious about what they said then. But, have they selected a propitious time? Did they employ a proper method in doing so? Did they consult any Arab? No, none of these took place!
"In Syria, we always decide our policies and positions with a view to the aims, principles and exigencies of the Arabs and nothing else. This war is not waged on the basis of the Arabs' aims, principles and expediencies. It is, rather, in the interest of alien non-Arabs and against the interests of the Arabs.
"On this basis it was up to us to assume a stance against this war but what has deterred us from doing so is the dear Iraqi soldier and nation who have become the kindling of this war, the tinder of war that has caused the Iraqi and Iranian miserable suffering.”
Hafez Assad concluded his talk with this point: “Therefore, we shall not be drawn into the network of imperialism and will not enter a war which is against the principles and objectives of the Arabs."
|
