Press conference by permanent representative of iraq

A recent statement issued by 29 Saudi Arabian scholars in Islamic jurisprudence to support the Iraqi insurgency was a misuse of Islam for political purposes, Samir Shakir Mahmood Sumaidaie, Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations, said this morning at his first Headquarters press conference.

He said that the statement, which also denounced informers for “the enemy”, could be used by the insurgents as to justify their violent actions.  That intervention from beyond Iraq’s borders was worrying and clearly hostile.  It was also detrimental to efforts to calm the situation in Iraq, whose friends and neighbours were urged to make it clear that there should be no meddling in the country’s internal affairs and that violence should not be supported.  During a conversation, Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Representative had made clear that his Government supported the Government of Iraq, and that Saudi Arabia had similar problems of its own.

Noting that Iraq continued to face a determined challenge to the political process, which was the only viable process to build a peaceful State, he said that forces had come together to take the country back to “the age of darkness” from which it was just emerging.  However, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people were determined that the country would succeed in its struggle towards peace and normalcy.

Asked whether a decision would be made to push back the date for elections in light of violence across the country, he said the elections should be held on time, during the last week of January 2005.  The fact that violence would continue was accepted.  However, the outcome of the military operation in Falluja had been positive in the sense that a safe haven for terrorists had been removed and their ability to launch an organized campaign reduced.  What would happen during the coming weeks would be important.  There was a good chance of meeting the target date, but if it became clear that more time was needed, a decision would then be made.

The security situation was just one side, he said, adding that the other side was the political process.  Every effort was being made to convince those who had initially been hostile to the political process to abandon their support for the violent factions and join the political process.  Both the security and political situations were moving forward and there was no intention of putting additional forces on the ground for the elections.  However, there were operational arrangements to safeguard voters and polling places.

Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, also from the Permanent Mission of Iraq, pointed out that the situation was not exceptional for a country in transition from tyranny to democracy and that Afghanistan had held a successful election process despite security concerns and problems.  The way the story was reported in the media, it seemed that Iraq could not hold elections unless its security situation resembled that of Minnesota.  The threat of violence was not in itself sufficient reason to delay the elections.

Answering questions about United Nations support for the elections, Mr. Sumaidaie said that the 19 August 2003 attack on the United Nations Baghadad headquarters had created an understandable reluctance within the Organization to expose its people to risk.  However, Iraq was moving into another phase and the United Nations should do more.  Its decision to increase the number of people on the ground to 59 was welcome and it was understood that a further increase was in the pipeline.

Regarding reported differences between the Secretary-General and the Iraqi Government before the military operation in Falluja, he said he had pointed out in a meeting with the Secretary-General his own concern about civilian casualties.  However, it was not a choice between having civilian casualties or not; to leave the city as it was would mean civilian casualties caused by the terrorists.  Leaving Falluja as it was constituted a greater threat to civilians than a military operation, a position that had subsequently been vindicated by the assault on the city.  Communication was the best way to bridge differences between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations.  There had been a series of meetings, and the mere process of meeting was bringing their respective points of view closer.

In response to a question about the division between the Sunni and the Shia, he said the terrorists were striving to create sectarian warfare and had been selecting their targets to increase the possibility of civil war, which would be a success for them.  Iraqis generally had been very resistant to that approach and all attempts to create a sectarian war had failed.  The Government was seriously engaging nationalist and Sunni groupings to persuade them to take part in the political process.

The insurgents were on the run and had been deprived of a base, he added.  That, combined with efforts by neighbouring countries to prevent infiltration, would result in the support of the general population, which was “fed up with those people”.  If the Sunni boycotted the elections as a bloc however, the elections would be in trouble.  But that was unlikely because ordinary people had expressed great enthusiasm and there was excitement in the streets.

* *** *