Cable No. 1205 from Ambassador Nonoyama Tadayuki (Jordan) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 'Prime Minister Kaifu’s Meeting With First Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan (1 of 2)'

Secret

Telegraphic Copy                                [blacked out]

Prime Minister Kaifu’s Meeting With First Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan (1 of 2)

No. 1205         Secret  Top Urgent      [blacked out]

(Divided Telegram)

On October 4, the meeting between Prime Minister Kaifu and Iraqi First Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan took place from 8:10 to 10:00 in the royal office at the palace in Jordan. Below follows a summary of its main points. (Present from our side were Owada Hisashi, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs; Katakura Kunio, Ambassador to Iraq; Watanabe Makoto, Director, Middle Eastern and African Affairs Bureau; Takenaka Shigeo, Director-General for Press and Public Diplomacy; and Ebihara Shin, Director, First Middle East Division. Present from the other side were Nizar Hamdoon, Deputy Foreign Minister; Abdul Hamid, Director, First Political Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Raui [phonetic transliteration, possibly Rawi], Chief of Protocol. Interpreter: Miyamoto Masayuki).

1. At the outset, the Prime Minister said the following:

(1) Earlier, when Miki Takeo visited Iraq as an envoy, I met you, Deputy Prime Minister, when you were at that time the Minister of Industry. Since that time, there has existed between our two countries cooperative relations in economic cooperation, technical cooperation, and other areas. I heard that, with the Iran-Iraq War having ended, in search of new relations of cooperation with your country, fruitful discussions took place on August 1 with an economic delegation from your country on restarting the remaining Japanese mixed credits. However, that situation suddenly occurred. I (the Prime Minister) am deeply, deeply concerned. I hope that, through patient efforts, this affair a peaceful and just settlement of this situation can be reached.

(2) Today, the conflict between East and West has ended, circumstances have greatly changed, and the world is searching for a new order. I would like you, Deputy Prime Minister, to make a great decision from a high perspective. That is to say, I would like you to make the decision, in line with the Security Council resolutions, on the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Kuwait, restoration of Kuwait’s legitimate government, and the departure of all foreigners. I hope that, in order to develop the present situation, we find through your country’s great decision and courage the beginning of discussions for a peaceful and just settlement of the issue. Nearly all members of the international community do not accept the annexation by military force of another country and see it leading to the destruction of the new international order. I would like your country, from a high perspective, to respond decisively to the demands of the international community. As concerns the international community, for example, US President Bush was saying in regard to the United Nations that starting various new discussions would be conceivable if Iraq implemented the Security Council resolutions. I would like your country to take steps to development the situation for the sake of a peaceful settlement of this problem.

2. In reply, Ramadan said the following:

(1) It is a pleasure to be able on this occasion to meet you, Prime Minister, but I think that it would have been even more wonderful had we had such a meeting earlier. In light of the particular relations of friendship between Japan and Iraq and the importance of the position that Japan takes in regard to the incident of August 2, I think that today’s meeting is significant. As I (Ramadan) have contributed to the development of relations between Japan and Iraq, I would like you, Prime Minister, the leader of Japan, to fully understand the facts and origin of this incident. I am not asking Japan for its support of Iraq’s position, but I would like you to adopt a position based on the facts.

(2) I hope that dialogue between Japan and Iraq will contribute to the settlement of this incident and of all others, to the strengthening of relations between Japan and Iraq, and to their continuation. Today I was thinking of speaking to you, Prime Minister, in detail of the background and origin of this incident. As time is limited however, I would like to limit my talk to several points.

(3) Kuwait was historically part of Iraq. To be specific, it was part of the province of Basra. It was taken by Britain in 1913 in an act of British imperialism. At that time, there existed no unified political system in the region known as Kuwait. The severing of Kuwait from Iraq was even the source of the division of the Arab countries by the great powers. The objectives of this British act was to distance Iraq from the sea and to gain half of Iraq’s oil resources. In Kuwait, an advisory council resolved in 1938 for Kuwait’s reversion to Iraq, but the sheikh at that time (the father of Sheikh Al-Jaber) dissolved the council. Since Iraq became independent in 1920, we have never recognized Kuwait’s borders. Time and time again, we have officially asserted within Iraq and abroad that Kuwait should be annexed by Iraq. In Iraq’s era of monarchy, however, we saw no progress in the settlement of borders out of concern for relations with Britain, Kuwait’s protector. Even so, even in the era of the monarchy, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri as-Said twice officially proposed to Britain the annexation of Kuwait to Iraq. That is to say, he made the proposals in 1957 and 1958, and there seemed to be some progress, but the Revolution took place in Iraq in 1958 and the talks were broken off. Iraq became a republic from 1958. Kuwait’s suzerain, Britain, granted Kuwait the status of independence in 1961. After that, Prime Minister Qasim asserted that Kuwait was a part of Basra Province.

However, due to interference from Britain and Arab countries, this was not possible. In 1968 the Baathist Revolution took place and Saddam Hussein became the leader. Hussein, unlike those before him, has worked for the settlement of the issue while coming to terms with the present. Iraq for the next 25 years made efforts but was unable to resolve the issue due to the stalling for time of Kuwait’s previous regime.

(4) Furthermore, Kuwait, thinking to gain new territory from Iraq, expanded its territory into Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. In particular, in regard to the Rumaila Oil Field, Kuwait invaded the territory of Iraq and began drilling for oil. Iraq formally protested. Kuwait, however, taking advantage of Iran’s engagement in the war with Iran, did not stop. Iraq had to commence new hostilities with Kuwait. The territory that Kuwait invaded came to one quarter of Kuwait’s original area.

After the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq called on Kuwait to settle the border issue. Major talks were held twice, but it was clear that Kuwait had no interest in settling the issue. Iraq, therefore, on July 16 sent a detailed report on the importance of the problem to the Arab League. Iraq’s Foreign Minister sent a document explaining the historical relationship between Iraq and Kuwait, based on various records and documents, to the foreign ministers of various countries, including that of Japan.

The Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, but the United States and the Zionists carried out a campaign against Iraq. Behind this was Israel’s aim to destroy Iraq’s industrial base. Farzad Bazoft conducted espionage, including the photographing within Iraq of military facilities. Iraq executed him. Iraq warned Israel that it would attack if attacked. Is it unnatural to take hostile action against a country that takes hostile action?

(5) Israel and other Western countries are vehement in their campaign against Iraq. At the time of the conflict between Iran and Iraq, the United States, as apparent in the Irangate scandal, provided Iran with a substantial amount of weapons. Furthermore, when Iraq became a military power by way of the war with Iran, the United States next hatched an economic plot. Iraq, its economy exhausted by the war, became unable to repay its debts. Even though Iraq needed funds for postwar recovery, the United States and other countries lowered the price of oil. Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates engaged in production above the ceiling of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Considering that oil is Iraq’s sole source of income, these acts were terrible problems. Iraq appealed to OPEC that such an ongoing situation would destroy Iraq, asking whether it was right after Iraqis had died fighting Iran in defense of the Arabs and arguing that this was a war of oil against Iraq. However, Iraq’s argument was not accepted. The result was the incident of August 2.

(6) Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, in concert with the United States, continued the economic plot against Iraq. In addition, the United States engaged from an early stage in reducing food and grain exports to Iraq. Kuwait’s leaders were also involved in the plot, with the United States at the center, against Iraq. The United States and other countries have expanded the present incident to the point that there is a risk of a global war. Once the incident of August 2 occurred, there were various movements within a period of 48 hours. We sought to convene a mini-summit of five Arab countries and settle the issue within an Arab framework. We set the mini-summit for August 6, but the United States secretary of defense visited Saudi Arabia on that day. Saudi Arabia was supposed to inform them of the location for the mini-summit but did not do so. The United States then sent troops, and a settlement with an Arab framework became impossible. The presence of foreign troops was recognized in a resolution of the Arab summit on August 10. The Arabs split into countries that recognized the presence of foreign troops and those that did not.

(7) Iraq’s position is very clear. We consider political dialogue important, but the United States and other non-Arab countries should not intervene in Arab affairs. Dialogue among the Arab countries cannot take place under military threat from non-Arab countries. We wish to have Arab affairs left to the Arabs. The presence of non-Arabs does not contribute to a peaceful settlement of the issue. The United States quickly intervened by sending troops, but this has become an obstacle to the settlement of the issue by political dialogue among the Arabs. Furthermore, the United States quickly not only sent military but imposed economic sanctions as well. The issue is said not to be an Arab issue but one related to international law and the international order, but the international community has given nothing but “evil” to the Arabs. In spite of this, Iraq recognizes international law, but the international community does not apply sanctions to Syria or Israel for not complying with United Nations resolutions on cases where a certain country has invaded an Arab country, for example the issues of Palestine and Lebanon. Why is there such a difference between resolutions concerning issues of Palestine and Lebanon and the present Security Council Resolution 660? In spite of the passing of resolutions for the withdrawal of troops and such in regard to the issues of Palestine and Lebanon, the international community has imposed no sanctions. This is a manifestation of US anti-Iraq actions. The United States, even in the absence of the incident of August 2, would do something in order to control the region’s oil. Even if there were resolutions for some kind of sanctions in the issues of Palestine and Lebanon, would the United States observe them? I am thus astonished by the difference in the international treatment of the present incident and that of other issues.

(8) Foreigners at present are detained in houses and facilities within Iraq, but they are not hostages. Iraq is mainly detaining foreigners of countries that are engaged in the present military actions against Iraq. Their detention is for the peaceful objective of preventing war. I find it suspicious that Japan does not engage in dialogue with Iraq for the release of those detained, as Austria has done. Does Japan intend to leave them where they are? Also, Iraq is in debt to Japan for 4 billion dollars (note: as he said). Japan has joined the economic sanctions against Iraq. Are you not interested in the debt being repaid? Will you not send an envoy to Iraq, learn the state of those detained, and engage in political dialogue to find a way to repay the debt? In regard to the debt, in spite of Iraq having large debts with various countries, we offered to pay the debt to Japan in its entirety within one year, but Japan has refused this. After the present crisis is over, will Japan again come calling for Iraq to repay its debt? Iraq has detained for the sake of peace not the citizens of every country but those citizens of countries engaged in military actions against Iraq.

(9) In regard to President Mitterand’s proposal, we appreciate it as a first step towards peace and would like to seriously follow up on it. No matter how small, we appreciate efforts made towards a peaceful settlement.

(10) Iraq will not be the one to start a war, but if war should occur, the United States may achieve some initial gains. After that, it would suffer great losses both militarily and in world affairs.

(Continued)