IRAQ SANCTIONS MONITOR Number 139 Tuesday October 17, 2000 LATEST NEWS+++++++LATEST++++++ Passengers never knew they were hostages >From The Independent October 16th, 2000 Freed Britons offered counselling after ordeal as propaganda coup brings pressure to lift UN sanctions on Iraq THE BRITISH passengers whose plane was hijacked en route to London and forced to land in Baghdad, yesterday told of their ordeal - and how they only became aware of their situation once they had landed. The 40 Britons, along with another 64 passengers and crew, were freed late on Saturday after Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 115 touched down in the Iraqi capital and the hijackers gave themselves up to authorities. Despite some initial concerns that Saddam Hussein might try to force some political mileage from the Westerners, the freed hostages said they had been treated very well by the Iraqis. Speaking from Baghdad's Rashid Hotel, where the passengers were put up, Jacky Stone, from London, told The Independent: "For a few minutes things were pretty scary. The first we knew was when we landed at Baghdad. We had been in the air for the right amount of time but when we landed I knew it was not Heathrow. Then a steward came onto the intercom and said `The captain had a problem. We have landed at Baghdad but not to worry'. The atmosphere was very calm." Mrs Stone, who is married with three children, was returning to London after an eight day work related visit to Saudi Arabia said: "The stewards on the plane we exceedingly good and the Iraqis have looked after us very well. Now we are waiting to get home." Another passenger, Maria Scott, was travelling to Britain for the birth of her daughter's first child. "I am now beginning to worry that I will not be there in time," said Mrs Scott, a South African, who lives in Saudi Arabia, shortly before the passengers left the hotel to travel to Jeddah and then onto London. The Britons are expected to arrive at Heathrow Airport later today after overnighting in Jeddah. A specially chartered plane had last night been put on standby to return them to London. "We will be ready to meet them and there will be counsellors available to speak to them if they feel like it," said Philip Griffin, Saudi Arabian Airlines airport manager at Heathrow. "They will be debriefed by Heathrow police and then reunited with their families and loved ones." Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's Deputy Interior Minister, Prince Ahmed, said yesterday his country would demand the immediate extradition for trial of the two hijackers, whom he identified as Faisal al-Biloowi and Ayish al-Faridi. Hijacking carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Among the other passengers aboard the flight, which was hijacked while over Egypt, was 19-year-old Saudi Prince Bandar bin Mohammed bin Saad bin Abdul-Rahman, a cousin of King Fahd. Interviewed on state television on Saturday, the prince thanked the Iraqi government for the way it handled the crisis. Quite how Iraq will respond to the Saudi demands remains unclear. The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in 1990, but a pre-Gulf War treaty provides for extradition. There was also confusion as to whether the hijackers - one said to be a border guard, the other an undercover security officer at Jeddah airport - were seeking asylum. Taher Haboush, the Iraqi official who led negotiations with the hijackers, said they had asked for political asylum, but the two men told reporters they wanted to leave Iraq. "We want to choose our own leaders. The time of kings and monarchies is over," Mr al-Faridi said. Hijacked Passengers Arrive In Britain October 16th, 2000 LONDON (AP) _ Most of the passengers hijacked on a London-bound Saudi Arabian Airlines flight finally arrived in Britain on Monday, 40 hours after their ordeal began. The plane was hijacked Saturday moments after takeoff from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, by two Saudis who said they wanted rights for their country's people. The jet eventually landed in Baghdad, where the two men surrendered peacefully after hours of negotiations. Relatives began lining up at London's Heathrow Airport almost four hours before the flight arrived Monday. One Muslim family carried ``Welcome Home'' placards as they waited to greet a couple caught up in the hostage drama on their way back from a pilgrimage. The granddaughter of Ghulam and Tyab Qureshi, Amreen, held a homemade sign on which she and her two cousins had written: ``Thank you, Saddam & Iraqi people for taking good care of our grandparents.'' ``We were so worried about my parents, we did not know what to do, and hardly slept all weekend,'' said Amreen's father, Shabir Qureshi. ``All weekend we have just been praying nonstop,'' said Mohammed Asjid, who came to greet his father, Mohamed Akbar, 53, who also had been away on a pilgrimage. ``Now I can't wait to see him.'' But the families had to wait while officers from Britain's Special Branch debriefed the 81 passengers. The Foreign Office said the purpose of the debriefing was to establish exactly what happened during the hijacking, indicating Iraq had provided little information. Airline officials said the seven passengers who chose to stay behind in Saudia Arabia were six Saudi citizens and the sole American on the hijacked flight. The passengers had been flown back to Saudi Arabia from Baghdad on Sunday night. Some passengers were so excited to be going home after 24 hours in Iraq that they ran across the tarmac to the aircraft. Saudi Arabia's interior minister, Prince Naif, told reporters Monday that his country would do all it could to extradite the hijackers. His government has identified them as Faisal al-Biloowi and Ayish al-Faridi. Hijacking carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. It is unclear whether Iraq will extradite them. The two countries have had no relations since Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in 1990, but a pre-Gulf War treaty provides for extradition. Saddam makes most of rival's publicity disaster >From THE TIMES, October 16th, 2000 THE speedy resolution to the bizarre Saudi Arabian Airlines plane hijacking at Baghdad's Saddam International Airport was a windfall publicity coup for the Iraqi leader. The Saudi hijackers voiced opinions close to President Saddam Hussein's heart by denouncing the monarchy in Riyadh, expressing solidarity with the sanctions-hit people of Iraq and condemning "the presence of the American and British armies" in Saudi Arabia. It comes after a tremendous run of good fortune for Baghdad in recent weeks. To the dismay of the United States, flights have been arriving almost daily at the airport from the Arab world and beyond, shattering the decade-old air embargo and Iraq's sense of isolation. High oil prices have brought increased revenues and world markets need Iraq to keep pumping at maximum capacity. Across the Arab world, while there may be little love for Saddam personally, there is the conviction that sanctions have failed and are hurting only innocent Iraqis. The Middle East crisis has also deepened the burning sense of injustice in the Muslim world at perceived double standards. Washington is seen to be hell-bent on enforcing every word of every United Nations resolution against Iraq while failing to enforce those calling on Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab lands. By treating the passengers like VIPs, including those from hostile countries such as Britain and Saudi Arabia, Saddam will claim a moral victory over hostile states still intent on enforcing the embargo. The words of one British passenger must be music to his ears: "I feel slightly guilty about their hospitality because I know what sanctions have done to their country," Siraz, 25, a press officer from Birmingham, said. Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, pointedly refused to thank Iraq: "I would not thank any government for carrying out its clear international obligations," he said. It sweetened the sense of satisfaction in Iraq that the hijack was a public relations disaster for Saudi Arabia, where attention is focused on the embarrassing breach of security at Jedda airport. The kingdom, one of Baghdad's arch Arab enemies, has been hosting American and British warplanes enforcing the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. They have been bombing targets in Iraq since December 1998 after Saddam's refusal to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors. For Baghdad, the Saudi hijackers also established a surreal diplomatic first in flying to a country with one of the world's worst human rights records to vent their grievances against their homeland. In a facility rarely granted to hijackers, they were allowed to appear before television cameras, where they looked unsuitably relaxed. THIS CAN'T BE HEATHROW .. THERE'S TOO MUCH SAND >From MIRROR, October 16th, 2000 BRITONS on a hijacked jet told yesterday how they were unaware of the drama until they saw sand as it landed in Baghdad. Forty Britons were among the 90 passengers held hostage for more than eight hours as terrorists threatened to blow up the London-bound plane. The hijackers, armed with guns and explosives, struck moments after the Boeing 777 left Saudi Arabia, ordering the pilot to divert and threatening to blow up the plane. After hours circling around the Middle East, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein finally gave permission to land at Baghdad. One passenger said: "I saw sand on the runway, which was a bit strange for London." They were held another four hours before the two Saudis, who said they wanted to highlight human rights abuses in their country, surrendered. Engineer Neil Broomfield, 24, of Hampshire, said: "We never learned we were not in London until we landed. We were kept out of it completely. The crew were very calm and didn't let on that something untoward was happening. "When we eventually landed we knew we weren't in London but didn't really know where." Briton Waqas Hussein, 21, said: "The plane was just going round and round as they found somewhere to land. "Whenever there was a jolt or change in direction the captain blamed turbulence. "We were on the tarmac for an hour and a half before we were told we'd been hijacked. People were scared. "After four hours the captain said they had successfully negotiated with the hijackers. We all clapped as the gang left." Mr Hussein hit out at lack of security at Saudi's Jeddah airport: "There wasn't any checking of our luggage or ourselves. They were very casual." The captain told him the gang smuggled three bombs and a gun on board in a bag. The passengers, including a Saudi royal, were taken to a luxury hotel. Hours of confusion followed as they were told they would be flown back to Saudi to board a scheduled flight to London - then just left waiting. Mr Broomfield said: "We've had enough and are just desperate to get home. The deadline for us leaving keeps being put back." But last night they were finally on their way to the airport where the hijack ended. The Foreign Office in London said they would spend the night in Saudi Arabia and are due to fly home today. RECONCILIATION TALKS WITH IRAQ `POSITIVE,' FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS >From CHICAGO TRIBUNE, October 16th, 2000 Iran said Sunday that it had held "positive" talks with neighboring Iraq to patch up the differences remaining from their 1980-88 war. "We have reached positive results to solve all pending issues," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said after a two-day visit to Iraq. Kharazzi said the two nations had decided to resurrect a 1975 border and security pact that has been in limbo since Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. One million people died in that war. In the pact, Iraq ceded sovereignty over part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway in exchange for an end to Iranian support for Kurdish rebellion. The agreement also provides for non-interference in each other's internal affairs and halts actions undermining each other's security. 'Rogue' Policy Isn't the French Way >From LOS ANGELES TIMES, October 16th, 2000 By JACQUES BELTRAN Jacques Beltran is a research associate at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris and associate professor at the Military Academy of Saint-Cyr For many years, France and the U.S. have suffered periods of tense relations due to divergent policies toward countries designated by Washington as "rogue states," generally Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea. The "rogue state" concept itself, which does not have any satisfactory translation in the French language, has been at the heart of the dispute. The U.S. has generally adopted nondifferentiated strategies of containment--including the wide use of economic sanctions--in dealing with these nations, with the notable exception of North Korea. France has favored more tailored policies based on political dialogue. Recently, the United States has made significant steps toward abandoning this containment policy, successively announcing the easing of the embargoes on Iran, North Korea and Cuba. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright decided in June to drop the ambiguous and counterproductive "rogue state" label. These steps are good news. But the question today is whether they reflect a genuine change in policy or whether they are only pragmatic adaptations to what is often known in Washington as the "sanctions fatigue," not only among U.S. allies but also within a growing part of the American electorate. But a close examination of the U.S. attitude leads to the conclusion that the "rogue state" concept, which has tailored the American strategic thinking during a decade, is still very steadfast among many decision-makers. First of all, Albright's decision to stop using the "R" word was diminished--from a European viewpoint--by the fact that these countries are now referred to as "countries of concern" by the State Department, a change in words that does not necessarily imply a change in deeds. Second, the decision within the State Department is not necessarily applicable elsewhere, in particular at the Department of Defense or in the Republican ranks of the Senate. As a matter of fact, the major argument advanced by those who support the national missile defense program, a program that has caused such alarm among America's allies, is that there is a growing missile threat on the U.S. from "rogue states." It is therefore difficult for an observer on the other side of the Atlantic to be convinced of Washington's will to abandon the rogue rhetoric. Third, one should also notice that, although most embargoes have been eased, they remain in place and could easily be reinforced if need be. As it has often happened in the past, U.S. foreign policy appears to be excessively reactive to international events. In 1996, the Helms-Burton and D'Amato-Kennedy acts, which imposed secondary boycotts on countries doing business with rogue states, were enacted in reaction to two terrorist attacks--the bombing in Israel with alleged support from Tehran, and the shooting of two American civilian planes off Cuba. If events of this kind were to take place again, even if the people responsible for such terrorist acts represent only a minority within the "state of concern," Washington could well return to the blind strategy of containment, thereby undermining all the efforts to reintroduce the target country into the international community. Last but not least, the U.S. maintains toward Iraq, in many aspects the archetype of the rogue state, a strategy of full containment and isolation, not excluding the use of force, as Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush recently suggested. In the months to come, Iraq will be a litmus test for U.S.-French relations, because France argues that the comprehensive embargo sponsored by Washington should be replaced by "targeted sanctions" and not measures of conditional engagement. Recently, Saddam Hussein declared that he would not allow the entry on the Iraqi soil of the new inspection commission led by Hans Blix. Once again, France and the U.S. are very likely to oppose each other on the best way to face this provocation. If Washington were to decide the use of force, this could lead to a significant diplomatic crisis between the two allies. MISCELLANY++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mariam Appeal to launch Iraq International Work Brigades
