AConversatlonwith DtSaddoun Hammadi

A Conversationwith DtSaddoun Hanunadl Iraq'sForeign Polley

Held on October 2, 1981 at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D. C. ISBN �7-3482-9

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 82-70160

AEI Studies 352

© 1982 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., and London. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.

"American Enterprise Institute" and � are registered service marks of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Printed in the United States of America Welcoming Remarks WILLIAM J. BAROODY, JR. President, American Enterprise Institute

We are pleased to welcome Dr. Saddoun Hammadi, the foreign minister of Iraq, who will discuss with us the foreign policy concerns of his country. A dialogue has been emerging at a private level between our two countries. Dr. Hammadi has met with members of other institutions in New York and in Washington and has spoken to a broad group of Americans. We hope that this will be part of a widening dialogue between Baghdad and Washington. The formu­ lation of U.S. foreign policy requires a clear understanding of inter­ national points of view on issues where important concerns of the United States and other nations meet. Some of the events at AEI and some AEI publications are devoted to foreign commentary. At the American Enterprise Institute we believe in the compe­ tition of ideas. This is a public policy research institution that studies, identifies, and presents diverse points of view. We look forward to this discussion as a part of that continuing discussion.

1 Introductory Remarks JUDITH KIPPER AEI Resident Fellow

It is a pleasure to have His Excellency Dr. Saddoun Hammadi with us today. This is Dr. Hammadi's first visit to Washington since his appointment as Iraq's foreign minister in 1974. Previously he served in other important posts in the Iraqi government. He has been min­ ister of agrarian reform and minister of oil from 1970 to 1974. Dr. Hammadi is no stranger to the United States. He received his doc­ torate at the University of Wisconsin in 1957 after graduating from the American University in Beirut. Today's topic, "Iraq's Foreign Policy," will include a discussion of the Middle East conflict and of the Iranian-Iraqi war. This is a unique opportunity to hear an assessment of the situation in the Middle East from Baghdad's point of view. We consider this ex­ change of views with Iraq's foreign minister an important contri­ bution to American understanding of some of the complex problems in a region so vital to the interests of the United States. Dr. Hammadi has agreed to respond to questions following his formal remarks. It is my privilege to present Dr. Saddoun Hammadi.

2 A Conversation with Dr. Saddoun Hammadi

I am here not only to convey our ideas to you, but also to benefit from these meetings. It is very useful for Americans on different levels to hear the Arab point of view in a clear way. It makes a good basis for a sound foreign policy. The most important point in the area is the Arab-Israeli conflict. I will have something to say at the end of these remarks about the new developments-namely, the war with Iran. Arab-American re­ lations are now at a crucial point. American support to Israel made Israel strong enough to continue its program of territorial expansion and its aggressive policies in the region. U.S. economic assistance is almost unmatched. Total American assistance to Israel from 1948 to 1977 was more than $25.6 billion. This averages more than $10 for every single American citizen, man, woman, and child, per year. That is more than any federal assistance given to any state in the United States. Total U.S. assistance to Israel during the last four years was more than $11 billion. A good part of this assistance was in the form of grants and unredeemable credits. In addition, large amounts are in the form of private contributions and sales of Israeli bonds, which are tax free. This has taken place at a time when the U.S. government is cutting expenditures on social services to fight inflation. Israel, feeling strengthened, is now on the threshold of annexing the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. It has adopted an aggressive military policy aimed at destroying the resistance of the Palestinian people inside and outside Palestine. The Arab countries, despite some divisions and problems, are determined to resist. The issue cannot be postponed any longer. The possibility of a crisis is therefore much greater now than it was before. The crisis could be the result of a decision or it could develop spontaneously out of desperation. Because of the complexity of the situation and the intensity of feel-

3 ings, the crisis, once it starts, cannot be confined to one arena, but is likely to be comprehensive-political, military, and economic. The present American administration has the opportunity to do something constructive to avoid the crisis. The conflict in our region is not new. Its essence is well known, and world public opinion has already expressed itself. The main elements of a just and durable peace are understood. They are understood by those who have no predetermined positions and who are free from the influence of pressure or self-interest. The United States can work to achieve a fair and durable peace if the political will is there. In 1956, the president of the United States made Israel quit Egypt and Gaza, so nothing happened. What if the United States does not act in this way again, but continues its support to Israel? There would be two interpretations of such a position in the Arab countries. One would be that American politicians, con­ scious of their political interests and wanting to maintain the support of the Zionist lobby, would be under the illusion that they could do that without anything happening on the Arab side-in other words, on the assumption that they could have the support of both at the same time. We are certain that this is impossible. Soviet influence was introduced to the region through the Arab-Israeli conflict. The American reputation in the Arab world and in the Muslim world was greatly eroded. In the future the outcome would be much worse. The Arab countries are now in a better economic position. The other possible interpretation would be that there is an iden­ tity of ideology between Zionism and American policy in that area. That is to say, the United States really wants the colonization of Palestine, the Israeli territorial expansion, and the final destruction of the Palestinian people at large. If this is the case, the outcome for Arab-American relations should not be difficult to comprehend. In this case the basic American interest in the region cannot be pro­ tected, and American efforts to resist Soviet influence cannot suc­ ceed, It is important to note that these two theories have their sup­ porters in our region now. The immediate future will be decisive. The situation in the region has become explosive, and the people there are almost at the end of their patience. The aggressive inten­ tions of Israel are clear enough now. One important point is relevant in connection with this. Some people in this country or in Europe might believe that this is mainly the position of the so-called Arab radicals and that the Arab mod­ erates have a different position. My comment on this view is as follows. The so-called moderate Arabs are concerned to reach a just

4 and durable peace not only because of national commitment but because their internal security is now in danger. The situation is so tense that a crisis could very well generate political upheaval. The so-called Arab moderates are considered friends of the United States. Being moderates and friends of the United States can be, in itself, a source of danger to them. Israel is not interested in a just and durable peace. Its main concern is more and more territorial expansion through more and more American assistance. Its policies obviously run con­ trary to peace. Examples include the steps to annex East Jerusalem, to establish more and more settlements in the occupied Arab terri­ tories, the attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities, the provision of spare parts and ammunition to Iran, and the continuous military interfer­ ence in Lebanon. Israel is going to do everything it can to block any initiative for a genuine and durable peace. It is crisis and not peace that serves the Israeli interests. If the situation explodes, if Arab­ American relations get worse, if the Soviet influence in the region becomes stronger, so much the better for Israel because such de­ velopments can be used easily to extract more and more American assistance. Is the United States going to act, or is it going to let the situation drag on? Does it have an overall policy that comprehends the future, or is it going to deal with each case as it arises and move from one situation to another? Is it going to rid itself of the myth of the Zionist lobby and act in an independent way? Should American foreign policy be based on the overall long-run interest of the American people, or should it be based on expedience and considerations of internal politics? Is America that America that led the revolution against colonialism and went to civil war against slavery, or is it just another colonial power? These are questions that need to be an­ swered. As far as the Arab people are concerned, the answer will emerge one way or another in the coming time. Subjugation by force cannot build a durable peace. No matter what, in the long run, Israel cannot survive without the genuine consent of the Arab people. The total number of Palestinians in 1948 was 1.5 million. At the end of 1980, the total was about 4 million, more than the present Jewish popu­ lation of Israel, which totals 3.2 million. The Palestinian people can­ not be destroyed, nor can they be ignored. Every chance for a just and durable peace that is lost has con­ sequences. The responsibility for those consequences does not fall on the Zionists alone as a party in the conflict but on the United States as well. The establishment of Israel in our region against our will created the main source of instability in the Middle East. It will

5 continue to be the main source of instability unless a just and durable peace is achieved. Unfortunately, a new source of instability has been created in the Middle East recently. Historically, Iran has continuously pushed its border forward since 1847. The last episode occurred when the shah abrogated the 1937 agreement and demanded half of Shatt-al­ Arab, the river that is Iraq's only outlet to the sea. Iranian troops occupied strategic areas along the land border and started providing massive military assistance to the Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. After a long undeclared war, we had either to yield to his demands or to see the disintegration of the north of our country. The outcome was an agreement in 1975. After the shah, the new regime in Iran did not evacuate the occupied areas along the land frontier. It re­ sumed its military support to the Kurdish rebellion, and it began large-scale interference in Iraq's internal affairs. When we resisted, Iran took military action against us along the border. The 1975 agree­ ment fell to pieces and war conditions were c:reated. The shah dis­ appeared, but the new regime in Iran did not change the basic goal of their traditional policy-namely, to expand and to dominate the other side of the Arabian gulf. They are only operating under a different pretext, that of the so-called export of revolution. For Iraq, there are some more specific reasons. Iran used its military to annex half of Shatt-al-Arab and to occupy some strategic areas along the land border. We cannot tolerate foreign domination of a waterway that is practically our only outlet to the sea. This is also the place where the water of our two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, meet. Any foreign influence in this area brings with it foreign influence on our whole irrigation system. The heart of the problem is how to maintain a balance between the two sides of the Arabian gulf, how to end the long-standing tendency of the bigger and stronger side to try to dominate the other side. Maintaining such a balance serves the basic interests of the world in keeping peace and security in that area. This is how we view the question of peace in that area. Iraq has the responsibility to defend the Arab side of the gulf from possible Iranian interference. Since the beginning of the war, the United States has made a number of declarations fa­ voring an early termination of the war and assuring us of its neu­ trality. Iraq had doubts about U.S. statements. Since the military cooperation between Iran and Israel has been exposed, we are sure that arms, spare parts, and ammunition of American make have been flowing from Israel to Iran. It is difficult to accept the propo­ sition that such a thing can take place without the consent or the knowledge of the U.S. government.

6 Questions and Answers

Ms. KIPPER: Recently, Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia presented an eight-point plan for a comprehensive peace. How do these eight points differ from the resolutions taken at the second summit in Baghdad in 1978?

DR. HAMMADI: The Arab summit conference in Baghdad decided that any concrete program to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict should first be discussed by an Arab summit conference. It should not be dis­ cussed publicly or in the press. Everyone, of course, has a personal evaluation, but we felt it would be advisable to wait to discuss this proposal at the Arab summit conference in November 1981. Before that time it would not be useful to express individual points of view about this program.

JIM ANDERSON, UPI: Do you have evidence, beyond the two or three Argentinian flights to Tehran, that U.S. arms are flying to Iran from Israel with American consent? Do you argue that if the United States cut its aid to Israel it would have a stabilizing influence on the situation in the Middle East?

DR. HAMMADI: To answer the first question, we have had information before this incident, but even in my statement before the Security Council, I said that we were not absolutely sure. We had doubted that there had been a flow of American-made arms to Iran, but when this incident took place, we investigated. We even talked to the U.S. government. The outcome of those investigations was more evidence that American arms are going to Iran from Israel. Whether the United States should continue its assistance to Israel is a bilateral matter between the United States and Israel. The point is that now there is a chance, maybe a final chance, for peace, for a genuine, and a durable, and a just peace. The United States can very well use its special relations with Israel, including its military, eco­ nomic, and political support, to bring about such a solution. The United States could use its considerable leverage on Israel to create peace and stability in the area. My answer to the second question is yes.

JOHN WALLACH, Hearst Newspapers: I am not familiar with the Iraqi

7 position on the recognition of Israel. Is Iraq prepared to recognize Israel's existence if a national entity for the Palestinians is created?

DR. HAMMADI: It is unfair to ask us this question. The question should be turned and posed to Israel. Israel was established illegally; it occupied Palestinian land; it uprooted the Palestinian people. Now the whole world is demanding that the Palestinian people be granted their national rights to go back to their homes and to establish an independent national state. Is Israel ready to accept and to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish an independent state? This is the question to be asked. One should start with Israel. It is the aggressor, it is in the strong position, and it is opposing world public opinion. To ask the side that is in the lesser position, to ask the Arabs to declare that they would recognize Israel would only further weaken the Arab side without contributing to the process of establishing a just peace.

MICHAEL NEIDITCH, staff of Representative Benjamin Rosenthal: You were generous in saying at the beginning of your talk that you came here to listen as well as to share your opinions with us. What do you mean about the illegality of the establishment of the state of Israel? The state of Israel was created by a UN resolution in 1947, Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into two states, Arab Palestine and a Jewish state. It was the coordinated decision of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia that resulted in the stillbirth of Arab Palestine. That is behind us. The question put to you is an important one if we are going to find a durable peace. If we were able to bring about the creation of an Arab Palestine, thirty-three years after Iraq's refusal to recognize· the par­ tition approved by the United Nations, would Iraq be willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state?

DR. HAMMADI: What we mean by illegal is the ordinary meaning of illegality. The Jewish state was established by immigrants. Colonizers came from all over the world to a place where they did not belong. By manipulation and by cooperation with the mandate power at that time, Britain, they established themselves. The state of Israel was declared in 1948 against the will of the Palestinian people. Many commissions came from the League of Nations and from the British government. All those commissions made reports that clearly indi:­ cated that the Palestinian people opposed the establishment of a Jewish state. The Balfour Declaration did not envisage a state; it spoke of a national home for the Jews. Is Israel now identical in its

8 frontiers with the UN resolution to partition Palestine? It is not. Now Israel is much larger, occupying much more land than it could if we applied the partition decision. Also, one should not forget the fact that the United Nations 'in 1948 is not the United Nations now. In 1948 the United Nations was very limited in its membership and was domianted by the big powers. This is history. Is Israel now ready to bind itself with legalities? Israel has refused to implement over 100 UN resolutions. When Israel was admitted to the United Nations, one condition of admittance was that Israel should take the Palestinians back to their homes. That condition was not implemented either. Now, as to the second part of your question, I would like to indicate that Israel's intentions are by no means peaceful. Look at the statements that come from Israel's leaders, from Prime Minister Menachem Begin. What are his views of the West Bank and Gaza? Begin and his party speak even of Jordan as a part of greater Israel and of the present as only a stage for a larger state of Israel. The Israeli leaders say that there isn't anything called the Palestinian people. This was a statement made by Golda Meir. Israel is strong militarily and has the upper hand militarily, including a nuclear capability; and it flatly denies the rights of the Palestinian people, clearly indicating in many statements that it is its intention to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza and to establish new settle­ ments in the West Bank. Even an Arab who believes in trying to coexist cannot be expected under those circumstances to recognize the state of Israel. The only outcome would be to weaken his position, instead of contributing to peace, and to encourage Israel to go on in its territorial program of more and more expansion.

DON OBERDORFER, Washington Post: I would like to ask about U.S. relations with Iraq. Following Secretary of State Alexander Haig's visit to the Middle East in 1981, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Morris Draper visited Baghdad. There were some hopes expressed at that time for improved relations between the two countries. Since then, a number of things have happened, including the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, the work that you and UN Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick did at the United Nations together, and certain statements and actions in Washington. How do you assess the ac­ tions of the new administration regarding Iraq? What remains to be done to normalize relations between the two countries now?

DR. HAMMAD!: I will start with what I think relations should be between Iraq and the United States. We should have good, strong bilateral relations. We should have diplomatic relations and construe-

9 tive, flourishing bilateral relations. We do not think that the present situation is going to exist forever. There will be a time when we will resume our relations. This is not the normal condition. The United States would like to resume our bilateral relations. We responded to · that in a way, and, as you can see, there has been some improve­ ment, some warming up of our bilateral relations, but that is short of resuming diplomatic relations. We cut off our diplomatic relations in 1967 because of the war Israel waged on the Arab countries with the military support of the United States. We said several times that if we notice any important change in the American position, if the United States takes a more even-handed policy in the area toward the Arab-Israel conflict, we will be willing to resume our relations. So far, I do not see anything in that direction. There has been an improvement on the bilateral front, but we cannot see anything important happening concerning the American foreign policy about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I suppose that our bilateral relations will remain as they are until that occurs.

MR. OBERDORFER: Will you respond to the question of how you assess what the United States did about the reactor incidents?

DR. HAMMADI: It was good for the United States to condemn Israel, to recognize and to respect world public opinion. That was a positive sign, but by preventing the UN Security Council from taking a mean­ ingful resolution to punish the aggressor, the United States encour­ aged Israel to pursue its present aggressive military policy in the area.

PHILIP GEYELIN, Washington Post Writers' Group: What do you think is the alternative to Camp David?

DR. HAMMADI: As far as we are concerned, the Camp David agree­ ment is absolutely unacceptable. We are sure that the accord will not succeed. This is obvious now, so there is no reason to stick to such a policy. It does not work and it has no support in the country that initiated it, Egypt. The alternative is to have a genuine, just, and fair peace in the area. The elements that would constitute such a peace are known by now.

BEN WATTENBERG, American Enterprise Institute: I was interested in your remarks about the Zionist lobby. This is a country in which Greek-Americans lobby their government for policy issues, in which Polish-Americans lobby their government, in which other East-

10 European-Americans lobby their government, in which Blacks lobby their government about foreign policy issues, in which, in fact, Arab­ Americans lobby their government about foreign policy. This is not a tradition in every country of the world, but it is a tradition in this country; it is one of the precepts of this country. Moreover, the position that you ascribe to the Zionist lobby-a pro-Israeli American foreign policy-is one that, as I read public opinion in the United States, is supported in broad strokes by the vast majority of the American people, Jewish or non-Jewish. Do you have a problem with the fact that minority groups and interest groups in the United States are attempting to wield their influence and their pressures in · a democratic manner to influence American foreign policy?

DR. HAMMADI: It is not for me to evaluate the weaknesses or the strengths of the American political system. All I am saying is that the American people and the American leaders should be more aware of and should have more information about their real national in­ terests in the Middle East. They should follow a policy that would serve those interests. Of course, I am expressing the Iraqi point of view. I am not saying that lobbying is good or not good. From the very beginning, when the U.S. Constitution was born, there was an awareness in this country that Congress could be influenced by local interests and that it would have to guard against local interests that might run counter to the national interests. To guard against this, the American government was formed with checks and balances. The president is elected by the American people and not by the Congress. He is not a prime minister who is responsible, like the prime minister of England, before Parliament or the Congress. Con­ gress cannot dismiss the president. Then there is the high court with its position and the way it is elected. This structure was meant from the very beginning to isolate foreign policy from local pressure groups. It was envisaged from the beginning that pressure groups on the local level could very well-impose a policy that is not in the interest of the whole nation. That is why there is a separation of power, and that is why the president was given such a strong position and is elected by the people. Those who formed the U.S. Constitution were aware that representatives to Congress elected locally could very well prefer their local interests to the national interests. There should, therefore, be another authority, elected directly by the people, with separate powers to check that tendency.

MR. WATTENBERG: But Mr. Minister, Ronald Reagan as a presidential candidate said that President Carter was not sufficiently pro-Israel.

11 DR. HAMMADI: I am not saying anything about this. The main Amer­ ican interest is to resist Soviet influence in the area. If the United States continues to support Israel, to disregard the Arab-Israeli con­ flict, and to disregard the plight of the Palestinian people, is this policy going to be successful in resisting Soviet influence? We say no. We say exactly the opposite, that the Soviet Union got into our area primarily through the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Soviet Union can very well exploit Arab feeling and gain influence there. If this policy is continued, the Soviet Union will be much more influential in the area than it is now, so American foreign policy will prove self­ defeating. The Arab world is the heart of one billion Muslims, and the feelings of all these people would be against America because America is supporting Israel on a basis which is not just and fair. The whole world is saying that the Palestinian people should have their national rights. If Israel does not want to do that because of its private interests, and if the United States chooses to support that position, the U.S. national interests in the long run will be greatly damaged.

DALE TAHTINEN, American Enterprise Institute: We have been made aware of certain reported strains in Iraqi-Soviet relations. We have heard that there have been some problems between Moscow and Baghdad about providing spare parts. Do these problems exist? Are the relations improving? Do you foreseeimproved relations with the new regime in France or a continuation of relations as they have been?

DR. HAMMADI: Our relations with the Soviet Union were good. At one time, they were more than good, but, you know, we are a nonaligned country, and nonalignment means primarily conducting an independent foreign policy. An independent foreign policy means that if a superpower tries to influence a small country in one way or another, the small country should not say, "Well, they are pro­ viding us with economic aid and military aid so let's yield to them." That is not an independent foreign policy. So, it is to be expected that our relations with the Soviet Union and with the United States will have their ups and downs. If the Soviet Union takes a certain position in world international affairs that is important from our point of view, we should also· react and have a position that would reflect our nonaligned position. An example is the Soviet invasion of Af­ ghanistan. As a small country we cannot base our policy on the reasoning that we have good relations with the Soviet Union and what happens to Afghanistan does not concern us. We could remain

12 silent, and that would be good for us, we would gain more benefits from the Soviet Union. This is wrong, however. Why? Because we, as a small country, have no protection for our independence except that there is no precedent of a big power invading a small Arab country. If we had kept silent or if we had agreed with the Soviet Union, we would have been condoning this action as normal be­ havior in international affairs. That would affect our independence, so we took a position against what the Soviet Union did in Afghan­ istan. If we sign contracts with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union does not implement them, we tell the Soviets that we might review our whole bilateral relations accordingly. We look at our bilateral relations as something mutual, benefits based on equality and respect for each side. The Soviet Union was definitely not happy about our position on Afghanistan. There have also been some ups and downs in eco­ nomic and military dealings. This can happen in the futurealso. Our relations cannot be absolutely smooth as a straight line; . there will be vibrations. This is in the nature of things. We are not a part of the Soviet bloc; we do not form our foreign policy automatically. We deal case by case. In one case, we could be in agreement with the Soviet Union, in another we could disagree. With France, our relation with the previous administration was based on the same principles. We cultivated good working relations with the former administration. Now we have to go through the process again of getting to know the new administration, of explain­ ing opinions, and so forth. At the beginning they made some moves and some statements that were not to our satisfaction, but we have had contacts. We made a visit to France, and their foreign minister came to the area, and these misunderstandings have gradually been dealt with. I expect that with some more time, we will go back to the same relations we had with the former administration. We find no basic handicap in our relations.

DAVID LAMB, Los Angeles Times: Iran recently mounted an apparently successful offensive in its war with Iraq. Is there now a basis for negotiations? If not, what do you see as the next likely step militarily or politically in that conflict?

DR. HAMMAD!: Right now there is no positive step toward negotia­ tion. I expect the war to continue like this. The situation in Iran could change one way or another at any time; it is not a stable condition. Perhaps tomorrow something will happen and the pros­ pects for peace will become much better than they are now. But it

13 is not possible to predict anything based on what we know now. This war has been going on for more than a year, but the situation basically remains the same as it was before. Thank you very ·much.

14 The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, established in 1943, is a publicly supported, nonpartisan, research and educational organization. Its purpose is to assist policy makers, scholars, businessmen, the press, and the public by providing objective analysis of national and international issues. Views expressed in the institute's publications are those of the authors and do not neces­ sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.

Council of Academic Advisers Paul W. McCracken, Chairman, Edmund Ezra Day University Professor of Busi­ ness Administration, University of Michigan Robert H. Bork, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Public Law, Yale .Law School Kenneth W. Dam, Harold ]. and Marion F. Green Professor of Law and Provost, University of Chicago Donald C. Hellmann, Professor of Political Science and International Studies, University of Washington D. Gale Johnson, Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor of Economics and Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Chicago Robert A. Nisbet, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Herbert Stein, A. Willis Robertson Professor of Economics, University of Virginia James Q. Wilson, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, Harvard University

Executive Committee Richard B. Madden, Chairman of the Board Richard J. Farrell William J. Baroody, Jr., President Charles T. Fisher Ill Willard C. Butcher Richard D. Wood

Tait Trussell, Edward Styles, Director of Vice President, Administration Publications Joseph J. Brady, Vice President, Development

Program Directors Periodicals Russell Chapin, Legislative Analyses AEI Economist, Herbert Stein, Editor Thomas F. Johnson, Economic Policy Studies Marvin Esch, Seminars and Programs AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Review, Robert J. Pranger, Marvin H. Kosters, Editor; James W. Abellera, Government Regulation Studies Managing Editor Health Policy Studies Jack A. Meyer, Public Opinion, Seymour Martin W. S. Moore, Legal Policy Studies Lipset and Ben J. Wattenberg, Co-Editors; Karlyn H. Keene, Rudolph G. Penner, Fiscal Policy Studies Managing Editor Howard R. Penniman/ Austin Ranney, Regulation, Editor; Political and Social Processes Antonin Scalia, Anne Brunsdale, Robert J, Pranger, International Programs Managing Editor SELECTED AEI PUBLICATIONS AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Review (six issues $12; single copy, $2.50) Conversations with Harold H. Saunders: U.S. Policy for the Middle East in the 1980s (101 pp., $5.25) Human Rights and U.S. Human Rights Policy, Howard J. Wiarda (96 pp., $4.25) Prospects for a New Lebanon, Elie Salem (14 pp., $3.75) Southern Africa in Conflict: Implications for U.S. Policies in the 1980s, Robert S. Jaster (48 pp., $4.75) U.S. Interests and Policies in the Caribbean and Central America, Jorge I. Dominguez (SS pp., $4.75) The Middle East Problem in the 1980s, Harold H. Saunders (83 pp., $4.75) Redefining American Policy in Southeast Asia, Lucian W. Pye (37 pp., $3.75) A Conversation with the Exiled West Bank Mayors: A Palestinian Point of View (15 pp., $2.25) Judea, Samaria, and Gaza: Views on the Present and Future, Daniel J. Elazar, ed. (222 pp., paper $9.75, cloth $16.75)

Prices subject to change without notice.

AEI Assoc1ATES PROGRAM The American Enterprise Institute invites your participation in the competition of ideas through its AEI Associates Program. This program has two objectives: The first is to broaden the distribution of AEI studies, conferences, forums, and reviews, and thereby to extend public familiarity with the issues. AEI Associates receive regular information on AEI research and programs, and they can order publications and cassettes at a savings. The second objective is to increase the research activity of the American Enter­ prise Institute and the dissemination of its published materials to policy makers, the academic community, journalists, and others who help shape public at­ titudes. Your contribution, which in most cases is partly tax deductible, will help ensure that decision makers have the benefit of scholarly research on the prac­ tical options to be considered before programs are formulated. The issues studied by AEI include: • Defense Policy • Health Policy • Economic Policy • Legal Policy • Energy Policy • Political and Social Processes • Foreign Policy • Social Security and Retirement Policy • Government Regulation •Tax Policy For more information, write to: AMERICAN ENTERPRISEINSTITUTE 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 A Conversation with Dr. Saddoun Hammadi: Iraq's Foreign Policy is an edited transcript of a discussion between the foreign minister of Iraq and the scholars and guests of the American Enterprise In­ stitute. Dr. Hammadi addresses such questions as: Does the United States have a comprehensive policy for the Middle East? Will Israel recognize the Palestinians' right to an independent state? Will Iraq and the United States resume diplomatic relations? Among the views Dr. Hammadi expressed are the following: • "The Soviet Union got into our area primarily through the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Soviet Union can very well exploit Arab feeling and gain influence there." • "Is the United States going to act, or is it going to let the situation drag on? Does it have an overall policy that comprehends the future, or is it going to deal with each case as it arises and move from one situation to another?" • "The point is that now there is a chance, maybe a final chance for peace, for a genuine, and a durable, and a just peace. The United States can very well use its special relations with Israel, including its military, economic, and political support, to bring about such a solution."

ISBN 0-8447-3482-9

� American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research � 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036