Multimedia Mania/abacus-multimedia-mania.iso/dp/0038/00389.txt

Text File | 1993-07-27 | 38KB | 630 lines

$Unique_ID{bob00389}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Kuwait
Refuting the Lies of Saddam}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC}
$Affiliation{Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC}
$Subject{kuwait
iraq
ottoman
agreement
state
part
borders
saddam
british
iraqi}
$Date{1990}
$Log{}
Title:       Kuwait
Book:        Kuwait Events
Author:      Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC
Affiliation: Embassy of Kuwait, Washington DC
Date:        1990

Refuting the Lies of Saddam

Kuwait is a historic, political and legal reality

Preface

     Since the beginning of the brutal invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990
which resulted in the killing, detention and expulsion of innocent Kuwaiti
citizens and expatriates and the looting and plundering of public and private
property in a manner never before witnessed in modern history the oppressive
Iraqi regime has been trying in vain to muster support for its brutal invasion
against Kuwait and its people. Toward this goal it put forward many weak and
irrelevent arguments and lies which when scrutinized prove to be mere
fabrications lacking any justification. First the regime claimed that its
forces penetrated deep into the Kuwait land to extend assistance to the
Kuwaiti people. When it found out that not a single Kuwaiti citizen offered to
cooperate, it subsequently announced the formation of an imaginary government
calling it the Government of Free Kuwait. The names of this government members
only existed in the mind of Saddam Hussein. At a later stage Saddam announced
the establishment of a republic in Kuwait but when he discovered that the
random measures he had taken to justify his invasion of Kuwait were rejected
by respectable Arabs and Muslims as well as by world opinion Saddam resorted
to claims that Kuwait was part of Basra during the Ottoman empire and that it
was the British colonial rule which had stripped it off Iraq. This claim was
asserted by Saddam Hussein in his address to the American people on September
26, 1990.

     Based on our belief that historical, political and legal facts refute
Saddam's lies and claims specially those contained in his above mentioned
speech we feel bound to state the truth and unveil the false claims and reply
to these distortions through a straightforward historical document that will
invalidate the aggression and condemn the aggressor.

Study No. I Kuwait: a Historical and Political Fact

     In this study we will deal with Saddam's false claims and lies contained
in his above mentioned address. We will then reply to these false claims by
stating beyond any doubt that Kuwait is an existing historical and political
fact despite all these false claims.

     First: Saddam Hussein said the Kuwaiti rulers were hand picked by foreign
forces to become rulers of that part of land that has been taken away from
Iraq.

     It is evident for every one that this claim is not backed by reality.
The fact is that Kuwait was founded by Al-Sabah family and the Arab tribes at
the beginning of the 18th century. Joining hands with their countrymen they
patiently struggled and endured hardships and difficulties and cooperated so
that Kuwait would remain free and sovereign.

     All the available historical documents substantiate these facts and at
the same time refute the false claims by Saddam Hussein that Kuwait is part of
Iraq. His claim of the return of the usurped southern part of Iraq to the
motherland is a repugnant and a flagrant seizure of Kuwait; its entity,
sovereignty, independence  and legitimacy and a naked attack against the
dignity and civility of its free and proud people.

     Second: Saddam Hussein claims in his above mentioned speech that Kuwait
represents the southern part of Iraq and that Britain took it away from Iraq
in 1913 during the first World War and installed (Sir) Mubarak Al-Sabah as an
undisputed ruler.

     This claim, in addition to being a great blunder and an attempt to
circumvent reality, ignores the historical facts and documents that refute its
legitimacy.

     It is quite evident that Kuwait appeared as a political entity when its
people, acting on the Islamic principle of Shura (consultation) that was
deeply entrenched in their way of life, elected Sheikh Sabah I as emir in 1756
long before the evolution of modern Iraq as a state in the twenties of this
century. It was never envisaged by the early Kuwaitis and those who came
after them that a day would come when someone in Iraq, which at that time was
under direct Ottoman rule, would claim that independent Kuwait is part of Iraq
and accordingly develop an aggressive intent to occupy Kuwait, kill and
displace its people and loot and plunder the country's public and private
establishments.

     The historical facts state that Kuwait, unlike Iraq, has never been under
the Ottoman rule but was discharging its authority independently of the
Ottoman state and of any other entity under its authority such as Iraq.
Furthermore, the Ottoman state did not appoint a ruler to govern Kuwait in its
name as it did in the case of Iraq. To this is added the fact that contacts
between the emir of Kuwait and the Turks were conducted directly and were not
carried via Iraq or through it.

     As for Kuwait's relations with the Ottoman state these began when the
Al-Sabah family settled in Kuwait together with a number of Arab tribes. The
part of the land on which the Al-Sabah established Kuwait emirate was close to
Iraq which was part of the Ottoman state. Hence Sheikh Sabah sought to contact
the Ottoman wali (ruler) nearest to Kuwait, and he happened to be the ruler of
Baghdad, to negotiate with him and exchange views on matters of interest to
the two sides and to ensure the safety of the tribes passing through its
lands. The two sides agreed on this and Kuwait continued to run its affairs
independently while consolidating mutual respect with Bani Khaled, the rulers
of the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula at one hand and with the Ottoman
state at the other.

     This mutual relationship between independent Kuwait and the Ottoman state
continued for a long time and this independence was stated by the records of
the Dutch in Kharj Island as representatives of the Dutch East India Company.
This independence was also established by the Ottoman rulers themselves
including Midhat Pasha, the ruler of Baghdad since 1866 who was known for his
expansionist policies and his desire to extend the authority of the Ottoman
state over the largest possible area of land. It was stated in his
autobiography and in his correspondence with the Grand vizir (prime minister
in the Ottoman Empire) that "Kuwait is independent and is a semi-republic
whose people insist on maintaining their independence and reject any
connection with the Ottoman state because they have no desire to commit
themselves to material taxes that could be levied on them. Their trade is free
and active and they do not accept any employees or soldiers. They consider
the Sultan as the head of the Islamic faith and their ships raise the Dutch
flag at times and the British flag at others. Midhat Pasha advised the Ottoman
state of introduce Ottoman reforms in an attempt to link Kuwait to the Ottoman
state. Although the suggestion made by Midhat Pasha was met with good response
from the Grand vizir no arrangements that would affect the independence of
Kuwait have taken place and Kuwait continued to retain its actual independence
of the Ottoman state in spite of its cooperation with the Ottoman state and
its participation in its land and naval expeditions out of its desire and
keenness to maintain the mutual and religious ties and since any outside
threat that faces the Ottoman state will in most cases face Kuwait at the same
time.

     A clear evidence of the independence of Kuwait of the Ottoman state is
the fact that when Kuwait felt it was being intimidated by the Ottoman state
it acted on its own and Sheikh Mubarak Al-Sabah signed the protection
agreement with Britain on January 23, 1899. By so doing Kuwait rejected any
link with the Ottoman state and the agreement stated that Britain will protect
the sheikh and his heirs as long as he remained committed to his undertakings
to Britain.

     When the First World War broke out a British declaration to Sheikh
Mubarak was made on October 1914 recognizing Kuwait as an independent state
under British protection while Iraq was put under the British mandate. Kuwait
became independent in all its internal affairs. As for foreign affairs these
were administered by Britain due to the consent of the rulers of the Arabian
Gulf who agreed, for practical reasons, that Britain would take over the
administration of their foreign affairs in return for their protection,
maintaining their tiny entities and respecting their freedom regarding the
running of their internal affairs. At this time Iraq was under the British
mandate and its internal and external affairs were dominated by Britain where
all government circles and administrations were run by British advisors.

     It is worth mentioning that finding itself unable to face Britain the
Ottoman state entered into negotiations with it during the period 1911 - 1913
that culminated in the signing of the Anglo-Turkish agreement of 1913. The
agreement contained five parts, the first of which dealt with Kuwait. In
articles 5 to 7 Kuwaiti borders with Ottoman Iraq were defined and the two
islands of Bobyan and Warba were recognized as part of Kuwait while Safwan and
Um Qasr were taken always from it. Thus Kuwaiti borders were defined under an
international agreement binding on all parties.

     At the Al-Aqeer conference in 1922 Iraq made inquiries to Britain about
its relations with Kuwait and the effect of this on the ongoing negotiations
regarding the borders in the region. Britain answered that its relations with
Kuwait were mutual and based on the protection agreement signed between the
two parties in 1899 and that the Kuwaiti - Iraqi borders were those defined in
the Anglo-Turkish agreement of 1913. This fact refutes Saddam's claim that
throughout the different eras Iraqi rulers did not recognize Kuwait. The
Ottoman state recognized the above mentioned agreement as well as the
agreements reached by Kuwait and Britain. These were recognized by Iraq during
the rule of the monarchy when at the 1922 Al-Aqeer conference on the
definition of boundaries it enquired about the relations between Kuwait and
Britain and the effect of this on the ongoing border negotiations. The then
British High Commissioner in Iraq Percy Cox answered the Iraqi government
stating that relations between Kuwait and Britain were mutual ones based on
the protection agreement signed between the two sides 1899. This recognition
remained valid throughout the rule of the monarchy in Iraq.

     In 1932 when Iraq was about to gain independence from the British mandate
and become a member to the League of Nations Iraq had to define its borders
with its neighbors and it brought forward that document in the League of
Nations. The British High Commissioner wrote to the acting Iraqi Prime
Minister Jaafar Al-Askari for the exchange of memoranda regarding the
demarcation of borders with Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber based on the attached
written memo. This was done after the return of Nuri Al-Saeed, the prime
minister, and Al-Saaed and Sheikh Ahmad exchanged the memos defining the
borders of their two countries through the British High Commissioner. The
exchange of the memos between a head of government or foreign minister with
their counterparts in other countries is considered a binding agreement
according to the international laws and norms.

     This was made evident during the republican rule in 1963 when another
agreement was made between Kuwait and Iraq in which the two parties agreed to
the following:

     a) The republic of Iraq will recognize Kuwaiti independence and full
sovereignty within its borders stated in the letter of Iraq's prime minister
dated 21.7.1932 which was accepted by the ruler of Kuwait under his letter
dated 1.8.1932.

     b) The two governments should work to consolidate the fraternal relations
between the two sisterly countries guided by the national duty, joint
interests and the aspirations for a comprehensive Arab unity.

     c) The two governments should work to establish cultural, trade and
economic cooperation between them and to exchange technical information.

     In realization of this the two countries exchanged diplomatic
representation at the ambassadorial level.

     This agreement was signed by the head of the Iraqi delegation Maj. Gen.
Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr who was then prime minister and Sheikh Sabah Al-Salim
Al-Sabah the then Kuwaiti prime minister and head of his country's delegation.

     From the above mentioned it is evident that:

     a) The historical facts referred to herein refute in absolute manner the
claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and contradicts Iraq's claim that Kuwait
was under the Ottoman rule. This claim, despite being false, opens the door
wide for unrestrained chaos that could afflict the entire world if other
countries dared to take similar acts claiming historical rights. The Iraqi
regime could occupy Jordan claiming that at one time it was part of the
Ottoman Empire. Iraq or part of it could be subjected to such claims if
another country or countries claimed historical rights in Iraq.

     To firmly establish this fact we refer to a number of proofs that show
beyond doubt the independence of Kuwait from the Ottoman state:

     1. The absence of any material proof such as soldiers and government
employees, payment of taxes, government departments ... etc. Not only this but
Sheikh Mubarak refused to accept the government official sent by the Ottoman
state to work as director of the sea port in an attempt by the Ottoman state
to establish material proof to its sovereignty over Kuwait after the signing
of the protection agreement. Kuwait is void of any Ottoman material
archeological remains such as castles and palaces which were scattered all
over the areas that had been under Turkish rule.

     2. Kuwait never asked assistance from the Ottoman state throughout its
history and even when there was a threat or when Kuwait was subjected to
outside aggression it defended itself relying on its own power without seeking
intervention from the Ottoman state.

     3. Kuwait was a haven for the opponents of the Ottoman state and those
fleeing it. The British historian (Bridges) who was employed with the East
India Company said he fled to Kuwait in 1794 following a dispute between the
company and the Ottoman authorities in Basra and that the ruler of Kuwait
accorded him all the facilities he required. He described him as a just ruler
who enjoyed the love of his subjects. Naturally if Kuwait was part of Basra
its ruler would not have acted the way the ruler of Kuwait did but would have
followed the same policy adopted by the Ottoman authorities in Basra. Bridges
further states that one of Basra's rulers, Mustafa Agha or Musfataf Al-Kurdi,
fled to Kuwait together with his friend Thowaini Al-Saadoun, the ruler of
Al-Muntafiq, after a dispute between them and the ruler of Baghdad, Soliman
Pasha, in 1789. The ruler of Kuwait refused to hand over the refugees despite
threats and promises of money offered to him by the Ottoman authorities in
Basra. This clearly shows that Kuwait was not a part of Basra province at the
time.

     4. The transfer of the activities of the British Agency to Kuwait when
the Iranians occupied Basra during 1776-1779 and the solution of the problem
facing the East India Company cargo accumulating in India waiting shipment.
The same agency moved twice from Basra to Kuwait as a result of dispute
between its administration and the Ottoman officials in Basra. The first time
was between 1793-1795 and the second in 1921. This has two indications. First,
the company administration was satisfied with the good treatment on the side
of the Kuwaiti ruler and merchants. Second, and more important, is the fact
that Kuwait was independent of the Ottoman rule and if this was not the case
then it would not have been possible for the company administration to move
from one Ottoman-ruled place to another.

     5. No money was sent from the Ottoman state to the emirate of Kuwait.

     6. British and Ottoman documents clearly state the independence of
Kuwait of the Ottoman rule. This is particularly stated in documents the most
important of which is the letters of Midhat Pasha to his government in
addition to many other documents. As for the British documents including those
of the British political residents Kempell, Meed and Curzon, the viceroy of
India, and many others.

     7. The recognition by the Ottoman state in the Anglo-Turkish agreement
of the independence of Kuwait and its definition of the boundaries between
Kuwait and Ottoman Iraq in the same agreement.

     8. The recognition by the Ottoman state in the Anglo-Turkish agreement
and all conventions made by Kuwait with Britain and this also contradicts
claims of its direct subjugation to the Ottoman state.

     In that agreement in 1913 it recognized Kuwaiti sovereignty over Warba
and Bobyan while it continued to administer, with the consent of Britain, the
two regions Safwan and Um Qasr which were part of Kuwait. The borders between
Kuwait and Iraq became clear and they were recognized by both Kuwait and Iraq
through the exchange of memoranda between Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber and Nuri
Al-Saeed (the Iraqi prime minister) through Britain when Iraq gained its
independence in 1932 from the British mandate.

     9. One of the documents published by Saldana (the undersecretary of
British India) states that during the reign of Sheikh Jaber Al-Sabah (1835)
the Turks attacked and ransacked Al-Zubair and that some of its citizens fled
to Kuwait. The document further states that Jaber had enough force to resist
the Turks and refused to heed their orders.

     10. The defeat of the Ottoman state in the First World War and its
expulsion from the territories under its rule and the recognition of Kuwait as
totally independent under British protection as incorporated in the 1918
Lausanne Agreement.

     11. Sheikh Mubarak's rejection from the start of any cooperation with
the Germans and of their offer to select Kazmah as the end station of the
Berlin-Baghdad Railway Line despite approval by the Ottoman Sultan of the
German offers.

     12. The claim that Kuwait was part of Basra or the Ottoman state is
further refuted by the fact that the Ottoman Empire enforced its laws on all
the countries under its domain. Of these laws is the book of judicial rules
which represented the civil law of the Ottoman state. The book was applied in
Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Palestine and other countries but was never applied to
Kuwait throughout the Ottoman rule. It was only applied in 1938 long after the
Ottoman Caliphate ceased to exist. If Kuwait was part of the Ottoman state the
book would have been applied to it at the same time it was applied to Iraq.
Then how can it be envisaged that the book was applied to Basra but not in
Kuwait? If Kuwait was part of Basra as claimed by Saddam and his mouthpieces
then the rules contained in the said book would have been applied to Kuwait
but this did not happen until 1938 which means that Kuwait applied these rules
at its own will and discretion; proof of its independence and sovereignty in
taking the measures it deems appropriate.

     13. It is also worth stating here that all geography and history books,
academic or otherwise, which are printed and circulated in the Republic of
Iraq had always continued to refer to Kuwait as an independent Arab country.
There are tens of Iraqi publications that prove this and stress in letter and
spirit the independent entity of Kuwait.

     a) To the above mentioned is added the fact that in Islamic history the
territory of Kuwait had been part of Bahrain region which extended from Mount
Sanam in the north to the borders of the Empty Quarter in the south. This part
covers the eastern section of the Arabian Peninsula. The tribes of Tameem,
Saad and Abdul Qais were the inhabitants of this area which was later
inhabited by Bani Khalid and other tribes who bore no allegiance to the rulers
of Iraq and whose lands had never been part of it at any time. Arab and Muslim
geographers and historians regarded Basra as the southern border of Iraq which
in the past used to be known as Ard Al-Sawad (the land of the black). Kuwait
has never been within Iraq boundaries.

     b) If the relation between Iraq and Kuwait is that of a subsidiary with
the principal as claimed by the Iraqi regime then who had ever heard of a
principal establishing full and continuous diplomatic relations with its
subsidiary? How come that Iraq the principal agreed to the full participation
of Kuwait which it now refers to as a subsidiary in all the international
organizations and in equal footing?

     c) It is a stated fact that Kuwait existed as an independent political
entity long before Iraq came into being. Then how can it be envisaged that the
entity that came into existence first is regarded as a part of the one which
was born at a later stage? This is an attempt that only aims at creating
confusion, an attempt that runs contrary to all logic.

     d) Iraq claims that there was no accredited agreement between Kuwait and
Iraq regarding the demarcation of boundaries and that it had not recognized
any agreement in this regard. To this claim we have the following to say:

     1) The regime of Saddam Hussein does not honor any international rules or
norms. Hence it is not surprising to see this regime denying the existence of
an agreement that defines or demarcates the boundaries between Iraq and
Kuwait.

     If it was Saddam Hussein himself who cancelled the 1975 agreement he
signed with Iran that defines his country's borders with Iran with no apparent
justifiable reasons apart from personal whims and fancies, then it would be no
surprise if the same Saddam rejected another agreement signed by some body
other than him. Here we refer to the late president Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr of
whom Saddam was deputy then. If the world accepted such behavior, then this
would mark the beginning of unprecedented chaos in international relations.

     2) The provisions of the 1936 Agreement referred to above were executed
immediately after the signing of the agreement and cultural and economic
relations were established with Iraq and diplomatic representation exchanged
between Iraq and Kuwait. Thus from the legal point of view Iraq is considered
to have recognized the agreement and its provisions since it implemented the
greater part of it. It is an established rule that this implementation would
not take effect until after the agreement was put before the council of
ministers or the revolutionary command council. Can it be then said that
after all this long time the revolutionary command council had not endorsed
the agreement? Aren't the political, economic, social and cultural acts an
implicit, if not explicit, proof of the endorsement of this agreement and all
its provisions?

     Finally, if we conceded Iraq has a case against Kuwait that should be
discussed then why did Iraq refuse to respond to Kuwait's repeated calls
during the past years to put the Iraqi claims before the International Court
of Justice? Why did Iraq refuse the Kuwaiti suggestion for the formation of an
Arab commission to look into the border dispute between the two countries? If
Iraq refuses to recognize the borders with Kuwait because they are colonial
borders, as it claims, then who defined Iraq's borders with its other
neighbors? Can Iraq accept the signed border agreement including what it
signed with Kuwait in 1963 in this regard?

     Iraqi breach of the international law and conventions is indeed a
shameful matter for itself and a sad matter for all Arabs and Muslims and it
is natural that Iraq should bear its consequences in full. However, the policy
of "divide and rule" specially when applied among Arab countries and within
individual Arab states is a very serious thing that requires the utmost degree
of precaution and prudence. In playing this card the Iraqi regime resorts to
cheap methods of conspiracy. It confuses issues with hollow slogans and
foments ill feelings among the Arabs and between the Arabs and the rest of the
world. By so doing Iraq is seeking to start a fire that would leave behind
trails of destruction and misery and Iraq can not live under the illusion that
it can be immune from its flames.

     From the above it is clear that there is no evidence whatsoever of what
Saddam Hussein claims as being Iraq's historic rights in Kuwait. Saddam is
just blowing into cold ashes to justify his heinous crime of invading Kuwait.

     What we have said is substantiated by the fact that when the Iraqi regime
committed its outrageous crime it never said it was regaining Iraqi
territories but said its forces entered Kuwait in response to calls from the
free Kuwaiti people whom it claimed had toppled the governing regime. To back
this allegation it invented what it called the interim Kuwaiti government.
This illegal government then announced the dismissal of the emir, dissolved
the National Assembly and formed the government of free Kuwait. All these
measures were taken with no mention of historical Iraqi rights in Kuwait. Not
only that but the regime announced it would begin withdrawing its forces from
Kuwait starting from August 5 if there were no threats to the security of Iraq
or Kuwait. This confirms the fact that the concept of so called historical
rights has never been one of the reasons claimed by the Iraqi regime to
justify its storming of Kuwait.

     Even when the Iraqi regime started to prepare for its invasion to Kuwait
it made no reference to the historical rights but accused Kuwait and the
United Arab Emirates of exceeding their quota of oil production decided by
OPEC and that they flooded the market with oil and consequently led to a drop
in oil prices in a way that greatly affected the Iraqi economy. Until August 7
the concept of historical rights was not in the agenda. The interim government
in Kuwait announced that the country had become a republic which means that
Kuwait was still an independent and sovereign state.

     However the following day, August 8, the Iraqi regime announced that it
had formally annexed Kuwait on the basis that it was originally part of its
territory and thus the concept of the historical rights was introduced into
the political stage of the crisis.

     Such random actions are a clear indication that the regime of Saddam
Hussein has been fabricating false statements and lies to justify its invasion
of Kuwait. If the regime was truly sincere with itself it would have
announced from the beginning the idea of Iraq's historical rights in Kuwait
but its course of action clearly indicates that it has never sided with logic
and reality and that it was fabricating lies that only exist in its mind but
were believed by no one except the regime.

     No matter how Saddam and his clique tried to alter reality with their
lies and fabrication, truth will prevail and will be known to the entire world
because lies will never overshadow the light of the sun. Third: To back his
lies Saddam spoke of what he termed as three incidents of history which when
examined will crumble before the

     Saddam claims that in 1938 the Kuwaiti Legislative Assembly demanded that
Kuwait be united with Iraq and as a result Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber dissolved the
assembly. This claim can not hold out when challenged because there isn't any
thing either in documents or in reality that prove this to be correct. What
happened was that Iraq under King Ghazi who was seeking expansion and the
establishment of the Fertile Crescent, the region extending from Syria to the
Arabian Gulf, exploited the democratic atmosphere prevailing in Kuwait at that
time and began inciting Kuwaitis into opposing the authorities under the
illusion that he could influence the Kuwaiti people. When he failed to achieve
his goal King Ghazi sent a force to invade Kuwait, as substantiated by the
British documents, but the attempt failed as will fail the attempt of the
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with the grace of Allah. The call for annexing
Kuwait was not made by Kuwaitis as claimed by Saddam Hussein but it was
instigated by King Ghazi himself.

     To Saddam's claims that in 1958 Nuri Al-Saeed demanded the annexation of
Kuwait during a meeting of the Baghdad Pact we answer by saying that a demand
made by a prime minister for the annexation of a neighboring country can not
be taken to mean a right that an independent country is part of another. Truth
shows that the basis on which Nuri Al-Saeed made his demand was to push Kuwait
into joining the Baghdad Pact so that the alliance can benefit materially
from Kuwait's membership in this organization. However, the late Sheikh
Abdullah Al-Salim the then ruler of Kuwait rejected this because he had no
desire to see his country linked with foreign pacts. He also rejected the call
by Nuri Al-Saeed for Kuwait to join a Hashemite federation he planned to
establish grouping Iraq and Jordan in order to confront the unity that was
established between Egypt and Syria.

     In 1961 and after Kuwait's independence, President Abdul-kareem Qasim of
Iraq recognized it and congratulated Sheikh Abdullah Al-Salim. But he soon
changed his mind and demanded that Kuwait be united with Iraq in an attempt
to benefit from Kuwait's resources and divert the attention of the Iraqi
people away from the country's deteriorating situation under his rule. This
is the same course now being pursued and the same goal sought by Saddam
Hussein. Despite being a lunatic and an insane leader Abdulkarim Qasim was
to some extent wiser than Saddam Hussein since his threats were only verbal
and he refrained to attack bearing in mind the negative effects this would
have on his regime and his country. On the contrary Saddam took no cognizance
of this and proved to be more lunatic than his predecessor. Anyhow, the odd
situation resulting from Abdulkarim Qasim's demand that Kuwait be part of Iraq
ended with the 1963 revolution and the signing of an agreement between the two
sisterly states (Iraq and Kuwait) in which Iraq recognized the independence of
Kuwait within its boundaries defined by the memoranda exchanged between Sheikh
Ahmad Al-Jaber and Nouri Al-Saeed in 1932.

     Thus we find out that all the evidence stated by Saddam Hussein to
justify his invasion and occupation of the state of Kuwait are empty
allegations. Neither the attempts by King Ghazi nor those by Abdulkarim Qasim
to annex Kuwait gave Iraq any rights or justification to annex Kuwait which
has been an independent and sovereign state recognized by the international
community and an active member of Arab, Islamic and international
organizations; playing a role more active than that of Iraq. Kuwait is fully
independent of Iraq since its establishment on non-Iraqi territory and enjoyed
defined borders with Iraq since the Ottoman rule. These borders were stated in
an international agreement recognized by the two countries exercising
influence in the region at the time (Britain and the Ottoman state). These
borders were reaffirmed again during Al-Aqir Conference in 1932 when Iraq
inquired with Britain about this matter. They were-reaffirmed for the third
time in 1932 in the memos exchanged between the two sides and for the fourth
time in 1963 in the agreement signed by Ahmad Hassan Al-Bakr on behalf of Iraq
and Sheikh Sabah Al-Salim Al-Sabah on behalf of Kuwait. Any attempt to
disregard and violate these borders is regarded as aggression whose
perpetrator should be punished.

Study No. II Kuwait, a Legal reality

     The historical and political facts contained in the previous study show
that Kuwait has never been under the Ottoman sovereignty. Conventions,
agreements, correspondence and events show that since its creation as a
political entity in 1921 Iraq has implicitly agreed to its borders with
Kuwait. It must be stated here that modern Iraq was made up of three regions
that were stripped off the Ottoman state; namely Mawsil, Baghdad and Basra.

     It is a stated fact that Kuwait has never been part of Basra at any time
since Turkey did not extend its authority over Kuwait and the ruler of Kuwait
enjoyed actual authority. According to Professor Majeed Khadouri, being one of
the countries that inherited the Ottoman state Iraq can not claim sovereign
rights over lands that Turkey had not assigned to it. In reference to Qasim's
claims Professor Khadouri adds that Qasim was not able to legally justify his
demands and so he tended to change the basis on which he built his demands
from legal to historical and political.

     In order to substantiate its false claims Iraq has to prove the
following:

     1) That Kuwait was legally part of the Ottoman Empire and that it was
administered as a province of Basra region.

     2) That Iraq inherited the Turkish sovereignty or authority over Kuwait
from the Ottoman Empire.

     3) That Iraq continuously sustained its active demands of sovereignty
over Kuwait.

     Regarding the first condition it is evident from the above that the
family of Al-Sabah ruled Kuwait free of any direct or outside intervention
since 1756 and that the independent status of Kuwait was maintained even
after Midhat Pasha, the governor of Baghdad, launched his expedition against
Ahsa in 1871. To this is added that historical facts show that the Ottoman
Empire has never gained the right of sovereignty over Kuwait which was neither
occupied nor subjected to the Turkish rule. Since the claims that Kuwait
(formed part of the Turkish Empire) has no historical or legal backing then
the contention that Turkey enjoyed no legal status in Kuwait is correct and
substantiated by facts.

     As for the second condition even if we assumed that the Ottoman state had
sovereignty over Kuwait, an assumption far from reality, does this mean that
Iraq as a country that inherited the Turkish Basra region did inherit this
right by legal means from Kuwait? It is known that following its defeat in the
First World War Turkey signed the August 10, 1920 Sevres agreement. According
to article 94 of the said agreement Mesopotamia and Syria were recognized as
independent states under the British mandate. It was also agreed that the
borders of the previous Turkish domain would be defined accordingly by the
parties concerned. However, the agreement made no mention of Kuwait as being
one of those Turkish domain. Although the agreement had not been ratified it
could nevertheless be regarded as a valuable proof to the actual situation of
the borders of the new state (Iraq).

     The Lausanne Agreement of 24.7.1923 which had been ratified affirmed the
provisions concerning the assignment by Turkey of its properties mentioned in
the Sevres agreement. Article 27 of the Lausanne Agreement, as the case with
Article 139 of the Sevres agreement includes paragraphs indicating Turkey
waiving off all its authority and law to the citizens of the regions which
later came under the sovereignty or protection of the foreign forces that had
been part of agreements with Turkey. Consequently, as a country which
inherited previous Turkish territories, Iraq is legally bound by the
restrictions imposed by the Lausanne Agreement on Turkey. In other words even
if it is assumed that Turkey had sovereignty over Kuwait Iraq could not
inherit this since Turkey had assigned these under the terms of Lausanne
Agreement of 1923. While Iraq was later on subjected to the system of mandate
under Article 22 of the charter of the League of Nations, Kuwait remained as
it had been before; a distinctive territory under British protection. This
view is backed by Professor Khadouri who says Iraq as a country which
inherited the Turkish Empire can not claim sovereign rights over territories
which Turkey did not assign to it.

     As far as the third condition is concerned and for Iraq to prove its
claims over Kuwait, Iraq should prove that its demands over Kuwait had been
continuous and were not interrupted. This departs from reality and can be
interpreted as an acceptance of the continued existence of Kuwait as an
independent political entity in addition to the fact that the exchange of
letters affirmed the existing borders between Iraq and Kuwait which were
contained in other letters exchanged on April 4 and April 19, 1923 between
Sheikh Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah and Sir Cox. Although the borders between Iraq
and Kuwait were not demarcated their definition as stated in the exchange of
letters in 1932 and their  ratification in the 1963 agreement affirms the
commitment of the two countries in a clear and unequivocal manner.

     Since Iraq had recognized the independence of Kuwait in October 4, 1963,
a recognition that was made by the now ruling Bath regime in Iraq, the two
countries established close diplomatic and political relations based on full
respect of each other's sovereignty over its lands. Although they have not
reached agreement on the demarcation of the borders, the recognition means the
affirmation of Kuwait's sovereignty and its existing borders in general.

     The legal fact and reality of Kuwait are further strengthened and
consolidated by Kuwait's joining the United Nations and the Arab League
immediately after its independence and the acceptance of it as member in all
international, Arab and regional organizations.