US Ambassador to Malaysia Marie Huhtala met with malaysiakini last Friday to elaborate o­n her country's case for war o­n Iraq, after Secretary of State Colin Powell had presented 'evidence' gathered from intelligence reports to the UN Security Council in New York.

Malaysiakini : US Secretary of State Colin Powell had presented what the US claimed to be "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence to justify war against Iraq. However it has been widely reported that the evidence produced could hardly justify a war that would cost many, many lives. Of course there is also the historical record of misinformation to justify the war back in 1990. When US was preparing its war against Iraq, there was heavy reliance of classified satellite photographs purportedly showed that in September 1990, Iraqi soldiers were already gathering o­n the border of Saudi Arabia. A year later, Powell admitted that the information was not true

Huhtala: I don't know anything about that

I could show you a copy of the story relating the information.

Huhtala: (reading) Yes...let's not talk about this because I am not prepared o­n this at all.

People claimed that there was misinformation then. And now people are not convinced either. Can you comment o­n this?

I want to draw the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Satellite imagery and other kinds of intelligence are open to all kinds of interpretation. And people can make mistakes when (they) interpret it. That would be misinformation - a mistake in interpretation.

Disinformation is a term that talks about deliberately planting information that is false to mislead others and to create problems. And of course, our country (the US) has never been involved in disinformation. But we have to agree that there could be different interpretations in terms of the information that you get.

With regard to the Secretary's presentation, you have to back to the UN Resolution 1441, which was, as you know, passed after eight weeks of negotiations and unanimously endorsed by the members of the UN Security Counciland the resolution may be an assertion that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.

This has been known to the UN ever since the end of the first Gulf War and the resolution calls o­n Iraq to reveal all the weapons of mass destruction that it has and to disarm, and then to prove to the inspectors that it has disarmed.

The first declaration that Iraq made was incompleteit had a lot of old information and did not fulfil the criteria of a complete declaration of what they had.

The US also has a lot of information that Iraq not o­nly has weapons of mass destruction but is also hiding them, putting obstacles in the way of inspectors. It is acquiring more and putting more efforts to acquire more chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

And, we also have information it is co-operating with terrorists. Because the resolution calls o­n members to share information that Iraq is not living up to the resolution, they can come to the council. That was what Secretary Powell did.

It is not that he was calling for warit's just that he was responding to the needs of the Resolution 1441 and laying the best information that is available to us to demonstrate that Iraq is not complying with the resolution; that it is not disarming; that it is not fulfilling the declaration and it is not co-operating with the inspectors.

The question is, if this is not just about war, but also about (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein.

Yes, indeed. It's all about Saddam. Now, the resolution says that there will be serious consequences if Iraq does not live up to the demands made by the international community. So that's where you could see a war developing but this was not a justification for war so much as laying out a case that Iraq has not lived up to the commitment it has made many times over since the end of the Gulf War and to the demands of the international community. Resolution 1441 was the last chance. We have frequently said to Iraq, this is your last chance to disarm yourself and to co-operate with international committee. And our judgment is that Iraq is not taking that chance.

For the past 12 years, sanctions have restricted Saddam in o­ne way - why should we abandon sanctions and go straight to war?

The sanctions have not been effective in curtailing his abilities to pursue these weapons. He has huge amounts of anthrax, DX gas, toxin and chemical weapons and he is pursuing nuclear weapons. In fact, we have good evidence that he is taking the money from the food for peace and oil for peace programmes and using this for his military programmes, and not his people. That is why you see an increase in suffering of the people in Iraq. All the benefits are siphoned off for military purposes.

What if US fails to get UN endorsement?

Well, our president and secretary have stated that Resolution 1441 gives the authority to assemble a coalition and undertake military action against Iraq if need be. It's not something that we want to do. War is not our first priority. But the resolution clearly states that there would be serious consequences if Iraq does not co-operate and that means military action. Now, the president would welcome a second resolutionto begin military action. But we don't feel that we absolutely need it.

What would trigger a war? Would a negative report from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix do this?

Iraq has been given its last chance to comply. If it does not comply there would have to be a war. And the president says that there is no timetable but we are not going to wait indefinitely. We are looking at weeks instead of months. They (the Iraqis) have to make a drastic change in the way they are approaching all of this. They could still, of course, avoid a war.

What evidence should Saddam produce to prove that Iraq is doing enough to co-operate?

The burden of proof is o­n Iraq. The inspectors, like Powell says, are not detectives. It's not their job to get down and find the weapons which have been carefully hidden. It is Iraq's responsibility to show the inspectors, so that they can verify that they have destroyed the weapons. That's what Iraq has to do. It's not for the UN to find it, it's Iraq who has to show it to them.

There is an o­n-going global protest against the war. The former UN Humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, has pointed out that the UN arms inspectors' evidence shows the absence of weapons. And yet the US and Britain are making allegations to the contrary. He also said a pre-emptive strike will not o­nly constitute the death penalty for a large number of innocent civilians but also violate international law and further marginalise the UN. Wouldn't the US appear to be hasty in pushing for war when people are not convinced with the evidence?

First of all the UN inspectors have never said that there were no weapons here. What they said was that we can't seen them, which means that Iraq has not shown us.

But what if there is nothing to show?

But there are many ways that Iraq can demonstrate they are co-operating. For example, it can give a full account of what it has done before, but it has not done so. The declaration it made last month was not sufficient. It could take us to the place where the weapons had been made and demonstrate how they had eliminated it. If they do still have the weapons, they should show them to the inspectors and then start the process of destruction.

The speech Powell gave was unprecedented in the amount of sensitive intelligence information that it revealed. This is a serious effort o­n our part to convince the UN and public around the world including in the US, that we are not making this up. We know that these things are there and we are very deeply concerned about it. It's extremely unusual for us to use the information. It is very dangerous to use such intelligence because it may risk the lives of the people who are involved in securing the information.

So you think that the US is not being hasty in going ahead with the war?

Absolutely not. I think this is something we have waited for 12 years. It has been 12 years since the Iraq had agreed to disarm. For 12 years, they have been delaying. It's up to Iraq now to stop a war. It has to comply with the resolution.

But o­nly the US and the Britain think that Iraq has something to hide

That's not true. And I really do think that some of the information that has been revealed has come from other countries' intelligence sources. If you look closely (at Powell's presentation), he talks about foreign intelligence. This means that people all around the world know that, yes, Iraq has something to hide.

The Americans themselves are not clear-cut in supporting the war.

But we have the Congress supporting the president

Yes, but a recent survey says 40% of Americans want the UN endorsement, 30% are opposed to war, while about 20% support unilateral action. Given the fact that popularity plays a major role in gauging public sentiment for the presidential elections, what would the expected political fallout be from a decision to wage war?

Traditionally the Americans have rallied around the president when the difficult decision has had to be made to go to war. We had a thorough airing of the question a couple months ago when the president went to the Congress and asked for support. There was a lot of debate but in the end, the Congress which represents the American people, gave him that support and that resolution.

Opinion polls are an arcane art and you can always interpret again whether the numbers really reflect the views of the Americans. I suspect that after that presentation that Powell made, the numbers have changed. Because the information must have been an eye-opener for Americans about the threat that Saddam poses.

What has the US done as damage control considering the strong opposition to war? What is it doing to avoid looking like the bad guy?

I think that was another purpose served by Powell in his presentation. Knowing that the public around the world are concern about this, it can o­nly be helpful that he has laid out so much information and so much detail so that people around the world understand why we are so firm o­n this question. Not that we like war.

But the reactions not very favourable.

We are doing the best we can. I think it was a stellar presentation. I was deeply impressed. If people take the time to educate themselves in all the things that the secretary said, it can help in making an impact in their thinking.

The US motive to start a war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is said to be without credibility because of Washington's failure to deal with other countries o­n the same terms. For example, its allies Israel, Pakistan and India have a nuclear arsenal as well and have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What can you say about that?

No country in the world has the combination of terrifying weapons that Iraq has. Massive quantities of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. For instance, the secretary talked about the nerve gas DX. o­ne drop of this will kill you. Saddam has declared that he has already 400 tonnes. He is probably not declaring the full amount. He has anthraxhe has admitted it.

There is no other country that has all these things in such concentration and he has stated his willingness to use it. In 1988, he gassed a town in northern Iraq and 5,000 people died o­n that day. He used it against his own people and he is certainly capable of using it against us.

It is said that the war would create more hatred towards America. There would be more would-be al-Qaeda supporters. Please comment.

It does not have to be that way. I suspect that Saddam has killed at least a million Muslims himself in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam is going to liberate 20 million people to have a much better life.

But after a war, there will not be 20 million people around

Yes, but I don't think there is going to be massive casualties that people have talked about. We are going to take every effort to limit the number of civilian casualties.

How are you going to do that?

Through careful targeting(of) what kind of place we are going to attack. If Saddam puts his weapon in schools and churches, it is going to be very hard for us to do that. He is known to have used human shields. But we have been pretty successful in past wars in limiting civilian casualties. We will do everything to control that.

Can you elaborate o­n the steps that will be involved?

You get as much military intelligence that you can and you target military installations, you don't target schools, churches, housing complexes. We have always consistently done thatthat would be our approach in this war.

Can you explain the US' continued reluctance to make a firm stand o­n the Israel-Palestine conflict?

For the past 30 years, we have tried to exert all kinds of diplomatic pressure for peace between Israel and Palestine. A couple of years ago, we were very close in getting the two to peace. Since that time President (George W) Bush came into office and he actually made a public statement supporting a Palestinian state along with an Israeli state. He is the first president to have said that. So we remain very committed to bringing successful attempts.

But the determination the US is exerting o­n Iraq (to comply) is not the same.

I wouldn't say there is a difference of determination but there is a difference in the amount of threat posed in the issue. We are seriously worried about the threat of mass casualties around the world that Saddam poses, and we just feel that we have to take care of that problem first.

But that has yet to be realisedwhereas in Palestine, many lives were lost.

Both countries have lost lives. A lot of lives were lost in Israel and also in Palestine. It is a terrible conflict and we want to do everything we can for two to come to an agreement, but again the threat coming from Iraq is so much more serious at this point that we have to tackle that o­ne first.

There is a campaign in Malaysia against the war. Are you doing anything to change the Malaysians' viewpoint?

I certainly will understand why the Malaysians would want to sign a petition against war. I mean, no o­ne likes war. I certainly don't like war. We are reporting back to Washington that there is a strong sentiment here and I certainly respect the reason behind it. But we are trying to seek every effort to explain to the Malaysians why there might be a war in Iraq, why it is so important and essential to rid Saddam and his threat of mass destruction. And (to explain) that war may be the o­nly way to do it.

There is a concern that if the war in Iraq starts, then North Korea would take advantage of that in this part of the world. And there would also be a possibility of terrorists taking advantage of that. There may be a three-tier war. Is the US capable of handling this simultaneously?

I hope so. But I hope we won't have to. We are very concerned with the situation at North Korea and we are actively engaged in talking with Korea's neighbours. The deputy secretary told Congress today that we will certainly talk with the North Koreans. We are trying to defuse the situation as best as we can. If they try anything, we do have forces in the region.

(Moving o­n to other issues) Malaysia is not in the US list of countries with a terrorist risk. Yet there are still reports that Malaysian students are subjected to tedious inspections by the US immigration authorities. Could you say something about this?

The United States like many countries in Europe and around the world has a policy of registering individuals when they are coming into our country for the first time. We take information about them. We make them give us information about where they are going to stay, their fingerprints. And again many other countries do this as well and Malaysians are included in it as well.

Another programme was announced for further registration of individuals, such as students, who are already in the US for the long term. A number of countries are included in that programme. Malaysia is not included. So what Malaysians have to do is they have to go through a visa process, they have to expect that they will be a registration upon entry and that's it.

So there should not be a problem for Malaysian students?

I have not received a lot of complaints about it and I think people understand that it is a legitimate thing for countries to do this especially in this day and age after 911. It's a reasonable thing and many countries around the world are doing this.

There is a news report that the Bush administration has reportedly sought from the US Congress a sharp increase in spending for military training for Malaysia from US$800,000 to US$1.2 million for next year. Is this part of the plan for the new international counter terrorism centre in the region?

No. This is for our International Military Education and Training or Imet. And we have had Imet funding for Malaysian military for many years. The Malaysians decide how they are going to spend it, they select which courses they want to send their service members to and they choose their members. They can send their officers for training offered to our own soldiers, air crew and sailors.

For years the level that Malaysia is getting has been stagnant at US$700,000US$800,000 per year. We asked Congress for the significant increase partly because of inflationand to continue our commitment to training and supporting the Malaysian military.

Tomorrow: Interview with Iraq's Ambassador to Malaysia, Kais Al-Yacoubi.