rokus2595
06-24-2004, 09:00 AM
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/interview/ns24531.jpg
For refusing to work on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme, Hussain Al-Shahristani spent 11 years as a prisoner in the infamous Abu Ghraib jail. As Iraq struggles to rebuild, he was recently put forward as a candidate to head the interim government. He explains to Michael Bond why he declined. He is now calling for other scientists around the world to boycott research on all weapons of mass destruction
How well did you know Saddam Hussein?
I knew Saddam closely because he was head of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1970s even before he became president.
What was he like?
I was never impressed by him. I knew that he was a vicious man who would not hesitate to send people to be executed when they had very minor differences with him. He never impressed me with any intelligence or insight. Sometimes I thought he made a fool of himself by commenting on scientific issues. At meetings he would mostly just listen to the scientific arguments and then make a decision on what should be done, but on occasions he would comment on subjects I thought he did not have much knowledge of. What was very clear to all of us was his authoritarian style and the way he tried to dominate everybody around him. He behaved as if he was above everybody else, as if he controlled everybody and everything. His word was final and no one else could take decisions.
When he became president of Iraq in 1979 he asked you to work on an atomic weapons programme. What happened?
I was the chief scientific adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission when Saddam appointed himself president. He wanted to redirect our research activities from peaceful applications to what were referred to as strategic applications. I refused to work on the programme.
Was that an easy decision to make?
Fairly easy. It was clear to me that any weapons in his hands would be used against the Iraqi people. I could not find myself working on any military programme, particularly for Saddam. In taking that decision I knew what the consequences would be, but I didn't have much choice. The options were either to work with him and enable him to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people, or to take a stand and pay the price. My religious convictions obliged me to choose the latter.
Yet many of your fellow scientists did agree to work on Saddam's weapons programmes
Yes, other scientists were forced to work on them. But of course they needed some convincing: some were arrested, tortured, kept in mental hospitals and so on, and eventually they were persuaded to go back and work on the weapons programme.
What happened to you when you refused?
I was arrested in December 1979. I was interrogated and tortured for 22 days and nights. In my case they were gentler because they did not want to leave any permanent bodily marks on me. They hung me from the ceiling by my hands, which were tied behind my back. They used electric probes on sensitive parts of my body and beat me. There were others in the torture chambers who were treated far worse. In one case I witnessed a guy having holes drilled into his bones with electric drills. The most painful thing in those torture chambers was to hear the screams of children being tortured to extract confessions from their fathers.
What did they do with you then?
I was sentenced to life imprisonment and taken to Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. I was visited by Saddam's step-brother, who came to my cell and expressed his disappointment in what they had done to me, and tried to persuade me to go back to my work. He told me there was a place for me at the presidential palace. I said I was not in a position to do so, both physically because I was half-paralysed after being tortured, and also because weapons research was not my specialty. Then he said that any man who was not willing to serve his country did not deserve to be alive. I said that it was our duty to serve our country, but that this was one service I could not do. At this point I was ordered to solitary confinement for 10 years. I was there from May 1980 to May 1990, on Saddam's personal orders.
Psychologically, how did you survive those years?
I tried to keep my mind busy. It was difficult. I made up mathematical problems which I then tried to solve. I spent time trying to remember scientific problems and mentally worked on developing them. Of course there was a limit to what I could do without paper and pencil, and without any reference books and so on. I wasn't allowed anything like that. I was deprived of any books, even a copy of the Koran, newspapers, even Ba'ath party newspapers, and radio. I was completely incommunicado. But I tried to keep my mind alive by going over whatever I knew.
How did you escape?
In those years in solitary confinement the guy responsible for my cell was a fellow prisoner in the service of the security officers. Nobody at this time was allowed to utter a word to me. This guy would come into my cell with a plate of food for me once a day and would not say anything. But one day he talked to me. He said: "Dr Hussein, I know all about you, the whole country respects you, if there is anything I can do let me know and I will do it." I thought it was a ploy by the intelligence officers to trick me. I thanked him and left it at that. But we grew to trust each other, and I planned my escape with him. One night in February 1991, after the invasion of Kuwait, when Baghdad was blacked out and there was an aerial bombardment of the city, we took one of the cars used by the security officers and, dressed in their uniforms, made our escape. We went into hiding in the north and then I left Iraq with my family and became a refugee.
Would you like to see more scientists around the world follow your example and take a stand against unethical practices?
Definitely. Scientists in particular have that moral obligation because people look up to them as the educated who know more than the average person. This puts a heavy burden on them to make sure their knowledge is used for the best of humanity and to serve mankind. I could not disagree more with any scientist who says his concern is his work and that the consequences of his discoveries are irrelevant. You have to think whether the results of your work will harm other people or help them. I don't think anyone with any sense of decency should allow himself or herself to be used as a tool to destroy other people.
Are there any areas of science that especially concern you?
I would like to seek this opportunity to call on fellow scientists around the world to refrain from working on weapons of mass destruction in particular. Such weapons will not enhance national security, but rather encourage rulers to be more aggressive and less compromising in solving international problems.
The west should take the lead in destroying any stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in its possession and make sure that such weapons are also eliminated from the rest of the world. I would also like to see more progress made on nuclear disarmament in the coming few years.
Your decision not to work on a nuclear weapon stemmed, you said, from your religious convictions. Has your faith ever put you in conflict with your science?
On the contrary. Muslims were told by Prophet Mohammed that they should seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave. He also told Muslims that knowledge that is of no benefit to the people is useless knowledge. So we are encouraged not only to seek knowledge but also to make sure that the knowledge we acquire is of benefit to humanity. I do not find a conflict between my religious values and my science; on the contrary, I think it was my religious understanding to seek knowledge and make sure it is put to the good of humanity that made me take the stand I took.
What did you do in exile?
I devoted my time to helping fellow refugees. I chair the Iraqi Refugee Aid Council, which helps refugees who had to flee the country because of Saddam. I went back to Iraq on a humanitarian mission on 7 April 2003, two days before the fall of the regime in Baghdad. We took humanitarian supplies, food, medicine and water to Basra.
Since then we have moved to the central and southern parts of the country, discussing with the poorest communities their most urgent needs. We have carried out scores of projects helping local clinics obtain medicines, fixing the schools, repairing water pipelines, putting in street lighting and so on.
We are also supporting families that are headed by women, and rehabilitating former political prisoners who have been deprived of any education, training or job opportunities. We are looking at the most vulnerable groups in the society and trying to create opportunities for them.
What has it been like for scientists in Iraq since the end of the war?
It has been very difficult for the whole population, but perhaps more so for the scientists. Saddam forced the majority of the competent scientists, professionals and technologists to work on his military programmes, to develop his weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear. After the fall of the regime all these activities ceased, so most of these scientists have been left without jobs, even though some of them may still be paid salaries. There isn't any real work for them. It is hard for a scientist to sit around and do nothing. There are no facilities for them to work in. A primary task in the reconstruction is to rebuild those facilities and engage these scientists in a way that would really benefit the country and serve the people. I am sorry to say that there has not been much progress on this front.
Why did you turn down the opportunity to be Iraq's interim prime minister?
I was not assured of the full cooperation of the major political parties. Without that cooperation it would be impossible to put together an interim government that would effectively prepare for and carry out general elections. Since preparing for the first fair and free elections in the country was my prime consideration for the interim government, I decided I could not accept that responsibility.
Do you see yourself getting involved in Iraqi politics sometime in the future?
I do not see myself taking part in political activity as such. But if, after the elections, I am asked by the National Assembly to take up a responsibility that I consider being of service to the country, particularly in developing science and technology for reconstruction, then I might consider accepting that.
Now for the $64,000 question: do you think there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the war started last year?
For all practical purposes, most of the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and facilities were dismantled and destroyed in the second half of the 1990s. This doesn't mean they were all completely destroyed. I had the impression from talking to people who were working in Iraq in the second half of the 1990s that there were small quantities left: vials of germs and quantities of culture media that could be used to resume production of biological warfare agents. Of course there was the know-how and the political will if Saddam had been given the chance.
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp;jsessionid=NEPFGDGBDFGA?id=ns24531
For refusing to work on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme, Hussain Al-Shahristani spent 11 years as a prisoner in the infamous Abu Ghraib jail. As Iraq struggles to rebuild, he was recently put forward as a candidate to head the interim government. He explains to Michael Bond why he declined. He is now calling for other scientists around the world to boycott research on all weapons of mass destruction
How well did you know Saddam Hussein?
I knew Saddam closely because he was head of the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1970s even before he became president.
What was he like?
I was never impressed by him. I knew that he was a vicious man who would not hesitate to send people to be executed when they had very minor differences with him. He never impressed me with any intelligence or insight. Sometimes I thought he made a fool of himself by commenting on scientific issues. At meetings he would mostly just listen to the scientific arguments and then make a decision on what should be done, but on occasions he would comment on subjects I thought he did not have much knowledge of. What was very clear to all of us was his authoritarian style and the way he tried to dominate everybody around him. He behaved as if he was above everybody else, as if he controlled everybody and everything. His word was final and no one else could take decisions.
When he became president of Iraq in 1979 he asked you to work on an atomic weapons programme. What happened?
I was the chief scientific adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission when Saddam appointed himself president. He wanted to redirect our research activities from peaceful applications to what were referred to as strategic applications. I refused to work on the programme.
Was that an easy decision to make?
Fairly easy. It was clear to me that any weapons in his hands would be used against the Iraqi people. I could not find myself working on any military programme, particularly for Saddam. In taking that decision I knew what the consequences would be, but I didn't have much choice. The options were either to work with him and enable him to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people, or to take a stand and pay the price. My religious convictions obliged me to choose the latter.
Yet many of your fellow scientists did agree to work on Saddam's weapons programmes
Yes, other scientists were forced to work on them. But of course they needed some convincing: some were arrested, tortured, kept in mental hospitals and so on, and eventually they were persuaded to go back and work on the weapons programme.
What happened to you when you refused?
I was arrested in December 1979. I was interrogated and tortured for 22 days and nights. In my case they were gentler because they did not want to leave any permanent bodily marks on me. They hung me from the ceiling by my hands, which were tied behind my back. They used electric probes on sensitive parts of my body and beat me. There were others in the torture chambers who were treated far worse. In one case I witnessed a guy having holes drilled into his bones with electric drills. The most painful thing in those torture chambers was to hear the screams of children being tortured to extract confessions from their fathers.
What did they do with you then?
I was sentenced to life imprisonment and taken to Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. I was visited by Saddam's step-brother, who came to my cell and expressed his disappointment in what they had done to me, and tried to persuade me to go back to my work. He told me there was a place for me at the presidential palace. I said I was not in a position to do so, both physically because I was half-paralysed after being tortured, and also because weapons research was not my specialty. Then he said that any man who was not willing to serve his country did not deserve to be alive. I said that it was our duty to serve our country, but that this was one service I could not do. At this point I was ordered to solitary confinement for 10 years. I was there from May 1980 to May 1990, on Saddam's personal orders.
Psychologically, how did you survive those years?
I tried to keep my mind busy. It was difficult. I made up mathematical problems which I then tried to solve. I spent time trying to remember scientific problems and mentally worked on developing them. Of course there was a limit to what I could do without paper and pencil, and without any reference books and so on. I wasn't allowed anything like that. I was deprived of any books, even a copy of the Koran, newspapers, even Ba'ath party newspapers, and radio. I was completely incommunicado. But I tried to keep my mind alive by going over whatever I knew.
How did you escape?
In those years in solitary confinement the guy responsible for my cell was a fellow prisoner in the service of the security officers. Nobody at this time was allowed to utter a word to me. This guy would come into my cell with a plate of food for me once a day and would not say anything. But one day he talked to me. He said: "Dr Hussein, I know all about you, the whole country respects you, if there is anything I can do let me know and I will do it." I thought it was a ploy by the intelligence officers to trick me. I thanked him and left it at that. But we grew to trust each other, and I planned my escape with him. One night in February 1991, after the invasion of Kuwait, when Baghdad was blacked out and there was an aerial bombardment of the city, we took one of the cars used by the security officers and, dressed in their uniforms, made our escape. We went into hiding in the north and then I left Iraq with my family and became a refugee.
Would you like to see more scientists around the world follow your example and take a stand against unethical practices?
Definitely. Scientists in particular have that moral obligation because people look up to them as the educated who know more than the average person. This puts a heavy burden on them to make sure their knowledge is used for the best of humanity and to serve mankind. I could not disagree more with any scientist who says his concern is his work and that the consequences of his discoveries are irrelevant. You have to think whether the results of your work will harm other people or help them. I don't think anyone with any sense of decency should allow himself or herself to be used as a tool to destroy other people.
Are there any areas of science that especially concern you?
I would like to seek this opportunity to call on fellow scientists around the world to refrain from working on weapons of mass destruction in particular. Such weapons will not enhance national security, but rather encourage rulers to be more aggressive and less compromising in solving international problems.
The west should take the lead in destroying any stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in its possession and make sure that such weapons are also eliminated from the rest of the world. I would also like to see more progress made on nuclear disarmament in the coming few years.
Your decision not to work on a nuclear weapon stemmed, you said, from your religious convictions. Has your faith ever put you in conflict with your science?
On the contrary. Muslims were told by Prophet Mohammed that they should seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave. He also told Muslims that knowledge that is of no benefit to the people is useless knowledge. So we are encouraged not only to seek knowledge but also to make sure that the knowledge we acquire is of benefit to humanity. I do not find a conflict between my religious values and my science; on the contrary, I think it was my religious understanding to seek knowledge and make sure it is put to the good of humanity that made me take the stand I took.
What did you do in exile?
I devoted my time to helping fellow refugees. I chair the Iraqi Refugee Aid Council, which helps refugees who had to flee the country because of Saddam. I went back to Iraq on a humanitarian mission on 7 April 2003, two days before the fall of the regime in Baghdad. We took humanitarian supplies, food, medicine and water to Basra.
Since then we have moved to the central and southern parts of the country, discussing with the poorest communities their most urgent needs. We have carried out scores of projects helping local clinics obtain medicines, fixing the schools, repairing water pipelines, putting in street lighting and so on.
We are also supporting families that are headed by women, and rehabilitating former political prisoners who have been deprived of any education, training or job opportunities. We are looking at the most vulnerable groups in the society and trying to create opportunities for them.
What has it been like for scientists in Iraq since the end of the war?
It has been very difficult for the whole population, but perhaps more so for the scientists. Saddam forced the majority of the competent scientists, professionals and technologists to work on his military programmes, to develop his weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear. After the fall of the regime all these activities ceased, so most of these scientists have been left without jobs, even though some of them may still be paid salaries. There isn't any real work for them. It is hard for a scientist to sit around and do nothing. There are no facilities for them to work in. A primary task in the reconstruction is to rebuild those facilities and engage these scientists in a way that would really benefit the country and serve the people. I am sorry to say that there has not been much progress on this front.
Why did you turn down the opportunity to be Iraq's interim prime minister?
I was not assured of the full cooperation of the major political parties. Without that cooperation it would be impossible to put together an interim government that would effectively prepare for and carry out general elections. Since preparing for the first fair and free elections in the country was my prime consideration for the interim government, I decided I could not accept that responsibility.
Do you see yourself getting involved in Iraqi politics sometime in the future?
I do not see myself taking part in political activity as such. But if, after the elections, I am asked by the National Assembly to take up a responsibility that I consider being of service to the country, particularly in developing science and technology for reconstruction, then I might consider accepting that.
Now for the $64,000 question: do you think there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the war started last year?
For all practical purposes, most of the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and facilities were dismantled and destroyed in the second half of the 1990s. This doesn't mean they were all completely destroyed. I had the impression from talking to people who were working in Iraq in the second half of the 1990s that there were small quantities left: vials of germs and quantities of culture media that could be used to resume production of biological warfare agents. Of course there was the know-how and the political will if Saddam had been given the chance.
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp;jsessionid=NEPFGDGBDFGA?id=ns24531