| |
Saddam Hussein and the highway
blues
By Ian Urbina
Over the
past month and a half there has been a flurry of
speculation about a possible non-military solution to
the situation in Iraq. Even if the United Nations finds
evidence of concealed weapons of mass destruction, there
may still be a remaining diplomatic alternative to a
costly and destabilizing war, removing Saddam Hussein
while also opening the way for the two stated US goals
of democratization and disarmament. This alternate
solution would be forced exile.
But at least as
interesting as the idea itself, which admittedly is a
long shot, is the fact that the US seems quite open to
it.
Rumors have been circulating furiously about
specific countries possibly willing to play host. Some
of the names floated to the press have bordered on the
ridiculous - from Russia and Cuba to North Korea and
Belarus. But more serious options have been raised as
well, including Libya and Saudi Arabia.
One of
the countries mentioned recently is Egypt, which has a
long history of providing refuge for those kicked from
power. A few years ago amid a similar crisis with Iraq,
Egyptian officials publicly suggested giving Saddam
asylum in Cairo. Back in 1985, Egypt took in Sudanese
president Gaafar Nimeiri, who had been recently ousted.
In 1979, the Shah of Iran jumped a flight from Tehran to
Cairo as the Islamic revolution took over, and in 1966
Yemeni president Abdellah al Salal also arrived after he
was overthrown. Even King Saud of Saudi Arabia, when he
was forced to abdicate in 1955, fled to the North
African country.
Mauritania has also come up in
discussions. Led by the nation's Arab-Berber majority,
Mauritania supported Iraq in the first Gulf War and was
mentioned at that time as a possible refuge for Saddam's
family. A number of prominent Mauritanians are members
of the Ba'ath movement, as is Saddam and his top
leadership.
But as quickly as the rumors have
hit the newspapers in each of these countries,
government officials have adamantly denied them. Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said
Moscow had not considered offering Saddam asylum and
would not be doing so. The state-run news agency in
Mauritania dismissed speculation that it would receive
Saddam as "completely unfounded". Reactions were much
the same elsewhere.
No one, not even those most
critical of the war, is eager to seem like they are
sympathetically throwing open their arms to embrace a
leader who is presently the pariah of the world
community.
Still, the rumors won't die. In fact,
some Arab leaders seem to be pushing the notion. In
December, Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis described
the idea of exile for Saddam as "a viable formula",
adding that "there are countries among the Arab nations
that would fervently support such a way out". Saudi
Arabian Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal is said
to have been talking up the exile plan during a
diplomatic tour of the region in the past weeks.
Philippines Foreign Affairs Secretary Blas Ople said
Arab ambassadors had told him that governments in the
region were discussing an exile plan for Saddam.
Qatar seems to be a key player in promoting the
exile idea. Last August, the Qatari Foreign Minister
visited Baghdad for talks with Saddam, and newspaper
reports said he offered the Iraqi leader exile in an
unspecified country. More recently, the proposal by
Qatar to convene an emergency Arab summit in the coming
weeks has fueled speculation that the Gulf emirate is
trying to arrange backing for Saddam's peaceful exit.
The Arab League's 22 members, though, have yet to agree
to the emergency summit.
Regional intellectuals
have also recently joined the chorus. About a dozen
high-profile Arab thinkers, including Lebanese lawyer
Chibli Mallat and Egyptian writer Yussri Nasrallah and
Elias al-Khoury, an editor of An-Nahar, have drafted an
appeal to the Arab world to put pressure on the Iraqi
president to step down and leave the country. For
starters, they are taking the letter to London in hopes
of getting signatures from the Iraqi opposition leaders
based there - the very forces now being prepped to
invade.
But the biggest surprise is that the US
has been warm to the idea. Several weeks ago Senator
Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is incoming
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
mused on an American television network about the
possibility that Saddam might accept an offer from some
unnamed Arab country to go into exile. On December 12,
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a CNN interview
in Qatar, suggested that with catastrophe looming,
Saddam just might decide to give up and go live in Saudi
Arabia. A week later, Rumsfeld told the press that
Saddam still had the option of stepping down and leaving
Iraq. Additionally, the US State Department has said it
is open to such proposals, noting that Colin Powell has
spoken in favor of Saddam resigning.
Such a move
would by no means be unprecedented. In recent times Idi
Amin, reportedly responsible for 300,000 deaths in
Uganda, fled to Saudi Arabia, where he has lived quite
luxuriously since 1979. Former Haitian dictator "Baby
Doc" Duvalier left for France in 1986. Hissene Habre of
Chad has lived in Senegal since 1990. The decrepit
Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay fled to Brazil after a
1989 coup, and has lived there relatively quietly for
years.
Nor is the US above being the broker for
such deals. In 1991, the CIA facilitated a haven for
Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia. During his 17-year
reign as head of a Soviet-sponsored junta, about 500,000
people were killed. Today, Mengistu lives in Zimbabwe.
Nevertheless, there are a number of obstacles to
any plan for Saddam’s exile.
The more hardline
types within Bush's inner circle fear that if the US
backed such a plan, Saddam would interpret it as a sign
of weakness and a veiled indicator that the Washington
is actually not ready to act with military force. In the
realpolitik view, this would only lead the Iraqi leader
to dig in his heels further and it might even embolden
others in the region.
This concern may, however,
be unfounded. If the US has accomplished anything with
the war on terrorism, it is to show an unflinching
willingness to use force. With US soldiers presently
fighting in numerous countries from the Philippines and
Yemen to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Washington has surely
indicated its readiness to fight any place on the globe
where it perceives a credible threat. Furthermore, the
huge and conspicuous military buildup immediately
surrounding Iraq is sending an unmistakable indication
that President George W Bush wants to invade, if only
the international community will stop getting in his
way. At this stage, those who somehow still remain able
to see military temerity in the US foreign policy will
likely not be convinced by any amount of muscle-flexing.
The more daunting barrier to the exile idea is
Saddam himself, whose megalomania would likely get in
the way of his accepting any such offer. One anecdote is
particularly instructive. In 1982, Saddam held a routine
meeting with his top aides to discuss the ongoing
Iran-Iraq war and specifically to talk about a demand
from the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
that Saddam step down in exchange for peace. Allegedly,
when the minister of health, Riyadh Hussein, ventured
that Saddam should accept the offer "for tactical
reasons to test Khomeini's seriousness", the minister
was taken to an adjacent room and shot.
But
while there is good reason to believe that Saddam will
balk at the idea, the international community should
nonetheless cover absolutely all its diplomatic bases
before giving a green light to a war which will probably
leave in its wake massive numbers of casualties and
untold destruction.
There are plenty of fine
details which would need to be negotiated. Saddam is
well aware of the fates of Milosovic and Pinochet and
therefore he would likely demand some form of legal
immunity from prosecution before international criminal
court tribunals, since his gassing of Iraqi Kurds makes
for a textbook case of crimes against humanity. The size
of the entourage to depart with Saddam would also be
important so as to ensure a full removal of his
governing apparatus. For example, Saddam’s stepping down
and installing one of his sons would not be appropriate
if there is actually a desire to bring real democracy to
the country.
Finding a place for the Iraqi
leader to go is a concern, but this search would be far
easier if it was pitched at prospective hosts as an
opportunity to make a significant contribution in the
service of world peace and regional stability.
None of these issues is insurmountable. But
someone needs to step up and take charge.
Though
the US may tacitly support such an idea, it is a matter
that only the UN should handle. Washington has far too
much face at stake, and since such negotiations would
concern international law and treaty, they are best
handled by an international body. A first and important
step in the right direction would be for the UN to
confront the idea explicitly and publicly. This would at
least finally take the matter out of the media and
diplomatic rumor-mills which thus far have done more to
mangle than clarify one of the few, if reaching,
diplomatic options left.
(©2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies,
or to submit a letter to the editor.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
