|
|
|
 > |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 01/16/2003 7:05:07 AM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
Middle East
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.)
No material from Asia Times Online may be republished in any form without written permission. Copyright Asia Times Online, 6306 The Center, Queen’s Road, Central, Hong Kong.
"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. "
I translate this as: "Since we're discussing breaking international law, it would be best if an international organization did this."
|
|
|
|
> |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Be sure to serve Saddam the same type of wine, too. The arsinic does provide a distinctive flavor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.