CB..Did find this recent article re: Hussein by William Shawcross....dated Aug 6, 2002
216.239.53.100
Deliver us from his evil
The only danger greater than attacking Saddam Hussein
is not attacking him, says author WILLIAM SHAWCROSS.
The Iraqi warlord is intent on our destruction
By WILLIAM SHAWCROSS
Tuesday, August 6, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A13
There are great dangers in Washington's avowed policy of "regime change" in Iraq. But the greatest danger is to allow this evil man to remain indefinitely in power, scorning the United Nations and posing a growing threat to the world.
Weapons of mass destruction are the gravest threat to life on Earth. For decades, Saddam Hussein has been making the most determined and diabolical effort to acquire them. Moreover, in 1988, he became the first ruler to use chemical weapons against his own people, the Kurds of Halabja.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Mr. Hussein was thought to be about three years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. He would have been much closer if the Israelis had not bombed his Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. He had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
His defeat in 1991 was supposed to end his ability to threaten his neighbours. UN Security Council Resolution 687 decreed that Iraq must destroy all its weapons of mass destruction. It created an inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, with total freedom of access throughout Iraq to supervise this agreement. Until UNSCOM certified that Iraq had agreed by the terms of 687, an oil embargo against Iraq would remain in place.
Iraq has spent the past 11 years trying to evade its obligations under Resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions. Mr. Hussein has shown himself far more interested in creating and keeping weapons of mass destruction than in anything else. The consequent dreadful impoverishment of the Iraqi people is a small price to him.
Despite Iraqi lies and prevarications, UNSCOM found and destroyed masses of illegal weapons. But UNSCOM knew there were a lot more that Iraq concealed, particularly its extensive biological weapons program.
Through the 1990s, Mr. Hussein exploited divisions on the Security Council -- where the French, the Chinese and the Russians were far keener on compromise than the United States and Britain. At the end of 1997, he created a series of crises for the inspectors. Kofi Annan bravely tried to make a deal to avert military action by the United States and Britain -- but Mr. Hussein immediately broke his word to the UN Secretary-General.
In December of 1998, his intransigence led to a short U.S. and British bombing campaign known as Desert Fox. No inspector has been allowed back since. There is every reason to suppose that Mr. Hussein has used this time to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction unhindered.
In early July, Iraq once again refused, during talks with Mr. Annan, to allow the inspectors back. But if and when an American-led attack appears imminent, Mr. Hussein probably will offer to allow them to return, in order to divide his enemies and to diminish international support for the U.S. position.
Given the way that Mr. Hussein has lied before, there is every reason to fear that new inspections will fail to disarm him. Then comes the really hard question: <>How else are we to enforce international law and eliminate the threat that Saddam Hussein represents, except by military action to change the regime?
Obviously, there are real dangers and difficulties with attacking Mr. Hussein.
Viable state: Iraq is not a failed state like Afghanistan.It has a ruthless and tenacious dictatorship that terrifies, tortures and murders opponents. It has a large army with a protected elite, the Republican Guard. But the armed forces generally are much weaker than in 1991.
Allies' angst: The nervousness of most of America's European allies is real. So far, only Britain has offered support for Mr. Hussein's overthrow. Others have been evasive or downright hostile.
Regional opposition: The opposition of Iraq's neighbours must be acknowledged. Recently, Jordan's King Abdullah, Washington's most likely ally, warned against an attack. He has real concerns, but don't forget that his father, King Hussein, supported Iraq and opposed the gulf war in 1990-91. Other Arab regimes would be happy to see Mr. Hussein go but do not dare to be associated with the military action necessary to achieve that -- at least not until it succeeds.
Logistics: How would the United States do it? There are not the same regional bases on offer as in the gulf war. There is no equivalent of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The risks of Mr. Hussein launching a pre-emptive attack against Kuwait or Israel during an American buildup have to be taken into account.
Faced with the ruthless nature of the regime, Iraqis alone cannot change their government. Only outside intervention can do that. Who will succeed Mr. Hussein? The immediate successor probably will come from the military. That need not be bad. The first and most important thing is to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his Tikriti mafia.
When Mr. Hussein falls, there will be dancing in the streets of Baghdad, as there was in Kabul when the United States drove out the Taliban. The Iraqis will be rid of a monstrous incubus. At last, they will have the chance to realize their immense potential.
Many believe we cannot take on Mr. Hussein as long as there is a state of war between Israel and the Palestinians. I would argue the opposite: As long as Mr. Hussein is in power, there can be no realistic hope of a Mideast solution.
In 1991, Israel endured Iraqi Scud missile attacks with exemplary restraint. Mr. Hussein still wishes to destroy Israel. Like other Arab regimes, the Iraqis preach and practise anti-Semitic hatred. Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister who dealt with UNSCOM, told Richard Butler, its director: "We made bioweapons in order to deal with the Persians and the Jews."
The removal of Mr. Hussein would give Israel greater confidence in its prospects of peaceful co-existence with a Palestinian state. It should also temper the anti-Semitic zeal of Syria and other neighbours of Israel. In fact, it is an essential part of dealing with the demons that long ago escaped from Pandora's box.
It will be much harder to take on Mr. Hussein in 10 years time -- his nuclear and other weapons will be far more dangerous. The Afghan precedent shows that if you are complacent and idle in the face of threats, you can reap whirlwinds.
Mr. Hussein not only oppresses his own people savagely but also represents untold dangers to the region and to the world. His defiance makes a constant mockery of the international legal system as represented by the UN. To appease him endlessly is to weaken the UN. That, too, is dangerous and immoral.
It would be preferable to have a new Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein. But he is already in defiance of existing resolutions; Article 51 of the UN Charter provides the right to self-defence against the threat that he poses to all of us.
Moreover, we all know that the Security Council, a political body, does not always provide an adequate defence against evil. The council refused to try to help Rwandans during the genocide of 1994. NATO's 1999 action in defence of Muslims in Kosovo was conducted without a council resolution -- because Russia and China would have vetoed it.
Weighing the risks of action against Iraq is entirely proper. It is very difficult for the international community to deal with intransigent evil. The decision of how to deal with Mr. Hussein is not an easy one. Much depends on how you perceive the threat.
In my view, the threat from Saddam Hussein is intolerable.
William Shawcross is the author of Deliver us from Evil: Warlords and Peacekeepers in a World of Endless Conflict. He is on the board of the International Crisis Group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
