It appears that Saddam is the only person who can avert this tragedy about to unfold. Interesting article and I thoroughly agree with the notion of the author. It may sound unjustifiable, but only way to beat the war mongers is to step back for now and allow the weapons inspectors in Iraq.
It appears that the only person who can now avert war in Iraq is Saddam Hussein. But he will probably find the necessary sacrifices unacceptable, says Brian Whitaker
Tuesday September 10, 2002
George Bush has the power to make war but Saddam Hussein has the power to salvage peace. No matter how much countries and individuals protest or question the justification for war with Iraq, there is little they can do now to deflect President Bush from his chosen course.
The one person who can prevent war is the Iraqi leader himself - though he may find it an unpalatable choice. There are two things he can do. One is to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The other is to leave office. The former might prevent war and the latter would certainly do so.
A few days ago Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector, delivered a blunt message to the Iraqi parliament: if the Baghdad regime wants to avert an American attack it must stop quibbling and allow inspections to resume.
“Iraq cannot attempt to link the return of the weapons inspectors with any other issues, regardless of justification,” he said. “Unconditional return, unfettered access: this is the only acceptable action.”
Mr Ritter resigned his UN post in 1998 and later became a severe critic of western policy towards Iraq - which means that his views ought to command some respect in Baghdad.
Iraq says it accepts the resumption of inspections in principle but has a number of concerns about them.
It complains that inspections might be used as a cover for espionage (as they have in the past), that they might be abused in order to trigger a new confrontation further down the line, and that they might carry on indefinitely with no prospect of economic sanctions being lifted at the end.
These are all reasonable concerns, though with help from the international community the risks that Iraq foresees might be reduced. But the point made by Mr Ritter - and by many political figures around the world - is that this is a price Iraq will have to pay.
If Baghdad wants to avoid war, the least it can do is admit the inspectors as required by UN resolutions. Whether this would actually avoid war is far from certain, though it would certainly improve the chances of doing so. Continuing to argue about the terms for inspections, on the other hand, can only lead to one outcome.
A more accommodating approach from Baghdad might well be enough to satisfy the British prime minister, Tony Blair - faced, as he is, with domestic opposition to war.
Asked at a recent press conference if he supported US demands for a change of regime in Iraq, he left open the possibility of settling for less: “Either the regime starts to function in an entirely different way, and there hasn’t been much sign of that, or the regime has to change. That is the choice, very simply.” Some in the US administration, however, have made clear they regard Saddam as the real problem, and - regardless of what happens with weapons inspections - he must be removed. There is little chance they will ever change their minds but, with a fresh approach from Baghdad, they would be less likely to get their way.
The other option open to Saddam is more drastic but would definitely avert war: he could resign or go into retirement. Nothing in his previous history suggests he would step down readily, though there have been equally unexpected precedents.
The late Shah of Iran, for example, left Tehran in 1979 for what was described as an “extended vacation” abroad - from which he, and everyone else, knew he would never return.
In many countries this is a perfectly normal procedure. In Britain for example, when prime ministers lose their touch, a delegation of grandees from their own party knocks on the door with the news that it’s time to go.
In Iraq, it’s more difficult. Anyone inside the country who made such a suggestion to Saddam Hussein could expect to be taken out and shot. Indeed, it has happened at least once.
The best hope of success would be to send a delegation of prominent people from outside Iraq - Arab and Muslim leaders who command respect in the region and on whom Saddam Hussein relies for diplomatic support.
To be convincing, the delegation would have to include several heads of state (President Mubarak of Egypt, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, King Mohammed of Morocco, President Salih of Yemen) plus the secretary-general of the Arab League along with others leaders from the Gulf and, perhaps, religious figures from the wider Islamic world - Malaysia, Indonesia, Senegal, Bangladesh, etc.
They would tell Saddam that sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good; that much as they dislike interfering in the internal affairs of another country, they have reached the conclusion that a war would be catastrophic for all of them.
The only way to prevent war, and save thousands of Arab and Muslim lives - they would argue - is for Saddam Hussein, and any of his relatives and associates who choose to join him, to leave Iraq for a long holiday as their guest, with all expenses paid and with absolute guarantees of safety.
While this would undoubtedly bring about the regime change that the United States seeks, Saddam’s peaceful departure would avoid bloodshed and might even be portrayed as a victory by allowing Iraqis to manage the regime change themselves and frustrate any Israeli-American designs for hegemony in the region.
Unlikely as it may be that Saddam can be persuaded to step down, the idea is not pure speculation. There are Arab diplomats, now, exploring the possibility of just such an attempt, though it is far too early to describe it as a plan or an initiative.
Algeria is mentioned as a possible refuge for the Iraqi leader. The problem - as usual - is that it would require agreement from the United States, along with immunity from prosecution for Saddam and his henchmen.
Some might think that a small price to pay for regional peace, though it might be an unacceptable price in Washington. For that reason, the whole idea may come to nothing. But it’s a timely reminder that an American attack on Iraq - with all the attendant perils - would be impossible but for the obstinacy of Baghdad’s unloved dictator.
