Dr Chintamani Mahapatra, INFA
The execution of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has certainly eliminated a branded dictator of Iraq who had admirers and detractors within that country and abroad, but it provides no guarantee of peace or democracy within Iraq or in the region at large.
There exists a long list of Third World dictators some of whom were created, sustained and later removed from powers by the United States. The successive US Administrations were accused of having connections with several dictatorial regimes around the world. In fact, the American democracy appeared more comfortable with dictators in the developing world than other forms of governments, including nascent democracies. Ferdinand E Marcos of the Philippines, Chun Doo Hwan of South Korea, Manuel Antonio Noriega of Panama, General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan are but a few names who cooperated with Washington to a great extent during the Cold War days.
But the Cold War logic of US foreign policy was different. Hunted by the spectre of Communist expansions in various parts of the globe considered vital for American nations interests and the unwillingness of a large number of newly independent countries to join the American camp in the ongoing Cold War induced the US to cultivate dictators as allies. By ensuring regime stability through substantial economic military assistance, the US kept the dictators happy, masses disappointed and fulfilled its national security goals.
As and when the dictators became domestically weak and popular uprisings threatened their political positions, Washington took appropriate actions at the right time to facilitate their exit from power. Ferdinand E Marcos, a powerful Filipino dictator, was friendly to the US for about twenty years. After the assassination of Benigno Aquino, a Philippine Senator, there was a popular uprising against his rule led by Aquino's wife. When the US policy makers determined that Marcos would no longer be able to save his seat, they switched sides at an appropriate time and helped Marcos escape from that country to Hawaii.
When the South Korean people turned against Chun Doo Hwan, Washington did little to save his throne. Thousands of the US troops were stationed in that country in several military bases. The US did not consider it wise to antagonize people in such a vital country and little hesitated to remain inactive when a long standing ally was being eased out from the seat of his political power.
The story of a dictator in America's own Hemisphere, Panama, was a little different. President Noriega of Panama was a very close strategic ally of the US and was supplying intelligence information to the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. The moment it came to be known that Noriega was also involved in drugs trade and was acting as a double agent; supplying intelligence information to even Cuba's Fidel Castro, Washington became determined to remove him from power. But he was not just removed from power after US military intervention, but was also arrested, brought to the US, tried in a court of law, convicted and then put behind bars.
The story appears to be a tragic one in the case of Saddam Hussein. He was a defiant dictator who thumbed his nose at the US for years. He was suspected to have planned an assassination of former US president and father of the current US president. He was one prominent leader in the Islamic world who did not condemn the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon Building.
Among other real and imaginary reasons, the US militarily intervened in Iraq without any UN authorization, removed Saddam Hussein from power and then captured him alive. The US then continued to keep its troops on the ground, facilitated the establishment of an Iraqi Government and then encouraged a fair trial of Saddam Hussein by an Iraqi court. It was the Iraqi court that gave death sentence to Saddam Hussein and he was executed on a day the entire Muslim World was to celebrate the famous ID festival.
However, no one believed that execution of Saddam was an all Iraqi affair. The US hand was crystal clear in the whole process that ultimately led to Saddam execution through hanging. The European Continent was shocked, since death sentence is prohibited there. Russia accused the US of murdering Saddam Hussein. India and many other countries were utterly disappointed.
The Islamic World appears to be shocked, but divided. The Shias seem to have breathed a sigh of relief. The Sunnis are certainly enraged. There is a general apprehension that Iraq will further slide down into anarchy and a complex civil war. Could the Bush Administration have avoided this incident? Certainly, it could Why did it choose to let it go? Was it yet another demonstration of the Bush Administration's will to sustain its military efforts in Iraq? Was it a media display of the outcome that anti-US elements have to face?
These are the questions that have kept analysts and commentators around the world engaged. But there is a not-so-hidden apprehension that execution of Saddam Hussein may make things worse for the Iraqis, for West Asian countries and to the outside world as well. Incidentally, a large number of American people have condemned Saddam's execution. So are the people from several other countries. But in international affairs world public opinion do not have direct impact on policy makers.
There was a strong public opinion around the globe, including in the US against any military action against Iraq in early 2003. The Bush Administration was determined to intervene in Iraq and it did by ignoring the views in the United Nations and elsewhere. This time around the execution of Saddam Hussein was carried out in such a short time that public opinion had no time to form against any such action. Now there is only reaction and little else can be done.
But the world certainly needs to prepare against any further violence that may be caused in response to Saddam's execution. The US needs to put forward an exit strategy as soon as possible. And its military withdrawal from Iraq should be appropriately done guarding against any further adverse consequences for the Iraqi people.
No comments:
Post a Comment