Home
By Dr. Farish A. Noor
(YellowTimes.org) -- When the towering
statue of Saddam Hussein that was standing in the middle of Baghdad was
toppled by his own people -- aided and abetted by American Marines -- and
telecast live to thousands of people the world over, it was clear that the
(onetime U.S.-sponsored) Iraqi regime had come to an end and that Saddam's
days of ruling the roost were finally over.
Before the dust had even settled,
triumphant U.S. officials were already sending out warning messages to
neighboring Syria, telling the Syrian government to stop "aiding" Iraq or
face the wrath of the victorious "liberators" of Iraq in due course.
The collapse of Saddam's statue sums up the graceless fall of Saddam's own
regime: a puppet government that was sponsored and supported for years by
the United States until its worth was all but spent.
Saddam's usefulness was at its peak when he sent thousands of young Iraqis to die in a vain and pointless war against Iran that bled both countries dry. Then, as now, the killing of Muslims by fellow Muslims was little cause for concern by the U.S.; and its ally, Israel, was more than content to see its arch nemesis, Iran, checked by a pro-Western Iraq. Saddam was, of course, killing Shiites and Kurds even then -- though these acts of murder did not receive as much coverage in the western media at the time.
Mortal enemy
Then in 1990 Saddam went one step too far when his tanks rolled into neighboring Kuwait, which happened to be an even closer and useful strategic and economic ally to the U.S. Saddam was not prepared for the negative reaction he would receive as a result of this particular misadventure, and certainly not ready to pay the costs that were incurred soon after. Overnight, America's erstwhile ally was transformed into its mortal enemy, and Saddam found himself cast as the arch-villain in a sick comedy of errors that has come to characterize American foreign policy in the post-war era.
In the U.S., George Bush Sr.'s popularity soared as Operation Desert Shield gave way to Operation Desert Storm and played itself out before an audience glued to their television sets. Despite the fact that Russian satellite photos had shown that Saddam's forces were not as strong as the dictator claimed them to be, the marching orders were given.
The first Gulf War itself was a brief -- though unequal -- exchange of murderous fire. The Iraqi forces were practically wiped out, while the allied forces lost more men to friendly fire than enemy attacks. Saddam the strongman had been reduced to a straw man, and by playing the role of cardboard villain, he and his regime had helped to restore America's pride in itself and its ascendancy as the sole superpower in a unipolar new world order.
The heroes of the day were men like the American General Norman Schwartzkopf, dubbed the "liberator of Kuwait." Few Western experts and media consultants cared to point out that it was the same General Schwarzkopf who had helped the Shah of Iran set up his notorious Gestapo-like Savak secret police, who were responsible for the deaths, torture and disappearances of thousands of Iranian activists, students, unionists and opposition members in the 1970s. (1)
A lesser-known veteran of the Gulf war was a sergeant by the name of Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh would make his mark a few years later when he drove his truck filled with chemical fertilizer into the Alfred O. Murrah building in Oklahoma City and blew it up, killing 168 people and injuring more than 500 others. It would take years before the actual human cost of the war would become known (2), but in the early days of the new decade, the Muslim world found itself defenseless before the might of this new global hegemon.
The irony of it all was that Saddam himself was (and is) probably the last person to realize that he was but a pawn in a game whose rules were not of his own design or choosing. The saddest thing of all is that the primary victims of this bloody sport between states have been the ordinary people of Iraq, who are about to discover just what being "liberated" by the same government that has sponsored other luminaries like the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos and General Suharto will be like.
Pride before the fall
It has become the standard scenario that has been repeated time and again all over the developing world: Despots and tyrants from the countries of the South have prostituted themselves and their nations to pander to the whims of the superpowers and the developed states of the North. Saddam's regime was but one sad case in a long list of disasters. In all of these cases, the powerful and developed countries of the West have been more than happy to deal with such puffed up despots for the simple reason that authoritarian despots often make good cronies.
The despots in turn are given ample time to wallow in their excesses, strip their nation's resources bare, rob the country in broad daylight, purchase arms from the West and murder their own populations. In time, however, these regimes will prove either useless or no longer viable; in which case we see the now-familiar charade of a "regime change," which merely opens the way for the cultivation of yet another despot-crony whose days are equally numbered.
The Shah of Iran, for instance, was one such despot whose own record left much to be desired. Like his ancestors, he, too, was bent on modernizing his country at all costs -- even if it meant opening up the Iranian economy to foreign (read: American) investment in key commodities such as oil. The Americans and their Israeli sidekicks were happy to bankroll the Shah's decrepit and discredited regime manned by a host of debauched sybarites and inbred wastrels, until at last the walls of the palace were breached and the fabled peacock throne was reclaimed by the masses.
Closer to home, we have seen just how the U.S. has helped to "liberate" the people of Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Successive regimes in these unfortunate countries were propped up by the U.S., with the clear intention of making sure that they did not fall into the fold of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War and to ensure that the U.S. would have the lion's share of their wealth and natural resources.
In Indonesia, the Americans were instrumental in the rise to power of General (later President) Suharto, Asia's longest-serving (and self-serving) tyrant. Suharto proved to be a steadfast and loyal flunkey to the West and the U.S. in particular, and the Americans were quite happy to turn a blind eye to his excesses and abuses.
When Indonesia forcibly annexed the ex-Portuguese colony of East Timor in 1974, U.S. officials (including President Gerald Ford and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) were well aware of their plans long before. The attack on East Timor was timed so that both Ford and Kissinger (who were both in Jakarta then) could board their plane and make a speedy getaway before the massacres began.
The violent and brutal annexation of East Timor -- undoubtedly one of the greatest human rights disasters in modern history -- was done with the tacit support and approval of the U.S. for the simple reason that the Americans wanted to ensure that Timor would not fall into the hands of the left-leaning Fretilin movement and thus become another Cuba in the heart of Asia.
But in time as Suharto's popularity and support crumbled, the U.S. turned against its own crony-puppet and announced that the "game was over." Contrary to what many observers thought at the time, the fall of Suharto had little to do with the so-called "reformasi" movement of Indonesia, but rather the Manichean maneuvers of the Americans.
One day before he was forced to resign, Suharto turned to the Yankees for help. He was told by the U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright that "his days were over" and that he would no longer receive their support. So out went the dictator whom the U.S. had lovingly cultivated and nurtured for so long.
The same was the case for the Philippines next door, where the U.S. put into office a succession of weak and unrepresentative leaders from Ramon Magsaysay to Diosdado Macapagal, until they finally pounced upon the most servile and useful crony of them all: Ferdinand Marcos. When Marcos was finally toppled by his own people in 1986 (doubtless, many of his statues were brought down to earth as well), the country was falling apart and its coffers emptied.
According to some of the BBC reports that we have heard this week, the fall of Saddam's regime and its political machinery can best be compared to the fall of Ferdinand Marcos and his shameful exit from power. The comparison is more than apt, for both of them happened to be American-backed dictators whose main role and purpose was to act according to the needs of U.S. geo-strategic and economic interests; both of them were conveniently dismissed when it became clear that their services were no longer required.
Also similar is the fact that both dictators were responsible for the deaths, torture, incarceration and persecution of thousands, though these crimes went unnoticed when the victims happened to be the enemies of the U.S. at the time: Filipino Communists in the case of Marcos, Iranian Shiite revolutionaries in the case of Saddam.
Lesson for the South
If there is any hikmah (wisdom) that can be gleaned from this murky and sordid drama, it is that the leaders and governments of the developing world should be more careful in choosing their allies.
The fact remains that since the end of World War II, the U.S. has grown stronger militarily and its global ambitions have expanded accordingly.
The U.S. did not become a superpower by accident: it was through design, cunning and sheer unscrupulousness that this newcomer on the international scene managed to elbow out the superpowers of the older generation -- most notably Britain and France -- and assume its pivotal position as the paramount leader in world affairs today.
America has not only learned the rules of imperial conquest and domination, it has rewritten the rules of the game and perfected it to a fine art. Never in modern history have we seen a demonstration of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as we see it today.
The leaders of the South, on the other hand, have proved to be singularly useless, pathetic and clueless when it comes to dealing with this global hegemon. The reason for this apparent quietude and paralysis is obvious: the U.S. has them by the short and curlies.
It is baffling, to say the least, to note that despite America's deplorable record of double-standards, selective persecution of its adversaries and opponents and its own abuses of human rights at home, that so many leaders and governments of the South still turn to the White House for aid and support.
From Latin America to Africa, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the leaders of the South continue to wait in line at the doorsteps of the White House for what little aid and advice they may be given.
Most shameful of all is the humiliating spectacle of Arab leaders -- flowing robes and shiny Rolls Royces et al -- running to Washington whenever they have a dispute with their neighbors.
If American paternalism is so rife today, it is mainly because the leaders of the South prefer to behave like children and continue to see the U.S. as the Freudian father whose word will bring order and law into their lives.
Related to this is the institutionalized lawlessness, corruption, nepotism and cronyism that are rampant all over the developing world, making every country in the South a potential victim of U.S. "liberation" and intervention. For those of us who have opposed this unjust and illegal U.S.-led war from the beginning (and continue to do so), the most contentious point has been the atrocious record of Saddam Hussein himself. For what the Saddams of the world really do is give the U.S. the rationale and justification for its own unilateralism backed up with the force of arms.
The fall of Iraq should be read as a sobering lesson for all the governments of the South. Unless and until they realize that the only way to break free from this vicious chain of dependency is to address the uneven and unjust power differentials that exist in the world today, they will never be able to overcome the impasse that is partially of their own making.
Those pro-Western and pro-U.S. dictators who think that they can (literally) get away with murder should also pause and think again: Oppressing their own populations to appease Uncle Sam will only undermine their own credibility and right to rule, and in time their shameful records will be brought against them when the U.S. sets its sights on their countries.
For the despots of the Third World who have remained in power for so long thanks to a host of repressive laws, death squads, state terrorism and brute force, their days are numbered. Sadly the "liberator" who will free their peoples happens to be the same corrupt, immoral and thuggish superpower that propped them up in the first place: the United States of America, patron and benefactor to the universal league of power-hungry tyrants.
Endnotes:
1) Willem Oltmans, Not Guilty. Uitgeverij Papieren Tijger, Vlugschrift 8, Breda, 2001. pg 26.
2) In time, the appalling human costs of the Gulf War were made known to the public at large. By the end of 1999, the American Department of Army Veteran Affairs was forced to admit that 136,031 U.S. army veterans were partially or completely disabled as a result of medical complications incurred while serving in the Gulf (which became known as "Gulf War Syndrome"). Though the American military establishment denied any knowledge or involvement in the matter, it was widely speculated that the medical complications were either caused, or made worse, by the cocktail of drugs given to American soldiers who were serving in the Gulf at the time.
The total number of those disabled amounted to nearly 25 percent of those who served in the war. Another 60,000 veterans had also filed claims against the army which were denied. By then, a total of 9,600 veterans had died since the war, also as a result of medical complications. The losses suffered by the ordinary people of Iraq were even higher. By the end of 1999, nearly one million Iraqi civilians had died as a result of sanctions imposed on their country by the United Nations under pressure of the U.S. and U.K.
[Dr. FARISH A. NOOR is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist. This article was originally printed in the well-known Malaysian publication MalaysiaKini.com.]
Dr. FARISH A. NOOR encourages your comments: suryavarman@hotmail.com
Printed with permission from www.yt.org