abu afak
03-17-2003, 07:27 PM
REMAKING SADDAM
By AMIR TAHERI
March 17, 2003 -- REMEMBER Saddam Hussein?
Yes, the man the Iraqis call "The Vampire" (al-Saffah). Six months ago, he was the arch-villain of the global stage. How was he transformed into a damsel in distress with veto-wielding knights rushing to the rescue?
A diabolical use, or misuse, of language beyond what even Orwell and Koestler imagined.
*
Legally speaking, Saddam's regime is in a state of war with the United Nations, and has been since Aug. 2, 1990. (He did sign a ceasefire, which he has violated, but that does not end the state of war.)
Yet all we hear now is about the "Bush-Blair war against Iraq." Though not a shot has been fired, the phrase is not qualified as "possible," "projected" or "probable."
For the don't-touch-Saddam lobby, that war is already on, and is being waged not against the tyrant but against Iraqi "women and children."
*
The new Newspeak has also transformed Hans Blix's mission from "verification" into "inspection."
"Let the inspectors do their work" is the slogan for the don't-touch-Saddam lobby. But when it comes to deciding what is it that the Blix team is supposed to do, there is no clear answer.
At times, the Swede is presented as a detective looking for a "smoking gun." At other times, he is looked upon as a lawyer interpreting the hermetic pronouncements of Amer al-Saadi (the Iraqi general in charge of making Blix dance to Saddam's tune).
And at still other times, Blix is cast in the role of judge and jury and pressed to decide matters that the Security Council members lack the courage to decide. Blix, of course, is not playing the game: He will never say "yes" or " no" to the crucial question of whether or not Saddam will disarm.
*
Language also hides the true intentions of the players in this game.
Bush and Blair know that the only way to disarm Iraq is to change its regime, gain control of its military codes and thus find the full picture of its death machine. They know that no nation was ever disarmed unless it was [first] defeated and occupied or through mutual accords with other nations. The Iraqi case, therefore, is unique: expecting a nation to disarm against its will but without an occupation. It never happened in history and never will. Yet Blair and Bush continue to say that Saddam will be disarmed "one way or another," as if there were a thousand ways to achieve that goal.
At the opposite side of the debate, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder insist that Iraq is already disarming, and needs more time. Neither, however, is prepared to say how much time is needed. Like bargain hunters in an Oriental bazaar, both haggle about months but secretly hope that Saddam will be in his palace long after George W has left the White House.
In the 1990s it took South Africa 30 months to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, including an advanced nuclear program. Ukraine did it in 22 months; Kazakhstan, in 18.
Saddam Hussein has had more than 140 months.
*
The new Newspeak also uses the word "diplomacy" to mean anything and nothing. Chirac and Schroeder have a long list of what the United States and Britain should or should not do. But they have put no concrete demand to Saddam Hussein.
Not surprisingly, the tyrant sees no reason why he should change his so-far successful policy of cheat-and-retreat. Having first come when Richard Nixon was in the White House, Saddam has a different understanding of time than Western politicians biting their nails about the next election.
*
Few people wish to notice one tiny fact: Saddam has never formally accepted any of the Security Council resolutions, including the latest, 1441. In every case, he had one of his junior officials send a letter to the U.N. secretary-general saying that Iraq would "cope with" (in the Arabic version, "confront") the resolution. Every time - including when Secretary-General Kofi Annan signed his "historic" accord in Baghdad in 1998 - the United Nations was taken in because it wanted to be taken in.
Over the past 12 years, Saddam has also made a number of declarations, including one to relinquish his claim on Kuwait and to commit his regime to peaceful coexistence with neighbors. But none of those declarations were submitted to the formal process needed to give them legal status.
The latest example of Saddam's declaratory tricks came last month, when he announced that individual Iraqi citizens and private companies were banned from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin immediately hailed the declaration as a victory for French diplomacy. What he did not wish to notice was that the so-called ban concerned only individuals and private firms in a country where no individual could own a donkey cart without state authorization, and where most private companies are owned by Saddam's clan. In any case, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are acquired and developed by state-owned companies, not in the local pizza parlor.
Even then, Saddam's declaration has not been submitted to the various organs of the executive and the legislative to become law.
*
Another linguistic trick of the don't-touch-Saddam lobby is to talk of "the few remaining problems." Iraq's long list of obligations under the various U.N. resolutions, and the ceasefire accords of 1991, is reduced to a single issue: eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
That, in turn, is further reduced to the 29 questions that Blix has addressed to the Iraqis. (One could think of 10 times as many that need to be answered. If Blix wants any, he can email this reporter.)
We are then told that these questions should be transformed into "benchmarks" so that "precise tasks" can be set for Saddam to perform in fixed periods. The trick is to trigger another exercise in hermeneutics.
*
For 12 years we have been fighting over the meaning of the various resolutions, and the threat of "serious consequences" that most contain. We could fight another 12 years over what each "benchmark" means and whether or not Saddam has performed any of his "precise tasks."
The Security Council is often dismissed as a "debating society." It is not even that. We all remember debating societies from our school days. There, the debate would be about a proposition, with those speaking for or against knowing what they were talking about.
Here is one proposition that could be debated with clarity: Iraq cannot be disarmed without regime change.
Amir Taheri, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/70952.htm
By AMIR TAHERI
March 17, 2003 -- REMEMBER Saddam Hussein?
Yes, the man the Iraqis call "The Vampire" (al-Saffah). Six months ago, he was the arch-villain of the global stage. How was he transformed into a damsel in distress with veto-wielding knights rushing to the rescue?
A diabolical use, or misuse, of language beyond what even Orwell and Koestler imagined.
*
Legally speaking, Saddam's regime is in a state of war with the United Nations, and has been since Aug. 2, 1990. (He did sign a ceasefire, which he has violated, but that does not end the state of war.)
Yet all we hear now is about the "Bush-Blair war against Iraq." Though not a shot has been fired, the phrase is not qualified as "possible," "projected" or "probable."
For the don't-touch-Saddam lobby, that war is already on, and is being waged not against the tyrant but against Iraqi "women and children."
*
The new Newspeak has also transformed Hans Blix's mission from "verification" into "inspection."
"Let the inspectors do their work" is the slogan for the don't-touch-Saddam lobby. But when it comes to deciding what is it that the Blix team is supposed to do, there is no clear answer.
At times, the Swede is presented as a detective looking for a "smoking gun." At other times, he is looked upon as a lawyer interpreting the hermetic pronouncements of Amer al-Saadi (the Iraqi general in charge of making Blix dance to Saddam's tune).
And at still other times, Blix is cast in the role of judge and jury and pressed to decide matters that the Security Council members lack the courage to decide. Blix, of course, is not playing the game: He will never say "yes" or " no" to the crucial question of whether or not Saddam will disarm.
*
Language also hides the true intentions of the players in this game.
Bush and Blair know that the only way to disarm Iraq is to change its regime, gain control of its military codes and thus find the full picture of its death machine. They know that no nation was ever disarmed unless it was [first] defeated and occupied or through mutual accords with other nations. The Iraqi case, therefore, is unique: expecting a nation to disarm against its will but without an occupation. It never happened in history and never will. Yet Blair and Bush continue to say that Saddam will be disarmed "one way or another," as if there were a thousand ways to achieve that goal.
At the opposite side of the debate, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder insist that Iraq is already disarming, and needs more time. Neither, however, is prepared to say how much time is needed. Like bargain hunters in an Oriental bazaar, both haggle about months but secretly hope that Saddam will be in his palace long after George W has left the White House.
In the 1990s it took South Africa 30 months to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, including an advanced nuclear program. Ukraine did it in 22 months; Kazakhstan, in 18.
Saddam Hussein has had more than 140 months.
*
The new Newspeak also uses the word "diplomacy" to mean anything and nothing. Chirac and Schroeder have a long list of what the United States and Britain should or should not do. But they have put no concrete demand to Saddam Hussein.
Not surprisingly, the tyrant sees no reason why he should change his so-far successful policy of cheat-and-retreat. Having first come when Richard Nixon was in the White House, Saddam has a different understanding of time than Western politicians biting their nails about the next election.
*
Few people wish to notice one tiny fact: Saddam has never formally accepted any of the Security Council resolutions, including the latest, 1441. In every case, he had one of his junior officials send a letter to the U.N. secretary-general saying that Iraq would "cope with" (in the Arabic version, "confront") the resolution. Every time - including when Secretary-General Kofi Annan signed his "historic" accord in Baghdad in 1998 - the United Nations was taken in because it wanted to be taken in.
Over the past 12 years, Saddam has also made a number of declarations, including one to relinquish his claim on Kuwait and to commit his regime to peaceful coexistence with neighbors. But none of those declarations were submitted to the formal process needed to give them legal status.
The latest example of Saddam's declaratory tricks came last month, when he announced that individual Iraqi citizens and private companies were banned from acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin immediately hailed the declaration as a victory for French diplomacy. What he did not wish to notice was that the so-called ban concerned only individuals and private firms in a country where no individual could own a donkey cart without state authorization, and where most private companies are owned by Saddam's clan. In any case, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are acquired and developed by state-owned companies, not in the local pizza parlor.
Even then, Saddam's declaration has not been submitted to the various organs of the executive and the legislative to become law.
*
Another linguistic trick of the don't-touch-Saddam lobby is to talk of "the few remaining problems." Iraq's long list of obligations under the various U.N. resolutions, and the ceasefire accords of 1991, is reduced to a single issue: eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
That, in turn, is further reduced to the 29 questions that Blix has addressed to the Iraqis. (One could think of 10 times as many that need to be answered. If Blix wants any, he can email this reporter.)
We are then told that these questions should be transformed into "benchmarks" so that "precise tasks" can be set for Saddam to perform in fixed periods. The trick is to trigger another exercise in hermeneutics.
*
For 12 years we have been fighting over the meaning of the various resolutions, and the threat of "serious consequences" that most contain. We could fight another 12 years over what each "benchmark" means and whether or not Saddam has performed any of his "precise tasks."
The Security Council is often dismissed as a "debating society." It is not even that. We all remember debating societies from our school days. There, the debate would be about a proposition, with those speaking for or against knowing what they were talking about.
Here is one proposition that could be debated with clarity: Iraq cannot be disarmed without regime change.
Amir Taheri, Iranian author and journalist, is based in Europe.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/70952.htm