Re: [A-List] Saddam and North Korea

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2003-03-01 01:40 +0000, Macdonald Stainsbywrote:
> "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > A major Hong Kong newspaper in the Chinese language just reported
> that
> > Hong Kong/Macau gambling tycoon, Stanley Ho, told the press that a
> North
> > Korean official of ambassadorial rank told me that North Korea would
> > offer Saddam asylum at the last minute to prevent a war.  Ho said his
> > contacts of Western, British and US, diplomats considered such
> > development possible.  Ho insists that there will be no war over
> Iraq.
> >  Ho seldom loses a bet.  North Korea has developed close contacts in
> > Macau and Hong Kong.
> >
> > Henry C.K. Liu
>
> Let's assume this is all correct. Is it good news?
>
> 1) GW Bush and his junta need a war, and they plan to conquer Iraq as
> not the war, but the first theatre of war.
> 2) we now have hundreds of thousands of troops amassed in the Middle
> East.
> 3) you don't mobilise the troops and then not use them.
> 4) If Saddam jumped into exile, we would then have the world's most
> dangerous and powerful army ever moving into Iraq without a fight.


I think the armed forces of the "coalition of the willing" would then move
in as "peace keepers" rather than "peace makers" to avoid (of course) civil
unrest. It might make it slightly easier to campaign against Turkish troops
occupying Iraq Kurdistan.

No it is not necessarily good news at all. But it is important to
anticipate different scenarios. Remember Chirac has said that exile
for  Sadaam would be the best outcome.

I would have thought that Europe would then want to bargain with US for
influence over the settlement in Iraq in return for some sharing of costs.
Perhaps the net effect would be Iraqi petroleum would be denominated in a
basket of currencies.

What I cannot interpret from this newsreport is how an offer of exile to
Sadaam would help North Korea put further pressure on the US to negotiate
with it direct, and allow it regime continuity. It has already received
some regional support for this. But on the surface having Sadaam within its
borders would appear to advertise that it is even more the "axis of evil"
and also that it is quite possible to drive leaders into exile. Perhaps
North Korea calculates that Sadaam would not find North Korea congenial for
retirement and would decline, but the offer might keep North Korea in the
news as being active and constructive about peaceful solutions.

At best this news, if true, is a very mixed picture.

In order to avoid being demobilised by an apparently successful attack by
the US-UK etc on Iraq, the international democratic and peace movement does
need to be prepared for scenarios in which say, the virtuous have overrun
Iraq except for an area around Baghdad and Tikrit, and there is a choice
between many civilians casualties and Sadaam's exile.

I suggest the important thing is that the peace movement should identify
which voices from within Iraq come nearest to providing a centre pushing
for peaceful and democratic solutions, and support their calls and oppose
the momentum for the US and its allies to impose a solution.  Better for
the working people of Iraq if there is a long standoff around Baghdad with
long negotiations about the terms of exile, and a peaceful transition, with
the minimum of blood letting, than a rapid imperialist attack. Even if the
poor US troops have to get hot sitting in the desert throughout the summer.

There may be various options about where Sadaam goes.

Meanwhile the peace movement should continue to oppose invasion
and  preferably support those forces in favour of containment and a
negotiated lifting of economic sanctions, yes with the continuing Sadaam
regime.

Chris Burford
London