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