Saturday, November 16, 2002
'Iraq after Saddam could get worse'
Associated Press Cairo, November 16
Virtually everyone in the West and many elsewhere agree the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein, but life in Iraq could get worse before it gets better after he's gone, experts say.
Authorities on Iraq say more than 30 years of repression, favouritism and divide-and-rule tactics have exacerbated Iraq's ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, meaning Saddam's ouster could usher in political upheaval, and possibly fragmentation, as rival groups jostle for power. "No one will have any qualms about doing anything, anything at all, after Saddam is gone," said Hassan Abu Taleb, an Arab affairs specialist from Egypt. "For years now, there's been simmering vendettas and old animosities. Some of that anger will be inter-Iraqi, and some will be taken out on any foreign occupier.
" While Iraq has accepted a new UN Security Council arms inspection resolution to try to avoid war, many believe that a US-led war to depose Saddam has become inevitable.
Saddam became president in 1979, but has actually been the power behind the scene since his Baath party seized power in a 1968 coup. He belongs to the mainstream Sunni Muslim faction, a minority that has nevertheless monopolized power in modern Iraq.
In his 34 years as president, Saddam fomented Sunni-Shiite rivalries and drove wedges between clans and tribes to keep his grip on power. Thousands have been put to death for political crimes; many more were jailed or simply disappeared. With Baath party rule came Stalin-like purges that placed trusted party members in leadership positions in the government and armed forces, in many cases pushing out highly qualified and experienced Iraqis whose devotion to the Baath was in doubt. Modern-day Iraq was founded in 1920, when Britain joined together three different Ottoman provinces - Kurdish-dominated Mosul, Sunni majority Baghdad and the overwhelmingly Shiite Basra - to make a single state.
A year later, an imported Sunni Arab king, Faisal, was installed, with former Ottoman officers as his main lieutenants.
A British-backed plural political system was tried, but the experiment failed. A total of 16 parliaments sat in that period and 58 Cabinets came and went before the monarchy was toppled in a coup in 1958. The political fractiousness and inner-fighting that characterized that era remain in evidence today and, experts say, is likely to get worse after Saddam is gone. Even with the Iraqi leader still in power, something that should inspire unity among his foes, Iraqi opposition parties are unable to set aside rivalries to hold a much-heralded meeting to organize a post-Saddam democracy. A total of 70 Iraqi opposition parties and groups outside Iraq are thought to exist. The same fractiousness prevails in the Kurdish north of Iraq, which is under Western protection and enjoys a large degree of autonomy. The two main political factions there fought a bloody war in the mid-1990s over revenues and influence. Iraqi opposition politicians warn of another source of instability in post-Saddam Iraq. They say a Baghdad administration set up under the wing of a US-led military coalition would find it difficult to gain the support and respect of Iraqis. Subhi al-Jumayel of the Iraqi Communist Party believes that a great deal depends on how change in Iraq comes about.
"Foreign intervention is unlikely to bring about genuine democracy," he told The Associated Press from London. "National forces should bring about the change." Another problem could be that as Shiites, a majority of Iraq's 22 million people, take over rule from the minority Sunnis, next-door Shiite Iran will gain considerable influence in Iraq, or at least in the south where Shiites are concentrated. The main Shiite opposition group, The Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, is based in Iran, where it keeps an estimated 5,000-10,000 armed men. A Shiite-dominated Iraq, say the experts, would extend Iran's sphere of influence all the way to the borders of US allies Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - something the United States prevented by giving support to Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. "The ethnic makeup of Iraq has been a long-standing problem," said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor of Jane's Sentinel, a risk assessment publication. "The question for anyone thinking of bringing about a regime change in Iraq is 'how do you establish a stable state in the wake of Saddam Hussein without the different factions, most of which has armed militias, basically fighting each other for power."'
While Shiites were among the strongest opposition groups, Shiite leaders play down the prospect their people will dominate a new Iraq and dismiss as exaggerated speculations on Iran's influence.
"That Shiites are a majority in Iraq is a fact," said Hamed al-Bayati of the Council for the Islamic Revolution. "But in a democracy, everyone will take his share if power." Stephen Ulph, a London-based expert on Arab and Islamic affairs, said that while Shiites are enthusiastic about American efforts to create a new Iraq, that attitude may not last for long.
"My guess is that southern Iraqi Shiites will be interested in what the Americans and the allies can solve in the immediate short term about getting rid of Saddam," he said.
"Then the idea of an occupying foreign power in Iraq will come into play."
© Hindustan Times Ltd. 2002. Reproduction in any form is prohibited without prior permission To send your feedback, via web click here or email feedback at hindustantimes.com