*EPF106 10/07/2002
Panelists see Hussein's Overthrow as a Given, Debate What Comes Next
(Participants in AEI conference see chance for democratic state) (870)

By Ralph Dannheisser
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- Taking a U.S.-led overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime as a foregone conclusion, panelists at a daylong conference sponsored by the private American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) outlined their ideas on what should and will happen in Iraq after that transpires.

Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near East studies at Princeton University, told an overflow audience at AEI headquarters October 3 he believes it is too late for the United States to pull back from its frequently expressed determination to get rid of Saddam Hussein by any means necessary.

If it did, he said, "There would be a complete loss of credibility," and the Iraqi leader "would feel free to do what he wanted" -- potentially including a new incursion into Kuwait and possible assaults on other Middle Eastern nations.

That view was shared by Olivier Roy, research director in the humanities and social sciences at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, who said that since a U.S. military attack is almost universally expected, failure to carry one out would bring "a loss of credibility."

Lewis, is his remarks, said he is "cautiously optimistic about the prospect for developing a democratic regime in Iraq." That task, he opined, "will take longer than people hope, but not as long as they fear."

And he expressed confidence that "the overwhelming majority (of Iraqis) will welcome Americans as liberators," should troops be sent in. But the real question, he said, is "how long will they continue to consider them in that regard?"

Lewis' assessment as to the initial response that troops could expect was questioned by Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi oil and security analyst. He quoted conversations with unnamed Saudi sheiks who, he said, told him American troops "will be received as enemies."

Obaid said he sees Saudi Arabia "moving toward full support of a strong UN resolution" on a resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq. But he noted the Saudi view that U.S. troops currently stationed in Saudi Arabia are there largely to safeguard and enforce the no-fly zones imposed on Iraq. Thus, he said, removal of those troops once a regime change is effected in Iraq is becoming a major issue.

Addressing concerns of a possible fundamentalist takeover in Iraq when and if Hussein is deposed, Turkish businessman Serif Egeli said he believes that it can, in fact, emerge as a secular state. He said his own country "is for democratization of Iraq." but he contrasted that with what he regards as the attitude in other nations in the region.

His comment appeared to echo a view expressed earlier by Lewis, who told his audience of "two great fears that trouble people over this question" of Iraqi democratization:

"One is that the attempt to establish a democracy in Iraq might fail, a fear which causes great concern in many parts of the world," Lewis said. "And there is also the second, perhaps even greater fear that it might succeed, which causes immense concern in the greater part of the Middle East."

But Lewis cited what he considers the hopeful precedent of reform in the Turkish Republic which, he said, demonstrated that "it is difficult to create a democratic society, but not impossible."

Leading an earlier session on potential war crimes trials, trial lawyer and Iraqi activist Feisal Istrabadi, expressed his own doubts on the issue. "There has been much talk from U.S. officials about democracy in a future Iraq, but one can be forgiven for being skeptical of their reassurances," he said, arguing that mixed messages had come from the Bush administration.

As for the war crimes issue, he called for an approach that would divide alleged violators into four categories. The first, he said, would include the top Iraqi leadership, including cabinet officials and all members of the Revolutionary Command Council who, he said, had "rubberstamped all of Saddam Hussein's decisions." The second would consist of "mid-level violators," the third of "perpetrators of ordinary crimes under domestic law," and the fourth of a group of Ba'ath Party adherents who would still be barred for life from holding public office.

The attorney, now living in the United States, was adamant that "amnesty as such must be avoided" since "an amnesty implies forgiveness." But in categories three and four, he said, a procedure could be applied under which the prosecution announces that it will not pursue its case, without suggesting belief in the innocence of the defendant.

Further, Istrabadi said, "truth and conciliation would be indispensable for reuniting Iraq," and "there is no substitute for a Truth Commission ����on the South African model."

Hania Mufti, a London-based director of Human Rights Watch, gave her view that UN Security Council action to set up an International Criminal Court for Iraq would provide the best option for resolving war crimes cases.

And Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of law at Yale University, counseled making provision for special treatment of possible defectors from the Saddam Hussein regime. "You do want defections by contingents who may not always have been the most charming," she said.

(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents