|
Ousting
Saddam without using violence
By
Brian
Martin
Associate Professor at the University of
Wollongong
TFF
associate
October 4, 2002
Rather than war or sanctions, there's a better way to
get rid of Saddam Hussein: strategic nonviolent
action.
The soft underbelly of any dictatorship is the ability
of the population, including soldiers, to withdraw
consent. Take away that consent and the regime will
collapse. This may seem like wishful thinking but there
are plenty of historical examples to show how it can
actually happen.
In 1989, most Eastern European regimes were toppled
with little or no loss of life. There were no foreign
military attacks, no guerrilla struggles, no sabotage.
Instead, there were rallies in the streets, initially
small but before long massive, causing entrenched
communist rulers to lose their nerve and resign without a
fight.
A similar thing happened in the Soviet Union in August
1991. In the face of a coup, citizens rallied around the
Russian parliament building, a symbol of resistance. The
plotters sent in tanks. But opponents of the coup talked
with the soldiers, convincing them to hold fire or
defect. Many media workers got around the ban on
independent reporting by producing their own broadsheets
and using posters and email. The Alpha Group, an elite
anti-terrorist team, drew up plans to capture the
parliament building, but they knew many civilian
protesters would die in the attack and as a result the
planned assault was never launched. In a matter of days
the coup dissolved and soon after so did the Soviet
Union.
The same methods can be applied against Saddam
Hussein. There are opposition groups in Iraq that can tap
into widespread anti-Saddam sentiment. There are oil and
electricity workers who, if they abandon their jobs or
gum up the works, can bring the regime to its knees.
There are security units that can be persuaded to switch
allegiance.
Unfortunately, aggressive western policy actually
helps Saddam maintain power. The sanctions have led to
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying, causing resentment
against the west and thus undermining opposition to
Saddam. Similarly, military strikes and the threat of war
unify the population, especially the Iraqi military and
security forces, and weaken the prospects for internal
resistance.
In 1999 there was a massive NATO air attack against
Serbia but it did not dislodge Slobodan Milosevic. He was
only unseated the next year through popular protests.
Nonviolence worked better to bring about 'regime
change'.
So what could be done to undermine Saddam? Instead of
dropping bombs, drop technology for independent
broadcasting and secure communication. Instead of
sanctions, open the borders and promote trade that
benefits the people. Encourage western tourism, including
visits by people trained in nonviolence skills. Welcome
Iraqi defectors, offering them safe haven, perhaps even
payment. Broadcast information on a range of methods of
resistance, including slogans, fraternisation, religious
processions, teach-ins, stay-at-home, tax boycotts,
strikes, boycotts of government departments, go-slows,
sit-ins, alternative communication systems, alternative
markets and many others. (Nonviolence researcher Gene
Sharp has documented hundreds of different methods of
nonviolent action.)
Nonviolent action has been the key to bringing down
dictatorships in many countries, including the
Philippines (the people power revolution of 1986), Iran,
and many African and Latin American countries. Nonviolent
action also had successes against the Nazis in occupied
Europe. There have been failures too, such as the 1989
Beijing massacre that halted the Chinese pro-democracy
movement. Nonviolent struggles continue in many countries
such as Burma.
Many peaceful protesters have been killed or injured
in these struggles. The British killed hundreds of people
in the course of the Indian independence struggle. In
comparison, though, in opposing the violent Mau Mau
rebellion in Kenya, British colonialists killed far more
as well as setting up concentration camps and using
torture. Violence promotes counterviolence.
Despite the promise of nonviolence, most governments
seem reluctant to support it. For ten years in Kosovo,
there was an effective nonviolent resistance to Serbian
rule, but it received little attention elsewhere. It was
the rise of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army that led
western governments to become involved.
In Palestine, there are numerous nonviolent protests
involving both Palestinians and Israelis, but these
courageous efforts receive little attention compared to
military strikes and terrorist actions. The Israeli
government expelled Mubarak Awad, a leading Palestinian
advocate of nonviolence. Meanwhile, the Palestinian
Authority has failed to promote a nonviolent strategy in
the intifada.
Even worse, governments continue to support dictators
and repressive policies when it suits them. Western
governments supported Saddam Hussein's brutal regime in
the 1980s, funded the mujahideen and now support
repressive states around the world, such as nuclear-armed
Pakistan. Until governments consistently support
democracy and oppose human rights violators, there is
faint hope of their supporting nonviolence against
repression.
Nonviolent action can be used to oust Saddam Hussein.
The people of Iraq just need the tools and encouragement
to do it.
©
TFF & the author 2002
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|