In the coverage of the invasion of Iraq, and since the detention of Saddam Hussein, I have come across almost no discussion in the British media of the West's ambiguous relationship with Saddam. It is well known but is rarely mentioned that Saddam was supported by the West from his seizure of power through the first Gulf War, up to the tacit endorsement of the invasion of Kuwait by then US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie.
Saddam was 'one of ours' and when he attacked Kurds at Halabja he used chemical weapons supplied by the West and, as John Pilger recently uncovered, with US military advisors in the field. For reasons apparently unrelated to his regime's abuse of its citizens, or its militarism, Saddam became a political tool for our leaders, and they turned against him. But we should acknowledge their complicity in his worst crimes.
To his credit BBC correspondent John Simpson highlighted some of these issues in his reports on Sunday evening, though by Monday evening had abandonned this theme.
Our leaders' machinations in the rest of the world are rarely motivated by the desire for the freedom of its peoples. While Iraq is likely to be a more tolerable place to live post-invasion, this is in part because it brings to an end ten years of Western sanctions. The quality of improvement deserved by peoples elsewhere will only be achieved when they (and we) tell Western leaders to stop meddling in their internal affairs – including the propping up and knocking down unaccountable leaders.
Developed from feedback sent to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme
Comments