Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Mixed feelings for deposed dictators

On Friday, US President George W. Bush declared that Saddam Hussein was "no longer in power" in Iraq. The declaration was welcomed by virtually all, irrespective of their views on the justification used to launch the war. After all, most would concede there really was very little to like about the former dictator.

Even many Iraqi people, much to the awkwardness of countries that had led the campaign to oppose the war in the first place, had expressed joy about the collapse of Saddam's regime. While their sense of pride and nationalism may make them feel indignant and resentful that it was made possible only after foreign military actions against their country, it must have been a relief to know that the 25-year long brutal rule of Saddam had come to an end.

Saddam is, without any question, the primary reason for this war. In a way, the real controversy about this war is whether it is a necessary evil for his removal.

Between a war that has not ended yet but has already taken the lives of thousands thus far, on the one hand, and allowing Saddam to continue his rule, on the other, which is the necessary evil? Some people, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, would argue that it is a legal question. On Friday, Putin openly welcomed the demise of Saddam, while at the same time stating that the situation in Iraq must be resolved in accordance with the UN Charter and international law. He speaks the truth. But why couldn't it come from someone besides Putin, who showed no similar regard for human rights and the UN Charter when the Russian military ruthlessly suppressed Lithuanian independence movements.

The question can't possibly be a simple mathematical question of comparing the number of casualties of the war and the number of deaths that might take place if Saddam continues to rule. It would be entirely immoral to reduce the issue into a mathematic equation. That is too bad. Otherwise, a quick answer may be at hand. Iraqi human right leader Bakhtiar Amin in fact argued that Saddam's regime killed more people than the number of all the anti-war protesters who gathered recently in London, Paris, Rome and San Francisco combined. Of course, that is probably speculation. In any event, having waged two wars during his reign -- one in 1979 against Iran, which lasted eight years and costed 1 million lives, and another one in 1990 against Kuwait -- and with a record of using chemical weapons against not only his enemies, the Iranians, but also his own people, the Kurds, one has no reason to underestimate the level of destruction and killings Saddam may be capable of, if given the chance.

Scenes of jubilant Iraqi crowds overturning statues of Saddam, which were standing on virtually each street corner in Iraq, must bring some mixed feelings on the part of people in Taiwan. The truth of the matter is the way Iraqi people were forced to idolize and worship Saddam bore great similarities to what the late president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and China's "Great Helmsman" Mao Zedong (毛澤東) did to their people. Right after the end of the martial-law era in Taiwan, thousands of Chiang's statutes and images were also removed from schools, libraries, conference halls and other places. Reportedly, barely a song was sung or a poem read in Iraqi schools which did not praise the "great leader." That again, sounds almost like an exact enactment of what happened in Taiwan's schools not so long ago.

The demise of any dictator, be it Saddam or the likes of him, is a reason to celebrate.
This story has been viewed 2126 times.