By Saswat Pattanayak
Call me superstitious, but somehow I
always tend to hope for the maxim that speaks: All’s
well that ends well. And hence, certainly in the last
week of this month, I had not imagined the year 2006
would leave such bitter memories behind.
It all started with one death: Gerald Ford’s. And
ended with one execution: Saddam Hussein’s.
What has Ford got to do with Hussein? I would
probably have not wondered aloud such an analogy on
another occasion. After all, one was the celebrated
president of world’s oldest democracy, and the other
was the disgraced president of a dictatorial regime.
For celebration of Ford’s legacies, there are
museums, schools, world leaders and history books.
For Hussein, only condemnations follow from all above
quarters. We are observing memorial services
cherishing the memories of Ford beginning Friday,
whereas the global condemnation ceremonies to mark
the former Iraqi head have started from Saturday. New
York Times while pouring in rich tributes for Ford
churned out a news story out of an obituary,
headlined its editorial as “Gerald R Ford” to portray
the legend on Thursday. And yet on Saturday, the
liberal paper had made an editorial out of a hard
news piece, and headlined its lead story of the day
thus: “Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence Is
Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity.” Yes,
that’s the headline from world’s most respected
newspaper, not a sentence from some kangaroo court.
And yet, amidst the word-games of the colonial
language that accentuates the stark differences
perpetuated by its mainstream media masters, I am
struck by few similarities between the two dead
former leaders.
Both climbed the ladders of politics not through
legitimate elections, but by assuming power. Ford
quietly succeeded a corrupt tax evader Spiro Agnew to
become the vice president, and with a lot of pomp and
show, inherited a corrupt war criminal Richard
Nixon’s throne to become the president. Similar
“corrupt bargains” were made in Iraq for Saddam to
remain in power. Hussein quickly ascended Ba’ath
Party ladders without the credentials, political,
military, or otherwise. And earned his fame and glory
in his attempt to assassinate the then Iraqi head
Abdul Qassim. Ironically, just like Ford who rose to
power without any mandate except merely with approval
from the US Congress, Saddam’s claim to fame was
reached through the American interventions in Iraq to
fund the Ba’athists to get rid of left-leaning
Qassim. In a sure manner well recorded, but seldom
quoted, the US war machine created both Saddam, and
Ford.
A New York Times columnist in
an editorial piece had done some elaboration, at
least about Saddam, a few years back:
“The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963
was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years
earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi
monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went
unreported at the time and has been little noted
since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been
widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by
the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the
work of journalists and historians like David Wise,
an authority on the C.I.A.
From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh
repression, the Eisenhower administration abided
him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of
the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt -- much as
Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid
Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe
of Iran.
Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a
coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held
out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a
swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on
Baghdad television. Washington immediately
befriended the successor regime. ''Almost certainly
a gain for our side,'' Robert Komer, a National
Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of
the takeover.
As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the
authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in
1963 still a relatively small political faction
influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the
former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party
members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963
was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled
to Cairo after taking part in a failed
assassination of Kassem in 1958.
According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi
refugees and a British human rights organization,
the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using
lists of suspected Communists and other leftists
provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists
systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's
educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein
himself is said to have participated. No one knows
the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims
included hundreds of doctors, teachers,
technicians, lawyers and other professionals as
well as military and political figures.”
The US war mongers funded the Iraqi despot to
continue murdering communists and innocent civilians.
At the same time, back home, they got Ford to
continue the same legacy. Not surprisingly, Ford
became not just the only unelected president, but
even the most unpopular one at his time. He pardoned
without any conditions whatsoever the biggest war
criminal of recent times: Richard Nixon, the
officially recognized disgraced president. Like
Hussein, Nixon was a zealot anti-communist, a massive
war and hate proponent. And Gerald Ford whose six day
national mourning continues with half-mast flags, was
the greatest supporter of Nixon. He provided all the
support that Nixon required to save face, and his
life. And no, all thanks to Ford, Nixon was not
hanged.
Times have changed. But times do not change
philosophically on their own tunes. They change just
the way the ruling classes decide. And as predicted,
after an initial hue and cry by the marketplace of
ideas, Ford continued to be cherished for having
pardoned Nixon and saved America’s image. Saddam,
soon after the demise of communist powers, was
brushed off as forgotten legacy that could have
otherwise tarnished America’s image.
Today, alas, if we recall history accurately in its
sequence and reasoning and ruling class motives and
working peoples resentments, there is just one fallen
guy between the two. And not surprisingly, Ford has
been pardoned.
But there is worse in store. Now that Saddam is not
there anymore, perhaps true to the nature of
obituaries, true to the nature of support lent to
Ford’s legacies after his death, many of us would
invariably see light in Saddam as well. In the battle
of ideologies, perhaps it would seem as though Saddam
fought a different battle than that of American power
elites. And after much accentuation of these
differences, the corporate media would have succeeded
in establishing a hyper reality of virtues and vices.
And the reification of historical insanities may
again begin when we either pay rich tributes to
Saddam to posit him against America or vice versa. Or
like the European allies in the war, when we take the
moralist positions against capital punishment in
order to oppose Saddam’s death.
Saddam’s death should have been quite predictable.
After all, those that stop serving the masters, are
condemned to harsh course. It’s the masters that we
need to beware of. The masters that enslaved Africa,
colonized Asia, and impoverished majority of world
population through global capitalism. If they kill
their disobedient agents, that’s not a bother. We
didn’t ask for the agent anyway. The point is we need
not take the masters any longer either.
And neither do we want any more of their agents. Some
of them may rally behind the masters, like Pinochet
who died a natural honorable death recently. And some
may yet go pose a challenge, like Bin Laden who may
end up in Saddam’s shoes one day soon. But any
indulgence in positing the agents against the masters
is well playing into the plans. Its like supporting
the European leaderships today who are their virtuous
best in the criticism of American punishment degrees.
Or listening to New York Times declaring how the
criminal against humanity is our man no more.
Either way, we would miss the boat. The issue is not
in differences between two such elements borne out of
greed, competition and oppressions. Not the
difference between Ford and Hussein. It’s the
similarities among them that should make us shiver.
Brother Malcolm X used to open his address with:
“brothers and sisters, friends and enemies.” If we
succeeded in identifying the categories, we hopefully
would have left the worst of times behind as we start
marking a new year tomorrow.
(Originally published in Radical
Notes)
Tags: Saswat, Iraq, USA, Capitalism, Cold War, War, History, Communism