The great survivor

Holding a rifle in one hand and a cigar in the other, Saddam Hussein fired ­into the air, a signal to the world that he is back — with a bang.

The puffs of tobacco and gun smoke from the presidential reviewing stand last Sunday marked the start of a military parade, the likes of which Iraq has not seen for more than 10 years. Jet fighters flew in formation and helicopter gunships hovered over central Baghdad.

More than 1 000 Russian-made tanks, together with artillery and surface-to-surface and anti -­aircraft missiles, rumbled through Grand Festivities Square in a four-hour march-past. It could almost have been a flashback to the old days of the Soviet Union, with the Iraqi leader in period costume: blue three-piece suit and black, wide-brimmed hat.

But among the uniformed naval, infantry and paramilitary units on parade there was, ­perhaps, a sign of things to come: ­white-hooded figures with only their eyes showing — allegedly volunteers for martyrdom in the struggle against Israel. To one side, a giant poster showed Iraqi horses trampling an Israeli flag in front of the Dome of the Rock, with Saddam looking on, god-like, from the sky.

By January 16, the 10th anniversary of what the West calls Desert Storm and what Iraq calls the Mother of Battles, Saddam will have seen off four United States presidents: ­Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr and Bill Clinton. It was supposed to be the other way round. Getting rid of Saddam has been ­official ­US policy for years and, by any normal standards, it should have succeeded long ago.

The devastating war over Kuwait came hot on the heels of a bloody eight-year conflict with Iran, and the damage continues through sanctions and US-British bombing of the no-fly zones. Throughout Saddam’s 20-year rule, Iraqis have known only four years without war or sanctions. That would be enough to bring down most leaders, and yet as the familiar faces of the US administration that tried to destroy him return to Washington, Saddam will be strutting across their TV screens, ready to needle them once more.

It’s not surprising that he looked pleased with himself during Sunday’s parade: it was a firm reminder to the world that he has pulled off one of the most remarkable feats of political survival in modern times. There was a moment, in 1991, when he seemed about to fall, but his forces bounced back from their humiliation in Kuwait, crushing revolts in the Kurdish north and the Shi’ite south of Iraq. Two years ago Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, which made available $93-million to opponents of the Baghdad regime. Since then, the problem has been how to spend the money.

The opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC) has made little headway since 1996, when Saddam wiped out its power base in northern Iraq, under the noses of the Americans. Fortuitously, this provided a morale-boosting victory for the Iraqi army just as it was beginning to show signs of disaffection with the regime.

The INC, which includes Kurdish, monarchist, Islamist and independent ­elements, has been beset by internal ­squabbles and the Ameri­cans have never been totally happy with its leader, Dr Ahmed ­Chalabi, who was once at the centre of a banking ­scandal in Jordan. More direct forms of insurrection, meanwhile, have so far failed. It is virtually impossible to organise a successful coup, according to one opposition leader.

“The moment you get three people involved they all tell Saddam about it,” he said. “That’s because each one knows that if he doesn’t tell Saddam, the other two will.” The money donated to the opposition is ­nothing compared with the cost of policing the no-fly zones, where 450 tonnes of bombs have been dropped in the past two years, mainly by the US.

In total, Britain has spent £800-million on maintaining the no-fly zones, while the US presence — 200 aircraft, 19 warships and 22 000 personnel — has been costing $1-billion a year. Although this containment policy may have helped to keep Iraq in check, Saddam has ­effectively discredited it by highlighting the deaths of innocent shepherds and other civilians caused by the bombing.

Two recent events have contributed to Saddam’s newfound buoyancy. One was the arrival in Baghdad of a hijacked Saudi airliner in October. It might have been the cue for a confrontation, reminiscent of the human shield crisis of 1990, but that didn’t suit Iraq’s new international ­image. All the passengers were released unharmed and kindly sent on their way, allowing Saddam to bask for a few days in the unfamiliar glow of international adulation.

In Israel and the occupied territories, meanwhile, the gathering uprising triggered by Ariel Sharon’s visit to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount was doing more for Saddam’s popu­larity in the region than any public relations campaign could. While political realities force ­other ­leaders — in Egypt and Jordan, for example — to take a more cautious stance, much to the frustration of public opinion, Saddam is free to increase his stature through ostentatious preparations for an imaginary battle. Bad news from Israel is good news for ­Saddam. It is largely because of Israel that Iraq is now back in the Arab fold.

The Arab League summit, last October, needed to show unity in its support for the Palestinians and had no ­option but to invite Iraq — for the first time since the invasion of Kuwait. Saddam has also pledged $881-million from oil revenues to support the Palestinian ­uprising. Some of this is going to the families of dead Palestinians, in lump sums of several thousand dollars.

Sunday’s military parade followed a Christmas message in which Saddam called on Christians, as well as Muslims, to take “the path of ­jihad, without which we cannot ­attain our ­aspirations of establishing right, justice and peace and delivering humanity from the evils of aggressors, criminal killers”. More than six million Iraqis, including two million women, have already signed up for the struggle to “put an end to Zionism”. Nobody dares to ask how, exactly, this will be achieved.

For the moment it is, almost certainly, a ­fantasy to please the masses. Today, the official picture from Baghdad looks brighter than at any time in the past 10 years. Thinly disguised “humanitarian” flights from abroad arrive almost daily, Iraqi Airways is ­operating again (even in the no-fly zones) and oil production has recovered to pre-war levels. Ordinary Iraqis can see changes, too. Food rations are up, power cuts are less severe, drinking water and sewage services are ­improving.

We hear less now about the malnutrition, the lack of medicines and the dying children. Those problems are still there — Iraq’s Health Ministry blamed sanctions for more than 10 000 deaths last month — but ­Saddam’s message has changed: it is no longer that sanctions are a disaster, but that they are so full of holes we might as well abandon them.

Resistance to sanctions takes two forms. One is simply to flout them, though some of this illicit trade is stopped by patrols in the Gulf. But despite seizures, supporters of the regime still manage to acquire new cars or the latest computers. One London-based Iraqi ­recently brought back a much-coveted Play­Station2 for his son from Baghdad: “It’s cheaper there, and there’s no waiting list,” he said.

At another level, there are what the Ameri­cans describe as Iraq’s “salami tactics” — picking at weak points in the rules of sanctions, preferably in ways that cause disagreement between the US and other countries. For example: what, precisely, makes a flight to Baghdad “humanitarian”?

In a region where political symbolism is ­often valued more than hard facts, Saddam’s defiant stance against sanctions plays well to the ­masses. It has certainly embarrassed the West, but it is largely theatre — like the missiles on display last weekend which looked menacing enough but which actually had ranges under 150km and therefore complied fully with United Nations arms-control restrictions.

While Iraq continues to protest about sanctions, it shows no willingness to end them on the UN’s current terms. But as Britain and the US have been making conciliatory noises about sanctions, many Arabs believe George W Bush Jnr will feel compelled to adopt the hard line his father took. Colin Powell, the new Secretary of State, who was chair of the joint chiefs of staff under Bush Snr, declared immediately after his nomination that he hoped to “re-energise” sanctions.

Bush Jnr himself has said that he wants sanctions to be tougher — an idea that many experts dismiss as unrealistic. Meanwhile, there is still no sign of repentance or regret from Baghdad over the invasion of Kuwait. Iraqi soldiers are currently being paid to write short memoirs for inclusion in a book to mark the 10th anniversary of the Mother of Battles. Sanctions may not have achieved their goals, but there is little doubt that Saddam’s campaign against them has kept him out of serious mischief.

In his battle with the UN Security Council he needs international support and, so long as that battle continues, he is not going to risk losing support through military adventures. Once sanctions have gone, it may be a different matter. Even if Iraq meets the weapons inspection criteria, there will be little to stop it rearming. Intelligence sources suggest that Iraq’s nuclear programme is continuing and that it may be between five and 10 years from developing a usable nuclear weapon.

Saddam still hankers after leadership of the Arab world, and the history of his rule suggests that he sees only one route to achieving that and to ensuring the survival of his regime: through conflict.