Would Saddam's exile avert war?

The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw has backed a US suggestion that Saddam Hussein could be given immunity from prosecution if he goes into exile.

On Sunday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he would favour granting Saddam Hussein and his top aides a "haven" abroad if it could avert a war.

Jack Straw claimed that the leaders of Arab states were privately urging the Iraqi president to go into exile to spare his people and the region a war.

His comments came as press reports suggested that the Saudi Arabian Government was working hard to avoid a war in the region by offering an exile deal for Saddam.

Saddam Hussein has given no indication that he would accept exile, and on Friday warned that Iraq would defeat any invader.

Would exile for Saddam Hussein be a viable solution for the current conflict between Iraq and the US? Is it a realistic proposition? Is it right to negotiate with people like Saddam Hussein in this way? Tell us what you think.

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

Exile is probably a non starter. The next Iraqi government with the same opressive security apparatus will be hell bent on aquiring the exact same weaponry as Saddam. They do also have legitimate worries from external threats there too. The Iranians, Israelis and Saudis are all likely to meddle in Iraqi affairs for years. Every Iraqi goverment will have to deal with US/UK interest there as well.
Dan, UK

I do not believe the exile of Saddam Hussein is a realistic proposition.

Paul, USA

I do not believe the exile of Saddam Hussein is a realistic proposition. He will hold too strongly to his power. Additionally, I do not believe the exile of Saddam Hussein would provide a resolution to the current conflict. Who would fill the vacuum of power and what would assure their willingness to act as the US and UK deem appropriate? Of course, I do not think the desires of the US and UK are the appropriate measure. However, given the war capital invested to date I do not believe those nations would step back unless a perfectly acceptable and pliant regime (client state) emerges. Finally, I believe it is inappropriate for US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to unilaterally, and then with the support UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, offer Saddam Hussein immunity from prosecution.
Paul, USA

We have let other brutal dictators retire into exile; Idi Amin comes to mind. Why not Saddam? A regime change and a peace keeping force while the UN inspectors finish their job with the cooperation of the new regime would make war unnecessary. The stated goals of the U.S. would be accomplished, the UN mandate fulfilled, the Iraqi people liberated and Saddam and the Arab community provided a face-saving solution solution. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Scott, USA

What country would take him? Lest we forget that Saddam Hussein placed his own countrymen, women and children included, as human shields, next to strategic sites in the Gulf War so that he could televise the "barbarities" of the Alliance in killing Iraqi children! He actually placed them there to be killed! This animal MUST be permanently removed with extreme prejudice.
Colin, Chile

The peace movements should not undermine this process.

Martin Cockersole, UK

Saddam going into exile would avert war but he will only go under enormous pressure. No one in their right mind wants war, but realistic sabres must be rattled to have any chance of persuading Saddam that his time is up. The peace movements should not undermine this process.
Martin Cockersole, UK

Exile of Saddam itself wouldn't stop a war. This situation has to be dealt with now. If our children are left to deal with it, it will be much more bloody and ugly. Also - so many of the same fools said the Gulf War was about wanting Iraq's oil, and that never really was true. The US today doesn't get that much oil from Iraq. That's just propaganda and simple-minded foolishness.
Nate Barker, USA

There have been many dictators who have been exiled, so I don't see why Saddam Hussein can't be banished too. It would surely prevent a lot of bloodshed, and the loss of innocent lives. I cannot, however, see a peaceful conclusion to the situation in Iraq - the Bush administration will most probably abandon the Iraqi people, just like they did in Afghanistan, which is not even mentioned these days by George Bush and his officials.
Roseanne S, USA

Saddam Hussein will not go quietly.

Sarah Walters, USA

Saddam Hussein will not go quietly. He is too much of an egomaniac to do so. We should also remember that Saddam was our best buddy not so long ago, something that seems to be conveniently looked over by the Bush Administration and the American press. Yesterday, I attended an anti-war rally in honour of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. After 30 years, many of us find ourselves taking up a new anti-war mantle. We must continue to challenge the stupidity of American policy - which is best buddy today - enemy tomorrow. As far as Saddam is concerned, we need to help the Iraqis to rid themselves of their pariah through negotiation.
Sarah Walters, USA

War IS inevitable for the Iraqis. If Saddam goes into exile, there will be a civil war, unless Bush and Blair are prepared to send in "peacekeeping" troops for their puppet government, in which case our troops will always be under the threat of attacks from militant groups while we occupy Iraq.
Hiten, USA

Given that the USA have refused to sign the International Treaties that give rise to the International Criminal Court, it's a bit rich of the US to act as the world's policemen. If they want regime change, then Iraq has no greater significance then many other regimes. The USA use the image of Human Rights abuses when it suits them. Perhaps George ought to take a look at Death Row in Texas?
Jane, UK

I think Bush and Blair are very arrogant people.

Mukasa Kawesa, Uganda

How can a foreigner tell a national to go to exile? I think Bush and Blair are very arrogant people. I hear British and American companies are among those that supplied Iraq with killer weapons, for what? What shocks me is that they never raised a finger when Iraq used poison against Iran. They in fact supported Saddam then. The US and UK's aim in Iraq is just greed for oil. Reduce your thirst for oil otherwise you can expect many problems ahead long after you have conquered Iraq and installed a puppet regime.
Mukasa Kawesa, Uganda

I am sick and tired of the allegations that the US is pursuing this war against Iraq for Oil. If oil is what we want why don't we invade Venezuela and settle that Coup? Maybe if and when Europe is attacked, some will understand this is about a lot more than oil. The American people are finished sitting by idle and being targets.
Kevin, USA

Even if Saddam left his family and ruling party would still be intact.

Steve, USA

Even if Saddam left his family and ruling party would still be intact. The Iraqi people need to have freedom to control their own lives and not be ruled by fear and threats of death. I don't understand you all. An assassination attempt on an ex-American President is a declaration of war. Shooting at American and British Planes in the No-Fly Zone is an act of War. Saddam laughs at the UN - he knows they are a joke and expects you to hold America back.
Steve, USA

Has anyone asked Saddam? This is all hypothetical rubbish. Saddam would never choose exile in the first place, since has too many enemies and would not survive more than a couple of months. If Bush didn't get the CIA to kill him first, then Mossad or the Iranians would do it. The only safe place for him is right where he is now, well protected by his complex security measures. This is just another US smokescreen. 'If Saddam goes into exile we will have no reason for war'. The truth is, there is no reason for a war in the first place.
Glenn Barker, Canada

As if exile for Saddam would really matter. He could still issue orders to his son, who would replace him. I see a lot of effort to avert war that seems to be bent on keeping Saddam in power. What's really going on? The is the question about to be answered. There will be those who stand with Saddam and the socialist-driven, anti-American movement and those who don't. Then we shall see clearly, face to face. Hats off to PM Blair, who has forfeited his political future to do the right thing. Such courage is seldom found any more.
Aaron , USA

He should be brought before the international court of justice and face prosecution

Robert Velikonja, Slovenia

Saddam Hussein is one of the cruellest dictators the world has ever seen. He has got so much blood on his hands and no regard for anybody's life. He is probably laughing when he sees the international community so divided over the issue of how to deal with him. Fortunately there are some states that are prepared to do something about it. He should never be allowed to go into exile. He should be brought before the international court of justice and face the prosecution on the grounds of crimes against humanity.
Robert Velikonja, Slovenia

Where would Saddam go into exile? I quite like the image of Saddam living in some leafy American Suburb Maybe he could have tea with Bush Senior on Sundays and talk about the "good ol' days".
Nick, UK

So, Saddam goes into exile and his son Uday takes over. Not too clever as his son is considered to be worse than he is. War is inevitable - the US oil companies want control of Iraq's oil as payback for getting Bush elected.
Stephen, England

Where will we stop?

Veena, Italy

Are we interested in regime change or weapons of mass destruction? If Saddam should go then so should many others. Where will we stop?
Veena, Italy

No, giving him refuge would only reward him for the sickening way he has acted in the past, and would in no way reduce potential bloodshed. But he would be a winner and a hero to many.
Johnny McKee, Loudon, TN, USA

Why only Saddam? Why not Bush and Blair? Right now these are the ones causing havoc with their weapons. And it will be mass destruction too with their weapons.
Farozan, Canada

Why would the exile of Saddam make much of a difference? Who really thinks that the normal Iraqi people, even though now suppressed by Saddam, would actually accept being subjected to a "puppet regime" just to provide the US with cheap oil? The evidence is in Afghanistan, the US and UK have no intention of rebuilding the country or care for its people. I am so ashamed and angry my tax money is paying for all this.
John, UK

This would be ideal - not one drop of blood spilt, and Iraq spared from further devastation. However, I am still concerned that no proposals have been put forward to lift sanctions in any case. What about the plans for genuinely rebuilding Iraq? Or will it be forgotten quietly as Afghanistan has been forgotten?
Anon, UK

Try him for war crimes and call it a day

Sue, USA

I can't imagine any country that would accept Saddam. It appears that since Saddam has to hide from his own people in Iraq he wouldn't stand much of a chance anywhere else. I say try him for war crimes and call it a day!
Sue, USA

I think the world would be a safer place if Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein all went into exile.
Lucho Payne, England

I think it is a wonderful idea. But as to having this deal with Saddam, it couldn't be fully reliable. People like Saddam would work more towards revenge afterwards rather than a deal.
Vusa, Azerbaijan

Saddam going into exile would set a dangerous precedent

Prasad Metta, Hyderabad, India

Saddam going into exile would set a dangerous precedent. The US would have found a new way of forcing "regime changes" on nations that are opposed to its interests. Everyone should stick to the original goal of eliminating WMD.
Prasad Metta, Hyderabad, India

It is important to make Saddam pay for what he has done to his country and his neighbours. But the war is surely going to increase the suffering of millions of wretched Iraqis. The question we should ask is whether it is right to endanger the lives of millions of people to punish a single person, however evil that person might be.
Shafi Rahman, USA/India

Saddam won't step down and Bush knows it

Karl, UK

Saddam won't step down and Bush knows it. This facade of wanting a peaceful end to the crisis is just an attempt by the Bush administration to soften the international fallout of their arrogant "we can't be beat" attitude.
Karl, UK

It does seem interesting that such a wide spectrum of people are against a war in Iraq. Not just those close to the events in the Middle East, but all over the world. Even in Bush's own backyard, as the peace demonstration in Washington showed. This is not a war that Iraq wants, this is not even a war that a large section of the American people want. It would be a much more pleasant world to live in if governments actually listened to what their people had to say instead of using it as cannon fodder in disputes.
Andrew, UK

Although sending Saddam into exile would do nothing for the people who have already died as a result of his tyranny and oppression, it would save the lives of thousands of combatants and Iraqi civilians by averting what is projected to be a horrific war.

The international community (including the US) must ratchet tremendous military and diplomatic pressure to get this man to go into exile, and I don't think that Saddam would do it. It seems to be our best hope for peace, as the US administration has only been attempting to precipitate a war these many months.
Nick, USA

It will serve no purpose for Saddam to leave and be replaced by a similar thinking government

Pat Connell, Canada

I believe the exile of Saddam Hussein could open the door to a peaceful resolution of this 'increasingly close at hand' conflict. However it would only be an alternative if there is substantial positive change within the entire Iraqi government in terms of future political and military ambitions within the region. It will serve no purpose for Saddam to leave and be replaced by a similar thinking government.
Pat Connell, Canada

It is not a realistic proposition. Such a deal is unlikely to work as both sides - Bush and Saddam alike are sure to play tricks and breach promises. Above all, it is unfair to impose one country's will on another sovereign country.
Hasan, Bangladesh

If Saddam went into exile it would probably stop the war. But what about justice for the people he has had killed? I don't think it is a fair deal, giving him immunity from prosecution.
Tommy Joe, USA

Saddam would probably prefer to martyr himself

Matt, Portugal

This would possibly be the only way for everyone involved in this crisis to avert war yet still save face. Unfortunately, Saddam would probably prefer to martyr himself, or more likely his people, than choose exile.
Matt, Portugal

Will Jack Straw and Blair go into exile if the UN demands it because they failed to listen to the concerns of their citizens against the attacking Iraq?
A.J, Gambia

Like Saddam Hussein is going to step down. Would George W Bush if the Chinese or Russian governments demanded it? America is determined to go to war and we will follow. Offering these token olive branches is an attempt by the US to say, "We gave him an alternative" to justify their actions.
Ed, UK

A greater guarantee of no war in Iraq would be if George W Bush agreed to go into exile

Fred, USA

I would love to see Saddam leave for exile but I think a greater guarantee of no war in Iraq would be if George W Bush agreed to go into exile. He is hellbent on war for personal and oil power reasons and let no one forget it. He thinks that Iraq will be a pushover with American superior fire power. A big hammer to a small nail mentality is what led to Vietnam.
Fred, USA

It would have to be. If the US/UK said publicly that they would accept Saddam going into exile, and then invaded Iraq anyway, they would lose all international credibility and respect.
CG, UK

Saddam will not leave his position voluntarily. Unless there is a palace military coup, which I doubt, he is going to stay and face the music.
Meerkat, USA

Does Jack Straw (or anyone in the British government) have any original thoughts of their own or will they just continue to repeat American views? Maybe this country has become the 51st state and we weren't told.
J M, UK