Revolution in the Arab World
Dispatches from Tahrir Square Middle East Channel Latest Scenes from Egypt

Gimme Shelter

Why is Hosni Mubarak clinging to power? Maybe because the life of an exiled dictator isn't what it used to be.

BY SCOTT HORTON | FEBRUARY 2, 2011

Time was when a dictator like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, watching his hold on power crumbling in the face of an uprising, had plenty of retirement options. Odds were he could find a quiet life in one of Europe's posher watering holes: Mougins in the hills above Cannes, on the shores of Lake Geneva, or maybe a smart Belgravia townhouse. He generally had plenty of cash parked outside the country and often would take a last dip in the treasury on the way out the door. To be sure, he had to keep his wits about him to avoid anarchists and assassins, and he had to avoid too much obvious meddling in his homeland's politics lest this jeopardize his host's grant of asylum. But he could usually look forward to a peaceful and comfortable run for his waning days.

So why is Mubarak trying to squeeze a few more months out of his three-decade career in office and avowing his intentions to stay in Egypt rather than packing for the Riviera? It may be because exile isn't what it used to be; over the last 30 years, things have gotten increasingly difficult for dictators in flight. Successor regimes launch criminal probes; major efforts are mounted to identify assets that may have been stripped or looted by the autocrat, or more commonly, members of his immediate family. I witnessed this process myself, twice being asked by newly installed governments in Central Eurasia to advise them on asset recovery measures focusing on the deposed former leader and his family.

More menacingly, human rights lawyers and international prosecutors may take a close look at the tools the deposed dictator used to stay in power: Did he torture? Did he authorize the shooting of adversaries? Did he cause his enemies to "disappear"? Was there a mass crackdown that resulted in dozens or hundreds of deaths? A trip to The Hague or another tribunal might be in his future. Slobodan Milosevic, who died while on trial there, and Charles Taylor, whose prosecution there is expected to wind up later this month, furnish examples that any decamping dictator would need to keep in mind.

The dictator may well proclaim his altruistic, patriotic motives, tout his service to the country, and insist on his intention to die on his native soil, as Mubarak did in his rambling non-concession speech on Feb. 1. But more likely than not, a frantic effort is under way behind the scenes to ensure that, if he leaves, he will not face the nightmare of criminal probes and battles over assets. A friendly government offering sanctuary may quickly conclude in the face of such a barrage that its old friend just isn't worth the effort and the damage to reputation associated with sheltering him.

There's no doubt that the endgame for Mubarak involves many of these concerns and backroom machinations. So, how can Mubarak protect himself if he eventually makes an escape from Cairo? He's taking the usual steps now. Start with his decision to install foreign intelligence chief and CIA confidant Omar Suleiman as vice president and constitutional successor. (Mubarak himself came to the presidency through this route; he had been Anwar Sadat's vice president.) This comes close to matching what in the Russian-speaking world is known as the "Putin option," a reference to the exit strategy adopted by a teetering Boris Yeltsin: Fearing possible retribution from opposition figures, Yeltsin opted to surrender power through a transitional period to a wily senior player in the intelligence community. In exchange, Yeltsin is said to have extracted a firm commitment from Putin that the full machinery of the Russian state would be mustered to protect him. There would be no criminal probes or inquiries, and no cooperation with foreigners who undertook the same. Yeltsin would be free to live his final days shuttling between Moscow and the French Riviera. Putin scrupulously kept his end of the bargain.

Suleiman, a close and loyal advisor to Mubarak, had of course long been expected to emerge as vice president, but his assumption of the office had been blocked by his bitter rival, Defense Minister Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. With the forces of opposition swirling out of control, appointing a successor who was both credible and capable of protecting Mubarak in exile was a priority move, and identifying someone with the tightest possible connections both to the United States and Israel was doubtless an added advantage.

OSAMA IBRAHIM/AFP/Getty Images

 

Scott Horton, an attorney and lecturer at Columbia Law School, has advised sovereigns on the pursuit of kleptocratic predecessors. He is also a contributing editor at Harper's Magazine.

ASAD KHAN

10:37 AM ET

February 3, 2011

For whom the bell tolls.

I feel pakistans Asif Zardari should and shall complete his term notwithstanding the uneployment,inflation and law and order problems faced by the country.zardari was catapulted to the high office because of the great sacrifice by that great lady and before that by Z A Bhutto.There is no surity that the new regime comming to power if mid term elections were held,which is a remote possibility,will provide any relief to the common man,man in the street who is silent onlooker of a not rosy picture,far from that.

 

BAKINETS

4:26 PM ET

February 3, 2011

Is this a good thing?

Hi Scott, great piece -- you are helping everyone understand what is certainly a crucial piece of the current calculus.

I don't know if you can get involved in the comments here but -- is what you present here a good thing? Morally it is correct that dictators should be held responsible for their actions, and should not be allowed to slink off to a life of luxury. In the country where I am most emotionally invested (Uzbekistan), I would be horrified to see the dictator Karimov living the life of a billionaire retiree instead of facing punishment for his crimes.

That being said, one must admit that the dynamic you describe is not helpful in, for instance, the present situation in Egypt, as you acknowledge.

I don't have a strong view either way but I wonder what you think. Personally I would be able to accept Karimov living in luxury if it would prevent him from killing a lot of people trying to hang on to power.

 

DOUGALDER

10:02 AM ET

February 4, 2011

Allies

Good piece Scott but I would not overlook the possible role of the US in finding Mubarak safe haven from retaliation, including residence in the US. Mubarak has too many dirty secrets regarding the US - specifically details on rendition, torture and US complicity in that. Given that the US will not allow any such actions be taken against the real perpetrators of those evil deeds, that is the ones, Bush Cheney et. al., who authorized them, there's a real possibility they will also go out of their way to safeguard Mubarak. Either that or permanently shut him up.

 

CASSANDRAAA

7:07 PM ET

February 4, 2011

I think you exaggerate the

I think you exaggerate the difficulty of Mubarak finding a cushy retirement. It seems to me there are plenty of bad guys who find a retirement place. Look at the newly surfaced Baby Doc Duvalier. Look at Ratko Mladic who seems to be hiding in plain sight in Serbia. Or Nguyen Cao Ky settling in California.

Historically the United States and France seem to have been quite hospitable to former dictators, though probably less so now.

 

JEFF2222

10:51 AM ET

February 5, 2011

Why does he stay in power?

It's simple. Mubarak fell captive to the lust of foreign money and became a friend of Israel. As Lord Acton taught us, this is human nature. If Egypt falls into chaos: it's bad for business, bad for Israel, and bad for "the west"; therefore he hangs on. I hate to say "the west" because the world is actually spherical. When the "western powers" and "eastern powers" agree on a new leader, Mubarak will leave. The poor people of Egypt, once the wealthiest country in the world, are not but pawns in game of power.

If Antony had defeated Augustus at Actium, things would be different, but it is what it is. The simple truth is the hardest to swallow.

 

BLACKADDER60

7:02 AM ET

February 6, 2011

No it wouldnt.

Only the NAMES would be different.
The powerplay and therefore the historical process would have been the same.

 

LDCHISLE

12:39 PM ET

February 7, 2011

part of a trend

Very interesting article- showing some of the considerations that undoubtedly have go into Mubarak's pro/con analysis.

However this possibility of prosecution/lawsuits shouldn't just be on the radar of past/present national leaders. There is a growing trend for all violators of international humanitarian law to be prosecuted in the national courts of countries in which they are seeking asylum. Although it is probably more risky for former leaders to seek asylum abroad because they are much more well known and "host" nations have little to gain and much to loose by granting them refuge, less high profile individuals should also wary when relying on relocation as an escape plan. For example in 2009 Canada prosecuted Désiré Munyaneza for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity for his role in the Rwandan genocide. Also, today, in Ottawa, the trial of Jacques Mungwarere begins who faces similar charges for his actions in Rwanda in 1994. These individuals were entered into Canada seeking refugee status and were subsequently investigated and detained for trial by Canadian officials. It might be slightly easier for these less high-profile individuals to seek asylum abroad by manipulating the refugee/immigration process but the global trend is to end impunity and hold international criminals accountable whether they are a former head of state or a john/jane doe.

One more thought that this article brought to mind was: is this necessarily a good thing? Although our conception of justice tells us that it is good that former leaders are now more likely to be held to account for their actions - does this fact potentially hinder the democratic/human rights movements in these countries. It is a similar debate held my many scholars analyzing post-conflict states: does the threat of prosecution hinder/impede the peace process? That is, should we grant amnesties to individual rebels/leaders in concession for an end to the violence? If Mumbarak thought he could live out the rest of his days abroad without being bothered he might be more likely to resign his reign and allow for a democratic transition in Egypt. I think that if clear signs pointed to peaceful democratic rule by a sucessor government in Egypt, foreign countries would be more likely to grant Mumbarak asylum to prevent further escalation of violence and radicalism as the dictator clings to power.