|
|
The Misguided Execution of Saddam Hussein
by Marianna Belenkaya
 Moscow,
Dec 31 (RIA Novosti) Saddam Hussein has been put to death. The
execution of a head of state, even if a toppled one, is an unusual
event and is bound to provoke a strong reaction.
The trial of the Iraqi dictator became an important signal to all
heads of state, a warning that sooner or later they will be called
to account for their actions. Nobody will get away with crimes like
the ones for which Saddam was tried. Heads of state are not immune
and will have to answer for their deeds.
However, extremists can now exploit his execution at a time of total
chaos in Iraq to escalate the violence in the country and throughout
the Middle East. Moreover, the legitimacy of the verdict is
questionable.
Saddam is definitely guilty of crimes against his own people, which
is why hundreds of Iraqis crowded around the government building
demanding that they be allowed to carry out the court's ruling. They
wanted to avenge the deaths of their relatives during his rule.
Iraq's Kurds and Shias, Saddam's political opponents irrespective of
nationality and religion, and the people of Iran and Kuwait can say
that justice has been done.
This may be so, but it has left a bitter aftertaste.
The situation reminds me of the recent death of another dictator,
Augusto Pinochet, who, although charged with crimes against
humanity, was never tried. The trial was called off because of the
dictator's old age. When he died, hundreds of his opponents said
they were sorry Pinochet had died without a trial and a sentence.
They wanted legal punishment rather than his death.
Unlike Pinochet, Saddam was sentenced to death, yet not all of his
crimes have been proven in court.
Saddam was charged with crimes committed during more than a dozen
incidents but only sentenced to death for the massacre of 148 Shias
in the village of Dujail in 1982. After handing down this sentence,
the court began proceedings against Saddam and his accomplices for
the genocide of 182,000 Kurds in Al-Anfal, where chemical weapons
were used during an army operation in 1988. Other cases have not yet
gone to court.
These trials can still be held after the dictator's execution, but
we may never know what happened during his rule.
Saddam is definitely guilty of the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and
of the wars against Iran and Kuwait launched on his orders or with
his silent approval. But his actions were in some cases part of a
greater regional game involving other players.
For example, during the Anfal trial in late December, the court read
out the orders from Nazzar Abdel Karim Feysal, then chief of the
Iraqi general staff, to the commanders of the 1st and 5th corps of
the Iraqi army, in which he instructed the Iraqi officers to
"cooperate with Turkey in accordance with the cooperation protocol".
The details of the protocol were not made public, and the alleged
cooperation of Iraq and Turkey in the genocide of the Kurds has not
been officially proven. If it is, the consequences could be
tremendous.
The trial of Saddam Hussein could have revealed many more secrets.
For example, the media often write that on July 25, 1990 the US
ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, was summoned to Saddam's
office for "comprehensive political discussions" before the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait Aug 2. Glaspie allegedly told Hussein: "We have
no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement
with Kuwait."
The "border disagreement" later turned out into a full-scale
aggression and became the beginning of the end for Saddam. The Iraqi
dictator became the arch enemy of the US, although American-Iraqi
relations had seemingly been on the rise before the Kuwaiti
campaign.
Several weeks before the war, a delegation of US senators visited
Baghdad to assure the Iraqi authorities of Washington's goodwill.
This visit took place after the Dujail massacre and the use of
chemical weapons against Kurds in Anfal. Or didn't Washington know
about that?
Not surprisingly, this was only one example of the international
community turning a blind eye to suspect events in the interests of
big time politics. There are dozens of such examples in Iraqi
history. Iraq's Kurds suffered most and have been let down by the US
more than once.
In short, as is the case with any leader, many people in Iraq and
outside it might have shared the responsibility for Saddam's crimes.
But this does not matter now that he has been executed, for he has
taken many of his secrets to the grave.
The world could have learned many lessons from Saddam's trial.
Washington now says that a new era will begin in Iraq after the
dictator's death, and that the Iraqis will be able to replace the
rules established by Saddam with the rule of law. Is this really
possible?
Many human rights organizations and prominent lawyers have
questioned the legitimacy of the sentence. Saddam's trial, which was
held during a foreign occupation of Iraq, can hardly be called
impartial. A trial that should have served justice and been fair
turned into a banal settling of accounts.
A democratic society cannot be built on this foundation, and those
who want to rewrite history - there are always such people - will
have a chance to turn Saddam Hussein from a tyrant into a hero.
Saddam Hussein said he was a martyr and his impending death was a
sacrifice. I wouldn't be surprised if Iraqis, whose feelings have
been mixed and distorted by chaos, will remember the dictator with
nostalgia. The world has seen such things before.
(The opinions expressed in this
article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent
the opinions of the editorial board.)
Top |
News |
|
