CAIRO, 3 July 2004 — Iraq’s new Prime Minister Iyad Allawi promised during a Baghdad press conference just a few days ago that Saddam Hussein’s trial would be transparent and open to the media. If his arraignment on Thursday is anything to go by, Allawi’s promise rings decidedly hollow.
In the event only a handful of journalists (all Americans) and cameras were allowed into the proceedings as part of a pool system. Americans then edited their pictures before they could be released for public consumption minus the sound. After a barrage of complaints, the dialogue was released. The hearing was held in a secret court and presided over by a judge with no name, for security reasons. The nameless, faceless judge also forbade microphones from entering his courtroom.
Furthermore, Saddam’s team of international lawyers, appointed by his wife and daughters, were left languishing in Amman, unable to enter the country. We are not even sure whether Saddam knows they are there.
The former leader arrived at the court by helicopter in handcuffs and chains, which were removed during the session. The slimmed down version of the former dictator, sporting a gray suit and white shirt, switched from looking confused at times to defiant. When asked his name, he replied twice: “I am Saddam Hussain, the president of Iraq”. Later, when told that if he couldn’t afford a lawyer one would be appointed for him, he smiled and said jokingly that the Americans have asserted he has millions of dollars in Swiss bank account, so, of course, he is able to afford one.
Saddam was charged with seven counts. He denied having gassed the Kurds but defended Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait calling the Kuwaitis “dogs” and saying that Kuwait was historically part of Iraq. At this, he received an admonition from the Judge, and again when he referred to the American President George W. Bush as “a criminal” and the court as “a theatrical comedy” designed to bathe the US leader in a positive light during the upcoming elections.
In the meantime, Saddam’s lawyers have stated that the court does not have jurisdiction over their client, since it was set-up by the CPA, an authority of occupation, and although the Iraqis have gained their sovereignty the interim government is one that was put in place by the occupiers, albeit with a seal of approval from Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN’s representative, and an appropriate UN resolution.
And despite Allawi’s earlier statement that Saddam would be allowed to represent himself if he so desired, it now appears that he won’t be after all for fears he will turn his trial into a political platform, in the same way that the former leader of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosovic has over the past years.
The interim governing council has re-introduced the death penalty, which could create problems for the United Kingdom, which is not only a member of the EU but a signatory to various human rights treaties. Under those rules, Britain is not allowed to handover suspects, or to involve with their incarceration if there is any chance they could receive the death penalty. Commentators have pointed out that Britain has not had physical custody of Hussein, but it has held some of Hussein’s 11 co-defendants.
It is essential that the Iraqi people perceive their new rulers as credible and independent, but with the country’s former leader still being held in physical American custody, this will be no easy task.
Saddam’s trial could also prove divisive for the country given that many Iraqis say they were better off under his rule in regards to security and essential services. Saddam’s followers and Iraqi insurgents will, no doubt, feel offended at the sight of their former leader in chains, while those Iraqis who attribute Saddam with the disappearance, torture or death of their loved ones, will enjoy every minute of his public humiliation. Already several of Saddam’s victims have been heard on television saying they would like to see his body strung up above the street, including a man from Halabja, whose lost his entire family during a chemical attack.
Sadly, the much-vaunted court proceeding, supposed to show how Iraq has changed since Saddam’s overthrow becoming a bastion of justice to be envied by the region, is beginning to look like a banana republic’s effort. Allawi has already said that Saddam or his legal team will not be allowed to call high profile witnesses such as Tony Blair, George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. Why not? They wouldn’t have to appear in court but could surely give evidence using video conferencing facilities.
While the Americans and their allies in the interim council are worried about Saddam turning the court into a propaganda venue, the same can be said for the Americans. Let’s suppose hypothetically that instead of defiance, Saddam had showed remorse. Let’s suppose he had appeared broken, a pitiable, cringing figure. And let’s ask the question: Would the pictures and words coming out of the court still been initially censored? I think not. Saddam Hussein is not going along with the Bush administration script, and that’s their real problem. Saddam’s trial is estimated to begin next year since lawyers will have to sift through three tons of paperwork. Hopefully by then a legitimate Iraqi government will be in place, one that has been voted-in. Let’s hope, too, that Salem Chalabi, who set-up the tribunal, will have got his act together to ensure Saddam’s trial is truly fair. The Iraqis, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Shiites and the Kurds need not only justice to be done, but seen to be done. Whether or not the Americans are embarrassed by anything, which comes out of that trial, should not be a factor. As President Bush recently said in Ireland: “Let the chips fall where they may”.
(Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Mideast affairs and can be contacted at [email protected])
