The overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the American and British-led coalition was supposed to destroy a regime which, among other things, had no respect for human rights and the rule of law. As the miscalculations and ineptitude of the intervention has become ever clearer, both Washington and London continue to cling to the Iraqi elections as the only way to produce a democratic government embodying all the virtues of justice that the fallen Baathist regime did not.
Yet what must Iraqi voters be thinking of the American and British record on human rights and proper legal processes in their own countries? We have already had the unedifying spectacle of Alberto Gonzales, the lawyer who deemed the Geneva Convention’s provisions on the proper treatment of prisoners to be obsolete and “quaint,” being nominated by President Bush to be attorney general, the most senior US law officer. It seems clear that the advice coming from this man was used by the Pentagon to justify the abuse of detainees, most notoriously at Guantanamo Bay and in Abu Ghraib prison. From how far up the chain of command these orders came has yet to be established. Given Alberto Gonzales’ legal advice, however, it must be suspected that they came from somewhere very near the top.
In contrast, the British government with its constant protests about international human rights might have been expected to behave much differently. British forces in and around Basra have had an easier time than coalition troops further north. The temptation to abuse locals out of anger and revenge has been proportionately less. The British have made much of their policy of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. There have nevertheless been four serious abuse allegations against UK troops and the first trial of an accused soldier began on Monday.
It might have been expected that the British, mindful of maintaining the confidence of Iraqis, would have held the trial in Iraq in public for the convenience of witnesses. Instead, the case is being heard by a military court in Germany and reporting restrictions have been imposed so that, remarkably, the precise charges against this soldier are not known. Even the Americans with their seemingly tacit approval of systemized abuse have so far held their four trials in open court. The British, who are supposed to have recoiled from what they see as US military indiscipline, have nevertheless chosen to veil their court proceedings in secrecy.
This is both crass and inept. The secrecy implies most strongly that the British Army has something to hide. Even if the full proceedings of the trial are published at some future date, there will be justifiable suspicion that they have been subject to editing. This is unfortunately yet another case of the lack of forethought and the general insensitivity that has characterized the coalition’s disastrous intervention in Iraq. Future trials of accused British soldiers must be held in Iraq and in public; otherwise no rational person will be able to put any confidence in the honesty and fairness of the outcome.
