The late Robin Cook, Jack Straw’s predecessor at the Foreign Office, used to argue in favor of an International Criminal Court by pointing out that if you were a murderer in a small town you would be hunted down and caught, tried and sentenced; but if you were responsible for the brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands you had an excellent chance of never being brought to justice. Gen. Idi Amin of Uganda comes to mind. I recently read the obituary of Dr. Milton Obote. It was suggested he was responsible for the killing of half a million people in Uganda — a greater number than normally attributed to Saddam Hussain. He never faced a judge in court.
The United States and the United Kingdom hope to milk the trial of Saddam Hussein, in a specially constructed court inside the blast walls of the Green Zone, for all it is worth. Here, at last, is a cruel dictator, a mass murderer with a penchant for starting wars, facing his accusers through the courtesy of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. We have a long road to travel but it is not looking quite like that at present. The trial stirs mixed feelings in the Arab world and there are real concerns over some of its aspects.
It has taken too long since he was captured by US soldiers in Tikrit on Dec. 13, 2003 to bring him to trial. It is a complicated matter but it should not have taken nearly two years. After he was captured it was wrong for the US, which should have known better, to allow pictures of him in his underpants and having his mouth examined by a doctor, to be shown around the globe. Even the most depraved and despicable prisoner has rights.
I have a feeling that his trial will be regarded as fair in the end. But that will largely depend on the five trial judges, who face great danger when they are away from the heavily protected court room. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, have warned that the trial will not meet international standards. They point out that many of his defense team, including Anthony Scrivener, QC, a British human rights expert, will not be in court. His defense lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi, has no experience of cases involving human rights or war crimes.
Being totally opposed to capital punishment, I am concerned over a possible death sentence. I appreciate this is not a common view in Iraq. But this is a major worry for both the United Nations and the European Union.
I would have much preferred this trial to take place in The Hague, and I believe that would have produced a better trial. However, America was never going to be so persuaded.
We all are anxious that this trial will have a beneficial effect in Iraq. In the words of The Times’ editorial (Oct. 19):-
“Without such a trial, there can be no reconciliation, no political emergence from Saddam’s malign shadow and no justice for the victims in Iraq and in Iran.”
We will hear cries from Saddam Hussein’s supporters, and amazingly there remain all too many, that this event is an example of “victor’s justice”. In the real world the vanquished are hardly likely to organize trials! I am sure many Nazis in Germany only saw the Nuremberg trials in that light.
Some will claim the American influence has been overpowering and that the occupying powers were not authorized to set up such a trial either directly or through pro-American Iraqis. The American and British governments claim they have kept their distance, although offering legal advice to the prosecution which asked for it. The Americans have put up some 60 million pounds to finance this special court and will, inevitably, be responsible for the security for all at the trial. Saddam Hussein’s supporters are likely to try to disrupt the proceedings in any way they can.
Although the court is concentrating on the massacre of villagers in Dujail in 1982 — for the documentary evidence is readily available — there is a fear that this historic trial will go on too long. Slobodan Milosevic has used his trial for war crimes in The Hague as a personal stage to justify his past policies and to score points off his political rivals. As a result, the standing of that court has experienced some damage. The Iraqi judges, who were appointed under an interim Iraqi government, must strike a difficult balance between the right of the defendant to have his say, and the need to eliminate time wasting.
One must live in hope. This trial just might point the way to a new Iraq free from corruption and based on the rule of law.
