'We got him'

President Saddam Hussein deposed by the US was captured on December 13 at 8-30 PM -- Baghdad time -- at a 6-foot deep, dirty and rat infested cellar in the outskirt of Tikrit, his home town. It was obvious that some Iraqis informed the US forces about the hide out, which led to the arrest of Saddam Hussein. He had pistol and other arms by his side, but did not use them nor did he offer any resistance. He also did not commit suicide. It was undoubtedly strange, but one could see the following reasons: He was too tired and committing suicide would have added to his basket of sins. May be he wanted to take an opportunity to expose many things that the world did not know. One has to wait and see.

Undoubtedly, Saddam was a tyrant but there are other tyrants around the world who pose themselves as civilized people. In any case, he was a tyrant in his own country and to his own people and not to the American people. He killed many people, but who killed thousands of people in the unjust war against Iraq by using world's most powerful war machines including the cluster bombs? Who killed hundreds of children in Afghanistan and Iraq and later said, sorry, these were mistakes? Who were responsible for the deaths of about a million Iraqi men, women and particularly children due to unjust UN sanctions? Later the same members of the UN said the sanctions did not work, so the country must be invaded and the dictator be brought to justice. Then why did you leave him in place after he was defeated in the Gulf war which was fought apparently for a valid cause (Iraqi claim was different)? His removal at that time could have avoided the present disaster. Who should be responsible for all these "mistakes" that led to innumerable casualties and untold sufferings of the Iraqi people?

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

If Saddam is to be tried which now seems to be a reality, the first question must be answered first -- who authorized America to invade Iraq, a sovereign UN recognised state in the name of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which were yet not found there, in the name of fighting terrorism resulting in 9/11 with which Saddam had no connection, and destroy a sovereign country, kill innocent people and rob their sovereignty? Were not all these against international law and justice and against the expressed will of the members of the UN thus amounting to total defiance of the UN? If all these questions are effectively dealt with, only then the trial of Saddam would be proper. But can any one expect justice in this unjust world? Probably not. Age old system still prevails. However, President Bush appeared fair when he talked about the open trial that should withstand international scrutiny. But the idea of having justice done in Iraq by the Iraqis appear to be dangerous as now the atmosphere there is extremely charged. The comment by President Bush about "ultimate penalty" or "ultimate justice" was also not proper as this prejudged the case. However, his unwarranted comment received flak from the EU and the UN.

France and Germany, among many others, received world-wide acclamation for their stand against American unilateral military invasion defying the UN. But one gets baffled to see that both these countries have expressed satisfaction over the capture of Saddam and German Chancellor Shroeder reportedly sent a telegram to President Bush congratulating him on this. This seriously clouded their rightful stand in the UN on Iraq invasion. One doubts whether these two counties and similar others would ever get a chunk of the lucrative contracts of billions of dollars in Iraq.

For Iraqis, however, reactions were mixed on Saddam's capture. There were some rejoicings, but there were demonstrations too supporting Saddam that led to scores of deaths. Though it's a fact that Saddam is physically gone forever from Iraqi political scene, his shadow will continue to influence politics of not only of Iraq but also of entire Mid-East. For America, this is only the beginning. It seems that guerrilla fight would continue against American occupation. The Arab rulers would have to judge the situation and adjust their roles appropriately, otherwise, things may go against them as well.

Saddam must face trial and that should be in the internally recognised court or a Tribunal set up by the UN. Special Tribunal formed by the US cannot deliver justice as the judges selected may not be the neutral ones. Of course, the best course would have been to try him in Iraq before Iraqi people in the open court, but under the situation it would not be appropriate as everything is highly charged politically and emotionally and the system is under direct American control. The people working with the Americans are all anti-Saddam and heavily biased. In the first day's interrogation of Saddam some of the Council members like Chalabi, Pachachi were present. Pachachi was the Foreign Minister of Iraq before Saddam came to power. Saddam reportedly told him that 'you were the Foreign Minister of Iraq, what are you doing with these people (meaning Americans)?' This shows what Saddam is. On the issue of whether he had any WMD, his reply was 'No, Not at all.' On Kuwait invasion he said 'Kuwait was rightfully a part of Iraq'. On the victims of mass grave he said '…they were thieves, they ran away from the battlefields with Iran and from the battlefields of Kuwait'. On the use of chemical weapons on Kurds, he said 'this was the work of Iran during Iran-Iraq war'. He seems to be a hard nut to crack and had all the answers with him. Whether the court would accept them is a different matter. This is why an internationally recognised and neutral court is a must.

Saddam's capture may be something important for Bush in his election campaign. But the American people and the lawmakers as well as the British people would undoubtedly look for an answer to WMD as they still see that they were misled by Bush-Blair on WMD. So far as the American election is concerned it would also depend on how best Democrats use this in their election campaign. If the non-existence of WMD is finally proven, this would certainly be used by the Democrats to get an advantage over Republicans in the ensuing election. Only if a Democrat wins, there could be a possibility of some favourable change in the situation in the M-E, again subject to their appropriate handling of the situation there. Otherwise, the present problem which many seem as clash of civilizations and religions would compound and take a turn towards the point of no-return. This would be bad for all who love to live together in peace and harmony regardless of faith, culture, creed, colour etc.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador and presently the Vice Chancellor of Presidency University.