Post-Saddam Iraq

Saddam Hussein's crimes were monstrous. Depravity reigned during his rule. Discovery of mass graves testify to many Srebrenicas having occurred. Hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and/or murdered during his rule. Though Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal is reported to have been fashioned after the International Criminal Court suggestions have been made that he may be tried by an international tribunal a la Milosevic or by the Iraqis on Iraqi soil by an Iraqi tribunal assisted by internationally reputed jurists. Such assistance, if taken, would not reflect lack of confidence in the Iraqi judicial process but would assure the world at large that the entire trial has been open, public and transparent. Besides, since Saddam Hussein was captured by the Americans who for better or worse are now occupying Iraq , Bush administration can not escape its responsibility in the process of final solution (not in Hitlerian sense) of the Saddam problem .Additionally the British are against capital punishment whereas President Bush would not be averse to see him hanged.

Given the monstrosity of his crimes which affected majority Shiites, minority Kurds, marsh Arabs and host of other people, Iranians reared in tribal culture may be disposed towards dispensing quick justice to Saddam Hussein. A potential conflict is palpable in this case, a clash of civilisations between Western liberal judicial ethics and time worn harsh and quick tribal justice to which Iraqis, notwithstanding the barbaric aberrations of Saddam regime, have been accustomed to. It would be fallacious to argue that the West and the East share the same values. Developing countries have a higher threshold of tolerance regarding kleptocracy of their rulers, whimsical judgement rendered by the powerful, denial of justice to the poor, enslavement by poverty, gluttony of the rich, and deprivation of the poor. Continuously widening poor-rich divide in developing countries is a fact of life. Scarred by these irreparable blemishes, a developing country like Iraq may find it difficult to hold a trial "above any suspicion that it merely is an exercise in retribution and propaganda"( NYT 15, 12, 2003). UNSG Kofi Annan noting that the former Iraqi leader has been accused of heinous crimes including gross and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law called for his open trial in properly established courts of law which would respect basic international standards and norms including respect for international humanitarian law.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Recent comments by Donald Rumsfeld that interrogation of Saddam Hussein by CIA may even take years give rise to several questions. How long will the Bush administration take to hand over Saddam Hussein to the Iraqis or to an international tribunal for trial? If his transfer to the judicial authorities is contingent upon the US authorities' satisfaction of the information elicited from Saddam Hussein then the timing of his trial becomes uncertain, more so as Saddam Hussein is reported to be in an uncooperative mood by his interrogators. Another question that may be asked is about his status. Is he being regarded by his captors as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention or as an illegal combatant leading an anti-American insurgency? Third, Geneva Convention provides that prisoners must at all times be protected , particularly against acts of violence and intimidation and insults and public curiosity .But Rumsfeld's comments on the graphic video taped pictures of Saddam Hussein's medical examination and other pictures after his capture telecast through the world , explained as necessary to assure Iraqis of his capture and to desist them from resistance for greater good of the people, do not hold out much hope that Bush administration would be much bothered with the niceties of the provisions of law. An illegal combatant, however, is not guaranteed protection under the Geneva Convention.

Now that neither connection with Al-Qaida nor possession of WMD has been conclusively proved against Saddam Hussein the only rationale for the Iraq war now boils down to "regime change"; ousting of a dictator who waged a long war against Iran (with American help); a short lived occupation of Kuwait (which resulted in the first Gulf War); and perhaps most importantly a virulent opponent of Israeli aggrandisement in the Middle East.

Insurgency against American occupation of Iraq has not abated after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Already questions are being raised whether Saddam Hussein was personally directing the resistance given the fact that his last hideout was not equipped to be a command and control centre. It is possible some Bathist elements were waging the war in his name or that the insurgents have become disjointed yet lethal like the Al-Qaida has become a protean enemy. Besides, not all insurgency was being carried out by Saddam loyalists. US intelligence believes that some of the insurgents are Iraqi nationalists fighting American occupation while some others are foreign terrorists who have joined hands in this anti-American war. If the group consisting of Iraqi nationalists prove to be the larger component than Saddam loyalists then anti-American insurgency is likely to increase in the coming days because those who had no interest in the restoration of Saddam Hussein to power will now join the ranks in anti-American struggle. Results of such resistance are, however, foreordained. Unless body bag's number is unacceptably high to the American people, particularly in an election year, then the Iraqis' fight against the American war machine would prove to be Quixotic.

The way Saddam Hussein's detention and trial are handled can be of immense importance to the Muslim world, particularly to the Arabs. Arab world in general in varying degrees has traditionally suffered from "democracy deficit", tolerated by the US for oil supply and facilities for military bases, may now have to embrace certain facets of modernity which has a fundamental contradiction with tribalism. Arab population may now demand greater degree of accountability from their rulers. Women in particular are likely to demand a say in the governance of the country. A research into present Saudi society, for example, revealed that 40 per cent of wealth in Saudi Arabia is in the hands of women. Women account for 53 per cent of the university graduates and 35 per cent of government employees. Women also hold 70 per cent of bank accounts.

One should not, however, underestimate the power of the conservative elements in the Middle East who are unlikely to give way to Western liberalism without a fight as there is an inverse relationship between expansion of liberal values and the power wielded by the conservatives. Late last year Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher expressed his worry that in the current situation the US resolve to reform education in the region and teach Muslims about democracy might play into the hands of the radicals.

Equally some western analysts worry that the circumstances that made Iran ripe for revolution may exist in Saudi Arabia today such as an economy heavily dependant on oil revenue, problematic demographic growth, disparate income distribution, non-representative government etc. Although Al-Saud dynasty is secure increasingly the Saudis, in particular the younger generation, are getting increasingly critical of the US' mono-centric policy on Palestine issue.

Unfair treatment of Saddam Hussein, regardless of the monstrosity of his rule, by Western powers could add fuel to the fire. Muslim discontent would not be from love for Saddam Hussein but what can be perceived as persecution of a Muslim icon by Judeo-Christian communities. Here the West is caught in the horns of a dilemma: not to punish Saddam Hussein would be unthinkable; awarding death penalty may make him a martyr in the eyes of many Muslims; any trial flawed by international standard and not conducted strictly according to international law will not be acceptable to the people in the West who are being asked to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction; any trial solely by the Iranians, the primary victims of Saddam Hussein's dance of death, is likely to be biased against the accused who will most certainly be awarded death sentence.

Arabs, indeed the entire developing world have a keen sense of history. Often they are reminded of Samuel Huntington's words: "The West won the world not by superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do". Bush administration would be well advised to consult apart from its allies, the Arabs and the Muslim world in order to gauge the possible effects of maltreating a fallen icon (to some) who may try to exact vengeance for his ignominious end. Besides, as already stated, passage from tribalism to democracy in the Middle East may not be easy where the role of an absolute ruler supersedes the role of political institutions and US attempt to impose a yet "alien" system may be viewed by local population as neo-imperialism. These are early days to make forecast about a post-Saddam Iraq; continuance or cessation of insurgency; length of US occupation and its effect on neighbouring Arab states; and effect of Saddam Hussein's final departure from the global scene. That his capture has been a turning point for Iraq is to state the obvious. What remains to be seen is whether Robert Kagan's proposed division of labour of the US "making the dinner" and the Europeans "doing the dishes" (extending the parable to the Middle East), or Samuel Huntington's thesis on Clash of Civilisations would prove to be right.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.