What lessons have we learnt from Iraq?
I am posting this
because I wrote it in 2006 as the Iraq war began to wind-down and the post-war
chaos was beginning. I am posting this again to remind people what happens when
we intervene in another country and go after a bad man and how we claim to be
doing the right thing yet do all the wrong things. Syria beware.
The latest on Saddam
Hussein is that he is on hunger strike. Is he attempting to commit some form of
asymmetrical war against the coalition? He has not yet died of starvation, so
this cannot be seen as an act of war just yet.
He is on hunger strike because "terrorists" have killed yet another one of his defence lawyers. The killing of Khamis al-Obeidi seems to be yet another delay on the road to trial for Saddam, who has been in coalition custody since December 2003. Saddam has asked for international protection for his defence team at his trial, which is still in its early stages. One assumes the prosecution team is well protected from the same "terrorists"
Hussein is on trial for numerous breaches of international law ("crimes against humanity" is how these has been summarised). Yet why is he on trial in Iraq? His crimes were committed in Iraq and beyond. Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait and attacked Iran, and are he will be charged with the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis.
He is on hunger strike because "terrorists" have killed yet another one of his defence lawyers. The killing of Khamis al-Obeidi seems to be yet another delay on the road to trial for Saddam, who has been in coalition custody since December 2003. Saddam has asked for international protection for his defence team at his trial, which is still in its early stages. One assumes the prosecution team is well protected from the same "terrorists"
Hussein is on trial for numerous breaches of international law ("crimes against humanity" is how these has been summarised). Yet why is he on trial in Iraq? His crimes were committed in Iraq and beyond. Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait and attacked Iran, and are he will be charged with the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis.
Most international
criminals such as Saddam would be, and usually are, tried in a third country
that has the ability to carry out a fair trial with the correct level of
security for all participants. The Hague is usually the best choice. Milosovic
was put on trial in The Hague, not Belgrade, and Charles Taylor is not being
tried in Monrovia or Freetown, which are no safer than Baghdad.
In some cases, trials
do take place in the country where the crimes were committed. The
"genocidaires" of Rwanda are being tried in Rwanda in an adaptation
of the local justice system, which is based on village trials known as Gacaca.
Based on the security flaws in Iraq and the failure to protect the lawyers, a trial outside Iraq would seem to be fair and to offer real justice. I know some people say no dictator deserves a fair trial. But don't we need to let Saddam give evidence and to let the evidence we have be shown to the world? Do we have enough evidence to fully indict him on all charges? If Adolf Hitler were alive today, would he be allowed to stand trial in Berlin with a panel of German legal experts when his crimes were only carried out not only in Germany but in most of Europe?
Does anyone else have the feeling that certain parties want Saddam to be tried in Iraq and put to death in Iraq? (The new Iraqi constitution, drafted by the coalition and the new Iraqi leaders, allows for the death penalty.). The trial will also be difficult to cover.
I have no doubt Saddam is guilty, directly and indirectly, of most of the charges. But that is not the point. The coalition would, by insisting on trial in The Hague or some other safe international location, show that it was serious about justice. And a trial in The Hague would allow Iraqis, both for the defence and prosecution, to participate in safety.
September 1 2013
Comments
Post a Comment