Fair enough

Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by an Iraqi court. The court was initially set up by the American Administrator, Paul Bremer and it has had two changes of chief judges. The new judges were appointed by the constitutionally-elected Iraqi government. The case against Saddam Hussein was investigated by an Iraqi judge, the witnesses were Iraqis, victims of his tyranny, and the verdict has been delivered by the Iraqi court.

In that sense, though people may doubt the legitimacy of this court, since it was originally appointed by the US Administrator Bremer, the legitimacy of this trial and verdict must be considered far superior to those of the Nuremberg trial or the Tokyo tribunal held at the end of World War II. They were pure and sample instances of victors trying the vanquished, with some of the charges becoming offences exposé facto. Therefore those who cherish those war crimes trials and still object to the Japanese Primeministers visiting the Yasukuni shrine where the spirits of some of the alleged Japanese war criminals are said to be consecrated cannot object to this trial and this verdict.

The facts of the case are not very much in dispute. In 1982, there was an attempt on the life of Saddam Hussein while travelling near the village Dujail, a Shia area. The assassination attempt was by the Islamic Dawa Party, the organisation from which today’s Prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki hails. Saddam Hussein admitted ordering the execution of 148 men as a reprisal and justified it as a wartime measure as he felt that the Shiahs were allies of his enemy, Iran. Those put to death included old, middle-aged and young teenagers. Saddam Hussein has been found guilty of genocide considering the disproportionality of his killings.

When compared to the verdicts reached by the International Criminal Court on Bosnian cases, the finding itself cannot be considered unfair or unjust. The popular reaction to the verdict in Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and other Muslim countries would appear to show that this verdict has been received in a celebratory mood. Though there was a curfew in the Sadr city of Baghdad, people broke the curfew to celebrate. Therefore it would be a mistake to consider this verdict as US-inspired or anti-Muslim.

Some have charged that the trial was not fair because Saddam Hussein did not have the choice of his lawyers for his defence. When the international community tried Slobadon Milosevic there were similar complaints. The Yugoslav leader frequently complained that the court did not permit him to have his full say. So did the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials’ defendants. It cannot be asserted that this trial was a model one and could not have been improved upon. But at the same time to run it down totally and dismiss it as an American-inspired one and unjust is not fair either.

India has recognised Nouri al Maliki’s government, the first government ever elected through free and fair elections though the country was under occupation. This verdict has a lot of emotional appeal to the majority Shiah population in Iraq. Therefore, care should be exercised in criticising the trial. There is yet another trial being conducted against Saddam Hussein for his massacring of the Kurds. Some observers had made the point that if the appeal in this trial disposed off quickly, and the death sentence is confirmed and execution follows quickly, it may not be necessary to follow through on the second trial. It is quite possible that to avoid that possibility the appeal process may be delayed and may be held over till that trial is completed. However, the second trial is of crucial importance since Saddam Hussein’s crime of use of poison gas was shielded in those days by the US and its allies.

India has been a victim of one-dimensional thinking by other countries in respect of the Bangladesh genocide. Both India and Bangladesh failed to bring those responsible to account with the result that it is today difficult to establish an objective account of the happenings of 1971. Similarly, India also paid a high price for supporting Vietnam and the Heng Samarin regime which freed Kampuchea of Pol Pot’s genocidal scourge. Therefore, India should not fall into the trap of adopting an emotional attitude towards the developments in West Asia. It is bizarre that those who found fault with India’s vote on Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency are today prepared to treat the Dujail Shiah massacre verdict as unfair. Let not objectivity become a casualty of anti-US sentiment.

The writer is a strategic affairs analyst based in Delhi.