Saddam - What next?

What interests me is the basis on which the trial is conducted. Given that, under the UN Charter, the internal affairs of a country are its own, Saddam's actions in ruling Iraq, repugnant though they were, are not open to legal challenge by any normal legal procedure. What may be needed is a rerun of Nuremburg, where a special court of the Allies with special jurisdiction was set up to try the leading Nazis, not only for their aggressive actions against foreign countries, but also for "crimes against humanity" (slave labour, the Final Solution).

Here, the Americans are going to have to be extremely careful. If it is an American tribunal, it smacks of victor's justice and it would be so easy to make Saddam a martyr in the Arab world (which, I suspect, is the role he'll seek). Coming at the time of the violent repression of the Palestinians by Israel, seen as the US surrogate in the Middle East, the whole business could explode very nastily in Bush's face, if it isn't handled correctly.

One solution would be to involve the UN and have it set up a court, along the lines of the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia). However, that was dealing with a different situation (a country that had sundered itself and the efforts of one part to dominate the others). Many UN members are repressive (such as one Very Large Member of the Security Council with the power of veto), so it can't (and daren't) pass a general judgement on the internal politics of repressive regimes, providing a justification for removing those regimes from power.

In the end, it seems to come down to the Iraqis themselves. But back to square 1; on what basis? Saddam is undoubtedly in contravention of much of his own written legal code, so it becomes essentially a criminal trial. For its like, we have to go back to the trial of Charles I by Parliament at the end of the English Civil War. There, Charles invoked Divine Right to rule, but Parliament invoked its not-so-divine right to shorten Charles slightly. Strictly speaking, it had no right to do so, but it did anyway. Perhaps any Iraqi tribunal would have to stick its fingers in its ears and proceed. Saddam can be relied on to turn the whole thing into a circus, as per Milosevic in the Hague.

 

UN is not as effective as it should be. Very true. It is not in a neutral country such as Switzerland. Since its inception US made sure that what ever effectiveness UN had is undermined and diminished. Some of the original senior UN officials resigned in desparation and disgust.

Despite its shortcomings UN is thats all we got! Efforts must be concentraterd on making it stronger.

Only other option that we are faced with is unilateralism by US, a country where democracy is being manipulated by the corporates.
Election of Bush was a straightforward capitalist venture for the energy corporations. Oil, Gas, Coal and Nuclear companies are the power behind Bush. Together, they donated more than $500 million dollars to put him in the White House.

As soon as he was elected, it was payback time and Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions dead and buried.

Bush administration have waived an agreement to allow Biological Weapons inspections of all countries, and not just certain nations. No-one expected this refusal, and everyone was deeply shocked by the revelation that US itself is interested, or indeed has, stock piles of these kinds of weapons.

The message that keep coming across is; America shows a disrespect for Global Consensus on all fronts, frequently ignoring the UN and international agreements.

 

Interesting reading.

I've heard it sugested it would have been better to have not taken Saddam alive. No need for a messy trial, less chance for "our" lot to make bigger arses of themselves. And wouldn't encourage possible hostage takings, threats, etc... to have him released.

 

ONE

I agree with you, and share Tones's fears.

But the fact is, the UN only played a role when direct war as very dangerous, that is, during the cold war. At that time, everybody knew that to launch missiles was tantamount to be killed by the missiles of the opponent, so the only solution was to skirmish political solutions – or political dead ends – in the UN.

Now America has got all the power, she can do as it pleases her, because there is no one to counter it in terms of real power. So, the UN can only protest - their role has been effectively suppressed by sheer war and economic power. You say: 'It's all we have'. I answer; yes, we've got nothing.

America has become the de facto world police. And, obviously, it is not going to police herself.

I have always abhorred soviet policy and oppression (it was even worse than USA's) but now it is very clear that the balance between the two superpowers was important.

TWO

I also agree with you and Tones when you say the main problem lays with the Bush administration. But guilt (or causal) attribution is a meaningless exercise in politics: I agree that Bush is acting like a small brained big muscled hominoid, but it can actually be shown mathematically than when one acts like that and there is no opposition/punishment, that will be the strategy to follow.

Now, concerning European leaders that glued themselves to Bush (Blair being the most obvious example, but there are many others) they certainly made an ethically condemnable move. But I wonder if they could actually act otherwise, because American money is important to European economy. Only France and Germany could actually act differently, and differently they acted.

As Lenin wrote, 'everything is connected to everything else'. We are all connected to America, whether we like it or not.

 

tones,
wasn;t the un already concerned with the internal affairs of iraq? they were sending in weapons inspectors before the start of the conflict. also weren't there some investigations and resolutions related to human rights violations in iraq which were not as well publicised as the wmd searches as they wouldn;t scare the 'merc'n public into war?
the 'merc'n's can be trusted to turn anything they touch to sh*t as they have an overweening arrogance that blinds them to any sort of empathic perspective. glibly stemrollering everything in their path and then wondering why the people left are pointing ak-47's at their back. from what i understand they have about 50% at least of iraq using said ak-47's instead of fireworks celebrating saddams capture how long before the 'merc'n's stuff their collective foot down their own throats and say or do something that unites iraq in their hatred of 'merca.
as i've said before i was in favour of the war against saddam hussein and think the world is a better place with him behind bars and out of power. the rest has been a black comedy of petty international name calling and playground stupidity. unfortunately there is now no one 'merc'a percieves to be big enough to stand toe to toe with the 'merc'n's in a stare down any more except perhaps the chinese and they are too busy eating everyone else's economy as an appetiser before they start on the main course that is 'merc'a.....
cheers


julian

 

Chaps

The answer is easy.......shoot him.

I cannot see anyone complaining.

Regards

Mick

 

mick,
i must admit my initial reaction was 'why wasn't he 'accidentally' killed during capture' but then the 'merc'n's love of the conspiracy therory and of the tell all book would have torpedoed that one. saddam has much more value as a political pawn to be dragged through the courts on tv and humiliated than as a martyr. unfortunately as this is 'merc'n justice he'll be able to sue the 'merc'n legal system from his palacial jail cell for billions in a civil suit all at the 'merc'n public's expense. but that's democracy for you.
cheers


julian

 

Yes the weapons inspectors were, but the point was that that activity was UN-sanctioned and backed by the appropriate resolutions. It was basically an extension of the UN-sanctioned war to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, in which Saddam had invaded an independent sovereign state and UN member, and had launched missiles at another non-belligerent state (Israel). In addition, Saddam actually allowed them in, although having got them there, he spent a large part of his time misleading them, perhaps to appear more powerful and grandiose than he actually was. Never underestimate pan-Arab feeling and the pleasure many Arabs get in seeing someone, even an unrepentant complete villain such as Saddam, stand up to the west. I suspect he saw himself as the successor to Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Arab world's great hero in the confrontation with the west.

To the best of my knowledge, there were never any officially-sanctioned investigations into human rights violations, or resolutions covering them. It's not relevant to the UN whose whole nature revolves around relations between individual sovereign states. What those states do to their populations is, as the Chinese and former Soviet Union had it, an "internal affair" and none of the UN's business. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was deplored, but nothing else could be done about it.

The sort-of-concluded war against Saddam was an unprovoked violation of the territory of a sovereign state and therefore completely illegal, no matter what anyone thinks of Saddam Hussein and his regime. But he was picked 'cos mah daddy fought him, and it's a good little potential vote earner, and it won't get us into nearly as much bother as that much bigger danger to world peace, North Korea, with (I think) the world's fifth biggest standing army and at least the capacity to make nuclear weapons.

 

tones,
http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/dec/1997/edec1997-269.htm

shows that they were at least looking into the question as far back as 1997. i haven;t done a full search as my net connection is slow at the moment.
the current war in iraq had many causes however the ceasing of human suffering in that country is in my estimation the most important effect.

cheers


julian

 

Tones, I don't understand your point; that it would have been more honourable to fight the N. Koreans and lose, than invade Iraq and not lose?

If it can be proven that either government didn't seriously believe there were WMD [or was negligent not to find out], then I agree the war was illegal.
Bush Sr didn't go to war with Iraq - Iraq invaded Kuwait and was repelled. After that conflict, people were bleeting that Saddam should have been toppled for ME peace. Thats what the Saudis said too, then they changed their mind..
As for a sovereign state, Iraq was a 20thC invention of the UK. Iraqis generally want 3 countries, and it is the rest of the ME who want it to stay unified.
Its true that the UN so far has not been involved in domestic atrocities. If it was a capable force, and not a representation of about 130 shambolic dictatorships and about 30 'reasonable' democracies then maybe it should get involved. The US has no more undermined the UN than other big states, though Bush is pushing the statistics up.
Why shouldn't the US vote for presidents that look after their own domestic interests? That seems fairly sensible to me. If anything the big corporations want less trade barriers/protectionism worldwide.
I think it shows more inadequacies of the EU and WTF that it took 2+ years to argue against US steel tarriffs, or maybe the 'united democracy' of the EU was happy to wait for 2 more UK steel plants to close aiding Hoogevens [Dutch] etc, and our UK leaders, as always, consider UK industry a low priority.

 

My point was that nobody should have been attacked and invaded, not Iraq, not N. Korea, not Iran. I am merely pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the WMD bleat, when someone manifestly with them (and flaunting) was ignored. As I pointed out previously, this is all about getting Dubya re-elected and being perceived to fight the "war on terror" without too many body bags (sure vote losers in more ways than one). So, we attack someone with zero capacity to harm the USA and no known terrorist connections, and ignore someone who is close to having that capacity and with lots of terrorist connections. Good, eh?

Bush Sr. never went into Iraq because that was the deal by which the Egyptians and Syrians came into the coalition - that the operation would be about freeing Kuwait and nothing else. The Arab countries wanted Iraq as a single bulwark against radical Islamic (and non-Arab, never forget) Iran.

It matters not one iota when Iraq was conceived. There is a large country called Germany next door, which has only existed since 1871. And there was no Norway until 1905 or thereabouts. The point is, these are recognised sovereign states with internationally-recognised boundaries, clearly exercising jurisdiction within the territory thus defined. Shambolic dictatorships they may be, but given the West's record of both literal and cultural imperialism in the rest of the world, I think we shouldn't push this too far. Making moral judgements as to the fitness of sovereign states is a two-edged sword, and this is why the UN wisely avoids it.

 

Aha, but that's not a resolution, merely an investigation by one of the UN's many special committees. One also has to differentiate between the UN (the political talking shop) and the specialised agencies.

I would put it to you, Julian, that the human suffering in Iraq has got worse as a result of the illegal invasion, not to mention the years of sanctions that hit the poorest and harmed Saddam not at all. Having said that, I am pleased that Saddam and henchmen have departed the scene, but never forget that that's the easy bit. Now comes the difficult bit - rebuilding a nation. It can be done. Thanks to the genius and foresight of General George Marshall, Germany was revived as a democratic nation from the Nazi ruins. Sure, there were ulterior motives (building a bulwark against the perceived Soviet threat), but there was also much selfless generosity towards a defeated enemy. A lesson had been learned from the First World War and the harsh terms of Versailles. The question in my mind is, can the current USA, selfish, navel-gazing, arrogant, pull it off? Because, if it can't, we shall shortly have a state of affairs that shall have us talking fondly of the good old days of that nice Saddam Hussein.

 

tones,
after a bit more digging i found this which seems to outline quite a few resolutions passed by the un concerning human rights issues in iraq
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/ca4e8ff73064bcccc1256a100046a725?Opendocument

if this:

isn't aimed at influencing internal affairs in iraq then i don't know what is.

as for suffering increasing in iraq due to the war then to be honest i dont think either of us is qualified to make or refute that statement as neither of us knows the level of suffering before the invasion occurred. what is known is that no one is gassing kurds like there is no tomorrow anymore.

your final point is one i agree with wholeheartedly the rebuilding of iraq should be done in as selfless a manner as possible however as we are talking about 'merc'n's here and rednecks at that i doubt it will happen. i'm more inclined to believe that a new northern ireland will be produced rather than a new germany. i hope i'm wrong though.
cheers

julian

 

OK, you're clearly correct on the Resolution one.

One shouldn't make too much of the Kurd gassing - nasty, yes, but it only happened once. Against this, it has to be remembered that Iraq once had the best living standards in the Middle East. Women had more freedom in Iraq than anywhere else in the Arab world, Jews and Christians were respected (Saddam's right-hand man Tariq Aziz was a Christian) and life was good. In a way, it was similar to China - let us have complete political control, don't demand freedom and rights and nonsense like that and the good life is yours.

Most of the loss of this can be levelled at Saddam's stupidity, first of all going to war against a country three times his size (Iran) and then making a grab for Kuwait. However, the sanctions finished it off, killing thousands of innocent children. Again this could be levelled at Saddam, who sought constantly to bolster his military position, but the fact was that sanctions were a blunt instrument badly wielded, and led to people blaming (with some justification) the west rather than Saddam.

I come from Belfast, so I don't like the comparison! However, this can't (or shouldn't) be allowed to happen. The basic problem with Northern Ireland is not that it's a problem, but that it's not a big enough problem to demand urgent solution. As a result, the British Government has never made any great efforts to solve it (such as seriously banging together the heads of the two sets of lunatics responsible). Iraq is much bigger and bristles with hidden firearms and people trained in their use. Any problem won't be a festering sore like Northern Ireland, but a major eruption.

 

Sorry to interrupt an ongoing(and interesting) discussion but saw mention of the issue of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and had thoughts spring to mind(-a rare thing, so best to make use of it )

If I'm wrong here, which I may be, I'd be happy to be corrected on the point, but I seem to remember reading testimony from an ex-CIA analyst from the time of the Iran/Iraq war who stated that it wasn't actually Saddam who killed the Kurds. Whilst it is true that he did the unthinkable and launched poison gas weapons on an area around Halabja in 1988, and therefore on his own people, this launch was in retalliation to a gas attack from Iran. The post-mortem records of the deceased Kurds indicated that the cause of death was from a cyanide based poison and, at the time, Iran was the only side using this particular poison, so, whilst it may be true that Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people, it may not be quite as true that he actually killed them or that he had the genocidal intent that messrs bush and blair are suggesting he had.

Much has been made of this gassing incident in the propaganda stakes and much of the true account, like a lot of other information relating to matters of this type, has been deliberately overlooked.

Anyway, again, sorry to interrupt but just thought the above might be of interest.

 

the comparison i was trying to make with northern ireland is that there are a number of fanatical groups in iraq who have a tradition of armed squabbling much as there is in NI.
saddam controlled them by being the biggest badass on the block - much as milosovic did in his neck of the woods whatever it's called this week.
the solution to this is an extremely complex one and i for one wouldn;t like to be saddled with it. bush and blair however are, i just hope they don;t run true to form and just run away when the going gets tough. or turn it into a 50+ year police operation.
cheers


julian

 

There is another aspect, Julian. Prior to the Bush invasion, Saddam had no connections with terror organisations. Now, Al Qaida guerillas are coming into the country to have a go at the US and British forces. Dubya said that Iraq was a haven for terrorists. He has made it one, silly git.

 

Yes, it was indeed of interest. Halabja always looked like a one-off punishment attack on the Kurds, always restive (in fact, the biggest ethnic group in the world without a homeland of their own). And it is well known that the Iranians don't particularly love their Kurds either.

Cyanide is actually not an ideal war gas - it disperses too easily, and I think it has to be generated in situ (HCN is produced by hydrolysis of solid sodium or potassium cyanide). In the Gulf War No.1 (against Iran), Saddam used mustard and similar gases, heavy vapours that stay close to the ground and that attack not only the lungs but also any exposed skin, causing severe burns.

 

Christian Aid, the British charity has accused the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq of failing to account for $4bn meant to help rebuild the country.

It calculated that the CPA had received at least $5bn in oil revenues and assets seized from Saddam Hussein's government. However, only $1bn of this could be traced, while the rest had simply vanished into a "financial black hole".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3206841.stm

Up to the nose with the proposed loans from the World Bank to pay US contractors who can charge what ever they want, Iraq is likely to remain a poor country for decades to come.

 

Anyone else not surprised by the fact that it is the CIA who are interogating Saddam?? Who better to tell all your secrets too but the people that the secrets are about to ensure they never see the light of day ?

I just find it amazing that Bush et al are using the Iran/Iraq war as part of their justification of their painting of him as an evil tyrant (not saying he's not a very bad man you understand).. when it was the Americans that equiped him, trained his soldiers and gave them the chemical weapons technology and then said.. "be a good despot and go beat up those religious zelots over the boarder with the toys we gave you"..

It's all well and good to point the finger and just point at the Saddam for all the ill he has done.. but don't for god sake look any further lest you find culpability amongst your own arms trade and politicians.

GTM