IRAQIS MUST JUDGE SADDAM
by Amir Taheri
NEW YORK POST
December 12, 2003
December 12, 2003 -- AFTER months of soul- searching, it now seems certain that the Iraq Governing Council is prepared to put the fallen Ba'athist regime on trial. The decision is important because it ends the debate over who should hold the trials and where.
The council seems confident enough that the Iraqis can handle the task themselves: No need for a court outside Iraq, with foreign judges. The tribunal will sit in Baghdad, with only Iraqi judges to try Saddam and his associates on charges ranging from corruption to crimes against humanity.
Although long overdue, the decision has drawn criticism from the European Union and the United Nations. Their beef: The tribunal would exclude the U.N. and ignore internationally accepted judicial norms and practices.
The Governing Council should note the criticism - but do what it thinks right.
The U.N. and E.U., after all, still refuse to recognize the Governing Council as a legitimate authority. Both are reluctant to acknowledge that the toppling of Saddam's regime was an act of liberation for the Iraqi people. Thus neither can claim moral authority in telling the Iraqis what to do.
There is no reason why the Iraqis should trust the U.N. or the E.U. - they did nothing to curb Saddam's criminal activities. In fact, several EU members helped Saddam build his death machine while the UN played cat-and-mouse with him for 13 years.
Nor should Iraqis take notice of those who claim to represent public opinion in the West.
The suggestion that Western opinion may regard an Iraqi tribunal as "questionable" is neither here nor there. If by "Western opinion" one means the newly created coalition of Islamists and Stalinists, plus the usual fellow-travelers, it is enough to remember that it never organized a single protest march when Saddam was killing thousands of women and children with his chemical weapons, and filling all those mass graves.
But "Western opinion" has held marches to lament the demise of Saddam and denounce the liberation of Iraq, in the words of the British playwright Harold Pinter, as "a blood-drinking tea-party" by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. This "Western opinion" would rather put Bush and Blair, and the entire Iraqi people, on trial than utter a harsh word against Saddam.
Having said all that, the Governing Council should make sure that the tribunal conforms to the highest standards of justice.
To start with, the tribunal must limit its scope to the former regime's most senior officials, including Saddam.
On paper, the old regime boasted a wide base. The Ba'ath Party had more than 1 million members. Millions more were linked to it via trade unions, professional associations and youth organizations. In despotic regimes such as Saddam's it is impossible to live anything resembling a normal life without being sullied by the party in power.
A closer look, however, would reveal the narrowness of the regime's decision-making apparatus. Saddam trusted no one, except (perhaps) his second son, Qusay. He never informed anyone of major decisions, such as invading Iran in 1980 and annexing Kuwait in 1990, in advance.
His was more of a one-man-show than Stalin's in the USSR.
The Governing Council would do well to narrow the tribunal's scope to no more than a dozen or so senior figures, including Saddam. Their trial would, in fact, be the trial of the whole Ba'athist regime and its 35-year criminal record.
Iraq will also have to deal with mid-ranking officials who helped keep the Ba'ath machine in operation. These may number around 3,000 and could be dealt with through a special body, modeled on South Africa's post-Apartheid "truth and reconciliation" commission. Iraq does not need endless trials in which thousands of people are paraded in front of judges for months if not years.
For the rest, the council should prepare a general amnesty covering political crimes committed before the liberation. This would make it possible to bring non-political charges against those involved in other crimes, such as embezzlement, torture, rape, kidnapping, confiscation of private property and racketeering.
The work of the tribunal and the commission should take place in public. The tribunal should allow the leaders of the former regime to choice their own defense lawyers, including from among European jurists.
The tribunal should also invite testimony by foreign citizens, including the families of tens of thousands of Iranians killed in Saddam's chemical attack, and of hundreds of Kuwaitis murdered by Saddam's henchmen in cold blood.
There is no reason why the U.N., the E.U. and other interested foreign organizations should not send observers to the tribunal while the international media is allowed to cover the proceedings on the basis of clear rules.
Whether or not the proceedings should be telecast live is still being debated.
Some Iraqis believe that live telecasts could remind the nation of the show trials organized by Abdul-Karim Qassem, the first post-monarchy dictator of Iraq.
Others, however, insist that live telecasts would have an educational impact, both for the Iraqis themselves and the international public at large. There are still people, especially in the West, who refuse to believe that Saddam headed one of the nastiest regimes in human history.
Another issue debated in Iraq is whether or not to get the tribunal started before an elected government is in place. Some argue that the tribunal may be presented as an instrument of the occupying powers. But that claim could be countered by the fact that the tribunal will have only Iraqi judges.
Despite the obvious difficulties involved, it is best is to start the tribunal as soon as possible. In an electoral atmosphere, the issue could become a partisan one, with some demanding a "sea of blood" to avenge the crimes of Ba'ath while others preach limitless forgiveness. Such a debate could divide the people at a time it needs to remain united in a delicate period of transition.
Holding the tribunal now would enable the interim government that is to be installed by the middle of next year to focus its attention on the future, rather than the past.
E-mail:amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/13193.htm