Reader Emad Hassan drew my attention to Imad Hajjaj’s latest cartoon, which I found personally annoying. In the cartoon he refers to Saddam’s trial as an act of "humiliation to Arabs." As an Arab, I was not humiliated; quite the contrary I am glad justice is being served.
The only thing that bothers me about the trial is how arrogant Saddam appeared to be, showing absolutely no signs of repentance for the crimes against humanity that he committed during the days of his oppressive regime.
Kais from Beirut Beltway refers to an editorial in the Daily Star in which the author discusses how both Lebanon and Iraq are on the path toward justice.
In both Iraq and Lebanon, the many citizens whose lives and families were affected by murderous regimes are hoping that the regimes’ leaders will be dealt heavy punishments by the courts.
If carried out properly, the trials of Saddam and former Lebanese and Syrian regime figures will mark a turning point in the history of the Arab world. Holding rulers accountable to the rule of law is unheard of in the region, where dictators, royal families and despots have habitually acted with impunity.
Indeed, it is a turning point in the history of the Arab world. It is not an act of humiliation as Hajjaj suggests. But then again Hajjaj might be playing on the emotions of the Jordanian street, where support for the popular Saddam is fierce. So Mr Hajjaj, although I really admire your work, this time you got it wrong.
UPDATE: Amir Taheri has a compelling piece about Saddam’s trial in the Times of London. Here is one excerpt:
Saddam is enjoying what he denied his victims: a public trial with defense lawyers of his choice and the rule of evidence taking into account the principle of reasonable doubt. Here a new Iraq, based on the rule of law, will be trying the old Iraq of cruelty and corruption. The Arabs will watch and decide which they would rather live under. The rest of the world should also watch to decide which side to support in the struggle for Iraq’s future.
The humiliation is for all who once supported him;first, he was supported by the west during the first Gulf War, then, more closely supported by Jordan and its king who considered him ‘ The guardian of the east gate of the Arab world”, then, both Palastinians and Jordanian when he invaded Kuwait; we all were wrong and unfair because we were biased to our own agenda, not the absolute truth (if absolute truth exists). Now, we all might be doing the same thing over and over and never get the lesson, because we are not used to democracy; we all worship the leader; if you doubt it, go and read your local newspaper. If we act otherwise, we fear the intelegence and the consequences. We are not better and a lot of injustice is done until the day comes when we can question even the leader of what he does, and why he does so;like what we see in the USA. I hope what is happening those days is the begining of new era, and whether it is a humiliation or not, only time will tell.
Inshalla Jeff…
Beware the benevolent interventionist! 😛 lol There is some truth to that but of course the country is already changed … the mere presence — the spirit — of those willing to risk death to vote for change is a change in and of itself, although some might say that change is not worthy of the price being paid. But hopefully one day that will prove far less true. One thing is certain: the realities of this intervention will be far more clear 18, 24, 36, 48 months from now.
I hope you did’nt/don’t find my remarks offensive.
Autonomy is indeed a driver of utility for most rational agents. For the fear of reitirating the bitter rhetoric that most of my Arab brothers and sisters voice, I will only say this: The benfits of autonomy through democracy are diminshed when the voters’ chances of getting killed on the way to the ballots are higher than their chances of actually changing the country. Perhaps the benevolent interventionist should have forseen that?
Hamako
Not so fast Hamako. You are making the basis for your argument based upon the situation today, saying that Saddam’s presence would mean less loss of life on a daily basis. All things being equal, the situation — the finality of this action — are not yet fully known. They certainly are not good at present, but that will change one way or the other. I think that your acknowledgement of a desire for regime change suggests that you too think — perhaps hope — that in actual fact a greater good will come down the road from Saddam’s ouster, meaning that the logic of the argument in the long view has greater veracity than you suggest.
Nas,
I really do not have any asnwer for why Saddam was not tried at the Hague. Maybe for fear of dragging the trial forever like what happened with Milosevic.
Dear Hamako,
Thank you for clarifying the philosophy behind the lesser of two evils but I guess from my argument I was clear that I support the current democratic process in Iraq nowadays even with the presence of US troops.
Natasha,
“The lesser of two evils” implies a utilitarianist approach; i.e.the greater good over the individual. It seems quite a bit contradictory that you say that given the rest of your argument. Ceterus Parabus, given that human life is valued at a premium to autonomy, consistency would imply that the greater good would ensue Saddam remaining in power, and the 500 some iraqis that die every week are still alive. I will not venture into criticizing your argument, largely beause I agree with regime change, however I think you based your opinion on the wrong philosophy. Thank you.
Hamako
Natasha, I agree with you to some degree as you make a valid point. Though Im not suggesting he be tried in the hague, i support the iraqi option, what im asking is why wasnt he tried at the hague. There is a purpose to why it was done at this point in time. And yes Iraqis are happy. But notice what emad hajjaj wrote about “iraqi justice” and the bigger banner behind it. while some iraqis feel it is justice most arabs feel it is humiliating. and its not a matter of who’s right or wrong (because i think iraqis are right on this one) its a matter of emotions and sentiments the arab world is feeling right now. while some iraqis feel the objective of the court is to carry out justice, emad is pointing out a greater objective, one that i believe most arabs feel when they see these images on cnn.
There are other instances where war crimes/criminals are tried in their own country. Just look to Africa, where actually a Jordanian judge has gone to participate. Saddam is some long time from his initial arrest so a timely trial is at hand, unlike the extended period that passed in Africa, leaving many perhaps innocent people stuck in terrible conditions awaiting their day in court.
The real trick of this whole situation is that the entire nation is not “with” the idea of trying him. That’s a tricky wicket really. The current insurgency may have many ideals and goals, but to a certain degree at least, they’d be with the idea of a Sunni return to power, something most associate with Saddam’s power, however mistakenly.
So here a balance must be struck where Saddam must be given his right to a trial in a timely fashion, while also the trial must be put together such that it doesn’t split the country. The idea, I’m sure was that there would be some legitimacy to having it in country, to having legitimate lawyers represent him. But it’s just an ugly situation.
I’m also sure that the Hague, although an ideal location, has now become a dangerous place because of Milosevic and his use of the court to actually rally support and delay the process even further. To put Saddam there … that’s surely a once bitten twice shy situation for the world outside. So, what to do?
There is no way to win this one. The idea of a trial, however, is not a “humiliation” for Arabs. At least it should not be. This man should not be seen as a representative for Arabs. He murdered, suppressed and invaded. He may have seem himself as Nasser’s successor but he was nothing but a sociopath bent on maintaining his power, regardless of whether that meant he should embrace a cause like the Palestinian woman or a faith like Islam.
I think instead of debating this ridiculous idea of whether trying him in Iraq is “Arab humiliation,” which it’s not. There should be some debate about what to do with Saddam. When his sons were killed, that didn’t work. Saddam still is a bit of a ticking time bomb. He’s charismatic and still has supporters who are still armed and still wreaking havoc. He’s like Milosevic but with an armed contingent still in country. What can you do?
I have a feeling that this trial will not work either but I think it should be given its due. I don’t think that American forces will benefit that directly from it. I think you’ll find this situation going more internal than those external might understand. The streets of Baghdad cleared yesterday to watch this first day. Of course, the trial was pushed off again, but the attention suggests something different than what might initially be expected could come from all this.
Arab humiliation? No, I don’t think so, unless Arabs want to suggest that this man is somehow representative of them. This trial is an attempt, however fallible, to bring some sort of closure to decades of REAL humiliation to a significant percentage of the Iraqi people. Why not let this busted, ramshackle attempt at justice putter along for a bit. Let’s see where it goes before any further flawed analysis comes forth.