December 18, 2003
SADDAM TRIAL:
MUST BE 'FAIR' AND DENY HIM A 'MARTYR'S HALO'
KEY FINDINGS
** Global
media urge a fair, transparent, public trial for Saddam, lack consensus on
specifics.
** Most
favor a "special" international tribunal, but U.S. antipathy to the
ICC is an obstacle.
** Saddam should be tried by an
"independent" Iraqi court; the U.S. must not "interfere."
** Many
say the death penalty is "not justice"; Hussein's execution could
make him a "martyr."
MAJOR THEMES
A special tribunal with 'international
participation' is the most 'elegant solution'--
Most
analysts determined that the only "realistic possibility" for a fair
judicial process would be with a special international tribunal modeled after
the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda cases.
Others debated whether to try Saddam in The Hague, since the ICC
"could be an intelligent way of not having either the USA or Iraq lead the
process." ICC critics, such as
Spain's conservative La Razon disagreed because, "it would be a
paradox if Saddam...winds up facing an international court that hasn't been
recognized by the U.S."
Furthermore, noted the centrist Times of India, the ICC has
"no jurisdiction" in this as "neither Iraq nor the U.S. have
signed up to its statutes."
Saddam must be tried by his 'own compatriots'-- Conservative papers in
Britain, Canada and Spain found common ground with leftist voices in asserting
that Washington "is right to insist that Saddam be tried by his own
people." On the right, London's Times
held: "It will not be for outsiders to decide whether Saddam should
hang" and if the Iraqis want to execute him, the Sun averred,
that's "their business." On
the left, Munich's Sueddeutsche Zeitung deemed an Iraqi trial "a
good idea because the Iraqi people will then have a chance to show their
democratic maturity." Echoing
global sentiment, Iraq's Independent Democrats Group-run Al-Nahdah
called for "a public and fair trial" whose aim is "not revenge
but upholding justice."
An Iraqi trial under the 'censorious eye of the
occupier' is neither fair nor 'legitimate'-- Skeptics in Latin America, Asia and the
Muslim world countered that a trial run by the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC)
would be tainted by the U.S., warning that "American justice will not be
acceptable to Iraqis." Expressing a
typical Arab view, Morocco's semi-official Le Matin du Sahara argued:
"Any foreign meddling, and specifically American meddling, would
compromise the trial's impartiality."
Asian columnists stressed the "key issue" is that the
"U.S. must not interfere in the trial." Euro and Latin cynics doubted Iraq's ability
to conduct a "fair trial," since "trials and justice have little
in common in the Middle East." A
Peruvian daily added that finding "competent judges" would be
difficult in "a country that has never known about democracy."
'Bloody atonement' for a 'coward tyrant' is not
justice-- Those debating the death sentence for Saddam
asserted that even though he is a "ruthless criminal" and may deserve
"even worse," his punishment was "up for a court of justice to
decide." Death penalty opponents in
all regions agreed with Zambia's independent Post that executing him
would "only give ammunition to those who believe in terror." While Muslim papers regretted that Saddam did
not choose the "option of sacrifice" and thereby enabled his own
"humiliation and ridicule," the UAE's semi-official Al Ittihad
wanted him kept alive "so he will be prosecuted in a civilized way; let
him be a model for other Arab executioners."
EDITOR:
Irene Marr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 110
editorials from 58 countries, December 15-18.
Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent
date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN:
"The Legal Limbo Of Saddam And The Prisoners At Guantanamo"
The center-left Independent held (12/17): "Saddam Hussein has been in captivity no
more than four days and he is already presenting almost as much of a conundrum
to the U.S. authorities as when he was at large. Initially, Washington gave the impression
that the ousted Iraqi leader was being considered a prisoner of war and
accorded all the safeguards of the Geneva Conventions.... The notion that Saddam might be treated
better than the hundreds in Guantanamo was clearly too much of a stretch even
for the U.S. Administration in full 'war on terror' mode. So Saddam is to be treated to the same a la
carte interpretation of the Geneva Conventions as the Guantanamo
prisoners. This means that while the
physical conditions may be tolerable, all the psychological, judicial and other
protections will go by the board. The
flouting of the conventions will start with his interrogation by the CIA which,
we may assume, has already begun."
"It's Simple: The Only Good Saddam Is A
Dead One"
Simon Jenkins commented in the conservative Times
(12/17): "The arrest of Saddam
Hussein outside Tikrit on Sunday was a mistake.
The only good Saddam is a dead one....
An Iraqi, not an American, should have announced his death to the
world. Instead the primacy of American
domestic politics again got the better of sound strategy. George Bush wanted Saddam on the end of a
rope but in his own good time.... Iraq
is still awash in blood. That blood
would have been saved by the bucketful had a grenade been dropped into a
certain foxhole at 8pm last Saturday. It
would have been the quickest way to draw a line under Iraq's wretched
past."
"Law Of The Land"
The conservative Times judged (12/16): "Human rights groups are calling for an
international trial to ensure political fairness. This call is as naive and inappropriate,
however, as the demand by some American politicians that Saddam be tried in
America. Neither would be acceptable to
the Iraqis, and both scenarios would be used by nationalists and Islamist
extremists to complain that 'victor's justice' was simply a way of justifying
the coalition attack.... The coalition
must make clear to the Iraqis that only a trial seen to be fair will satisfy
world, as well as Iraqi, opinion.... It
will not be for outsiders to decide whether Saddam should hang; Iraqis know
what their history demands."
"Let The Iraqi People Try Their Oppressor"
The conservative Daily Telegraph took this view
(12/16): "Whatever the difficulties,
Washington is right to insist that Saddam be tried by his own people. The status of occupied power is widely
loathed in Iraq and acts as a recruiting agent for the rebels. There are cogent political reasons for
America and Britain to dissolve the CPA as soon as possible. An important part of that process is the
opportunity for the Iraqis themselves to bring to justice a man whose crimes
were primarily committed against them, rather than see him handed over to an
international tribunal."
"Their Choice"
An editorial in the
right-of-center tabloid Sun stated (12/16): Both Tony Blair and George Bush struck
exactly the right note yesterday....
What matters most of all is that we restore to the people of Iraq their
sense of justice. If they wish to
execute Saddam as retribution for the hell he put them through, then that is
their business. And only their
business."
FRANCE: "The Political
Headache"
Guy de Carcassonne wrote in right-of-center weekly Le Point
(12/18): "International law offers
several possibilities, but the issue will slide from the legal to the
political, because the solution will require giving the UN a role which the
U.S. has rejected until now."
"Bush Savors His Revenge"
Correspondent Patrick Jarreau analyzed the
consequences of Saddam's capture in left-of-center Le Monde
(12/16): "For the Americans, Saddam's
capture has the sweet smell of revenge...and the fact that he was handed over
thanks to information coming from his own men is even more good news for
Washington. It proves that the balance of political power in Iraqi society is
shifting and that it is not completely set against the coalition forces.. While
this is strategically important, the argument can be turned around: If Saddam
was captured, it may also have been because he did not play such an important
role in Iraq's armed opposition.. President Bush does not appear eager to find
a compromise on Iraq with France, Germany and Russia, or with the UN.. Saddam's
capture and his future trial give America the glamorous role of righter of
wrongs, which it so likes. For President
Bush, it is a welcome respite from the criticism he has been facing since last
summer. But the debate over his choices since 9/11 has only just started."
"A Captive."
Bruno Frappat wrote in Catholic La Croix (12/16): "This captive must be tried and treated with
humanity. His treatment must be the
exact opposite of how he has treated his citizens and his neighbors.... The endless pictures we have been seeing of a
manipulated and dazed individual leave us feeling uneasy.... Some of those images violate international
conventions on the treatment of prisoners.
But their message is clear: of
victory for the American public, of reassurance for the Iraqis, of strength for
the people in the region and dictators, whether in power or in the making. Still, the debasement of an individual cannot
be used for either educational or strategic purposes."
GERMANY: "Where To Go
With Saddam Hussein?"
Christian Bommarius judged in left-of-center Berliner
Zeitung (12/18): "The exclusion
of the death penalty is probably the reason why President Bush refused to allow
the UN to try Saddam Hussein. Bush wants to punish the barbarity of the dictator
with the barbarity of the hangman. It
is likely that for him the crusade in the name of human rights would come to a triumphant end with the
administration of the death penalty....
But the Europeans aren't the only ones to believe barring the death
penalty is a minimum principle among civilized nations.... The fatal error of the supporters of the death penalty is that they
consider rational the reason they
present in favor of the death penalty.
The bloody atonement nurtures the illusion that, with the execution of
the death penalty, law and order is
restored again and 'ultimate justice' gains the upper hand.... But the death
penalty is not a question of justice but civility. George Bush waged the campaign against Saddam Hussein in its name,
and in its name, the UN must insist on
the extradition of the ousted dictator to a UN tribunal."
"Atonement"
Centrist Mannheimer Morgen noted (12/17): "Will Saddam's existence on earth end on
the electric chair? One thing is
clear: the butcher from Baghdad must
atone for his crimes. The danger that he
will take over the role of a martyr in a trial is not very great, since the
beginning of his captivity got trivial features: a depraved Saddam who cowardly
hid in a spider hole, was arrested without putting up any resistance.... Even the greatest fanatics in the Arab world
can do without such a hero. No
punishment can make Saddam's crimes unhappen.
This is why there cannot be a show trial. A trial in Iraq would certainly have a
purging function, but must be fair:
hatred and anger simply do not replace the rule of law."
"A Difficult Decision"
Centrist Darmstaedter Echo stated (12/17): "The United States is faced with a
different decision when it comes to deciding on the upcoming trial against
Saddam Hussein. The Americans are
urgently interested in interrogations that will reveal evidence of the original
reasons to wage this war: WMD and Iraq's involvement in terrorism. On the other hand, they must avoid any
appearance of imposing the justice of the winners and of carrying out a show
trial.... One thing is sure: the trial
can be a signal for Iraq, the entire region and the future relationship of the
West with the Islamic world."
"The Procedure Before The Trial"
Stefan Kornelius opined in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung
of Munich (12/16): "Saddam's trial
is a large-scale event that could easily end in a political fiasco. Saddam himself can try to turn around the
trial and spread poison, like Slobodan Milosevic did when he tried to turn his
tribunal into an accusation against attacking NATO forces.... The United States must make the most
important decision by choosing the trial site and the responsible body of
judges. All indications point to a trial
before an Iraqi court.... This is, in
principle, a good idea...since the Iraqi people will then have a chance to show
their democratic maturity in a trial that is based on the rule of law and is
transparent. Such a procedure would send
a signal to the country and the entire Arab world and will make an imprint on
the understanding of democracy.... The
legitimacy of the Saddam trial and the credibility of the ruling will be
closely linked to the legitimacy and the credibility of the new government. The more open it is and the easier the
transfer of power to the new Iraqi authority, all the better for the
trial."
ITALY: "The Only Way Is A UN Tribunal"
Vittorio Grevi commented in centrist, top-circulation Corriere
della Sera (12/16): "While in our case it would not make sense to
consider the establishment of a court by the U.S. and by their allies, like the
ones set up in Nuremberg and Tokyo...a realistic possibility could be the
creation, by the UN Security Council, of an international criminal court with
restricted competencies similar to those set up for former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda. This way we would guarantee on one hand the absolute impartiality of
the court and on the other the respect of guarantees of the defendants as
established internationally, including the exclusion of the death penalty.... This
would be a way to give the UN aegis to the ending of Saddam's political ordeal
- who has now gone from being a 'dictator' to a 'defendant' - preserving him
from the risk of a death sentence, despite his very serious criminal
responsibilities."
"The Horror Of Revenge"
Gian Giacomo Migone judged in pro-democratic left party L'Unità
(12/16): "Before the crimes he committed it is not easy to feel the pity
for prisoners which is established by the Geneva Convention. And yet, I'm
convinced that before the images broadcast by CNN worldwide, in which a medical
doctor checked the mouth of the prisoner as if he were a horse, millions of
people of a civilized world instinctively felt a sense of horror. ... It is
evident that the treatment reserved for Saddam Hussein will constitute a
fundamental testing ground for the ability of the occupying authorities to
favor the affirmation in Iraq of principles of democracy and juridical
civilization that were unknown under the former regime. The objective of every
dictator and of every terrorist today is to make us more similar to them, by
abandoning rules and values that they intend to destroy. Luckily for everyone,
Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, reminded us of this by affirming the need
to hold a trial which conforms to international law and that excludes capital
punishment, which has been banned by the UN General Assembly."
RUSSIA: "Who Will Try
Saddam?"
Vladimir Dunayev and Georgy Stepanov maintained in reformist Izvestiya
(12/17): "Right after the
ex-dictator's arrest, the Americans were acting in an ungentlemanly manner and,
strictly speaking, violated Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which deals
with a behavior that is insulting and humiliating to human dignity. That is, if Saddam is a prisoner-of-war, of
course. At the beginning of the war,
when Iraqi television showed captured Americans being interrogated, Washington
protested, calling this a violation of the rights of prisoners-of-war. Just like Talib terrorists, Saddam might be
put in a cage in Guantanamo, with no prospect of seeing his relatives or
lawyers. In fact, the Americans treat
him no better. Saddam Hussein may
deserve even worse, but it is for a court of justice to decide. For the time
being, the ex-dictator's fate is entirely in the Americans' hands.... The
United States wanted a small victorious war. It got what it wanted. George Bush
needs a good trump card to win re-election next year. Hussein, the ace of spades in the Iraqi deck
of cards, perfectly fits the bill. Which means that there will be no Saddam
trial before next summer."
"There Are More Questions Than Answers Now"
Oleg Shevtsov wrote in reformist youth-oriented Komsomol'skaya Pravda
(12/16): "Most Iraqis stayed away from the resistance, refusing to have
anything to do with the old regime.
That may change now. Destroying
rebellious General Dudayev during the first Chechen War only 'Islamicized' the
nationalists and increased the number of terrorist acts manifold.... The fact
that Baghdad is ready to restore the death penalty to use it against the
legally elected president makes the sensitive European public shudder. It is still doubtful that the judges will
act without bias under strict control from their U.S. 'aides.'"
AUSTRIA: "The
Interrogation"
Ernst Trost declared in mass-circulation tabloid Neue
Kronenzeitung (12/17): "Remorse is
not to be expected from the likes of Saddam Hussein. It is unlikely that he is
even capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. After all, his absolute
regime was based on the assumption that everything he did and everything he
decided was correct. From Saddam's point of view, even the use of poison gas on
the Kurds happened entirely in the interest of Iraq. When he had his own people
killed, they were obviously 'enemies of the state,' who deserved to lose their
lives. The dictator's view of the world was entirely in order--it only got
shaken up with the defeat against the U.S. Saddam was allowed to do
anything--anything but lose. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind about the
extent of his crimes, but an Iraqi court set up by the Americans will have to
fight hard for credibility in the eyes of the Iraqi people."
"Law And Justice"
Foreign affairs writer Thomas Vieregge wrote in centrist Die
Presse (12/16): "The evil spirit was dragged into the light and in front of
the cameras. However, this does not mean that justice has been done.. Saddam
must be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. As an act of
psychological hygiene, a rollcall of his atrocities is absolutely necessary for
Iraqi society, even though the process might be painful. But how can this be
achieved? As soon as the dictator was in American custody, the struggle for
criminal proceedings set in. Even after his arrest, Saddam is keeping
Washington busy. The faithful friends in London have declared that they are
against the death penalty. The majority of Americans, however, is expecting
just this result, if only subconsciously.. What must be avoided at all cost is
a show trial. A special tribunal in
Iraq, with strong international participation, would be the only correct way of
holding such an explosive trial and still stick to the rules of just ice."
"The Saddam Case"
Foreign affairs writer Gerhard Plott wrote in
liberal Der Standard (12/16): "The
problem is that Iraqi criminal law does not recognize crimes such as genocide
or crimes against humanity; the country does not have a strong rule of law; and
the question arises of whether impartial judges for Saddam's case can actually
be found in Iraq. The conclusion is that a trial in Iraq would, in human terms,
hardly be fair, as the verdict would be pretty obvious from the start: Saddam
would be hanged.. An alternative to a trial in Iraq would be the new
International Criminal Court, which has been operating in The Hague since 2002,
like the Yugoslavia Tribunal. This would certainly be the most elegant
solution, if it weren't for the fact that the U.S. does not recognize this
court."
BELGIUM: "An
International Court In Iraq"
Rik Van Cauwelaert opined in liberal weekly Knack (12/17): "The trial of Saddam should be a
catharsis and must take place in Iraq before an international court that
includes Arab judges. No other kind of
trial will have credibility in the Arab world.
The trial should be a catharsis, but it may also become an embarrassing
exercise for the United States--and for the Europeans who, in not such a
distant past, sold enough military equipment to Saddam Hussein to unleash an
Apocalypse in the Middle East....
Pending the trial of Saddam, the United States--preferably together with
the UN and the European partners--must start the reconstruction of Iraq."
"Saddam Should Be Tried, But Not Sentenced
To Death"
Baudouin Loos in reflected in left-of-center Le Soir
(12/16): "The question of who will try Saddam is an important one, as this
trial will carry a huge symbolic weight, for Iraq, for the region, and for the
world. Let us be clear: the tribunal that will try Saddam Hussein and his band
cannot be suspected of partiality, of hastiness, or of prejudice. The Iraqis,
who are Saddam's main victims, must play a central role. For them, this trial
would be a catharsis.... And how about
the verdict? Although there probably won't be any doubt about Saddam's guilt,
should we renounce our values and human rights, or should we refuse to sentence
to death a man who committed so many crimes? Yes, we should refuse to sentence
Saddam to death. There should be no exception to our opposition to death
penalty, even if this could scandalize the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi,
Iranian, and other victims of Saddam Hussein, who would find it fair that
Saddam be subjected to the same expeditious methods as the ones he inflicted
upon them. Lastly, it is likely that the
various direct and indirect complicities that Saddam enjoyed will be mentioned
during the trial. The West will probably not come out with an increased
stature. It does not deserve it, in fact."
"Trusting The Iraqis"
Foreign editor Gerald Papy in independent La Libre Belgique
editorialized (12/16): "Two
controversies have surfaced since Saddam Hussein's arrest. The first is about
the images--which some considered humiliating--of the fallen dictator; the
second is about the trial of one the cruelest dictator of the 20th
century. It seems that the decision to
air the images of Saddam Hussein after his arrest does not respect the Third
Geneva Convention, which prohibits exposing prisoners to public curiosity.. The
impact of these images among Arab populations will probably be harmful. The
U.S. Administration should have been more humble--didn't it urge U.S. media not
to show images of captured U.S. soldiers last spring?--and more cautious, as
Arab people have already--rightfully so or not--enough reasons to be hostile to
the Americans. Washington is much more
discreet about Saddam Hussein's trial. Of course, one should not expect the
world leading superpower, which did its utmost to shield its citizens from the
ICC, to gently hand over its public enemy number two to international justice.
Yet, George Bush's suggestion to create an Iraqi court that would be based on
the tribunals that were set up for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda is
somewhat reassuring. Let us hope that this idea materializes. If Saddam Hussein
were tried by Iraqis, that could have a liberating and redemptive effect after
decades of dictatorship and impunity."
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA:
"Things Will Not Be The Same"
Mirjana Skoko commented in Croation language,
moderate circulation Dnevni list (12/15): "Saddam Hussein's capture will mark not only
yesterday but the whole year 2003. We still have to wait and see what will
change, but one thing is sure that in America for Bush things will not be the
same. World's analysts can not forecast the
changes in Iraq after this capture..I do not know if it is good to compare
'domestic war criminals' with Saddam, or maybe it is all the same.. It is
strange that out of many U.S. services not even one managed to track the
letters that Saddam wrote to his wife and son. It is strange that no one was
able to track his visits. Common people say was not able or was not willing to
do that. It is the same story like the one with Radovan (Karadzic). Maybe
Americans are offering millions for the heads of war criminals only to justify
their stay? It seams that in Iraq a time had come for capturing Saddam. It is a
question when and will something similar happen in BiH."
CROATIA:
"Use Of (Arrested) Saddam"
Danko Plevnik stated in Split-based Government-owned Slobodna
Dalmacija (12/16): "The capture
of Saddam is a message to the entire world that the American visible hand is
over the international rule of law (ICC) which the U.S. has rejected because it
is inefficient (U.N.). From now on,
every dictator must fear that he will be deposed, and every democrat, if
everything else will fail, may be proclaimed a dictator. Even though dispirited Democrats in the U.S.
claim that since 'we have Saddam, we will have Bush for another four years,' I
believe that Saddam has been arrested too early in relation to timing of the
American Presidential elections (November 2004).... All these illegitimate actions do not reduce
claims of Saddam's atrocities, and the need to bring him before the all-Iraqi
or partly Iraqi justice. That's why the
mother of all questions remains who the new circumstances after Saddam's
incarceration have been created for? For
the Iraqi people?"
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Captured Hussein"
Ondrej Neff commented in the center-right daily Lidove noviny
(12/16): "It would be really a good
thing if Hussein were to be tried by a civilized court and not be sentenced to
death.... Killing Hussein could make him
a martyr, but a dictator sitting in slippers and striped pajamas in a cell is
the best recipe to strip him of all his charisma."
"They Found The Criminal They Will Find A Judge As Well"
Jan Jandourek wrote in the leading, centrist daily MF Dnes
(12/16): "Saddam is responsible for a lot of bad things. Who should judge him for that?. It is most
likely that the Iraqis will try Saddam.
This would be the best psychological step for the coalition, which is
probably worth it regardless the undoubted security risks. And it would also be necessary to overlook
that the dictator might be sentenced to death, which Europe is no longer
accustomed to. But advantages of such a
trial are apparent. Saddam wronged
mainly the Iraqis so therefore they would feel the satisfaction and the prestige
of newly established Iraqi structures would grow, if the trial takes place in
Iraq."
IRELAND: "Bringing
Saddam Hussein To Justice"
The center-left Irish Times declared (12/16): "President Bush...believes Iraqis
themselves must be centrally involved in any trial, a principle that has
widespread support. But there are many problems involved in putting it into
practice. After decades of brutal dictatorship there is precious little legal
expertise available in Iraq to mount such a trial.... A fair and open trial in which Saddam Hussein
faces clear-cut charges and has the opportunity to defend himself will make its
own contribution to legitimising democracy and the rule of law in post-Saddam
Iraq. It will also help prevent the former dictator becoming a martyr in the
eyes of his former supporters. The best way to ensure international credibility
is to draw on the expertise built up in other war crimes trials and by the
United Nations Security Council, which has organised and mandated them.... The Bush administration's attitudes to the UN
Security Council and to international law have been deeply ambiguous throughout
the Iraq crisis. For these reasons Mr Bush's welcome commitment to a process
that will stand international scrutiny should be handled very carefully by his
administration, if U.S. motives and interests are not to be misinterpreted
after Saddam's capture. Full UN involvement, including the appointment of
international judges to work with Iraqis in a tribunal, would be the best way
to avoid that."
"Let Justice Be Seen"
The center-right populist Irish Independent
editorialized (12/16): "Saddam must
indeed have justice. And the people he ruled so cruelly must have justice....
The more immediate problem is whether an independent, expert, fair court can
try him for his internal crimes and meet the test of international opinion. It seems improbable--especially if done under
the aegis of the 'governing council' as proposed--but it can be done with
American help and goodwill. The U.S. should not interfere or dictate, but
should hold free elections and lay the foundations for credible government and
a credible judicial process. The conduct
of the trial itself must be credible. Secret hearings would wreck its standing
in the Arab world. So would attempts to conceal Western (and other) complicity
in earlier times. The Iraqi people are
entitled to know just how the monster was created.... And while they work, the
Americans also have a job to do. The
Iraqis must hope that they can take Mr Bush's promise to stay the course at
face value. Saddam's capture removes only one obstacle. To scuttle at this time
would be disastrous. The U.S. owes it to the country it invaded to keep the
promise."
KOSOVO: "The Fall Of Leader Is Just A Door
To Purgatory"
Deputy editor in chief of the leading
independent, mass circulation Koha Ditore, Agron Bajrami wrote (12/16):
"After Saddam's capture, many in the world now expect and believe that in one
of the next weekends the same will happen to Usama Bin Laden as well.... And the Sunday's photo from Iraq, like the
one of the shackled Milosevic in front of the Hague prison doors, has carried
the powerful message: that nobody is eternal or untouchable. But there is another lesson drawn from the
arrests of criminals like Saddam and Milosevic: It is not sufficient to defeat
a leader if the policy he pursued and promoted is not defeated as well. Just
like Milosevic's surrender to the Hague did not bring about the denazification
and automatic democratization of Serbia, so the capture of Saddam does not mean
the end of troubles in Iraq. And in the Balkans this lesson has not been
regarded at all.... In Iraq too, on Monday it was proven that the fall of the
leader is just an entrance to the purgatory: in less than 24 hours from the
extraordinary news about the capture of the dictator, two suicide attacks were
carried out in Baghdad. To be even clearer: both Saddam and Milosevic had many
figures behind them, most of them unknown and anonymous, who kept the terror in
power undisputedly; from party soldiers to government soldiers to combat
soldiers. And these should be treated as well. Somehow. Otherwise the anonymous
armies of the jailed dictators will strike again.... However, and despite the leader was unmasked
in one weekend, the stripping of the policy that he left behind will take a
long time, very long time, a great caution about the victims and a zero
compromise with the army of anonyms."
NORWAY: "The Mother Of All Trials"
In the independent VG senior foreign news
reporter Per Olav Odegard commented (12/16):
"Saddam Hussein has lost everything but his megalomania. He has one
final role to play, as the main character in the TV drama 'The mother of all
trials.'. If Iraq is to heal its wounds, it is of the greatest importance that
the process against Saddam is carried out in a correct, internationally accepted
way.. It is most important that the process, for everyone who will see it,
documents the genocide of the Kurds, the use of chemical weapons against Kurds
and Iranians, WMD against civilians in the south of Iraq and the hundreds of
thousands who suffered and died in his prisons because of the megalomaniac
persecution insanity. Then we may, once again, ask ourselves why we let this
happen."
"Free From Fear"
In the social democratic Dagsavisen,
foreign news editor Erik Sagflaat commented (12/16): "Christmas came early for
President George W. Bush this year. He
is unlikely to receive a greater gift than the arrest of Saddam Hussein. But
the gift may prove costly when Iraqis, free from fear that the tyrant may
return, will demand a quicker end of the occupation and the right to govern
themselves.. It is by no means certain that the insurgency will be reduced in
the coming months.. It is important that the trial is conducted in a way that
convinces everybody.... Such an openness will also mean a certain price for the
U.S. The CIA supported the coups against the left-oriented head of state Abdul
Karim Kassen in 1963, which brought the Baath party to power.. Everything
points to an exciting trial. If it comes
about."
POLAND: "What Kind Of
Trial?"
Leopold Unger wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (12/16):
"That is the end of the dictator--but not the end of the dictatorship. The
dictatorship will come to an end only when the dictator is sentenced by an
independent court for the dictatorship's crimes.... Who should try Saddam and
how is not merely a legal question. One thing obvious now is what court should not
try this case. It can be neither a
makeshift court set up by the provisional authorities established by the U.S.,
nor an International Tribunal, nor any court abroad, least of all in the U.S.
What it comes to is a court operating in Iraq, but not an Iraqi one (they do
not know what a democratic judiciary system is); it must be a mixed
international body to judge crimes committed not only on Iraqis, but on the
citizens of Iran or Kuwait as well.... This trial must be conducted with
respect for all principles of democratic order and the right of defense....
Only such a court can issue a verdict for crimes against mankind - acting in
the name, and in the interest, of mankind."
PORTUGAL:
"Judgment Of Saddam Has To Be Rapid"
In his weekly column in leading financial Diário
Económico (synthesizing commentary broadcast Sunday evening on top-audience
private television channel TVI), influential center-right analyst Prof. Marcelo
Rebelo de Sousa noted (12/16): "To judge him in the International Court of
Justice in the Hague, to which the United Nations belongs could be an
intelligent way of not having either the USA or Iraq lead the process, of
bringing Saddam Hussein to Europe and making them responsible for the
judgement.... Without a doubt, that would be a way for the North Americans to
charm European public opinion. One thing, however, is certain. The judgment has to be rapid. The more time
the trial of Saddam takes, the more difficult it will be for the future Iraqi
authorities to stabilize the country politically."
SLOVENIA: "Broken
Pride And Backbone"
Barbara Surk opined in left-of-center Delo (12/17): "Protests in support of Saddam Hussein
indicate that it will be difficult to do justice in Iraq...even in case the
dictator--accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity--is
sentenced (to death) in a fair trial. Arab leaders are wisely silent. Namely,
trials and justice also have little in common in the Middle East.... It is likely that Arab public opinion will
see details about crimes committed by the Baath regime as 'western propaganda.'
Therefore, it is in the American interest that Iraqi [judges] hear the case. It
is in Iraq's interest is that Americans try Saddam Hussein because there seems
to be no Iraqi judge who would sentence him to death. American justice will not be acceptable to
the Iraqis, and Iraqi justice will be unacceptable to the Americans. The former
dictator is sitting where he and other leaders in the region--who receive
American support for manipulation of elections--should have been put ten years
ago.... But the American Authorities and
their local collaborators in the Iraqi Council are in a [difficult]
situation.... The number of people who
do not want Saddam to hang is not small in Iraq.... After the capture of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is
closer to a civil war than to democracy. Americans may have no alternative but
to...divide the country into three autonomous units.... It seems that the Americans are no longer in
a hurry to leave.... At least for some
time, Washington can draw Iraq's borders and 'democratize' the region according
to its own and Israel's interests."
SPAIN: "A Fair Trial
For Saddam"
Left-of-center El País urged (12/17): "Saddam Hussein should have a fair
trial, with all guarantees, and without the death penalty, regardless of the
magnitude of the horrors of his crimes.
Attaining this is vital for giving the newly rebuilt Iraq the rule of
law it has never had.... For now, Saddam
should be treated as a prisoner of war, since he is in the hands of the
occupying power. This implies respect
for certain rights. The Geneva
Convention and its protocols do not make him immune to being tried, but do
require that he be protected from 'public curiosity', a rule that the U.S.
failed to observe.... The trial may be
embarrassing for France, Germany and the U.S...which supplied Saddam's regime
with arms and pushed him against Khomeini's Iran. The trial of the former dictator and his
collaborators should serve, first of all, to give redress to the victims, who
number tens or hundreds of thousands.
But it should also serve to shed some light on all this past as a lesson
for the future, instead of covering up geopolitical disgraces.... A fair trial might become not just a symbol,
but a a precedent for Iraq and the whole region."
"In Iraq, By Iraqi Judges"
Conservative La Razon explained (12/16): "It's no
secret that the trial of the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has an
importance that exceeds the borders of his country. But, precisely because of
that, (Saddam) must be tried by his own compatriots, in an absolutely public
way that is credible for all the Arab world, where the figure of the tyrant
still has huge prestige among the most disadvantages classes.... The best and most practical way to try him is
through the new Iraqi institutions of justice. Because it would be a paradox if
Saddam Hussein winds up facing an international court that has not been
recognized by the United States....
What's essential is for the tyrant to answer for his crimes in a court
and under a process with the guarantees that he always denied to his victims."
"Iraq After Saddam"
Centrist La Vanguardia contended (12/16): "A trial
with all the formal guarantees--is such a trial possible in Iraq today?--may
illustrate the frightening crimes for which Saddam is responsible...but it will
also make clear his nature as an instrumental ally of many Western countries,
basically as a counterweight to the Iranian regime of the Ayatollahs. Scrupulous respect for international legality
has these servitudes, as is being revealed in the endless trial to Slobodan Milosevic. On the other hand, attitudes with respect to
capital punishment have significantly changed in the almost 60 years since an
international court condemned a number of Nazi leaders to death. The circumstances surrounding Saddam's arrest
seem to refute categorically the theory that it was he who led the resistance
to the occupying forces or inspired the strategy of the terrorist
attacks.... The symbolic nature of
Saddam's arrest will not go unnoticed among the population, for an end has been
put to the terror he continued to inspire and to speculations on his possible
return to power."
SWEDEN: "The Dictator In Baghdad Is No
Longer Immune"
Per Ahlin observed in national, centrist Dagens
Nyheter (12/16): "But there is a question that never had to be
seriously considered in Iraq: would some form of amnesty really have been the
worst alternative? If Saddam had been able to leave the country -- and it had
been possible to avoid a war -- would that have been a wrong and indeed
reprehensible action by the country that accepted him, and the rest of the
world that accepted this immunity? I do not think so.... For Saddam, the matter
has already been resolved. He will be brought to court.... The most likely
option seems to be holding the trial in an Iraqi court. But as in Sierra Leone,
there might be a mixture where the international community assists the national
authorities in what will necessarily be a long and complicated process.... It is naturally positive that legal
proceedings against Saddam can be expected. But, in my opinion at least, why is
the question of where the trial should take place even a subject of discussion?
It should be self-evident. The International Criminal Court -- which UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan has called 'a gift of hope to future generations'-- is
already in place. It is ready to start working, and it is difficult to imagine
a better case for it than Iraq. But this
will probably not happen. It must be admitted that there is limited hope of
this court ever becoming a functioning part of ordinary diplomatic life. It
exists, and that is an important step. But a court cannot survive simply by
existing. U.S. opposition is perhaps the biggest problem. President George W.
Bush has clearly declared that Washington has no intention of ratifying the
treaty, and there is a lurking fear that the tribunal will be nothing but a
toothless paper tiger if the United States does not take part. But a little
wishful thinking cannot do any harm. Saddam before this court would have been a
milestone.... It would have been historic in the true sense of the word."
TURKEY: "The End Of
Saddam--And A New beginning?"
Sami Kohen observed in mass-appeal Milliyet (12/17): "The dramatic finale for Saddam marks
the end of his 35-year-long era. This is
a victory for the Bush administration, but it does not necessarily ensure the
realization of U.S. goals for Iraq more generally.... The legal process will
also have an impact on Iraq's transition.
If Saddam is to be tried in Iraq, it would be best that the UN or
another international organization be given a supervisory status. Otherwise the trial will be controversial and
will provide an opportunity for pro-Saddam groups in Iraq to make it into a
political show. There are ways to
prevent more negative developments from occurring in the post-Saddam era. The U.S. as well as the IGC have most of the
responsibility at this point. Iraq is
still waiting to return to normal daily life.
The people of Iraq continue to suffer from daily problems. Security is still lacking. These are the immediate issues for the
coalition forces to deal with. The Iraqi
administrators are supposed to fill in the political-ideological gap in the
post-Saddam period with a new vision and the establishment of a new Iraqi
identity."
"Saddam Wants To Live Through The Final Act"
Fatih Altayli commented in the mass appeal Hurriyet
(12/16): "Everybody labels Saddam as a coward because he did not choose to
commit suicide. This might seem to be
true on the surface. Yet when you look
at the situation from the political aspect, Saddam may be acting
deliberately. Saddam as a 'live captive'
can be a more troublesome and complex issue for the U.S. than Saddam's dead
body. The U.S. has announced that Saddam
will be tried. We just don't know how
and where. First of all, the U.S. does
not recognize the International War Criminals Tribunal. Secondly, what kind of charges will he be
subjected to if he is tried in Iraq?
Let's not forget the fact that the U.S. failed to prove any of the
claims that provided the ground for the Iraq war."
UKRAINE: "Responsible
Person; Logical End To Saddam's Era"
Victor Zamiatin wrote in centrist Den (12/16): "The apprehension of Saddam would, of
course, have made a much stronger impression some two-three-four months ago.
Now the issue is rather what will come next.
Iraq can become a testing ground for whether the western understanding
of human rights and way of life can take root in an Islamic society.... It is difficult to imagine that Saddam alone
directed all the demonstrations, resistance and terrorist attacks from the
cellar where he was found. The future
destiny of the dictator, whatever it is--just like in the case of
Milosevic--will have only a fringe influence on further developments. The task for the international community, in
fact, now becomes more difficult--it is especially important now, when there is
no leader of 'old Iraq,' to avoid sliding toward fighting the Iraqis, to be
able to take their feelings into account and to practically prove that Iraqis
themselves will build their future....
It is still unknown how the arrest of the Iraqi leader will be
interpreted in the Muslim countries of the Middle East. His martyrdom can be used for instigating opposition to the West and for
the ideological refueling of the resistance movement in Iraq. Equally likely is that the apprehension of
Saddam can become an argument that will cause Muslim regimes to revise their
conservative foundations that are very far from democracy."
MIDDLE EAST
IRAQ: "The End Of A Dark Chapter"
Commentary by Mahdi al-Hafiz in Al-Nahdah, a daily affiliated with the
Iraqi Independent Democrats Grouping, led by Adnan Pachachi, averred
(12/16): "The capture of Saddam Hussein
does not only mark the end of a despotic and oppressive ruler but also the end
of an era during which the ruler resorted to all forms of deviant and ugly
practices. It marked the end of an era and an arrogant ruler that oppressed a
whole nation as he played havoc with the people's wealth and interests,
squandered the destiny of the homeland, and threw his people into destructive
wars.... Perhaps the most important
thing that we can deduce from this event is that we have to build a society
that does not allow a return to the era of injustice, tyranny, and oppression.
We have to build a society where no preference is given to anyone over another,
a society that belongs to all. This means insuring a suitable climate to
achieve national reconciliation and concord among all the social sectors in
order to build the new experiment. We have to close the chapter of internal
fighting and seek to build a democratic society based on justice and
equality. Perhaps the best way to
express this aspiration is by trying the symbols of the age of tyranny,
especially Saddam Hussein, in a public and fair trial whose aim is not revenge
but upholding justice and being fair to those who were treated unjustly.
Perhaps the capture of Saddam brought justice to the millions of his victims of
killed, orphans, and bereaved mothers. Such a trial will restore justice."
ISRAEL:
"A Media Victory"
Rogel Alpher wrote in independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz
(12/17): "He deserves it. Morally, there are plenty of justifications
for humiliating Saddam Hussein a bit in front of the world. He is a psychopathic mass murderer. But the American media treatment of his
capture is an Orwellian nightmare.... As a result of the images, the
humiliation of Saddam appears to be a goal unto itself. Ridiculously, it now justifies the entire war
effort, even though if Secretary of State Colin Powell had gone to the UN
Security Council to claim that America must invade Iraq to turn Saddam into a
homeless man, public opinion would have been shocked and outraged. There is no evading the feeling that the
well-oiled propaganda machinery managed in this case to rewrite history and
that public opinion has bought it.
Fortunately, Saddam really is a bastard.
But such passive public opinion is a horrifying sight to behold."
"The Death Penalty"
Nationalist Hatzofe editorialized (12/16): "Saddam Hussein's capture by the U.S.
army would, undoubtedly, be noted as one of the most impressive victories of
the world's greatest superpower and its president, George Bush.... The crimes and murders committed by Saddam
Hussein oblige him to be tried in a special court for war criminals that holds
the authority to sentence him to the death penalty. And we hope that those responsible for Saddam
Hussein's trial will act appropriately."
WEST BANK: "What's
After Saddam's Capture"
Ahmed Majdali said in independent Al-Ayyam (12/17): "Looking closer into President Bush's
speech, one would realize that Washington intends to maintain its presence in
Iraq and will not take advantage of the dramatic development of Saddam's
capture to expedite [its]...withdrawal from Iraq. It is thus for certain that the war in Iraq
will go on for a long time and will accentuate the American presence as an
occupying power, a fact that will legitimize all resistance attacks whether
they are carried out by Saddam's loyalists and radical groups or by mainstream
Iraqi forces."
SAUDI ARABIA:
"Before Death Penalty"
Deputy Editor Abdulwahab Badrkhan wrote in London's pan-Arab Al-Hayat
(12/18): "The Americans, through
the trial of Saddam, want to divert attention from the game of power transfer
without doing it actually. Who told you
that Saddam, since the collapse of his regime, was not useful for the
Americans? Saddam is determined to serve
their interests to the last moment and they are also determined to fully use
his services to the last point. For that reason, he has not showed resistance
and they have not killed him."
"Leaders Of Revenge And Mockery"
Abdulaziz Al-Jarallh wrote in Riyadh's conservative Al-Riyadh
(12/17): "Nobody wanted to see
Saddam Hussein in that picture. When I say Saddam Hussein I don't mean Saddam's
actions, crimes and mistakes, but I mean Saddam Hussein, the Arab who was
leading an Arab and Muslim country, in American custody.... It was a humiliating picture for the Iraqis,
Arabs and Muslims. We wish he could have
been captured by Iraqi troops, police, the Governing Council or militant groups. But to capture him in that humiliating way
was an insult to what remains of Iraqi and Arab dignity.... The spirit of revenge, which was expressed by
the members of the Iraqi Governing Council, was an unhelpful attitude and
tendency and does not lead to the road the Iraqi people have chosen, the road
of freedom and democracy."
"The Lesson Of Saddam"
Jeddah's English-language pro-government Saudi Gazette
(12/15): "Those attacking the
foreign forces in Iraq and the Iraqi politicians who are seen as puppets of the
American occupation are not all Saddam Hussein loyalists as some claim.
Analysts believe that there are over 30 separate groups engaged in attacking
occupation forces and some speculate that since Saddam is gone those who didn't
want to be associated with him will be encouraged to join the resistance which
will take a more nationalistic form....
Meanwhile, the capture of the Iraqi leader alive should be exploited for
more than just to give U.S. President George Bush's election campaign a much
needed boost.... It is a shame this
great lesson had to be learned through the services of an ugly occupation. We hope that the security protecting the
courtroom from a sudden devastating blast will not be American. Hopefully, Saddam Hussein will be tried in a
democratic Iraq, so that the lesson is learned."
ALGERIA: "Frustration
And Terror"
Deputy Editor-in-Chief Mahmoud Belhimer wrote in leading
Arabic-language El Khabar (12/15):
"Perhaps I cannot describe the frustration and terror that most of
the Arab countries have experienced after watching Saddam in the hands of the
American forces, but the shock of Saddam's (capture) is not greater than the
colonialization of a whole country by the United States of America and their
allies.... The Arab countries must watch
all that is happening in Iraq.... They
must also draw lessons (from Saddam's fate) that 'leaders,' who do not have the
legitimate support of the people on whose behalf they talk, will face worse than
what happened to Saddam and his collaborators."
"Jubilation And Humiliation"
French-language pro-opposition L'Expression opined
(12/15): "America is jubilant, and
the Arabs are humiliated after the pathetic capture of Saddam Hussein. If the end of Saddam had to be with such
conditions, would it not have been better for him to accept, at the beginning,
surrender and exile with his family, avoiding, thus, the terror of a war for
his people? Everybody will keep in mind
an image of a coward. Arabs, Iraqis, and
Palestinians will not forgive him for not choosing the option of sacrifice, by
swallowing arsenic, for example."
BAHRAIN:
"Saddam's Trial Must Be Civilized, Transparent"
Waleed Noueid wrote in independent Al-Wasat
(12/15): "Capturing Saddam marks a
new beginning for Iraq. This is the
reason that his trial must be handled in a civilized manner, transparent, with
a sense of historical responsibility. If
this happens, Iraq will have overcome its ordeal and it will become a free and
contemporary country that we can be proud of."
JORDAN: "An Obscene
Day!"
Hilmi Al-Asmar stated in center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour
(12/15): "It was an obscene Arab
day. The Arabs, or what's left of them,
should have bowed their heads in indignation and declared yesterday, December
14, a black day in their modern history.
It is the day when murderers and criminals became 'brothers' and beloved
ones. It is the day when the rats that
speak Arabic dared express their gratitude to Bremer and to the 'American
brothers' and called him a dear friend, because they captured a historical and
extraordinary Arab leader, who, not long ago, spoke on behalf of millions of
Arabs and Muslims and expressed what is deep in their hearts!.... Had the Iraqis themselves arrested their
leader, I would not have shed a tear for him.
Had the sons of Al-Rafidayn rebelled and dragged him dead in the streets
of Baghdad, we would have said that his people have that right. But for a gang of murderers wearing the
uniform of the American army to capture him, that is an obscene day. This is because the murderers who captured
him deserve to be put on trial before those very people they are stomping in
the alleyways of Baghdad and before those who are dying on daily basis in
Palestine.... Saddam Hussein was a
dictator? Maybe. Has on his hands the blood of innocent
lives? Maybe. But whoever amongst you, who is suffocating
your people with oppression, is without sin, then let him cast the first stone
at him!"
MOROCCO: "Who Will Try
Saddam?"
Aziza Nait Sibaha noted in semi-official Le Matin du Sahara
(12/16): "Mission accomplished, or
almost for Bush's family, whose son has just finished the job his father
started more than a decade ago.... But
when, how and for which crimes will Saddam be tried?.... The popular solution would be to try him in
Iraq, but a newly-created special court in a country that doesn't even have a
constitution yet cannot handle such an important case. And if international
expertise were called upon to legitimize the trial? Any foreign meddling, and
specifically American meddling, would compromise the trial's impartiality."
<
