Home >> Middle East >> Iraq

     Email   Print 

Iraq: Prevailing Justice, but Unfair Occupation

Amit Pyakurel - 12/26/2005

Under Saddam, injustice and barbarity prevailed in Iraq. The citizens' democratic rights had been snatched and they couldn't speak against Saddam's atrocities. There was no one, except Saddam and his henchmen, to get hold of his monopolistic and brutal "laws" that was far from serving the basic sovereignty and welfare of the Iraqi citizens. The US invasion changed all that, and the former dictator is being tried under the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, led by hybrid legislation formed in accordance with the international and Iraqi law. Initial part of the tribunal started on October 19th, 2005, and after some weeks of interval, the trial continued again on November 28th, followed by various questions on its fairness and legitimacy.

The ousting of Saddam is given widely favorable response, but the American led invasion over Iraq has stood not without controversies and, moreover, the farcical face shown by the occupying troops in Iraq has raised global displeasure, concerning the incidents regarding Abu Ghraib jail and other similar instances, and the invasion itself seems far from justification of Bush's presumption of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Moreover, the previously described verification now has been modified as "fight against global terrorism".

Besides the justification of invasion and "illegitimacy" of the court which has been opted to punish Saddam and his henchmen, there comes a question of global humanitarian concern. Saddam subjected his citizens with unimaginable atrocities including tortures, murders, and innocent imprisonments, especially who were (or suspected to be) against his cold-blooded regime and its tactics.

So, how fair would it be to avoid punishing the former criminal just in the argument on the "illegitimacy" of the trial? The procedure is definitely out of the normal judicial practice and it also may not comply with the former dictator's self-imposed rule that would prevent him from being convicted or punished for the crimes he did. But, it doesn't mean that the dictator like Saddam should go scot-free, simply because the invasion was illegal and court has no base of Iraqi legal system.

At this time, the human rights organizations around the world have admired the trail causing that the procedure would favor the Iraqi citizens by bringing the culprit like Saddam into the book of justice, though some human rights groups have raised doubts about the fairness of the trail and neutrality of the court, and argued that the death penalty wouldn't be a right solution.

Nicole Choueiry, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International said in London, "Amnesty International considers the trial as an important first step towards bringing justice and reparation for victims of abuses committed during Saddam Hussein's regime, but we insist that the death penalty is not the solution for the problem,", when the trail started first time in October. May be not a "death sentence", but any punishment should be enough for the former dictator to realize his past sins.

When there is the global concern over the gross human rights abuse and the necessity for the Iraqis to get justice for their suffering they got during the Saddam's tenure, the question upon unjustified invasion and "unlawful" tribunal gets numb. The argument against the tribunal gets silent when we take account of those curious faces of numerous Iraqi families who gathered in front of their TV sets to view the televised coverage of the trail since it started first time, and prayed for Saddam to get punished because their kith and kins were brutally tortured or murdered by his ugly administration or the so-called "rule-of-law" designed to favour his own autocratic desires.

One Iraqi commoner was quoted as saying, "I am very pleased with Saddam Hussein's trail, and this could be the lesson for any tyrant in the world," while being interviewed by CNN after the trial initiated first time.

Today, every liberal human being around the world could view the newly established court in Iraq as intended to establish a humanitarian rule of law in the country. It was necessary to do away with the dictator's government and replace it with a globally recognized democratic institution, and such procedure holds an utmost significance at this juncture rather than the questions on foreign intervention and the "defiant" legislation. The controversial intervention policy or the President Bush's intentions also could be less considerable when the Iraqis are to get justice after the age-long oppression and injustice.

Though there is a weaker concern over the Bush's intervention policy and foreign occupation on the country's government regarding the punishment for brutality caused by a tyrant, the question arises: who is going to punish the criminal of humanity? Would that the prosecutor be just another perpetrator that violated the norms of international relationship and a nation's independence? The trail wouldn't hold the complete favour if it just be contingent on an unfair intervention policy, and such practice wouldn't relief the Iraqis significantly from the injustice, due to the negative side of the unfair invasion.

Of course, the expulsion of Saddam along with his evil rule has paved a way for the justice to prevail among the Iraqis. But, if the trail is expected for full-throttle fairness standing in its own, we can see another need of the hour that it should be carried out in a complete independence, and according to the independent will of the Iraqi commoners.

And, to ensure this independence the power grip of the US and other coalition troops over the country's government should be given-up, because a foreign occupation could be detrimental for the flawless credibility of the trail. Instead, a fair international diplomatic intervention and a close observation from outside could be more flexible to lead the trial through a curative procedure, which could help to create more favourable environment and would also lessen the controversies, ultimately to give justice to the Iraqis without costing their liberty and nationalism.

After all, the Iraqis are those who had become the victims of the Saddam's regime and are currently suffering amid the battle led by the foreign invaders and insurgents. The America or other countries cannot ensure the safety of the Iraqi citizens for ever, just by hanging around the foreign soil. So, the Iraqis themselves should be given chance to decide their own fate and punish their former dictator according to their sovereign perception, which could mean to heal their wounds in a real sense.