Crimes against humanity; whose rights? who's right?

Kesarralal GUNASEKERA

DEATH SENTENCE: "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him" is how Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq declared the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Cheers greeted the announcement. For the Allied forces this was the greatest catch of all.

Tony Blair said in a statement; "This has lifted a shadow from the Iraqi people... that Saddam will not return".

And even for many other citizens of the world the arrest of Saddam Hussein was a relief, not because they greatly feared him, but because by that time the 'invaders' have already painted him bad. "The tyrant is a prisoner" is how Bremer beamed.

Saddam and his family received wide publicity particularly about their luxurious lives and crimes in the western media. The Time magazine once referred to sibling rivalry between the two sons of Saddam' Uday would torture his younger brother, going so far as to stab him in the thigh and break his ribs and try to blind him with a burning cigarette stub.

Over the course of four decades they would become, apart from their father Saddam, the most feared men in Iraq- responsible for untold numbers of maimings, jailings and murders and, in the case of Uday, rapes as well'.

In particular the US media did a great piece of work to establish that the Hussein family must die. The events which led to the killing of Qusay and Uday and photographs of their corpses also prepared the world for things to come.

Death of the two Hussein brothers was casually announced in the media with pictures of Uday and Qusay with the label 'killed' and photograph of their father with the label 'at large'.

So the capturing and the sentencing of Saddam Hussein to death by a US backed tribunal, came as no surprise to the world.

Nevertheless it made headlines in the mass media globally purely because of the events that preceded the trial. But does the killing of Saddam Hussein bring an end to the crimes in Iraq? And what lesson does it teach the rest of the world?

Iraq may not have a rich history that would cover thousands of years, but the hundreds that they proudly claim has always been oil rich. Saddam Hussein began his career in politics in 1958 and rose in the ranks to be elected the President of Iraq by 1979.

His style of governance, like any other person who desires to keep the power within his/her fist for over 20 years, was dictatorial. But was Saddam the only leader who followed a rule of "Do or Die"? Take for instance the many countries in the Commonwealth, the name alone signifies the exploitation of these countries, which were subjugated for decades by the British monarchy.

Did we not lose our leaders who stood up to the British? What difference do we see in the styles of governance of the British in the Commonwealth and Saddam Hussein? British invasion of countries in Asia and Africa saw extreme violations of human rights, people were suppressed and the British sought the support of certain clan of locals to take forward their administration.

But Saddam was no invader; he was an elected president of Iraq. Which does not give him the right to be a dictator but there is some legitimacy in him being the president of Iraq.

Even if we put behind us the fact that the British monarchy operated before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as we live in an era which respects human rights as supreme, the invasion of Iraq by the USA is no different to the British invasion in the 18th and 19th centuries.

It was forced and the Americans were of course 'carrying the white man's burden' of bringing democracy to Iraq. Two negatives may make one positive, but two wrongs does not make one right, even if it is done in the name of human rights.

In 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US Government opposed such invasion and promptly intervened to get Iraq out of Kuwait. But in 2003, the US invaded Iraq to bring down a dictatorial government.

If invading another country in 1991 is unacceptable, how come it is acceptable in 2003? Who is right? If the US invasion is to reinstate the democratic rights of the Iraqi people, then what about the rights of the Lebanese people? Whose rights must we safeguard?

The Sun tabloid newspaper which carried pictures of Saddam Hussein in his undergarments, contrary to the Islamic values, defended the case by saying that Saddam was "hardly entitled to a single human courtesy" as 300 people had disappeared under his regime.

Since the US invasion in Iraq thousands of people have been killed, but will George W Bush ever be stripped off his rights for these violations committed in Iraq? The lesson then is that only a section of humanity is entitled to rights.

The 'war on terror' policy of the Bush administration came into being following the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. It was a domestic problem that Bush was forced to counter. Interesting how this policy was taken overseas and particularly to invade a region which is responsible for the bulk of the world's oil supply.

According to Al-Jazeerah '... there was no mass uprising against Saddam Hussein since 1991 and the masses clearly not consent to the unilateral US aggression that began with the "shock and awe" campaign.

Even the rebellion in 1991 was confined to certain section of the Shia community only...for sure Saddam Hussein had many opponents but equally he had many supporters and even today he commands support from the Iraqis'. And the destructions caused by both Bush Senior and Junior, and the effects it had on the whole of humanity, shall we call them crimes'?

It is interesting and worthwhile to find out the progress made so far in reinstating democracy in Iraq. From the time of invasion, US led forces have been in the forefront.

Although elections have taken place and a new Iraqi government has been formed, the former Iraqi leader and the rest of the former Iraqi leadership is formally in the custody of Iraq, but he is held by US guards. The democracy and the freedom enjoyed by the Iraqis is under the patronage of foreign forces.

The Independent (UK) newspaper recently reported 'Americans were quick to say that the conduct of the trial is determined by the Iraqis.

In reality, its day-to-day arrangements are run largely by the US Embassy and the US Regime Crimes Liaison Office. American security men guard the court and American and British legal experts act as advisors'.

The British paper goes on to say that the US has spent millions of dollars collecting evidence, training judges and furnishing the court.

Then, does the tribunal which sentenced Hussain to death have any legal right to be and carry out a trial? If it didn't, then is it a fair and just verdict on the former leader of the Iraqis.

In an interview with the BBC, the Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri Al-Maliki said that Saddam will be hanged before the end of the year ignoring the right to any appeal process. But then again the decision on when Saddam goes to the gallows is not at all for Maliki to make.

Different Iraqis may have differing opinions about the sentence on Saddam. Some may oppose, some may propose to hang him sooner. But the biggest problem for most Iraqis is not whether Saddam should live or die but staying alive themselves.

Furthermore, if Saddam is the sole villain of the Iraqi people, by now, as he stands on death row, more than half of the problems in Iraq should be over.

But by May 2005, over 100,000 civilians were killed as a result of the US invasion. Kidnappings and killings continue, while bombing and attacks on the Allied forces have not yet ceased. Iraq is not governed in a democratic way and it is worth taking stock of who is fighting now? And for what?

There is a man who sits in Parliament Square in London in silent protest of British troops being in Iraq. He has been there since Britain sent her troops to support USA over three years ago. And he will not move from his makeshift tent until the British troops return. He is not alone in what he believes.

There are many British and American citizens who oppose the invasion and the occupation of Iraq by the super powers. It is interesting to go back in time and quote some poetry from 19th century at this point.

Those that I fight I do not hate,

Those that I guard I do not love:

Why are American and British soldiers dying while trying to bring democracy in Iraq? They neither love those whom they defend, nor hate those whom they kill. Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis do not like the presence of foreign forces, particularly the violence and violations.

If Iraqis have a right to justice and democracy, why are they dying in these inexplicable events of violence. There has to be an end to the woe in the Gulf, only then can we declare that the people's right to life is protected.

This essay is not about justifying Saddam's dictatorship or condemning Bush's actions; but opposing both and highlighting the fact that in the name of humanity many crimes are committed. Saddam Hussain's dictatorship is not the first of its kind, neither will it be the last.

In both the world wars people have died, but after human rights were universally accepted in 1948, peoples of the world had reason to believe that rights are might. Utmost importance was given to human rights. Rights of people are not only what is just but what people are entitled to.

But the events that unfolded in the aftermath of the 'Bush invasion' of Iraq has taught us the lesson that 'Might is Right' and not necessarily the other way around.

Beginning with allegations of mass destruction against Iraq and finding out that there was only 'mass deception' the Americans confidently forced itself on Iraq scraping her soil and raping her Islamic traditions and values.

The US which thrives on alleged crimes committed by Saddam Hussein has committed equally grave crimes against humanity in the 21st century and has been able to go scot-free simply because of its might as a super power.

The United Nations has opted to turn a blind eye, a deaf ear and a mute mouth to all that is done by the USA in the name of humanity. The pressure and the embargoes which the UN can bring on developing countries engrossed in armed conflict do not apply to the United States of America.

Today there are many countries which are preparing for war. And the precedent which the US has created can only make other warring nations prove beyond reasonable doubt that their actions are fair and just.

The universal norm which is being applied today is not about whose rights, but who's might is right for the fight.

In conclusion, let us set a scenario in 2020 where Iraqis capture George W Bush who is retired from politics and has forgotten that he even was the President of the United States. He is tried by an Iraqi tribunal and is sentenced to death for his grave crimes against humanity.

Can the 'learned' of our world keeping mum now about Saddam's sentence cry foul then? Or is it fair to sentence George W Bush? Can we try so many such persons in absentia and sentence them?

These are some of the questions to which we must find answers; so that when the next generation questions us, we are not dumb founded as we are now.

The on going crisis in Iraq gives new meaning to the concepts of human rights, democracy and justice. Unfortunately these meanings provide no direction towards development but towards destruction.

And there are governments such as ours which look towards the US for endorsement of State initiated violence, and as peoples we are going head-on towards disaster. And if there is anyone still interested, the ultimate victims are innocent civilians who have to die to sustain the super powers.

For me, there is one glaring lesson in this death sentence; we have tried Saddam Hussein and failed all humanity.