An Ignominious Sense of Justice

Victor's revenge at last

In what appears to be an anti-climax to the Iraq debacle, Saddam Hussein was executed swiftly and secretly as soon as it became apparent that all "legal" obstacles were out of the way. Obviously, there was some jubilation in many parts of Iraq and elsewhere over his death. Even so, the ongoing bloodletting in Iraq has relegated the fate of the former dictator to a mere footnote for many. Iraq and the Middle East will be no better nor any worse now that Saddam Hussein is dead.

For some Americans, on the other hand, the death of the former Iraqi dictator is important. After all, his capture and execution was one of the main reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. Indeed, for George W. Bush it was of extreme importance. It's quite obvious that the entire Iraq debacle was to avenge his father, who was humiliated after the first Gulf War in 1990. Despite losing the war, Saddam remained in power and was able to survive an uprising in the south and a coup organised by the CIA in the north. Claims of assassination plans against George Bush senior were never substantiated, yet provided reason enough to further put pressure on Saddam Hussein.

Aside from the issue of a personal vendetta, there are other reasons for the execution of Saddam Hussein at this point in time. Symbolically, the end of December provides a convenient date with which to remember and celebrate his death. Strategically, it opens a "new chapter" to America's quagmire in the Middle East. Many pundits expect that with Saddam no longer in the picture, an anticipated spring offensive to try and bring the country under control can be sold to the American public as a "fresh start". Likewise, for those in favour of pulling out US troops, such a move could only be possible if Saddam was no longer alive. After all, the prime objective for going into Iraq was to kill the former Iraqi dictator; to leave without Saddam dead and buried was unthinkable.

Yet the assumption that the death of Saddam Hussein will make some sort of a difference in what happens next in Iraq is wishful thinking. The civil war in Iraq has a momentum of its own. Thus, the anticipated spring offensive will most likely fail in much of the same way as other offensives and "fresh start" ideas had in the past. As for a US troop withdrawal, aside from a psychological and propaganda boost, the way in which American soldiers will return defeated from the deserts of Iraq will be more or less the same now that Saddam is dead.

Perhaps what is most significant about the former Iraqi dictator's execution is that it once more lays bare the hypocrisy of the motives and actions of the western world. First and foremost, despite attempts to rewrite history, the reason why Saddam was toppled from power was not because of the crimes he committed against his own people, but because of the supposed threat he posed to his neighbours and the rest of the world. To this extent, the invasion of Iraq was conducted under false pretenses as the allegation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was clearly untrue. Indeed, this means that under international law George W. Bush is just as guilty for war crimes and crimes against humanity as Saddam Hussein.

Not only this, but the notion that Saddam Hussein represented evil beyond measure for the crimes he committed against his own people ignores some important facts. First, he is not the only dictator who has committed such crimes; secondly, such crimes committed by other dictators have been much worse in scope. Despite this, the international community turns a blind eye to such ongoing abuse in other parts of the world. A case in point is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, complete with his own version of a "Hitler mustache". The only difference is there is little oil in that part of Africa which, in terms of the attention economy, is a dark and forgotten continent anyway.

Aside from this, the hypocrisy that the EU displayed toward the execution of Saddam Hussein further erodes any sense of moral leadership that Europe may think it possesses. Although the Finnish presidency condemned the execution after it actually occurred, Europe didn't raise its voice strong enough to the sentence when it was first announced. Also, the faulty way in which the trial was conducted, in where judges were replaced and members of the defense team murdered, should have been noted as a cause for concern. Indeed, if Milosevic was taken away to The Hauge to face charges of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, why shouldn't Saddam Hussein have received the same treatment? The answer is obvious: if found guilty in The Hague, Hussein wouldn't have received the death penalty.

In addition to all this, there is also an EU internal matter which needs to be addressed. The death penalty is not tolerated within a united Europe; indeed, a country can't be a member of the EU if the death penalty exists, and Europe reserves the right to refuse extradition to another country -- including the US -- if the a person will face either torture or the death penalty. Yet despite these supposedly high ideals, the UK welcomed the execution of Saddam Hussein. This raises the question as to whether the UK really belongs within the EU, and what forms of sanctions Brussels should impose on London for its attitude toward Hussein's execution. Failure to confront this issue would seriously undermine one of the main cornerstones of a supposedly "united Europe". Unfortunately, it has become increasingly apparent that Europe doesn't speak with one voice -- even when it comes to the death penalty.

In the end, few tears will be shed for the death of Saddam Hussein. Without doubt he was a brutal dictator who received the same type of punishment that he himself meted out to others. On the other hand, looking at the larger picture, all the blood and death which is now a common occurrence in Iraq is foremost due to the desire for revenge by George W. Bush. The execution of Saddam Hussein, therefore, doesn't represent true justice, but victor's revenge.