The preliminary court hearing in Baghdad last week to start the trial of
Saddam Hussein and 11 of his senior officials (on charges of war crimes and
killing his own people) launches a powerful process whose impact will be
felt far beyond the new and old Iraq. This is a long overdue and positive
step. Justice is the inalienable right of all Iraqis, and also of Iranians,
Kuwaitis and others who have been hurt by the former regime in Baghdad. I am
delighted that Saddam Hussein and some of his key associates are facing the
full force of judicial accountability. I wish them a fair trial, and an
appropriate verdict and fate as determined by the rule of law. I also wish
all this were so simple, because it is not.
As seen from the perspective of the wider Middle East and its complex
relations with other powers, Saddam Hussein is not the only person on trial.
Four distinct parties sit in the dock in that Baghdad courtroom: Saddam
Hussein and his deputies, all other Arab regimes and leaders who often rule
with impunity, the United States government and its hand-picked interim
government in Iraq, and the state of Israel.
Why these four? For two main reasons. First, because the very important
principle being applied in the trial of Saddam Hussein and his former regime
– the judiciary holds individuals accountable for their exercise of
sovereign power – is a universal principle whose very validity stems from
its equal application to all leaders, governments and countries. Second,
because the criminality that happened in Iraq under the Baathists did not
occur in a vacuum, isolated from the behavior of other Arab regimes or
totally alien to the self-interest of American foreign policy. Trying Saddam
Hussein while simultaneously acquiescing in the wider abuse of power
throughout the Middle East, and the double standards of American and Israeli
policies, is only partial progress – but progress nevertheless that must be
built upon.
The tantalizing combination of universal values being enforced in this trial
– the accountability of rulers and the rights of citizens – was first
broached in antiquity, and finally found anchorage and generated global
momentum in the 18th Century, with the French and American revolutions.
These principles have now reared their head again in Baghdad, but they are
not only about Iraqi tyrants or justice.
The mixed reactions to the court proceedings we witness this week will
continue to define how many in the Middle East will react to any development
– however noble its intentions – that emerges from the barrel of an American
gun. This trial of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, like the declared
American intent to democratize Iraq or rid it of mythical weapons of mass
destruction, will always be judged by most people in this region in a
regional and global context. Is the US sincere in its aims? Is it consistent
in defining goals and promoting values? Is it fair in using force to achieve
its stated goals? Do UN resolutions apply to Israel as well as to Iraq and
even Libya? Are other tyrannical Middle Eastern regimes subject to regime
change via the US military, followed by accountability via a US
military-appointed native judiciary?
Such judgment criteria based on universal equity are not very popular in
Washington, or in Fallujah for that matter. And that is the persistent
dilemma that troubles me and so many others. The continuing American
adventure in Iraq and the wider Middle East continues to highlight the
criminal dimensions of many Middle Eastern rulers and regimes; but it also
perpetuates distinctly American official disdain for the universality of the
rule of law – to the absurd point where the United States demands that its
troops and officials be exempted from accountability before the
International Criminal Court. This makes American policies seem chronically
hypocritical to most of the world, which in turn degrades the otherwise
strong appeal of fundamental American values, including the US
Constitution’s assertion of the “self-evident” truth that all men are
created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
If some truths are self-evident and universal, why does the US demand an
exemption?
As we watch the trial of Saddam Hussein and his deputies, we see part of
this principle applied, and part of it savaged. The United States may or may
not grapple with these issues in due course, but for the rest of us in the
Middle East our deeper dilemma remains undented by events in Iraq: How can
autocratic and irresponsible regimes throughout the Middle East be held
accountable? Who can do this if the citizens themselves are unable to do so?
What is the appropriate role for the international community in fighting
tyranny and promoting good governance? How can all nations in this region
live according to a single standard of international law and legitimacy?
These issues touch on the power structures and policies of all Middle
Eastern countries, Israel, and the US. It is good that the tyrants of Iraq
are facing justice. It is more urgent to keep working to determine how two
related problems in this region can be addressed: the abuse of power in many
other countries, and the hypocritical double standards that are such an
integral part of the policies of Arab, Israeli and American governments
alike. We can truly rejoice for the triumph of justice and liberty when they
are defined more by their universality than by their selectivity.
Rami G. Khouri is executive editor of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper,
published throughout the Middle East with the International Herald Tribune.
@2004 Rami G. Khouri, distributed by Agence Global
—————
Released: 6 July 2004
Word Count: 955
—————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606
Agence Global, www.agenceglobal.com