The Execution: Does it bring any change? *

2007-01-07 5:43 p.m.

“A chapter in Iraq’s history has closed,” said President Bush, one of the many remarks he made about the execution of Saddam Hussein. It is certainly more than that. A chapter has opened in Iraq’s reconstruction and America’s Foreign Policy in that country and the Middle East.

No doubt there was no justification for Saddam’s indiscriminate murder and torture of thousands of Iraqi and Arab people under his rule. There was certainly no justification for the usage of chemical weapons against the Iranians in the 1980s or the invasion and destruction of Kuwait.

But then as many have debated, was there a justification in his trial at all? I’ll briefly state that quite that it was destined to have fixed verdict after all and that whether it was a proper trial by proper legal standards, the end verdict was clear. Second question: Was there a justification to hang him or should he have been locked up permanently? Human Rights activists and anti death penalty supporters would say no, those who lost love ones because of him would say yes, staunch death penalty proponents would say its better to kill him that to keep him alive under so much funding.

Can we view Saddam Hussein’s hanging like that or any murderer? Yes, we can debate the pros and cons of the death penalty, but killing him has been said to spark a rise in the insurgency in Iraq. I say “has been said” as there isn’t much evidence to support that as yet. With or without Saddam’s execution, the end verdict for his trial has already provided fuel for the insurgents in the country. With or without his trial, there was an impetus to continue the violence in Iraq and his death would just at the most create a catalyst, but perhaps not such a big one, for the anti-Iraq government/coalition forces attackers.

The answer to the above is perhaps still the long sticky issue of whether the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has brought about any positive effects. People have stated that the rate of killings within the three years of “freedom” is far further that the killings during Saddam’s rule. Of course, the country is “free” from the clutches of a dictator, but not in the hands of stability. The prospect of a stable Iraq looks even more illusionary than ever now. To say that Iraq can now be an impetus for democracy in the Middle East is also close to laughable (more on than later on.)

But returning to what President Bush said, we reach what has been said in the above paragraphs—that a dictator has been removed and that a dictatorship has been ended. This is nothing unique is history, the closest example is that of World War Two, where the rule of Adolf Hitler was ended. I suppose the case of Slobodan Milosevic can also be considered too. But, if my sources are correct, Saddam is the first dictator to be captured by a foreign power, placed on trial and executed. Hitler never saw justice brought upon him—he committed suicide and so did his close associates like Herman Goering. Stalin, died a natural death and never paid for the millions her sent to the gulags. Milosevic was placed on trial at the Hague, but his trial was riddled with potholes and prolonged. What happened to him? He died of a heart attack before any verdict could be placed on him. How about Pinochet from Chile? His trial too was postponed again and again and he died—of heart attack, like his Serbian counterpart. Saddam is the first dictator put away for good. And despite all claims from the new Iraqi government, it cannot be said to be solely an Iraqi affair.

Which brings me again to the point on the invasion of Iraq. What has the execution or at the least, the trial of Saddam meant for the US and its “coalition of the willing”? The normal answer is that justice has been served, the people of Iraq have served the punishment on the one who made them miserable for the last quarter of a century or so, and that this is a step to a stable Iraqi government. But the underlying truth is that it has proved that their main reason for war back in 2003, “to eradicate Saddam’s ability to use WMDs” has not be proved at all. Of course the secondary (but only later) reason was to free Iraq, which technically the war and the execution has done. But as said above, freedom is far from visible and that stability is not within a grasp yet. Another reason was to prevent Iraq from being a haven for the terrorist to operate from. But naturally it has been shown that Saddam was far from a great friend of Osama Bin Laden, and that even with the invasion and his death, the terrorists are still prevalent in Iraq. One must also not that “terrorists” in the words of America and to a lesser degree its allies are not simply everyone causing havoc in Iraq. Some are Al-Queda linked, some are simply pro-Saddam, some may be just wrecking havoc for havoc’s sake while others are just venting frustration at the US backed Iraqi government. President Bush has claimed that Iraq was the centre for the War against Terror. The execution will still drag on the mess in Iraq, turning it not in the centre of the War on Terror, but the centre of America’s long self created mess. The execution does not bring the US one step closer to finding Osama Bin Laden or weaken Al-Queda but pushing it.

What does the execution of Saddam mean for the new Iraqi government? Firstly, the execution took place during a Muslim holy day, which should not have been missed by the Iraqi officials themselves. The word was that the execution was hurried by the Iraqis so as to give a sort of positive impetus for the current situation. Naturally, it is only those handful in the government who believed that this move is a positive move. I suppose it will be for those Iraqis who really hated Saddam (see below) but it was more to “do something good” after achieving little since they were elected. Instead, they’ve earned the condemnation from Iraqis and fellow Arab states, the main countries they should be trying to ally with, and not America and her partners. Execution over, they should focus on the insurgency, not by bringing in more foreign troops, but winning the hearts and minds of the people.

How about the general populous? Does the end of Saddam’s life mean anything to them? As mentioned above, you can split them into the pro-death penalty and the anti-death penalty groups. You can also split them into those who saw the execution as justice for their dead or maimed love ones and those who have never saw the terror of Saddam’s rule. But as I said, stability is the main thing the people are looking for and have always been looking for. Democracy should come next, yes, but not one that is western controlled but Iraqi formed. Saddam’s death however, as also noted, will not reduce the level of insurgency. So the status quo remains for them.

What does Saddam’s death mean for the wider Arab world? Previously, the invasion was already condemned, and his execution follows along the same lines—that it is one of western intervention, western imperialism. Democracy no doubt brings benefits, but as Francis Fukuyama argued, America should spread democracy, but not by force. Saddam’s death could signal to the Arab states a sort of “western victory” and indicating that other countries like Iran or even Syria could be next in line for “transformation”. What is more likely is that Arab states would watch the US next move in Iraq or the Iraqi’s government next action. However, I believe it is time they as countries of the Middle East also band together and influence America’s moves in the region.

What does Saddam’s death indicate for the wider world then? As mentioned, he is the first dictator to be trialed (whether properly or not) and executed. Will other dictators like Kim Jong Il be worried of an American led invasion and subsequently their trial? This is not a strong probability, given complexity of new geo-political relations. It might make the people of those states think again about their suffering and attempt to rise up against their leader. Perhaps. What is more likely is a continued, if not greater rise in the terrorist threat in countries with the fevour of revenge on the terrorist minds. What will continue then is the spectre of the threat to America and the political actions to safeguard Americans. That will lead us back to the same story and a never ending cycle of “fear” and perceived threats.

A chapter closed for Iraq? Hardly so. The status quo remains and the distant future is murky.

Side Note: The views here are entirely that of the author’s and he makes no attempt what so ever to instigate any disharmony between any groups.

previous - next