Posted on 12/22/2003 9:39:33 AM PST by knighthawk
Having lost the battle to block the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, war opponents are now demanding that Americans accelerate the transfer of power to Iraqi civilians. Yet, since the capture of Saddam Hussein earlier this month, many of these same voices have been insisting that international, not Iraqi, courts be given the task of trying the former dictator for his numberless crimes. Iraqi jurists aren't ready for such a complex case, the critics argue. Instead, they want the job handled by legal carpetbaggers from The Hague.
In the case of many war opponents, the reconciling principle takes the form of a single-minded obeisance to the forms of multilateralism. This group includes UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a leading war opponent who last week said he doubted Iraq could "guarantee" that Saddam's trial would be conducted "according to the highest international standards." A few days later, he told the media an international court -- that is, a UN court -- should be put in charge. Just as before the war, Mr. Annan is far more concerned with the prestige of his talk shop than with the fate of Saddam or the country he ravaged.
There is also another motive at work: saving Saddam from what U.S. President George W. Bush approvingly calls "the ultimate penalty." Capital punishment is standard fare in Arab nations -- not to mention many other countries, including the United States. Yet to Mr. Annan, the European Union, the world's brand name NGOs and other death-penalty abolitionists, the prerogatives of Iraqi self-government must be bounded by the dogmas of Strasbourg and Turtle Bay. Given the allegations of "imperialism" hurled at the United States by war opponents back in March, the irony here is rich.
But Western fetishes regarding multilateralism and the death penalty are the last things on Iraqis' minds. And that suits us just fine. Saddam Hussein was the leading symbol of militant Arabism. And when he takes the stand to answer for his crimes against Kurds, Iraqi Shiites, Iranians and Kuwaitis, it won't just be him on trial, but also a repressive political culture that has denied basic freedoms to 250 million Arabs in almost two dozen nations. To shift such a symbolically freighted tribunal to another place -- or even to put it under the supervision of foreigners while conducting the proceedings in Iraq -- would undermine its significance. Indeed, it would send the message that democracy and human rights are Western ideologies that can only be ministered by robed Western priests.
As a purely practical matter, moreover, it is wrong to assume that trying Saddam for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is beyond the skill of a domestic Iraqi tribunal. The country, by all accounts, has many fine judges who survived the dictator's purges. Moreover, the mountain of evidence -- collected by dozens of NGOs, Iraqi groups and foreign governments -- is overwhelming: This is not a trial that will turn on esoteric legalisms.
No country is truly sovereign until its own courts represent the highest forum for crimes committed within its boundaries. If the war critics are sincere when they demand that Iraq achieve self-rule as quickly as possible, they must permit Iraqis to try the monster who once lorded over them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.