|
Handcuffed former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein stood in a Baghdad courtroom on July 1 and listened to a long list of charges read to him by an Iraqi judge. It was the first time he appeared in public after being transferred by the United States to the interim Iraqi Government.
As part of the transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to the war-ravaged country, the US handover of the power of Saddam's detention has caught more worldwide attention than its return of other sovereignty-related elements to the country.
Saddam's trial indicates that the deposed Iraqi president, who remained in power for more than 20 years, is entering the last act of a very dramatic life. It will be up to others to decide his fate. His lifelong merits and demerits, crimes and punishments will be measured and judged by the people once under his rule.
However, the trial of Saddam will be a process fraught with variables, controversies and even doubts. The final judgment of the case and its execution remains pending, although both the United States and the new Iraqi Government are determined to settle old scores with the former "dictator."
For the interim Iraqi Government, to bring Saddam to justice means its total negation and complete liquidation of all the stamps left behind by the old regime, including Saddam himself, his relatives, and his era. The process will also present the new government an important opportunity to smash the Saddam regime's lingering fetters and establish a new Iraq.
Throughout that process the new government can also demonstrate to Iraqis and the world how the Saddam regime wrecked the country and ruined its people.
In addition, exposure of Saddam's iron-fisted policies is expected to prod his disciples into giving up the blind loyalty they still feel toward the former president and thus shift their support to the new government.
Bringing the former president to justice will also pressure his most diehard followers into collapsing their resistance and terrorist attacks, and help maintain the much-needed stability in the turbulent country and consolidate the newly-established regime.
However, whether Saddam's handover and his trial are legitimate have also given rise to controversy.
Saddam's lawyers said the US transfer of the former Iraqi president and other former high-level Iraqi officials to the new government violates international law. They maintain that with the end of the US occupation of Iraq, Saddam and his fellows should be freed as prisoners of war (POWs) and it should be up to them to choose their own residing places.
The lawyers also said they should get protection from the US occupation forces and the United Nations (UN) instead of being handed over to the new Iraqi regime for trial.
But a spokesman for the International Red Cross expressed a different viewpoint. He said the United States, as the occupier of Iraq, should enjoy the right of deciding how to deal with Saddam.
With the trial of Saddam, the United States attempts to demonstrate to the world that it is the US that has eliminated a despot and uprooted a source of menace in the Middle East.
By transferring Saddam to Iraqis, the US also wants to show that it is the court composed of Iraqis themselves that found and stated evidence of Saddam's criminal ruling.
It is the US logic that the process of revealing Saddam's crimes can consolidate its own high-sounding moral foundation for the war in Iraq. The United States is well aware that the trial of Saddam by Americans and Iraqis will produce different effects.
But the US still cannot justify its war against Iraq, because it has neither found weapons of mass destruction nor evidence of Saddam's role in the al-Qaida terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001.
Certainly, numerous charges can be listed against Saddam during his two decades of reign. However, whether the country's current legal infrastructure can make Saddam's trial a just and fair one remains doubtful, although Iraqis have established their own interim government under the authority of UN resolution 1546.
The new Iraqi Government has inherited Saddam regime's diplomatic relations with a number of foreign countries and has gained diplomatic recognition from some countries, such as the United States, Australia, Denmark and Kuwait. It has also accepted legal documents handed over by the occupation authority.
Thus, the new government is completely qualified for a legitimate status representing all Iraqis in the international community. It should also enjoy the right and power of managing, detaining and trying its own citizens in accordance with related laws.
As early as at the end of last year, a special court was established for the trial of Saddam and other senior officials of his administration. Some experienced judges and lawyers were chosen for the court, and some renowned international law experts were invited to serve as advisers.
However, it is not enough to merely have judicial powers and a judicial body to judge Saddam. The key to his trial lies in what legal articles can be applied. The underlying problem is whether the case will be conducted under the laws promulgated by the former Saddam regime, the US occupying authority, or under international laws and other war-related laws.
The United States claims post-Saddam Iraq is a democratic country with rule of law, so any accusation and trial of a person should be conducted according to universally accepted laws and regulations. Otherwise, the result of the trial will be unconvincing to the defendant and unacceptable to the public.
New Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has explicitly expressed the old laws will be applied to Saddam's case and the death penalty, suspended by the US military authority, is to be restored.
If this is the case, the post-Saddam Iraqi legal system looks like a new bottle holding the old wine.
A country's judicial system serves as a core component of its political machinery. If the overthrow of Saddam does not lead to the change of judicial systems and legal establishment of the country, then where is the difference between the old Iraq and the new?
Obviously, the laws left by the occupation forces are also not applicable to Saddam's case given their lack of technical details. To submit the case to the international war crimes tribunal would mean the sacrifice of the country's judicial sovereignty.
The production of the new legal system in Iraq following the establishment of a new legislative body after the election also needs more than one year.
Under these circumstances, Saddam's trial will be a long process without immediate results in the coming months.
(China Daily July 9, 2004)
|
