& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Saddam's trial, US' travails
AT last the Iraqi dictator has been brought to face justice and his fate. Perhaps the freedom loving people of the world ought to take note of the wheel of fortune coming full circle on Saddam Hussein. However, Iraqis feel that his onetime sponsors and those that helped Saddam in his ascent to unbridled power, should also be held accountable for their acquiescence in, and in some cases support of, his crimes.
Some analysts say that the trial of Saddam is a clear message that no dictator can take shelter of national sovereignty to escape the hands of international law against violation of human rights of his own people. They, however, do not suggest as to what the consequences are of dictators, or indeed of liberal democrats, who perpetrate the same degree of misery on other nations, on the grounds of preserving national security or national interest
based on falsehood and deceit.
Saddam is perhaps the only head of state in recent times, except for Milosovich, who is having to account for his actions of the more than thirty years of ham handed rule of Iraq, in a court of law. He is perhaps also the first head of a state who has the rather dubious distinction of being deposed through a war, waged not by his own people, but pursued by some states, illegally and in flagrant
violation of international norms.
Also, except for Milosovich, who is undergoing trial in a court formed under UN statute, no other head of state in recent past has had to answer for his alleged crime against humanity. But, history is replete with examples of dictators playing the proxy of a super power and indulging in as reprehensible crimes as Saddam, if not more, getting the benefit of old age and the support of their western mentors, to escape the hands of justice.
In spite of what the detractors of Saddam's trial say, the important feature of the whole exercise is that the same rationale and precedence can be, and indeed must be, invoked to bring to justice those world leaders whose actions of the
recent past have resulted in similar fate of many unfortunate victims around the world. A brief look at the list of charges will help elucidate the point.
But first of all, let us dilate on the apprehensions expressed by many on the legitimacy and neutrality of the court and the likelihood of Saddam getting a fair trial, given the way that the court has been constituted and the process of arraignment of Saddam on the first
day of his court appearance.
One cannot agree more with Mary Riddell, who, writing in 'The Observer' of the 4th of July 2004, opines, 'there are many questions that trouble the mind of not only the Iraqis... but also the British Liberal conscience'. I suggest that similar thoughts are also weighing the minds of those that abhor duplicity and double standards and want to see that the ends of justice is not diluted. Liddell goes on to suggest that the drama that was played out in the court was a blatant example of US stagecraft.
The fact that the tribunal, established by Bremer, has the nephew of a diehard anti Saddam, Ahmed Chalabi, as its head, can hardly be
an epitome of impartiality. Also, the fact that the accused did not have the benefit of the presence of his lawyers while the charges were being read out, and the proceedings restricted to only a handful of selected journalists, give rise to justifiable presumption that it is not the Iraqis that are calling the shots. This bodes badly for justice.
But, there is a lot at stake for the Americans as well as the new interim government in Iraq, albeit a
US appointed body, in conducting a fair trial of Saddam. Writing for 'The Guardian' of July 2, 2004, Rory
McCarthy and Jonathan Steele quotes the second highest military commander in Iraq as saying, 'we have invested too much, we have come too far not to do those last couple of steps with Saddam correctly.' The need to do the things 'correctly' with Saddam is motivated by their fears that a misstep in the process will more likely than not be exploited by Saddam supporters, something that are abundant in Iraq and elsewhere too.
The terms of reference of the Iraqi special tribunal set up to try Saddam and others are flawed, according to Amnesty International. The need for 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' is
also not enjoined in the statute, something that goes against the principles of natural justice.
Another question that comes up is the haste in initiating legal proceedings against Saddam. The timing of the trial, which perhaps has to do with the upcoming US elections, is quite significant. The picture of Saddam in the dock, accounting for his misdeeds, will be used to provide, what 'The Observer' terms, 'an answerable case for last year's
invasion' This might just redeem some of the lost ratings that Bush has suffered since his misadventure in Iraq.
The charges against Saddam are at once serious and make very interesting reading. It is so because the nature of his crime mirror images many similar crimes that have been committed in the recent past on one pretext or the other.
The first charge relates to the chemical attacks on Halabja and to a lesser degree Pinjwin, where, reportedly, five thousand Kurds were killed. Saddam is alleged to have used mustard as well as nerve agents in the attack. Such an incident reminds one of similar chemical attacks in Vietnam, where 'Agent Orange' was used to defoliate the
local flora. Scars of the attacks persist even to this day.
Saddam is charged with violating international law by invading and occupying of Kuwait; by the same logic the illegal occupiers of Iraq are in breach of international law. What say the votaries international law about this?
Killing of Saddam's political opponent is another serious charge that Saddam will have to answer. He is also charged with killing of Kurds in 'Operation Anfal' in the late 1980's in which more than one hundred thousand people were killed. One may well ask whether the killings of political opponents in many Latin American countries by dictators propped by the US during the Cold War, should not merit similar considerations as the ones that Saddam is accused of?
At the end of the day Saddam's trial will be measured by the independence with which the tribunal is allowed to administer justice. The Bush administration should not be seen as a 'puppet master pulling the strings from behind' as some apprehend it might.
It will be well for President Bush to heed what one commentator expressed very recently. "Saddam is not the only defendant. In the years to come, the conduct of those that ended his tyranny will also be on trial"
The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.