What does political meddling in the trial say about post-election
politics in Iraq?
On February 3, 2006
Iraqi Scholar Faleh Jabar
wrote:
The shake up signifies three major points: the Shiiahs are adamant about a
tough trial; the Kurds support this; and the Sunnis are preparing
themselves to live without Saddam. If this reading is somehow objective, post-election consociational politics can go through, not so smoothly perhaps, but still go
ahead.
Back to top
On January 31, 2006
Nehal Bhuta from Human Rights Watch
wrote:
Politics in post-Saddam Iraq have become
increasingly divided along sectarian and ethnic lines. In some media
commentary, this is portrayed as a consequence of a long-standing Sunni-Shiiah
political antagonism. This is somewhat of an exaggeration. In in-depth
interviews with hundreds of Iraqis in the immediate aftermath of the
invasion, I found little evidence that a Sunni-Shiiah division was
a fundamental dimension of political consciousness in Iraq. In the early
days after Saddam, people with whom I spoke overwhelmingly rejected
the need for reconciliation, asserting that Iraqis were all
one people.
In the three years since then, things
have changed a great deal, and there has been increasing political mobilization
along the lines of sect and ethnic identity. I would suggest two main
reasons for this.
First, the governance arrangements instituted
by the occupiers in the first two years of the occupation empowered political
parties whose ideology and platform were sect-based (for example, Daawa
and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and that had
a strong interest in encouraging (and rewarding) political mobilization
along the lines of sect affiliation. The formation of a transitional
government dominated by these parties appears to have accelerated the
process, with sect-based militia forces (such as the Badr Brigades)
coming to dominate security services and receiving state support for
their own vigilante activities. The terrorist tactics of Salafist and
Wahhabist insurgent groups has also increased antagonism. These groups
regard the Shiiah as apostates and have targeted mosques.
The second cause is more diffuse, but
pervasive. As Iraq analyst Toby Dodge observes, the chaos and insecurity
that have gripped Iraq since April 2003 have destroyed many basic means
of survival and stability for much of the population. Local-level networks
and institutions have become substitute sources of protection and subsistence
and vehicles for access to essential resources. These networks operate
at the level of the street, the neighborhood and the township and legitimize
their increased influence through the language of religious authority
and kinship. Strong incentives are created to foreground a sectarian
or regional identity over other bases of political organization, even
in the absence of any real ideological commitment at the individual
level.
The real risk is that the trial will
be seen as another dimension of the politics of sectarian revenge. The
government attacks on the independence of the court and the meddling
by the de-Baathification commission (which is itself controlled by
Shiiah Islamist parties) serve only to reinforce the perception.
Back to top
On January 31, 2006
Iraqi scholar Faleh Jabar
wrote:
Before the appointment of the new judge,
the Saddam trial was almost a blunder: a mute judge; a frightened or
disheartened prosecution; naïve witnesses; and a barrage of Saddams
rhetoric, which is stupid and disgusting but has some echo in the Arab
world.
The trial process should have two major
functions: to establish the rule of law and to uncover the crimes of
the past.
The very fact that the case of al-Dujail
was selected for the first leg of a long process was naïve. Why not
the 1991 uprising? We have footage of mass killings and no trial shortage
of suspects (or defendants, in the jargon). Iraqis are fed up with the
stupid proceedings. The over-politeness of the judge was interpreted
as weakness.
Let us see what will happen now. People
have to deal with the past before they can carry on to the future.
Back to top
On January 31, 2006
Iraqi blogger 24 Steps to Liberty
wrote:
The Iraqi republic wasnt established
until the revolutionists killed the king of Iraq, King Faisal II,
and many of his royal family members. That was back in 1958.
In 1963, the Baathists came to power.
And that didnt happen until they killed Abdul Karim Qasim, Iraqs
first republic prime minister. And, of course, the Baathists killed
many enemies in the path forfreedom.
When Saddam Hussein came to power, he
killed many of his fellow Baathists. He had to. They formed a threat
to him and his power. In 1979 and 1980, Saddam killed many men, publicly
and secretly. His reason was that they betrayed the country and the
principles of the Baath Party. Since then, killing and assassinations
have not stopped in Iraq.
Now, Saddam is overthrown and his replacement
is already sitting on top of the pyramid of Iraqi politics and community.
These politics are not as brutal as the ones before. In the 21st century
and after the war, in order to bring democracy to Iraq, our politicians
now cannot execute Saddam. It would be the scandal everyone wants to
avoid -- bringing Saddam before a camera to shoot him in the head, just
like the Baathists did to Qasim. Therefore, this fair trial
has been orchestrated to impose a pre-concluded sentence. Death!
The United States would never allow the
Iraqis to deal with Saddam privately. What was the war against Iraq
for, if not justice and democracy?
The only way the Iraqi politicians can
destine Saddam to where they want him is to impose the sentence on the
judge. Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, a Kurd and the trials first judge,
resigned because hed had enough of the intervention of government
officials in the trials procedures. A new judge is seated, another
Kurdish judge. But will government interference stop?
Weve heard several witnesses in the
trial now. Can any of them be taken seriously? No. All they have said
is I heard... or I believe... or I dont know, but
it should be... And when one of them said, I witnessed and saw,
neither Saddam nor any of his co-defendants in this trial were there!
Saddams trial is a way to take revenge.
The politicians want to take revenge, but they are not as brutal as
the others. So they want to do it legally and impose the death sentence
on the judge.
I would say that no matter how long the
trial is going to take and no matter how many judges sit in the power
chair, Saddam will be executed. We all know that if this doesnt happen,
there will be a huge civil disorder in Iraq. You cannot deny that hundreds
of thousands of Iraqis were killed under Saddams Baath Party umbrella.
Iraqis are human beings. They have feelings. This blood cannot and will
not be in vain. Otherwise, the whole idea of liberating Iraq was not
for the Iraqis benefit.
Back to top