| |
Goodbye Saddam, hello ...
By Ehsan Ahrari
Now Washington is abuzz with
two themes: Saddam Hussein's trial, or where should he
be tried; and how impotent the US had been before
capturing him and how much of its honor has now been
regained. For the global community; however, the
question of the hour is whether the United States adopts
policies of inclusiveness, or remains the lone cowboy.
President George W Bush spoke his mind about
Saddam's fate during a press briefing on December 15 by
stating that Iraqis will try him in an Iraqi court. Some
US legal experts, on the contrary, prefer an
international forum for his trial, for reasons of
transparency and to avoid any charges of a show trial in
Iraq. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said
that the world body would not favor the death sentence
for the former Iraqi dictator.
Trying Saddam in
any Iraqi court, though, means that he will be handed a
death sentence. There is no question about that. Some
suggest that it is for precisely that reason that the US
favors that course of action. Alternatively, it is also
possible that the Bush administration does not want to
sound patronizing by suggesting that Saddam be tried in
an international court.
But we do have a
precedent of trying former Yugoslavian leader Slobodan
Milosevic in an international court. It can be argued
that Milosevic's crimes against humanity are no less
heinous than those of Saddam's. Why is he being tried in
an international court, while the brunt of the argument
for now is that Saddam should be tried in Iraq? While no
definitive answers may be offered at this stage,
indications are that the world community will get a
clear idea within the next few weeks.
Another
topic that has become the talk of the town is that
America's potency in Iraq has been regained. However,
the issue that is even more important than retention of
America's power as a result of capturing Saddam is what
measures will Washington take to ensure that it remains
intact. On this particular point, it is worth reminding
that after dismantling Saddam's regime, the US went
through a phase of potency, but then lost it, but not by
failing to capture Saddam. Rather, it lost that potency
by rubbing the faces of opponents of its military action
in the dirt - through a highly touted exercise of
hubris. Consequently, when things started to go sour for
Washington in Iraq, no major country offered
peacekeeping troops, or showed generosity by offering
massive economic assistance for rebuilding of that
country.
Now fate (or the turn of events) seems
to have given the US another phase of feeling
preeminence. It will be interesting to see whether it
squanders it through another exercise of hubris, or uses
it with palpable humility. The proof of current support
for Washington is quite apparent in Europe. It is also
interesting that Muslim countries are silent about
demonstrating their feelings over Saddam's capture, or,
are they?
European leaders demonstrated a sense
of unity on December 14 by congratulating Washington on
the capture of Saddam. The timing of his capture could
not have been better for the Bush administration. It
came when European leaders were in disarray as a result
of the collapse of their talks over the European
constitution. As one source noted, "American power,
backed by its allies in Iraq, achieved an important
milestone as European leaders were still struggling to
come together as a distinct and independent continental
power, one that aspires to marshal economic and military
clout as effectively as Washington."
However,
even in congratulating Washington, Germany and France
emphasized their previous well-known positions that
sovereignty of Iraq should be handed over to a new Iraqi
government, and quickly. The US is also hoping that the
global community closes ranks behind its plans for the
transformation of Iraq. The likelihood of that
development is also contingent on whether the Bush
administration sets out to be inclusive in its policies
in Iraq.
If Muslim leaders indeed congratulated
Bush over the capture of the former Iraqi leader, they
made certain that their enthusiasm remained quite
private. Not that they had any warm spot for Saddam. It
is just that they are not certain how enthusiastic their
own streets really are over the news of his capture. No
one heard signs of public cheering outside Iraq over the
humiliating pictures of Saddam that were shown on world
television. More substantially, Muslim leaders might be
concerned about showing public exuberance over America's
success. No one really knows in that part of the world
what to make of Bush. He befuddles even European
leaders; Muslim autocrats also experience that feeling,
only many times more than their European counterparts.
No wonder the dominant puzzle of the moment is: What's
next in Iraq?
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
