Give Iraqis real justice
-- not a U.S. puppet show
Kenneth Roth
10 April 2003
The Globe and Mail
Saddam Hussein and his
henchmen have been responsible
for murdering or "disappearing"
some 225,000 Iraqis. Now
that his dictatorship
is crumbling, what is
the best way to bring
to justice the surviving
members of his government
who are responsible for
these atrocities?
The Bush administration
has proposed an "Iraqi-led"
tribunal. It sounds wonderful
in theory: Why not entrust
the Iraqi people with
pursuing the crimes committed
against them?
In practice, though,
Washington proposes to
handpick the Iraqis from
among its closest exile
and opposition friends.
This threatens to aggravate
political tensions and
undermine the rule of
law. Only an internationally-led
tribunal will have the
independence, credibility,
and legitimacy needed
to see justice done.
At stake are not Iraq's
alleged crimes against
U.S. forces, such as executing
prisoners of war or attacking
troops while pretending
to surrender. If the Pentagon
can provide evidence of
these crimes, no one would
quarrel with its right
to prosecute the perpetrators
on its own.
But these offences pale
in comparison with the
atrocities that Saddam
Hussein and his government
committed against the
Iraqi people: the so-called
Anfal genocide of 1988
in which some 100,000
Kurdish men and boys were
rounded up and executed,
and entire Kurdish villages
assaulted with chemical
weapons; the suppression
of the 1991 uprisings
in the largely Kurdish
north and Shia south;
and the suppression of
the Marsh Arabs in the
mid-1990s.
In an ideal world, one
would hand the prosecution
of these atrocities to
Iraqi judges and prosecutors.
But there are only two
potential sources of Iraqi
jurists, and neither is
promising. The first,
judges and prosecutors
who populated Saddam Hussein's
brutal and arbitrary justice
system, is hardly a source
of independent, fair-minded
professionals. The second
comprises Iraqi jurists
in exile, as well as Iraqis
from communities historically
repressed by the Baath
Party who remained in
the country. It will be
an uphill battle for these
people to show they are
not so consumed by hatred
of the former dictatorship
they won't simply assume
the guilt of the accused.
Moreover, Washington's
designees would likely
be seen as puppets of
Washington, rather than
independent dispensers
of justice.
A more prudent route
would be to find an internationally-led
justice process, modeled
after the international
tribunals set up for Rwanda
and former Yugoslavia,
perhaps in streamlined
form. To facilitate Iraqi
involvement, one could
emulate the special court
for Sierra Leone, which
is dominated by international
judges but has significant
involvement of local jurists.
To decide on which format,
and to begin preserving
and assembling evidence,
the United Nations could
establish an international
commission of inquiry.
An internationally-run
court is far more likely
than an Iraqi-led tribunal
to be seen as a step toward
the rule of law rather
than a continuation of
arbitrary violence. This
is essential in a country
where, after decades of
brutal dictatorship, there
is an enormous temptation
to summary score-settling.
So why does the Bush administration
press for a tribunal led
by hand-picked Iraqis?
First, Washington wants
to control the scope of
the inquiry to prevent
examination of U.S. conduct
in Iraq. The Pentagon
seems to have gone to
great pains to avoid civilian
casualties in most cases,
but certain of its actions
have been controversial
under the laws of war,
such as the use of cluster
bombs, the targeting of
civilian morale, and the
way in which it has used
lethal force in urban
areas. The last thing
the Pentagon wants is
for an independent tribunal
to examine its behaviour.
Second, the Bush administration
wants to apply the death
penalty in Iraq. Most
democracies have abolished
capital punishment, and
international tribunals
don't permit it. But Washington
doesn't want to be denied
the option.
Finally, and perhaps
most important, the Bush
administration and the
Pentagon detest international
justice. Their ideological
antipathy toward the International
Criminal Court (out of
fear that it might focus
on an American) has led
to its presumptive dislike
of any international tribunal.
None of these reasons
speak to the needs of
the Iraqi people, who
deserve a fair accounting
of the many cruelties
they have endured, a credible
process for bringing those
responsible to justice,
and a positive precedent
for building the rule
of law in their lawless
state. An internationally-led
judicial process is the
Iraqi people's best bet
for a more lawful and
just future.
Kenneth Roth is
executive director of
Human Rights Watch.
|