How credible is the new Iraqi tribunal that will try Saddam Hussein?

Producer: Felix Tan
First broadcast: 2 July 04, Radio Singapore International

A thin and gaunt looking, but defiant, Saddam Hussein appeared in an Iraqi tribunal yesterday to hear charges put up against him.

Most of the charges are atrocities committed against the Kurds in the 1980’s, as well as the infamous invasion of Kuwait in 1991, which led to the first Gulf War.

What is interesting to note is that the new Iraqi tribunal will combine Iraqi law with US legal expertise.

As opposed to other international war-crimes courts, the Iraqi Special Tribunal does not have an independent international judiciary.

So, how credible is the tribunal that will try Saddam?

Felix Tan put this question to Dr. Michael McKinley (MM) of the Australian National University:

MM: “Well, that is a very important question because there are already very strong suggestions that the court is improperly constituted because many of the people who are serving on it are not people with the requisite judicial experience that you would expect to have. There is also suggestions that Saddam Hussein has not been given due process, really… that he has been asking to be represented by a lawyer - something that of course that he did not seem to be particularly interested when he was President of the country and charging other people - but, nevertheless, if the new Iraqi judicial system is to be one that is respected, it has to start off with an unblemished record of integrity and there are questions over what is taking place at the moment.”

I also understand that this new Iraqi court blends international law with domestic law. Now, how unique is that to the Iraqis?

MM: “It is new to Iraq, but it is reasonably common given what has happened with the war-crimes tribunal, which exists in The Hague and so on because the international community is essentially reactive in these cases. It is obliged to put together a court, which did not exist prior to the many events, which took place, and so, it tends to make these kinds of accommodations between local or domestic law and international law and any other examples it thinks it can find.”

The images of the charges put on Saddam Hussein was reviewed and censored by the US military, plus only a portion of the images on television had sounds. So, how transparent or fair is this hearing?

MM: “Well, so far the charges have only been made and what we are left with is a sense of not knowing exactly which way the procedures will go. But I think the anecdotal reports at this stage at least suggests that the court has already made up its mind, I mean, that is the believe of many Iraqis - whether that is right or wrong is hard to say. But the more interesting part for many people are, I think, in the West, will be the extent to which Saddam Hussein is actually able to speak in his defence - not to say that he has got a great that he can defend. But he may decide to use the court as a forum for opening up a discussion or basically a series of disclosures about the various countries in the West, which aided him down the years. And that could be quite embarrassing for many countries, particularly the United States. So, there is a sense in which this is one of the really interesting questions - to what extent will he be able to speak and to invoke, if you like, the fact that the Western states had foreknowledge of what he was doing and did not seemed to care.”

Besides these charges, such as the invasion of Kuwait and the atrocities committed on the Kurds, what other charges are likely to come?

MM: “I think he faces a bill of about 11 charges. He will be primarily on trial for genocide and the Kuwaitis, of course, are going to bring evidence there. There are questions about what he did with the …Arabs in the south; about the Kurds in the north… I am a bit surprised at one level about the charges relating to Halabja where the Kurds were gassed because there are some very senior CIA analysts who believed that Iraq was not actually responsible for that. I mean that is a matter that will be revisited later on, but basically, there are going to be charges to do with genocide and war crimes.”

Saddam Hussein looked very thin and gaunt on television even though he could not be heard at times. Do you think that the very presence of him on television might actually increase or fuel the militancy that is prevalent in Iraq at this moment?

MM: “No! I think the people who are conducting the guerrilla campaigns against the coalition and now against, probably, the interim government, are people who long ago gave up on Saddam Hussein. They know that he is almost certainly to be found guilty… I mean, he is going to be found guilty… the question that remains is, of course, whether he gets imprisonment or the death sentence. And there is a considerable enthusiasm in some quarters that, at least, for him to be given the death sentence. But the guerrillas themselves - they are no longer part of any Saddamist movement. They are now funded, not by the Ba’ath party coffers, but by external sources coming through from militant groups and militant sources outside of Iraq. And much of the resistance now comes under the broad heading of an Iraqi Islamist and they, of course, do not care particularly for Saddam Hussein.”

Saddam is still defiant as he enters the court and also in his defence. Now, he did not sign the charges at the end of the day, now, what’s next then?

MM: “Well, it appears that he does not recognise the court and he still described himself as the President of Iraq. Now, you can only imagine what his mental state might be. He could be in a state of almost certainly depression, but certainly one that is a delusionary state. The court trial will go ahead whether he signs them or not. What I suppose what they are trying to do was to get him to admit the legitimacy of the court, but that he does not want to do. He will, in due course, be represented by legal counsel and I understand there is a considerable team being assembled. But overall, he is virtually irrelevant. The purpose of televising the trial and having the trial is to remind the people of Iraq and about how evil he was. Even though I think, in many case, as they have said, since moved on from that. But it is also to remind the faltering allies in the West of how evil he was and therefore the need to support the United States and whatever it does in Iraq now.”