How does one respond to today’s news about the execution of that brutal monster, Saddam Hussein? Many of the questions I have been asked – mainly by media – about the issue have focussed on the day on which the execution took place – an irrelevancy in my opinion. “How do you respond to the fact that the execution was on the day of Eid,” they wanted to know.
The journalists ask that question because that seems to be a big preoccupation of a number of Muslims – including certain Muslim governments. Frankly, I don’t really care that he was executed on the Day of Sacrifice. The obsession around the day simply serves to divert attention from much more important issues surrounding the execution. And these are what I want briefly to focus on.
But first, I must say that I am surprised at Muslims who shed crocodile tears for this erstwhile dictator. Whatever punishment Saddam could get in this world could not be close to what he really deserves for his brutality and ferocity. I remember when we were protesting the 1991 war against Iraq by the US, a coalition of organisations in Durban published a pamphlet wherein we referred to George Bush (senior) as the “Big thug” and to Saddam Hussein as the “Little thug”. A few Muslims were very unhappy. How can we call the man a thug? After all, he is a Muslim. And besides, when a Muslim is under attack we should rally to his defence, not help in attacking him.
Sorry, but that just doesn’t seem like the Islamic thing to me. Bush was the global thug and Saddam was a neighbourhood thug. And, like a typical neighbourhood thug, he was also sometimes generous (remember the money he sent to families in Palestine), sometimes warm, sometimes approachable, sometimes protective. Like a mafia boss. But, basically, a thug. (In fact, I think “thug” was too mild a word for Saddam (just as it was too mild a word for Bush).)
Now we have the local thug being brought to his knees (and worse) by the global thug, that American son-of-a-Bush. But there are serious issues around this execution that deserve our careful reflection.
· The whole process has been a travesty of justice. The court case was a travesty of justice, a kangaroo court. In what decent, democratic society do you have a judge trying someone who he has been personally harmed by? Oh wait, Iraq is not a democratic society; it’s a country under occupation. Why, even Iraqi police can’t do anything without the power they receive from the occupation forces.
· Following on the mockery that was called a court case was the mockery that was called an execution. Where do you find state executioners that have personal axes to grind with the prisoner and, in grinding them, taunts the prisoner as he is led up to the noose? (Let us forget for a moment the question of whether capital punishment is a decent thing for a decent society; it’s a debate for another day.) So Saddam was executed, in the true style of a gangland revenge attack.
· Isn’t it interesting how quickly Saddam was brought to the execution chamber? Why? Would justice not have better been served if he were protected for a while longer? Justice would definitely have better been served if, instead of a sham trial, there had been some kind of a truth investigation which sought to reveal all the monster’s crimes and atrocities. That would have helped to bring closure to thousands of families who had been victims of Saddam’s thuggery. Families whose family members had disappeared, been tortured, been maimed, been killed. What would have served the justice more: a cover-up execution or the truth? As a family member of someone that was assassinated in a political killing, I certainly believe it’s the latter.
· Of course, from the American perspective, there are good reasons for aborting Saddam’s life as quickly as possible. In the current case that Saddam was being tried for (the trial started in August 2006), Saddam and six others were facing genocide charges for their attacks against Kurds in Northern Iraq. The most famous of these was the March 1988 Halabja massacre where Saddam used chemical weapons against the entire village of Halabja. The pictures of the aftermath remain in my mind. This was also the period when the Iraqi war against Iran was in progress. And, it was the time when Iraq was a US ally. Indeed, Saddam got his chemical weapons’ technology from the US and Europe. Remember the three meetings Saddam had with Donald Rumsfeld around this time? Or the CIA operative who said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” The US had been supporting Saddam from the 1960s when he overthrew the communist government and Iraqis witnessed communist bodies hanging from lightpoles. Saddam had threatened, soon after he was captured, that he would reveal all regarding the role of the US in propping up his dictatorship: its support of his war imposed on Iran, its acquiescence with his invasion of Kuwait, etc. Removing him from the equation protects that information and protects the US, the UK and the Gulf states which also used him as a proxy to fight the Iranians.
· Back to the issue of the date… as much as I think the date is irrelevant, the fact is that there is great symbolism attached to the day. It is the day of sacrifice; the day when hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world celebrate the acceptance by Abraham, his wife Hajar and his son Ismail of God’s command on him to sacrifice his son. Did no one from the American and Iraqi power structures consider that executing Saddam on that day was making him into a sacrifice, a modern-day Ismail? Was no one concerned that the thug was going to become a martyr? I am pretty sure that in a few centuries (maybe even decades) Saddam will be remembered by the Muslim masses for the fact that he was executed on Eid, for his approaching his death with dignity, not for his atrocities and crimes against humanity. Saddam has been very good at using Islam for his political ends – even adding “Allahu Akbar” to the flag when Iraq was at war so as to get support of the Muslim world and going to the gallows with a copy of the Qur’an in his hand. Fools create heroes because of symbols.
· And, of course, there’s the sectarian aspect. Did no one realise that he was being executed on the day when Sunnis were celebrating Eid – while Shi’as were to celebrate on the next day? Or that his executioners seemed all to be Shi’as (if the taunting and sloganeering is anything to go by)? Or that this could lead to sectarian violence in a very volatile part of the world? Or, was that the plan?
· Finally, with Saddam gone (and another two henchmen due to go soon), the Ba’ath Party which he headed can finally reinvent itself – sans the Butcher of Baghdad. It doesn’t have to accept responsibility for the crimes of the past, blaming all of that, instead, on Saddam. Dead men, after all, tell no tales. Another thuggish party given a new lease on life.
I say: good riddance to Saddam; insha Allah, the world will be a slightly better place. But, if he was kept alive, it could have been a much better place.
No comments:
Post a Comment