Saddam verdict not the answer

If the trial of Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity was intended to unite Iraqis around support for the rule…

If the trial of Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity was intended to unite Iraqis around support for the rule of law and a new political process, it has failed.

The sentence of death by hanging imposed on him by the Iraqi High Tribunal has been greeted enthusiastically by Shia Iraqis, but with resentment by many Sunnis who believe this is lopsided or victors' justice. Kurds say the verdict will interfere with the second trial under way in which the former dictator is charged with genocide against their people.

Although few Iraqis complain about the death sentence or would mourn Saddam Hussein's passing, it is the wrong way to affirm the primacy of human rights there, and only serves to underline the trial's grave legal and political shortcomings.

It was expressly designed to be held in Iraq and its rules were set out and operation funded by the US occupation authorities. They resisted using an international court because they oppose such tribunals. The decision to moderate the standard of proof required, to narrow the focus of this particular trial compared to other charges he should face, to accept anonymous witnesses and to hold the proceedings in a war zone all took from its legitimacy. So too does the timing of this verdict on the eve of US congressional elections. These shortcomings have undermined the fact that the case went ahead, heard substantial evidence and that Saddam Hussein pleaded not guilty.

READ MORE

In truth the trial has been a sideshow alongside the developing catastrophe of the occupation and its attendant mismanagement. That Saddam's fate should be a further cause of the divisions which have driven Iraq ever closer to civil war is a bitter confirmation of this disaster. The occupation itself generates these divisions, gives a regional base to jihadism and has encouraged a wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East pitched against the Bush administration. Mr Bush insists the latest violence is intended to influence the US elections; the verdict compounds that interdependence.

It is to be hoped US voters deliver on their frustration with policy in Iraq reported in many opinion polls. A new congressional majority would set the scene for alternative approaches combining US disengagement with greater Iraqi control over their own sovereignty and political destiny. That should include a concerted international effort to involve Iraq's neighbours in a plan for internal and external reconciliation. If not put in place, it is hard to see how the violence can be contained from developing into a wider regional confrontation.

When he ruled Iraq, Saddam Hussein was always acutely aware of how such global and regional balances of power affect the Middle East and proved quite willing to exploit them. Now that he is condemned to death he must be equally aware that the destruction unleashed from his overthrow will rebound to mock those who planned it.