|
Not long ago I wrote an article about Saddam Hussein being a scapegoat of the US and British government's double standard, in which I expressed the viewpoint that the whole Iraqi Freedom project was a flawed one because of it's deception, illegality and aggression.
On Saturday 30th December 2006, the world woke up to learn that Saddam had ceased to exist, after being brutally executed in the most medieval of fashions. The scapegoat had been dragged to a secret sacrifice location with a noose around its neck, then hung. Not by lethal injection, nor a firing squad but hanging. Not done in the most civil of manners but filmed and broadcast to the world in the most eerie fashion. These people could not even spare us the insanity of entering the New Year with the picture of a man dying with a rope around his neck. What bad timing! How terribly distasteful! We were only just coming to terms with two other prominent deaths, in former US President, Gerald Ford, and the iconic James Brown.
The last notable execution by hanging was regrettably much closer to home in 1995, when the dictatorial military regime of Sanni Abacha hung the multi-talented playwright and activist Ken Saro Wiwa, for his campaign against environmental damage caused by multinational oil companies in the Niger Delta. If my memory serves me correctly, this event provoked international outrage and condemnation. As a matter of fact it led to the immediate suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth of Nations, prompting even the United States and some other countries to consider imposing economic sanctions on Nigeria. Isn't it ironic then that Saddam's hanging has been administered by an Iraqi government amply backed by the same US and British governments. Worse still, is the very little condemnation that has come from them for an act they've previously described as barbaric, and unbecoming of any decent society. The disparity in the reaction to these two events is clear evidence of the hypocrisy of American and British democracy, and a perfect illustration of the double standards I was alluding to in my first article.
Again, before anyone wonders if I am taking Saddam's side, let me make my position clear - I am simply on the side of true justice, fairness and complete obeisance of international rule of law. No one will disagree that Saddam should face justice for his many acts of cruelty and murder, but I am not in favour of justice being delivered by parties who themselves are equally guilty of similar atrocities. It is a well known fact that the current Iraqi government is involved in rampant torture and the use of death-squads to kill many Sunni Iraqis. If hanging Saddam was meant to effect justice, then who is to hang for the thousands that have died and continue to die as a result of this illegal invasion of Iraq. The lines of justice are clearly blurred here. You can't use injustice to serve justice. Neither can you successfully spread democracy by breaking international law, endorsing torture and approve of hanging as an acceptable form of punishment.
Saddam Hussein was tried and killed before a make-shift Iraqi court secretly presided over by the Bush Adminisration. On trial days he was ferried back and forth from a secret location by American Marines. Why wasn't he arraigned before an international court like his counterpart, Slobodam Milosovic? Well, that's because the US government knew that an international tribunal was unlikely to dish out the death sentence as punishment. So a Kangaroo court was staged to effect the outcome they wanted.
The US and Britain continue to ridicule there stance on being examplary pillars of democracy. When you accuse others of being part of the 'axis of evil', then your own acts must be above board. The Guantanamo Bay detentions and Abu Ghraib torture incidents certainly don't spell out fantastic models of democracy. When media outlets broadcast footage of Western captives in Iraq being beheaded by militia groups and so-called terrorists, it generated prompt outcry and strenuous public condemnation, particularly from the US, British and Australian governments. The actions were described as unjustifiable acts of barbarism. In light of Saddam's hanging that strong stance seems to have evaporated into thin air. Spokes persons for these governments use wise rhetoric to glide over the issue, choosing to draw attention to Saddam's past, stating their powerlessness to influence the decisions of a sovereign nation. I guess Iraq wasn't a sovereign nation when they illegally invaded it.
All of this will do nothing but convince the Arab and the Islamic world, as well as other onlookers, that America and Britain in particular have different sets of rules for different peoples. With this glaring display of injustice and double standards, is it any wonder that the world is beset with so much poverty, war, conflict and terrorism. When those who claim to have the birthright of democracy and the rule of law, swap and change the rules to meet their own political needs. Yesterday they were robustly invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate, claiming that the UN had become a bit old-fashioned and had lost its relevance in in the modern world. Today they seek the UN's vote to help place sanctions on other nations whom they feel are at odds with their interests or who seek to run their affairs the way they see fit.
Has the world become a safer place, since all the campaign of War on Terror, pre-emptive strikes and invasion of sovereign nations? The answer of course is a resounding 'No'. In fact, the contrary is the case. There is far more insecurity in the world today, and many more humans have died since America sought retribution for the 3,000 9/11 lives. Not less than 350, 000 people have perished, if you combine the deaths of all civilians and military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, not too mention the thousands who have sustained permanent ghastly injuries. America and Britain's belligerence have increased the threats of terrorism on a scale and frequency not known before 9/11. Yet their leaders blindly refute the notion of any link between their actions in Iraq and the increase in terrorist activities. The truth is men like George Bush and Tony Blair swagger in the knowledge that they are protected by first class security. Sadly the same cannot be guaranteed for the majority of their citizens. Whilst Iraq is been blown into oblivion, these two men carry-on regardless, wining and dinning in opulence, taking hoidays, going to bed at night with their families without even batting an eye-lid. So will the real 'axis of evil' please stand up.
These flagrant imbalances and injustices continue to provide a platform for anger, disillusionment and extremism, which only feeds the concept of retaliation, more conflicts and terrorism. It suffices to say that Saddam's hanging will not douse the fire of tension, division and hatred that has been lit and stoked in Iraq. I am quite certain that most people were appalled by the pictures of Saddam's last moments. Not because they have great affection for him, just a deep humanity that prefers not see other humans suffer. A deep sense that two wrongs just don't make a right. This form of punishment does not serve as great example of a new democratic order for the Middle East or other parts of the world. Let's watch this space to see if this act is not soon emulated in somewhere in the world.
America and Britain have always been in the business of demonising people, especially those outside the West. They seem unable to exist without having someone to engage as a terrible enemy. The list is endless - Fidel Castro, Momud Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Yisir Arafat, Robert Mugabe, Slobodan Milosevic and of course Saddam Hussein. Knowing that Saddam's destiny was sealed, they quickly embarked on finding ideal replacements to don their demon tag. Enter Kim Jong-il (N Korea), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran) and a charming South American with Oscar winning potential called Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). With the help of their media they carefully choreograph the build up of the 'demon status' of these individuals in the eyes of the public. There just has to be a figure-head, group, nation, anyone they can heap the blame on when things are not going as planned. In the early part of the Iraq invasion, they claimed Saddam loyalists were responsible for all the problems. When they were all caught, the name Al-Zarqawi suddenly came to prominence. When he was killed and the resistance and bombings continued, the heat was turned on Syria and Iran. And so on and so forth.
Let me state that some of the people mentioned here are indeed really terrible characters, deserving of their cruel dictator reputation. However, it is not for this reason they are held in enmity by the aforementioned Western powers, more to do with them having incompatible interests or political viewpoints. As dictators go, some key names are missing from this Enemy List, for example - Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The reputations of these two may not be well known to the vast majority of Western audiences, but those with fingers on the pulse of world politics know that this guys have presided over brutal regimes for many years. Karimov of Uzbekistan, for instance, has a terrible record of human rights abuses in his quest to subdue Islamic and other dissenting voices. These range from the massacre of many men, women and children, to people having their fingernails pulled off, being immersed in boiling water and other despicable forms of torture.
Saudi Arabia has since its foundation been ruled by the Al Saud dynasty, in very insular, oppressive and undemocratic system of government, where no opposition is tolerated and the rights of women is virtually none existent. Yet the atrocities of these regimes are completely swept under the carpet because of their roles as strategic allies in the US "War on Terror". Whilst Saddam hanged for his crimes, his equally gruesome Chilean counterpart, Ex-General Augustus Pinochet, responsible for serious financial corruption, torture, abductions and murder of thousands of civilians, lived to the ripe old age of 92, dying with over 300 criminal charges pending against him. This awful dictator received silent approval and strategic support from the US as an ally in fighting the spread of Communism. All efforts to bring him to justice constantly failed for one strange reason or the other.
Thankfully we are not all as blind and foolish as they would like us to be. It is these imbalances that make the hanging of Saddam very unpalatable indeed. My human sensibility just finds it difficult to reconcile the idea of another human being hanged. Perhaps it has to do with memories of many black people who suffered the same fate in 50s and 60s America, the very place that claims to be bastion of civilisation today. My real empathy however, goes to the thousands of men, women and children that have been terribly affected by this unjust war. Helpless victims of other men's ambitions and show of strength, who put their own gains before the betterment of the masses.
As I write, the American government is frantically seeking the best possible exit strategy from Iraq. The emphasis being placed more on saving American lives, not concern for the Iraqis, whose lives they so brutally intruded upon 5 years ago. Everyday, limps, brains, hopes and dreams are being blown apart with unbelievable ferocity. How can people live under such circumstances? How can they believe in some imported democratic ideal when all it's done is wreak unimaginable havoc on their lives and communities.
Saddam's demise should be a grave lesson to all those leaders in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who are presently basking in their public tango with America and Britain. They ought to realize that this affair will only last for as long as they are relevant to the gains of the latter. Saddam was once a brilliant ally. For years they gleefully and successfully pitted his Bathe Party against the Shites, to keep the latter in check and discourage any ties with Shites in Iran. How else was Saddam's Sunni minority able to maintain a stranglehold on the whole of Iraq. Those terrible weapons they supplied him with, came with clear instructions on how to use to destroy lives. And destroy lives he did, in the full glare of his weapon suppliers. Therefore all of Saddam's allies are equally culpable in the crimes he committed. If you dine and make merry with a thief, sell him weapons and enjoy the spoils of his activities, then you are just as good as he.
The sad reality is that all of this warring and dangerous politicking is just history repeating itself. Quotes from speeches by past great leaders like J F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jnr and Mahatma Ghandi testify to this. President Kennedy once said, "Mankind must put an end to war or it will put an end to mankind." The eloquent Martin Luther King once remarked that "True peace is not merely the absence of tension, but the presence of justice." The fact that history teaches us about the bitter dividends of war, it doesn't seem to have deterred some men from seeing this as the ideal mechanism for achieving their objectives of power, control, money and place in history.
The current events are however making the true face of American democracy become more apparent everyday. Simply explained it means, 'freedom of speech' as long you say what we wish to hear. If you are not with us, you must be against us. We don't have to answer to international law, but you must abide by it.
If true justice and international rule of law is to be adhered to, then George Bush, Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld should face international court proceedings for their instigation, planning and involvement in this illegal war. If this happens, it would serve real justice for the thousands who have been needlessly killed and brutalized in what I call the real 'Cold War'. For it came out of no real provocation, just fear, lies, deception and other motives we might never really figure out.
As for Saddam, he is probably better off where he is now. Iraq, in its current state is no place for any human. Not even Saddam.
|
RSS Feeds | Podcasts
Posted by Robot| 02.01.2007 13:54