International   

Sham trial: Saddam counsel

Atul Aneja

Verdict against former Iraqi President exposes divisions in West Asia

DIFFERING EMOTIONS: People in Baghdad's Shia enclave of Sadr City celebrate after the former President, Saddam Hussein, was sentenced to death on Sunday. (Right) Protesters hold up Mr. Hussein's portrait as they demonstrate against the verdict in his hometown of Tikrit. — PHOTOS: AP

DUBAI: There has been a mixed response in West Asia towards the death sentence passed against the former Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, exposing sectarian and political divisions within the region.

Bushra Al-Khalil, Mr. Hussein's defence lawyer, described the verdict as "a mockery of justice and a judgment that comes from a sham and illegal court created by the U.S. occupation that cannot ever provide a fair trial." Inside the Palestinian territories, there was strong support for Mr. Hussein. The spokesman for Hamas, Fawzi Barhum said, "We, as the Palestinian people, support whoever supports our people and President Saddam Hussein was one of those." Many in the Palestinian territories have supported Mr. Hussein for firing missiles into Israel during the first Gulf war in 1991, and for supporting Palestinians financially.

In Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, opinion about Mr. Hussein was divided. Mustafa al-Sayyid, political scientist at Cairo University, was quoted as saying that the trial represented "victor's justice." The head of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement, Mohammed Mehdi Akef, denounced both Mr. Hussein and the Americans. He said Mr. Hussein was a "despot", but the "crimes" committed by the Americans in Iraq were greater.

In the "Arab street", opposition to Mr. Hussein in some sections did not mean support for the Americans. The Associated Press quoted Labib Khamhawi, a Jordan based analyst as saying, "Iraqis are feeling sad, not out of sympathy for the man [Mr. Hussein], but for the loss of their country as they've known it." However, in Iran and Kuwait — two countries with which Iraq under Mr. Hussein had fought wars, there was widespread support for the verdict. Denouncing the trial, Malcolm Smart of the human rights group, Amnesty International said: "The court was not impartial. There were not adequate steps taken to protect the security of defence lawyers and witnesses."

Analysts point out that Mr. Hussein's trial was flawed on several counts. The Americans, who had occupied Iraq in March 2003, refused to set up an international tribunal to try Mr. Hussein, preferring instead, an Iraqi court whose impartiality was questionable.

Three defence lawyers were mysteriously killed, prompting a boycott of the trial by their colleagues and a hunger strike by Mr. Hussein.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Iran ready for talks with U.S.
"Japan is a U.S. State"
Kathmandu, Maoist rebels reach accord on arms
China, Africa sign trade deals
Sham trial: Saddam counsel
Threat to halt oil export
Fiji law dropped
Blackout in France
Microsoft plan to combat online fraud
Progress made in boundary talks: China
India agrees to supply relief goods

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu