Opinion - News Analysis   

Blair-Bush divide over Saddam verdict?

Hasan Suroor

PERHAPS IT has not been widely noticed that the reactions of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and United States President George W. Bush's to the death sentence against Saddam Hussein has been in striking contrast to their "shoulder- to-shoulder" complicity in the events leading up to it.

While President Bush lost no time in appearing before television cameras to hail the verdict as a "milestone," Mr. Blair did not utter a word in public for more than 24 hours, until he was collared by journalists at a press conference on Monday and forced to break his silence. But neither his remarks nor his tone bore any resemblance to President Bush's cheery reaction.

At first, Mr. Blair said he had nothing to add to what Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett had already stated in New Delhi on the subject. Asked if he regarded the verdict as a "turning point," Mr. Blair said he was not going to describe it in those terms. Instead, he tried to launch into the significance of the removal of the Saddam regime.

"But did he agree with the verdict?" reporters persisted. Mr. Blair appeared to struggle for words before reiterating Britain's principled opposition to capital punishment. "Our position on death penalty is well known," he said.

Did this mean that he was opposed to Mr. Hussein's execution? Well, that was a matter for the Iraqis to decide. But, yes, Britain was "against death penalty whether it is Saddam or anyone else," he declared.

Another cover-up?

Cynical Blair-watchers suspect that this was yet another performance from a master performer — an elaborate and well-rehearsed act to cover up British complicity in what is widely regarded as a deeply flawed legal process designed to produce precisely this sort of a verdict. There is also a temptation to interpret his initial silence and the cautious remarks, which were virtually forced out of him, as a way of distancing himself from President Bush's almost "obscenely jubilant" reaction, as one observer put it.

Few believe that deep down Mr. Blair would have any qualms about the verdict, but in view of Britain's official stand against capital punishment he could not be seen to be publicly endorsing it, though by saying that it was a matter for Iraqis to decide he pretty much let it be known that if Mr. Hussein were to be executed then so be it. In any case, Mr. Blair seldom gives a straight answer to a straight question and, as on previous occasions, he left his audience guessing.

One journalist said: "Actually the Prime Minister was saying: read my lips. And his lips said: good job done, boys in Baghdad but don't expect me to say it loudly."

Media reaction to the verdict has been surprisingly critical considering that Mr. Hussein has few friends even among those who opposed the invasion. Outside, the "hang `em, flog `em" circles, it has been widely described as a "victor's verdict" and a "judicial murder," which far from healing the wounds in Iraq is certain to deepen the sectarian rift in a country already in the throes of a virtual civil war.

Besides, Mr. Hussein's execution is seen as an "obscene" act for an ostensibly new Iraq to embark upon.

"If a new Iraq is ever to emerge from the ruins of the old, eschewing judicial murder would be a good start," said The Guardian in an editorial calling for the death sentence to be commuted.

"National reconciliation should matter more than sectarian retribution, however understandable the desire for it. Now that this cathartic, defining moment has arrived, the Iraqi authorities should put the Dujail case on hold, hear the Anfal and other cases — and commute the death sentence. Hussein would never have done that. Iraq's new masters should behave differently," it said.

This was also the view of The Times. While rejecting the allegation that it was a show trial, the newspaper warned against anything that might seem like an "unseemly rush to push him towards the gallows." It said that in view of the fact that the death penalty had been abolished throughout Western Europe there would be "understandable distaste at its use even when the person concerned is Saddam Hussein." That apart, there was a "strong argument" for commuting the death sentence. Imprisoning Mr. Hussein for the "rest of his days ... would be a better signal for a new Iraq to send than an execution," it said.

Doubts over trial

Questions have also been raised over the way the trial was conducted with top jurists questioning the independence of the court and saying that Mr. Hussein should have been tried under the auspices of the United Nations where judges would have been protected from political pressures.

"Unfortunately, this court was not independent; it has been interfered with by the Iraqi government, which replaced several presiding judges because they were perceived as being too fair to the defendants," argued Geoffrey Robertson, QC, a leading human rights lawyer.

He said Mr. Hussein's execution would provide "an obscene spectacle, an example not of justice but of wild justice, otherwise known as revenge."

Indeed, across Europe the verdict has been greeted with scepticism but, given his special role in hounding out Mr. Hussein, it is Mr. Blair's coy reaction that is interesting, to put it mildly.

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

Stories in this Section

On sealing and social costs
North-eastern security challenge
Agrarian crisis: nature, causes, and remedies
U.K., U.S. resisting ban on cluster bombs
Corrections and clarifications
A change of tack likely in Assam
Blair-Bush divide over Saddam verdict?
Preserving Tibetan culture
The sealing row
The Saddam trial

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