In Focus: Controversial legacy Contentious in life, Saddam Hussein retains in death the power to animate and divide, writes Galal Nassar Right up to the moment of his dramatic execution, Saddam Hussein appeared as a champion of pan-Arabism and a fighter against colonialism and Zionism. His career tells a different story. Since he came to power in July 1979, Saddam placed one obstacle after another in the way of pan- Arabism, freedom and democracy. In 1980, Saddam went to war against the Iranian Islamic revolution. At that time, Tehran's new rulers had deposed the shah, a man known for his close links with Israel, and closed down the Israeli embassy. And yet, Saddam took sides with the US against Iran, while claiming that he was defending Arabs and Muslims. To support Saddam in that war was to stand on the same side as the Americans and Israelis. And yet, many found it hard to snub the man who said that he was placing all Iraq's resources at the disposal of pan-Arab issues and fighting off Persian ambitions. The Iraq-Iran war, which lasted until 1988, claimed the lives of over a million people and cost nearly $800 billion. It was as brutal as it was controversial. Saddam's next adventure was even more foolish. In August 1990, he invaded Kuwait, declaring it the 19th province of Iraq. The invasion gave the US the chance to destroy the Iraqi army and place Iraq under stiff sanctions. The country never recovered. By invading Iraq, Saddam stabbed the very notion of pan-Arabism in the heart. Once again, he confounded friend and foe. To stand by him would be to abandon Kuwait. To fight against him would be to take sides with the US, a country that ultimately wanted to rob Iraq of its unity and independence. In 2003, the US claimed it wanted to free Iraq from dictatorship. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and yet it was Saddam who gave the Americans that pretext. Saddam's trial began on 19 October 2005. He was accused of killing 148 people from Dujail following an attempt on his life in 1982. Again, it was hard for many to take an unequivocal stand on Saddam's fate. To support him would be to defend tyranny. And to denounce him would be to condone sectarianism and foreign invasion, as well as a host of extra-legal measures. The moment of Saddam's execution was just as divisive. For many, it was a relief to see a dictator getting punished. And yet, it was also painful to see an Arab and Muslim leader subjected to the ultimate humiliation. In the end, the vindictiveness of the execution brought Saddam a measure of public sympathy. Saddam looked as if he was the injured party. After all, the death sentence was passed by an Iraqi court acting under Paul Bremer's orders, one that had no choice but to fulfil US interests and desires. When Saddam was captured in December 2003, the US administration said he would be treated as a prisoner of war. But according to the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war should not be put on trial and must be freed as soon as hostilities are over. Furthermore, the US was in Iraq illegally, having fought a war on false pretext and in defiance of the international community. Iraq, as it turned out, had no weapons of mass destruction, nor did it have connections with Al-Qaeda, as US officials had claimed. It was the US occupation of Iraq that brought Al-Qaeda to the country, not the other way around. The Dujail case was a show trial. For one thing, the court was handpicked by an occupying authority in breach of legal and international norms. Also, as a prisoner of war, Saddam shouldn't have been turned over to an authority that was subservient to Iraq's occupiers. And the sectarian background of the judges and the prosecution made it clear that the main outcome of the trial would be to divide Iraq along sectarian lines. The Dujail case was about the execution of suspected members of the Islamic Dawa Party (IDP). The IDP was created with Iranian-backing under the shah. Following the 1979 Iranian revolution, the IDP engaged in extensive acts of sabotage in Iraq, including the bombing of Al-Mustansariyah University in January 1980, an incident in which dozens were killed. The IDP planned and failed to kill Saddam in Dujail. The fact that it was acting by Iranian prodding is hardly in dispute. Admissions to this effect have come from Iranian leaders as well as IDP members who managed to flee the country. Seen in this light, the executions carried out by Saddam in Dujail were not as outlandish as they were made out to be. Saddam formed a court in accordance with Iraqi law and the court handed down sentences after a judicial process lasting several years and these sentences were carried out. The judge trying Saddam in connection with the Dujail incidents was Kurdish, and the prosecutor was Shia. When the first judge quit in protest against government pressure, another was appointed, one who had been tried for corruption under the previous regime and sentenced twice to life imprisonment. As expected, that judge faithfully carried out the orders of the occupation authorities. A similar situation now exists in the Anfal trials, in which several military commanders stand accused of genocide against the Kurds. A Shia judge in charge of that case but who failed to follow the orders of the occupation forces was summarily dismissed. Another Shia judge was brought in, one who can be trusted to pass the kind of sentence the Americans want. Timed on the first day of the Bairam, Saddam's execution was not just a breach of Islamic traditions, which frowns upon executions during religious festivities, but a show of disregard to the sentiments of the Sunnis, who make up over 50 per cent of Iraqis. It was a departure from the spirit of amity and tolerance advocated by Islam as well as a blow to Arab and Islamic dignity and decorum. The videotape of the execution, leaked by the occupation authorities and their lackeys, reveals the extent of venom and vengeance that exists in today's Iraq, despite the rhetoric of national unity one hears all the time. Saddam's execution went according to plan and its divisive aftermath may give the US administration the chance to send more troops to Iraq. But let's not forget that US had more troops on the ground before and yet it couldn't stop the resistance. Now, with Saddam's execution having fuelled sectarian tensions, worse times are to come. Saddam's execution at the hands of Shia militias has turned him into a hero for many Iraqis. Abroad, in death as in life, Saddam remains as controversial as ever.
