Saddam Verdict

Saddam: more queries than answers

Indian Express, (New Delhi), November 07, 2006

The much-awaited death sentence handed to the former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, creates more complications than it solves. He was convicted for the killing of 148 civilians in 1982 after a failed assassination attempt. Hussein, who has the automatic right to appeal, also faces similar charges for the death of scores of his opponents and Iraqi Kurds.

Predictably, reactions both within and outside the region were along partisan lines. Those who were at the receiving end of Saddam Hussein’s fury greeted the decision as fair and appropriate. Anything short of a death sentence would have meant that their ordeals would remain a forgotten incident in history. For the Kurds and Shias of Iraq, Saddam symbolised the brutal face of the Ba’athist regime. For the same partisan reasons, the Sunni Arabs who had benefited under the Hussein dispensation, opposed the verdict as an American conspiracy.

Likewise, Iran and Kuwait — the two states who were at the receiving end of Saddam’s aggressive designs — are more than happy to see him hanged. Despite its political differences with Washington, the Islamic Republic of Iran had been pleased to see his removal by the US-led forces. The US accomplished what the ayatollahs had always wanted but could never achieve: the removal of Saddam and his trial and execution for the war crimes he had committed against the Iranians.

The same holds true for Kuwait, which he sought to invade in 1990. Even though the US-led multilateral alliance restored status quo ante the following February, Kuwait had never forgiven him for his aggression. It was no accident that one of the first actions of the post-Saddam Iraqi government under then prime minister, Iyad Alawi, was to seek reconciliation with the Gulf sheikhdom. Likewise, the US was pleased with the verdict. President George Bush responded quickly and Washington saw this verdict as “a milestone” in Iraqi history and “a major achievement” for the young democracy and constitutional order in Iraq. That the former dictator was not killed during a military operation but was duly tried in an Iraqi court would be presented as a vindication of US efforts to sow the seeds of democracy in Iraq. As for the Republicans, they see the verdict’s timing — coming as it does days before the crucial bi-annual elections in the US — as a divine intervention that may rescue them from losing control of the US senate.

The reactions in other parts of the Middle East are mixed. Many see it as a US-imposed verdict handed down by a kangaroo court. The continued US occupation would be another factor that clouds the impartiality of the judicial process. While not many countries in the region have a positive view of the brutality unleashed by Saddam Hussein against his own people, they have found him to be an effective rallying point against their own Arab rulers and their Western supporters, especially the US. He has, in fact, emerged as a champion of the down-trodden and a battle cry against US hegemony.

As the UN-sanctioned economic blockade imposed by the US was strangulating the Ba’athist regime, Iraq found widespread support among the Arab masses. This became even more acute when the US planned to invade Iraq. Even those Arab states which wanted Saddam Hussein’s removal were too afraid to identify with the US agenda against Iraq and chose to criticise in public the American designs on Iraq.

The partisan reactions to the verdict symbolise the passion Saddam Hussein generated while he was in office. Short of acquittal, the death sentence was an inevitable verdict. At one level, it might usher in a constitutional process that relies on due process, something that has been alien to Iraq and many other countries in the region for a long time. At another, the verdict would not solve any of the mounting problems facing Iraq and its immediate neighbours. In fact, it will intensify and fuel the sectarian violence with the Sunni Arabs using the verdict as their new rallying point.

Thus, despite the actual charges, the Saddam Hussein trial was intensely political. The implications of this verdict will be felt far beyond Iraq.

Web version

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/16108.html

India: Arab Media

Indian broadcast laws as an anti-Arab 'conspiracy'

Exclusive to Asian Tribune, August 30, 2006

Earlier this month, an Arab daily published from Saudi Arabia charged that India has banned "Arab TV channels under pressure from Israel." Citing Saudi businesswoman who was unable to watch her favourite Arab channels during a visit to Mumbai, the Arab News charged that New Delhi "has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels."

According to the daily, unnamed sources "within the government" described the move as an exercise "to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd arguments that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism."

In its assessment, this unfriendliness towards the Arabs was in contrast to past Indian policies under Mrs. Indira Gandhi. It viewed the ‘ban’ as a sad reflection of India’s democracy.

This allegation was quickly picked up sections of India as it fitted fits well within the ideological worldview of the Indian Left. The Communist Party of India condemned "the ban on Arab TV stations, while allowing all other channels which support Israel’s aggression and horrendous acts of bombing." Describing it an "unfriendly move", it called on the government to lift the ban.

However, as it turned out, there was no ban. Less than 24 hours after the story first broke, the union government, through the junior Foreign Minister E Ahmad, denied any ban against Arab TV channels. He attributed the ‘disappearance’ of the Arab channels to their failure to confirm to the new down linking guidelines that were issued last November.

In a subsequent statement in the Lok Sabha, Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi declared that all channels that had failed to conform to the new guidelines were taken off air. Describing the row as "a malicious and baseless accusation against the government by interested quarters", he disclosed that these Arab TV networks "had not applied to be down linked in India" while as many as 65 channels from abroad applied for the same.

Even if one ignores the technical and legal issues, one can not ignore the commercial angle. The extend of Arabic knowledge in India is still marginal. A vast majority of the Indian Muslims who recite Quran in its original are not well-versed in Arabic. Their recitation of the holy book should not be seen as a proof of their Arabic knowledge. In other words, if one does not watch mandarin channels in Saudi Arabia, it was not because Riyadh is anti-Chinese but because it is commercially less viable.

Two, the speed with which the Left embraced the unverified allegations also indicated the prevailing political climate in India. In recent years, the Middle East has become a highly charged foreign policy issue in India. It has become politically correct and publicly popular to join the anti-Americanism. This is most apparent in the public reactions in India to situations such as Iranian nuclear controversy, Iraqi quagmire and the Lebanese crisis. They are largely due to narrow domestic calculations, pressures from the Left, ideological blindness, partisan politic, lopsided Indian understanding of the Middle East complexities. For the vocal segment of the Indian intellectuals, it is fashionable again to be anti-Israeli.

Three, not many Indian know that Al-Jazeera is not banned in Israel but is available through the cable networks. For long, Israel also had regular correspondents and journalists from the Qatar-based news channel that has been regularly critical of Israel. If the channel is available to its citizens, it becomes illogical for Israel to seek its banning in other parts of the world, including India.

On the contrary, many Arab states including Saudi Arabia from where Arab News is published, has banned any media contacts with Israel. Arab and Muslim journalists who visit or make professional contacts with Israeli leaders are regularly condemned, isolated and even threatened physically. In countries such as Egypt and Jordan, national press associations act against their members who visit the Jewish State.

Four, Al-Jazeera has another interesting angle. Despite public criticisms, an Israeli mission functions from the Qatari capital. In July this year, Israel went to the extent of officially naming Ro’i Rosenblit as the head of its mission in Doha. In short, the hostilities of the al-Jazeera broadcast did not prevent Israel from seeking, maintaining and even publicizing its relations with Qatar. On the contrary, such a situation offers an additional incentive for Israel to court that Arab country.

Five, the row underscores a much larger problem. Over the years, the Middle East has become a harbinger of conspiracy theories. Unable to find logical explanations for global events, a vast majority of Middle Eastern leaders, commentators and ordinary public have imbibed conspiracy theories. It is often easier to embrace a conspiracy than to look for hard and often uncomfortable answers.

Indeed for years Pakistan charged that there was an Indo-Israeli conspiracy against the larger Islamic world. Gradually sections of Egyptian media joined the chorus and accused that New Delhi exploded some Israeli devises during the nuclear tests India conducted in May 1998. Now the Indian broadcasting laws are seen as an anti-Arab conspiracy. Instead of looking at the non-compliance by Arab TV channels, people have argued that India has adopted an anti-Arab policy due to Israeli and American pressures.

So, it is not surprising that the Arab News, did not carry the official Indian rebuttal.

Web link

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/1768