Saddam escaped real justice
05 January, 2007
By Muhammad Ahsan Yatu
There are reasons to hate Saddam. These reasons are same and also different from the ones that the Americans gave to the world through his trial and hanging. Saddam as a person was not sectarian i.e. a Sunni in classical or prevailing sense. Nor was he a racist in empirical sense. He was not, like many of the Muslim rulers, a political Islamist either. His aggression against Iraq’s neighbours—Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia—was enough of proof that the Arab Nationalism, unity of Ummah and Shia-Sunni conflict had no meaning for him. He was no different than many autocratic rulers. So he was considered to be cruel, ambitious and an opportunist and thus proved useless for his country. This is the most convincing reason that justifies hate for him. He could have turned Iraq into a modern country. Instead he ruined it and took it to a point from where it may become anything but stable.
The US intentionally forwarded Saddam’s unintentional but inherently wicked agenda, the disintegration of Iraq. There is no reason behind Saddam’s hanging other than to divide the Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq to a point of no return. That it would further divide the two sects throughout the globe is added advantage to the American game plan. The leaders of the Muslim majority countries should not fall into the American trap. And there is only one way to do it, they must keep the religion away from the affairs of the state.
It is commonly said that Saddam used all kind of weapons i.e. torture, knives, guns, bombs, chemicals and even missiles to kill his real and perceived enemies. He spared none, not even his relatives. He started his slaughter campaign by eliminating the communists; almost all of them were poor labourers and their family members. The Shiites and the Kurds were next on his hit list. Almost all his victims within these communities too were ordinary innocent people. It is dilemma of the autocrats that they never feel secure. They think that only methodology that can ensure their existence is elimination of opposition. It worked for Saddam but ultimately his opponents used it against him.
His opponents might not have hanged him. They did it because the Americans wanted so. The killers must be punished, but punishment should make an example of them, they should not be made martyrs and heroes. For a ruler and for that matter for even an ordinary man there cannot be a bigger punishment than imprisonment. That the killer would spend a considerable part of his life like a caged animal is a much bigger penalty than death.
It is not that the Americans are not aware of uselessness of capital punishment; they prefer it to provide energy to the American elite’s aggressive psyche. Inside, it helps also to check the ordinary Americans from becoming timid and docile. Outside, capital punishment to the leaders or rulers creates a negative political dynamics that the American elites have planned for many sections of humanity. This negative dynamics may also be created through wars involving mass murders, if needed.
The reasons for the American elites’ aggressive psyche are many. One of them is their national identity that evolved through fighting the Red Indians till their elimination. The great civil war is another reason. Their distance from the other continents is yet another. The most dominant reason is capitalism. It is different from present day European capitalism. The American capitalism is in fact democratic fascism. It is now meaningfully democratic inside and as usual entirely fascist outside. It cannot grow unless there is either absolute submission of the exploited or blood in the street. In the American streets they have shed enough blood. After the beginning of twentieth century they did it outside also.
The US campaign of getting humans butchered has not been particular to any community or race or region. It is based on the opportunities and the instrument available. Using economic intrigues is their first choice, religion second, ethnicity third, autocratic rule fourth, military rule fifth, wars sixth and the American military as the last resort, if nothing else works. These choices are used in various combinations keeping the economic intrigues part of all. For example in Arabia they used autocracy and religion, and in Pakistan and Afghanistan they used all the choices separately as well as in combinations. In Christian majority Latin American nations, they used ethnicity, local military and their own military. In Indonesia it was religion, ethnicity and military. Examples are many more and except a few dozens fortunate countries none has been spared.
However, the Americans succeeded because the ruling elites of the victimised countries acted as their puppets. So far only powerful Russia, poor but democratic India and to some extent the rich Israel have resisted the American pressures. Good news is that an independent Latin America is also emerging fast. The Europeans are on their way to make their own world but it might take them many decades. China is in the American camp and will stay there like the Europeans for at least fifty years, and may be more. However, being in American camp does not mean that the Europeans and the Chinese are American puppets. This relationship is based on mutual adjustments in free market economy.
How our elites acted as puppets is obvious from our entry into the SEATO and CENTO, and our help in promoting their Islamisation campaign in Pakistan and elsewhere. As documented by Dennis Kux in his book The United States and Pakistan 1947-2000 the US has been spending $ 30 million annually on distribution of weapons to Islamist groups. According to him the US’s another loyal friend Saudi Arabia too contributed an equal sum. When General Ayub Khan was brought in as the ruler, the Pakistani army was made stronger and Pakistan was also given aid to the tune of a half billion dollars per annum.
Pakistan did not fight the Afghan and Kashmir wars just for nothing. Its strategic depth is in fact the US’s strategic depth. The moment Afghanistan becomes anarchic due to the Taliban or any other group Pakistan would be left again on its own. Pakistan would face the same fate even if the American friendly democrats consolidate their hold in Afghanistan. So far outcome of the American generosity is that we have been an uncertain nation since the inception. Presently Pakistan is in the grip of chaos. And it is up to the US when it chooses to push it into anarchy. If our rulers could act independently and wisely, they should opt for a democratic Afghanistan, which will be far less dangerous than a Talbanised Afghanistan and in the long run it would prove a friend too.
For the resource-less puppets to plan their destiny is a difficult task. Saddam was in a much, much better position than our rulers. He had oil and also ambitions. He could have used oil money to uplift Iraq. Instead he wasted it to fulfil his personal dreams. He should have been tried for the crimes that he committed against the Iraqi nation. His opponents should not have played for the Americans. The Iraqis have resources and even technical capabilities. They can live on their own, and better without the US partnership. Saddam’s opportunism, callousness and ambitions ended his life. His opponents’ weaknesses and stupidities may end the existence of the Iraqis as one nation. End.