No expectations in the Arab world

  Bassma Kodmani

The scarcity of opinion articles on Saddam Hussein's trial in the Arab press is remarkable. Most newspapers, with slight variations in tone, limit their coverage to neutral informative articles mentioning the scheduled date for the resumption of the trial, May 15.

For most Arabs, the trial is only one aspect of America's grand design to change Iraq and reshape the Middle East. But there is no sense that the trial will have much impact on the future of the region. This may not be an accurate assessment and is probably more a reflection of changing priorities and the feeling that the worst has already happened.

Secular nationalists believe the trial and Saddam's indictment will further ignite Iraqi resistance. But no one really believes it will reunify Iraqis of different religious communities around a common objective. If Iraq's division along sectarian lines is in any way reparable, it is unlikely that memories of Saddam's rule or his contested trial will be effective.

The overwhelming majority of Arabs, governments and public opinion alike, have no trust in the way the trial is organized. Opinions range from questioning the legitimacy of the tribunal and the trial procedure based on legal criteria--as some international human rights organizations have already stressed--to an outright denunciation of the enterprise altogether as a farce: the Iraqi judiciary is not independent; the work of the tribunal is dominated by US advisors; basic guarantees for the accused are missing; past American support for Saddam's regime will not be revealed; the composition of the court is flawed and the chief judge is bent on revenge; the evidence produced to charge Saddam is not valid and much evidence of the alleged mass executions at Dujail as well as of other charges to come, has been lost.

In contrast, advocates of "democracy first" across the Arab world, mainly human rights activists and liberal intellectuals and opinion leaders, applaud the trial as representing the first time an Arab leader is held accountable in a court of law for his crimes. In Lebanon in particular, they see in it a hopeful precedent for the trial of key figures implicated in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Saddam is facing the retribution he deserves and Arabs need to learn that stability can and must be built on voluntary civic coexistence rather than on the iron-fist control of a dictator. They need to develop the notion of equal responsible citizenship as the basis of national cohesion. The annihilation of Saddam through his indictment and execution will provide the ruins on which to build this new political culture.

The Arab world is busy coping with the new regional disorder. There remains some nostalgia among secular nationalists for the dream that Saddam nurtured of an Arab state endowed with all the ingredients of a major regional power and the capacity to defend Arab interests. But those who hold this opinion are now a minority, and even among them Saddam is resented for his adventurism, his foolishness, and for having so grossly misread America's determination and bluffed about his own capabilities. Nationalists are angry at America for its hegemonic designs, and liberals are just as angry at the US for its unforgivable ignorance of Iraqi realities. But nationalists and liberals alike see that Saddam brought disaster upon himself, his country and the whole region and that the Arab world is paying a very heavy price for his fatal mistakes.

Arabs are concerned about the consequences of a chaotic Iraq torn by sectarian strife for the fragile stability of multi-religious and multi-ethnic societies. For Arab leaders, Saddam was undoubtedly an embarrassing partner; but Iraq under his control was stable and secular. The reasons for which they all supported him in his eight-year war against Iran from 1980 to 1988 are as valid today as they were 20 years ago. Iran is now emerging as the uncontested regional power and its Islamist nationalist discourse is more attractive to Arab public opinion than any Arab leader's promises. Iranian President Ahmadinezhad is not a dictator. He was democratically elected, enjoys wide domestic support and has the right discourse in the face of the prevailing injustices from which Arabs and Muslims suffer. Saddam's image has grown pale as Iran's Islamic nationalism sweeps popular imagination.

On most levels, Saddam Hussein is a man of the past who lost his credibility. He ceased to be a regional leader long ago, he is not an ideological symbol anymore, nor is he a national leader. Yet he remains the last symbol of what was for decades a Sunni-dominated Iraq, and the godfather of armed Sunni resistance. The security equation and the possibility of US troops beginning to withdraw from Iraq may still depend heavily on him.

It is in this sense only, not because of any form of popularity, that his indictment and possible execution are likely to represent an unbearable cost.- Published 11/5/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Bassma Kodmani is executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative.