A Bit of a Noose
The prime minister of the sovereign, independent Iraqi government has said that Saddam Hussein is to be strung up without delay. "Our respect for human rights means we must implement the execution," he said. "Whoever rejects Saddam's execution would be insulting the souls of the martyrs of Iraq."
There is, of course, a small moral dilemma here for the Coalition of the Enlightened. Is the use of the death penalty, not to mention that ominous talk of martyrs, yet another sign that the Iraqis are unworthy of our attempts to liberate them? Or is it, because the beneficiary is such a deserving case, a sign that our liberalising influence is at last beginning to work? Killing people in the name of human rights is, after all, the Coalition's very raison d'être. On the other hand, the British Foreign Office has contented itself with declaring that this particular act of human rights recognition is "an Iraqi process", which seems to indicate a certain disinclination as regards standing shoulder to shoulder with whoever has the pleasure of pulling the lever.
There is some speculation, apparently fostered by "a senior US official" and the American propaganda channel on Iraqi television, that the glorious event could happen as early as tomorrow; but an official from the Iraqi justice ministry said it was "none of the Americans' business" when the demonstration of respect for human rights would take place, particularly as Saddam Hussein, "although legally in Iraqi custody, ... is physically under US guard". There's the rub. If the Americans decide that their former friend and trading partner is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment - the kind of thing one expects of the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Venezuelans and world-threateners of similar stripe - then, no doubt, in the formidable face of Iraqi sovereignty, they will find themselves tragically unable to stop the unfortunate event. In those circumstances, I suppose, the only honourable course would be to up stakes and leave Iraq to its barbarity, whether the Iraqis liked it or not.
There is, of course, a small moral dilemma here for the Coalition of the Enlightened. Is the use of the death penalty, not to mention that ominous talk of martyrs, yet another sign that the Iraqis are unworthy of our attempts to liberate them? Or is it, because the beneficiary is such a deserving case, a sign that our liberalising influence is at last beginning to work? Killing people in the name of human rights is, after all, the Coalition's very raison d'être. On the other hand, the British Foreign Office has contented itself with declaring that this particular act of human rights recognition is "an Iraqi process", which seems to indicate a certain disinclination as regards standing shoulder to shoulder with whoever has the pleasure of pulling the lever.
There is some speculation, apparently fostered by "a senior US official" and the American propaganda channel on Iraqi television, that the glorious event could happen as early as tomorrow; but an official from the Iraqi justice ministry said it was "none of the Americans' business" when the demonstration of respect for human rights would take place, particularly as Saddam Hussein, "although legally in Iraqi custody, ... is physically under US guard". There's the rub. If the Americans decide that their former friend and trading partner is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment - the kind of thing one expects of the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Venezuelans and world-threateners of similar stripe - then, no doubt, in the formidable face of Iraqi sovereignty, they will find themselves tragically unable to stop the unfortunate event. In those circumstances, I suppose, the only honourable course would be to up stakes and leave Iraq to its barbarity, whether the Iraqis liked it or not.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home