The original justification for war on Iraq was to
remove weapons of mass destruction but increasingly, as this motive was discredited (eg
see the transcript of an interview with Hans Blix and the 'Counter Dossier' by Labour Against the War) the ‘just
cause’ became the liberation of the Iraqi people. Yet, humanitarian organisations
like Amnesty International were not calling for war. One proposal that should have been
tried before war was the establishment of an ad hoc international court to try key war
criminals in the Dictator’s regime. Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage would
have been indicted but it would have been made clear that there would be an amnesty for
others – perhaps through a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission.
This might have helped create a crack in the edifice which could have helped build up some
leverage for the Iraqi opposition. The efforts of Ann Clwyd MP’s organisation INDICT
which campaigned for this kind of approach and Amnesty International’s calls to bring
to justice to perpetrators of crimes using international law (by requesting extradition of
suspects or investigating them when they enter territories under international
jurisdiction), never received the full-hearted support of the Governments who had the
power to bring this about.In addition to indictment, the operation of the sanctions
regime should have been redesigned to loosen the grip that Saddam Hussein had on civil
society. The UN, not Saddam Hussein should have been in charge of administering the Oil
for Food Programme, and the programme’s expansion could have been conditional on
reductions in military spending and increases in health and education spending. As it was
Saddam Hussein used ration cards as a potent weapon to get the Iraqi people to do the
bidding of his Ba’ath Party. Other changes in the sanctions regime could have
targeted Saddam Hussein and his entourage by freezing their foreign bank accounts.
Following the passing of 1441 with unanimous support and the threat of ‘serious
consequences’ (which were supposed to be decided on by the UN, see
article I have written on the illegality of the war) there was renewed cooperation
from Saddam Hussein with the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors. The return of the weapons
inspectors was, in itself, a new opening and the question has to be asked, couldn’t
their inspections have been extended to measures designed to open up the regime? At this
point, the option of indicting Saddam Hussein was not viable if we wanted his cooperation,
but in view of the clear progress that Hans Blix said he was making, the opportunity
should have been seized upon to make further demands upon the Iraqi dictator. For example,
for the right of opposition parties to operate inside Iraq with UN human rights monitoring
in place for their safety and for internationally supervised democratic elections. Amnesty
were calling for the deployment of human rights monitors throughout Iraq without delay, in
line with UN resolution 57/232 made in December 2002. In a letter to the Guardian
on 28 February, the Director of UK Amnesty, Kate Allen, pointed out that, had a serious
attempt been made to implement this resolution, such monitors could have provided
authoritative information and analysis on the human rights situation within the country
and recommendations for remedial action including long term institutional reform. Reports
of human rights monitors could have influenced the reform of an independent judicial
system and facilitated independent investigations and trials which are essential if the
Iraqi people are ever to see justice.
After 1441, military pressure under the auspices of the UN would have been needed to
make these alternatives effective but this would have been a genuinely humanitarian effort
and would have been quite different from a military build-up resulting from a thirst for
war by the neo-conservative Republican rightwing.