Mental mayhem: Imad Hajjaj gets it wrong

October 20, 2005

Imad Hajjaj gets it wrong

Reader Emad Hassan drew my attention to Imad Hajjaj's latest cartoon, which I found personally annoying. In the cartoon he refers to Saddam's trial as an act of "humiliation to Arabs." As an Arab, I was not humiliated; quite the contrary I am glad justice is being served.

The only thing that bothers me about the trial is how arrogant Saddam appeared to be, showing absolutely no signs of repentance for the crimes against humanity that he committed during the days of his oppressive regime.

Kais from Beirut Beltway refers to an editorial in the Daily Star in which the author discusses how both Lebanon and Iraq are on the path toward justice.

In both Iraq and Lebanon, the many citizens whose lives and families were affected by murderous regimes are hoping that the regimes' leaders will be dealt heavy punishments by the courts.

If carried out properly, the trials of Saddam and former Lebanese and Syrian regime figures will mark a turning point in the history of the Arab world. Holding rulers accountable to the rule of law is unheard of in the region, where dictators, royal families and despots have habitually acted with impunity.

Indeed, it is a turning point in the history of the Arab world. It is not an act of humiliation as Hajjaj suggests. But then again Hajjaj might be playing on the emotions of the Jordanian street, where support for the popular Saddam is fierce. So Mr Hajjaj, although I really admire your work, this time you got it wrong.

UPDATE: Amir Taheri has a compelling piece about Saddam's trial in the Times of London. Here is one excerpt:

Saddam is enjoying what he denied his victims: a public trial with defense lawyers of his choice and the rule of evidence taking into account the principle of reasonable doubt. Here a new Iraq, based on the rule of law, will be trying the old Iraq of cruelty and corruption. The Arabs will watch and decide which they would rather live under. The rest of the world should also watch to decide which side to support in the struggle for Iraq's future.

Posted by Natasha at 09:19 AM in Political mayhem | Permalink | Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc76c53ef00d8345c9a5d53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Imad Hajjaj gets it wrong:

Comments

Hajjaj's cartoon pictures an elusive American soldier holding the banner that reads: "humiliation to Arabs".

The humiliation does not come from the fact that Saddam is being tried against the mass murders he might be responsible for, but it comes from the fact that the trial is being completely organized, symbollicaly, by a sly American soldier who seems to be in control of the proceeding but without direct intervention.

Posted by: Emad Hassan | Oct 20, 2005 9:33:08 AM | Email this comment

Furthermore, the judge's podium reads: "and the Iraqi's justice".

Hajjaj believes that this trial will give the Iraqi justice.
On the other hand, its humiliating to Arabs that its being organized by the unjust American occupation.

As simple as that.
I think it does portray the situation very artistically.

Posted by: Emad Hassan | Oct 20, 2005 9:38:00 AM | Email this comment

R we humiliated?? Yes we are, but not because this trial is being orchestrated by the Americans as you say. We have been humiliated for years and years but no one ever dared to speak up or even notice...Our humiliation came from within. It came from the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by dictators...We have allowed these thugs to humiliate us in front of the whole world and never said a word, now because its the Americans we all suddenly have grown tongues and started talking and critisizing...Why wouldnt we expect the Americans to further humiliate a nation that has been already humiliated by its own rulers???

Posted by: basbooos | Oct 20, 2005 10:48:24 AM | Email this comment

I did not understand the Emad's point when I first saw the cartoon and did not make much of it. Looking at it again, I find it reads, "HUMILIATION OF ARABS and justive for the Iraqi people".

I think Emad means that the American forces want to send a dual message with Saddam's tiral. First, to humiliate other Arab RULERS (maybe), and second, to serve justice. Most Arabs identify with their rulers, however, even if the are not perfect.

Lastly, our rulers came to power at a time when the Arabs world had nothing better to offer. Times have changed and the old system has to adapt and allow more input from the smarter people we now have.

--nar

Posted by: nar | Oct 20, 2005 12:48:21 PM | Email this comment

I do agree with Basbooos that we did humiliate us more than anyone did, but still I mean wouldn't be more justified if we ourselves try Saddams and the rest of the mob?? And besides it's not like it was offered to us in the first to deny it. The Americans are trying Saddam in the name of the Iraki ppl, but whom would be better than taking justice other the Irakis themselves??

Posted by: Sinan | Oct 20, 2005 1:10:12 PM | Email this comment

Emad Hassan has it right

So does Shaden

Saddam should be tried by his own people. Not by a court in the middle of an occupation. Hajjaj is saying there are two objectives to the trial. For the majority of arabs all over the world one of them stands out more than the other.

Posted by: Nas | Oct 20, 2005 1:13:40 PM | Email this comment

nas,
I think it was rather impossible for the Iraqis to put their own dictator on trial without any external intervention.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: natasha | Oct 20, 2005 1:19:53 PM | Email this comment

Well guys...Ofcourse the Iraqis have all the right to put Saddam on trial...but i think to avoid all this debate the wiser decision was to send him over to be tried in The Hague....

Posted by: basbooos | Oct 20, 2005 1:27:25 PM | Email this comment

Natasha, on the contrary, i think it is 100% possible. as basboos has just said (in the form of a question) why wasnt he put on trial at the Hague for warcrimes like every other tyrannt of his kind? what was the agenda behind (for i believe is the first time) putting a dictator that was just removed to be put on trial by his own people during a time when (a) the external forces that removed him are still occupying the country (b) those external forces are seeing a wave of lacking support for their war on both the homefront and on the streets of baghdad.

it's a charade natasha, this isn't a huge conspiracy, its political manuevering 101. think about the message it sends when an arab leader is put on trial in his own country. who is this message tailored to? if this trial took place in the hague how would that message change?

Posted by: Nas | Oct 20, 2005 1:49:27 PM | Email this comment

My point Nas, is Hague or no Hague, Saddam's removal needed external intervention.

Do you think his trial in the Hague -after being toppled by US forces- will not prompt some people to say that the trial was a charade? I doubt it. Resistance to change is a deep-rooted trait in our region nowadays.

Although it ailed me to see a military battle waging in Iraq, I find that at least supporting the current democratic process is the only solution to adopt, at least for the sake of the Iraqi people who have been suffering for decades.

And since I foresee the objection to Saddam's trial whether it was held in Iraq with the presence of US troops or whether it was held at the Hague, i would favour the Iraqi option.

Let his own people try him. This will be justice served. I spent a big chunk of the day reading comments from Iraqi bloggers and the majority of them are ecstatic that the dictator is finally getting what he deserves.

It would have been utopian if the trial happened without external intervention, but then again, the lesser of two evils is what we are left with in this case.

Posted by: natasha | Oct 20, 2005 2:11:27 PM | Email this comment

There are other instances where war crimes/criminals are tried in their own country. Just look to Africa, where actually a Jordanian judge has gone to participate. Saddam is some long time from his initial arrest so a timely trial is at hand, unlike the extended period that passed in Africa, leaving many perhaps innocent people stuck in terrible conditions awaiting their day in court.

The real trick of this whole situation is that the entire nation is not "with" the idea of trying him. That's a tricky wicket really. The current insurgency may have many ideals and goals, but to a certain degree at least, they'd be with the idea of a Sunni return to power, something most associate with Saddam's power, however mistakenly.

So here a balance must be struck where Saddam must be given his right to a trial in a timely fashion, while also the trial must be put together such that it doesn't split the country. The idea, I'm sure was that there would be some legitimacy to having it in country, to having legitimate lawyers represent him. But it's just an ugly situation.

I'm also sure that the Hague, although an ideal location, has now become a dangerous place because of Milosevic and his use of the court to actually rally support and delay the process even further. To put Saddam there ... that's surely a once bitten twice shy situation for the world outside. So, what to do?

There is no way to win this one. The idea of a trial, however, is not a "humiliation" for Arabs. At least it should not be. This man should not be seen as a representative for Arabs. He murdered, suppressed and invaded. He may have seem himself as Nasser's successor but he was nothing but a sociopath bent on maintaining his power, regardless of whether that meant he should embrace a cause like the Palestinian woman or a faith like Islam.

I think instead of debating this ridiculous idea of whether trying him in Iraq is "Arab humiliation," which it's not. There should be some debate about what to do with Saddam. When his sons were killed, that didn't work. Saddam still is a bit of a ticking time bomb. He's charismatic and still has supporters who are still armed and still wreaking havoc. He's like Milosevic but with an armed contingent still in country. What can you do?

I have a feeling that this trial will not work either but I think it should be given its due. I don't think that American forces will benefit that directly from it. I think you'll find this situation going more internal than those external might understand. The streets of Baghdad cleared yesterday to watch this first day. Of course, the trial was pushed off again, but the attention suggests something different than what might initially be expected could come from all this.

Arab humiliation? No, I don't think so, unless Arabs want to suggest that this man is somehow representative of them. This trial is an attempt, however fallible, to bring some sort of closure to decades of REAL humiliation to a significant percentage of the Iraqi people. Why not let this busted, ramshackle attempt at justice putter along for a bit. Let's see where it goes before any further flawed analysis comes forth.

Posted by: Thomas | Oct 20, 2005 2:22:22 PM | Email this comment

Natasha, I agree with you to some degree as you make a valid point. Though Im not suggesting he be tried in the hague, i support the iraqi option, what im asking is why wasnt he tried at the hague. There is a purpose to why it was done at this point in time. And yes Iraqis are happy. But notice what emad hajjaj wrote about "iraqi justice" and the bigger banner behind it. while some iraqis feel it is justice most arabs feel it is humiliating. and its not a matter of who's right or wrong (because i think iraqis are right on this one) its a matter of emotions and sentiments the arab world is feeling right now. while some iraqis feel the objective of the court is to carry out justice, emad is pointing out a greater objective, one that i believe most arabs feel when they see these images on cnn.

Posted by: Nas | Oct 20, 2005 2:27:49 PM | Email this comment

Natasha,
"The lesser of two evils" implies a utilitarianist approach; i.e.the greater good over the individual. It seems quite a bit contradictory that you say that given the rest of your argument. Ceterus Parabus, given that human life is valued at a premium to autonomy, consistency would imply that the greater good would ensue Saddam remaining in power, and the 500 some iraqis that die every week are still alive. I will not venture into criticizing your argument, largely beause I agree with regime change, however I think you based your opinion on the wrong philosophy. Thank you.

Hamako

Posted by: Hamako | Oct 20, 2005 3:25:16 PM | Email this comment

Dear Hamako,
Thank you for clarifying the philosophy behind the lesser of two evils but I guess from my argument I was clear that I support the current democratic process in Iraq nowadays even with the presence of US troops.

Posted by: natasha | Oct 20, 2005 3:35:25 PM | Email this comment

Nas,
I really do not have any asnwer for why Saddam was not tried at the Hague. Maybe for fear of dragging the trial forever like what happened with Milosevic.

Posted by: natasha | Oct 20, 2005 3:40:54 PM | Email this comment

Not so fast Hamako. You are making the basis for your argument based upon the situation today, saying that Saddam's presence would mean less loss of life on a daily basis. All things being equal, the situation -- the finality of this action -- are not yet fully known. They certainly are not good at present, but that will change one way or the other. I think that your acknowledgement of a desire for regime change suggests that you too think -- perhaps hope -- that in actual fact a greater good will come down the road from Saddam's ouster, meaning that the logic of the argument in the long view has greater veracity than you suggest.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 20, 2005 3:46:40 PM | Email this comment

I hope you did'nt/don't find my remarks offensive.

Autonomy is indeed a driver of utility for most rational agents. For the fear of reitirating the bitter rhetoric that most of my Arab brothers and sisters voice, I will only say this: The benfits of autonomy through democracy are diminshed when the voters' chances of getting killed on the way to the ballots are higher than their chances of actually changing the country. Perhaps the benevolent interventionist should have forseen that?

Hamako

Posted by: Hamako | Oct 20, 2005 3:53:55 PM | Email this comment

Beware the benevolent interventionist! :P lol There is some truth to that but of course the country is already changed ... the mere presence -- the spirit -- of those willing to risk death to vote for change is a change in and of itself, although some might say that change is not worthy of the price being paid. But hopefully one day that will prove far less true. One thing is certain: the realities of this intervention will be far more clear 18, 24, 36, 48 months from now.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 20, 2005 4:07:38 PM | Email this comment

Inshalla Jeff...

Posted by: Hamako | Oct 20, 2005 4:22:49 PM | Email this comment

The humiliation is for all who once supported him;first, he was supported by the west during the first Gulf War, then, more closely supported by Jordan and its king who considered him ' The guardian of the east gate of the Arab world", then, both Palastinians and Jordanian when he invaded Kuwait; we all were wrong and unfair because we were biased to our own agenda, not the absolute truth (if absolute truth exists). Now, we all might be doing the same thing over and over and never get the lesson, because we are not used to democracy; we all worship the leader; if you doubt it, go and read your local newspaper. If we act otherwise, we fear the intelegence and the consequences. We are not better and a lot of injustice is done until the day comes when we can question even the leader of what he does, and why he does so;like what we see in the USA. I hope what is happening those days is the begining of new era, and whether it is a humiliation or not, only time will tell.

Posted by: Khaleel | Oct 20, 2005 7:21:18 PM | Email this comment

Interesting discussion :)

When you guys say "tried at the Hague" what do you mean? If you mean the International Court of Justice, then a case like Saddam's won't be possible because the ICJ settles disputes between countries. You cannot sue Saddam or try him at the ICJ because he is not a country, unless a certain country plans on suing Iraq, which they could (Iran could sue Iraq for damages during the Iraq-Iran war).

The other option is the International Criminal Court. That won't be possible either because the ICC's jurisdiction does not cover the period when Saddam committed these crimes.

We are left with one option: a special tribunal like the one they setup for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This requires a UN security council resolution.

The Iraqi tribunal that was setup in December 2003 follows rules of procedure based on those of the UN war crimes tribunals for Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Iraq is not in the same state Rwanda or former Yugoslavia were in, and there is reason the UNSC needed to establish one that's based in another country.

Let's not prejudge the tribunal before it starts. Amnesty International praised the judge's decision to adjourn for 40 days to allow defence lawyers to prepare their case. That's a good sign.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140402005

Posted by: Kais | Oct 20, 2005 8:54:57 PM | Email this comment

Kais,
For the sake of quelling the bitter sentiments which are bound to be voiced after the inevitable verdict, I feel a better sign would be the appointment of a non-Kurdish judge. 'Fair trial'they rave... we all know what the outcome is going to be, Saddam will not walk and that is a pre determined fact (which I am not condemning)but since we're all caught up in this diplomacy guise, should'nt we play that game by the 'rules' at least? I can't but admit that this is all slightly amusing to me.

Hamako

Posted by: Hamako | Oct 21, 2005 9:30:20 AM | Email this comment

One reason he is not being tried at the Hague is that many of his worst crimes were against Iraqis, including the one in the current trial. The Iranians would like to see him tried for war crimes.

Should he be kept alive for a whole series of trials, or executed promptly?

Posted by: Don Cox | Oct 21, 2005 12:08:56 PM | Email this comment

But home come Slobodan Milosovich, who is far worse than Saddam, received the presidential treatment yet the Arab leader was treated in a manner that can best be described as racist and vindictive? Even if Saddam is not a decent human being, Bush killed far more innocents in the invasion of Iraq than Saddam did in all the alleged massacres. Why do we celebrate "justice" against Saddam but remain quite on the murder of Arab innocents? And as we herald Saddam's trial we totally forget the murderous sanctaions that claimed the lives of over 500,000 Iraqi children who were denied basic medication and clean water. Who should be behind bars? All the alleged crimes committed by Saddam do not add up to a fraction of murders committed under the US/UK imposed sanctions and during and after the invasion or Iraq.

Posted by: Hanna | Oct 22, 2005 10:17:29 AM | Email this comment

The constant ... this criminal (saddam if he is a criminal) is not as bad as this criminal argument just won't fly in a court.

And Saddam is the one that is in a court today.

Posted by: jack | Oct 26, 2005 11:59:27 PM | Email this comment