Everyone has to die one day; Saddam, too, had to, and did. There are few whose lives left a mark on those who lived after them, but fewer are the ones whose life and death were equally significant. Saddam was one such fellow. Perhaps, he did not deserve such a glorious death as he was given by those who hated him the most. He lived a king’s life in palaces that had its bathroom fitted with gold taps, and, more significantly, by dying with unflinching defiance, he also managed to embrace death like a brave king. Those who took away his thrown and his crown in life gave him the undeniable crown of martyrdom. If he were such a monster as the US would have us believe he was, he certainly did not deserve such a grand death. This, too, was the result of yet another of Mr. Bush’s expensive miscalculations. How expensive it is really going to be is still out of sight. However, what is clearly visible is the absence of any Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and the fact that Saddam had no link whatsoever with Osama or Al Quaida. The fact was known to Bush administration much before the trial even began. So, the very reasons Bush said he had to attack Iraq were found baseless. Once it was found, the right thing to do was pack the bags and get out of the country. But Bush did not do so. Why? Isn’t it so obvious? He had his agenda clearly laid out much before he actually invaded Iraq. Today, we have every reason to suspect that Bush knew it all the while that Iraq had no WMDs, neither did it have any links with Al Quaeda or Osama. He attacked Iraq because he wanted to effect a regime change there. The reasons for such an action could be entirely political or entirely economical or a mix of the two. It appears more likely now that Bush hoodwinked the world on Iraq issue and pursued his own agenda. The attack on Iraq was illegal and so was Saddam’s trial and execution. Isn’t Bush guilty of the same war crimes that Saddam Hussein has been executed for? Quite clearly, he is. The biggest question is, who is going to put Mr. Bush on trial?
Now those professors of law who argue that International Law is ‘law’ in the real sense must either concede that it is not or should answer why, and, more importantly, how would Bush be put on trial. Well, International Law may or may not be law, but it goes without saying that it has no viable backing and a law without a stick backing it, is left wanting in one fundamental respect – legitimate coercion. Any powerful nation can take the International Law for a ride and there is no viable machinery to check it. United States’ illegitimate occupation of Iraq proves it beyond question. It is high time the world sat up, took note of the situation and did something worthwhile about it. Having said that, I do not see a glimmer of hope that this could be done in a long time to come.
