Now that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has been captured, the world's attention has turned to his trial. Should Saddam be tried by Iraqis in Iraq, or should he face an international tribunal?
The forthcoming conference on democracy, human rights and the role of the International Criminal Court in Yemen on Jan. 10 to 12 will provide a forum to debate these questions.
It is, of course, certain that Saddam will not escape trial for the extra-judicial, extra-legal and summary executions, torture and systematic persecution of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that marked his decades of murderous misrule. However, the aim of his trial should be not only to bring to justice the dictator and his accomplices, but also to foster national reconciliation through the affirmation by Iraqis of universal principles such as non-discrimination, fairness and transparency.
For years, Iraq has only known the brutal laws of force and intimidation. If judging Saddam and his regime is to become a cornerstone in the building of a free, democratic and reconciled Iraq, then the US, as the leader of the coalition that ousted him, should do everything in its power to pursue this opportunity and set a very high standard of justice.
US President George W. Bush has stated that he would "work with Iraqis to develop a way to try [Saddam] that will withstand international scrutiny." The best way to address that scrutiny and avoid accusations of "victor's justice" is to involve other international players in the exercise.
To address the systematic violations of the laws of war and the crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia, in the Great Lakes Region of Africa or in Sierra Leone and Cambodia, the international community, with the involvement of the UN, set up international and internationalized courts. These institutions have finally established the principle that major violations of human rights and dignity are of universal concern and that the international community should actively participate in the quest for justice and reparation for victims.
While no one doubts the willingness of Iraqi judges to try their former "head of state" in a national court, the novelty of such an effort and its political implications suggest some type of international participation for the sake of competence and, most of all, impartiality.
Over the last 10 years, the international community has established special or ad hoc tribunals, with international participation in those situations where local institutions could not ensure due process of law or fair trials. Iraq presents another such situation. Thirty years of brutal dictatorship have destroyed the very concept of justice in Iraq. For justice must mean more than the cries of "death to Saddam" that now echo in some quarters around the world.
It is important that the US take the lead in this crucial aspect of state-building. It should reach out to the UN in an exercise similar to those that, without providing for capital punishment, have brought to justice Slobodan Milosevic and the leaders responsible for the Rwandan genocide -- and that tomorrow might bring to the dock Liberia's Charles Taylor and dozens of Khmer Rouge leaders.
An added benefit of internationalization would perhaps be to make clear to the current US administration that withholding endorsement of the International Criminal Court is fundamentally against its own interests. It could also facilitate the process of internationalizing the burden of rebuilding Iraq, which cannot be shouldered entirely by the US and its allies.
The preconditions for the enjoyment of civil and political rights cannot be built overnight. Before elections can be freely and fairly held, huge efforts must be made to establish a truly open society in which all individuals and groups can express their political opinions. Establishing a system of justice that protects these rights is indispensable; otherwise, there will never be a durable and lasting peace in Iraq.
An internationalized court in Iraq for the prosecution of crimes against humanity would contribute to the development of a national justice system that will actually deliver justice for all Iraqis, and will thus assist the already encouraging efforts of the Iraqi Governing Council towards democracy.
Emma Bonino, a former EU Commissioner, is a Transnational Radical Member of the European Parliament. Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS