"This aggression will not stand, man": Nicolas Sarkozy and the execution of Saddam Hussein

I just picked up this story thanks to someone from Americans for Peace and Justice, an anti-war organization based in Montpellier which I joined a few months ago. The piece entitled "L'exécution de Saddam Hussein est une faute" orginally appeared in Le Monde and was then translated and posted on Truthout.org.

Nicolas Sarkozy is the current presidential candidate for the Union pour un mouvement populaire (UMP). The UMP is the right of center party here and Sarkozy is generally considered the right-wing of the UMP. He’s a short man, brash, expressive, a little hot-tempered sometimes. It’s is interesting to compare his heated performances to the cool Ségolène Royal, the presidential candidate for the Parti socialiste. I may try to write more on the French elections as things begin to heat up here, but now I’d like to share the op-ed that Mr. Sarkozy wrote about the recent hanging of Saddam Hussein.

Many folks on the French left believe that Sarkozy is a dangerous man, an extremist, and even a closet fascist who would sacrifice the country’s principles of fraternité, liberté, and égalité at an altar of corporate greed and jingoism. With that in mind read the following letter from him and judge for yourself. I am no fan of Sarkozy’s neo-liberalist leanings and his visit to see George last year seemed to me not just awful politics on his part, but also a scary insight into what this man may think passes for good governance.

Nonetheless, read what the right-wing of the right in France thinks about Saddam Hussein's finish.

***

Saddam Hussein's Execution Is a Mistake
By Nicolas Sarkozy
Tuesday 02 January 2007

I would have liked to greet Saddam Hussein's trial as a significant step in Iraq's democratization. Unfortunately, the execution of the former Iraqi dictator throws an event that should have been a positive one in the reconstruction of this martyred country into a bad light. First, however, I must acknowledge with satisfaction that Saddam Hussein was judged.

I observe that the Criminal High Court is an Iraqi decision-making body, composed exclusively of Iraqi judges, the hearings of which are public. Experts and observers say, certainly quite rightly, that the arguments were conducted in a disorganized way and that the proceedings lacked dignity. Moreover, three defense attorneys were assassinated. The fact that Saddam Hussein should be judged by an Iraqi court is already a feat in itself under the circumstances into which the country is plunged. Let us remember that Iraq has only made the discovery of free elections, of a freely chosen constitution, of a coalition government, of parliamentary deliberations, and of an independent judiciary in recent months; but also, above all, let us remember that it is the scene of a particularly bloody civil war.

The trial is also a feat because the defendant happens to be the person who subjugated his fellow citizens through murder and terror for over thirty years and whom terrorists (I, for one, cannot call people who daily let off bombs among civilians a "resistance.") still claim as their own.

I would have liked to hail the fact that through this highly symbolic trial the Iraqi government had applied for itself those elements that essentially contribute to its sovereignty, such as an independent and professional judiciary system, or a democratic and uncorrupted police force.

The death penalty and the execution of the convicted man prevent me from that. I am opposed to the death penalty. For me, it's a question of principle. I believe that the world must continue to make its way toward total abolition of the death penalty. And, in the present instance, even though we're dealing with one of history's great criminals, I deem that Iraq would have grown and become greater by not executing the one who had made it suffer so much. I ardently desire Iraq's stabilization. But, as I see it, the in-depth stabilization of this region can take place only through the promotion of democratic values. I hate the idea that certain peoples should be condemned to violence for no reason other than that violence is part of a multi-century, even thousand-year-old tradition. And I believe that an indispensable step in the democratization of Iraq is the abolition of the death penalty.

Finally, I deeply deplore that Saddam Hussein, the dictator who had more blood on his hands than anyone in the world, did not have to appear and account before the law for his other crimes. I am sorry that justice was not done the Kurds, whose sufferings were unspeakable, and for whom the massacre of 5,000 civilians in the little town of Halabja in 1988 was only one monstrous event among many others. I am sorry justice was not done to the Shia, who were subjected to a barbarous repression in 1991 by the Iraqi Republican Guard - under the impassive regard, incidentally, of the international community.

It is difficult to reconcile the different constituencies of a people at the departure of a dictatorship. But that task seems even more difficult when light is not shed on the past.

The execution of Saddam Hussein, the worst of men, is a mistake.