The Distinction Between Saddam and Other Criminals

I am not defending Saddam Hussein in this article. Because

Saddam Hussein was a criminal. He was an enemy of the people of Iraq, especially the Kurds; the people of Iraq suffered deep wounds during his rule; wounds that can be seen in their souls, their bodies, and the memory of their history.

Therefore, I do not defend Saddam or any other dictator.

But I have a question: What role do the criminals who today stand behind the official podiums of the world and speak about peace, freedom, human rights, and the future of humanity play?

Is a crime only a crime when it is committed by the other side? Do the same acts suddenly acquire a different nature when they are committed by an allied country? Is a bomb dropped by an allied aircraft a “military operation”? But if the same bomb is dropped by the opposing side, is it considered a crime?

Does a child who is killed in a modern country have more value than a child who is killed in a traditional country?

This is where I have a problem with global politics.

My problem is not only with dictators. My problem is with the double standards that classify dictators.

One is called a monster, while another is called a “strong leader.” One is put on trial. Another participates in international conferences and human rights speeches. One is hated for his retaliatory attacks, while another, despite his bloody past, continues to receive political, economic, and military support. And we are supposed to believe that this is an “international order based on the rule of law”?

Therefore, I am not asking why Saddam was executed. On the contrary, I say: If Saddam was sentenced to death for his crimes, then anyone who commits a crime must be judged by the same standard.

Justice loses its meaning when it becomes a choice.

It becomes politics, a bargaining tool. It returns to the same game of power, where the value of a human life is measured by the flag raised above it.

Our world is full of such contradictions: powers that speak of the freedom of people one day and sign agreements with repressive governments the next. Countries that defend human rights, but when their economic and geopolitical interests are threatened, their memories suddenly disappear.

Politicians who speak of peace while their countries sell billions of dollars worth of weapons

And then those same people stand behind the podium with serious faces and prescribe remedies for humanity.

Sometimes, one truly does not know whether to laugh or cry at this scene.

Because the victims are no longer alive to defend themselves. They are in cemeteries. They are in refugee camps. They have been left among the ruins of cities. They are in old family photographs. But politicians are still behind the podiums and still giving speeches. They still talk about morality. They still decide who is “good” and who is “bad.”

And perhaps the bitterest part of the story is that the world sometimes has a problem not with the crime itself, but with the criminal who committed it.

If the criminal belongs to the modern political camp, there is justification. If not, condemnation. If he is an ally of the party, silence. If he serves its interests, “political realism.” If he goes against modern interests, a “threat to global security.”

But this is no longer justice. It is merely the more sophisticated language of that same old politics of power.

Of course, I condemn Saddam Hussein. Without any “but” or “if.”

Precisely for this reason, when another criminal stands behind a podium and presents himself as the savior of the world, I cannot remain silent.

A criminal does not become an innocent human being simply because he wears a suit, stands beneath a flag, and speaks from an official podium.

History must weigh everyone on the same scale. Not only the defeated. Not only those who no longer have the power to defend themselves. But also the powerful who now stand behind the podium.

Because perhaps the greatest lie in global politics is not that some politicians lie.

The greatest lie is that sometimes a crime is named according to who committed it.

And as long as this remains the case, the world will be free neither from criminals nor from war.

Only the podiums will change.

Gouya Roshan — All Rights Reserved