There was such joy on the faces in Santiago this week at news that the former tyrant Augusto Pinochet might soon face trial for his regime’s crimes, even at 89. It seemed emblematic of the new “humanitarian” politics of our era. Wars are launched (Kosovo, Iraq) and leaders brought to trial (Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, now Augusto Pinochet) in the name of human-rights abuses and war atrocities. “Left” thinkers such as Michael Ignatieff and leaders such as Tony Blair embrace the approach. It seems almost Christmassy: peace on Earth, goodwill toward — but I’d argue that this kind of politics is a hoax.

Take the case of Saddam, whose trial may start soon. The law creating an Iraqi Special Tribunal was drafted by the U.S., given to the Iraqi provisional government installed by the U.S., ratified by it, then signed into law by U.S. overseer Paul Bremer. It requires Iraqi judges and prosecutors, located in offices in the U.S. compound, to “receive assistance” from the Americans. Defence lawyers may be barred from trial sessions; testimony gained by torture is allowed. It is administered by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a former UK and U.S. agent, who is guarded by private U.S. guards.

The reason for controlling the trial is no secret. The tribunal’s former head, deposed by the Iraqi PM, said the aim is to “tailor” the trials to stop Saddam from raising embarrassing questions, as the former Serbian leader has tried to do at his trial in The Hague. There is lots to raise: U.S. encouragement of Saddam in the heinous war with Iran; friendly visits in the 1980s by current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who knew about Iraq’s use of poison gas; implicit advance approval for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990; U.S. urging of Shiites to rebel in 1991, then abandoning them; sanctions in the ’90s that savaged the population but failed to foment a coup against Saddam, yet were left in place since the U.S. had no other policy etc.

None of this will be raised. The process has been prepared with a view to nailing Saddam rather than revealing the nexus of responsibility for the evil done under him. He will be charged, as the U.S.-written law dictates, with particular cases of atrocity rather than broad charges that could lead to broad questions.

But why does it matter, if at least some bad guys get nailed? For two reasons. (1) The other culprits escape, which is no justice for the victims and false closure for the survivors. (The notion of closure, another emblematic term in our time, may also be a hoax.) (2) Nothing is learned except false lessons, which means the causes of catastrophe persist, to be repeated. In the case of Saddam, what the broader questions would reveal is that the U.S. made war not from humanitarian motives: Those didn’t matter in the past, why would they suddenly count now? Instead, Saddam’s real “crime” was lèse-majesté toward the U.S. and its interests. That is not uplifting information, but it might help the world avoid future disasters.

Want real proof of the futility of “humanitarian” politics à la George Bush and Tony Blair? A year ago, they “got” Saddam. He is in jail, they will try him and execute him — yet things have grown far worse there. This week, Iraq’s interim president said the possibility of an “Iraqi Hitler” looms. He wasn’t talking about Saddam, he was talking about Iraq without Saddam. He was as much a symptom as a cause. Without the context of global politics and economics, he could have done little of what he did, much like Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

The Pinochet trial might be the most plausible. At least it’s a domestic event, not something mocked up by outsiders. But the general environment is depressing. This week, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, about Russia’s Vladimir Putin regime: “A fascist Russia is a much better thing than a Communist Russia,” since it lays the “groundwork for democracy.” How shallow, how wishful. (I especially like the “much better”; just how do you quantify these “things”?) It typifies a time when “humanitarian” posturing has replaced real political thinking. Fascism slips back into favour, just like the 1930s.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.