Osama the poster boy

Professor Tan Sri Dato' Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
Comment
The Edge Malaysia - 16-05-2011

IF the US presidential election were held this week, President Barack Obama would win hands down, thanks, ironically, to Osama bin Laden. Obama's approval rating has reportedly jumped a whopping 11% since the al-Qaeda chief was killed.

Eagerness to capitalise on the "good" news has seen the White House backtracking on what was initially purveyed as the "truth" in accounting for the Abbottabad incident. For example, in retracting an earlier version, White House spokesperson Jay Carney admitted that Osama was not armed and that he had no human shield, not even his wife, as widely speculated. This somehow watered down the trustworthiness of the storyline, especially when there is no smoking gun yet!

In fact, an earlier White House version gave the impression that there was "a continuous 40-minute shoot-out" between the two sides. After waiting almost a decade, one would have thought it wise to not rush things beyond what could be confirmed. The fact remains that the sceptics would challenge every word that is uttered.

Recall that the so-called weapons of mass destruction claim by the US was used as a pretext to take down a regime in Iraq and later proved handy for the incumbent then to win a second-term of presidency.

George W Bush won another four years in office despite a controversial, if not dismal, first four years. Like voters everywhere, the Americans suffered a memory lapse, especially when billions of dollars were spent to hype up the truth. Suddenly, Saddam Hussein was the poster boy for Bush's re-election.

In his memoir The Age of Deception (2011), Mohamed ElBaradei, the then chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (1997 to 2009) revealed how Bush junior and his administrators engineered a "grotesque distortion" in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Their excuse was to disarm Iraq. ElBaradei was so certain of his facts that he suggested that the ex-president be put on trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for waging a war — a "shame of a needless war" — against Iraq.

Whether or not "an age of deception" persists under the Obama administration, it cannot be discounted that Osama will become the poster boy for the 2012 presidential election. As noted by ElBaradei, "deliberate deception was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators''.

Unless all the facts are laid on the table for the international community to examine, it would seem that Osama's killing was well timed.

The al-Qaeda chief could also have been captured and put on trial in an open court, like Saddam, as dictated by human rights.

Because of the numerous "different versions of events" over the past few weeks, no one can independently confirm what was said about Osama's killing was true. In Saddam's case, the world saw him emerge unarmed from his underground hiding place and be immediately taken into custody. In fact, he was treated quite humanely, in particular the infamous instant oral-cum-dental inspection done in full view just moments after his arrest. Subsequently, pictures of him as a captive, all spruced up, were made available quite regularly. In other words, Saddam was treated as innocent until proven guilty.

He could have been shot on sight for unleashing "the mother of all wars" on the US-led Coalition of the Willing then. But he was given the opportunity to state his case and was often beamed live to the world while doing so. Even the pronouncement of his death sentence and his execution were televised and Saddam was given a respectable burial in accordance with his religion and human rights. All this is still available on YouTube for all to see.

Was Saddam treated differently because he murdered his own people unlike Osama?

Adding to the confusion is the White House's recent confirmation that Osama was "unarmed" and in the company of his family. No one can deny that Osama was a sworn enemy of the US and a war combatant who went against the superpower, not unlike Saddam whom Bush tried very hard to link to the al-Qaeda movement led by Osama to sway US public opinion on the Iraqi invasion.

However, Osama could have been apprehended and treated the way Saddam was after he was captured. Since he was portrayed as the world's worst enemy, the world community should not have been sidelined when it came to adherence to international law. In fact, Goeffrey Robertson, a London-based lawyer who sits on the UN's Internal Justice Council, wrote that "the US was not entitled to mount a 'kill operation". The law only permits criminals to be shot if they or their accomplices pose an immediate risk to life. Otherwise, they must be taken alive.

The author of Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice (the 2008 edition of which includes a chapter on Saddam Hussein) added: "It is nonsense to say 'justice is done!' This is a misuse of the word 'justice', which requires a fair trial before an independent court."

Echoing Robertson's views, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Willams — who was said to have been at a church meeting two blocks away from the World Trade Center when it was attacked — said: "The killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done."

The vocal Amnesty International endorsed the Archbishop's concerns as "right".

Elsewhere, the Vatican observed that Christians "do not rejoice" over any death while in Germany, a Member of Parliament and the ruling Christian Democrats, Siegfried Kauder, said: "The principle that the end justifies the means has no legal foundation."

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero joined the critics, saying: "Any democrat would have preferred to see him stand trial."

The argument that this would have inflamed those in the Muslim community who were sympathetic to Osama and his band of militants is at best invalid, especially when it comes from a president who claims to understand the sensitivities of the community and that this "war" had nothing to do with Islam.

Osama, no doubt, was waging an ideological "war" against the injustices done by the US, perceived or real, which would have been properly understood if there had been an open trial on the basis that one is innocent until proven guilty.

This option is not possible now. The world's worst enemy has suddenly been reduced to the US' worst enemy and was killed more to appease the Americans by an administration with an eye on the upcoming US presidential election.

With or without a smoking gun, there will always be sceptics and it will make no difference to those who do not want to believe that Obama was born in the US no matter how hard he tried to convince them. The thing is, he has a fighting chance to make his case. Osama did not.

Osama is not getting any rights even posthumuously because his remains were conveniently disposed of in the sea. He is out of sight but not necessarily out of mind because as Obama starts to campaign for the 2012 election, the al-Qaeda chief will be playing the role of poster boy one way or another. After all, he too had played the game as a trained CIA agent in the Afghan war against Russian occupation.

* The writer is the Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia. He can be contacted at vc@usm.my