Hear that? It’s the sound of hands being washed

The death penalty has been outlawed in the UK for decades, and in fact the entire European Union “is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and has consistently espoused its universal abolition, working towards this goal”. Specifically, capital punishment is seen as a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. By signing up the EU, member states must remove capital punishment from their legal processes. Britain, like the other EU countries, actively engages with states that still execute their citizens, including the United States.

So why doesn’t the UK oppose the death sentence recently passed on Saddam Hussein? According to our political leaders, because it’s an internal matter for the Iraqi people. Surely, after invading and occupying their country three years ago it’s a bit late for that.

There’s no hypocrisy involved when American politicians applaud the passing of the death sentence on Saddam Hussein. The American Bill of Rights does not preclude the execution of criminals, and in fact the number of people executed in the United States has been steadily increasing since its re-introduction in the mid 1970s. Capital punishment remains popular among many sections of American society, and there’s no immediate likelihood of captal punishment being abolished any time soon. Thus, by American legal standards at least, Saddam Hussein is not being treated in a unique or immoral manner.

For the British though, things are different. As an outspoken opponent of capital punishment, the British government should be as consistent in Iraq as they are at opposing such punishments in countries that retain the death sentence, for which the US shouldn’t be singled out, as the list is quite long and includes places like Somalia, Nigeria, Iran, and China. Britain and the EU have made representations to all of these countries voicing their criticism of capital punishment. So why not Iraq?

Former UK Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (one of the “wise old men” of the British Conservative Party) has accused the Americans of delaying the return of the verdict on Saddam Hussein so that it would coincide with the recent elections. So that it could be used as a good news story, Mr. Rifkind declared the timing “deeply suspect”.

On the other hand, the government has only commented that the “Iraqi judicial system is a matter for the Iraqis”. Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor (head of the British legal system) on the BBC Radio 4 programme “Any Questions” parsed his words perfectly, saying that whilst he personally opposed the death penalty, the actual decision must come down to the Iraqis. Pontius Pilate couldn’t have phrased it better himself.

Fair enough I suppose, but surely the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was to make the place better and more humane. If we pulled out tomorrow, the decision of the Iraqi people would unquestionably be to have a bloody civil war, carving out what smaller states they can, while driving away or killing any ethnic groups that the majorities in those areas didn’t happen to like. If the British are going to remain in Iraq for the long term, it has to be to create a democratic state that espouses values that the British people support.

Of course the reason the British government aren’t being more vociferous in their opposition to the sentence is because the American government is so pleased with the result. George W. Bush went so far as to say that the death sentence was “a major achievement for Iraq’s young democracy, and its constitutional government”. By American standards perhaps, but not by British or European ones.