Saddam’s ‘parody’ of a trial
From Sir Jonah Walker-Smith
Sir: When I read the title to Alasdair Palmer’s article, ‘Saddam’s trial shouldn’t be fair’ (11 November), I assumed that it was written with tongue in cheek. By the time I reached the penultimate sentence — ‘the trials of genocidal killers are not, and should never be, fair’ — I realised, to my surprise, that he was in earnest.
Doubtless Saddam Hussein is as guilty as sin of the crime with which he has been charged and convicted. So was Milosevic. So was Goering. But Milosevic and Goering received fair trials. Saddam did not.
Alasdair Palmer understates the case when he writes that Saddam’s trial has ‘certainly not been a paradigm of fairness’. The fact that the Iraqi government removed one of the judges mid-trial because they perceived him to be ‘biased’ in favour of Saddam is about as blatant a negation of fairness as one can imagine.
Mr Palmer appears to be saying that this really does not matter. With respect, it matters a great deal. A show trial is no trial. A fixed trial is a jinxed trial. If the rule of law — rather than anarchy or totalitarianism — is to prevail, then a fair trial in front of an impartial tribunal is a prerequisite, however heinous the alleged crime and however apparently overwhelming the evidence. Anything less demeans the ‘victors’.
Mr Palmer suggests that an international tribunal would not have been any better. He criticises recent international tribunals for their slowness (fair point) and criticises the Nuremberg trials because, while the tribunal included Soviet judges, ‘the Soviet Union was guilty of crimes as appalling as those of many of the Nazis standing trial’ (again a fair point). But these are relatively minor — and at Nuremberg they were unavoidable — flaws compared with the parody of a trial in Baghdad which has served only to compound the mess which the American and British invasion of Iraq has brought about.
Jonah Walker-Smith
London W2
Different conclusions
From Sebastian Calvo
Sir: Reading Christopher Caldwell’s analysis of the recent American elections (‘We have lost the war’, 11 November) makes me wonder what exactly remains of The Spectator’s old conservative voice. Is there no other conclusion from these elections than a wide repudiation of the war itself? Many more Democrats than Republicans voted on Tuesday, and yet constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriages passed in five of six states (Arizona already has a law making them illegal), and affirmative action was struck down in liberal Michigan. Republicans stayed home as a protest against President Bush’s proposed amnesty for illegal aliens and his exorbitant domestic spending. They will now get both. Conservatives (non-neocons) feel betrayed by an administration they argue has abandoned traditional values in favour of equivocation in the face of multiculturalist encroachments across civil society, an increasing abdication of sovereignty to organisations espousing extraterritorial jurisdiction, and yes, foreign adventure. But the vote was also about the war’s management, not only its genesis. Few outside Democratic leadership positions welcome appeasement through quick withdrawal.
A different, more nuanced take on these elections is that they confirm rather than repudiate a solid conservative majority across America on most social issues and an impatience with the war’s administration. Mr Caldwell’s conclusions seem superficial in the face of the deeper issues informing these results. Compared with historical results for second-term mid-term elections, Republicans did very well — and did so without any accusations of voter fraud or any insults directed at those displeased with their governance. Now that, surely, is something worth mentioning in your pages as a contrast to the Democrats’ defeat two and four years earlier.
Sebastian Calvo
New York, NY, USA
Outrageous invention
From Jonathan Headland
Sir: J.G. Cluff’s letter (11 November) on The Spectator’s perceived support for Bush and Blair reinvents history outrageously when he writes, ‘Blair’s contempt for casualties and public opinion echoes that of the first world war politicians and generals.’
British public opinion was in favour of winning the war with Germany, Austria–Hungary and Turkey, not against it. The popular view of the execution of the first world war did not become as negative as it is today until the 1960s, half a century after the politicians and generals in question had done their job, and it is anachronistic to claim otherwise.
As for complaining about the scale of British casualties in Western Front engagements, this makes little sense, unless one can propose a workable contemporary alternative which would have held back the massed German armies pushing forward. It is arguable that the level of casualties suffered is largely proportionate to the quantity of soldiers deployed by each side, not the arrogance of the generals.
Jonathan Headland
Cambridge
Resignation issues
From Guy Millard
Sir: I am always a great admirer of Frank Johnson’s column in The Spectator, but on this occasion (Shared opinion, 11 November) I should add a correction to what he says about Eden’s resignation in 1938.
I do not think that Eden regarded Italy as much of a military threat, though he strongly opposed Mussolini’s intervention in the Spanish Civil War. But he was understandably outraged to discover that behind his back Chamberlain was corresponding with the Italian regime through the intermediary of his sister-in-law, Lady (Austen) Chamberlain. Chamberlain did not keep secret from Eden the offer from Roosevelt of a conference on central Europe. But he rejected it out of hand without consulting him. In the face of the ever growing threat from Germany, Eden considered it a disastrous mistake to snub this American offer of intervention and support.
These were the principal reasons for Eden’s resignation. As he was after all foreign secretary, it is hardly surprising that he considered these resignation issues.
Guy Millard
Private Secretary to Sir Anthony Eden, 1955–56,
Gloucestershire
Subtle champion
From J. Davis
Sir: Charlie Boss’s article on the reforms of government in Oxford University is dominated by a major misconception (‘Is Oxford about to get rid of its Vice-Chancellor?’, 4 November). Dr Hood, he says, is a controversial figure. Yes, exactly, and intended to be so. The University needs change, has been introducing changes for some years, and he was appointed to bring the final and most difficult phase to completion. His predecessor, the great insider Sir Colin Lucas, also a reformer, was partly thwarted by aggressive inertia in departments still associated with the current rejectionist front.
Dr Hood, a civilised pers on, did indeed preserve the qualities of the University of Auckland: his internal reforms there were equalled by his resistance to government interference (the speaker of the parliament at one time exceeded his powers to call for Dr Hood’s impeachment) and his solicitude for Maori education. (A company of such gentlemen wearing ethnic cloaks over their pinstriped suits came to Oxford to give their vice-chancellor to us; their ceremonial dance was in private, but their public presence was joyfully impressive and convinced the audience at Dr Hood’s installation that we had acquired a champion.) Nobody who has seen him talking informally with young scholars working in recondite subjects can doubt that he perceives and responds to intellectual excellence in fields remote from business and engineering. Kiwis in Oxford, especially if they have experience of Auckland, will not hear a word against him.
Some people who oppose the proposed changes have used caricatures of businessmen to back their rhetoric; and one businessman-councillor has behaved in a conspicuously non-collegial way, though only twice. The new council will surely have external academics as well as alumni field marshals of industry; and in any case the stereotypical businessman they scare us with is unlike any leader of industry you are likely to meet — much more like the modernised bureaucrat who imagines he or she is being ‘businesslike’. So Charlie Boss could have listened to other voices, and conveyed the more accurate picture that Oxford academics are engaged in a more or less seemly debate. Neither proposers nor opposers are engaged in a conspiracy: they meet to co-ordinate and to gather support, but they do not secretly plan illegal actions.
The University needs reform partly because it needs a lot of money. People will not give unless they think the University will use their money carefully and for proper purposes. Dr Hood and his advisers believe that the reforms of the system of internal control will offer the required assurance. Many people, disliking one or other aspect of the proposed legislation, are still prepared to trust the man and his judgment. In all probability we’ll see the results of the debate shortly. Whatever they may be, it is extraordinarily unlikely we will see the pique-led resignation of a strong and subtle champion.
J. Davis
The Warden, All Souls College, Oxford
Too much Botha
From Reinier Botha
Sir: P.W. Botha’s death prompts me to record that for many of us P.W. Botha was an embarrassment, as was his foreign minister Pik Botha. There was only one Botha who has done our family proud, the Boer War era general, our first prime minister, Jan Smuts’s mentor and a true statesman — Louis Botha.
Reinier Botha
Constantia, Cape Town, South Africa
The gardens we deserve
From Anne Wareham
Sir: Do the crowds which love Tate Modern really ‘have the breath squeezed out of them’ (Arts, 11 November) contemplating English gardens? Does the audience that flocks to the Turner Prize presentation also hammer at the gates of the local open garden? I think not. Our gardens seem to me to be snoozing in a cosy dream of the 1950s and any ‘lively spirit of experimentation’ is actually well buried in acres of complacency. No newspaper, magazine or television programme takes gardens — as opposed to gardening — seriously, and real spirit finds small welcome in a country dedicated to nostalgia in its gardens.
We have the gardens we deserve, but not the gardens we could aspire to. You can express things through the use of land, water and plants in partnership with time, weather and light, which reach the parts no other art can reach. If we dared, our gardens could challenge, excite and stimulate us — and then truly become one of the glories of Britain.
Anne Wareham
Monmouthshire
Juvenile untouchables
From Nick Wootton
Sir: As an Independent Custody Visitor (formerly ‘Lay Visitor’), I can attest to the accuracy of Jeremy Clarke’s article (‘I’ve been arrested for peeling potatoes?’, 11 November). Sadly, the picture he paints is not restricted to Saturday nights, or only to Plymouth. The Police and Custody Assistants work in the conditions described day in and day out, usually with limited access to natural light or fresh air. (With the smells in the custody suites, anosmia is advantageous.) But possibly the saddest picture is one Mr Clarke did not see — that of a ‘juvenile’ of 12–16 (or even younger), street- and worldly-wise, hard as nails, already with their own social worker and solicitor, and the attitude that the system cannot touch them. When one sees them mouthing off at the custody staff and ready to take on the world, it makes one wonder.
Nick Wootton
Wallasey, Wirral
Not compiling
From Tom Johnson
Sir: I read Sandy Balfour’s review of the A-Z of Crosswords by Jonathan Crowther in last week’s edition of The Spectator with interest. I am sure that Jonathan would like to defend his stance personally. As crossword editor of The Spectator I wish to point out some factual errors in Sandy Balfour’s review. The main team of compilers of The Spectator crossword consists of Columba, Dumpynose and me along with Ascot. Balfour omits his name, yet includes Mass who retired as a Spectator compiler early in 1997. Smokey’s very few puzzles for The Spectator appeared well over 20 years ago, at the time when Jac, the instigator of the series, took a breather from compiling.
Tom Johnson
‘Doc’, crossword editor of The Spectator
Comments