I confess, when I meet a fellow French journalist named Arnaud Devalay, I see an unassuming, yet strikingly expressive, cheerful fellow at first glance. His courage may seem foolish, but in a few seconds you realise his high intellect, his rational reasoning and his very broad outlook and experience. He has served for several years in Iraq or also for two years in Syria and has studied the processes there in detail. Now he is reporting on Ukraine. Doesn't his name ring a bell? No wonder. He was one of those who defended the deposed president in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and that's why the Western media doesn't like him very much. The first defenders of Hussein were assassinated, yet Arnaud took the risk. He is one of those who cannot return home at the moment because the risk of a political trial is almost more than certain. Arnaud is a highly erudite, highly experienced lawyer and, above all, a courageous journalist who went after the truth and defended it.
What was your educational background, lawyer, journalist or vice versa, and did you have ambitions to become a journalist or was that a consequence of your legal involvement?
I started out as a lawyer. I was educated in the United States, where I was lucky enough to have Ramsey Clark as a mentor. Journalism is an activity that has subsequently evolved in the sense that the very notion of advocacy requires us to be able to inform the public about things that the traditional media do not necessarily report.
What do you like about law and what do you like about journalism? Is there anything you prefer?
No. The two complement each other. In law, a case must be based on tangible, detailed facts if it is to have a reasonable chance of success. A lawyer must therefore often "visit" the case in person to understand the realities and adjust legal strategy accordingly. Communication is an essential tool in a lawyer's toolbox.
First, to the process itself. In your opinion, what was the reason for the US aggression and the US military invasion of Iraq without a UN Security Council mandate?
The reason is multidimensional. After the events of September 11, 2001, a small (but very influential) cohort of ideologues took control of the US federal government. These neoconservatives, who are anything but conservative, hold that the status the United States inherited at the end of the Cold War gives it an inalienable right to direct world affairs. Because the Middle East is the energy hub that drives the world economy, they have made it a priority to seize the hydrocarbon deposits. Since Iraq was the world's third largest oil producer, it was the ideal candidate to overthrow the regime.
"A status that the United States inherited at the end of the Cold War,
gives them the inalienable right to direct the affairs of the world."
The second reason was that Iraq (and Syria) always represented an alternative to Jinon's (Israeli geopolitical) plan to break Israel's neighbors into confetti of microstates that would spend their time squabbling among ethnic groups and on a sectarian basis. Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein was always committed to supporting the families of Palestinian fighters who died fighting to liberate their land. Anti-Zionism is one of the ideological pillars of Ba'athism.
Let's move on to the trial of Saddam Hussein, which ended in a death sentence. What impression did Saddam Hussein make on you? Was he arrogant, dictatorial, condescending, fearful or belligerent?
First of all, the Iraqi president was perfectly aware that the only goal of the so-called process was to break up Iraq (which it did). He also knew that legal norms would not be applied because the main objective was to humiliate the Arab nation and bring Ba'athism to justice. As a result, he expected nothing but a masquerade and from day one he prepared for martyrdom. It was important to show the world the face of dignity and fighting spirit, which he upheld all his life despite some political mistakes.
Did you yourself believe he was innocent, or did you conclude that he received a fair trial? Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with the court or try to prove his innocence. He considered the trial a farce or a mere formality. Or did he cooperate and respect the judicial process?
We presented a defense based on a fundamental legal principle. The legitimacy of the so-called Iraqi Special Tribunal could in no way be based on a military invasion of the country without the approval of the UN Security Council and in contravention of the existing exceptions to Article 51 of the Charter on the principle of self-defence. This is what Jacques Vergès called the 'Rupture' strategy. The Court refused to rule on this preliminary application.
Three of our colleagues were murdered in the first few months,
the coalition refused to grant the president prisoner of war status
under the Third Geneva Convention"
No fewer than 20 violations were found against President Hussein, including: the right to meet with his lawyer(s), confidentiality of information exchange (a Coalition officer was always present during our consultations), the right to confront his accusers (we were never informed of the witnesses against him), access to the case file (despite the claims of Michael Sharf, an American law professor who trained Iraqi judges in three months!), the 50 tons of prosecution documents were never given to us (the discovery process), the physical integrity of the defense members (three of our colleagues were murdered in the first few months, the coalition refused to grant the president prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention, the lack of independence of the tribunal (the judges were selected on the basis of not being members of the Ba'ath Party, and subject to the executive, which instructed them through the press to give the most drastic verdict of guilt), lack of impartiality (Judge Abdel-Rahman Raouf was from the village of Halabja, which was the site of a chemical attack in 1988).
Explain Please, how is it possible that even though the Iraqi army was outnumbered by the US army and the attack was obvious, the US army still went through Iraq like a knife through butter?
It should be stressed that the US-led coalition had complete control of the airspace. It was therefore clear that the outcome of the conflict was a foregone conclusion. Moreover, since 1991 Iraq had been subject to a harsh sanctions regime that made the supply of spare parts (not to mention autonomous weapons systems) completely impossible. Washington decided to invade Iraq (and thus complete the work begun in 1991 by George W. Bush's father) precisely because, as Eliot Cohen pointed out in 1993, Iraq had a three-rank army. GULF WAR STUDY POINTS TO AIR FORCE LIMITS - The Washington Post
Do you think Saddam Hussein was a patriot and cared about Iraq's sovereignty and interests? What do you think Iraq was like and how did it function under Saddam Hussein? Was it really the dictatorial regime that the pro-Western media always portrayed it to be?
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the subject of the most grotesque exaggerations, as is often the case when the West wants to demonise a leader/head of state who does not subscribe to its so-called values. Saddam Hussein's Iraq is no exception. Let us say that Iraq was one of the most progressive countries in the region in the 1980s in the sense that the level of education was very high. Women were allowed to enter public life and to study at universities. Medical care was free. You could say that the oil profits allowed the government to implement many social measures and provide its citizens with a standard of living that would make other countries green with envy.
What can be a legitimate criticism is that Saddam Hussein failed to understand the implications of his relationship with Washington and the collective West in general. After the events that led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, he cowered. Their pawn, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown by the revolutionary forces and 52 of their nationals were held hostage for almost 500 days, a terrible humiliation for Washington, a humiliation made all the more significant by the failure of the exfiltration operation. Saddam Hussein then became the focus of all attention in order to persuade him to nip the Iranian revolution in the bud. Like Zelensky in Ukraine, Saddam Hussein thus became a tool of the West and the Gulf States, and nothing was denied him to accomplish this mission. The rest is history: the Iranian revolution survived and the real first Gulf War ended in stalemate with nearly 500,000 dead on both sides.
Let us now turn to the trial of Saddam Hussein himself. Europe knows nothing about this trial, except that it was a trial of a dictator who possessed chemical weapons?
The public has long since realized,
that she was lied to about weapons of mass destruction
I do not share this analysis. The public long ago realized that it had been lied to about weapons of mass destruction. It should also be remembered that since 15 February 2003, millions of people have demonstrated against the war in all Western capitals. The public has instinctively understood that this war has been sold to it under false pretences. The DUELFER report published in spring 2004 confirmed this suspicion. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kiatkovski herself reported extensively on the establishment of a cell in the Pentagon (the Office of Special Plans) that was responsible for devising intelligence sources that bypassed the CIA, and whose powers depended solely on the office of Vice President Richard Cheney. In this context, one should recall the fate reserved for the wife of then Ambassador Joseph Wilson III upon his return from Niger, where he discovered that there was no enriched uranium subsidiary. Upon his return, Wilson published a front-page article in the New York Times titled "What I Didn't Find in Niger," which led to the identity of his wife (Valerie Plame) being revealed by journalist Bob Novak (Plame was working as an intelligence agent without diplomatic cover).
It was a prefabricated process, and how did Saddam Hussein defend himself? Did he resign?
As mentioned, the former Iraqi president understood that the Americans would not give him the opportunity to expose their machinations in the 1980s. He knew that they would do everything they could to silence him. From then on, it was out of the question for him to be silenced and pretend that the judicial instrument had any legitimacy. It was a perversion of the law and a travesty of justice. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemned it, as did the International Law Commission. The Special Rapporteur in charge of examining the arbitrary detention of the President has also issued a report that confirms our arguments. Saddam Hussein, as head of the armed forces of the Republic of Iraq, should have had prisoner-of-war status, and the Red Cross should have condemned this. The President's strategy, therefore, was to constantly remind the judges that they were working for an occupying power.
If you look back, was there any option at the time that would have prevented the invasion of Iraq?
In a situation where the United States was violating all the rules of international law, breaching its obligations under bilateral agreements and using the Security Council as a doormat, it seems that nothing could have prevented the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The decision was taken in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11 September (see the statement by former NATO Commander-in-Chief in Europe Wesley Clark). The agenda was to topple seven regimes in the Middle East over the next five years. Some of the aforementioned neoconservatives had already attempted this during the second term of former President Bill Clinton. They used the Lewinsky affair to bend him over, and Clinton agreed to bomb Baghdad in December 1998 to appease them.
Can you tell us about the consequences of the American aggression in Iraq and how Western democracy and freedom have affected ordinary people?
The consequences of the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now visible to the naked eye. The country never seems to have recovered from the ethnic/religious divisions that resulted from the US occupation of the country. Corruption is endemic, people's living standards are abysmal, the country continues to be plagued by internal rivalries, the Kurdish state has almost seceded and is now being used by the US and Israel as a rear base to destabilise Iran's western border. Pollution levels are horrific, the effects of depleted uranium are causing a significant number of intrauterine malformations, some oil wells have been burning for years, causing symptoms of immune deficiency in the Iraqi population and US veterans (and this without a satisfactory link between their condition and long-term exposure to these pathogens being established to allow compensation from federal authorities). Iraq is a country in ruins, left to chaos and foreign influence.
Is there anything else about Iraq, or the US annexation of Iraq in general, that is not known, that is being withheld, or context that the media is deliberately ignoring?
Iraq today serves as a base for the continued destabilisation of neighbouring Syria and Iran. It should be recalled that as early as 2003, the United States committed to building a giant embassy to house intelligence cells and to serve as a coordination centre for intelligence operations in the region. The Islamic State organisation (commonly known by its acronym DAESH) was hatched in the Al-Bucca and Camp Victory detention camps. Former Ba'athist officers demobilized by the Coalition Provisional Authority under the auspices of Paul Bremer (US Presidential Envoy to Iraq) assisted in training the terrorists. By marginalising the Sunni minority in the country, the Americans have made them dependent and fuelled their bitterness towards the rest of the country, rather than seeking genuine reconciliation.
Jean Hugo
English 
Czech