The Sunday Times - When world leaders take law into their hands

Russian president Vladimir Putin, angry at the killing of four Russian diplomats by their Iraqi kidnappers, ordered his country's secret service to hunt down and kill the perpetrators of the barbaric crime.

A video clip posted on a so-called Islamic website shows one Russian diplomat being beheaded and the others being shot. The Russian public, according to news reports, are furious. They cursed the kidnappers and directed their anger at the US occupation force.

Prior to the US occupation of Iraq, Russia was Baghdad's best friend. Relations between the two countries had been governed by a friendship treaty and it was largely Russia which won contracts for mega projects in this oil-rich-but-sanction-hit country. Russia could have used its veto power to save Iraq. Being aware of this possibility, the United States had decided to circumvent the Security Council process and attack Iraq.

The March 2003 US invasion saw Moscow losing its influence on Iraq, just as it had lost its clout with its former satellite states such as Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

When bombs started falling on Iraq, Russia did not leave the capital. It stayed on to witness the destruction to Iraq's infrastructure, which it had contributed to build. Later it saw, Halliburton - whose former CEO was US Vice President Dick Cherney, the most unpopular US politician today, according to latest polls - and Bechtel along with other American multinationals moving into rebuild Iraq which the American military machine had just destroyed. That these US companies are paid from billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money and the revenue earned from selling Iraq's oil is a topic for another discussion.

While the UN office was bombed and diplomatic missions and diplomats of countries such as Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates were being targeted, Russia felt relatively safe in the midst of the Iraqi people who did not see Russian presence as hostile.

The United States and Britain, the so-called liberators of the Iraqi people, however, thought it wise to build their embassies within the highly fortified Green Zone.

The question now is: who kidnapped the Russians? A group, which we are told by the American occupation force of having links with al-Qaeda, has claimed responsibility for the killings. The kidnappers had demanded that Russia pull out its forces from Chechnya. But the possibility of other groups allegedly being used by secret services of major powers and Israel cannot be dismissed.

"It is clear that it was not the Iraqi people who did it. They love us in Iraq. When one says the word 'Russia' everybody smiles," said Russia's outspoken Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky who blamed foreign forces in Iraq for the killings of the hostages.

His reference to foreign forces is directed both at the coalition troops and foreign jihadists.

Russia had carried out hunt-and-kill missions in foreign countries. Well such missions are carried out by other major powers also.

In 2004, a Qatari court convicted two Russian intelligence agents for killing a Chechen rebel leader in a car bomb. The Qatari court had said the killing was carried out with the backing of "Russian leadership" and coordinated between Moscow and the Russian embassy in Qatar. The agents were later repatriated to Russia to supposedly serve their sentences.

Mr. Putin's outburst and order are understandable. But can a President of a civilized nation take the law into his hand and kill suspects without granting them a fair trial? Mr. Putin is not the first such world leader to take such a course of action. Israeli leaders regularly order the assassination of Palestinian leaders. Several Palestinian leaders, including Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, have been eliminated in this fashion.

US president George W. Bush also appears to subscribe to this extra-judicial method of dealing with "enemies". The notable exception was the case of Saddam Hussein, who now faces multiple trials.

This week, the United States Supreme Court in a landmark judgment said the setting up of military tribunals for suspects being held in the Guantanamo Bay prison was illegal. It ruled that President Bush had no authority to order such tribunals, which it said contravened the Geneva Conventions and the US constitution.

The Bush administration was quick to signal that it would try to consult with Congress to refine rules for such tribunals, in line with the landmark Supreme Court judgement.

This doctrine of changing the law if it stands in the way of one’s agenda sets a dangerous trend that undermines the hallowed principles of the rule of law and justice. Some months back, British Home Secretary John Reid also spoke of such a doctrine. He argued that if the law was a hindrance to measures aimed at eliminating terrorism, then the law should be changed.

His theory underscores what the Bush administration has already put into practice by denying the Guantanamo Bay detainees legal rights and protection guaranteed in the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration calls them “unlawful combatants” and argues that they cannot be regarded as “war prisoners”. But the international legal community refuses to accept this argument.

Such theories — which seek to change the law to suit political goals — are certainly a cause for alarm.

Yes, terrorism is a scourge and should be eliminated. But it does not mean countries engaged in the war on terror can violate the law and mar the march towards civilised politics with gangsterism. Terrorism cannot be eliminated by eliminating the perpetrators. The more effective way is the elimination of causes that push a group of people to resort to terrorism.