Saddam is guilty as charged
Since the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has deliberately maintained a veil of uncertainty around his nuclear biological and chemical weapons. Only now, faced with the massive build-up of force in the region, has he started to consider coming clean. President Bush is to be congratulated on having got Saddam this far.

And his people deserve better
There is now a clear expectation that something must happen, including from the average Iraqi, who can at last dream of a post-Saddam world. To leave the Iraqi people in the lurch again, with Saddam untouched in power, would be no favour to them, especially given his hideous record on human rights.

But due process is crucial
Nevertheless, in the Court of world opinion, the prosecution (the Bush administration) has rightly given the role of judge in the Saddam case to the UN Security Council. Every time the administration hints at short-cutting due process, and punishing Saddam regardless of the findings of the judges, it discredits its own case.

Should the prosecution determine the punishment?
A judge (Security Council member) should not just determine guilt, but also the level of punishment. In the UN today, this is not the case, as even if many Security Council members accept Saddam is guilty, they are not prepared to say so, as they know the prosecution's will only accept a full scale war against Iraq as the punishment.

World security, not US security alone, is the criterion
France and others are right to worry about a war. Punishment must always be proportional to the crime, and also not cause more damage to those affected by the crime (in this case the world community) than the crime itself. In this context, many fear a limitless war against Iraq will start a completely avoidable clash of civilisations.

Saddam the wife-beater
Moreover, Saddam is a thug who has beaten his wife (the people of Iraq) and neighbours (Iran and Kuwait). But the prosecution proposes that the solution is to beat the wife further, until she and her husband both collapse. Why should the Iraqi people become collateral damage for a regime which they likely hate?

A bloodless alternative (or less bloody) punishment
The Security Council should announce Iraq in material breach of resolution 1441, but introduce a specific punishment: deposition of Saddam Hussein by the international community and his trial in the International Criminal Court. The successor regime must ensure a transition to democracy and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.

…Getting Saddam, not Iraq
If Saddam were not surrendered to the Court, the next step (a week later) would be to indict others in his regime. As the dragnet spreads, so the incentive to revolution from within Iraq will grow. When the details of his murders emerge in the trial, his status will shrivel even in the Arab world.

If all else fails, a very focused war and no occupation of Iraq
If in weeks (not months) Saddam is still not handed over, then a limited war is mandated. The only aim of this war will be to capture Saddam. The second he is handed over, the war ends, and diplomatic negotiations start. In this way, there is no unnecessary bloodletting, no military occupation, and the incentive for change in Iraq is maximised.

The start of a New World Order
This indictment of leaders for their abuse of power could become a new way of handling dictators who have developed Weapons of Mass Destruction and supported terrorism. Today, on the eve of a possible war, many in the world are open to such alternatives. The question is, will anybody show the necessary leadership?