In his first public appearance since his arrest seven months ago, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein scoffed at war crime and genocide charges.

During Thursday's 30-minute arraignment at Camp Victory, one of his former palaces on the outskirts of Baghdad, the deposed leader brushed off the charges, telling a special tribunal that was established by the US occupational force in December: "This is all theatre by (US President George W.) Bush, the real criminal."

Unaccompanied by a lawyer, he refused to sign a statement listing the accusations, asking who the judge was and under what authority he was holding the hearing.

Admittedly, the whole of Iraq has suffered from Saddam's tyranny and he should be made to pay for his atrocities.

He was presented with seven preliminary charges on Thursday, which included the gassing of thousands of Kurds in 1988, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the suppression of the 1991 revolts by Kurds and Shiites, the murders of religious and political leaders, and the mass displacement of Kurds in the 1980s.

But what about a breach of the more fundamental principle of non-aggression underlying all laws of war?

What does war crimes mean in the White House's political dictionary?

If Saddam can be tried for "war crimes" then surely the US should also be hauled before a court. Who at the White House would step up to answer for the invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq, which is yet to - and more than likely will never - find a legal footing.

Were the US invader's bombs not traumatic for innocent Iraqi civilians?

The havoc the invading US troops wreaked on the international press in Baghdad last April, for instance, is nothing short of criminal.

Their bombs devastate the Baghdad offices of the al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV networks, killing three journalists and wounding four in a single day. There is no evidence that any of it was by accident.

The US military should be held accountable by international humanitarian laws for its attacks on civilians.

Yet, Washington's allies have received a clear message about their shared obligation to guarantee that no war crime charges against the US side be brought to the International War Crimes Tribunal.

Washington's illusion is that justice is always on its side. At the same time it brands others as criminals.

(China Daily 07/03/2004 page4)