Of Dictators and Dissent

Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t. Why should we?
- Harry Lime, played by Orson Welles in the film “The Third Man” (1949)

Two enfolding foreign events are happening as I type this. They are seemingly unrelated but equally abhorrent to me. Their seeds had been growing for many years, yet both seem to be germinating within days of each other. Unrelated in perhaps quantitative terms, yet they both elicit the same amount of fury and indignation from I. Dictators, despots, tyrants, call them what you will, but they are one and the same: the worst of beings. Those who were blessed with power, influence and indeed intelligence, but who chose to use their gifts for mass suffering and corruption. Though of all their faults, the sin of Vanity is their ultimate demise, as it is with so many people of political power.

Robert Mugabe and Pervez Musharraf, Presidents of Zimbabwe and Pakistan respectively, have probably never met. I’m not sure quite myself. Yet what a grand conversation they would have if one of them decided to give the other a call today.

Mugabe, improbably 83 years old, has been running Zimbabwe for twenty-seven years now. I say improbably because while he has managed to live to an age even most of us healthy Canadians may not get to, his people won’t. According to the World Health Organization they have a life expectancy of 34. That means most college students would be well over the hill if they happened to be born in Zimbabwe. Just ten years ago, it was 63. Inflation in the country is estimated to be somewhere north of 1000%. A loaf of bread costs the average Zimbabwean $80,000 in their currency. Dysentery and cholera are rampant in the capital of Harare, because their tap water is drawn from a source downstream from their sewer outlets. Unemployment hovers around 70%.

Yet Mr. Mugabe hardly thinks his government, nor God forbid himself, ought to take any responsibility. According to him, it’s the foreigners who are responsible. Blame it on the Brits, or the Americans, whichever, he says.

President-General Musharraf, who rose to power in a coup d’etat back in 1999, has ruled Pakistan since. He’s been courted by all the bosses of the world establishment. In a whirlwind tour at one point, the man met with, in succession: Jacques Chirac of France, Gerhard Schroder of Germany, Tony Blair of the United Kingdom and George W. Bush of the United States. Next time you are planning a visit, see if you can make an appointment with any one of these men’s secretaries.

Musharraf’s great contribution to intellectual debate has been his promotion of the doctrine of “enlightened moderation,” Newspeak meaning some sort of balancing of hardline religious extremists and Western secularism. His country has been going nowhere fast pretty much since its independence in 1947. No Pakistani Prime Minister has managed to complete a term in office without being deposed, shot, hanged or experiencing some other gruesome fate. An old joke about Pakistan says that while most countries rule an army, here is one where an army rules a country. For it is the Pakistan Army that truly pulls the strings in that nation. The rest of the pretend government is not much more than an illusion, and a bad one at that.

Recently though, both dictators have managed to get themselves in a bind. Mugabe, in typically thuggish style, had police first arrest, then beat opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. The assault left him with a fractured skull. Mugabe has also made threats against anyone else who objects to his rule. The country has since been plunged into the brink of emergency as opponents have taken the incident as the last straw in the series of Mugabe’s disgraces. Rebellion has begun.

Musharraf, in a drunken state of hubris, decided that he just did not like Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Iftikhar M. Chaudhry and decided to not only oust him from his seat (an unconstitutional act in itself) but also place him and his family under house arrest. His phonelines, both land and mobile, were blocked, as were his television and newspaper services. Reaction was swift from the country’s lawyers, of all people, who united, and despite facing savage opposition from police shock troops, went on strike and took to the streets.

Both countries are now in the midst of upheaval. On its face, revolt and political protest of this nature can be ugly. But underneath the surface, there is something rather beautiful and indeed, sacred. In even the dark corners of the Earth where the dawn of justice and popular will has not broken, there are those who would risk life, limb and property, without guarantee of success, to do what is right. To fight the best fight human beings can fight; that is, against tyranny and oppression.

Islam, to take an example of the major religions, forbids violent action against even an unjust government. Yet when that government begins to oppress, it has a crossed a line that unfortunately only action can restore. These two men have crossed that line.

=//Turnquest

Happy B-Day, Mr. Bin Laden

Last Saturday, March 10, the world’s most famous fugitive and face of international terrorism, Osama Bin Muhammed bin Awad bin Laden, celebrated his 50th birthday. Assuming of course, he is still alive.

For the purposes of this column, we shall assume he is. The logic behind this presumption is that until the “breaking news” photos of his corpse are splashed across television screens and newspapers as proof of his ultimate demise, he is as good as alive, and able to elicit the same amount of fear regardless. The United States military, in order mostly to pre-empt conspiracy theorists, made no effort to hide the grisly pictures of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi or Uday and Qusay Hussein, sons of the late Saddam Hussein who himself received a televised video death.

But I digress. Bin Laden remains the symbolic figurehead for the shadowy Al-Qaeda group, even though those in the know will tell you that he has almost no authority anymore, considering his unknown location. It has been more than five years since he’s gone on the run, most likely changing hiding spots in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was one of these hiding spots, the infamous Tora Bora mountains, where U.S. troops came closest to capturing him back in 2001. Alas, he escaped and the rest of the story has been left to hazy speculation on the part of bored political junkies.

As many have pointed out, he has also been unusually quiet recently. There haven’t been any of the once-frequent audiotapes since early last year. The last known video was even farther back, in October of 2004. One of the last times he spoke though, he offered an uncharacteristic truce to the Americans, which of course was swiftly refused. Yet his silence hasn’t kept some in the Bush administration from relentlessly reminding people that he is still out there, maybe just around the street corner, lurking in a dark place, ready to pounce out like a masked 90s horror villain. Other more cynical attitudes say he’s just being kept in a box in the President’s closet, ready to be brought out to invigorate a failing legacy.

This columnist would go as far as to state the number one driving political force in all of American politics for the last few years has been the fear of Bin Laden. More so than right-left friction, more than the Iraq War fallout, more than even the general dislike for President Bush. It is that chronic fear of another attack, another day waking up to breaking news on CNN and panicked phone calls from relatives that has shaped the voting patterns of the electorate and politicians alike. Bush may have his finger on the nuclear button, but Bin Laden has his on the nerves of every American old enough to watch the news.

There is, one would imagine, a different kind of fear on the part of U.S. military forces. What if Bin Laden has already died of natural causes? Certainly that would be anti-climactic, denying them the glory of a final gunbattle with him and his bodyguards and the satisfaction of finally catching their man. As well, it would once and for all end this fear of the ever-potent bogeyman in the public. Such a consequence would only make way for politicians to declare the War on Terror at an end and dilute any arguments for further military action in Middle East countries. Sure, they could dig up some other creepy bearded man and say that he’s the real bad guy (and they will), but it would still mark the end of an era.

What kind of man could elude the pursuit of the most powerful nation on Earth for five years with a $25 million bounty on his head, “dead or alive”? A man who competes only with the President of the United States for being the most famous living human being? He’s described as soft-spoken and even charming in person. A multi-millionaire through inheritance and the 17th of maybe as many as 55 children, few could have imagined this soccer-playing Saudi could have gained the notoriety that he did. Regardless of how the rest of his life plays out, Bin Laden has scorched a place in the history books if for no other reason than being the first Emmanuel Goldstein of the 21st century.


=//Turnquest

His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan Speaks Before Congress

The man's a coward, a criminal and a tyrant by nature, but his wife's hot and this speech is not bad either. It's about Palestine.

* * *

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Madam Speaker,
Mr. Vice President,
Honorable Senators and Members of Congress,
My friends,

Thank you for such a warm welcome. It is an honor to stand, as my father did, before this historic institution. Allow me to thank you, on behalf of all Jordanians.

Jordan and the United States have had a long friendship. It is a special privilege to be here in the year that the American Congress welcomes its first woman Speaker, and its first Muslim-American member of Congress. These milestones send a message around the world about the America I know so well, a place where individuality is nurtured, a place where hard work is rewarded, a place where achievement is celebrated. The America I know so well believes that opportunity and justice belong to all.

In my days in Massachusetts, I also learned something of New England virtues. There wasn't actually a law against talking too much, but there was definitely an attitude that you didn't speak unless you could improve on silence.

Today, I must speak; I cannot be silent.

I must speak about a cause that is urgent for your people and for mine. I must speak about peace in the Middle East. I must speak about peace replacing the division, war, and conflict that have brought such disaster for the region and for the world.

This was the cause that brought my father King Hussein here in 1994. With Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin beside him, he spoke of a new vision for the Middle East. Their courageous work for peace received bipartisan support from your leaders. And there was tremendous hope for a new era. There was tremendous hope that people would be brought together. There was tremendous hope that a final and comprehensive settlement of all the issues would be achieved.

Thirteen years later, that work is still not completed. And until it is, we are all at risk. We are all at risk of being victims of further violence resulting from ideologies of terror and hatred. It is our greatest and most urgent duty to prevent such dangers to our region, to your country and to the world. The choice is ours: an open world full of promise, progress and justice for all; or a closed world of divided peoples, fear, and unfulfilled dreams. Nothing impacts this choice more than the future of peace in the Middle East.

I come to you today at a rare, and indeed historic, moment of opportunity, when there is a new international will to end the catastrophe. And I believe that America, with its enduring values, its moral responsibility, and yes, its unprecedented power, must play the central role.

Some may say, 'Peace is difficult, we can live with the status quo.' But, my friends, violent killings are taking place as part of this status quo. Palestinians and Israelis are not the only victims. We saw the violence ricochet into destruction in Lebanon last summer. And people around the world have been the victims of terrorists and extremists, who use the grievances of this conflict to legitimize and encourage acts of violence. Americans and Jordanians and others have suffered and survived terrorist attacks. In this room, there are representatives of American families and Jordanian families who have lost loved ones. Thousands of people have paid the highest price, the loss of their life. Thousands more continue to pay this terrible price, for their loved ones will never return. Are we going to let these thousands of lives be taken in vain? Has it become acceptable to lose that most basic of human rights? The right to live?

The status quo is also pulling the region and the world towards greater danger. As public confidence in the peace process has dropped, the cycle of crises is spinning faster, and with greater potential for destruction. Changing military doctrine and weaponry pose new dangers. Increasing numbers of external actors are intervening with their own strategic agendas, raising new dangers of proliferation and crisis. These are groups that seek even more division: faith against faith, nation against nation, community against community. Any further erosion in the situation would be serious for the future of moderation and coexistence, in the region and beyond. Have we all lost the will to live together in peace celebrating one another's strengths and differences?

Some may say, 'But there are other, urgent challenges.' How can there be anything more urgent than the restoration of a world where all people, not only some people, all people have the opportunity to live peacefully? This is not only a moral imperative, it is essential to the future of our world, because long-term, violent crisis is the enemy of all global prosperity and progress.

Certainly, our era faces critical issues. There is great public concern here, just as in our region, about the conflict in Iraq. The entire international community has vital decisions to make about the path forward, and how to ensure Iraq's security, unity, and future. But we cannot lose sight of a profound reality. The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.

There are those who say, 'It's not our business.' But this Congress knows: there are no bystanders in the 21st Century, there are no curious onlookers, there is no one who is not affected by the division and hatred that is present in our world.

Some will say: 'This is not the core issue in the Middle East.' I come here today as your friend to tell you that this is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world.

The security of all nations and the stability of our global economy are directly affected by the Middle East conflict. Across oceans, the conflict has estranged societies that should be friends. I meet Muslims thousands of miles away who have a deep, personal response to the suffering of the Palestinian people. They want to know how it is, that ordinary Palestinians are still without rights and without a country. They ask whether the West really means what it says about equality and respect and universal justice.

Yes, my friends, today I must speak. I cannot be silent.

Sixty years of Palestinian dispossession, forty years under occupation, a stop-and-go peace process, all this has left a bitter legacy of disappointment and despair, on all sides. It is time to create a new and different legacy, one that begins right now; one that can set a positive tone for the American and Middle East relationship; one that can restore hope to our region's people, to your people, and to the people of this precious world. Nothing can achieve that more effectively, nothing can assert America's moral vision more clearly, nothing can reach and teach the world's youth more directly, than your leadership in a peace process that delivers results not next year, not in five years, but this year.

How do we get there? Not by a solution imposed by one side. A lasting peace can only be built on understanding, agreement and compromise.

It begins with courage and vision. We, all of us, must take risks for peace. The Arab states recognized that reality in 2002, when we unanimously approved the Arab Peace Initiative. It puts forward a path for both sides, to achieve what people want and need: a collective peace treaty with Israel and normal relations with every Arab state, collective security guarantees for all the countries of the region, including Israel, an end to the conflict, a dream every Israeli citizen has longed for since the creation of Israel, and an agreed solution to the refugee problem, a withdrawal from Arab territories occupied since 1967, and a sovereign, viable, and independent Palestine.

The commitment we made in the Arab Peace Initiative is real. And our states are involved in ongoing efforts to advance a fair, just, and comprehensive peace. His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia initiated the 2002 proposal; today, he continues to rally international support. Momentum is also building among Muslim countries outside the Arab world. Ten days ago, in Islamabad, the foreign ministers of key Muslim states met. They came together to assure Palestinians and Israelis that they are not alone, that we back their effort to make and build peace.

The goal must be a peace in which all sides gain. It must be anchored in security and opportunity for all.

It must be a peace that will free young Palestinians to focus on a future of progress and prosperity.

It must be a peace that makes Israel a part of the neighborhood, a neighborhood that extends from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, across the breadth of the southern Mediterranean, to the coast of the Indian Ocean.

It must be a peace that enables the entire region to look forward with excitement and hope, putting its resources into productive growth, partnering across borders to advance development, finding opportunities, and solving common challenges.

This goal is visionary, but my friends, it is attainable. History shows that longtime adversaries can define new relationships of peace and cooperation. The groundwork for a comprehensive, final settlement is already in place. At Taba, as in the Geneva Accords, the parties have outlined the parameters of the solution.

But we need all hands on deck. The international community, especially the United States, must be engaged in moving the process forward to achieve real results. Above all, we must make our process serve our purpose. We must achieve an agreed solution to the conflict.

Madam Speaker,

Mr. Vice President,

Honorable Members,

Your responsibility today is paramount. Your potential to help Palestinians and Israelis find peace is unrivalled. This is because the people of the region still regard the United States as the key to peace, the one country most capable of bringing the two sides closer together, holding them accountable, and making a just settlement reality.

Time after time, there has been progress towards peace when Americans have actively engaged. Camp David, Madrid, Wye River: nearly every breakthrough was accomplished when America was determined to help the parties succeed.

On behalf of all those who seek and strive for peace in my part of the world, I ask you now to exert that leadership once again. We ask you to join with us in an historic effort of courage and vision. We ask you to hear our call, to honor the spirit of King Hussein and Yitzhak Rabin, and help fulfill the aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace today.

Let me reaffirm that Jordan is committed to playing a positive role in the peace process. It is part of our larger commitment to global co-existence and progress. Ours is an Islamic country with a proud record of diversity, moderation, and shared respect.

Allow me to say, we thank the Congress and the Administration for supporting Jordan's progress and development. I deeply value the partnership between our peoples, and the contributions of so many Americans to the future of our country.

My friends,

"A decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small." That's how President Roosevelt – the great F.D.R. – described the basis of American foreign policy. He pledged American support for the four freedoms, freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, everywhere in the world.

The Four Freedoms speech was given right here, before Congress. And that's entirely fitting. Because it is here in the People's House, that the voices and values of America have made hope real for so many people.

Today, the people of the Middle East are searching for these four freedoms. Today, the people of the Middle East are searching for new hope, hope for a future of prosperity and peace. We have seen the danger and destruction of violence, hatred, and injustice. But we have also seen what people can achieve when they are empowered, when they break down walls, when they commit to the future. And we know that Middle East peace can be a global beginning, creating new possibilities for our region and the entire world.

We look to you to play an historic role. Eleven American presidents and thirty American congresses have already faced this ongoing crisis. For not the future generation, but the generation alive today, let us say together: No more! Let us say together: Let's solve this! Let us say together: Yes, we will achieve this!

No Palestinian father should be helpless to feed his family and build a future for his sons and daughters. No Israeli mother should fear when her child boards a bus. Not one more generation should grow up thinking that violence and conflict are the norm.

As Roosevelt also said, "the justice of morality must and will win in the end." But he knew that it was up to responsible nations to stand up for justice when injustice threatens.

This is our challenge as well. And we must not leave it to another generation to meet this challenge.

Thirteen years ago, my father was here to talk about his hopes for peace. Today, we are talking about a promise that is within our reach.

We can wait no longer and that is why I am here before you. We must work together to restore Palestine, a nation in despair and without hope. We must work together to restore peace, hope and opportunity to the Palestinian people. And in so doing, we will begin a process of building peace, not only throughout the region, but throughout the world. How much more bloodshed and how many more lives will it cost for this grave situation to be resolved?

I say: No more bloodshed and no more lives pointlessly taken!

The young boy, traveling to school with his brother in Palestine, let him have a life of peace.

The mother, watching with fear as her children board a bus in Israel, let her have a life of peace.

The father in Lebanon, working hard to provide an education for his children, let him have a life of peace.

The little girl, born in Iraq, with her wide eyes full of wonder, let her have a life of peace.

The family, together eating their evening meal, in Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East, let them all have a life of peace.

Today my friends, we must speak; we cannot be silent.

The next time a Jordanian, a Palestinian, or an Israeli comes before you, let it be to say: Thank you for helping peace become a reality.

Thank you very much.

A Case For Clean Campaigns

Why all the hate in politics? A news observer sees it regularly. Sometimes, it comes in the form of jokes done in bad taste about the assassination of Vice-President Dick Cheney, as posted on the Huffington Post website last week. In worse cases, pundits resort to downright slurs. The latest trend in attack politics seems to be to start insulting opponents’ sexual orientation. Right-winger Ann Coulter used the term “faggot” against Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards in a speech, and Quebec radio host Louis Champagne said that factory workers would never work for a “tapette,” Quebecer slang for “fag,” referring to Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair.

Every time an election seems to be around the corner (a few months for us, two years for the States), all the basest in politicians and pundits’ personalities seems to come out. If the other side doesn’t agree with your policies and beliefs, feel free to use any of the mots du jour, such as terrorist, racist, flip-flopper or my personal favourite, “Islamofascist.” National Socialism and World War 2 references are also back in style, with “Nazi” and “Anti-Semite” being slung about rather freely.

Any of us who’ve gotten out of our apathetic states and actually been inspired to engage in politics have no doubt been lured into thinking the other side was somehow worse than just different. The plurality of opinions and direct confrontation in debates and campaigns can stir up emotions. Whether one still thinks that Prime Minister Harper is a dictator or President Bush little more than a primate, it doesn’t take too much to realize that the only way to properly promote one’s own beliefs and counter the others is to do so on the basis of facts, logic, and civil debate.

Yet with the way election campaigns are covered these days in the 24-hour newscycle media, a well-thought out refutation of the other side’s argument doesn’t hold a candle to the punch of a five-second soundbyte calling the other side a “nasty woman,” as Newt Gingrich did to Hillary Clinton. In the end, all this name-calling just damages the already terrible reputation of politics in the eyes of young people.

This all leads into the fundamental question of how media outlets and reporters ought to deal with negative tactics used by political campaigns. Hopefully, there is an agreement that these sorts of comments have no place in the public sphere. If the press stopped giving publicity to them, and television stations had the courage to say no to egregiously negative ads, campaign officials would have to rethink their strategies. This is wishful thinking though. The solution is really for the public to stop being tolerant of this kind of sleazy politics and make their feelings be known to both media officials and the politicians themselves. Politicians for their part must stand up and call out the other side for their employment of personal attacks. The worst part about this practice is the realization that political parties receive taxpayer dollars in the form of federal funding. This columnist for one does not want his money supporting this.

To those of whom who have the luxury of managing the airwaves, there is a responsibility to ensure that those airwaves are free of libel, hate and incivility. Of course, there ought to be plenty of room for caricature and satire, and no limits on political speech. Where there should be restraint though is in the choices made by the editors, news chiefs and media masters who make the final call on what gets put in print and what does not.

Aggressive mudslinging and scorched-earth politics can be construed to be simply a consequence of a culture that is becoming more aggressive in itself. When torture-horror films become a regular and profitable genre, when political leaders feel they have to send troops off to war to prove they are worthy and when Arnold Schwarzenegger can become Governor for two terms, something definitely appears to be amiss. Visceral thrill and edginess for its own sake attracts audiences, sure, but is peace and love just not hip anymore?

=//Turnquest