In Defence of "dictators" By: ABID ULLAH JAN Published:
February 12, 2007 A US magazine, PARADE, issued its annual List of the
worlds worst dictators. The problem with the definition of dictators is that
half of the listed dictators are puppets, surviving in power only because of
the support of real dictators. The flawed criteria used for listing dictators
considers only those heads of states as dictators who exercise arbitrary
authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power
through legal means.
There is no contention with the listed dictators. The problem lies with the
fact most of the listed dictators are puppets, who would not be there without
the blessing of the elected and democratic dictators. These democratic
dictators can definitely be removed through legal means, but their acts and
rule is far more dictatorial and dangerous to the world peace than the listed
dictators.
For example, none of the other dictators combined have committed far more
terrible human rights abuses on international level than George Bush and Tony
Blair. Yet they are not even considered in the category of dictators. What is
important: the level and scope of crimes committed against humanity or simply
the means to ones or going out of power?
Of course, the list published in Parade draws in part on reports by
global-human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House,
Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International. But one wonders what
happened to all the reports of these organizations on Iraq, Afghanistan,
Guantanamo Bay, Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir. Which dictators is at fault of
the abuse of human rights, civil war and mass killings in these places.
Many of the listed and unlisted dictators (e.g., Karzai in Kabul, Malaki in
Baghdad) would not even be on the radar screen today if they were not fully
supported by Bush, Blair and the rest of their allies. Suddans Omar al-Bashir
is put in the first place for killing 180,000 civilians in Darfur in Western
Sudan and displacing 2 million people from their homes. Compare this with the
killings and displacement of people as a result of Bush and Blairs war of
aggression on the basis of lies.
Is it necessary that a dictatorial regime must always be run by just one
dictator? What if dictators follow one after another through the so-considered
legal means and popular elections? What if these seemingly democratically
elected leaders act far worse than the listed dictators? Think of the
successive Israeli heads of state, who have been committing ethnic cleansing
for the past 60 years. Think of the successive US and UK leadership since the
Gulf War II, for instance, who have taken lives of at least 1.8 million through
the genocidal sanctions in Iraq alone. Why their rule should not be considered
as dictatorial?
Islam Karimov, Musharraf, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Meles Zenawi of
Eithopia, of course, are dictators. But who is supporting them? Who are
sustaining them in power? Whose military forces are protecting Saudi Kingdom
and Kuwaiti Sheikhdom? If not for the Western backing, these dictators cannot
survive a single day in power. Massacres of Karimov, illegal detentions of
Musharraf and torturous security apparatus of King Abdullah are all acceptable
only because they are claiming to be the best friends of the United States and
U.K. and are fighting radical Islamists.
Validity of the effort is doubtful. The list seems to be politically
motivated as well. Syed Ali Khamanei of Iran is at ninth place, whereas
dictator Musharraf is at number 17. There is no mention to the butchers of
Algeria, fully supported by France and other Western governments. On the other
hand, Castro is listed as a dictator only because he is not holding elections.
There is no count of the country he invaded. There is no count of the lies he
told to his people and the United nations. There is not count of his
concentration camps. On the Cuban soil, the only concentration camp belongs to
dictator Bush, not Castro.
The bottom-line is that irrespective of the titles, Bush remains dictator
number one and Blair number two. It hardly matters if people are given a chance
to protest in streets in millions before they go to launch wars of aggression.
In the end, it is their decision that counts, not the will of the people. The
co-opted medias white washing crimes of these top dictators hardly makes them
less dictatorial. Similarly, listing some puppets as dictators and ignoring
their masters is the worst injustice Western analysts and organizations are
doing to humanity.
A constructive role on the part of Parade magazine and other media outlets
will be to place Bush and Blair on the top of their list of dictators and tell
the truth as it is: almost half of the listed dictators will face the fate of
Saddam Hussein at the hands of their people, provided the puppet-masters in
London and Washington either leave the directly and indirectly occupied nations
alone, or the super-dictators in UK and US are brought to justice by their
respective nations for their crimes against humanity.
The title of Parades article about dictators reads: Lets not lose sight of
those heads of state who terrorize and abuse the rights of their own people.
The question is, who is going to focus sights on those heads of state who
terrorize, brutalize and massacre people of other nations, besides cheating and
deceiving their own?
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more
at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
