Move over, Hollywood, Bollywood and all the rest of you glitterati. The world has entered the age of the Celebrity Tyrant. Hardly a week goes by without the exploits of some despot or other snatching the headlineswhether it's North Korea's Kim Jong Il hosting Bill Clinton for dinner and a detainee pickup; Muammar al-Qaddafi celebrating the parole of one of his Lockerbie-bombing terrorist agents; or Burma's Than Shwe milking the hostage-politics racket for a house call from Senator Jim Webb.
Not that despots are anything new. But about a generation back, they were a lot less bold and a lot less rich in cachet. What with the 1991 Soviet collapse and the waves of democratization then sweeping Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America, dictatorship had become something of an embarrassment. Even just a few years ago, despots were a breed largely beyond the pale, with the late Saddam Hussein hiding in his spider hole, al-Qaddafi trying to placate the American cowboy and Syria's Bashar al-Assad teetering on his dynastic perch.
No longer. With regime change off the table, and President Obama dishing out "mutual respect" faster than the rulers of Tehran, Tripoli, Pyongyang or Caracas can spit their contempt right back in his face, tyrants are becoming ever more weirdly trendy. They are globalized, in our face, on the Web, on televisionand as New York braces for the September opening of the United Nations General Assembly, some of them, with considerable ceremony, are coming to town. The most flamboyant among them enter a VIP orbit, in which they may be officially reviled, but also eagerly sought after. Recall the banquet hosted by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last September at the midtown Manhattan Grand Hyatt for 1,000 or so of his closest friends. Or remember the gushing accounts two years ago of the invitations sent out, as Time magazine described it, on "creamy stationery with fancy calligraphy," to a select 50 or so American opinion-makers to sup with Ahmadinejad at the Intercontinental Hotel in New York. Whatever the protesters shouted outside the security cordon, it has become an accepted part of New York's fall season that Ahmadinejad and his retinue arrive for a hoopla of motorcades, talk shows, press conferences and banquets.
Continued on Page 49
Choosing his words carefully, and smiling his way through Zimbabwe's treacherous political terrain, President Jacob Zuma sweetened the public air for a few hours in Harare. That may have been all he could do during his visit on Thursday, because not much is going to change in the short term, in spite of Zuma's calming statement when he opened the Harare Agricultural Show, and his touchy-feely, fleeting engagement with the Zimbabwe "problem". President Robert Mugabe is going to continue obstructing where he can, and play to the gallery through the public media he still controls. And Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai will remain "optimistic" and endure Mugabe's obstacle course with grace and poise. There will be no sudden turnaround nor miracle, at least while Mugabe remains in control of the levers of state power. It's the only power he has, as his constituency has pretty much disintegrated and almost everyone wants him to go.
Tsvangirai was greeted with applause everywhere he went as he toured the show on Thursday. The crowds were polite but quiet when Mugabe took Zuma around the show the next day. The showgrounds were cleaner and brighter than for some years. There were even some hanging baskets of bright petunias around the Harare Show Society buildings which had been repainted. The entertainment in the Glamis Stadium, though shabby and amateurish, still thrilled the crowds. There were hot dogs, hamburgers, chicken and chips and children with painted faces. The crowds were mostly well-dressed families, looking as far removed from a repressed, hungry society as could be imagined. In the exhibition halls, entries were sparse, and each seemed to have won "first prize". There were some amusingly iced cakes, embroidered Manchester United wall hangings and a hand-made apron or two.
Despite the last 10 years of economic collapse and misery, a few communal farmers, mostly women, using their own cash, had travelled hundreds of kilometres and put on displays of vegetables, grains, pulses and fruit which would compare with the best of the best anywhere. Zuma did not visit these women in his guided tour of the show, but the day before, Tsvangirai did. The women lamented to him that they had no fertiliser or money to buy any for this year's crops. He promised to find fertiliser for them. Maybe he will. They believed him, they said, as he went from cobs of rather poor quality maize to the Zimbabwe Airforce stand where he was told how their weapons worked. Beyond these barely visible green shoots, Zimbabwe faces its most precarious summer season ever. Not even Mugabe's cronies on stolen farms can raise cash for inputs this year.
Zuma, a regular visitor to Zimbabwe when he was in exile in Lusaka, could not have avoided seeing evidence of the collapse of agriculture, the shabbiness of the streets. But he must have also noticed the people were having a good time. His main point in his show-opening speech was about the need for economic recovery so Zimbabwe could become what it had been, when he knew the country quite well, the "regional breadbasket". Few, including Mugabe, could have avoided concluding that Zuma was saying, in other words, leave productive farmers alone. But Zanu PF predictably only picked up, through the state media, Zuma's call for Western "sanctions" to be lifted. The Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, which has the only radio stations, did not record the second part of Zuma's sentence when he said that without full compliance with last September's political agreement, there would be no Western aid as the West had certain benchmarks about human rights and governance.
At the end of his speech, Zuma noted, from the podium in the members enclosure, that Africa needs to respect human rights. One of the victims of Mugabe's disregard for human rights, Tsvangirai, was sitting a few feet away. Zuma noted there was more stability in Zimbabwe: that it had started a "healing" process, and referred obliquely, without naming it, to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He stroked the common bonds of "history and heritage". Some were disappointed that he didn't have tougher words for Mugabe. Maybe he did in private because it is impossible not to know that Mugabe continues to obstruct the power-sharing agreement as he tries to hold on to his only remaining power, the state. Maybe Zuma's greatest contribution on his visit to Zimbabwe, was to show, albeit briefly, that he cares.
Conservatives are gearing up to do battle with an army of statist fascists, but we are really up against Cheech and Chong. Obama is no Stalin, or even FDR. Face it, hes Jeff Spicoli.
Its our time, Mr. Hand. Hey, wasnt that one of his campaign slogans?
#1
OK, So lets add this up. In the last five months Zero has spit on the CIA, Veterans, DOD, Red necks, the elderly, all moderates and conservatives, our Constitution, our Allies, health care, free speech, and the auto and Coal industry. I'm sure I left out larger groups please don't feel slighted, the list is so big. He has kissed ass to Cuba, Chavez, The Union thugs, the Soviets, Libya, and bowed to the Soddi king like a good house boy. As he works his wealth redistribution and land redistro, my only thought is that he is either too stupid to know it, or he is truly trying to start a civil war. I pray in the following years cool heads prevail, he is only five months into this gig.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/31/2009 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"my only thought is that he is either too stupid to know it, or he is truly trying to start a civil war"
He's a stupid narcissist, Pan. Andhe's his puppetmasters are trying to start a civil war so he they can take over completely.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/31/2009 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I never thought I would live to see it in our own country. I truly believe your right.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/31/2009 19:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bring on the civil war if that's what they want. We got the guns.
The immediate consequence of the opposition's sweeping victory in Japan's elections yesterday will be psychological - it will create an atmosphere of optimism that could strengthen the economy. Such optimism will be fleeting if it is not followed by concrete results.
The victorious Democratic Party, headed by Yukio Hatoyama, has never before governed in Japan. It is seeking to be perceived as a center-left party. Hatoyama has declared that his government will raise child allowances, expand welfare services and abolish highway tolls. He plans to fund these programs by shutting down "wasteful" projects, such as unnecessary highways and bridges.
These "wasteful" projects were designed to stimulate the Japanese economy, and eliminating them will harm various sectors and slow the country's recovery from recession. The Democratic Party's plan to eliminate the employment of temporary industry workers, which would benefit employees but hurt industry, is expected to cause similar problems.
The new government will attempt to forge a more independent foreign policy, involving closer ties with China and other Asian countries and more independence from the United States. Hatoyama has said he will end Japan's participation in anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan; Japan was involved in refueling American ships in the Indian Ocean.
Ending Japanese support for Western military operations in Afghanistan could cause tension with the United States and reduce American support for Japan in its confrontation with North Korea. It could also hurt U.S.-bound exports, which are essential for the Japanese economy's recovery. Toyota recently reported a 20 percent drop in worldwide car sales, while Mitsubishi's car sales were down 45 percent.
Withdrawing from American guardianship could also change Japanese policy toward Israel. Until now, Japan limited its support for the Palestinians to aiding economic projects, in keeping with American requests. The Hatoyama government is likely to take a more pro-Arab stance, such as by recognizing Hamas and making tougher demands of Israel, such as calling for an end to construction in the settlements. Such a position would be similar to the line taken by some European governments, and will not necessarily lead to a confrontation with the United States. The Obama administration may actually be pleased.
This January, the Israeli ambassador in Tokyo, Nissim Ben-Shitrit, participated in a Democratic Party convention. At the end of the convention, he met with Hatoyama. The party's Web site stated that Hatoyama expressed his deep concern over the Palestinian victims of Israel's Cast Lead operation in the Gaza Strip, and added that he hoped Israel would change its policies toward the Arab world, like American foreign policy had changed with the election of Barack Obama.
Hatoyama called himself the Japanese Obama in his election campaign, and said he would bring hoped-for change. When it comes to Israel, Obama and Hatoyama may coordinate efforts in ways Israel hasn't expected.
Won't that be just peachy.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another reason (as if we needed any more after the last USA elections) to have better relations with China.
Barry Rubin
One of Israel's highest priorities in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) is recognition by the PA and Arab states as a "Jewish state." The purpose of this demand is to ensure a lasting peace with Israel as it exists rather than some formal declaration which would thereafter be subverted in every possible way.
Remember, after all, that the Middle East is full of countries which, when you recognize them, you accept their self-definition. Here are some of the names of countries which you accept when you recognize them: The Arab Republic of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or even--as in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan or Saudi Arabia--designating them as being under the rule of a single family.
The Palestinian Authority's constitution for a Palestinian state--which will probably have the word "Arab" and possibly "Islamic" in its name--states that country is Arab in nationality and that the official religion is Islam.
But the most important reason is to counter various tricks like that of the "Right of Return," which is based on a false reading of a single non-binding UN document that the Palestinians and Arabs rejected more than fifty years ago. Note that this demand--that all Palestinians who ever lived in what is now Israel or are descendants of such people--can come and live in Israel. Naturally, there first goal would be to destroy that country and the result would be horrible violence, bloodshed, and instability.
Don't believe anyone who tells you this isn't a serious demand on the PA's part or that they will--as they tell credible people in private--not really implement it once Israel promises to let them do it. It is an absolutely central demand and if any Palestinian leader dared give it up publicly his life span--politically at least--would be very limited.
Now, however, Professor Shlomo Avineri, possibly Israel's greatest public intellectual at present, has given a good explanation as to why recognition as a Jewish state is so important for Israel:
"Israel has never called into question the existence of the Egyptian political entity. On the other hand, the Palestinians, through their rejection of the [1947] UN Partition Plan, refused to recognize the Jewish state and embarked on a war to destroy it. This is, after all, the root of the conflict. Indeed, the Palestinian narrative is based on the rejection of the existence of a Jewish nation-state in any part of the territory they call Palestine.
"If you declared war against the Jewish state, does not the signing of a peace treaty with that state obligate you to accept it? This does not mean the Palestinians are asked to accept the Zionist narrative, but it is incumbent upon them to alter their narrative, which rules out the existence of a Jewish state.
"This is exactly what Israel did at Camp David and Oslo. Under the terms of binding international agreements, Israel committed itself to recognizing "the legitimate rights of the Palestinian Arab nation." [Prime Minister] Menachem Begin was the first to do this. This is not tantamount to relinquishing the Zionist narrative; it is a willingness to accept the legitimacy of a competing narrative and to seek a compromise. We only ask of the Palestinians that which we ourselves have done in the past."
Note by the way something extremely important: To accept the existence of a Palestinian Arab state, Israel or Zionist ideology does not have to make any change whatsoever in its world view. It is not exclusionary. Palestinian nationalism is. For it to accept the existence of Israel--in real terms or even by signing a final peace treaty--requires a political and intellectual revolution.
And one of the ways you know peace is not near is that this revolution has barely begun. Examine Palestinian media, education, the statements (in Arabic) of leaders, mosque sermons, and so on, and you find few hints that there is acceptance of Israel's long-term, much less permanent, existence. Of course, Hamas makes little secret of its view on the subject.
Fatah's view is more complex. In private, some of its leaders know they cannot defeat Israel but won't say so publicly and hope that a long-term battle of attrition will do what force of arms cannot.
Avineri's last point is particularly important: Israel has already recognized the Palestinians as an Arab people who will, of course, have an "Arab state." Remember that it is on this very basis that the Palestinians will always demand that every Jewish settler must be removed from their territory.
A two-state solution is supposed to mean: Two states for two peoples. That is the best solution, though of course this doesn't mean there will be a solution for a very long time, a distinction many people seem not to understand.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/31/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
#1
Bull, no peace is possible---this is a war to extinction. Not between Israel and "Palestinians", or even between Israel and the Arabs, but between Islam and ideologies based on the Golden Rule. Israel just happen to be in the front line.
#2
Gromgoru is right,
The battle in Eurabia has been lost now - in 50 years there will not be any Europe as we used to know it. Phase I of the islamization of the world has been sucessfully completed.
Obama ( with possible help from Hatoyama of Japan) is now trying to sell Israel to the arabs in order to advance his narrow interest in Iraq and the gulf. He missed the big picture. He will loose everything (as does anybody who trusts the arabs) and contribute to the downfall of American influence and credibility in the ME.
For Israel, any negotiations with Palestinians are just plastering over the real problem.
Posted by: Elder of zion ||
08/31/2009 7:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
in 50 years there will not be any Europe as we used to know it.
Doubt it will take anywhere near that long. Visit The Hague.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
