Mick Hartley

Saddam Obituary

David Hirst provides the best obituary of Saddam that I've yet seen (via Jeff W). Here he is on the videotaped meeting when Saddam seized power with a purge of half the senior Ba'athist leaders:

When, in June 1979, all was set for him to depose and succeed the ailing Bakr, he could have accomplished it with bloodless ease. But he wilfully, gratuitously chose blood in what was a psychological as well as a symbolic necessity. He had to inaugurate the "era of Saddam Hussein" with a rite whose message would be unmistakable: there had arisen in Mesopotamia a ruler who, in his barbaric splendour, cruelty and caprice, was to yield nothing to its despots of old.

Only now did he emerge, personally and very publicly, as accuser, judge and executioner in one. He called an extraordinary meeting of senior party cadres. They were solemnly informed that "a gang disloyal to the party and the revolution" had mounted a "base conspiracy" in the service of "Zionism and the forces of darkness", and that all the "traitors" were right there, with them, in the hall. One of their ringleaders, brought straight from prison, made a long and detailed confession of his "horrible crime".

Saddam, puffing on a Havana cigar, calmly watched the proceedings as if they had nothing to do with him. Then he took the podium. He began to read out the "traitors'" names, slowly and theatrically; he seemed quite overcome as he did so, pausing only to light his cigar or wipe away his tears with a handkerchief. All 66 "traitors" were led away one by one.

Thus did the new president make inaugural use of that essential weapon of the ultimate tyrant, the occasional flamboyant, contemptuous act of utter lawlessness, turpitude or unpredictability, and the enforced prostration of his whole apparatus, in praise and rejoicing, before it. Those of the audience who had not been named showed their relief with hysterical chants of gratitude and a baying for the blood of their fallen comrades.

Saddam then called on ministers and party leaders to join him in personally carrying out the "democratic executions"; every party branch in the country sent an armed delegate to assist them. It was, he said, "the first time in the history of revolutionary movements without exception, or perhaps of human struggle, that over half the supreme leadership had taken part in a tribunal" which condemned the other half. "We are now," he confided, "in our Stalinist era."

But in one way he had actually surpassed his exemplar. Upon entering the Kremlin, the former Georgian streetfighter had at least kept himself fittingly aloof from his "great terror". Not Saddam. Newly exalted, he was to remain down-to-earth too; new caliph of Baghdad, but, direct participant in his own terror, very much the Tikriti gangster, too.

As Christopher Hitchens writes:

Nobody who has seen that footage — of terrified men dragged by goons from the room, while the survivors weep with fear and relief and Hussein indulges in a luxurious cigar — is likely to forget it.

Justice in Libya

The Libyan leader is playing tough over the case of the Benghazi six:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has rejected calls for the release of six foreign medics sentenced to death for infecting children with HIV/Aids.

Those who committed crimes must accept the consequences, he said....

Colonel Gaddafi stressed the "the independence of the Libyan judicial system", and he rejected what he called "Western intervention and pressure in this affair".

Whether he'll stick to that position remains to be seen, but it's now going to look like weakness if he backs down.

Is there an element of revenge for Lockerbie in all this?

Gadaffi also remains bitter about the pariah status he acquired after the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Earlier this year Libya said Bulgaria should pay the families of the children $2.7bn (£1.8bn) in compensation - which is exactly the sum paid by Libya for the 270 lives lost in the Pan Am 103 bombing.

Many, including some of the victims' families, continue to believe that the Lockerbie investigation was subject to political pressure, and Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, eventually convicted for the crime, was little more than a scapegoat. Paul Foot, who published numerous pieces in Private Eye on this, was the most eloquent and persistent of those who believed in a cover-up:

There is, in my opinion (not necessarily shared by the families), an explanation for all this, an explanation so shocking that no one in high places can contemplate it. It is that the Lockerbie bombing was carried out not by Libyans at all but by terrorists based in Syria and hired by Iran to avenge the shooting down in the summer of 1988 of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship. This was the line followed by both British and US police and intelligence investigators after Lockerbie. Through favoured newspapers like the Sunday Times, the investigators named the suspects - some of whom had been found with home-made bombs similar to the one used at Lockerbie.

This line of inquiry persisted until April 1989, when a phone call from President Bush senior to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher warned her not to proceed with it. A year later, British and US armed forces prepared for an attack on Saddam Hussein's occupying forces in Kuwait. Their coalition desperately needed troops from an Arab country. These were supplied by Syria, which promptly dropped out of the frame of Lockerbie suspects. Libya, not Syria or Iran, mysteriously became the suspect country, and in 1991 the US drew up an indictment against two Libyan suspects. The indictment was based on the "evidence" of a Libyan "defector", handsomely paid by the CIA. His story was such a fantastic farrago of lies and fantasies that it was thrown out by the Scottish judges.

In Britain, meanwhile, Thatcher, John Major and Blair obstinately turned down the bereaved families' requests for a full public inquiry into the worst mass murder in British history.

It follows from this explanation that Megrahi is innocent of the Lockerbie bombing and his conviction is the last in the long line of British judges' miscarriages of criminal justice. This explanation is also a terrible indictment of the cynicism, hypocrisy and deceit of the British and US governments and their intelligence services. Which is probably why it has been so consistently and haughtily ignored.

Foot, of course, had his own far-left axe to grind, and was inclined to see conspiracies everywhere. He could be completely mistaken, as he was in the case of James Hanratty. On the other hand he may just have been on to something, the ramifications of which are playing out now in Libya.

Death of a Tyrant

The Times obituary sums it up pretty well:

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant whose actions brought down unimaginable catastrophe on Iraq and its peoples. From an early age, he had enjoyed inflicted [sic] suffering on those around him and, when he came to positions of political power, those whom he could not force or corrupt into submitting to his will, he maimed, murdered or made to flee.

He started two major international wars - one against Iran, the second as a result of aggression against Kuwait - which cost an estimated one million lives. He instituted genocidal campaigns against the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Marsh Arabs in the south. Ruling through the Sunni minority of which he was a member, he ignored the claims of the country's majority Shia population....

Saddam appeared to have psychopathic tendencies which, combined with the exacerbating circumstances of his absolute power, resulted in the killing of more fellow Muslims, possibly, than Genghis Khan and Tamberlaine had caused between them in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Yet, until he invaded the oil-rich state of Kuwait, he enjoyed the collaboration of many governments abroad - including those in the West - who had given him backing in his unprovoked assault on Iran.

His invasion of the important Kuwait oilfields in 1990, however, resulted in the formation of an international military coalition against him, which was given sanction by United Nations resolutions. US-led, it inflicted a severe defeat on his forces and administered a check to his territorial ambitions - though it made him a hero to many Muslim militants and Arab nationalists. Even with defeat staring him in the face he continued to proclaim victory to his people.

And after his expulsion from Kuwait and the massive casualties inflicted on his army, Saddam continued defiant, thwarting the efforts of UN inspectors to check on his weapons stocks and refusing to let himself be cowed by the overflying of his country by armed British and American aircraft. Meanwhile he continued with projects to develop new weapons to threaten territories outside his borders, apparently secure in his power, in spite of the sufferings of his people, which were in such painful contrast to the lavish lifestyle enjoyed by himself and his family.

A fervent admirer of Hitler on account of the latter's boldness and hatred of Jews, he told his official biographer in 1980 that he wanted Iraqis to think of Nebuchadnezzar every day. "We could march into Palestine and bring all those Jews here in Babylon with their hands tied behind their backs once more", he said.

The Tower of Babel

I'm glad there's someone else who doesn't think that the death of languages is necessarily all bad:

The death of languages is typically described in a rueful tone. There are a number of books treating the death of languages as a crisis equal to endangered species and global warming. However, I'm not sure it's the crisis we are taught that it is.

There is a part of me, as a linguist, that does see something sad in the death of so many languages. It is happening faster than ever: It has been said that a hundred years from now 90% of the current 6,000 languages will be gone.

Each extinction means that a fascinating way of putting words together is no longer alive. In, for example, Inuktitut Eskimo, which, by the way, is not dying, "I should try not to become an alcoholic" is one word: Iminngernaveersaartunngortussaavunga.

Yet the extinctions cannot be stopped, for the most part. Trying to teach people to speak their ancestral languages, for example, will almost never get far beyond the starting gate. [...]

The language revivalists yearn for — surprise — diversity. What they miss is that language death is a healthy outcome of diversity.

If people truly come together, then they speak a common language. We can muse upon a "salad bowl" ideal in which people go home and use their nice "diverse" language with "their own." But in reality, almost always the survival of that "diverse" language means that the people are segregated in some way, which in turn is almost always due to an unequal power relationship — i.e., precisely what "diversity" fans otherwise consider such a scourge....

In the end, the proliferation of languages is an accident: a single original language morphed into 6,000 when different groups of people emerged. I hope that dying languages can be recorded and described. I hope that many persist as hobbies, taught in schools and given space in the press, as Irish, Welsh, and Hawaiian have.

However, the prospect we are taught to dread — that one day all the world's people will speak one language — is one I would welcome. Surely easier communication, while no cure-all, would be a good thing worldwide. There's a reason the Tower of Babel story is one of havoc rather than creation.

As I wrote here, I'm all for the preservation of dying languages in theory: how can you possibly disapprove? But I'm very glad it's not me who's one of the few remaining speakers.

Why Seoul is Soft on North Korea

Not being familiar with South Korea I'm not sure what to make of this, but it comes recommended as a must-read at The Marmot's Hole, so it clearly strikes a chord with those who know Korea well:

No country today is as misunderstood as North Korea. Journalists still refer to it as a Stalinist or communist state, when in fact it espouses a race-based nationalism such as the West last confronted during the Pacific War. Pyongyang's propaganda touts the moral superiority of the Korean race, condemns South Korea for allowing miscegenation, and stresses the need to defend the Dear Leader with kyeolsa, or dare-to-die spirit--the Korean version of the Japanese kamikaze slogan kesshi. The six-party talks are therefore less likely to replicate the successes of Cold War détente than the negotiating failures of the 1930s. According to early reports from Beijing, the North Korean delegation appears more confident than ever. It has clearly been emboldened not only by its accession to the nuclear club, but by the awareness that Seoul will continue providing food and financial support no matter what happens.

This support is not meant to expedite unification, which South Koreans are happy to put off indefinitely. Nor has it much to do with concern for starving children; by now everyone knows where the "humanitarian" aid really goes. No, the desire to help North Korea derives in large part from ideological common ground. South Koreans may chuckle at the personality cult, but they generally agree with Pyongyang that Koreans are a pure-blooded race whose innate goodness has made them the perennial victims of rapacious foreign powers. They share the same tendency to regard Koreans as innocent children on the world stage--and to ascribe evil to foreigners alone. Though the North expresses itself more stridently on such matters, there is no clear ideological divide such as the one that separated West and East Germany. Bonn held its nose when conducting Ostpolitik. Seoul pursues its sunshine policy with respect for Pyongyang.

More on the North Korean obsession with racial purity here.

Delusions

Commentary in Lebanon's Daily Star by Syrian author, blogger and dissident Ammar Abdulhamid:

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the fundamental problem in the Middle East is not intervention by the West. On the contrary, the real problem is that, for all their dabbling, the Western powers seem capable of neither war nor dialogue. This leaves everyone in the region at the mercy of the Middle East's oppressive regimes and proliferating terrorists.

Advocates of the Iraq war lacked an understanding of the complexities on the ground to wage an effective war of liberation and democratization. As a result, their policies merely ended up eliminating Iran's two major regional rivals: the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime. This presented Iran with a golden opportunity to project itself as a regional hegemon, and Iran's leaders are unlikely to let this opportunity slip away.

Advocates of dialogue with the Iranians and their Syrian allies, like former US Secretary of State James Baker, labor under the delusion that they can actually reach an understanding that would enable a graceful US exit from Iraq and help stabilize that wounded country. The delusion is based on two false assumptions: that the Iranians and the Syrians can succeed in Iraq where the US has failed; and that the international community can afford to pay the price of ensuring their cooperation.

True, Syria and Iran are playing a major role in supporting Iraqi insurgents, and Syria is still encouraging the trafficking of jihadists and weapons across its borders with Iraq. But the idea that these activities can be halted at will is naive.

As is the idea that that Syria and Iran have any interest in halting these activities. The last thing they want is a strong democratic Iraq on their borders.

Remarkable Bird, the African Grey

Good to see the cognitive abilities of the African Grey finally getting the attention they deserve:

The finding of a parrot with an almost unparalleled power to communicate with people has brought scientists up short. The bird, a captive African grey called N'kisi, has a vocabulary of 950 words, and shows signs of a sense of humour.

He invents his own words and phrases if he is confronted with novel ideas with which his existing repertoire cannot cope - just as a human child would do.

N'kisi's remarkable abilities, which are said to include telepathy, feature in the latest BBC Wildlife Magazine.

N'kisi is believed to be one of the most advanced users of human language in the animal world.

About 100 words are needed for half of all reading in English, so if N'kisi could read he would be able to cope with a wide range of material.

He uses words in context, with past, present and future tenses, and is often inventive.

One N'kisi-ism was "flied" for "flew", and another "pretty smell medicine" to describe the aromatherapy oils used by his owner, an artist based in New York.

I'm privileged to have been involved in the teaching of a group of these extraordinary birds for a while now. We've been working through a basic introductory course in the Philosophy of Science. On the whole it's been a rewarding experience, though at times there can be discipline problems. For some reason they enjoy falling off their perches and pretending they're dead, and one in particular will go into a corner and turn his back on me at the start of the lesson.

"What's wrong with M'pongo this morning?" I'll say.

In chorus: "He's pining for the fjords!"

Cue much loud squawking and stamping of claws.

I wouldn't mind just the once, but it gets a bit wearisome every single lesson. Still, that's a minor quibble.

Our current topic: anthropomorphism in animal psychology.

Bashing the Archbishop

Rowan Williams gets properly chastised in today's Times. Here's Dean Goodson:

[C]onventional wisdom holds that Tony Blair and George Bush made the world a much more dangerous place by invading Iraq. That we’re losing badly in Iraq, if we haven’t already lost. That Mr Blair is “riding pillion” to President Bush — and that if he didn’t do so, we would probably all be much safer.

In that sense, the Archbishop of Canterbury rounded 2006 off perfectly, declaring in this newspaper that Anglo-American “firepower” in Iraq had triggered an explosion of extremism that made life far harder for Christians across the Middle East. His line is reminiscent of the old Yiddish joke about two Jews in front of a firing squad in Tsarist Russia. One suggests: “Let’s make a run for it.” Replies the other: “Shhh, don’t make trouble.”

Never mind the ideological, political and physical assault on Christians all across the Middle East and Asia since the 1970s — fuelled by the rise of Wahhabist ideology. Never mind that Christian communities there have been in decline for at least a century. Rather like the Islamists, Dr Williams prefers to lay the blame for the deplorable condition of the Middle East’s Christians at the door of Great Satan and Little Satan. Short of blaming the Jews for the tsunami — as some Muslim radicals did in 2004 — the Archbishop did a wonderful job of letting the real sources of evil off the hook.

A letter from Stephen Shaw:

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s plea for us all to “pray for the little town of Bethlehem” makes depressing reading, though for reasons unstated in his article.

In 2002 a hideous suicide bombing at a hotel in the Israeli resort of Netanya killed 30, mainly elderly guests, and injured 140 others. To protect its citizens from such murderous attacks, Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield, part of which included an effort to apprehend those Palestinians involved in such attacks. Some of those pursued, themselves not Christians, chose to take refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. The almost worldwide condemnation which Israel received then, when it sought to extricate those concerned, is parallel to the easy condemnation of the security fence, which now affects Bethlehem and many other areas with significant Arab populations.

My experience during many visits to Israel is that most Israeli Jews, as well as Israeli Arabs and Christians, dislike the fence. It is ugly, expensive and bad for Israel’s battered image. But they dislike even more being blown up as they travel on buses or eat in restaurants. The sad fact is that the fence has saved lives.

And another from Professor Shaun Gregory of the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is right to draw attention to the suffering of Christians in the Middle East but wrong to lay the blame for this at the feet of Western foreign policy.

The genocide, displacment and repression of Christians across the Muslim world is one of the great untold stories of the past 150 years. Were it more widely known it would explode the myth of Islamic tolerance of other faiths.

The Archbishop falls into precisely the intellectual trap which has long obscured the reality of Christian persecution under Islam: an unwillingness to risk offending Muslim leaderships reinforced by orientalist guilt for the West’s troubled past with the Islamic world.

The Arab Lion in Darfur

To date the Arabs of Darfur have largely stayed out of the conflict between the government-backed forces and the rebels, but this may be changing according to Julie Flint in Lebanon's Daily Star:

This month, as Janjaweed violence raged uncontrolled, the lion bared its teeth - at the government. Seven months after the government and Minni Minawi's Zaghawa-led faction of the SLA signed a peace agreement that all other factions rejected, Darfur's first Arab rebel group announced itself with an attack on a government garrison in South Darfur state, the only one of Darfur's three states that has an Arab majority. The new group, the Popular Forces Army, said it would liaise with the rebels still fighting the government "until all demands of Darfur and other marginalized parts of the Sudan are fully realized." It denounced the Janjaweed as "a minority of mercenaries and hired individuals" who "do not represent Darfur Arabs and do not embody their heritage, courage and sacrifice for peace and justice."

Arabs constitute approximately a third of Darfur's population of 7 million and are no less neglected and marginalized than the non-Arab tribes who form the backbone of the rebel movements. Although the conflict in Darfur is popularly depicted as a war between "Arabs" and "Africans," it is estimated that no more than 20,000 Darfurian Arabs have joined forces with the government, motivated as much by the promise of a salary and loot as by any fuddled notions of Arab supremacy. Despite strong identification with the rebels' demands, most Arab tribes have attempted to toe a middle line, dissuaded from joining the rebels by their descent into tribalism and by a noxious government propaganda campaign that accused Minawi's Zaghawa of plotting to establish a "Greater Zaghawa State" on the more fertile lands of others.

The Popular Forces Army is led by two members of the Rizeigat tribe, Darfur's largest Arab tribe, who have opened a channel of communication to the third SLA faction - known both as the Group of Nineteen and SLA Unity. In the months since the Abuja peace process ended, SLA Unity has dealt the government a series of stunning battlefield defeats and is suddenly the single strongest rebel force on the ground in Darfur. Its success has undoubtedly been one the factors that has propelled some Arabs off the fence.

James Brown RIP

The godfather of soul - in his prime.