18. oktober 2005

The simplicity of the media's picture of Iraq's factions Christopher Hitchens is really sick and tired of western media dividing the Iraqis into Sunni, Shia and Kurd, and points out that this is the same error made in the Yugoslav conflict with Croats, Serbs and Muslims ("There are two apples and one orange in that basket, as any fool should be able to see."). He particularly warns against asking an Iraqi what 'fraction' he belongs to! If you fall into conversation with an Iraqi, you will soon enough find out what you want to know. Kurds are not shy about mentioning their nationhood, and followers of the Shiite confession are not inclined to make a secret of the fact. So don't force the question. But you will have to know a lot of Iraqis before you meet one who cannot introduce you, usually with pride, to his or her Sunni cousin, or Kurdish auntie, or Shiite brother-in-law, as the case may be. And as for ethnicity and religion beyond our customary categories, you had better be prepared to meet Turkish and Assyrian Iraqis, as well as to bear in mind that in 1947 there were more Jews in Baghdad than in Jerusalem (many of the former of whom had been there longer), that many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are Christian from more than one denomination—Islamic fanatics murdered the head of their Anglican congregation just the other day—and that the spiritual leader of the Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, is an ethnic Persian. Also, obviously, the US-led invasion didn't cause any of the divisions that now exist. On the contrary, Saddam was himself from a minority of a minority, skillfully and ruthlessly using divide and conquer to keep control. If, as appears likely, Assad's Syria breaks along the same lines, I'd wonder who the media will blame for the ethnic conflicts likely to follow? The main strategy of al-Qaeda appears to be playing the religious and ethnic groups against each other by, for example, the mindless killing of Shias. On this, Zarqawi and his butchers meet opposition from other, otherwise likeminded extremists. It may well be that the terrorist alliances break before the Iraqis. 11:32:56 PM    comment []  trackback []

The world is getting safer It is certainly not the impression you get from the media, but the world is actually a much safer place than it was just a few decades ago. Historians will surely know this to be true, but journalists were probably surprised when they read it in a recent UN report. The first Human Security Report paints a surprising picture of war and peace in the 21st century: a dramatic decline in battlefield deaths, plummeting instances of genocide, and a drop in human rights abuses. The only form of political violence that appears to be getting worse is international terrorism, a serious threat but one that has killed fewer than 1,000 people a year on average over the past 30 years. Tens of thousands were killed annually in armed conflicts during that time, said the report, which was financed by five governments and released Monday. The fact is most people have a very rosy picture of the past, even the near past that they themselves lived in. At the same time, current affairs news are naturally dominated by calamities. Who today remembers, for example, that an earthquake in China in 1976 killed maybe half a million people? 8:22:10 PM    comment []  trackback []

Headline of the day Canada 'among worst polluters' (CNN) Ho-hum. 8:00:53 PM    comment []  trackback []

Amnesty concerned about Saddam trial So-called human rights organisations are very, very concerned for poor Saddam Hussein. Three days before Saddam Hussein goes on trial for crimes against humanity, human rights groups have raised profound concerns about the independence of the court trying him and whether it meets international standards. Among other issues, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have expressed unease about limits on the ability of the accused to mount a defense, the burden of proof, political sway over the court and use of the death penalty. Questions also surround the fact the Iraqi government has passed new laws governing the court, but has not yet brought them into force. Those new statutes could take effect in the next few days, or after the trial begins, raising further doubts about the clarity of procedures. It's maybe a sad fact for the lovers of human rights legalese, but Iraq and the world cannot possibly afford Saddam Hussein to walk free. Saddam Hussein is personally responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands, and the deaths of millions through his two wars of aggression, in addition to countless acts of torture and cruelty. You name it, and he did it. Saddam simply has to be put away. In a normal criminal trial, even as the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, we regretfully accept that some people guilty of serious crimes walk free, because if the burden of evidence was lighter, many more innocents would be convicted. That rule simply doesn't apply in large-scale trials like this. The death of a homicidal dictator is hardly the loss for humanity. Him walking free would be a total, absolute disaster. In reality, the trial of Saddam Hussein has to be a farce. He can stand no chance of being found not guilty. If a legalistic defence based on immunity as a state chief or certain laws being enacted after the crime should lead to a dismissal of the case, that would be a real travesty of justice. Luckily, there is little reason to expect any defence to be successful. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the Romanians got it right, when they summarily tried and executed the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989. Subsequently, his Securitate thugs put down their arms and the country was able to start moving, erratically as it may have been, towards a better future. The so-called human rights organisations that are using their resources to fight for the legal rights of a human monster like Saddam Hussein have completely, utterly lost the plot. Update: A producer on BBC World's Have Your Say emailed me about this entry, and wants me to be on the air to debate this topic and a bit about the blogosphere generally. Apparently it will happen in about two hours or so. Update 2: It would be an overstatement to say there is an overwhelming interest in the Saddam trial in the blogosphere. The American sphere is mostly concerned with the Harriet Miers nomination and the ongoing investigation into what someone once bothered to call 'Plamegate'. The concern voiced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch over Saddam's rights to a fair trial did raise a few eyebrows, though. After the ridiculously exaggerated "Gulag of our time" statement about the Guantanamo prison, Amnesty essentially blew their credibility in the center-right blogosphere anyway. ShrinkWrapped takes much the same position as I do, but puts it in blunter terms. The modern, left wing intellectual has always valued abstract ideals over the fate of real people.  Their concern about Saddam Hussein doesn't even really involve Saddam Hussein as a person; they are concerned about Saddam Hussein as a symbol with which they can attack the democratic process in Iraq.  After all, the greatest danger to the world, we are told time and again, is George W Bush and American neo-colonial expansionism, and God (who they disown and deny) forbid anything occur which might conceivably improve the chances of an American lead success to occur.  It is a redundancy to say that these people are not neutral in the World War IV; they are on the other side. UK blogger Ken Frost runs a blog dedicated to The Trial of Saddam Hussein, where he reported on this story in neutral terms. Dave at Oklahomily is also wondering about the concerns for Saddam's victims. Saddam is being tried by his peers, his fellow Iraqis. They will be bound by Iraqi law. That the law has changed since Saddam left office is just too bad. Where were Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International when Saddam was gassing Kurds? Where were their protests when the stories leaked out of his perversions and tortures, and those of his darling sons? I'm quite sure somebody can point me to page 238b in some Amnesty report from the 90s where Amnesty indeed raised concerns about Saddam Hussein's regime, but they know darned well what gets them publicity. PS: I knew I'd made a similar point in the past. In April 2004 I wrote, in Newsflash: Milosevic trial will last until the end of time: The court case started in 2002. The prosecution finally finished presenting its case in February. There were a number of delays due to Milosevic's ill health (why not move the trial to a hospital?). And, this is a punchline if not the punchline, the case was actually cut short. This new appointment to the court in the middle of the trial is actually grounds for Milosevic to demand a retrial. Second, we are only half way through the case. The defence will have the right to use as much time and present as much material as the prosecution. Milosevic has now presented his list of - hold on - 1,631 witnesses he will demand the right to question in the case. The list is apparently not complete yet. [...] World Court, anyone? I'm out. I know I shouldn't say this, but I am beginning to understand why the Romanians just shot Ceausescu and got it over with. Remember: The 'human rights' groups consider the endless Milosevic trial, where judges have to retire due to old age, a great example of how dictators, including Saddam Hussein, should be tried for their crimes! Update 3: Well, I was on BBC World just now (this page is about some of the same), even got a chance to summarise the position above, but of course there is never time to really elaborate on air. I just have to say this: if you ever plan to be on radio, don't use a mobile without a handsfree set. 1:39:53 AM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2005 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.11.2005; 20:34:33.