The death of Saddam Hussein

The papers this morning reported the death of Saddam Hussein, executed this morning by hanging at a secure facility in northern Baghdad for crimes against humanity. He was executed over the killings of 148 Shias from the town of Dujail in the 1980s.

The discussion in all the papers and online is - was it the right thing to do? Well certainly not according to the public that have commented on the BBC's website.

Here's a flavour of the first few pages - it was hard to find anything positive - inappropriate to execute Saddam on Eid, Saddam wasn't the only sinner in his acts, a barbaric act, disgusting act of depravity, his death will make little or no difference for the poor people of Iraq, against democratic norms and values, immoral, disgusted and ashamed, trial was extremely unfair, primitive, iraq was more secure under Saddam than under Mr Bush's occupation, A dictator created then destroyed by America, hasty and harsh, Saddam was hung a powerless old man, childish and revengeful action by Mr. Bush, murder of the legitimate Iraqi president

Some other people put the following comments that we should all consider

• Remember the families & victims who suffered under his rule
  
• Execution is a good lesson for those who continue to despise their own people
• Tyrant dictators across the world will sleep less easily tonight

History will judge whether this action aids Iraq in moving towards democracy. Certainly it has held Saddam Hussein accountable for what he has done and has closed a dark chapter in Iraqi history. It might incite a initial backlash of violence but this will probably be temporary as Saddam is more of a symbol than having any significant meaning in the current conflict. The BBC puts it correctly that his fate has become a sideshow. Indeed many Iraqi's today will NOT be mourning Saddam, in fact they will probably be relieved (because if he was imprisoned there would always be the chance of him escaping and coming back to power again). But what will more be on their minds is how they can survive the present choas that is unfolding in Iraq.

The British public can go on about the hypocrisy of our governments, and that of the US, because they make and then break dictators, they sell arms, they take sides, they ignore conflicts and suffering when it suits and at other times moralise and interfere in the name of democracy and humanity. They will continue to do all this - nothing will change! But the British public should also watch itself - so many of the comments put online are hypocritical - they would be singing a different tune if Saddam were still in power and repressing his people. They would be calling for his removal, they would be saying the country had a right to try him how it saw fit, they would be calling for justice - and when it is delivered, albeit brutally, they complain!

And what about those that suffered - as said above i'm sure many will be relieved and feel that they have had some justice. Why do we think we have it right because we don't have the death penalty? We are so patronising and condesending to the Iraqi's about choosing this sentance for him - we call them puppets, unfair, barbaric, murderers - the poor people! They just don't seem to get anything right do they. They try their former leader, which is quite remarkable in their history to have such a trial, and yet they get criticised. If they had put him in prison they would have got criticised! If they kick the west out, they are punished, if they stay they are punished.

Whether we agree with the death penalty or not, we should all do one thing. Governments will never get everything right, in fact they get a lot wrong and actively do a lot wrong.Yet when they make a decision to rid the world of a ruthless dictator, tyrant and murderer, perhaps for once we should just respect and accept their decision.

War in Somalia, as of December 21st

Anyone noticed that on 21st Dec Somalia and Ethiopia formally declared war on each other and began a war of hostilities! Perhaps not because the two sides have traded war declarations on several occasions before so no one takes them seriously any more - or they just think its another african conflict and they are always at each other's throats. Somalia & Ethiopia have a long history of skirmishes in the south of Somalia over land and ethnic groups , religion, and boundaries. The same things have been fought over for years so why should now be any different!

The interim Somali government had a tiny plot of land in Somalia and yet call themselves the official government - as recognised by the UN. They are based in one small city called Baidoa, and are currently encircled by the Islamic Courts. Somalia itself is in choas with no recognized central government authority nor any other feature associated with an established independent state. And so Ethiopia sent in troops to supposedly protect the interim gov and sort things out. What a mess!

It's interesting to note a few facts that perhaps might tip the balance

• Eritrea is possibly involved (there are reports of 2,000 troops in Somalia though it denies this)- Ethiopia's long term enemy, and an ardent supporter of the Islamic Courts Union
  
• The West supports Ethiopia, as it seeks to support the interim government that has been set up to rival the Islamic de facto one (Islamic Courts Union). The AU has also shown sympathy for Ethiopia in that it is protecting its sovereignity.
  
• Ethiopia is worried about a hard line Islamic militant state on its doorstep and their claims to have rights to a portion of land in Ethiopia.
  
• The Islamic courts made a worldwide appeal for Muslim mujahideen to come fight for their cause and there are possible reports of 8,000 foreign fighters already in Somalia.
  
• Ethiopia has MiG fighter jets (where did they get those from??), 4 attack helicopters and 20 Ethiopian tanks - will that make a difference?

International law has gone out the window so debates over legitimacy of war etc in a way aren't worth having as neither side cares. Since they don't start by the rules, they may well not play by the rules - hence there are already reports of high casulties. On top of that comes all the usual problems both Somalia and Ethiopia have with famine etc and so Kenya might be getting a lot of refugees near in the future!

Questions for discussion:

1. Will this fighting produce a different outcome that previously - i.e will the interim Somali government be crushed and the whole of Somalia go under Islamic Court control? What will the UN do then? Or will it merely be a war of attrition, balancing the situation out.
   
2. Will the UN/AU send in peacekeepers - keep Black Hawk Down and the disastrous UN mission in the 90's in mind and the answer would probably be no!
   

The death of a dictator in Turkmenistan

Some recent news proving worthy of discussion...............the death of longtime authoritarian leader of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, aged 66, whose death was announced Thursday 21st Dec after he had an apparent heart attack overnight. He left no clear successor.

Thus ends the life of idiosyncratic and iron-fisted dictator, who was so full of himself its quite unbelievable. As well as naming numerous towns, schools and even months and days of the week after himself, he then proceeded to erect numrous statues of himself (and his mother) including a gold-plated statue atop Aşgabat's largest building, that rotates 360 degrees every 24 hours so as to always face the sun and shine light onto the capital city. A bizzare personality cult indeed!

He leaves behind him a society that is poor, repressed and has never known democracy. Niyazov became absolute leader after Turkmenistan became independent with the 1991 Soviet collapse. The desert nation of 5 million lies north of Afghanistan and Iran. They have elections but only with one party standing (and this does not seem threatened even now with new elections planned). Niyazov won Turkmenistan's last presidential election in 1992 with a reported 95.5 percent of the vote. He was named president for life in 1999.

But what is really at stake is the fact that Turkmenistan has the second largest reserves of natural gas and petroleum in the gas-rich former Soviet Union, generating high revenue for the state. Niyazov's sudden death could lead to a contest between Russia and the West over the former Soviet republic's enormous reserves, with the Kremlin seeking to influence who will be president.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a condolence message that "strengthening our partnership is in the true interests of the peoples of Russia and Turkmenistan."

U.S. President George W. Bush said the U.S. hopes "to expand our relations with Turkmenistan."

Very nicely coded for dominance of some kind!

Within Turkmenistan there are signs of power-jockeying, which emerged only hours after Niyazov's death was announced. Although the Constitution stipulates that the Parliament speaker become acting president, the deputy prime minister was given the job and later dismissed the speaker. Also with Niyazov gone, exiled opposition leaders are clamoring to return.

So the question is............who will be the next leader and whose puppet will he be? Or will some big personality emerge that doesn't care squat about the West or Russia and forges a third way for Turkmenistan? And in all this, does anyone care about the citizens of Turkmenistan and the fact that they have absolutely no freedoms and very low standards of living? Sadly power and influence seems to comee way before caring for humanity.