Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, announced last Friday that Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, otherwise known as Carlos the Jackal and currently incarcerated in France having been found responsible for numerous murders and bombings, is a "revolutionary fighter" and has been "unfairly convicted". One really has to wonder about the intentions of Mr Chavez, especially since he allegedly also praised Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin, calling the latter a "patriot" and arguing that both had wrongly been portrayed as the "bad guys". For those unfamiliar with African history or current affairs, such praise is on a similar level to suggesting that Adolf Hitler was a great visionary for peace and reconciliation. 300,000 died during Amin's reign in Uganda, while Mugabe's policies and prejudices have led to economic catastrophe and famine in Zimbabwe, not to mention allegations of war crimes.
Many British and American newspapers have chosen to focus on Chavez's praise for Sanchez, though surely the more worrying prospect is that of a national leader prepared to suggest Amin and Mugabe are not 'bad'. Usually, labels such as 'good' and 'bad' are far too ambiguous to be used to describe the careers and policies of politicians, however I think it is fair to say that mass murder, famine, rape and economic failure on an unfathomable scale merit such generalisation. Chavez, it seems, has tried to defend the indefensible.
On the other hand, perhaps this is just a glimpse of the future. Josef Stalin is now revered by many despite the atrocities committed during his rule of the Soviet Union. If a man responsible for the deaths of millions can have his crimes blissfully forgotten by so many only 50 years after his death, who knows what will happen in a half century from now. Perhaps idealist university students and nationalists will be happily showing off grandiose posters of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe, portraying them to be heroes. The mere thought of those leaders being perceived in that manner is sickening but seeing as Stalin's crimes have been forgotten so easily by so many, there is an uncomfortable possibility that the thought may one day become reality. Chavez's speech, and others like it, only serve to help erase memories of the horrors of the past.
Saturday 21 November 2009
Friday 20 November 2009
Van Rompuy's election goes to show that bigger isn't always better
Putting to one side the controversy surrounding the mere existence of a EU president, the election of Belgian Prime Minister Mr Van Rompuy is undoubtedly an intriguing one. Critics argue that Mr Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton, elected to the position of High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, lack ambition. Even if they are not particularly ambitious, it can be argued that they will have ambition thrust upon them by their new responsibilities. Despite the various criticisms raised against Mr Van Rompuy, his election may well prevent potentially dangerous power struggles within the EU that may have resulted from the appointment of a strong political figure, supported by some but not all.
An interesting point raised by the BBC's Gavin Hewitt in his blog was that Angela Merkel believed Mr Van Rompuy to offer "consensus". Perhaps this was the main reason for his appointment. Critics may bemoan a lack of an established, strong leadership figure but it is questionable whether that was really what was required The furore around Tony Blair's candidature suggested that an established, 'strong' figure may be no more than a divisive hindrance to the EU. Mr Van Rompuy's relative anonymity within the minds and opinions of many observers could be one of the main reasons for his election, alongside his linguistic and mediation skills. It must also be remembered that Mr Van Rompuy has been the Belgian Prime Minister for nine months, which is an acceptable length of time considering the continuous political turmoil that has blighted the country over the past two years. He is by no means the novice some critics might portray him to be.
One could even go so far as to hope that this trend is continued with future EU Presidents. Though commentators such as Martin Kettle wish for a stronger political persona to eventually replace Mr Van Rompuy, it is possible that the political power and backgrounds of such figures may prove just as divisive as Tony Blair's candidature for this election. Consensus is the name of the game and as Chancellor Merkel pointed out, Mr Van Rompuy seems to have that covered.
An interesting point raised by the BBC's Gavin Hewitt in his blog was that Angela Merkel believed Mr Van Rompuy to offer "consensus". Perhaps this was the main reason for his appointment. Critics may bemoan a lack of an established, strong leadership figure but it is questionable whether that was really what was required The furore around Tony Blair's candidature suggested that an established, 'strong' figure may be no more than a divisive hindrance to the EU. Mr Van Rompuy's relative anonymity within the minds and opinions of many observers could be one of the main reasons for his election, alongside his linguistic and mediation skills. It must also be remembered that Mr Van Rompuy has been the Belgian Prime Minister for nine months, which is an acceptable length of time considering the continuous political turmoil that has blighted the country over the past two years. He is by no means the novice some critics might portray him to be.
One could even go so far as to hope that this trend is continued with future EU Presidents. Though commentators such as Martin Kettle wish for a stronger political persona to eventually replace Mr Van Rompuy, it is possible that the political power and backgrounds of such figures may prove just as divisive as Tony Blair's candidature for this election. Consensus is the name of the game and as Chancellor Merkel pointed out, Mr Van Rompuy seems to have that covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)