Not what it seems

It is of course extremely tempting to talk about Dubya's timely pretzel related reminder that he is not a superhuman immortal leader of a mighty warrior nation but, in fact, a recovering alcoholic with questionable intellect, poor grammar, and a level of stupidity so high that even harmless bar snacks can be a lethal to him ("Ok Mr. President, we don't want any more scares like that now, do we? Now, if you'll observe the demonstration and make notes then hopefully you'll be a lot safer. Now then; place the pretzel in your mouth...that's good...now chew...good...ok, and now swallow...Mr. President? MR PRESIDENT? Ahh shit, some salted peanuts must have got lodged in his throat. Can somebody call 911?").

It's also testing my willpower not to mention young Prince Harry's weekend of revealed depravity. Once again though, despite providing frankly the strangest set of Sunday Newspaper headlines that I've ever seen (did anyone else think it was a joke I wonder?) I would contest that his personal popularity will increase. After all, if a possible future British King has been spending his teenage years not only getting drunk and stoned but also finding the time to throw insults at a Frenchman...well, that just shows how the younger Royals are firmly in tune with the general populace.

Instead I'd rather like to have a look at a couple of stories from a slightly skewed perspective. The main things I want to look at are the problem with Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan ( I'm afraid that, unlike Dubya I shan't be referring to them as Paki's at any point so if you have any National Front tendencies then you'll be disappointed...) and the efforts of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe to ensure that he continues his tenure as President.

Pakistan is a country that has been much maligned in the British consciousness. Anybody over the age of 20 will remember the variations on the cry of "Paki bashing" with a shudder. They are also a country whose recent history has been a confused and turbulent time. They have gone from the Military Dictatorship of General Zia Ul Haq to the most corrupt democracy in the world before returning to military dictatorship in the guise of General Pervez Musharraf. Since September 11th the latter has become "one of the boys" again due to his support for the US War on Terror. However, in recent weeks he has been acting in the kind of autocratic manner that Idi Amin would recognise and be proud of.

You may have seen the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament a few weeks ago. I say "may have" because despite being one of the most appalling terrorist atrocities in memory it happened "over there" and so it garnered little interest among the public (of course, if a bunch of crazed fools attacked Parliament in a suicide mission then, aside from our fervent thanks, they would have received press coverage that would have lasted until 2007). India was rightly incensed and demanded that Pakistan do something. As both sides in that simmering little tiff have nuclear weapons most people have welcomed Musharraf's arrest of numerous "terror" groups.

However if we look a little further at this then it ceases to be something so clear cut and simple. Pakistan has a great history of allowing freedom of religion for the numerous Moslem schools (talibs) there. These talibs provide an education for hundreds of thousands of people who quite simply would not have access to school otherwise. And yet Musharraf seeks to deny these people the benefit of an education simply so that he can consolidate his hold on power and crush one of the most powerful dissenting voices in his illegal reign. He is seeking to close down hundreds of these talibs on the unsupported claim that they are behind the attack on the Indian Parliament. Whilst there is no doubt that some of these schools do in fact produce people who's version of Islam would probably have horrified the Prophet had he heard them, there is absolutely no evidence that they are "training grounds for terrorists" as claimed by Musharraf. Indeed, one would have thought that if this were the case then he would be parading the numerous caches of weapons and terror training material that had been found at the schools. And has there been any such event? No. Do you know why? Because the assertion of the Pakistani military is what is known in the common parlance as "a lie". What in fact has been found is...well, more copies of the Koran than even the most devout Muslim could need.... and that's about it really. Not exactly a major threat to world peace (unless you're one of those tiresome little people who thinks that Islam is the biggest threat to world peace since Communism. In which case stop reading this, go away, and shoot yourself. In the head. Make sure you don't miss).

President Musharraf's goal is fairly straightforward; under the cloak of a War against Terrorism he is ensuring that perhaps millions of ordinary Pakistani's will have only the most basic and rudimentary education. He is crushing dissent against his reign and is doing so with the blessing of the west. Once the eyes of the world are turned away from Pakistan (which they will as soon as we are shown something else to distract us) he will have a compliant country that will not raise too many questions or arguments. International criticism will be muted to silence because of their support for the US in their hour of need. If we're really lucky he may even go completely power mad and attempt something along the lines of Pol Pot's Year 0.

Now then; Zimbabwe. There are Presidential elections due there in March of this year and they promise to be a close run thing. The election is between the current President, Robert Mugabe and his challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai. There has been much talk about how Mugabe is behaving in a dictatorial and thuggish manner due to his recent media gagging of certain dissenting voices. However, the more I look at the situation the more I am convinced that it is just not that simple.

For example, the taking of land from white farmers and redistributing it among the black population. This is repeatedly held up as an example of Mugabe's tyranny. Yet all he is doing is delivering on a promise that should have been kept many years before. Zimbabwe of course used to be Rhodesia before Ian Smith's autocratic and racist government fell and was replaced by a more representative rule. At that point Zimbabwe closely resembled Apartheid era South Africa in that the white people held 95% of the land and wealth whilst making up a tiny minority of the population. It was in 1979 that the first free and fair elections took place in Zimbabwe. The black population must have thought that there would be a new era of equality being ushered in. Yet they were wrong. It is over 20 years later and still a few white men own the majority of farmland. Are we really condemning a man for wishing to see justice that has been too long delayed finally being done?

And so we must look at the numerous accusations that have been levelled against Mugabe in a new light. For example, his socialism immediately counts against him on the international stage. We live in a world ruled by self-serving pragmatists and to have any sort of ideals or principles is regarded as faintly embarrassing at best by the worlds elite. Yet Mugabe is unflinchingly and unselfishly committed to a fairer society in Zimbabwe and is unconcerned as to whether or not he offends "right-on" sensibilities in the western world. Liberals the world over have criticised Zimbabwe this weekend; the army has been pilloried for it's declaration that it will only accept a Mugabe victory in the election. Mugabe himself is painted in tyrannical colours for closing down newspapers and banning gatherings by the opposition. Yet it just takes a few pen strokes to change the unfair accusations that have been thrown his way. The army's declaration, far from evidence of despotism, is in fact the most ringing endorsement that I could imagine. The army are clearly so concerned at the possibilities for corruption, disorder, and pandering to foreign whims that an opposition victory would bring that they have taken the unprecedented step of publicly supporting their current leader.

As to the controls imposed on the opposition and media...well, one criticism I will make of Mugabe is that he is not particularly media savvy. His opponents however are, and know how best to use the "free" press (as fine a collection of rabble rousing amoral hacks as would grace any nation's hallowed halls of journalism) to their own advantage. The current instability in the region is due entirely to this motley collection of agitators doing their very best to magnify the complaints of a few into a worldwide movement against the man who seeks to give Zimbabwe a taste of the equality and justice that socialism can provide if put into practice effectively. And could we really trust international observers to be evenhanded in their reports of the upcoming election? Not when someone who has the potential to be a first class toady for the west is one of the candidates.
In both of these countries, hopefully the truth will win out.



Incidentally, if you found yourself agreeing with a single thing I said then I have to say that I am most disappointed. I no more believe the above stream of drivel than I believe Elvis is alive and well and living in Woking. It's certainly challenging trying to either praise something you despise or criticise something that is a bloody good thing. Still, I enjoyed it....