  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 We’ll Always Have ParisPosted on Dec 14, 2007
By Barry Lando France is seething over the official visit of Moammar Gadhafi to Paris—a landmark affair, considering that President Nicolas Sarkozy’s invitation was the first such offer from a Western leader since Gadhafi’s notorious rupture with the West in the 1980s. Unfortunately, the arrival of the Libyan tyrant happened to coincide with World Human Rights Day. But the predictable political uproar in Paris raises as many questions about the hypocrisy of those who criticize Sarkozy for playing host to Gadhafi as it does about the morality of the event itself. In fact, the issue resonates far beyond the borders of France. Not only was Gadhafi received formally—if coolly—at the Elysees Palace, but the onetime international pariah, whose secret services blew a couple of packed airliners out of the skies, was invited to address the French National Assembly—an event that the majority of assembly deputies boycotted. He was even allowed to pitch his heated Bedouin tent in the garden of the mansion where foreign dignitaries are traditionally put up. The French government was quick to point out that Gadhafi is no longer the notorious revolutionary leader he once set out to be. He has renounced his nuclear weapons program, declared he no longer supports terrorism, and informed the French National Assembly that the violent era of national liberation movements was over. “If we don’t welcome countries that are starting to take the path of respectability, what can we say to those that leave that path?” Sarkozy explained before the visit. The trip was notably sweetened by Gadhafi’s signing agreements to purchase more than $14 billion in French products, from the Airbus to a nuclear reactor (for water desalination) to advanced jet fighters. Industrialists and oil companies in France are salivating over further possibilities. Just the same, many leading French—including some from Sarkozy’s own government—were outraged. Bernard Kouchner, a longtime defender of human rights, now minister of foreign affairs, declared that “by happy coincidence” he would be unable to attend the official dinner because of a prior diplomatic engagement. France’s Secretary of State for Human Rights Rama Yade said, “Col. Gadhafi must understand that our country is not a doormat on which a leader, terrorist or not, can come to wipe the blood of his crimes off his feet.” Such firestorms over the ethics of dealing with this or that head of state regularly flare up in the West. Just a few days ago, for instance, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised African hackles by boycotting the summit of European and African leaders in Lisbon because of the presence of Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe. But the issue raises a series of tough questions that cut to the heart of what international relations should be all about. Which heads of state should be beyond the pale and why? Which tyrants’ visits should we get upset about? Which should we accept? Which—if any—leaders should we spurn? Which should we talk with? Mao’s China, for instance, was the empire of evil par excellence—until Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger finally traveled to Beijing and pronounced its leaders fit for international consumption. Certainly China is not the repressive regime it was under Mao; on the other hand, does anyone claim that the country is a beacon of democracy, either at home or abroad? Witness its backing of Iran and Burma and Robert Mugabe. In their dealings with the world, the Chinese tend to ignore the burning issues of morality and human rights that, in theory, are supposed to influence the politics of the West. What counts is what leader has the resources the Chinese need, not the way he runs his country. But do Western leaders have a different approach when vital national issues are concerned? Gadhafi, for example, was excoriated by the West for his support of terrorism and his nuclear ambitions. For years, however, American leaders have exchanged warm red-carpet visits with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose secret police covertly backed al-Qaida and the Taliban, and whose top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, peddled nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea—almost certainly with the knowledge of leading Pakistani officials. Khan’s clandestine network may even have had dealings with other countries. We don’t know, since Musharraf continues to shield the scientist, who is still a national hero. One gets the impression that many of the international pariahs tend to rule over smaller countries that lack huge resources. The leaders of Burma, for instance, are considered untouchables here in France and certainly throughout most of the rest of the West. They run a corrupt, brutal regime, murdering or imprisoning hundreds of civilian opponents. By the same standards, when should Vladimir Putin be removed from the international A-list? Maybe we need some kind of score card, perhaps on a per capita basis. How many journalists or other opponents, for instance, have to be assassinated, how many elections have to be trumped up, how much money has to be stolen, before it’s considered immoral to deal with a head of state? North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Il, with his strange despotic ways, sprawling prison camps and starving population, was long considered the epitome of despotism. Definitely beyond the pale: part of the “axis of evil”—a “pygmy,” George H.W. Bush called him. Now the New York Philharmonic is on its way for a round of concerts in North Korea, with blessings from the White House. But let’s get down to basics. If two leaders want to talk face to face, one of them has to travel. Perhaps an international body could prepare a sliding scale of formal honors that would or would not be permitted, depending on the moral rating of the visiting head of state. Are red carpets acceptable at the airport? Reviewing an honor guard? Are state dinners OK? How many courses? What about state dinners with entertainment? How about laying a wreath at the local war memorial? An invitation to address the national assembly or congress? A visit to the Crawford ranch? Of course, somewhere you have to draw the line, right? Another Hitler, for instance. Except that for most of the ’30s, many of America’s leading industrialists—and many political leaders—were among Hitler’s admirers and supporters. For instance, in 1938 Henry Ford, on his 75th birthday, received one of Germany’s highest decorations from the Fürher. How about Josef Stalin—a despicable tyrant who probably killed more of his own people—20 million, it’s estimated—than did Hitler. Back in 1943, Life magazine dedicated an entire edition to the Soviet ruler. An in-depth condemnation of his bloody regime? No way. The entire issue was a paean to the patriotism, the valor, the economic pioneering and planning of Stalin—the Father of the Russian People, America’s great ally against Hitler. The photographs and articles, which included lengthy assurances of Stalin’s benign postwar intentions toward Europe, could have come straight from The Daily Worker. A final question: Gadhafi claims to have turned his back on his violent past, but how to handle other controversial heads of state—despised in much of the world—who show little inclination to change and little remorse? A leader, for instance, who ordered his forces to invade another nation, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the injury and exile of millions more; a leader who condones torture by his intelligence agencies and secretly dispatched prisoners to be brutalized by the secret services of other countries, at the same time locking up hundreds of others for years on end without any charge. Do you invite him to the Elysees for dinner? Does he get to set up his heated tent in the garden of your official guest residence?
Barry Lando is the author, most recently, of Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush Previous item: Doesn't Anybody Have WMD? Next item: Looking Beyond the Haircut Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By al m, December 23, 2007 at 10:05 am # EXCELLENT editorial!EXCELLENT editorial!
By larry brandes, December 19, 2007 at 5:55 am # I’ll bet most people don’t know that when Regan bombed Gadhafi’s military base, the radio chatter that was used as an excuse was a Mossad plant. Who can tell what any truth is, when lies and deception are the norm for countries that label themselves as freedom fighters.
By 1drees, December 18, 2007 at 3:12 am # 'Now you are paralyzed, as‘Now you are paralyzed, as we promised’ - Shin Bet http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871239.html
By jojo, December 17, 2007 at 4:26 am # Barry Landos is out toBarry Landos is out to lunch on this one. He’d make a good Bush shill.
By bachu, December 17, 2007 at 4:20 am # because of the "pygmy"because of the “pygmy” label poor guy - Bloomberg could not run. He happens to be barely an inch taller than Kim. I love american politics!
By WR Curley, December 16, 2007 at 9:49 am # Truthdig is an establishment joint.Truthdig is an establishment joint. This site is a stalking horse for the MSM. The intent is to offer the illusion of impassioned dissent while moving the Establishment agenda along. Propagandists are subtle. The article’s lead baldly states that Gadhafi’s “...secret services blew a couple of packed airliners out of the skies.” There is no proof that Gadhafi or the government agencies under his administrative control had anything to do with the Locherbie bombing (think for yourself: where’s the upside for Libya?). Gadhafi chose to settle the consequent confrontation with the West by acknowledging that rogue operatives connected to his intelligence services may have assisted in the outrage, and by agreeing to pay reparations to the families of the victims (after sanctions threatened to cripple Libya’s economy, and after the US had bombed his residence, killing one of his daughters, among many others). The author of this piece knows this history. So do the editors of this site. Why, then, do they choose inflammatory and simplistic rhetoric instead of dispassionate recitation of fact? By most unbiased accounts, Gadhafi’s people practically worship him for rigorously marshaling the nation’s petro resources on behalf of the poor and the powerless. There is universal, free education and health care. There is an income distribution network, which may not guarantee wealth, but will at least proscribe starvation. There is a national system of local democratic assemblies, which elect delegates to regional assemblies, which elect representatives to carry the concerns of the populace to the “supreme leader”. Gadhafi is reverent in his espousal of accountability to his Bedouin brethren. This is why he wears robes and lives - in relative austerity - in a traditional Bedouin tent. This is ostentatiously symbolic and of uncertain sincerity, but then so is the pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey on the White House lawn. Doubtless the Libyan system is flawed, but who’s isn’t? Gadhafi’s damning trait is not that he’s a “tyrant”. Mushareff is a tyrant. Ibn Saud is a tyrant. Mubarrak is a tyrant. These are tyrants because the oppressed majorities of their nations - proud, devout Muslims shamed by their serfdom to neocolonial corporate masters - would cheerfully overthrow them if they could. No. Gadhafi is damned in the eyes of the West because he is a pan-Arab populist, and a very popular one at that. He sees the Arab peoples as one people, who ought, by inalienable right, to have control of their ancestral sands and to the assets beneath those sands. The West would kill him if it could, but we need the oil. Truthdig could elucidate fact and allow you to reach your own conclusions. The editors choose instead to wed - once again - the image of France and “radical Islam” in a dramatic photo and a headline, trusting they can elicit and entrench an establishment-sanctioned response in the public consciousness. (Note, glibly: “...flatten them with a little shock and awe”, the blood of some one million Iraqi civilian dead on our hands...) Don’t waste your time here. You’re being had. Yours for a self-enlightened citizenry, WR Curley
By Johny Kettzup, December 16, 2007 at 6:27 am # Where is "The Second Chance"Where is “The Second Chance” praised so much in american culture?
By weather, December 15, 2007 at 3:32 pm # Howard you have the brassHoward you have the brass balls to ask if Iam embarrassed?
By little green, December 15, 2007 at 7:55 am # "Which tyrants’ visits should we“Which tyrants’ visits should we get upset about?” Any one from a member of the Bush Administration?
By since1492, December 15, 2007 at 6:46 am # International political whores pimping themselves.International political whores pimping themselves. So what else is new?
By msgmi, December 14, 2007 at 4:18 pm # Barry Lando should mention inBarry Lando should mention in his ‘tyranny’ article what truly happened to the American Indian.
By weather, December 14, 2007 at 3:27 pm # Barry Lando, If it's tyrannyBarry Lando, If it’s tyranny you really want to take to task then look at Israel and stop your self-righteous slobering all over your keyboard about Gadhafi. This World’s upside down Lando and you’re in it w/out a watch and GPS. Add Your Comment |
|
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
.
Jump to Comments
finally a report from Haaretz, Something that our dear old RESIDENT EVIL can believe coz if its not from an Israeli source then “deny everything - admit nothing - make counter accusations” 
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article