Saddam Hussein is gone. What now?

Saddam Hussein is gone! Speculation is on whether this will translate into a worsening of violence in Iraq. Probably yes. At least temporarily so.

Iraq was literally squeezed in Hussein's fist for 35 years. As a child I experienced the Stalinist era in Eastern Europe. Parents were scared to speak openly in front of their children lest those utter questionable remarks somewhere in public inadvertently, which then would bring tragedy onto the heads of the parents. As a result those children (myself included) grew up completely under the influence of the political slogans of the time. When Stalin died, we children shed genuine tears, not knowing any better. Of course Russian politics quickly took care of Stalin's memory, opening up our eyes in the process, making us less susceptible for further hero worship.

In Iraq this process did not have a chance to occur "naturally". Saddam was toppled by foreign forces, forces which were painted in very unfavourable colours previously, forces that gained an even more negative image as time passed. Iraq has a very large segment of the population that isn't very well educated, at least not from the point of view of world politics. or maybe I should say: they have been very well educated by the Saddamist propaganda machine. They grew up on in an artifical political environment, in a virtual glass bowl. They tend to gravitate towards any center of power, at the same time fearing it while looking for its safety, entering voluntarily under its umbrella. It will probably take a whole generation to shed the effects of the Stalinist style Saddam era.

This new generation will have the task of sifting through all the data of the past, straightening out the facts, finding the truth and laying down the grounds for an open society. Can the Iraquis do it quickly? I hope so. Things are definitely changing at a rapid pace in the Middle East. Every day there are surprising little news items, things developing in directions that one would not have thought possible just days earlier. Mahmoud Abbas calling new elections, Syria expressing willingness to make peace with Israel. Even Libya seems to be changing, prompting the US to improve its relations with the Qadhafi regime.

A lot of credit must be given to the Al Jazeera network for impacting the flow of information in the Arab world. I have been watching them occasionally, and my impression is that they are trying very hard to be fair and impartial. Do they always succed? Of course not. But show me one media outlet that could claim to be truly successful from this point of view. It is an impossible task, even for such veterans as the BBC or CNN. News reporting is a very hectic business. News items are pouring in incessantly, and reports are always representative of the reporters personal views. Decisions must be made then by the news editors about the validity of these reports on the spot, again filtering these through their own prejudices. And then here WE are, sifting through all the information and trying to form our opinions.

The most important thing is that we have all these differing views available to us. Al Jazeera's English program, although not carried by any American network as yet, is available on the internet. It is interesting to note that one of the countries where Al Jazeera is carried by local cable is Israel, while dropping BBC World, which has been accused of anti-Israel/anti-American bias in the past. Could Al Jazeera be less biased than the BBC? The Israeli action seems to indicate that they think so there.

Warriors of Jesus

Last night I wrote about concerns I have regarding Iran's political-religious aspirations and the apocalyptic ideology behind it. By the funny quirks of synchronicity, nay, "by the grace of God", I was shown signs of some dangerous developments occurring right here in our own backyard.

As an odd coincidence, I had a chance today to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" (see the ABC News report on it, and watch their news clip on video). If I was worried about the rise of Islamism, or about Muslim children being groomed to become warriors of Allah, now I am even more worried. Worried, because the indoctrination of American children does not only mean creating good soldiers for the US army. These children may one day become OUR enemy! Don't forget, they are taught: "You are either with God/us or against us."

One of the exercises at the camp is that each child is given a hammer and is allowed to smash a mug which has GOVERNMENT written across its side. It is a powerful and empowering exercise. These children will feel that it is their God given right to fight their own government, to bring it down and replace it with their own brand of governance: ban abortion, ban gays, ban the teaching of evolution in schools. We can't even fathom just yet what else will they ban and enforce if the movement is allowed to grow and gain power over the country.

Karl Rove spoke at the annual dinner pf Hillsdale College three days ago (on Dec. 4). Responding to a question he said, "Moderate Muslims are waiting for the outcome." Bernard Lewis is right, according to Rove, when he says, "The center of gravity will be determined by the outcome."

Now, I wonder how the moderates of this continent view the developments that threaten our own society? Will we also be sitting on our hands, waiting for the outcome? Or maybe we will be able to find a solution. Maybe by doing so we can act as examples for Muslim moderates, inspiring them how to deal with the problems in their own backyards.

Maybe...

Ignore Iran at your own peril!

The news and all the media stories are like ever changing cloud formations. If you lie on your back and your eyes are on the clouds, they barely seem to move. When you take your glance away and do not look for a while, the sky looks entirely different when you lift your face towards the sky again. A week or two of ailing made me notice trends in the news that I may have not seen if I followed it daily.

Our news media, just like the clouds in the sky, is an ever changing kaleidoscope of news items. Even the great disasters enter and fade out of our consciousness in a matter of days. Going beyond the surface of the stories is the job of documentary makers. But even they tend to choose the more visually fascinating topics, after all they are movies. So we have documentaries galore on 9/11, approaching it from different directions, some even subscribing to conspiracy theories, trying to prove that it was the American government itself that blew all those people to smithereens, just so they can go and have some fun in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jokes aside, some topics get over-explored, others never catch anyone's fancy. One such largely ignored issue is Ahmadinejad's repeated public remarks regarding America, Israel, and generally the West. In his famous Open Letter to President Bush he claims ( = threatens) that Islam will replace democracy. People tend to laugh it off, considering him to be just an eccentric, half-educated small time teacher, who somehow ended up in his present position by mistake and porbably will not last long. I think this stance is wrong, we ought to monitor him more closely.

President Ahmadinajad did not get where he is by chance. He is the figure head of a larger organization, he was actually helped into the presidential seat. Therefor he is the mouthpiece of that organization, of their world view. Yet, in spite of the belligerent position of Iran, the media does not seem to be interested in that world view. Well, I am! That world view is shaped by religious fanaticism, a religious movement in Islam with apocalyptic tendencies. They fervently anticipate the arrival of the "Hidden Imam" who, they believe, will make the whole world accept Islam. For a while they even thought that the Ayatollah Khomeini might be the Promised One. In the above mentioned letter Ahmadinejad writes: "Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems." (bottom of the page). Doesn't that send shivers up your spine? It should!

If you look into this belief system you find some very interesting ( = alarming) ideas. One such idea is that one can bring the end of times, and the arrival of the Twelfth Imam (al-Muntazar), closer by creating cataclysmic events. Ahmadinejad seems to be among those who espoused this idea. So why do we brush it off? Why do world leader and the media not react to Ahmadinejad's remarks and threats?

There seem to be several factors. For one thing he manages to continually bullwinkle the West by insisting that Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear technology, and that it wants peace. At the same time he secures the (sometimes reluctant) support of the Arab world by constantly attacking (verbally, for the time being) the "Zionist entity", even promising its elimination. But the real problem for the Western media is the acceptance of the idea that it is actually the Muslim world that is the victim of bullying, the perpetrator being the agressor USA. Let's face it, we like to be on the side of the underdog ( = the strong is wrong and the weak is right).

Psychological warfare usually precedes the physical. Yet, with adequate response to such verbal sabre rattling one might be able to avert escalation of events. I believe that Ronald Reagan's courageous and articulate verbal war with the Soviet regime contributed greatly to the peaceful dissolution of communism. I believe that the world would be different today had world leaders stood up to Hitler's deceiving demagoguery instead of negotiating with him and making concessions to him. As today, the media then, too, "tried to be objective", instead of drawing world attention to the narcissistic mass hysteria of Nazism. Islamism is growing, and I have no intention here to discuss the growth of its influence in the Western world, I am only talking about countries like Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia. If things go according to their plans, Hezbollah will overtake Lebanon soon. The number of Islamist regimes is growing step by step, just as European countries were gradually overtaken by fascist regimes, who then sided with Hitler and helped WWII come to happen. Shouldn't we at least pressure the present Iranian regime by increased media attention asking them to explain their stance, and then try to understand what is really behind the oddly disturbing statements?

New faces at the top in Canada and at the UN

Interesting developments while I was sick: a new general secretary at the UN, Ban Ki-Moon from South Korea, and a new Liberal leader here in Canada, Stéphane Dion.

The UN nomination and appointment was not a surprise. Mr Ban has a strong track record, and it is very important in the present political climate to have someone from the Far East at the helm. Particularly so in light of the situation regarding North Korea. Maybe Mr Ban will be able to help diffuse tensions and maybe even precipitate some changes.

As for Stéphane Dion, his victory came as a shocking surprise. Nobody thought much of the bookish little university professor from Quebec who used to be the environment minister in Paul Martin's government. Dion was fourth when he entered the leadership race, meaning that fewer than one in five members were supporting him. The bets were placed on the two main contenders, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Then things started to go funny. He placed third in the first two ballots, but then Gerard Kennedy handed his supporters over to him after the second ballot, and Bob Rae dropped off after the third. This allowed Dion to leap ahead of Ignatieff in the fourth.

Stéphane Dion was sort of a "background noise" in the past: we heard his name occasionally but did not know much about him. Yet, he is not a stupid guy apparently. He has a BA and MA in political science from Laval University, and a doctorate from the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. He first entered politics by running in a 1996 byelection in the Quebec riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. He won the seat and has held it for 10 years. Dion was minister for intergovernmental affairs for seven years under Jean Chretien, then environment minister in Paul Martin's government.

Can we picture him as Canada's next prime minister? Hmmm... He has a few things working against him. For one thing, he peaks English with a heavy French accent, and Canadians are a bit tired after all those funny jokes regarding Chretien and his accent. Then, there are those scandals, those favoured French businesses from Quebec during Chretien's reign. Lots of people in the predominantly English-speaking areas of Canada are eyeing him with a certain amount of skeptic caution. French Quebec separatists also dislike him because of his efforts to make it harder for them to hold a successful referendum on whether Quebec should break away from the rest of Canada. A definite positive point (for us, staunch supporters of a united Canada) is that he seems to be a strong federalist.

All in all, the eyes of the country are focused on him right now. He has a lot of work waiting for him, - il doit faire une chose ou deux à ne gagner notre coeurs.