It could happen to any of us.

This week is truly full of dreadful news and the recent downing of the Malaysian Airways jet MH 17 at the Eastern border of Ukraine and Russia by Pro-Russian militia with a BUK missile is an horrendous crime against humanity, 298 people died. One can only hope that they felt nothing and that their death was quick and painless.

The spectacle of the Pro-Russian militia and Russian agents looting the personal belongings of the dead is not only revolting but shows the level of barbarity of those so called Pro-Russian militias and the Russian government. As an ex-Foreign Service Officer I knew from my days in the service during the Cold War that the Soviets (Russians) had absolutely no scruples and no morals whatsoever. After all they supported Nazi Germany and had a secret pact to destroy Eastern Europe and its population. Then in 1941 Soviet Russia decides to switch sides and join the Allies because it was risking annihilation at the hands of Nazi Germany. So you can see that political calculation and hedging their bets is an old Russian way of doing business. They invoke the Raison d'Etat, you do what you have to do and morals or scruples do not enter into it. Something politicians are loath to admit to the electorate in Western Countries.

When MH17 was shot down, someone asked me if I thought there would be consequences or that President Putin would be made to pay. I answered that little if anything will be done, there will be no reprisal. There will be lots of angry words but not much else, just enough to occupy the Media and distract the public.

This is what has happened so far, France is still selling to Russia two war ships a deal worth 1.5 billion Euros, President Hollande of France said he did not see any reason to cancel the sale.
Germany is thinking about its gas supplies it receives from Russia and has no other source of heat for the coming winter, not to mention the important trade ties, despite German sympathies for the victims there is a limit to what they are willing to endure.

Britain has made lots of angry pronouncements but Russian money is still flooding the Financial markets in the City, where would the City be without all the oligarchs and their money?

Italy is against sanctions because it would damage its luxury goods market to Russia and given its fragile economy Italy needs all the export sales it can get.  As for The Netherlands who had the most dead in this tragedy, it has been strangely quiet.

Everyone in the EU is thinking Trade and Economics, do not jeopardize the economics and Putin knows that, he knows all too well that he is holding the strong cards. Even the USA is very reluctant to do anything because it does not want to be caught in a situation where Russia could manoeuvre between it and a divided Europe.  Also no one wants to go to war, not over Ukraine and not over a down passenger airliner, it is not worth it, too much is at stake in terms of trade, oil and gas and the politicians know it. But what does it say to Ukrainians about the EU? Not much really, Ukraine you are on your own.

So we have the public message of Western politicians to the people carefully crafted by the Spin experts and then we have the reality of trade and economics. Because if a Western politician in France, Germany, UK, Italy or USA took serious steps to sanctions and punish Russia political consequences would follow. For all of our wringing of hands and our words of sorrow over the dead civilians, none of us would like to suffer the consequences of a Russian angry response and yes Russia can sell its oil and gas elsewhere think China who has an unquenchable thirst in terms of energy demands.  This is where human nature comes in, the me first attitude despite the atrocious incidents.

Canada in all this, well PM Harper has sounded sharp and hostile against Russia. We are fairly insulated from any possible retaliation from Russia except for our Northern Border which is with Russia, unfortunately Canadians do not look at that border, no one thinks that the Russian would dare claim the Arctic. Surely the Americans would come and defend us, think again Canada, the USA will do nothing if it is not in their interests, we are very likely to find ourselves alone in having to deal with Russia. We have no Navy and no Armed Forces to defend the Arctic Border, so it is wide open for the taking by Russia or whoever wants to take it. Again short-sighted policies by the Harper Government despite all the talk.

So the tragedy of MH17 could happen to any one of us and do not count on your government to help you out, other priorities will take precedent over your life, that is what is call ''Real Politik''.

In the meantime, do you remember that Syria is gripped by a vicious Civil War, Gaza is being bombarded by the Israeli Army, Iraq is unstable and a violent Jihadist group is now emerging. Afghanistan is still no further ahead and the Taliban is a dangerous force. How about those 200 girls kidnapped a few months ago by Boko Aram, no more news about them. The Media has lost interests in those stories. The world goes on and on.

Winter is ending finally

We have been in snow since 24 November, first snowfall day. Today I noticed at 17:35 it was still day light and the sun had not set yet. The temperature was around 7 C so there was a big melt. But next week winter is back but it will be milder, the worst is over.

This weekend is the National Liberal Party Convention in Montreal and 3400 delegates are at the Convention Centre. The Democrats have sent people to talk and do presentation, Liberals unlike Mr. Harper and the Conservatives like Obama.
The latest poll shows that 54% of Canadians support Justin Trudeau and the values he is promoting.
The Liberal Party has 258,000 new members and millions in funds raised in the last few months.

It looks like Canadians are tired after 8 years of the nastiness of Harper and his government of right wing evangelicals modelled on the US Tea Party, Ted Cruz and assorted misfits.

What is interesting is the right wing press in Canada, CTV News, Postmedia, Maclean's who are harsh in their criticism of Justin Trudeau. Paul Wells, Colin Horgan, Don Martin have nothing good to say and I wonder why. Ottawa is well known for its Press Gallery and we also know that journalists are not as neutral as they claim they are. You do not always get the facts, you also get a lot of personal opinions and slants. Here I suspect that producers are in on it and calling the shots to get a story which they can spin for days. Even photos are not flattering and I know from my previous career how the media can fix it so, even little Red Riding Hood would look nasty.

The Conservatives have also sent spies down to the Convention in Montreal. Minister Poilievre who is trying to convince us that voting is really not necessary and is shepherding bill C-23 Election suppression voter act, is in Montreal. I personally think that he is trying to defect to the Liberal Party. Come the next election his riding has been split in two by the new re-mapping of electoral boundaries, he may find himself in difficulties, what is a 34 year old unpleasant little man to do.

The party that has been completely left out in the cold is the NDP who despite the fact that they are the Official Opposition in the House of Commons are nowhere to be seen or heard.  Their Leader Tom Mulcair has done an excellent job of showing up Harper for what he really is and has nailed him on several important issues but for all his hard work and effort it looks like Justin Trudeau has stolen his thunder.

The one I feel sorry for is Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party who is an excellent member of Parliament and does incredible work but the media ignores her all together.

Tomorrow Saturday is Justin's big speech at the Convention. Will the election really be in the fall of 2015 or sooner. Who knows, however the rumour is that if Harper continues to sink in the polls and he is pretty low as it is now, he will leave before having to face certain defeat and abandon the Party to some other person, a bit like Mulroney did years ago.

With Hope and Hard Work, you can be part of the change!

Reading Legislation

The other day Will came home with some news, he pointed out to me that the Budget bill now in front of the House of Commons, bill C-60 and bill C-38 has some disturbing aspect to it. So I went to the Parliament of Canada website to look into it and read the legislation being proposed in this budget bill.
www.parl.gc.ca

Indeed both bills do away with a lot of government institutions. Some is interesting, like the fact that for the very first time ever since 1914 (when income tax was first instituted) the Governor General of Canada, www.gg.ca will have to pay income tax on his salary. Though Parliament gave a substantial increase to mitigate any taxes paid.

Governor General personal Royal Standard

A budget bill in our Parliamentary system is very important because if the Government looses a vote then it will fall automatically, this is the rule for any money bill. This current Harper Government is not going to loose a vote in the House on the budget. However the changes these bills bring are enormous and will have a very large impact on life in general in Canada. One change which has garnered much attention is a provision to insert Treasury Board control over Crown Corporations like the CBC. When the Canadian Broadcasting Corp was created in 1936, like all Crown Corp it had a charter making it independent of government control, though it receives $1.5 Billion from the Canadian public. Now if Cabinet through the Treasury Board can control collective agreement, salaries and budgets this means the CBC would become nothing more than the Official Broadcaster of the Government of the day, a propaganda mouthpiece, hello Mr. Goebbels.

It is no secret that the Harper government does not like the CBC or Radio Canada, they do not dare abolish it all together, that would cause too many political problems.
His government has tried by all means possible to stifle the broadcaster. It is the school of, you criticize me, you are against me. The same has happened to budgets of all our National Museums, who can only function now with the help of armies of volunteers.  In the USA at the National Endowment for the Arts there is a saying: Great Nations deserve great Art. This is something Mr. Harper has not heard or does not believe in. A man who prefers to go to Tim Horton to get a doughnut instead of attending a session of the General Assembly at the United Nation. Who has forgotten that?

The changes to our National fabric are so numerous that one looses count, but if you bother to read Bill C-60 you will see what is coming. This is why I disagree with people who do not vote and claim that it does not matter, nothing will change, life goes on.

Seven years ago, many said that Harper had a secret agenda, now we see the result. A country divided, basically 9 provinces against Alberta. Poor against Rich, old against the young, the natives abandoned to themselves, living in dire condition, neglect so grave the ICRC and the UN have denounced Canada for its ill treatment of the people of the First Nations. Our role in the UN fading into irrelevance, Canada was one of the founding members of the modern United Nations. We lost our seat at the Security Council out of neglect, we may loose the HQ of ICAO in Montreal, established in 1947, also out of neglect. We were kicked out of the Middle East Peace Process because of the extreme bias of the Harper Government towards Israel, not to mention the terrible gaffe of our Foreign Minister John Baird during his visit to Israel recently.
We stepped out of the Kyoto Protocol, not good for Tar Sands business in Alberta said Harper, we walked away of the Treaty on Desertification, again Mr. Harper does not think that helping struggling African Nations is worth it, though our contribution was extremely small at $350,000 per year.

The list goes on, the danger with the Harper agenda is that once division in a Nation take place it is difficult to erase them. Once negativity is enshrined in our political life it is difficult to reverse course. Our country is becoming poorer, we are no longer a rich nation, Canada is now described as a relatively poor country. All this has happened in the last 7 years of the disastrous Harper Government who is fixated on Police, Security and the Crown, harsh prison sentences and sending more and more people to jail for longer terms. An example all military regiments will regain the old names they had before 1930 with the word Royal now affix to all of them. Is this nation building, will it help any of us?

So obsessed Mr. Harper is with security that he has named his own personal chief bodyguard as Ambassador to Jordan and Iraq. The nominee has NO experience and no knowledge whatsoever in diplomacy, no education background nothing to prepare him for such a difficult and complicated position where only a steady hand and a specialist knowledge is required. Being a good police officer is irrelevant to the job.

Reading legislation is educational it tells you much about a government and the mind set that animates it. Not enough Canadians bother to read the website of Parliament, general apathy is what the Conservatives are hoping for.

Mushrooms to Monuments

Ottawa is not known like many other Capitals for its monuments. Until about 10 years ago, we had the National War Memorial unveiled by King George VI in June 1939, we also had monuments to dead Prime Ministers around the Parliament buildings and we had a statue to Terry Fox who ran partly across Canada to raise money for Cancer research before dying himself of the disease. There was also a monument to the Boer War in South Africa, that was about all. However in the last 10 years there as been a veritable mushrooming of monuments all around the city.

A reflection piece described as isolation or feeling lost in the city of Edmonton.

After September 11, 2001 a new concepts came into being, automatically anyone serving as a police officer or in the Fire Dept, was deemed a hero. Was never thought that very appropriate, given that some may be heroes but not all. One has to be distinguished by some heroic act to merit such laurels.
In popular culture it also became the thing to call ''hero'' anyone who might survive or die of a grave illness. We have a monument composed of gigantic multi-colored metal flowers to survivors of cancer. Though this disease is often fatal and is clearly a terrible ordeal, I do not know if we can call a survivor a hero. I would think of a determined person or a person who fought hard and survived through difficult odds.

National War Memorial and tomb of the unknown soldier

City of Ottawa memorial to firefighters.

We now have in Ottawa two monuments to Firefighters, one is a City monument and the other a National Monument, neither is very inspired, its in the style of ''in your face commemoration'', the meat and potato approach to monuments.  There is nothing beautiful about it, noble or inspiring. There is a National Monument to Police Officers on Parliament Hill, in a 19th century re-creation of a Gazebo which stands high up on the cliff overlooking the Ottawa River.  The view is spectacular but it does not make you think of the Police Officers who died in the line of duty.

Monument to fallen animals involved in armed conflicts.

the rather ugly monument to Human Rights, all concrete.

Around the Cenotaph on Confederation Square, 14 heroic statues have appeared in the last few years.
They are life size bronze statues commemorating military heroes, men and women who distinguished themselves from the 17th century to the 20th in different military conflicts. We also have a tomb of the unknown soldier in front of the great War Memorial unveiled in 1939. Unfortunately most people have no idea who those heroes are, Canadian history is not widely known.

There are many more monuments they do not inspire and fail from an aesthetic point of view. I wonder if we are not simply copying other countries in a rush to build monuments. The most recent one is the monument to fallen animals in wars. London has a beautiful one, now we have one next to the Boer War memorial.

We also now have a National Memorial Cemetery like Arlington in Washington DC. All this to say if you visit Ottawa, you will see there are lots of monuments now but you may wonder why they were built in the first place and why they end up where they are. Must be monument by committee.

 Monument to General San Martin in Minto Park

 Monument to battered women

Gazebo on Parliament Hill known as the National Police Memorial

reporting and social media

Modern media outlets face many challenges one being with the Internet news travel fast, much faster than before and the enormous amount of news being seen at any given moment in the world is more than any human being can reasonably absorb. Meaning that any journalist must produce and be on his or her proverbial toes all the time. Some journalists here I follow in Ottawa are on Twitter all the time, they report what they hear and comment, though in 140 characters.

So editors decided to report only on news that will be of most interest to its readers. Per example hurricane Sandy travelled a very large distance and crossed and touched many countries, in the end all you heard was how Sandy had devastated New York City. What it did elsewhere in the Caribbean or in other US States or cities or even how it ended up in Canada was barely mentioned.
An almost universal decision was made to talk only about NYC because most news readers could understand the story quickly. Do editors talk to each other or merely follow what the other guy is doing. It seems that quickly is also the operative word in the news nowadays, this leads to often to factual errors and other mistakes, hard to correct once the story is out.

In the Arab Spring context, editors and journalists have labelled the different parties, in the arab world they are usually called rebels or militants, the word terrorist is not use because the rebels or militants fight an established authority in their own country. They would be terrorists if they attacked foreigners.
However there is no time for context to explain how or why this happened. Take Nigeria where groups have planted bombs and attacked civilians, these incidents are described as a fight between Muslims in the North and Christians in the South, in reality it is about land distribution, property rights and perceived injustices, the religious part of it is another issue not necessarily connected to this economic one. It would be too difficult to start explaining to the public at large the economic discrepancies of a country like Nigeria, so the media stick to the easy religious explanation though it is not factual.

The civil war in Syria is another example, a minority the Alawites have ruled Syria for 45 years and run the country like a mafia fief, ruining the economy in the process and setting the country up as a haven for various violent groups who could use their base in Damascus with impunity. Syria a transit point between Iran and Lebanon. Such detailed explanation of the situation would be too complicated and most news readers barely know where Syria is on a map.

This approach makes serious or grave news trivial matters. Everything is so quick and so simplified that our basic understanding goes out the proverbial window and the average person starts to think in terms of black and white issues. Also it de-humanizes the persons involved in such conflicts, they are so far away from us and we have such little understanding of them that generalities start taking precedence over hard facts. One fanatic becomes millions of fanatics or an entire countries population can all be put in one bag because it is all the same, an example Iran, all Iranians must be fanatics given the government they have, final conclusion is, they are not like us.

We now have the situation with Gaza in the middle-east which to me geographically would be more accurately described as the Near East but the media has made the middle-east a grab bag of all the countries from Morocco to Iran, easier for simple folks to understand. Leading a lot of people to automatically assume that Turks and Iranians are also Arabs because they are Muslims. A bit like saying that all Catholics are Italian. Forgetting that in all those countries in the grab bag that is dubbed the Middle-East you have ancient Christian and Jewish populations, though small still they are there and have been part of the fabric for a long time. Yes there are Palestinian Christians and Iraqi Jews and Christians and Egyptian Jews and Christians. But the media will not talk of this so as not to confuse the basic simplistic message of good against evil. Thus instead of informing the media spreads ignorance and stereotypes.

Here is Canada we have a similar situation, the media has always divided the country between the English and the French. Very simplistic but so much easier to do, spreading stereotypes and falsehoods all around. It continues to this day, despite the fact that we are now a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual nation. There is nothing quite like a good stereotype to get the readers agitated and confused.

So in the latest reporting on the eternal conflict between the Israeli government against the Palestinians, they became Militants or is Hamas the Militants, what does the word militant mean? The Libyans are described as rebels to this day despite the fact that Ghaddafi is gone from power. Why then the word militants instead of simply the Palestinians in Gaza. At any rate this is not explained and neither is it explained that the millions living in that little strip of land called Gaza are just ordinary folks who cannot exit, leave or do anything, they are captive since the borders are closed by Israël. But you could be excused if you thought that all Palestinians where with the militants or worse. Do the Palestinians desire peace and a better life in a secure country, yes, they all do like any human being, but that is rarely discussed by the media.

The media loves to use all kinds of images and words to inject meaning, the other day a reporter for the CBC spoke of the Sacred City being shelled, then in the next phrased used Jerusalem. Sacred to whom, did this reporter mean Jews, Christians and Muslims? No she meant to the Israelis. Another CBC reporter called Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, not correct, Tel Aviv is the capital of modern Israel.
Ancient Biblical texts do not make international law today.

Then the BBC got into the act and presents lopsided reporting, it would appear from the perspective of the BBC News that Israel is far more at risk and suffers far more than anyone in Gaza. Given the terrible living conditions in Gaza compared to modern affluent Israel, one wonders where does this comparison come from. What is missing is the context, what Gaza is really like as a place to live for millions of people, a huge poor ghetto where people are contained in squalor and surrounded by a powerful modern, well equipped Israëli army who is preparing to invade, up to 75,000 soldiers ready to march and already staging an invasion. Given the population density of Gaza it is going to be a civilian blood bath.

The New York Times has a series of photos showing the two sides of that border, in Israel people lead modern affluent lives, this could be Florida. One photo shows a young women in a luxury car, talking on her cell phone next to a huge army tank, another photo shows Israeli citizens in a shelter, all are well dressed, they look worried but otherwise the photo could be a community centre in North America.

On the other side of the border in Gaza, people are poorly dressed, dirty, amongst ruins, desperate scared, some are injured looking bewildered, this is the third world. One comment says that a family has gathered together so if Israel attacks they will at least die together. All is devastation and despair, so far 45 civilians have been killed and 390 injured, medical support is weak due to the economic and military siege of Gaza by Israel. There is something totally unnerving about such photos and the inequality is stark.

What is truly obscene, is the IDF, Israel Defence Force on social media justifying their actions against civilians. Even if you accept that in politics and war there is no morality and no ethical behaviour, in the 21 century, there are laws on how civilians will be treated. Israel claims to be a modern state ruled by laws and says it abides by international treaties, so then why the social media PR campaign to try to justify its actions. I am not convinced and find no credibility in the explanations given by Israel so far on action in Gaza. It is not the first time in the last 35 years that Israel has launched military campaigns in the region against much weaker rivals.

Despite the fact that Israel claims it is only defending itself, an editorial yesterday in the Jerusalem Post by Gershon Baskin entitled ''Israel shortsighted assassination'' says that this campaign is not what it appears and Israel provoked this crisis by killing Al-Jabari, Security Chief of Hamas. An election is coming next year in Israel, PM Netanyahu wants to retain power at all cost and this type of action is a vote getter amongst the fanatical settlers and other groups who would like ''a final solution'' to the Palestinian question. He is politically in trouble and his war mongering against Iran during the USA Election campaign and his open support of Mitt Romney backfired badly so now he has to try something else.

We can still be hopeful that some foreign government will call Israel's bluff and refuse to look the other way. The argument of self-defence does not hold water anymore. It is high time for the Israeli government to find a true path to peace and a living arrangement with its neighbours, bellicose attitudes will not do.

Demanding respect for one's values

A news item on the English version of Al-Jazeerah News says that President Morsi of Egypt will asking for respect from the USA for Egypt's values. Morsi is in New-York for the opening of the Fall session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Such a headline in the current climate or even any other time will attract attention and raise eyebrows. I can see the comments from some readers enraged by such a request. How can the President of Egypt ask anything given the generous financial subsidies his country has been receiving from many countries for so many years. How can a poor country ask something from wealthy nations. People will view such a request through their own optics and pass a quick judgement call.

We should remember that in 1971 during the first secret meeting between Henry Kissinger and Chinese Premier Zhou En-Lai in Beijing which led to the Nixon visit and recognition of the PRC by the USA in 1979, the Chinese position was that the PRC had its own value system and that they would not adopt American values, the relationship would be one of equals.

What President Morsi is saying has to be viewed in the context of his region of the world and its people and their grievances. It does not matter if you agree or not, it is a matter of listening to what is being said. Many of the countries of North Africa and of the Levant (middle-east) were for centuries dominated politically by the Ottoman Turks and where part of the greater Ottoman Empire. The Turks are not Arabs, in origin they are from Central Asia and migrated about 900 years ago to Anatolia. In the 19th century, with the Ottoman Empire becoming weaker politically, the establishment of a new domination by Europeans started all over North Africa, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria came under French domination, the British took Libya, Egypt and then pushed into the Middle-East with France and created new countries like Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and a protectorate in Palestine. Installing at the same time Arab Princes as Kings of these new countries in the hope that they would do Europe's bidding.

Egypt had a difficult time of it, with Napoleon looting ancient treasures in his contempt for Egypt. To subsequent French and English governments who took over the administration of the country on the pretext that debts on enormous loans were due and since the Khedive could not pay well then we simply take your country and rule it. The Royal family in Egypt were hostages to their colonial rulers. The end of the Second World War saw a diminished Britain and France and a growing USA influence in the region. Finally in 1952 Colonel Nasser overthrew the Monarchy and kicked the foreigners out. But the years of political humiliation and economic subservience were not over. There was the Suez Canal crisis which nearly caused a third World War and where the USA had to intervene to stop both British and French interests and then the wars with Israël and the support of Arab independence around the Middle-East. In the 1970's with the death of Nasser and the failure of his socio-economic experiments appeared a growing Muslim religious movements with strong political and social overtones, asking for economic reforms and social justice.

During the Cold War years the great powers both the USSR and the USA played the Arabs against one another, in Egypt it was over technical cooperation and financing of the great Aswan Dam.  The Egyptian government did not know how to respond to the demands of its own rapidly growing population, not enough schools, not enough jobs, not enough food nor money nor economic opportunities, poor infrastructure and finally generalized poverty in what was in antiquity a great Empire as the ancient monuments attest. The loss of face also in 1967 in the conflict against Israël. The Egyptian population demanded change and change came finally a year ago with the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak whose political career went all the way back to 1973 under President Anwar Sadat.

The Egyptians are now looking for a new approach in their diplomatic relationship with Western powers like the USA based on mutual respect. Egypt is an ancient land, 5000 years of history, its important contribution to the advancement of civilization is established.  Egypt is also a conservative society with strong family values, in the West some will cringe at those words. But for all that, Egyptians are an easy going people. It is also a mix society, there is a small  Egyptian-Jewish population, the Christian Copts represent about 10% of its population and the rest Muslims, very few fanatics in either of the faiths.

What President Morsi is saying to us is NO more cartoons, movies, and other insults against Islamic beliefs and religion in general. Is it too much to ask that you do not insult a people's religion or beliefs. It is pretty common for all of us to expect basic respect for what we believe. You may not agree with a person's beliefs but you do not have the right to insult them because you claim the higher moral ground.

You will have clowns who want to burn a holy book, who think that a cartoon is just that, but for many people it has far more meaning, especially if you have a long colonial past of oppression, injustice. and humiliations at the hands of countries who still claim to this day the higher moral ground. The indignation is understandable, it is inconceivable in Egypt that anyone could say deeply offensive things and simply walk away.  One also has to question the motive behind this little movie or the cartoons, what was or is the motive. Such individual damaged our interest and cause untold damage to to others by their behaviour, is that not worth at least a moral sanction and being called to account.
No one has explained so far their motive, not the movie producer nor the editors of newspapers or magazines. When asked they do not give a reason, hiding instead behind general notions of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Though such freedoms are important in a democratic society they should not be abused for notoriety.

President Morsi is basically saying you respect us and we will respect you, simple enough and do not expect us to adopt your value system. The relationship has to be on an equal footing, no more condescending attitude. The missionary zeal, the lectures are no longer acceptable, we may not agree on every point but we will respect our differences.
We should also not forget that Morsi speaks for the Egyptians who elected him and for their aspirations, which go well beyond religious matters.

Death of .....

This week the dramatic events of the death of Muammar Ghaddafi on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, beaten to death and shot by angry Libyans, shocked many in the world. It was not totally unexpected, the hatred he generated amongst ordinary Libyans was such that any other outcome dictated that he flee the country quickly to a friendly nation like Zimbabwe. The airspace closed by NATO planes only left him a desert road to Niger.  With his death he is the most recent Pan-Arabic leader to fall signalling the end of a generation of leaders who came to power following the example of Gamal Abdel-Nasser of Egypt, the man who in 1953 overthrew the Egyptian Monarchy and asserted that the Arabs would govern themselves. Nasser was against the old Arab Aristocracy, the princes who had ruled for centuries, the old colonial powers, Britain, France, Germany, the corrupt ruling class who abused ordinary citizens.  The Nasser revolution in July 1953 was a genteel affair, King Farouk was given 3 days to pack his things including part of the National Treasure and leave, he went into exile sailing to Rome on his yacht. In Irak a few years later it was a less genteel affair, the Royal family was massacred by the high military command in their beds. Jordan was to be next and Nasser and Assad of Syria tried for years, even paying Yasser Arafat at one point in 1970 to try to overthrow the Hachemite king, to no avail the Bedu tribes came to the rescue.

Nasser never liked Ghaddafi much, he had taken over Libya in a bloodless coup while King Idriss was away on an Official trip abroad. Nasser would say that he found Ghaddafi untrustworthy and a little strange. Pan-Arabism as an ideology sought to be a Socialist Arab movement devoid of religion, it never achieved its aims. The ideology quickly turned into whatever each dictator wanted it to be in his country, in all cases a police state, a dictatorship style of government and like many Fascist movement exalted the leader in a huge personality cult with the national army as the enforcer. Egypt, Syria, Irak, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria all fell into the same morass. Because they were all semi-agrarian or with semi-nomadic people or fierce tribal groups, rapidly growing, largely illiterate poor populations, they became pawns of the Cold War games between the USSR and the USA, having been pawns of the colonial powers, Britain and France previously. Each dictator needed lots of cash to pay off the elites and weapons to keep their armies happy, both the USSR and USA were happy to oblige in return for political allegiance.

Nasser died of a heart attack in 1970 realizing that his ideas of one pan-arabic government by the masses was nothing but half baked ideology. Assad died of old age a few years ago in Syria to be replaced by his inept son, who may meet the same fate as Ghaddafi if he does not flee in time to Iran his ally. Yemen is into a civil war with President Saleh hanging on barely having survived an assassination attempt. Egypt is in chaos and Libya well it all remains to be seen what is going to happen next. As for Irak turmoil continues in this ravaged country, divided by political tensions along religious lines.

Tunisia is the only one so far who seems to have been able to pull it off with an free and open election this weekend. So bye-bye Pan-Arabic leadership and hello uncertainty. It is really not clear what is going to happen next, certainly not western style democracy, getting rid of a dictator does not mean that everyone understands what democracy means or how it works in everyday life, if Irak is an example of what can go wrong when you have no tradition of dissent or open plural society. I am sure that many outsiders will certainly try to make helpful suggestions on how to go about it, but often suggestions are not welcomed and are seen as nothing more than interference.

As for a trial for Ghadaffi at the International Court in The Hague, as much as this follows the idea of a society based on rule of law and international recognized standards of Justice, this was never going to happen. Ghadaffi knew too much and he had become a bothersome figure, he could have embarrassed more than one leader. The trial would also have been yet another platform for him to spin out his ideas of the world, it would also would have made him a martyr to some. In a cynical world his death closes a chapter.  Looking back on it, when on Christmas day 1989 Ceausescu and his wife were summarily executed in front of a firing squad in Romania, after a trial which lasted 30 minutes, I do not recall the same call for an investigation. He had been the President of Romania for years and a thorn on the side of many countries but the good ally of others. But then again this was another time in history.