La revolucion cubana compie 51 anni. Ma anche il despota libico scala la classifica
di Mauro Suttora
Libero, 2 gennaio 2010
A Capodanno la revolucion cubana compie 51 anni, e Fidel Castro consolida la sua posizione in testa alla classifica dei dittatori più longevi del mondo. Certo, da due anni ha lasciato il potere al fratello Raul. Dispotismi dinastici, come nella Corea del Nord dei Kim padre e figlio, o nell’autoritaria Singapore. Ma Fidel è ancora presidente del partito comunista, e a 84 anni continua la sua serena vecchiaia, anche se qualche perfido lo chiama «coma andante». Spirerà tranquillo nel proprio letto. Come tutti i tiranni moderni tranne Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein e Ceausescu (eliminati dopo la sconfitta, però). Insomma, di tirannicidi nel mondo moderno neanche l’ombra.
Il 67enne Muammar Gheddafi, che imperversa in Libia da ben quattro decenni, è lanciatissimo in classifica: ha appena scavalcato l’albanese Hoxha e fra due anni supererà Bongo del Gabon, morto di tumore a giugno. Meglio di lui solo il sultano del Brunei, l’uomo più ricco del mondo che promette di durare a lungo, visto che ha 63 anni.
Dopo il crollo del comunismo nel 1989 sembrava che per gli stati totalitari di ogni colore i giorni fossero contati. Invece oggi non solo Amnesty International registra ben 80 dittature nel mondo (su 192 stati membri dell’Onu), ma la professione di tiranno resta una delle più sicure e fruttuose. Anche quando si viene cacciati e spediti in esilio. È capitato ai peggiori: Bokassa, Idi Amin, Pol Pot. Per non parlare di Stalin, Mao o Franco, accuditi e riveriti fino all’ultimo respiro.
Le dittature più coriacee rimangono quelle comuniste. La Cina ha appena condannato il dissidente Liu Xiaobo a undici anni per un semplice reato d’opinione. Vietnam e Laos, come Cuba, sono ancora oppressi da falce e martello. Ed è difficile definire ideologicamente i generali birmani che tengono prigioniera la Nobel della Pace Aung San Suu Kyi da vent’anni, quando vinse le elezioni. Però stanno in piedi grazie all’appoggio della Cina.
E pensare che quella del «dittatore» è un’invenzione italiana: sia 2.500 anni fa, sia con Mussolini che ha riproposto il duce contemporaneo. Aristotele individuò tre tipi di tiranno: il demagogo che esercita il potere in nome degli umili, l’eletto legittimamente che poi si avvinghia alla poltrona, e il monarca degenerato che aumenta i privilegi dei ricchi. Nel primo caso si può individuare il prototipo del moderno dittatore di sinistra (Lenin, Mao, oggi il venezuelano Chavez), nel secondo quello di destra (Mussolini, Hitler), e nell’ultimo figure come lo scià di Persia Reza Pahlevi (ottavo nella nostra classifica). Dove situare l’iraniano Ahmadinejad è più complicato: despota laico per conto di una teocrazia collettiva.
Non sempre la parola ‘dittatore’ ha avuto connotati negativi. Garibaldi, per esempio, nel 1860 di proclamò tale dopo aver conquistato le Due Sicilie, e mezza Italia applaudì. Ma anche oggi in alcuni ambienti desiderosi di «stabilità» (nonché di treni puntuali) risultano appetibili figure come quella del tiranno soft di Singapore Lee Kuan Yew e di suo figlio, celebrati perfino da Fareed Zakaria, direttore del settimanale americano Newsweek. Viceversa, secondo Freedom House le otto dittature peggiori sono: Birmania, Corea del Nord, Cuba, Libia, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan e Uzbekistan.
«D’altra parte, due Paesi su cinque nel Consiglio di sicurezza dell’Onu – quello più vasto e quello più popolato, Russia e Cina – sono dittature, o almeno regimi autoritari», conclude sconsolato il professor Larry Diamond dell’università di Stanford (California). «E bloccano col veto quasi tutte le proposte di condanna per violazioni di diritti umani da parte delle Nazioni Unite». Tranquilli, quindi, comandante Fidel e colonnello Muammar: lunga vita a voi e ai vostri simili.
Showing posts with label singapore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label singapore. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Friday, April 18, 2003
Answers in the Straits Times
The Straits Times (Singapore)
Is UN irrelevant?
April 18, 2003 Friday
MR MAURO Suttora ('The UN is the last thing the Iraqis need'; ST, April 16) sounds like an apologist for the United States action in Iraq.
He cited instances of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, corruption and high salaries of its officials.
Even if those charges were true, his implicit proposition that the US is doing a better job is unacceptable. To use an analogy, just because democratic governments can become ineffective and corrupt does not mean that the concept of a democratic government is irrelevant. The alternative to a democratically elected government is dictatorship.
So whether it is an individual government or a world body, progress should be measured according to the implementation of democratic processes. Democracy encompasses as far as possible non-violent resolution of issues, consensus forging, will of the majority and respect for the minority and many more principles.
However, what has happened in Iraq shows that there is a retrogression of democracy in settling international issues.
If there are areas of weakness in the UN operations, member governments must suggest ways to tackle them. This is their responsibility to their own citizens and all citizens of the world.
It is not good enough if they are treating the UN principally as a forum for settling issues. They must look at how it is run at the bureaucratic level. The writer's accusations have certainly given us cause for concern.
Without an improved UN, big brother will likely usurp its role in policing the world. We can see how small the UN appears after the collapse of the regime in Iraq. If this trend continues, very soon more and more people will begin to believe the US is a better solution.
But that is depending on one nation to decide the fate of the world and the lives of citizens everywhere. This is going for a form of international dictatorship willingly. Do we want that to happen?
In any case, I see no serious fault in the current procedure used by the Security Council to approve military action on a member country. If the writer sees anything amiss with it, he should suggest better and democratic ways to improve it. He may also recommend any alternative global forum to settle international issues.
But in the end the alternative will more or less be similar in purpose and role. Why re-invent the wheel? Let's support the UN and urge member governments to treat it with more respect by improving its functions, checks and balances.
CHIA HERN KENG
NO
Depending on one nation to decide the fate of the world and the lives of citizens everywhere is going for a form of international dictatorship willingly. Do we want that to happen?
I see no serious fault in the current procedure used by the Security Council to approve military action on a member country. If the writer sees anything amiss with it, he should suggest better and democratic ways to improve it.
He may also recommend any alternative global forum to settle international issues.
But in the end the alternative will more or less be similar in purpose and role. Why re-invent the wheel?
YES
I AM pleased to finally see an honest and gutsy article ('The UN is the last thing the Iraqis need'; ST, April 16). Mr Mauro Suttora is right on the dot and if anyone disputes his report, they only have to look at the way Saddam Hussein and his regime have been living with the blessings of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme, while the Iraqi population lived in abject poverty.
The U in United Nations should read more like 'Useless' than anything else. I hope we have more articles like the above rather than the everyday wishy-washy ones that we see from AP, AFP, CNN and the gang. The credit goes to Newsweek and Mr Suttora.
WILMA ELIZABETH CHAI (MRS)
Is UN irrelevant?
April 18, 2003 Friday
MR MAURO Suttora ('The UN is the last thing the Iraqis need'; ST, April 16) sounds like an apologist for the United States action in Iraq.
He cited instances of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, corruption and high salaries of its officials.
Even if those charges were true, his implicit proposition that the US is doing a better job is unacceptable. To use an analogy, just because democratic governments can become ineffective and corrupt does not mean that the concept of a democratic government is irrelevant. The alternative to a democratically elected government is dictatorship.
So whether it is an individual government or a world body, progress should be measured according to the implementation of democratic processes. Democracy encompasses as far as possible non-violent resolution of issues, consensus forging, will of the majority and respect for the minority and many more principles.
However, what has happened in Iraq shows that there is a retrogression of democracy in settling international issues.
If there are areas of weakness in the UN operations, member governments must suggest ways to tackle them. This is their responsibility to their own citizens and all citizens of the world.
It is not good enough if they are treating the UN principally as a forum for settling issues. They must look at how it is run at the bureaucratic level. The writer's accusations have certainly given us cause for concern.
Without an improved UN, big brother will likely usurp its role in policing the world. We can see how small the UN appears after the collapse of the regime in Iraq. If this trend continues, very soon more and more people will begin to believe the US is a better solution.
But that is depending on one nation to decide the fate of the world and the lives of citizens everywhere. This is going for a form of international dictatorship willingly. Do we want that to happen?
In any case, I see no serious fault in the current procedure used by the Security Council to approve military action on a member country. If the writer sees anything amiss with it, he should suggest better and democratic ways to improve it. He may also recommend any alternative global forum to settle international issues.
But in the end the alternative will more or less be similar in purpose and role. Why re-invent the wheel? Let's support the UN and urge member governments to treat it with more respect by improving its functions, checks and balances.
CHIA HERN KENG
NO
Depending on one nation to decide the fate of the world and the lives of citizens everywhere is going for a form of international dictatorship willingly. Do we want that to happen?
I see no serious fault in the current procedure used by the Security Council to approve military action on a member country. If the writer sees anything amiss with it, he should suggest better and democratic ways to improve it.
He may also recommend any alternative global forum to settle international issues.
But in the end the alternative will more or less be similar in purpose and role. Why re-invent the wheel?
YES
I AM pleased to finally see an honest and gutsy article ('The UN is the last thing the Iraqis need'; ST, April 16). Mr Mauro Suttora is right on the dot and if anyone disputes his report, they only have to look at the way Saddam Hussein and his regime have been living with the blessings of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme, while the Iraqi population lived in abject poverty.
The U in United Nations should read more like 'Useless' than anything else. I hope we have more articles like the above rather than the everyday wishy-washy ones that we see from AP, AFP, CNN and the gang. The credit goes to Newsweek and Mr Suttora.
WILMA ELIZABETH CHAI (MRS)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)