Gaddafi, the PKK and the Occupation Movement

The biggest news item in the past few days was the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi at the end of the siege of Sirte. Few sensible people will mourn his death, since, despite some bizarre attempts by a few delusional people to whitewash his record, there is no question that he was a ruthless dictator -- not perhaps the cruelest or bloodiest, but bad enough, and dangerously erratic to boot. The manner of his death, on the other hand, deserves closer investigation, as he was killed after being captured alive by the rebel forces. As I stated in my previous post, I am not a big fan of capital punishment, and I'm even less a fan of lynching and other forms of mob justice, even if the victim is a dictator who did far worse to many of his people.

The manner of Gaddafi's death reminded me in some ways of that of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, though the latter was given a short trial of questionable legitimacy before being executed. It is even more similar to the death of the Ngo brothers (South Vietnamese president/dictator Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother/right-hand man Ngo Dinh Nhu), who were both shot after being captured by rebel officers who lost their temper at them (incidentally, while Diem was bad, Nhu and his wife Tran Le Xuan were particularly awful -- probably even worse than Gaddafi, if it is possible to make such comparisons). In all of these cases, despite the crimes committed by those killed, it would have been better to see them face proper justice (though in Nhu's case, I'd be tempted to say he got off too easily, like his idol Adolf Hitler). Since it is too late for Gaddafi to face justice, despite the efforts of those among his rebel captors who kept reminding their comrades that they wanted him alive, we'll just have to hope his sons will go on trial. Other than Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who had been Muammar's heir apparent, the other living son I'd particularly like to see go on trial is the one who is unfortunately named after one of my favorite figures from ancient history, the Carthaginian Hannibal. This son and his wife apparently tortured one of their maids at home in Libya by tying her up and pouring boiling water on her and several years ago they caused an international incident by beating their servants in Switzerland, though the wife also may have been a victim of violence at the hands of her husband, judging from another incident in London. Unfortunately, they succeeded in fleeing to Algeria, which for the moment has put them out of reach of justice.

In all the reports about Gaddafi's death, another international incident seems to have rather quickly disappeared from the news. I am referring to the attacks by the Kurdish insurgent group the PKK on several Turkish army outposts, killed 24 soldiers, and the response to this by Turkey (launching military strikes into Iraqi Kurdistan) and its European and American allies. I should point out that, while I believe the Kurds living under Turkish rule have many rightful grievances, I don't think the PKK is a wonderful bunch of people. Unlike the people who rather disgustingly speak in favor of awful regimes like those in Syria and China (or that of Gaddafi in Libya) simply because they are rivals or enemies of the US, I would not try to assert that the PKK has any more right to be seen as the "good guys" in this conflict than the Turkish government does. But nevertheless the quotes from news articles like this one infuriate me. Leaders and representatives of the EU, several of its member countries, and even US President Barack Obama himself (not to mention Turkey's president and prime minister, who I saw quoted elsewhere) all used the word "terrorist" to characterize these attacks. As I have noted elsewhere, an attack on armed soldiers in a war zone is not a terrorist attack by any commonly accepted definition of the term. Some might argue that any form of warfare is terrorism, but evidently neither Turkey (whose immediate response was military strikes) nor its allies (who are currently engaged in warfare in Afghanistan and until a few days ago were fighting in Libya) think so. If warfare itself is not terrorism, then the PKK's attacks, though violent, unproductive and even worthy of condemnation, are not by any means terrorism, and calling them so is just as idiotic as universally labeling anything Obama does "socialism", as right-wing lunatics in the US are prone to do. I find it extremely disappointing, to say the least, to see Western leaders such as Obama use the type of wildly misleading rhetoric the worst fringe groups in their countries use. Condemn the attacks if you must (though you should also be condemning many of Turkey's policies toward its Kurdish minority), but don't call them something they most clearly are not.

In the US and elsewhere, one of the top news stories has been the Occupy Wall Street movement and its various spinoffs. As might be expected, I am in general sympathy with the movement. I do think a few of the criticisms I've seen have some legitimacy; for instance, it would be useful to have a few specific demands and goals. Also, while creating greater equality in the society by reducing the power and influence of the wealthiest 1% is something I wholeheartedly support, it also has to be acknowledged that some specific problems, such as the US federal debt, will require some sacrifice by a much greater percentage of Americans than just the richest 1%, though the latter should pay an amount commensurate with their wealth. To take an example, all of the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire, not merely those on the wealthiest, though at the same time many of the loopholes that allow the very richest to pay less tax than many others (as Warren Buffett has pointed out) should be closed, so that while most people's taxes will go up a little, the taxes paid by the richest will go up more. To be fair, I'm sure many in the Occupy movement would not deny that most people may be required to make some sacrifices; as I suggested, I think the goal of many in the protests is more to reform things so that the wealthy no longer have such overwhelming power in the society, not simply forcing them to pay more taxes.

Some other problems with the protests are practical. For instance, I saw when article which negatively reported on the occupiers' use of nearby toilets, with some restaurant owners complaining that the protestors messed up their toilets and a few of them locking them in response. There's no question that those involved need to be responsible in their use of local facilities, though unfortunately it doesn't take many people to put a toilet in a pretty awful condition, and there is a general shortage of public toilets in many American cities, as this commentary points out. A thornier issue is the occasional protestor or speaker who makes outrageous statements, such as the teacher in LA who made anti-Jewish remarks. I certainly don't think the movement should be judged on the basis of a few idiots, though to be fair the tea baggers could say the same about those in their protests who carry racist signs. Really, neither group should be judged by its most extreme members, especially given that both are rather broad and so include a variety of people with widely divergent views. But if we just look at what might be called the common goals and views of each group, the Occupy Wall Street protestors are much closer to having the right idea.