Dictator duo disinterestedly discuss Darfur

I've vented my spleen on more than one occasion about the "international community's" pathetic response to and assertions about the Darfur disaster, especially the failure of anyone to adapt a negotiating strategy that recognizes that Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is a dictator instead of, say, the Prime Minister of Belgium. Dealing with autocrats requires a different approach than dealing with with democratically elected politicians. Frankly, you have to speak their language. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and Libyan strongman Colonel Muammar Qaddafi understand this perfectly, and held an impromptu Darfur crisis summit meeting with one another in Tripoli.

As one might expect, Mubarak and Qaddafi had a chat on Darfur that proved they understand a dictator's language, insofar as it urges the rest of the world to get off of Omar al-Bashir's back and focus on bringing the rebel armies fighting against Bashir "to the negotiating table". However, Mubarak and Qaddafi made it immediately clear they wouldn't press al-Bashir to do anything he hasn't already promised to do. Which is good, since the last thing Omar al-Bashir needs right now is yet another set of cheap promises he'll have to find ways to ignore down the road. Both Mubarak and Qaddafi are vaguely concerned about the violence in Sudan spilling over into their fiefdoms, but frankly, they appear to be much more concerned about the rest of the world taking dictatorships to task for shoddy, violent, and unaccountable rule. Why is everyone giving us a such a hard time, they appear to be saying, just shut the hell up and let us do our thing!

If, on the other hand, Mubarak or Qaddafi happened to be at war with Sudan, they'd shift to a dictator's other natural dialect, about the need to totally annihilate Omar al-Bashir, and how nothing on earth will get them to the negotiating table. As it just so happens, neither dictator has any particular beef with al-Bashir. They're all members of the Arab League in good standing. None of them have any territorial disputes with one another, and hey, they all resent the "neo-colonialism" of smug, holier-than-thou European Union do gooders, human rights organizations, and other such douchebags telling third world leaders how to act, or worse, linking things like foreign aid to their human rights record. Given that the aforementioned douchebags are all screaming about Sudan right now, it would be impossible for Mubarak and Qaddafi not to sympathize immediately. Dictators don't have trade unions to represent their interests, but it usually isn't too hard to find one or more dictators banding together to stick up for a beleaguered tyrant when he's facing tough times. The idea that Qaddafi and Mubarak had any ideas better suited towards providing a plan with an outcome geared towards relieving the misery of the people of Darfur instead of the unimpeded right of Omar al-Bashir to do whatever the hell he wants is a complete non-starter as far as they're concerned.

I will give Mubarak and Qaddafi credit, however, for matching their desires openly with the expected outcome. Omar al-Bashir is, in fact, going to do whatever the hell he wants, anyway, and there's nothing Egypt or Libya will do to stop him. At least al-Bashir's fellow dictators won't be attending any ridiculous candlelight vigils or hypocritically wringing their hands about how the "inaction of the world community" is at fault. They know Omar al-Bashir calls the shots in Darfur, and they're comfortable with that. Now, if only one of the countries that talks about how concerned they are about Darfur would learn to speak to Omar al-Bashir like a dictator, and threaten him to get results? Well ... that might just work.

Blogger jailed for insulting Mubarak

A court in Alexandria, Egypt has sentenced a blogger to four years in prison on the charge of "inciting sedition" and "insulting Islam" after prosecutors read posts on his blog that called Al-Azhar university "terrorism university" and described President Hosni Mubarak as a "dictator". The now jailed blogger, Abdel Karem Soliman, knows just as well as everyone else in and outside of Egypt that Hosni Mubarak is a dictator. His only mistake, of course, was saying it in a place where the state's notoriously arbitrary justice system could link it back to him.

Mubarak, who has been the uncontested ruler of Egypt since the 1981 assassination of Egypt's previous dictator Anwar Sadat, can hardly be surprised or insulted by being called a dictator. After spending the past 25 years working as hard as he can to eliminate all political and social opposition to his rule, one would think he'd actually relish being called a "dictator" if only to justify all of the hard work he's put into the task.

Perhaps he's concerned about the "dictator" label affecting Egypt's warm relations with the United States? I can't imagine it. It hasn't exactly hurt Pervez Musharraf, now has it? Rather, it seems to be the insistence of many dictators to eschew the label simply to maintain an illusion that they are so beloved by their subjects that they have been granted a "natural political right" to rule as capriciously as they desire for as long as they live. For that reason, the word "dictator" is perceived as a vulgar reminder that unlimited authority in the hands of one person is, actually, an unnatural and undesirable state of political affairs.

If and when Abdel Kareem Soliman gets out of jail in four years (and from all accounts, jail time in Egypt is nothing to sneeze at - especially for political prisoners), he may be more careful about what he says about religion and politics. More likely, he'll do the sensible thing and just leave Egypt altogether, because Mubarak isn't leaving office until he dies. And like most sensible dictators, he's planned for that occurrence as well. If there's any consolation for Abdel Kareem Soliman, it's that internet usage in Egypt is only likely to increase, and there's no way a creaky police state like Egypt can stick all their fingers in every hole in the dike. At some point, people in Egypt are going to be speaking freely about politics and religion online, even while being denied the same in public, and there's really nothing they can do about it.

Now if only Zimbabwe and North Korea had a blogger community ...

UPDATE: Abdel Karim Soliman's father speaks out ... for his son to be executed!