Ух, а это про нас: что делать с деспотами - ссылка как метод
01/21/2003 | line305b
лечения...
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1534843
Dealing with despots
In praise of exile
Jan 16th 2003
From The Economist print edition
A second-best solution for the likes of Robert Mugabe and Saddam Hussein
A SECURE island, tropical perhaps but not desert, where discarded despots could pass their declining years in comfort and safety has long seemed an attractive proposition to The Economist. It is not just the thought that each other's company might provide a punishment of kinds to those, say, who now tyrannise Cuba, Iraq, North Korea and Zimbabwe. It is also the belief that at least some of those rulers would slink off if they were guaranteed immunity from prosecution, plus a lifetime supply of gin and tonic, and that most of their oppressed countrymen would be ready to let them escape justice merely to be rid of them. Visions of Despotamia—yes, the island could perhaps be a landlocked one, somewhere between the Tigris and the Euphrates—returned this week with the reports that a deal had been proffered in Zimbabwe whereby Robert Mugabe would make way for a transitional government in which his party would share power with the opposition until an election could be held. Was Mr Mugabe thus booking his exit ticket?
Apparently not. The reports were quickly denied. Still, the vision of the island did not die. A “voluntary” departure for Saddam Hussein has already been mooted by some Arabs who want to avert a war in Iraq. And the memory is fresh of how bribery worked wonders in helping to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban in 2001. Surely the principle could be extended?
One practical objection concerns the difficulty of winning the consent of the people. How could you ask Zimbabweans if they agreed to the bargain? A referendum would be ideal, but Mr Mugabe and his ruling party have already shown themselves willing to rig one election (last year) in order to hang on to power. They would hardly balk at rigging another to produce whatever result they wanted.
Fortunately, Zimbabwe has a party, the Movement for Democratic Change, that can reasonably claim to speak for the voters, having been robbed of victory in last year's election. So the practical objection, at least there, seems manageable. But objections of principle might still argue against accepting such a deal. It goes against the grain to think of Mr Mugabe, who has brought his country to its knees (see article), getting off scot-free. Moreover, the modern trend is to frown on letting villainy go unpunished. Augusto Pinochet, the beneficiary of a stand-aside-in-return-for-impunity deal in Chile, later found himself under arrest on a humdrum trip to London. Slobodan Milosevic is even now on trial for crimes in Yugoslavia. Other tyrants may yet fall foul of the International Criminal Court, due to start work later this year. Still, a cheap and bloodless solution for such men has its merits, especially if the alternative is as terrible as war. It would be a wonderful outcome in Iraq, so long as the country was thereby disarmed and the people allowed to choose a more benign regime.
In any event, Zimbabwe seems unlikely to be shot of Mr Mugabe at all soon. His departure is certainly not being hastened by his neighbours, who seem untroubled by his violent misrule, nor by England's cricketers, who this week refused to call off their World Cup fixture in Zimbabwe next month. Time is not on his side—he is 78 years old—nor is the fact, whatever the denials, that his lieutenants are openly plotting without fear of retribution. His days are numbered. But he can still do a lot of harm to his country. A pity, when you think how he might instead be explaining the rules of cricket to Mr Hussein, as they watched the matches on television in Despotamia.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=1534843
Dealing with despots
In praise of exile
Jan 16th 2003
From The Economist print edition
A second-best solution for the likes of Robert Mugabe and Saddam Hussein
A SECURE island, tropical perhaps but not desert, where discarded despots could pass their declining years in comfort and safety has long seemed an attractive proposition to The Economist. It is not just the thought that each other's company might provide a punishment of kinds to those, say, who now tyrannise Cuba, Iraq, North Korea and Zimbabwe. It is also the belief that at least some of those rulers would slink off if they were guaranteed immunity from prosecution, plus a lifetime supply of gin and tonic, and that most of their oppressed countrymen would be ready to let them escape justice merely to be rid of them. Visions of Despotamia—yes, the island could perhaps be a landlocked one, somewhere between the Tigris and the Euphrates—returned this week with the reports that a deal had been proffered in Zimbabwe whereby Robert Mugabe would make way for a transitional government in which his party would share power with the opposition until an election could be held. Was Mr Mugabe thus booking his exit ticket?
Apparently not. The reports were quickly denied. Still, the vision of the island did not die. A “voluntary” departure for Saddam Hussein has already been mooted by some Arabs who want to avert a war in Iraq. And the memory is fresh of how bribery worked wonders in helping to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban in 2001. Surely the principle could be extended?
One practical objection concerns the difficulty of winning the consent of the people. How could you ask Zimbabweans if they agreed to the bargain? A referendum would be ideal, but Mr Mugabe and his ruling party have already shown themselves willing to rig one election (last year) in order to hang on to power. They would hardly balk at rigging another to produce whatever result they wanted.
Fortunately, Zimbabwe has a party, the Movement for Democratic Change, that can reasonably claim to speak for the voters, having been robbed of victory in last year's election. So the practical objection, at least there, seems manageable. But objections of principle might still argue against accepting such a deal. It goes against the grain to think of Mr Mugabe, who has brought his country to its knees (see article), getting off scot-free. Moreover, the modern trend is to frown on letting villainy go unpunished. Augusto Pinochet, the beneficiary of a stand-aside-in-return-for-impunity deal in Chile, later found himself under arrest on a humdrum trip to London. Slobodan Milosevic is even now on trial for crimes in Yugoslavia. Other tyrants may yet fall foul of the International Criminal Court, due to start work later this year. Still, a cheap and bloodless solution for such men has its merits, especially if the alternative is as terrible as war. It would be a wonderful outcome in Iraq, so long as the country was thereby disarmed and the people allowed to choose a more benign regime.
In any event, Zimbabwe seems unlikely to be shot of Mr Mugabe at all soon. His departure is certainly not being hastened by his neighbours, who seem untroubled by his violent misrule, nor by England's cricketers, who this week refused to call off their World Cup fixture in Zimbabwe next month. Time is not on his side—he is 78 years old—nor is the fact, whatever the denials, that his lieutenants are openly plotting without fear of retribution. His days are numbered. But he can still do a lot of harm to his country. A pity, when you think how he might instead be explaining the rules of cricket to Mr Hussein, as they watched the matches on television in Despotamia.