Remember that the background on this subject was given on Part One. In this part we consider rulers who should be taken out of power, but whose crimes are less in the area of international terrorism and more in terms of the damage they have done to their own people. If we take seriously the idea that all peoples should have basic rights (a la UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights), then there certainly are rulers, usually called ???????Presidents???????, who have done much more harm than good for their fellow countrymen.

*****

Fidel Castro

So much has been said about Fidel that I will limit myself to only a few comments. First, let us look at the latest Human Rights Report.

Cuba, with a population of 11 million, is a totalitarian state led by a president, Fidel Castro, whose regime controls all aspects of life through the Communist Party (CP) and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy, and the state security apparatus. Although civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, the Ministry of Interior is the principal instrument of state security and control, and officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, which are led by the president’s brother, have occupied most key positions in the ministry during the past 15 years.

The government’s human rights record remained poor, and the government continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. At least 333 Cuban political prisoners and detainees were held at year’s end. The following human rights problems were reported:

??????? denial of citizens’ rights to change their government

??????? beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists, carried out with impunity

??????? transfers of mentally healthy prisoners to psychiatric facilities for political reasons

??????? frequent harassment of political opponents by government-recruited mobs

??????? extremely harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including denial of medical care

??????? arbitrary arrest and detention of human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations

??????? denial of fair trial, particularly to political prisoners

??????? interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of private communications

??????? severe limitations on freedom of speech and press

??????? denial of peaceful assembly and association

??????? restrictions on freedom of movement, including selective denial of exit permits to thousands of citizens

??????? refusal to recognize domestic human rights groups or to permit them to function legally

??????? domestic violence, underage prostitution, and sex tourism

??????? discrimination against persons of African descent

??????? severe restrictions on worker rights, including the right to form independent unions

Next, excerpts from an intriguing article:

The massive executions, through secret trials without procedural safeguards of any type; the disappearances of the mortal remains of executed political opponents; the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of opponents, either through kangaroo courts that did not even provide defendants with attorneys or through the so-called ééfiles of the socially dangerous;” the tortures, the cruel and degrading treatment, and the inhuman living conditions that officially became known as ééThe Secret War of Extermination of Every Form of Deviation or Resistance to the Cuban Governmental Ideology;” the implacable religious persecution; the discrimination — apartheid-style — enforced for reasons of political opinion or religious belief; the denial of freedom of movement and the forced exile of Cubans who live abroad; the total disappearance of freedom of speech, of assembly, of peaceful association, of union rights, and of every civil and political right that are the bases of modern society. In a Stalinist state there is no access to any independent information about the government; there are no religious groups that monitor human-rights abuses, there is absolutely no history of any independent press, there are no international journalists based in the country, etc.

More than ten thousand people killed, the economy of an entire country ruined, all for the ideas of an egotistical nut case! And now he is sick, so should we just wait to let time take him away? I used to chide some of my Chilean friends about the fact that they would be able to do nothing about Pinochet except let him die. Will the same happen with Castro? Probably.

*****

Hugo Chavez

This person is well known by those of you who follow this site. He is a demagogue and a thug. He has stacked the Supreme Court, thrown out the professional technicians in the oil companies to replace them with incompetent cronies, squandered money to attempt to curry favor with the poor, and much more. He has created a dictatorship and is using all means to remain in power.

As one example of the way Chavez holds control, read this:

Ch????vez introduced two new elements to the Venezuela of civilian rule: a return of the mechanisms that had allowed totalitarian rule for most of Venezuelan history, and an unprecedented use of hate language in his political discourse.

The language used by Ch????vez has always been violent. Very early in his campaign for the presidency he announced that he would “fry” the heads of the social democrats. References to rot, tumors, nausea and bodily excretions, used in connection with his political enemies, became common. A permanent feature of his discourse was and continues to be that his “revolution” will triumph at whatever cost, whether peacefully or through violence and blood. Anyone not with him was against him, and had to be crushed. At the beginning, the language employed by Ch????vez was politically received as just passionate rhetoric. It was the language of the fiery, inexperienced and rough presidential candidate, fighting the odds. But later the dark-horse candidate turned President. And the language continued. And the language zeroed in on anyone daring to express dissent. And the language moved mobs into violence. And the language and the mobs were protected, from above, by the most obscene impunity. So the language, now turned into a physical weapon, became an instrument of power. One that has allowed him to say, for example, that there are no journalists in jail.

Although not directly accused of being a terrorist, he has snuggled up to some of the most important ones. His fawning approach to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Ali Khameini has been obvious. His close embrace of Fidel Castro is clear and detestable. His use of oil to buy friends and influence the ???????influenciables??????? is also obvious.

And read this.

If I suggest that Chavez should be assassinated it will not have the impact of a Pat Robertson pronunciation, because I certainly am not that famous. But before an elimination attempt I think that everything possible should be done to get rid of him, including armed uprising by Venezuelans. Fortunately, as you may see on this same page, he may be heading toward his comeuppance.

Also see: Daniel Venezuela

*****

Robert Mugabe

Robert Mugabe is inexorably destroying his country.

Zimbabwe is one of the five worst nations regarding human rights. Since Mugabe became President, the country has descended into complete tragedy. When elected in 1980, Mugabe had the hope and confidence of the population. But he quickly turned out to be a weak leader surrounded by a dishonest and corrupt administration. His promises to his people were empty. The country’s economy has been a disaster. In 2000, for example, the price of a woman’s purse was equal to the average citizen????????s monthly income.

Agriculture has suffered as well. Until 2000, Mugabe continued to refuse all agrarian reforms, even though they were backed by the country’s rich white farmers. Then he decided to play a new role and started reform, but this has been done harshly, with all white owners having their plantations stolen from them. But the country is so poor that the plantations’ new owners have nothing with which to work the land. The government administration is so inept as to not have foreseen this problem, which occurred in many other countries attempting land reform.

Mugabe has been in power for a quarter century, and the results have been catastrophic. Unemployment is at 70 to 80 percent and inflation at 350 percent. The country is experiencing the exodus of skilled physicians and nurses who are escaping from extremely poor working conditions. Zimbabwe’s foreign debt has climbed to more than $4.8 billion, but that didn’t stop Mugabe from recently spending an estimated $400 million on military equipment. With his recent “cleanup” program, Mugabe has made 700,000 Zimbabweans homeless and drove 500,000 children from their schools. In some cases, the police beat slum inhabitants to death when they attempted to defend their possessions; others were buried under the ruins of their corrugated metal huts.

In the face of all these setbacks, Zimbabwe is undergoing increasingly severe political repression, even though it still calls itself ???????a democracy.??????? The CIO–the Central Intelligence Organisation, similar to Saddam Hussein????????s ???????Republican Guard???????–is a political police totally dedicated to Mugabe and in charge of silencing and suppressing the opposition. Mugabe and 115 of his key henchmen, “who commit human rights violations and restrict freedom of expression and assembly,” are no longer allowed entry into Europe. The United States has taken similar steps. The European Union and Germany have cancelled development aid to Zimbabwe.

For more information see: World Press, Mugabe.org, and Der Spiegel.

*****

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

Equatorial Guinea is a very small country in central-west Africa, just west of Cameroon and south of Nigeria. Until it began pumping oil in 1996 it was a very poor country. The current ???????President for Life??????? is Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo who came into power by overthrowing his uncle, Francisco Mac????as Nguema’s whose regime was extremely repressive and was cited for numerous human rights violations, which were so atrocious that reportedly one-third of the country’s population left as refugees. Nguema????????s economic policies were so bad that GNP had fallen by 40% during his reign. This set the stage for unrest and eventually a successful coup d’????tat against him at dawn on 03 August 1979 led by Obiang. Nguema was murdered shortly thereafter. On 18 August Obiang was chosen by a military panel unanimously to serve as the President of the Supreme Military Council and President of the Republic. He was officially sworn into office on 10 October 1979. He was later promoted to the rank of full Colonel on 31 January 1981.

General sentiment at the time of the coup was that Obiang’s rule would considerably improve conditions in Equatorial Guinea and in the beginning, Obiang did, in fact, pardon political prisoners of the Nguema regime by decree and a new constitution for Equatorial Guinea was drafted and approved on 22 August 1982 by 95.38% majority obtained through referendum. There is some evidence that for much of the early part of his period, Obiang tried to do the best he could for his people (See Robert Klitgaard, Tropical Gangsters, New York: Basic Books, 1990, particularly Chapter Eight.)

Despite apparent public popularity, private accounts of local people paint a very dangerous picture, alleging that Obiang rules through terror, torture and political killings. Amnesty International and other human rights groups, including the UN, cite brutal human rights violations, torture of political prisoners, unfair trials as well as deplorable prison conditions. His opposition also maintains that the series of failed coup d’????tats have been staged in order to empower the President to engage in campaigns of retribution. His control over the media is rumoured to be absolute. He is also criticized for nepotism, as he has appointed many family members to key posts in the government.

The most recent US Human Rights Report says:

The government’s human rights record remained poor, and the government continued to commit or condone serious abuses. The following human rights problems were reported:

??????? abridgement of citizens’ right to change their government

??????? security force torture, beating, and other physical abuse of prisoners and detainees

??????? harsh and life-threatening prison conditions

??????? impunity

??????? arbitrary arrest, detention, and incommunicado detention

??????? harassment, detention, and deportation of foreign residents

??????? judicial corruption and lack of due process

??????? restrictions on the right of privacy

??????? severe restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press

??????? restrictions on the rights of assembly, association, and movement

??????? government corruption

??????? restrictions on human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

??????? violence and discrimination against women

??????? trafficking in persons

??????? discrimination against ethnic minorities and HIV/AID victims

??????? restrictions on labor rights

??????? forced labor

??????? child labor

There have been many attempts to un-seat Obiang. One attempt to ouster his uncle Francisco Mac????as Nguema, became the basis for a Frederick Forsythe novel, The Dogs of War. The most recent attempt, in 2004, involved international mercenaries and even Mark Thatcher. According to one of the main organizers:

“It wasn’t a question of taking the life of the head of state, but of spiriting him away, taking him to Spain and forcing him into exile and then of immediately installing the government in exile of Severo Moto Nsa,” said Nick du Toit. The government called for the extradition of Moto, who had tried to mount a coup against Obiang in 1997 from Angola and recently set up a government in exile in Spain. But Moto denied any involvement in the alleged plot. Notwithstanding, early in 2006 Moto ???????disappeared.??????? (from afrol News / El Muni, 11/03/2004 09:38 SA).

According to Peter Maass:

Unless something changes, Equatorial Guinea is cursed; it is ruled by an elite that has shown little conscience or judgment in the realms of economic and political development. It is a safe bet that much of the oil money will be stolen or squandered by Obiang????????s regime.
???????Obiang doesn????????t care about the people, only his family,??????? the man (met in the street) said. ???????He doesn????????t want to share the money. He says he wants democracy, but if I say to him these things, I will go to jail and be killed. It is our brother who is killing us. The whites, they should help us. Saddam Hussein, he was a dictator, and the whites decided to get rid of him. They should help us, too.??????? (Peter Maass, Mother Jones, January/February 2005 Issue.)

In this case pre-emption seems necessary and has been tried several times, without success. While I suggest that such elimination would be justified in the name of the Equatoginean people, I doubt that anything will happen.

*****

Note: I would include Charles Taylor who certainly deserves to die, but he was recently extradited from Nigeria, where he had sought asylum in 2003 after pressure from Liberian rebel forces and the international community forced his resignation from office. Taylor is now standing trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a U.N.-backed war crimes tribunal. Presumably he will be found guilty. (Google him and you will find all the stories about how he caused great harm to so many people.)

Finally, there certainly are other rulers and international terrorists who could be considered. If you wish to suggest someone, leave a comment. Cheers.