Was the prosecution of Hosni Mubarak a good idea?
This is a real question, as I'm not dead-set on what I believe the answer is. This man was a dictator for 30 years, and committed some human rights abuses, but no more than most other regimes in the region, and far less than some such as Saddam Hussein (whom I feel certain liberal people even felt sorry for - so-called rape rooms and all). In general, Mubarak was a middle-of-the-road dictator, no worse than many people we regularly do business with TODAY.
During the overthrow, people were killed...but nowhere near the number of people killed in Syria or Libya or elsewhere. He sent horsemen in to beat people, but there didn't seem to be a well-determined plan to kill off the protesters.
I was firmly on the side of the uprising a year ago, and I tuned in to see the progress. At the time, it seemed like Mubarak would never leave. But in the end, he did leave without a civil war...although the military twisted his arm.
With his prosecution and sentencing, I wonder what message is being sent. If you leave the government due to pressure from protesters, you are certain to face criminal charges. If Bashar Al-Assad of Syria cares anything about self preservation, he will not go down the route of that "wimp", Mubarak. If he knows that he'll be prosecuted, there is really no chance that he'll leave voluntarily. Neither will any other dictator.
Is the prosecution of one not-so-crazy dictator worth the hardening defiance of other more-crazy dictators? Or would the other dictators not listen to reason to begin with?
Anyway, talking about Syria, I am very much against any kind of intervention, except for diplomatic overtures.
Comments
Post a Comment