New York Post annual review of Dictators served with a large measure of Irony

last month the parade magazine supplement carried an annual review of the world's worst dictators, written by David Wallechinsky. This article carried a top 10 of the worst characters and was then supplemented by an additional ten voted in by readers. Several aspects of this article were somewhat bizarre and seemed to betray a lack of appreciation of US foreign policy in favour of a 'noddy-dog' article to be hmmm'd at over the weekend breakfast table.

Firstly, Why would the writer place King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as high as number four ? Saudi Arabia has for decades been the USA's key country in the region and most moderate, stable regime able to influence broader Arab opinion in the Arab-Israeli dispute. let's not leave aside the oil reserves and weight in organisations such as OPEC. Britain seems to have not forgotten Lord Palermston's dictum that "Britain has no permanent friends, only permanent interests". I am sure that US defense companies will not be carrying a copy of this review when roaming around the Middle East...

Second, Hu Jintao was received by the current President on a state visit 2 years ago. If it is now the case that China is, in the Post's eyes, part of the 'axis of evil' - what recommendations does the article have to pay back the $388 billion of debt the US Government owes ?

Thirdly, President Pervez Musharraf. Including him so high on this list displays real Chutzpah. Not long ago the US described Pakistan as a "key partner in the global coalition against terror," President Bush commended General Musharraf's "courage and vision" in opposing extremism in Pakistan and elsewhere.

On line, Hozni Mubarak of Egypt comes into the top twenty. Another surprise given US reliance on Egypt in recent decades. In January 2008 the New York Times cited the President's praise during his tour of the Middle East saying, “I appreciate very much the long and proud tradition that you’ve had for a vibrant civil society,” said Mr. Bush, who appeared with Mr. Mubarak.

This kind of article, when not thought through only serves to upset people around the globe. Ironically, a recent poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper on November 3rd 2006, “British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il”. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security. The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.