« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 30, 2005
The French ‘no’ and the European foreign politics on the Us
French voted ‘no’ on Europe’s constitutional treaty.
55% of French voters said theirs no on a kind of Europe made by bureaucracy and economic power. This is the opinion of Barbara Spinelli, a columnist for La Stampa, Gian Giacomo Migone, the president of Foreign’s Commission of the Italian Senate (1994-2001) in an article published by Unità, and Andre Glucksmann, a philosopher who has written today on Corriere della Sera. It’s very interesting that all the interventions analyse the vote in relation to America and Bush’s foreign politics.
After a long reconnaissance about the Europe’s origin, the French’s role, and a possible future of the Union, Spinelli concludes her column saying that the European duty is not to answer the America’s challenge of democracy’s exportation, but to create a Union strong enough to have policies that follow the interests of a great world Power.
‘France, if Bush supports no’, that’s the title of Migone’s article published by the Unità. He remembers that France was the only bulwark against the war in Iraq, in opposition to the Usa and to the other major European countries. He also said that it is “physiological that the US is againts the rise of a United Europe able to be a political agent who can equilibrate and, in case, contrast Washington’s foreign politics”.
Also Andre Glucksmann’s article draws attention to the Union's foreign politics, and to the French’s role, and he asserts that the main target of French diplomacy is to create a “European power” able to face the American super power: “But this isn’t the Europeans' UE dream, it is the French’s Europe dream”.
Posted 09:03 AM | Comments (0)
May 29, 2005
A weaker Europe no good news for the US
If the French vote "no" tonight on Europe's constitutional treaty, some in the United States might feel relieved: a weakened Europe will pose no threat to American supremacy in the world. They would be wrong, according to François Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. In a column published by the International Herald Tribune, Heisbourg writes that
a navel-gazing, disengaged Europe is not going to be of much help in a world in which the United States has few other friends of similar economic and political weight.
Posted 01:26 AM | Comments (0)
May 27, 2005
Can a French “no” to the EU be a “yes” to the US?
To approve or not to aprove? What a question.
To be European, perchance to be anti-American?
It depends…
French are asked to vote on the EU Constitution this coming Sunday, and polls indicate a likely victory of the “no.” It comes after, among others, a Spanish “yes” that WorldAndUS has already commented.
Many reasons are given: opposition to Chirac and his Prime Minister, fear of Turkey’s possible membership, push of the nationalist extreme right (and of the old nationalist left), lack of social policy in the Carta Magna, anti-globalization sentiments, personal calculation by Laurent Fabius, the main advocate of the “no” inside the Socialist Party which has officially opted for the “yes,” etc.
The central argument for those who oppose the Constitution in the left is that it is too market-driven, that it neglects social issues.
Less obvious, the relation to the United States remains at stake.
“Has anti-Americanism become the Europeanism of the fools?” asks Philippe Corcuff, a professor of political science, in a column published by Le Monde on May 20th. To this question his answer is unmistakably “yes.”
Corcuff prefers « an American dream, a certain American dream. Not American imperialism, not the American elites’ arrogance, not the aseptic culture sold worldwide! The American dream such as it appears in the films that have fed our imaginaries.” Not the reality, just the dream.
He wants to weaken one of some pro-European arguments: the need, the will to stand as a “different” voice in today’s world.
The nature of this difference is subject to significant nuances. In today’s editorial Jean-Marie Colombani, Le Monde’s director, laments that after a “no” from France “Europe would certainly cease to be a ‘provocation’ to George Bush’s America.” An allusion to an exchange the US President had with Tony Blair in the summer of 2001 in which he took his British guest desire to see Europe succeed as a “provocation.”
The demographer and anthropologist Emmanuel Todd takes a broader approach in an interview published on March 27 in which he explains his intention to vote “yes”:
“[…] because I am aware of the geopolitical context, and of the need for a good European entente in a period in which the United States are adrift. France only has 60 million inhabitants and will loose some of its power in this 450 million Europeans set. But 60 million people are insufficient in front of the United States, India, and China. And I consider that there is a way to remain faithful to one’s nation while accepting not to believe that it is the center of the world.”
What do you think?
Posted 01:36 AM | Comments (0)
May 26, 2005
Why does US overestimate China's military power?
The official People's Daily of China quotes a recent Pentagon report released to the US Congress on Chinese military power as "playing the hackneyed theme of China threat theory again". "In order to strengthen its persuasion - writes the People's Daily - a large amount of fabricated contents (...) were filled to the report such as the huge Chinese military expenditure in recent years". Why does the US Department of defence "spare no effort to exaggerate China's military strenght?" wonders the official newspaper, only to find the following five answers. First, "the US military and right-wing forces (are) eager to 'make' a new strategic rival since the anti-terrorism war is drawing to an end, in order to maintain its position and force in the American political circles". Second, to "make a favorable atmosphere for the US global strategic readjustment" in East Asia. Third, to "bear away the huge profit orders for the American interest groups of military industries". Fourth, to "exaggerate China's military strength for the excuse of (US) military sales to Taiwan". Fifth, in order to deter European countries and Israel from "military technological cooperation with China".
Posted 07:42 PM | Comments (0)
May 25, 2005
Calipari's death still moves Italian media
Again the war in Iraq is leading Italian newspapers to talk about the Us. At this moment, the war seems to be the principal subject regarding the relationship between Italy and the Us. And once again it is the killing of the secret agent Nicola Calipari that awoke the media attention.
In today’s visit in Iraq the Italian foreign minister Gianfranco Fini inaugurated a monument to the memory of Nicola Calipari; and in his speech he pointed out the different results acheived by the Italian and American committees of inquiry.
Italian newspapers have paid a lot of attention to Fini’s visit, but everyone has underlined a different aspect of the matter. Someone has dedicated more attention to the political issues related to the withdrawal of Italian troops from Iraq, while others have taken Calipari’s gate as a hint to polemize with the American behavior.
The first position is represented by Corriere della Sera that doesn’t mention Calipari’s death in the title and puts this subject at the bottom of the article, while the main theme is “the presence of Italian troops wich will depend only on the request of Iraqis authorities and on the Coalition’s decisions” said Gianfranco Fini.
The latter, instead, is led by La Repubblica and La Stampa, wich dedicate more attention to the words Fini said about Calipari. The journal founded by Scalfari quotes Fini: “Our facts report doesn’t coincide with the American one, but this doesn’t imply any crisis between Italy and the Us; out cooperation will fairly go on”. The Turinois one remarks that: “Our vice prime minister stopped just for a while in front of Calipari’s monument where it’s written ‘Nicola Calipari, golden medal to military honor'”.
The communist newspaper l’Unità is the toughest: in the article there is just an adjective that sounds like a heavy condemnation for the States: “Our foreign minister inaugurated a monument to the memory of Sismi agent Nicola Calipari, slaughtered on march 4th by Americans soldiers near Baghdad airport”.
All this proves that two months after Calipari’s death, the affair is still perceived as a hot issue by politicians and public opinion, thus media can’t stop talking about it.
Posted 04:47 AM | Comments (0)
Bush and the history blanks
It was undoubtedly an intense moment when President George Bush visited the graves of US soldiers in the Dutch village of Margraten, to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the second World War.
In his speech, Bush honored all those who sacrificed their lives for the value of freedom, of peace. The president said :"On this peaceful May morning, we commemorate a great victory for liberty". Bush was talking in the cemetery of Margaten, where more than 8000 Americans who lost their lives under the German assaults, are buried. "The thousands of white marble crosses and stars of David underscore the terrible price we paid for that victory," he added. But Laidi Parjou, columnist at Moroccan daily Le Matin, says: "maybe there are no Muslims burried in Margaten, but that doesn't mean that adepts of the religion of Muhammad were just spectators during that horrible war. Muslims, too, paid the price of a war that was not theirs".
In fact, hundreds of North Africans; Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans, fought in the French army, often in the frontlines. They were deported from their countries to help the allies in battles in Africa and Europe. Other Muslims were brought from India by British forces. Laidi Parjou also reminds that no Muslim country stood by the Nazi regime's side. Even Turkey, that had close ties to Germany, was neutral. The Moroccan columnist concludes by saying that if Muslims are omitted in certain parts of history, their graves in different European cemeteries are still there to remind that they, too, fought to free Europe.
Read the original editorial: Bush ou le droit de mémoire
Posted 12:45 AM | Comments (0)
May 22, 2005
POSADA CARRILES, BUSH AND ITALY
“Posada Carriles and us” is the title Maurizio Matteuzzi chose for his article on the Leftist Italian newspaper Il Manifesto. The piece talks about the anti-Castro militant’s request for political asylum to the U.s. , where he was under arrest during 48 hours last Tuesday (for illegal immigration). Italy, too - says the author - could play a role in handling this difficult situation.
Matteuzzi points out that Posada Carriles case is a “hot potato” the American president doesn’t know how to deal with, because the Venezuelan is at the same time a former CIA “friend” and a terrorist, responsible for several attacks against Cuba and its people (but, still, a terrorist).
“Bush can’t grant Posada Carriles the asylum – states Matteuzzi- it would be a scandal. Giving him to a European country, like Italy, would be the best solution ”. Italy, among the Eu nations, is the one which would be most interested in prosecuting Posada Carriles for terrorism because an Italian citizen, Fabio di Celmo, got killed in 1997 in one of Posada’s bomb attacks.
The Italian government, though, hasn’t shown any signs of interest and made no request for extradition to the U.s. so far.
The journalist foresees a future scandal arising in Italy out of Berlusconi’s lack of interest. What's more, according to Matteuzzi, the Italian premier could well help his friend Bush, but he might decide not to do it now that relations between the two countries are so bad, following the Calipari affair and Italy’s controversial announcements of withdrawal from Iraq.
Matteuzzi reminds the Italian readers that Bush is facing a hard dilemma with the Posada Carriles case and Castro knows it. “Bush senior – recalls the journalist – did not have the same problem when granting the asylum to Orlando Bosh, one of Posada Carriles’ friends and collegues. The double standard he followed to imprison or reward ‘bad’ or ‘good’ terrorists is no longer applicable after September 11”.
Posted 02:08 AM | Comments (0)
May 20, 2005
Chinese textile producers worry about US protectionnism
Xinhua, the government-run Chinese newswire agency, provides in the following story a sample of reactions among Chinese textile businessmen, after the US reintroduced trade barriers against Chinese imports in the textile and garment sectors. Trade had been liberalized on January 1st, according to the rules of the WTO that the US and European governments had agreed upon ten years ago. But the sudden surge of Chinese imports seems to have taken the US and Europe by surprise. The textile and garment industries have lobbied successfully with the Bush administration to have the limits reintroduced. The Chinese now seem themselves taken by surprise in front of these protectionnist tensions abroad.
BEIJING, May 20 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese textile producers are adjusting their development strategies after the United States said Wednesday it would impose new limits on imports of clothing from China. Wednesday's announcement was the second time in five days that Washington imposed such quotas, acting on complaints that a surge of Chinese apparel was hurting U.S. companies. The new batch of Chinese goods facing restrictions are men's and boy's cotton and man-made fiber shirts; man-made fiber trousers; man-made fiber knit shirts and blouses; and combed cotton yarn. Shipments of Chinese textiles and apparel to the U.S. have surged since the end of global quotas Jan.1.
On Friday, the United States said it was re-imposing quotas on three categories of clothing imports from China, including cotton trousers, cotton knit shirts and underwear. It was not clear how many Chinese textile companies would be affected, and many businessmen in Zhejiang, China's famous textile production province, were highly concerned. "We are discussing the latest situation," said Han Licheng, secretary of the Zhejiang Provincial Clothing Association, "Two textile magnates have rushed to my office for a closed-door discussion after the United States declared its decision." In Wenzhou, a booming business center in Zhejiang, about one third of local enterprises are engaged in textile exports, of which one third target European countries and the United States, said Ni Xueshan, director of the cotton textile branch of the Wenzhou Clothing Chamber. Ni believed the US quotas will have two direct results. Some Chinese enterprises will first export the textiles to a third country to evade the quotas, not only increasing Chinese companies' cost, but also making US investors, retailers and consumers pay more, he said. The new quotas might bring great pressure to the Chinese domestic textile industry and some small companies will face closedowns, triggering more unemployment, he said. The bad news had wings at Zhili, a township famous for the children apparel, in Huzhou, a city in Zhejiang Province, soon after it was declared. The township is home to 5,700-plus children apparel enterprises, about 21 percent of the domestic market. The township reported an annual production of 150 million pieces (suits) and an annual production value of 3.5 billion yuan (421,69 million US dollars). Since April this year, less foreign businessmen have come to the town for business talks and many local businessmen were nervous about phone calls, praying they were not bringing order cancellations, said Jiang Guoliang, a manager with the Wobao Children Apparel Company. "It's of no use blaming the quotas or praying, the situation has already changed and the only thing we can do is to adjust strategies to minimize the impacts the quotas will bring to us," said Jin Changyi, general manager of the Jinqiu (Golden Globe) Textile Company in Hangzhou, capital of Zhejiang Province. His company exported about 300,000 to 400,000 pieces of cotton and silk clothes each year, including 50,000 pieces to the United States, most of which were children's clothes. "From the beginning of the year, we have received fewer orders from Europe and the United States. The US quotas have brought us difficulties," Jin said. Some enterprises are planning to enlarge markets in the Middle East and the America and increase the share of silk products exports. Many companies are considering improving the quality instead of the quantity of their products. "When blaming the United States' unfair trade principles, we should learn to win both domestic and overseas markets. Our company will not abandon our exports, worth of 20 to 30 million of US dollars each year, and meanwhile the overseas business partners will not let us go easily for our reliable quality and prices," said Xu Zhongping, sales manager of the Qiuyinong Company Limited in Hangzhou. "China's enterprises should not only focus on quantity, but also work hard to improve quality," he said.
Posted 01:34 AM | Comments (0)
Chinese experts: US politicizes the currency issue
The US Treasury, in its twice-yearly report to Congress on exchange rates and trade, put Beijing on notice that it expected a revaluation of the Chinese currency (renminbi or yuan) within six months, in order to reduce the US trade deficit with China.
Financial experts in China accuse the US of trying to politicize the issue. "This is an old trick of the US to make currency politicized", said Li Yang, head of the Institute of Finance at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Yi Xianrong, of the same Institute, said that the labor cost gap between China and the US is so huge that even if the renminbi is revalued by 50% or 100% (which is not realistic) the competitiveness of "made in China" products would not decrease enough to have a significant impact on bilateral trade. Professor Zhou Shijian, a senior trade expert from the Beijing-based Chinese Association for American Studies, also said that a revaluation of the yuan will not affect the US trade deficit. Li Jiange, deputy director of the Development and research center of the State council (a governmental institution) said "it's unrealistic for the US to solve its own problems by way of forcing other currencies to revaluate". He added that China's savings rate is two to three times that of the US and even if its trade deficit with China is removed, it will be exhibited in trade with other countries.
Posted 12:54 AM | Comments (0)
May 19, 2005
A British MP who does not bow before the US Senate
George Galloway’s declarations to the U.S. Senate committee on Foreign Affairs are everywhere in the U.S. media (see here and here).
Comments in the foreign media abound like this one found in the Deccan Herald (“An institution that has completed 50 glorious years of chronicling the joys and sorrows of the people of Karnataka, India and the world.”):
The US Senate hearings are dignified affairs and those called, appear before it with great reverence. It can affect the careers of politicians and administration officials. Even a foreign head of state such as Afghanistan’s Hameed Karzai, sat below the level of his US interrogators and answered questions politely.Mr Galloway is made of sterner stuff, having survived the rough and tumble of British politics. At the end of the hearing, his accusers didn’t know what hit them. The piece of political theatre witnessed in a dignified chamber of Capitol Hill proved that there is one thing that the British still do well.
Posted 10:41 PM | Comments (0)
Sixty Percent American and Calling Bush an Asshole
The controversial Danish film director Lars von Trier this Monday premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in France with his film “Mandalay” in the competition for the prestigious Golden Palm. His film set in the 1930s is about slavery and racism in the United States, a country von Trier never visited but still feels part of.
This film is the second part of his trilogy about the U.S. – the first film was “Dogville” starring Nicole Kidman. Von Trier decided to set "Mandalay" in the U.S. because its culture is so dominant, he said according to the Washington Post.
"America is kind of sitting on the world. There's no question about it. It's sitting on the world, and therefore, I'm making films that have to do with America, because America fills about 60 percent of my brain… And I'm not very happy about that. Sixty percent of my life is America, so in fact, I am an American. But I can't go there to vote. I can't change anything because I'm from a small country, and we sit there and be American.”
as David Germain quotes von Trier for saying in his May 16 article in the Washington Post. He continues quoting von Trier:
"We are a nation under the influence, and I think under the very bad influence, from America I would say right now; also because I think Mr. Bush is … an asshole that is... doing a lot of completely idiotic things."However, the words "an asshole that is” is not part of Germain’s quote in the Washington Post article. Supposedly, it is inappropriate to use such a word in the WP, at least while speaking of the President.
In Denmark, however, the very fact that von Trier used the word “asshole” to describe George Bush immediately became a lead story in the media and provoked headlines such as “Trier: Bush is an Asshole”, found similar in Swedish newspapers.
This story is interesting for two reasons. First, American culture seemingly can come to dominate foreigners’ identity, but these affected foreigners do not feel able to influence America back, and that creates frustration and in some cases even hate. Von Trier is a good example of that. Ironically, he now is influencing America back through this trilogy. Second, why can’t an American newspaper quote a prominent cultural personality for calling the U.S. President an asshole? Isn’t that kind of censorship compromising the freedom of speech? And isn’t this very provocation a worthy news story in itself?
Last year, Michael Moore won the Golden Palm for his Bush-bashing “Fahrenheit-911”. If Trier wins this year’s Palm an interesting pattern might be evolving. It’s not a favorite, though.
Posted 02:06 AM | Comments (1)
May 18, 2005
Abu Ghraib's sentence
Sabrina Harman, the woman soldier who we saw in the horrifying photographies in the Abu Ghraib’s prison, while she was applying electrodes on hooded prisoner, has been sentenced to six months for torture. Just six months? The Italians newspapers are asking.
L’Unità, a historical journal from the Left, for a long time the principal voice of the Communist Party, has titled the article on the site web: “Tortures at Abu Ghraib’s prison just six months for the elettroshock’s woman soldier”. The article continue to adopt a guilty position: “The court has decided for her one of the lighter punishment for the Abu Ghraib’s abuse.: six months. Six months of punishment!Not mention that Harman has been also found guilty of antoher emblematic episode that well describes the climate of torture and abuse in the Abu Ghraib’s prison: the elettroshock of a hooded prisoner”.
Also Repubblica, the second most sold newspaper in Italy, politically form the Left, chose a guilty position titled: “Tortures at Abu Ghraib’s prison, just six months for the human pyramid’s woman soldier”. After saying that the punishment has been very light, the journal comments: “Harman risked a five and half year sentence: ten more than the penalty inflicted on her. The prosevcution asked for three years. Considering the time that she has already spent in prison, the woman soldier will be free before the end of summer”.
Also a traditional moderate newspaper like ‘Corriere della Sera’, the most popular in Italy, has also considered with more caution the punishment inflicted as inadequate: “Six months of prison. This is the sentence, wich is far from heavy that has been passed on the woman soldier Sabrina Harman”.
Finally, it is important to look at the position of Ansa, the most important Press Agency in Italy. If isn’t strange the approach hold by italian newspapers, and the confidence treating the news, it’s surprising that the Ansa take the same. “Tortures at Abu Ghraib, light judgment for Sabrina”. This is the title of the article, that continues to say: “The woman soldier Sabrina Harman, one of the ‘jailer’ of Abu Ghraib’s prison, has been sentenced to just six months of imprisonment…”.
From the Italian media emerges and an veiled judgment towards American military justice. It’s easy to presume that this attitude came from Calipari’s gate that has demonstrated how the USA are always ready to justify the actions and the mistakes of their soldiers. Who are sent to a certain defeat and are not prepared for uncontrollable wars, and have no fear of punishment.
Posted 09:09 AM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2005
Trade War Continued
Chinese people like America, and they hate her, too. Many people in the other parts of the world share the smae emotion: love and hate simultaneously. More than one year ago, there was an article on Newsweek titled China, Trade And Progress, by Robert J. Samuelson. It began with F. Scott Fitzgerald's words, "The test of a first-class mind is the ability to hold two opposing views...at the same time". This was used to describe the reality of people's life and economic development in China.
The reason of this article being written was the trade complaint by AFL-CIO against China."The AFL-CIO says that repressive labor practices have depressed China's factory wages by 47 percent to 86 percent, lowered the prices of Chinese exports and cumulatively cost avout 727,000 U.S. jobs."
Now, one year later, on May 13, 2005 the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) today announced affirmative decisions in three self-initiated textile safeguard cases:cotton knit shirts and blouses (Category 338/339), cotton trousers (Category 347/348), and cotton and man-made fiber underwear (Category 352/652).
“Today CITA announced its decision to invoke textile safeguards based on market disruption and threat of market disruption due to the magnitude of increases in textile imports from China and China’s significant capacity to increase production and exports to the United States in these product categories,” said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.(http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretary_Gutierrez/2005_Releases/May/13_CITA.htm)
Beijing reacts angrily as it uesd to in the past years. China's Ministry of Commerce immediately voiced its strong opposition to this decision, which it said had "run counter to World Trade Organization's agreements" and "set a very bad precedent."
Also,Textile manufacturers and exporters in China said on Sunday that they were outraged by the "hasty and unwise" decision of the United States to re-impose quotas on imports of three types of Chinese clothing, warning that such a decision would hurt both sides badly.(http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/newsrelease/commonnews/200505/20050500091422.html)
As a student major in Journalism in a business school in Shanghai, this conflicts between China and the U.S. is something common Chinese could not ignore but don't know how to do with it. Chinese know much more about the U.S. and the American life style than Americans do about China. This is inevitable as U.S. is the center of globalization. Most of the value and culture being spread in the wave of globalization are something about the American way of life.
The official media always say that Washington sitll thinks and acts when dealing with China as they did in the Cold War period, which means U.S. still feel very uncomfortable about China being a communist party.Wall Street Journal always say PRC(People's Republic of China) is governed in dictatorship.
However, a letter written by an Italian reader published on the April issue of Bloomberg Market said that China may become the biggest democratic power in the world. The author argued that China is nuturing its economy and democracy using dictatorship, just as Japan, Taiwan, Singapore did before.
People may laugh at that idea. Ridiculous? Not necessary. China is a country with thousands of years of history and culture. Chinese, however, are more influenced by other culture than its own due to historical reasons, such as Culture Revolution.
If one day, you try travel over China by train from one city to another city, every now and then, you will see bunch of people sitting together, discussing politics, both domestic and international. Deng Xiao Ping was a great man, who let Chinese people being able to see the whole world, through the media and pirate VCD, DVD. This is part of the plan. The government and the Party and the people are just players, Mr. Deng meant to let every player realize their own stakes and rights and gradually know how to fight for them. By implement the Reform and Open Policy and make the policy continue to be effective in the following years even after his death, Mr. Deng is changing the whole scenario of China. The key for Deng to implement was dictatorship.
No matter what, we are witnesses of the history, Chinese like America, the democracy and outstanding system of the society; Chinese hate America too sometimes, due to ideological problems. "We've got two opposing ideas on the brain, and- as Fitzgerald said- somehow we've still got to function."
Posted 12:48 AM | Comments (0)
May 14, 2005
Anti-U.S. protests all over the Muslim world after incident in Guantanamo
Flags burned, protests, people in the streets. Anger against the U.S. is back again.
Everything started when Newsweek reported in its May 9 edition that investigators at the prison of Guantanamo "had placed Korans on toilets, and in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet".
All this fueled by new allegations of sexual abuse and degrading treatment of the prisoners.
The result?
In Afghanistan, violent anti-U.S. protest caused the death of sixteen Afghans and about 100 were injured.
In Lebanon, the Hezbollah denounced the act, describing it as the U.S. targeting again the Muslim nation without any respect for sacred symbols.
The Lybian leader Moammar Kadhafi warned of the consequences of his terrible event.
Thousands took to the streets in Palestine, Pakistan and Indonesia.
Many leaders of diverse organizations across the Muslim world asked the United States to apologize to Muslims for the desecration of the Koran. An Afghan newspaper said Saturday that the incident "has only strengthened the hands of fanatics and undermined efforts to build democracy".
U.S. officials launched an investigation and said disrespect for the Koran would not be tolerated.
In the Jakarta Post: Guantanamo case angers RI Muslims
In The Washington Post: Pentagon Probes Detainee Reports Of Koran Dumping
Posted 01:29 AM | Comments (0)
May 12, 2005
Mexico and U.S. “anti migrants measures”
On the official side, President Vicente Fox declared that Mexico would formally protest for the building of a new wall between his country and the United States.
The decision was part of a bill unanimously adopted by the Senate on Wednesday May 11th, and should be signed into law before the end of the month.
Mainly conceived to bring support to American troops overseas, the bill includes a set of immigration related measures. The most important is known as the “Real ID Act” and will require states to check the citizenship or legal residence of any applicant for a driver’s license (the most important document for undocumented immigrants).
The daily Reforma (subscription required) published the information on its front page, under the title “The US approves anti migrants measures.”
Without comments, another story ran on the side that showed how the country lives out of the remittances sent by these very migrants. They grew almost 200 percent in the last five years, and are essential to the survival of 1,6 million homes.
“Mexican families receive a significant income which, in many cases, has helped fight poverty and is the most important source of income for whole regions” declared Raúl Feliz, a researcher quoted by the newspaper.
For the newspaper, they are considered a pillar of the national economy and a factor of financial and social stability for the country.
Coming after Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent support of Minutemen chasing migrants who cross the border in Arizona, the bill contributes to a deep sense of indignation in many very moderate and even pro-American Mexicans.
Posted 06:53 PM | Comments (0)
May 11, 2005
Bush ambivalant on what it takes to be a leader
Bush came, he saw and thank goodness he went away again. On his grand tour of Europe Bush also stopped by the Netherlands on the 7th and 8th of May, in order to attend a memorial service for American casualties in World War II.
Apart from enormous traffic chaos and several anti-Bush demonstrations, the visit went by without any major disturbances. But a visit by a foreign dignitary, especially an American President, is always a dream come true for pollsters. And so it was that we learnt that one third of Dutch people were against Bush´s visit to The Netherlands.
30 % of the population thought it was within the limits of propriety to demonstrate against Bush during the WWII commemoration service. Some people had even started legal proceedings to stop the visit, but the judge ruled that nothing could be done.
Polls evidently mean little to President Bush though. Before coming to the Netherlands Bush was interviewed by Dutch television. Confronted with the fact that many Dutch people oppose his international policies, he remarked that
"(This) doesn't frustrate me. I make decisions on what I think is right. That's what leaders do. The other day in a press conference I was asked about polls here in America. I said, a leader who tries to lead based upon polls is like a dog chasing his tail. That's not how you lead. No, I feel comfortable with the decisions I've made."
But only minutes later, when asked whether he disapproved of the Dutch liberal policies concerning euthanasia, gay marriage and abortion, Bush seemed to come back on his theory of leadership:
"Holland is a free country. It's a country where the people get to decide the policy. The government just reflects the will of the people. That's what democracies are all about. And that's what -- that's why we should continue to work for common interest to support government of the people, not government that dictates to people. And so if that's what the people of Holland want, that's what the government should reflect."
Now which is it Mr. President? Should a leader lead, or should a leader follow?
Posted 08:14 AM | Comments (0)
May 10, 2005
Bush's views on Yalta are shared by East Europeans
During the official celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the victory against Nazism, Bush condemned the Yalta agreement that divided Europe into two spheres of influence. For many Eastern Europeans the end of Nazi occupation was not the beginning of an era of freedom but the beginning of another occupation by the Soviet Union. Barbara Spinelli, the authoritative editorialist of the Italian daily newspaper La Stampa, writes a front page column where she explains, among other issues, why Eastern Europeans share George Bush's views. "Often times - writes Ms Spinelli - the Eastern European nations are considered as being pro-American, and therefore (Western European countries believe that) it is impossible to build a powerful Union with them. But their being pro-American does not always mean that they are anti-European. Most of all they deeply distrust Russia, because Russia's historical memory is disconnected from reality. Russia has not begun an authentic critical reappraisal of the Soviet myths".
Posted 01:18 AM | Comments (0)
May 09, 2005
Islam and the U.S., again
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an entry on the conference "Democracy and global Islam" organized by the IGS and other institutions at UC Berkeley, that gathered a number of experts, academics and government officials.
During this day-long conference, among other interesting themes, Bruce Cain, Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, challenged speakers at one of the panels on the influence of social problems in European countries -mostly the conflicts due to religious differences- on America. "Is the U.S. paying the price for cultural problems lived by Europeans?"
Gunter Mulack, a high official from Germany, responsible for dialogue with the Muslim community, disagreed. For him, it is true that Europeans have lived a number of issued related to the Muslim community but "as Europeans, we believe in soft power", he said.
Mr. Mulack explained that for him, U.S. foreign policy created problems and "injustice, very much felt in the Muslim world". "The decision to occupy Iraq and the way the war was conducted in Afghanistan created a huge feeling of humiliation for Muslims".
Humiliation creates frustration. Frustration creates rejection. But surprisingly, the rejection in this case is only about one aspect of the U.S.: its politics. "The Americans are responsible for the outcomes of their own policy" said Mr. Mulack.
French scholar Olivier Roy replied saying that "radicalisation is a result of deculturation, not of the policy in the Middle-East". But for Mark Levine, Professor at UC Davis, Muslims' attitude towards America is to be seen beyond cliches and stereotypes. What was interesting for him was to see how Muslims around the world adapt the American culture to their everyday. Who would guess for exemple that on "Mecca Avenue" in Damas, you would see a huge advertisement for TV show "Sex and the city"?
Posted 10:41 PM | Comments (0)
May 06, 2005
How to mystify history
On April 25, Italy observed Liberation Day. All Italian cities and villages, a great majority of them flying red (Communist) flags, to celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II and Italy’s liberation from Nazism and Fascism. More than ever it was a celebration of the rhetoric of the WWII Italian resistance movement. But more important, it was yet another mystification of history in the name of open anti-Americanism, for the following reasons:
* When in northern Italy the so-called “resistants” decided to fight against German occupation and Mussolini, the war was already effectively at an end, thanks to American and allied troops (from England, France, and Poland). By that time, the Allies had already conquered three-quarters of the country, from the south moving northward, and the front, the so-called “Linea Gotica,” was already established in the north near Bologna.
* What is today considered the liberation of Italy is therefore actually only the liberation of northern cities like Turin, Milan, Genoa, and Venice. This liberation of the north is celebrated as the liberation of the whole of Italy.
* In celebrating on April 25 the victory over Mussolini and Hitler, today’s Left does not mention that among the “resistants” there were also, besides the Communists, other parties such as Republicans, Christian Democrats, and Socialists, as well as priests, workers, and civilians. The all looked forward to the arrival of the Americans—considered to be the real “liberators.”
* Media accounts (with a few exceptions, like the news magazine Libero and journalist Filippo D’Acquarone at TG4), history textbooks, and Liberation Day’s solemn speeches do not mention that if it were not for the Americans and their Allies, we Italians would presently be living under a dictatorship of either Communism or Nazism. In fact, it was the Americans who for more than a year supplied the “resistants” with food and weapons.
Posted 10:42 PM | Comments (1)
May 05, 2005
In Morocco, contradictions and American culture
America intrigues. It is the case for most of the countries all over the world. But in my country, Morocco, often, people's impressions are more complex than just attraction or rejection. In people's minds, there are too many things that make America a passionate theme. You can see it everywhere, even in unexpected places like…billboards.
A story published in weekly news magazine Tel Quel relates the American influences in the streets of Morocco.
A photograph named Abdelkrim Raddadi has worked for 20 years on the desensitization of the "American way of life" in Morocco, through photographs of billboards. His exhibition in Casablanca is really revealing of the contrasts in a society where people are as much pro-Americans as anti-Bush’s policy.
Because, yes, Moroccans, as other citizens in the Arab world, blame the U.S. for the war in Iraq for example. But the U.S. is not only that enormous empire attacking a “brother country”, molesting Muslims since 9/11 and helping the “Zionists” to kick Palestinians out of their homes and land.
America is, before everything, an empire of dreams; an ambiguous mix of Las Vegas, Miami and Hollywood.
Tel Quel’s reporter Hassan Hamdani says: America is everywhere, in each corner. From the names of shops to the children’s clothes. But for Hamdani, it’s not the American culture, but sub-culture, “often even a white-trash America”.
As a person who was born and raised in Morocco, I can say that even in a country where half of the population is illiterate, people recognize the American symbols: the American flag, certain brand names, franchise fast foods, etc. A real exception, according to Raddadi, who says he never saw that absorption of the American culture in another Arab country.
The American dream is still vivid in a country like Morocco. One evidence denies all the accusations of Anti-Americanism: the number of people, of my generation or older, standing everyday in line waiting for an American visa.
Posted 11:25 PM | Comments (0)
EU or US? Czech Republic's 1st Year Back in Europe
Jeremy Druker is the executive director and editor-in-chief of Transitions Online (www.tol.cz), an Internet newsmagazine covering Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the former Soviet Union. He submitted this comment from Prague.
As the Czech Republic celebrates its first anniversary of membership in the European Union this month, the country’s press has been full of reflections on the changes—as well as lack of them—that the last year has actually wrought. One area, however, where little has changed is in the country’s relations with the United States, or in how most Czechs view America.
Foreign policy pundits worried that the country, like other members of the “new” Europe, would be a “monkey in the middle,” caught between its obligations to the European Union and to its long-time friends in the United States-on issues such as Iraq and the International Criminal Court. And yes, politicians may have to dance a bit more gingerly with Washington, as they try to balance U.S. and European interests, but they were already doing that in the years leading up to entry-careful of doing anything to threaten accession and dreamed of West European living standards.
But ordinary Czechs have not suddenly felt closer to Brussels since entering its embrace. They have not discarded their general affinity for the U.S. in favor of closer relations with France, Germany, and the rest of the EU. The population actually tends to take good relations with America for granted. Safely anchored in NATO, hungry for German tourist dollars rather than fearful of Germany, and 15 years removed from the Soviet bloc, the country does not have any immediate threats to warrant an over-dependence on Washington. There may also be an unexpressed feeling, a carryover from the years when Vaclav Havel led the country, that the Czech Republic still has friends in high places in the United States.
In fact, most Czechs only think about the country's relations with the US when a high representative visits Washington-and that doesn't happen often. Most recently it was President Vaclav Klaus, garnering front-page headlines because the White House had pointedly not invited Klaus for a visit after a well-publicized spat with the American ambassador in Prague. (The ambassador at the time apparently had not exactly appreciated Klaus's opposition to the war in Iraq). But a few weeks ago, in early March, Klaus--as egotistical a foreign leader as you will ever come across--abruptly received an invitation while on a private trip to the U.S. And a few days later, he had his photo op with Bush.
Czech newspaper columnists debated the reasons why the cold shoulder had suddenly melted, with some throwing out the far-fetched notion that the White House was trying to make up for an embarrassing error on its website, when a caption on a photo mixed up Klaus with Slovak President Ivan Gasparovic. Other writers reminded their audiences not to personalize U.S.-Czech relations too much.
“The American president in [the person of] Vaclav Klaus received above all the Czech Republic, which is…a close friend and ally of the United States,' ” wrote Daniel Anyz in the daily Mlada fronta DNES (www.mfdnes.cz). His colleague Milan Vodicka went further in another column: “The country, it is true, didn't agree with the war in Iraq, but sent there its soldiers-and also to Afghanistan. It does what it can. It is an ally that made clear that when America needs it, it will be there--even when it grumbles. Czechs are like that.”
Mlada fronta's political leanings are rather in the center or center-right, but left-wing papers likewise value the importance of healing transatlantic relations. In an editorial, Pravo (www.pravo.cz), once the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, placed Klaus's visit in the context of a series of American meetings with European leaders that had "as their task overcoming disputes between allies over the war in Iraq." The paper judged that Bush and Klaus had moved beyond their differences of opinion and could focus on other points on the agenda--“for instance, one theme that the Czech public watches especially closely: easing tourist travel to the U.S. by simplifying the granting of visas."
If polls around the anniversary of accession show declining empathy toward America, those figures will have little to do with the European Union and much to do with the US administration's unilateral approach to problem-solving, the war in Iraq, and overall trepidation about having a single superpower. Some polls in other Central European countries have indicated that more people now want the EU to act more like a superpower counterweight to the American ogre, but that type of data isn't yet available here.
But when pressed, even though they may certainly grumble more than they did a decade ago, most Czechs would probably say almost nothing has changed in the way they view America--European Union or not. The reality of being back in Europe and now a part of the European project does not seem to have had a corollary of transforming feelings toward the U.S.
You've got some people here that love everything American, no matter what, and you've got others who think Americans are a bunch of hypocritical, conceited, wanna-be world rulers, no matter what. In the long-term, here as in the rest of Central Europe, it's the people in the middle that the administration should be worried about.
Posted 10:53 PM | Comments (0)
Berlusconi under pressure for French newspapers
The relashionship between Italy and the US, and especially between Silvio Berlusconi and Georges W. Bush may turn bad. After "the inquiry by US authorities about the fatal shooting of an Italian official in Iraq on March 4 (Mr Nicola Calipari, who was escorting the recently liberated hostage Giuliana Sgrena) has ended without admitting any responsibility or mistake on behalf of the US patrol on duty that night nearby the Baghdad airport", as Federico Rampini wrote in his article "Italy Feels humiliated by the US", Silvio Berlusconi said today that "no will (to shoot)doesn't mean no responscabilities", wrote the French daily Le Figaro.
M. Berlusconi still added that "the friendship between Italy and the US cannot be questionned. I want to clear up a possible misunderstanding: there is no link between the homicide of Calipari and our mission in Iraq."
M. Berlusconi also said that if Italy withdraw its troups from Iraq, it will only be after a consultation with the US government.
The intervention of M. Berlusconi happened after that another report, this one italian, said that the tragedy is the result of "inadequate precautions" and of "instinctives reactions" linked with "the tension of the circumstances and probably a high level of inexperience and stress" for soldiers who were "all reservists", as underline the French daily L'Humanite.
Moreover, a large majority of Italians want to put an end to the Italian presence in Iraq. M. Berlusconi doesn't ignore this pression, and will have now to find a balance between it and his friendship with George W. Bush, which will suffer for sure from this tragedy.
Posted 04:05 PM | Comments (0)
Berlusconi: the US "guilty"
The Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, gave a speech to the Senate on May 5 to address the issue of the relationship between his country and the US, after the death of an Italian official killed by a US patrol in Baghdad. Mr Berlusconi recognised that the Italian and the US version of the shooting are irreconcilably different. According to La Repubblica he said that the US soldiers are "guilty" for that shooting, although he added that the killing of Mr Nicola Calipari could not be viewed as a "crime". Mr Berlusconi also declared that there is no reason to withdraw Italian troops from Iraq, and that the friendship between Italy and the US will endure. Italy's opposition parties, and also some parties of the center-right majority that support Berlusconi's government, have repeatedly asked that the US offer at least their apologies for Mr Calipari's death. The Bush Administration has offered condoleances, but has refused to apologize.
Posted 03:54 PM | Comments (0)
Italy feels humiliated by the US
The inquiry by US authorities about the fatal shooting of an Italian official in Iraq on March 4 (Mr Nicola Calipari, who was escorting the recently liberated hostage Giuliana Sgrena) has ended without admitting any responsibility or mistake on behalf of the US patrol on duty that night nearby the Baghdad airport. Even the moderate-to-conservative daily newspaper Il Corriere della Sera reacts strongly. A front page editorial by the political science scholar Ernesto Galli della Loggia, on May 4, goes under the headline "Questa America non ci piace", i.e. "We do not like this America".
Translated excerpts from Mr Galli della Loggia front page editorial.
"The essential fact is that Nicola Calipari was killed by a US soldier. He had not done any wrong, perhaps he was only guilty(we have to underline this "perhaps") of being on a car that did not stop quickly enough at a checkpoint".
"Washington should know that it is not easy to be America's allies. Because of the power gap the ally can often look like a servant. In order to avoid this, it is necessary that Washington cares about the feelings of the public opinion in the allied country, including the feeling of national dignity. A country that wants to be the world leader should be able to care. During the cold war US presidents like Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were able to care". www.corriere.it
Posted 03:41 PM | Comments (0)
US Double-Standards on Nuclear Issue
With discussions going on at the United Nations in New York about how to reform the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT), the very treaty itself seems to be under severe challenge. A number of countries, including Iran, are actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while those who already possess ‘the bomb’ are making efforts to modernize and improve their arsenals.
Commenting on the matter on May 3, Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s biggest daily newspaper, argues that, although the loophole design of the NPT must be remedied, the treaty itself is not the main problem:
“The real problem is the injustice inherent in today's disarmament policy, which gives to some what is denied to others.”
The division between nuclear haves and nuclear have-nots was established by the NPT at its inception, recognizing five states (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) as legitimate holders of nuclear weapons. But the treaty’s article VI also states that the five nuclear powers must pursue to reduce and liquidate their arsenals, a provision without which such apparent inequality would have been politically impossible.
However, Dagens Nyheter argues that the willingness of the nuclear powers to abide by article VI and functionally disarm has been low:
“We have not seen any real disarmament and the reduction that has taken place has been too modest.”
Contrary to disarming, the United States and other nuclear weapons states are seeking to develop a new range of nuclear weapons, tailored after today’s needs and therefore considered more “usable”.
“This is a policy that makes it hard for the United States to argue with credibility that other states must relinquish nuclear weapons,” writes Dagens Nyheter. “If the United States argues in this way, it is hard to see why others will not argue likewise, and as long as they do, the spiral downwards will continue.”
Another Swedish daily, Östgötacorrespondenten, reports that Laila Freivalds, minister of foreign affairs of Sweden, when interviewed in New York on May 3, said that it was troubling that the United States demands a nuclear ban for other nations, such as Iran, while not setting a good example itself.
“One wishes that the United States would realize that showing a genuine interest in disarmament would be their best argument,” Freivalds said, referring to the discussions going on in New York.
The debate about nuclear weapons is a complicated one, but it seems clear that there are great risks in current developments, and that the nuclear states are partly to blame. The inequality inherent in the NPT was perhaps unavoidable, but it was thought of as a temporary measure, a compromise on the road to disarmament. By not reducing their arsenals in accordance with the treaty, the nuclear powers have upheld a double-standard and undermined the credility of the NPT, and by so doing, made effective disarmament even more difficult.
Moreover, the continued US commitment to nuclear weapons is likely to be viewed critically in many other nations, thereby contributing to negative perceptions of US foreign and security policy, especially in those countries that today are under heavy pressure to stop their nuclear programs.
Posted 04:43 AM | Comments (0)
May 04, 2005
Madrid-Massachusetts: Could the "gay-link" make us closer?
Sir, do you take this man to be your husband? Lady, do you take this woman to be your wife? Male-male and female-female weddings will be a common thing this summer in Spain. It is not likely to improve the relationship between George W. Bush and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, his Spanish counterpart.
The Socialist government has just passed a law that makes Spain the third country in the world to allow gay marriage with the same rights as heterosexuals, after Holland and Belgium. And many couples are now preparing to say: "sí quiero" (yes I do) to their long time non-recognised partners. Taxes, inheritance and even child adoption -which is only allowed in Holland- are some of the rights gay couples have finally accomplished in this country.
Though the bill still has to pass through Senate, where the Conservatives hold the mayority, it's taken for granted that the proposition will become law around this summer, as even if its rejected at the Upper House of the Spanish Parliament it has to return to the Congress again, where it has a secured mayority.
The move comes almost a year after the Supreme Court of Massachusetts allowed gay marriages in that state, the only one in the US that legally recognises homosexual unions. Could this become a link uniting both countries? Hardly, I'm afraid.
George W. Bush has clearly declared his firm opposition to this kind of weddings, and the Spanish decision will likely not improve the -little- sympathy the US president has for his Spanish counterpart José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.
Critics of gay marriage have also flourished in Spain, mostly in the ranks of the Catholic Church. The Church had recently lost a battle where it demanded that homosexual unions not be certified as “marriages” as it believed that only unions from the opposite sex could fully deserve such terminology.
Also, the Vatican, which has just welcomed a new Pope who has already
vowed to continue the same conservative line that defined John Paul II's papacy, hasn't waited long to condemn (once more) the Spanish leftist government for this measure. Colombian cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, president of the Family Council in the Vatican, said that gay-marriage is an "inhuman" law that amounts to the "destruction of the family". The Vatican also urged the Spanish civil servants not to accept carrying out gay marriages, which would infringe the law.
The main Spanish opposition party, the Partido Popular (PP) of former
president José María Aznar, a close friend of Bush, isn't happy, either. Only one of its members of parliament voted affirmatively for the law. And its new leader, Mariano Rajoy, hasn't yet condemned the "disobedience-appeal" of the Church. Some local mayors of his party have already announced that they won't marry gay couples.
Fortunately, though, it's quite possible that more US gay citizens will decide to spend their next holiday in Spain, doing much good to Spanish tourism and, probably, to the better understanding of both
countries, at least between the "liberal" members of them.
Posted 11:11 AM | Comments (0)
May 01, 2005
Democratic Change in the Former Soviet Union
By Grigory Yavlinsky
In our series on democratization in the former Soviet republics, we post a contribution by Grigory Yavlinsky, a well known political figure in Russia. As one of the most visible economic reformers in the Gorbachev period, he was the main author of the “500 day” program for economic transition. He has been the founder and leader of the "Yabloko" party (centrist liberal) and was a Presidential candidate in Russia.
All these three republics have something in common: they are post-Soviet states. All of them, as well as Russia and other post-Soviet states got caught in crony semi-criminal economic systems after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The political systems in all post-Soviet states, while formally democratic, are actually not democratic at all, since there is no public control over institutions of power and the polity is dominated by different but still very similar oligarchic elites.
As far as Kyrgyzstan is concerned, the revolution there did indeed happen under the banner of democracy. But those who came to power after the previous regime had been toppled still belong to the same “nomenklatura”, just to a different faction of it. It is not clear at all if they are going to build a truly democratic system. The eventual outcome may well turn out to be similar to that of Russia, where a democratic revolution in 1991 eventually ended up in “Termidor”, that is, in the retention of power by party-Soviet “nomenklatura”.
Ukraine might have seen bigger changes, which may be related to the fact that the country has had an experience for the past 15 years that was quite different from that of Russia, to say nothing of Kyrgyzstan. Firstly, both former presidents Kravchuk and Kuchma had been stressing that Ukraine belongs to Europe and they seem to have convinced the people of that. While neither of them actually took any meaningful steps to implement those “European values” in practice, the development of such sense of belonging to Europe has been a very important step in the formation of the Ukranian society. People realized that the existing system cannot lead to the goal they came to cherish, which is integration into Europe. Secondly, Russia has had 10 years of war in Chechnya (and still counting) and it experienced a terrible political conflict that could have easily escalated into Civil War in 1993. Ukraine has had nothing like that. Finally, Ukraine did not experience such a criminalized privatization as Russia did, nor did it have oil and gas resources that have no doubt contributed a lot to making the system in Russia hopelessly corrupt. Hence, the Ukrainians could create more diverse unofficial civic organizations than Russia, and this allowed them to organize and stand up against election fraud. Something similar also happened in Georgia, although the economic and socio-political situation there was even more desperate than in Ukraine because the previous regime had been more criminal and more oligarchic. I think we can say that the developments in Georgia and Ukraine do constitute steps toward democracy, although it is a little premature to say how far they will go in this direction.
I think that the events in those three republics suggest that the transition from the Soviet-type system to a democratic system is perhaps a multi-stage process. During the first stage a system that is no longer Soviet but not yet democratic either is created, some kind of a “gray zone”. The second stage is trying to get out of this “gray zone” by establishing the true division of power, freedom of speech, transparency of the political process and economic competition. If this kind of two-stage development is indeed general, then Russia will probably follow suit sooner or later, although it may happen in very different specific forms.
It may not be the right approach to talk about “contagion”. The events such as happened in those three republics are caused in each case by country-specific and deeply rooted causes, and they cannot be imposed from the outside. Russia today may not yet be ready for any change like that. Fundamentally, the current regime clearly cannot resolve basic political, social and economic problems of the country. But the Russian society currently seems to be stuck in a very passive, almost lethargic state, so it is very difficult to predict at this point what shape the civil protest against the semi-criminal system crippling Russia will take in the future.
Posted 03:14 PM | Comments (0)
Democracy working and not working in the post-Soviet republics
While the US foreign policy aims at strengthening democracy in the Middle East and in the world, recent popular mobilizations in favor of democracy in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgizstan appeared unexpected. Are there differences between democracy imposed from outside like in Iraq or from below by popular movements like in those countries? Are these genuine movements in favor of democracy or merely signs of dissatisfaction with existing regimes?
We have asked Serguey Braguinsky, one of the best known Russian economists to give his insights and comments on the recent changes in Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia .
1) Would you qualify the events in Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia as real and permanent democratic changes?
In my view it would be totally premature to speak about "real and permanent democratic changes" in all the three cases, although for different reasons.
In Kyrgyzstan, there was a popular revolt against an autocratic leader who had ruled the country ever since the Soviet Union collapsed and whose family members and other cronies usurped all political and economic power and apparently looted the country amidst wide-spread poverty. The election results were rigged to such an extent that it was impossible to guess what the actual people's will was even approximately. The structure of the new government, its ideology and the degree of commitment to democracy remain absolutely unclear.
In Georgia the ousted leader (Shevarnadze) was also corrupt and inefficient, but those who overthrew him were hand-picked and mentored in politics by him and had been his loyalists until they decided that they didn't need him any more. I am not sure there is much change there apart from personalities. The biggest challenge for the new government is how to deal with separatism in Abkhazia and South Osetiya, both of which, with almost open support from Russia have de facto become independent. After a few years of a bloody conflict Shevarnadze effectively dropped all attempts to reestablish Georgia's sovereignty over those breakaway republics, but the new leadership seems to be more radically nationalistic and this is a cause for concern (fortunately the action so far has been limited to rhetoric).
As for the Ukraine, the country had been split into two business and political clans (partly along the East-West division) all along. The "Eastern" clan that had been in power under former president Kuchma tried to foster its own commercial interests and the government was without any doubt extremely corrupt and inefficient. Its grip on power, however, was far from being absolute, so it never really came close to being a dictatorship. That could be seen even in the first election; although the vote counting was rigged, they could do as much as to throw in some extra 8-10% of votes for the pro-government candidate, and the power of the opposite clan was enough to challenge those results and win a decision to hold re-election. In contrast to Georgia, the re-election did not produce a landslide for Yushchenko but just a moderate margin of victory that was very much in line with what one could estimate from exit polls in the first election. This underscores the fact that the ousted clan still enjoyed the support of almost half of the population, especially in the ethnically Russian Eastern regions of the country. Most of my friends familiar with the situation hold the opinion that this was simply a clash between two politico-economic clans, neither of which is particularly committed to democracy or to eradicating corruption and inefficiency. However, the fact that the Yushchenko-Timoshenko clan had to enlist popular support and also Western support gives some hope that the country may make some headway toward a more democratic system in the long run.
As a general remark, the institutional change can happen only slowly and incrementally, so it would be totally unrealistic to expect "real and permanent democratic changes" to come out of a simple change in government. But the Ukranian case may contain the best long-term hope for such a change.
2) Are these events contagious?
It should be noted that all the three "revolutions" were triggered by national elections the date for which was determined by the Consitution. In this sense, they show that democracy is both not working and working in the post-Soviet republics. It is not working because instead of holding fair elections the ruling clans attempted to rig the results. It is working, however, because a popular revolt said "no" to this vote-rigging and because the transition of power did happen around the date determined by the Constitution, although it required street action to be implemented. In Russia, the next date set by the Constitution is 2008 when Putin will not be eligible for reelection (unless he attempts to change it, which by itself may trigger a revolt). In 2000 and 2004 there was undeniable vote-rigging but it did not affect the big picture as Putin clearly had the support of at least 60% of the voters. Especially in the 2004 elections the opposition simply disintegrated and, Hakamada's desperate run notwithstanding, there was not even a serious attempt to challenge Putin from the liberal, democratic flank. Since nothing is likely to happen until the next election in 2008 it is really hard to make any predictions at this point. It is not yet clear whether the ruling clan would be able to pick a unified candidate, and whether the ostracized oligarchs together with the liberal flank would be able to regroup and put forward a strong challenger. If they do and if there is a split among the ruling clan, then a situation similar to that in the Ukraine may play out. But this probably should not be called "contagion" anyway.
Posted 01:42 PM | Comments (0)