Breaking news from around the world

Tensions have intensified between the Western world and Russia and controversy still reigns over the ceasefire signed between Russia and Georgia. Cold War rhetoric has gone through the roof.

(Former) President Musharraf of Pakistan is no longer the leader. At last.

More soon!

Russia trying to topple Georgia's government?

It's a complicated situation in South Ossetia. Russia's fighting because she thinks some of her people are being oppressed in South Ossetia. Georgia is fighting to attempt to regain control of the region. The tensions are intensified because the two nations have been sabre-rattling for quite some time now. Questionable actions by the Georgian government have not helped. Russia's trying to act as regional police, but it's coming out looking like a regional bully.

Russia is escalating the conflict in the autonomous region of South Ossetia in Georgia, and moving into other parts of the former Soviet republic as well as the rest of the world's trying to get the two countries to cool things down.

Moscow said troops had raided the town of Senaki to destroy a military base before leaving again.

Georgia said Russian troops had also pushed into Georgia from South Ossetia itself, approaching the town of Gori.

The US president strongly criticised Russia, saying it might be planning to depose the Georgian government.

Correspondents say it was some of the strongest US language about Russia in years.

President Bush said he had talked to Russian Prime Minister Putin sometime around the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

Russia and Georgia have been going at it for years. It's gotten worse as of late. One only hopes a full-scale war can be averted.

Putin wins Russian election!

Wait, you may say, I thought Dmitry Medvedev won Russia's election today. True. But who is this mysterious Medvedev, who current President Vladimir Putin chose as his successor back in December. Simply put, Medvedev is a smaller version of Putin; he is the "nano-president".

As I said, Medvedev is slated to win the rigged election today.

Vladimir Putin's handpicked successor Dmitry Medvedev was cruising to an easy victory in Russia's presidential election Sunday, a result expected to give significant power to the outgoing president.

The Central Election Commission said that returns from 15 percent of Russia's electoral districts showed Medvedev with about 65 percent.

Some voters complained of pressure to cast ballots for Medvedev, and critics called the election a cynical stage show to ensure unbroken rule by Putin and his allies.

Sunday's vote came after a tightly controlled campaign and months of political maneuvering by Putin, who appeared determined to keep a strong hand on Russia's reins while maintaining while maintaining the basic trappings of electoral democracy and leaving the constitution intact.

Medvedev is expected to formally take over as president in May, and Putin has agreed to be his prime minister.

It will interesting to see Putin as PM. He will no doubt continue to weld power as presidential puppet-master. His popularity continues in Russia as he has brought the former Soviet republic new power by letting Russia's energy resources dominate his policy — petropolitics, it is called.

Major issues facing Russia right now are its relationship with the West, namely in terms of energy; its own economic diversification, including its hope to join the WTO; internal instability; the situation in the Balkans with Kosovo's new independence; the country's (limited) support for Iran, also straining relations with the West; and trouble Chechnya. The new president will also face increasing criticism in areas such as Iran and Russia's limiting of gas supplies to Ukraine. When you're dealing with Russia, many foreign policy issues deal with geopolitics.

An independent Kosovo

Angering Serbia and its allies, such as Russia, Kosovo, already a semi-autonomous province, proclaimed its independence from Serbia today, in a long-awaited move.

Kosovo's parliament has unanimously endorsed a declaration of independence from Serbia, in an historic session.
The declaration, read by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, said Kosovo would be a democratic country that respected the rights of all ethnic communities.

The US and a number of EU countries are expected to recognise Kosovo on Monday.

Serbia's PM denounced the US for helping create a "false state". Serbia's ally, Russia, called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting.

To understand the reasons for the Kosovo divide, one must understand the problems the former Yugoslavia faced, and is still facing right now (i.e. the Kosovo War).

This will add to the strain in relations between Russia and the West.

Russia's undemocratic election

So it looks like Putin has rigged — and won in — yet another Russian election. United Russia appears to have won the parliamentary election overwhelmingly, with turnout up to a suspiciously high 98-99% in some regions. There are many parallels being drawn between Putin's current authoritarian rule and the Soviet era. Come to think of it, Russia — like China — has never really been democratic.

The New York Times:

A day after his party secured an imposing victory in parliamentary elections, President Vladimir V. Putin today declared that the results were a “sign of trust” that had conferred new legitimacy on the government. But European monitors and opposition parties harshly criticized the balloting, saying that it had been neither free nor fair.

The final tally showed that Mr. Putin’s party, United Russia, received 64.1 percent, giving it roughly 315 seats in the 450-seat Duma, or lower house of Parliament, which would be enough votes to amend the constitution. Far behind was the Communist Party, with 11.6 percent, or 57 seats. Two other parties allied with Mr. Putin — the Liberal Democrats and Just Russia — are also to receive seats.
...
The end of the parliamentary campaign is expected to intensify discussion in Russia about who will be the next president. United Russia is holding a meeting in two weeks at which Mr. Putin might designate a candidate to run in the presidential election in March, and whoever he names will automatically be the front-runner.

Mr. Putin cannot run again because of a constitutional term limits, though United Russia’s strong performance on Sunday renewed speculation that he might ask the Parliament to amend the constitution.

If he does not, what he will do after March remains a mystery. He has said he wants to continue wielding influence over the nation, but how he will do that — and what his relationship will be with the next president — is unclear.

Even as Mr. Putin was hailing the election, European monitors on Monday were taking a different view, contending that there had been “a clear abuse of power and a clear violation of international commitments and standards.”
...
Luc van den Brande of Belgium, leader of the mission from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said Mr. Putin had improperly used the Kremlin to help United Russia. “There are a lot of concerns about the evolution of democracy in the country,” Mr. van den Brande said.
...
With the nationalistic Liberal Democratic Party clearing the 7 percent threshold to enter Parliament, one of its new leaders, Andrei K. Lugovoi, is expected to receive a seat.

Mr. Lugovoi is a former K.G.B. officer accused in Britain in the fatal radiation poisoning of Alexander V. Litvinenko. Britain has sought Mr. Lugovoi’s extradition, but Russia has refused. Once he enters Parliament, Mr. Lugovoi would have immunity from prosecution in Russia.
...
Overall in Russia, the turnout was about 63 percent.

After the rise of Putin and his ex-KGB buddies, it is no surprise Lugovoy, the prime suspect of an important murder investigation (Litvinenko, the Russian dissident and ex-spy killed mysteriously last year in London), is going to win a parliamentary seat, thus making him immune to any investigation.

Election results have been highly contested and the elections, like many of the happenings in modern day Russia, bare resemblance to those of the Soviet era.

President Putin recently replaced the prime minister with a man people know little about, but is suspected as being just another puppet for the president, who cannot run again this coming election as that would exceed term limits. Even though Putin may make an effort for the presidency during 2012 election, the Russian political elite is already working on a successor to the man who has transformed 'new Russia' into a power worthy of respect — or fear — because of its energy resources.

New Cold War spy scare

We already know that Russia's assertion of power — with its new, nuclear-strength megabomb; in the Middle East; the energy trade; the Arctic; and international relations in general — has been clumped into the notion of a 'new' Cold War. China has also been accused of hacking US government computers, in addition to its vast economic growth, heightened interest in what's going on in the world, and military claims (e.g. military expansion, anti-satellite missile launch). Who knew the two could be working in concert against American interest, employing espionage as much as they can? Well they are, says US National Intelligence director Michael McConnell.

Russia and China are spying on US facilities at close to Cold War levels, the head of US intelligence has warned.
...
US agencies are battling traditional state foes as well as terror groups, Mr McConnell told a congressional hearing.

Mr McConnell was defending new legislation allowing the US government to eavesdrop on international phone calls and emails without a warrant.

"Foreign intelligence information concerning the plans, activities and intentions of foreign powers and their agents is critical to protect the nation and preserve our security," Mr McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee.

The Protect America Act allows the government to eavesdrop on foreign communications, even if the recipient is a person living in the US.

These powers are due to expire in January unless Congress extends them.

The White House wants them made permanent.

I agree that the maintenance of national intelligence is essential. But the fact that McConnell says the civil liberties-invading wiretapping program is essential to maintaining national security shows the priorities of America's national security services are mixed up. Never mind that the majority of cargo entering the US by sea isn't checked or scanned at all, of course that would be a superfluous and unnecessary security precaution [sarcasm]! They already have Eschelon and FISA; there is little need for additional spy powers, especially if they're complaining about other nations' spying and there are more constitutional, down to earth, and effective policies waiting to be implemented!

The White House has gone beyond using the omnipresent terrorist enemy to get what it wants, it's invoking Cold War-era scare tactics now! 'They're spying on us, so we better spy on ourselves, and them, and everyone. No need for a warrant either...'

So not only are the terrorists of the world out to get America, but in addition to its usual enemies, two world powers are snooping like crazy. Some excuse for the even more scary spy program, the NSA wiretapping scheme legalized (sadly) by Congress earlier this year by a piece of legislation with the propaganda-esque name of the Protect America Act. (It better protect something, because it sure doesn't protect the Constitution!)

It's as if the Bush administration wants another excuse, namely a national security threat or new 'war', to expand its already over-extended powers.

What a magazine cover says about Putin's Russia

Does the cover of this week's Economist say a lot about Russia under Vladimir Putin?

Atmosphere of photo: Shady and mysterious.
Reality (of today's Russia): True.

Picture of Putin: Emotional status: happy (things are going his way), smiling and smug; empowered (clenched fist). [Is it me or is he quite James Bond-esque?]
Reality: True.

Other elements of cover spread: Secretive and of a deeper political complexity, (people working in the background, secretly... ignore the his fellow ex-KGB men working to help Russia); a new, brighter Russia under Putin.
Reality: True.

In my mind, this cover has a duel meaning. To show Putin as new, fresh, and alive is one of them, with the Soviet era behind him and his country. The other is that while Soviet Communism and all its horrors is gone, the men secretly working in the background might not be — the KGB was part of Soviet Russia, and it continues to be, operating under a new guise, in new clothes.

Maybe the editors at The Economist only intended the photo to illustrate a new Russian leader using old tricks; or perhaps they wanted to show that while Putin is alive, so are aspects of Russia's past. They even might have intended it to show both the old (black and white) Soviet era with Putin and his spies as an element of that, the duel meaning I interpret it as giving off. In short, maybe the cover shows Putin in the forefront and his spies behind him (in a way), or it just shows him with the past behind him.

Overall I think the cover touches most upon the 'neo-KGB state' the magazine fears Russia to be heading into, with Putin leading the charge for the supremacy of Russia, and of himself.

Bad Russia!

Russia has been vying for world news headlines. First it tries to steal the North Pole away from Santa (or so George W. Bush's thought process goes). Now Moscow has apparantly fired a missile at neighbor Georgia. Georgia, a former Soviet state in Central Asia, does not have the best of ties with Russia, with recent allegations ranging from energy bullying to spying to all-out imperialism echoing from Tbilisi.

Russia denies, well, everything bad it's been accused of: bullying states like Georgia and Estonia, making aggressive land grabs in the Arctic, cooperating with Iran (etc.), being close to genocidal in its own Chechnya, messing with Ukraine, covering up or even committing the murder of dissident Alexander Litvinenko and being uncivil with Britain about it, and killing and intimidating dissidents, including journalists, and much, much more.

Putin's Russia seems to be executing its authority on many fronts — domestic and foreign. And the outcome has largely been negative.

Update: Due to recent misconceptions about the message I hoped to convey with the title of this post, I would like to clarify what I meant by "Bad Russia!". As I said in a comment below... 'The "Bad Russia!" statement is the kind of attitude the West is holding towards Russia: treating it, in a way, like an insubordinate child.' In addition, Russia is acting out, perhaps rebelling on purpose, in its attempts to prove itself as a world power to be reckoned with [see this post].

Russia's continued icy relations

Russia breaks the ice with Canada... by annoying it
What does the latest update in the chilling relations between Russia and others (e.g. America, Britain, Georgia, Estonia, and now Canada) mean in the long term? As usual, the implications may be as murky as the waters of which Russia seeks control in the Arctic [see post].

Tit for tat
Russia is trying to show the world that, along with its new-found energy wealth, it has bigger muscles it can flex. Many recent Russian moves of rebellion are meant to distance itself from others and show it is strong enough on its own, or so the theory goes. The former Soviet nation has produced a few surprises, such as (apparently) calling Bush's bluff on the missile shields and proving more a bully than ever with its natural gas.

America and Russia don't look like they are in 'Cold War' mode (I agree with Condi Rice) — as some alarmists have speculated — but the rhetoric is clear: the White House thinks Russia is becoming a bullying autocracy; Russia views the United States as an overreaching imperial superpower. Both can learn from their own talking points.

The most powerful voice in the anti-Russia camp presiding in the Bush administration is none other than that of Vice President Cheney, who has traded jabs with Putin (sometimes similar personalities clash, I guess). Considering his the formidable power he welds in the executive, Cheney might convince Bush to toughen up. Whether that is happening remains to be seen.

We do know that Russia's antics over the past few years — cutting of gas and launching cyberwars against nations, killing and intimidating state opponents, rebelling against the West — do not look like they will stop anytime soon. Depending on the conditions, things may change with some diplomacy, direct or stealth.

The big freeze?
Just because Moscow has called the icy Arctic theirs doesn't mean relations will stay cold. They may turn frozen, or perhaps the thaw will come. Russia views itself as a new world player. It will take tact by western states to balance this new perceived world power seesaw, no matter how politically superficial it seems.

Russia might fear containment; both sides fear the other's overreach. A new article by the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov intended for publication in Foreign Affairs (no, it wasn't censored) tackles this issue.

Cooperation or mutual stubbornness is what it comes down to, but it takes two to tango. Both Russia and America, et al, impact their mutual relations. Both will have to fix them or face more diplomatic tension.

The red submarine: Russia's Arctic assertion

Moscow's icy declaration red-flagged
Russia has staked claim to the North Pole. With the blessing of the increasingly authoritarian government, a small Russian submarine operating for scientific purposes left a Russian flag under the pole. It is believed that the Arctic seabed holds vast natural energy resources. Recently Canada has also brought up Arctic land rights. All-out Russia v. Canada? I doubt it. More saber rattling between Russia and the West? Probably. Whether the Litvanyenko murder case, anti-missile shield plans, or the matter of who has owns the icy depths, and the energy-rich land on the bottom.

This comes at a time when the law of the sea, as well as other geographical rights, is under debate in the international community. Control of supposed international areas and outer space is a hot geopolitical topic that will result in many voices clamoring for their fair share in the goods.

However territorial claim to the far north is a settled issue, says Canada, with a claim of its own in the Arctic. I guess this falls under law of the seabed?

AFP:

Canada's top diplomat ridiculed Russia's flag-planting at the North Pole on Thursday as a "15th century" stunt that does not bolster its disputed claim to the resource-rich Arctic.
"Look, this isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the world and plant flags and say, 'We're claiming this territory,'" Foreign Minister Peter MacKay told broadcaster CTV.
Earlier, according to reports, a Russian mini-submarine reached the bottom of the Arctic Ocean under the North Pole at a depth of 4,261 metres (13,980 feet), to carry out scientific tests and leave a Russian flag.
The dive is believed to be the first of its kind and is part of a voyage that started on July 24. It aims to advance Russian claims to a vast swathe of Arctic seabed thought to be rich in oil and gas.
"Our claims over our Arctic are very well-established," MacKay commented.
"There is no threat to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and as you know, we've made very strong commitments, the prime minister has been there recently, may be there again (soon), so we're not at all concerned about this (stunt).
"It's basically just a show by Russia," he said.
A spokesman for Canada's foreign affairs department added: "Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic is longstanding, well established and based on historic title."

The race is on for polar control
BBC News:

President Vladimir Putin has already described the urgent need for Russia to secure its "strategic, economic, scientific and defence interests" in the Arctic.

Moscow argued before a UN commission in 2001 that waters off its northern coast were in fact an extension of its maritime territory.

The claim was based on the argument that an underwater feature, known as the Lomonosov Ridge, was an extension of its continental territory, but it was rejected and Russia told to resubmit with more evidence.
Several countries with territories bordering the Arctic - including Russia, the US, Canada and Denmark - have launched competing claims to the region.
...
The North Pole is not currently regarded as part of any single country's territory and is therefore administered by the International Seabed Authority.

With the rise in global temperatures and thus the melting of polar ice-caps, competition has increased for nations seeking claim to the Arctic Circle.

Surprise G8 compromise

At last G8 leaders have reached an agreement on climate change. Only the US had differing views from the other powers on global warming.

According to an extract from the agreed text published on the G8 website, the leaders agreed to take "strong and early" action.

"Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions," the text says.

The American view seemed to switch between "Human-caused global warming isn't happening" and "Oh, that global warming — we don't want to do anything about it". The latter view was recently held by President Bush in his usual policy format of baseless rhetoric.

The disagreement over how to take action against climate change has been an issue since America fought the proposed climate change initiatives earlier last month. In addition to the usual issues, the strained relations between Russia and the West — including the US's hope for missile defense shields in Europe, and Russia's retaliation to such an idea — is also going to be a major factor at the G8 summit.

The Group of Eight developed nations, or G8, includes Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, France, Germany, and Japan. The summit in its 33rd year is hosted this year by Germany and lasts from 6 June to 8 June. It is one of the major yearly world meetings. This will be the last summit for Britain's Tony Blair (leaving office on 27 June) and Russia's Vladimir Putin. It is the first for newcomers Shinzo Abe of Japan and Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany, plays host and tries to mediate hot issues like global warming; Prodi of Italy tries to please his fellow G8 members while keeping his fragile center-left coalition together; George W. Bush isn't well liked and along with Tony Blair will throw light jabs at the provocative Putin. The EU is also represented there. See also the G8 website.

technorati tags: bush, climate+change, global+warming, g8, united+states, politics, international+relations, diplomacy, foreign+affairs,

Well, maybe it's not a new Cold War, but...

Diplomatic relations between Russia and the West sure are getting chillier.

Whether its the war of words with the United States (the missile shield issue comes to mind), the Litvinenko murder case straining relations with with Britain, or the ill-concluded talks with the European Union at the EU-Russia summit — especially over oil and gas, as well as Germany siding with Russia as, for example, Poland suffers.

Both sides might well be overplaying their cards, warning of new 'war's, how one side is demonic, etc. But as this is the often fragile game of world diplomacy, overplaying such cards is not a wise choice — by the EU, America, or Russia itself. The UK's situation is a bit more sticky, as the former KBG man and Putin dissenter Alexander Litvinenko looks to have possibly been killed by a _ of Russia's vast, post-Soviet security fringe within the government.

If Russia is getting wealthier because of its energy exports, why are freedoms shrinking? Why is Vladimir Putin becoming a dictator, if he isn't already one? It's interesting to look at how wealth, and even education, do not always result in freedoms for the population of a state. A closer look at that soon.

technorati tags: russia, EU, putin, diplomacy, international+relations, USA, united+states, european+union, cold+war, germany, litvinenko, UK, britain, missile+shield

Read Rice's lips: no new Cold War

The long awaited response by the secretary of state to cold exchanges between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US Vice President Dick Cheney has come.

No 'new Cold War', Condi RIce emphatically exclaims.

Rice, who sees Putin on Tuesday, said Washington was committed to working through those differences, notably over U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe, Russia's threat to suspend a major military treaty and Moscow's opposition to a U.N. plan for Kosovo independence.

There is also growing U.S. concern about Moscow's treatment of its former Soviet state neighbors and steps Putin has taken to consolidate power in the Kremlin are seen as democratic backsliding as Russia prepares for presidential and parliamentary elections next year.
...
She said she would use her meetings in Moscow to impress on Putin and other top Russian officials the need for a missile defense to counter threats from Iran and North Korea and the genuine U.S. desire to work with Russia in building the system transparently.

The missile defense matter is of issue as America charges forward with a new anti-missile defense system that is making many countries feel uncomfortable. Putin has already said how dominant the US is and how it presses for unipolarity in the global politik, and the perceived hegemony around the missile defense system is proof of that.

Russia is asserting power on international stage because of its energy resources. It is a key state geopolitically and influential actor in issues like North Korea and Iran. It is also giving nuclear material to some of the worst nations on the planet, including Myanmar (aka Burma).

Meet our next police state: Egypt

Authoritarian police states are all the rage — or at least they must be, with Egypt and others becoming only more undemocratic. Some of the terrorism-fighting provisions of indefinite length 'passed' in the probably-rigged vote are similar to those the US passed after 9/11 (though that vote was not rigged: it was not even a vote by the people but a decision by the executive to use terrorist attacks as an excuse to expand powers). Of course, it is much worse than that...

BBC News:

Controversial amendments to Egypt's constitution have been approved by 75.9% of those who voted in Monday's referendum, government officials say.

Turnout for the vote was 27%, the justice ministry said, although some independent groups put it at 5%.

The country's main opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, boycotted the vote and criticised the amendments as paving the way for a police state.

A senior Muslim Brotherhood official said the result was forged.
...
President Hosni Mubarak hailed the result on Monday.

"The people are the real winners in this referendum. What has been achieved does not represent the end of the road," he said.
...
Officials say the changes will allow the drafting of a new anti-terrorism law to replace the emergency legislation in place since 1981, giving police wide powers of arrest and surveillance.

KEY AMENDMENTS
Article 5:
Bans political activity/parties based on religion
Article 88:
Removes judicial supervision of elections
Article 179:
Invokes special powers to fight terrorism

In addition, the amendments ban all religious-based political activity and parties, a blow to the Muslim Brotherhood - an Islamic party banned in Egypt which represents the strongest opposition force.
...
The amendments also allow the adoption of a new election law and do away with the need for judicial supervision of every ballot box.

Opposition groups have voiced fears about the wording of the articles on the new anti-terrorism law because it will be possible to bypass the constitutional guarantees protecting basic freedoms.

Human rights group Amnesty International has called the changes the greatest erosion of human rights since a state of emergency was declared after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat 26 years ago.

For a great article on Egyptian politics and Islamic democracy, see this Harper's article.

Russia is also making a steady and swift transition to an authoritarian police state under President Putin. Egypt is one step ahead of them, but Russia does have a larger organized crime element — often with political allegiances — that sprung up after the collapse of the Soviet state's tight security. However, they are both receiving foreign criticism.

Just as Putin and Mubarak are moving up the power ladder, another dictator, Pakistan's Musharraf, is facing plenty of opposition over his demanding a revered judge step down. The reason? Because the judge often ruled against the undemocratic Musharraf regime; he was a beacon of light in Pakistan's judicial and political darkness and corruption.

Not only does Musharraf look like a puppet of America to his own people, but to the US he is looking less and less like an ally, not least because of his recent agreement with the same tribal militants who are likely creating a haven for Taliban forces near the Afghani border, thus increasing Afghanistan's troubles.

technorati tags: putin, authoritarianism, police+state, mubarak, musharraf, egypt, russia, dictator, politics, news, pakistan

Russia: the next top police state?

In the 21st century, there are still plenty of police states around — Syria, Turkmenistan, Lybia, North Korea, Sudan, Burma, arguably Pakistan, and Zimbabwe, to list a few. But can Russia be counted among them? We have seen more and more undemocratic reform and authoritarian power-grabbing — not to mention, journalist and dissident intimidation and killing — by Russian President Putin. Putin seems to think he can never have too much power, and the Russian secret police (FSB, etc.) seem to share that view, as do the many organized crime gangs.

The restriction of freedoms in Russia is only getting worse...
Luke Harding of The Guardian reports:

Supreme court ban on liberal party wipes out opposition to Putin
· Republicans accused of violating electoral law
· Protest rally planned amid fears of a police state

Russia's next parliament is likely to have no genuine opposition after a court in Moscow yesterday banned a leading liberal party from standing in elections.

Russia's supreme court announced that it had liquidated the small Republican party, claiming that it had violated electoral law by having too few members. The party is one of very few left in Russia that criticises President Vladimir Putin.

The move against Russia's opposition came as pro-democracy activists prepared for the latest in a series of anti-government rallies that have infuriated Russia's hardline authorities.
...
Critics say the legislation is designed to kill off smaller parties that oppose the Kremlin.

Backstory
Russia's tiny opposition is represented in the current Duma by four or five MPs. Pro-Kremlin parties predominate among the 447 deputies. The small opposition Republican party, banned yesterday, was formed by defectors from the Soviet Communist party. It emerged in 1990 on the wave of liberalism encouraged by then-Kremlin leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The Republican party has one MP, Vladimir Ryzhkov; its other attempts to win seats have repeatedly failed. But it has played a solid role in the liberal opposition. The liberal Yabloko party also has two MPs. Two other anti-Putin MPs sit as independents. In theory, the opposition includes Russia's Communist party and the far-right Liberal Democratic party. In reality, they rarely if ever voice opposition to the Kremlin, observers point out.

US human rights report: Darfur genocide worst

See the report, which is, surprisingly, not half bad, on the US State Department’s website.

There was also a bit of self-criticism in the report, which documented the state of human rights throughout the world in 2006. American human rights have taken a hit in the so-called war on terror following 9/11.

Human rights in Iran were said to have worsened at a time when Washington is spraying Tehran with accusations of meddling in Iraq and being a negative influence in the Middle East, and the two countries are finally to meet and discuss the massive mess that is Iraq, though not face-to-face.

Pakistan, a supposed ally with the US in the war on terror, has not improved its record. Russia, China, Afghanistan, and North Korea are also given a fair beating in the report. But out of all these incidents, Darfur, the region of Sudan in which genocide has been — and is being — committed, remains the most stark.

IHT:

… the State Department said the U.S. government, too, had fallen short of international standards in its handling of terrorism suspects.

Barry Lowenkron, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, told reporters: "We recognize that we are issuing this report at a time when our own record and actions we have taken to respond to the terrorist attacks against us have been questioned. We will continue to respond to the concerns of others."
…
"The Sudanese government and government-backed janjaweed militia bear responsibility for the genocide in Darfur," the report says. An estimated 200,000 people have died in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. The report cites "serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers."

The report devotes 44 pages to Iraq, dealing largely with the dynamics of the continuing violence there. As in last year's report, accusations were cited of extensive police involvement in the disappearances and torture of prisoners. Corruption, it said, was widespread at "all levels of government."
…
The rights situation in Afghanistan also remained poor — violence there increased sharply last year — but the nation's police were being more closely monitored and better trained, the reports asserts.

The assessment that a poor human rights record in Iran had worsened came days before American and Iranian diplomats are to sit down in Baghdad for talks on stabilizing Iraq.

The North Korean record also remained poor, the report says, including the alleged executions of political prisoners. The United States recently joined in a six-party agreement aimed at halting that country's nuclear program.

Liberia, Congo, Ukraine, and Morocco have all made notably good improvement. China, while not getting significantly worse, has also not made enough progress.

Russia is getting worse, as the most recent death of a journalist illustrates. Chechnya abuses and killings, kidnappings, and other incidents of a political motive are on the rise in Russia, whose President Putin has gone back-and-forth with US Vice President Cheney exchanging opposing rhetoric. Russia has re-found international prominence in the revenue's, political and financial, generated by its state-owned natural gas company, Gazprom.

technorati tags: human+rights, news, state+department, darfur, sudan, genocide, iran, russia, china, United+states, iraq, afghanistan, north+korea

Cheney's attacks: Pakistan, China, and beyond

US Vice President Dick Cheney, recently wrapping up a three-day excursion to Australia, has sparked plenty of global controversy. First of all, he finally roughed up Pakestan a bit, which he visited following his rhetoric-spewing sessions with right-wing Aussie PM John Howard in the land down under. (Howard was the man who said if Barak Obama won the 2008 election for US president, it would be a 'victory for al-Qaeda'.) Australians are angry about Iraq, among other things, including the United States' illegal detention of an Australian citizen, David Hicks. As a result, there were plenty of protests for the man charged with war crimes in Belgium, i.e. Cheney, during his stay in Australia. Why aren't Americans angry about the detention of US citizens, namely Jose Padilla?

On the Pakistan topic, Cheney said, or we think he said, it needed to do more in combating terrorism and, namely, the Taliban, which the government looks to be supporting. I hate to admit it, but, like with Russia, I agree with Cheney, or at least the comments coming from anonymous officials saying they speak Cheney's position and that he was tough with Pakistan's leader during the short visit.

NYT:

A particular source of concern is Mr. Musharraf’s peace accord with the tribal leaders, a deal giving them greater sovereignty that he has assured Mr. Bush would not diminish Pakistan’s commitment to fighting extremists. Mr. Bush noted in September that Mr. Musharraf had looked him “in the eye” and said, “There won’t be a Taliban and won’t be al Qaeda.” Now, American officials contend those groups have gained ground.

One problem is the secretive nature of the visit and the lack of reporting thanks to the media-hating — unless the media is really supportive (e.g. post-9/11, pre-Iraq war) — White House. He attacks even his allies; whether democracy-supporting political foes at home or despotic US-friendly regimes abroad, Cheney seems to be lashing out at everyone — or so it seems.

Maybe Cheney's views aren't being represented by the mysterious mouthpiece(s). If that be the case I retract my agreeing with him to a small degree on the Pakistan issue. He was either pushed to pressure Pakistan, genuinely wanted to pressure Pakistan, or didn't actually pressure Pakistan — there are conflicting reports and views. His Russia comments, while somewhat true, were also cavalier for an executive of the world's most powerful state to say and only made foreign relations worse. Both Pakistan and Russia need to respect the will of the people, as well as not inflame terrorists or — in Russia's case — seemingly only help Iran with its nuclear program while claiming otherwise the whole time.

Pakistan is a dictatorship, plain and simple; and effectively so is Russia, or it is becoming one that is. Pakistan has been a long-time American ally in the 'war on terror', though it may only be an ally by name. The US gives hundreds of millions of aid to the Musharraf regime. Like with much aid, who knows where it goes.

During his Australia visit, Cheney warned China once again of its growing military. China is an up-and-coming world power, what does he expect? Throughout history military might has been key to the assumption of a state's power. When the United States embraced its industrial development, a military expansion followed. What peoples of a country do not want is a constant wartime economic and military attitude, one the US seems to adapted especially under President Bush. During wartime, parts of an economy grow, but so does the deficit. Generally peacetime economies try to defeat deficit, not enlarge it.

Cheney's comments on China focused strongly on its recent test of an anti-satellite missile and expansion of its army. He hinted at his belief that China's massive military expansion is not peaceful. His controversial comments have resulted in Beijing calling Washington a 'nosy neighbor'. (Wow, that's gotta hurt — leaning something you already knew about yourself.)

We know Cheney has directly attacked verbally Russia and China, but the Pakistan stance remains washy. In the past Cheney has been one for hypocrisies: strongly condemning one country for being undemocratic yet supporting another that is just as undemocratic or worse. That pretty much sums up this administration's policies toward its 'favorites' in the global realm, though Cheney is a but more pro-[what he calls] democracy than some in the White House. He will strike at about whoever he wants, and will not hold back. Not much has changed since the Cold War, methinks, and the 'war on terror' is just as vague as to the menace, and worse in the fact it can't be considered a war by any standards.

We know Cheney has openly attacked Russia and China for being undemocratic and a bully and for escalating militarily, respectively, but his stance on Pakistan remains washy. Putin of Russia has struck back and now China has called the US 'nosy'. Which state will be next, and for what reasons?

Update: I forgot to mention the attempt on Cheney's life when he visited Afghanistan following Pakistan.

technorati tags: dick+cheney, cheney, pakistan, china, foreign+policy, united+states, international+relations, news, in+the+news, china+military, pakistan+terrorism+democracy, russia

Putin: United States is 'dangerous'

Russian President (more like dictator) Vladimir Putin has fully come out of the closet, so to speak, on how he views [what he sees as] the United States' virtually unchecked power.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has criticised the United States for what he said was its "almost uncontained" use of force around the world.
Washington's "very dangerous" approach to global relations was fuelling a nuclear arms race, he told a security summit in Munich.

Correspondents say the strident speech may signal a more assertive Russia.

The White House said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the Russian president's comments.

I do agree with Putin's assertions of the United States' foreign policy and nuclear actions, often acting against non-prolifiration and, as Putin says, making the global arms race worse. As a side note, why is the White House's response always so lackluster? I mean first the Palestinian agreement and now this, not to mention a history of boring, generic comments on breaking events and comments.

Not long ago US Vice President Cheney made a speech in which he basically demonized Russia — especially on its energy and foreign policies — and actually made some good points. That was one of the few times I agreed with Cheney — on anything. Putin lashed back, comparing the US to a hungry wolf. Of course, Cheney and Putin, both advocates of a strong, almost-authortarian to authoritarian executive government and favoring the neoimperialistic style bullying of foreign states, have gone back and forth for a while now.

Putin has used Russian state owned natural gas company Gazprom to essentially bully states like Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia — all former Soviet republics — in re to energy. Views of Gazprom, however, differ. An effect of various global energy factors, Russia has been climbing back to the might it held in the Cold War days, or so it seems. Because of that new found prosperity, some have said the people of Russia remain content with Putin's authoritarian reforms and limits on free rights. No doubt the validity of such statements also differ (I happen to have talked with someone living in Russia who says people are not too happy with Putin).

Putin's latest comments have reinitiated speculation of a new Cold War. This is what happens in a unipolar world — though that notion in itself is also disputed, especially if one looks at the latest WEF.

Problems with Putin's assertion of the US trying to make a 'unipolar' world:

If the world is unipolar, it will not be for long;

the global power structure may not be unipolar at all, just as the US might not be a superpower (it depends on one's viewpoint);

with forces like globalization, the world is becoming, if anything, more multi-polar;

the US may be powerless to hamper the effects of multi-polarity.
There's a difference between striving for neoimperialism and establishing unipolarity.

Less than a year ago there was a feud between Russia and the US over allegations by the US military that Russia had tipped off and supported Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the American invasion in 2003. Back then there were calls that a new Cold War was coming. For now the feud exists within the bounds of words and rhetoric, not actions; it is highly unlikely this latest Putin comment will result in anything more than an attempted slap on the wrist by the White House and a rebuttal by VP Cheney — which would happen even if Putin said nothing (it's Cheney, after all).

One thing I do like about Putin was when, in a 60 Minutes interview, he responded to criticism of his reforms crippling what's left of Russian democracy with a criticism of his own of the American electoral system. Though the US is no doubt more democratic than modern day Russia, not the least Russia under Putin.


Song stuck in my head right now: "All The Pretty Faces" by The Killers.

technorati tags: vladimir+putin, dick+cheney, cheney, putin, united+states, power, international+relations, politics, unipolar, russia, news