Zimbabwe's democratic test

Zimbabwe held elections today. The south African state has been led by dictator Robert Mugabe for decades now, who has used his country's colonial past as an excuse for isolation from the West and extremist domestic programs. The octagenerian has, however, fallen out of favor with many Zimbabweans.

Opposition claims unlikely victory in Zimbabwean election
The opposition has claimed a win in this probably-rigged election.

Defying a government order, Zimbabwe's main opposition party released its election results on Sunday, claiming an early victory for their presidential candidate.

Sunday's announcement sets up a showdown with Zimbabwe's government, which will release the results of its count on Monday.

Leaders of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have already dismissed the government's results -- expected to show a victory for President Robert Mugabe -- as rigged in favor of the incumbent leader.

There are concerns that if each side claims victory, tensions could ignite and violence could erupt.

At a news conference in Zimbabwe's capital, Harare, MDC leaders said their candidate Morgan Tsvangirai has won 67 percent of the vote, based on one-third of the returns, journalists inside Zimbabwe told CNN.

The party did not explain how it arrived at those results.

The Zimbabwean government has denied CNN and other international news organizations permission to enter the country to report on the elections. Read about reporting on the elections.

MDC Secretary-General Tenda Biti has accused the ruling Zanu-PF party of chasing its party's agents away from polling stations.

We'll see the full extent of the election as results are released tomorrow. Whether the opposition really takes power depends on Mugabe, who shows no sign of letting is country be truly democratic.

Away

Note to readers —

I will be away all week. New post on Sunday.

Mission accomplished (take two)!

I have never read of a man who applied such flawed logic, so long, and on numerous occasions, as the American president.

Reuters story from earlier this week:

President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he had no regrets about the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure" and declared that the United States was on track for victory.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion with a touch of the swagger he showed early in the war, Bush said in a speech at the Pentagon, "The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable."

With less than 11 months left in office and his approval ratings near the lows of his presidency, Bush is trying to shore up support for the Iraq campaign, which has damaged U.S. credibility abroad and is sure to define his legacy.

All we've got to do is stay the course folks, we're almost there!

China crushes dissent in Tibet

Basically the rest of the world told China to respect human rights in response to the Tibet crackdown.

Good news for people used to bad news

As I turn in for the night tonight, there are some good news stories of note...

Chad and Sudan have struck a peace accord;

there's a new EU climate change commitment;

and the US House of Representatives has passed a bill banning retroactive immunity for telecom companies coerced into/agreeing to comply with the Bush administration's illegal domestic wiretapping program, although the bill is sure to be vetoed once it hits the Oval Office.

Ethnic nationalism's around to stay

Ethnic nationalism is playing a role in human affairs as much now as ever. Check out this intriguing — if long — essay from Foreign Affairs.

Americans generally belittle the role of ethnic nationalism in politics. But in fact, it corresponds to some enduring propensities of the human spirit, it is galvanized by modernization, and in one form or another, it will drive global politics for generations to come. Once ethnic nationalism has captured the imagination of groups in a multiethnic society, ethnic disaggregation or partition is often the least bad answer.

The author seems to be saying that once a country or region has reached a high point of ethnic nationalism, there is no turning back. We've seen this in the Balkans; and are we now witnessing the rise of full-fledged ethnonationalism in Iraq? Many times ethnic cleansing is fueled by ethnic nationalism — think of the Ottoman Empire's attacks on Armenians or the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Also discussed is how immigration plays a role and the state of ethnic nationalism in historically-troubled Europe.

Personally, I'd rather we judge each other on our controllable human traits instead of our involuntary ethnic status. Were it not for ethnic nationalism, the world would be much better off today. That's not to say I deny its advantages, such as, in some cases, state stability and the forming of a common bond between peoples. Most nation-states formed with one dominant ethnic group and identify themselves as such. But, as with any form of nationalism, the people of a country can easily be exploited, leading to violence. Isn't ethnic nationalism, in a way, just an evolution of racial tribalism?

A note on the current state of affairs

It's so easy to get lost in they hype of the US election season. Yes, it's exciting, and yes this is the most important election in years, but there are other issues that are being overlooked (Gaza, Kenya, climate change, etc.), glossed over with often-shallow primary coverage and political entertainment stories ('What's Hillary wearing today?')...

Anyway I'll be posting with a higher frequency than I have in the past couple months. Look for coverage of the '08 election, as well as other pressing news and issues.

Bush's continued assault on human rights

Another nasty veto...
BBC News:

US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".

He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Make no mistake: waterboarding is torture. All human rights organizations agree, as well as other nations and even the American FBI! Waterboarding simulates drowning and leaves the victim psychologically — and sometimes physically — damaged.

There is no reason for torture. This is not a fight between human rights and national security. Torturous interrogation techniques do not get reliable information, countless studies have confirmed this common sense notion. In addition, the declining perception of the US because of the use of torture leaves it more open for attack and helps terrorist recruiters.

The issue of the CIA lies in the fact that by not leaving it objective, the White House opened the door for flawed, politically-motivated intelligence reports such as the ones justifying the Iraq war. The CIA has had continual use as a dirty political tool in the 'war on terror', where it has tortured and detained innocent people without respect to US or international law, whether in Guantanamo, 'black sites', or cases of extraordinary rendition.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." Bush says. Mr. President, if I may counter. You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that torture has helped the United States. Yes, I know you don't use the exact term "torture". It's politically sticky. You stick to the euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Let's see how you would feel about having to stand up, shackled, for 40 hours or so, while being threatened by a CIA thug. Maybe that would change your mind about the true meaning of torture. You use the same justification for torture as you do for (previously) illegal domestic wiretapping: It has saved lives, it will save lives! We must counter the most dangerous terrorists! We must prevent another attack! While it is compelling for me to follow along with most Americans and politicians on your national security programs, you see, I have a respect for the law. I also recognize the fact that torturing terror suspects will get us nowhere in our fight against those who have wronged us.

The president's actions are inexcusable; this is one of the times I am seriously angry at George W. Bush and his ludicrous national security policies. Why can't he use at least one of his vetoes to cut spending like he has promised instead of fighting popular stem call initiatives or legalizing torture?

Women and the Bible (part 1)

Imagine: You're a woman in biblical times. You wake up with a bruise on your upper leg; you were beaten last night for insubordination. You try not to think about it. You remember a friend of yours was stoned for being a "witch"; she was alleged to have slept with a man other than her husband. She died, age 17. Everything is OK though. You remember verse 3:18 of Colossians: "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Does that ease your pain, or just make it worse?You're off to do your daily chores, and there are many of them. Where is your husband? Probably off with one of his other wives. You remember Genesis 4:19 — “Lamech married two women…” — and sigh. Remember also that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Women were, after all, created for man, from man...

March 4th: the showdown

Today's primaries in Ohio, Texas, and several other states may well decide who will be the nominee on the Democratic side. Hillary Clinton is already at a slight disadvantage, in the polls, in delegate counts, and momentum-wise, and even winning the mega-states of Ohio and Texas may not be the boost her campaign disparately needs. Barack Obama, however, is looking as strong as ever. John McCain will probably further secure the Republican Party nomination for president with his expected victories tonight.

I will publish a post explaining my endorsement of one of these candidates following these primaries.

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.

Congress disappoints in Clemens steroid case, and the media follows along

Gasp! One of America's baseball stars committed perjury?!

A congressional committee asked the U.S. Justice Department to review whether pitcher Roger Clemens lied when he testified he never used steroids.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey today requesting a perjury investigation relating to Clemens's deposition and testimony for a Feb. 13 hearing on performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball.

So the Justice Department will investigate this, but not the lost CIA torture tapes, or the torture itself? It will go through the records on a sports star, but it won't investigate the shady dealings of the executive? Wow.

Even worse than the fact Justice is wasting it's time on the Clemens case is the fact this steroid drama was brought before Congress in the first place. The House Oversight Committee. Should be cleaning up the government, right? Doing its job tackling national issues?

Wrong.

The biggest political/sports story of past month had nothing to do with the government, and, in fact, shouldn't be on the front page.

I know it would be nice to clean up America's pasttime, which also happens to be the world's most steroid-infested sport, but I fail to see how this is the government's job and not that of the MLB. What right does Congress have to question Roger Clemens on his steroid use? Why waste its time?

And what about the media in all of this? They're having a field day! I have seen no article in the mainstream media questioning whether these hearings should be happening, whether Congress should be wasting its time, or whether this story is over-reported — which it is.

The hearings are being turned into a partisian show, with Republicans being sympathetic to Clemens and Democrats attacking him. The chair of the committee, Democrat Henry Waxman, regrets holding the hearings in the first place.

Congress should be spending its time more wisely, as it has a worse approval rating than even President Bush. In addition, the media should focus on real news — not mix sports with front-page politics — and MLB should clean up its act.

China and Sudan: bedfellows in evil?

In another piece of bad news coming from the Sudan region...

The Sudanese military is said to have renewed its aerial bombing campaign in the west of the Darfur region.
The joint United Nations African Union mission in Sudan, Unamid, said it had received reports of aerial bombings in the Jebel Moun area of the region.

A Unamid spokesman said there was grave concern for the safety of thousands of civilians in the area.

The reports came as China's envoy for Darfur, Liu Guijin, began a five-day visit to the country to push for peace.

China has come under increasing pressure to use its influence with Sudan to end the fighting.

Mr Liu will travel to Darfur on Tuesday, the fifth anniversary of the start of the conflict which has left 200,000 people dead and 2.5m homeless.

This visit comes after it was revealed that China sold more weapons — both light and heavy arms — to Sudan.

One can see China's influence within Sudan as the up-and-coming superpower tries its best to gain political support in the whole of Africa — in a way filling the void there — as well as taking advantage of the continent's energy resources. While China is helping development there, it is also overlooking major human rights abuses, and, in some cases, encouraging them.

Bejing's relationship with Khartoum, as well as its human rights abuses at home, has led such heavyweights as Stephen Spielberg to denounce China and call for a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Try as it may to play down human rights fears, but there are supporters of human rights just as stubborn as the abusers — i.e. the Chinese government — themselves.

It's time to get serous with China about its support of the genocidal Sudanese regime. However, powers such as the US should not isolate the emerging giant in its race for economic supremacy or they will find themselves in a tough spot once China has the upper hand.

America's troubling abstinence program in Africa

President Bush has been on a tour of Africa, where he maintains at least a modicum of popularity due to his aid programs there (although that aid sometimes makes things worse). Also on the American leader's agenda was dealing with China's growing influence in the region, fueled by its thirst for oil in nations such as Nigeria and Sudan.

The New York Times reported

Mr. Bush used a news conference to address the widespread suspicion that the United States planned to establish military bases in Africa as it expanded its strategic role on the continent. And for the first time, he suggested that he might consider dropping a requirement that one-third of AIDS prevention dollars be spent on abstinence programs — but only if he was convinced that the approach was not working.
...
Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration’s requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative’s prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

A president needs to be elected who won't require a certain amount of money be spend on abstinence programs. People will continue to have sex no matter what, and that means the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Contraception and overall sexual education should be one of the highest priorities for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Belief in abstinence-only programs —  confusing teachers, harming schools, and not properly educating people — is one of Bush's more dangerously irrational religious beliefs, which exists primarily to gain the support of the supposed millions of people who believe that condoms are the devil. Why do you think America has the highest teen pregnancy rate in in the developed world (see map)? In fact, "pro-life" people should like contraception, since it would lower the rate of abortions and terminations of unwanted pregnancies. America's domestic program of withholding important sexual information and instead supplying abstinence-only programs has been listed as a human rights concern by Human Rights Watch.

The US's foreign policy relating to aid for AIDS program not only needs more funding — one improvement this administration has brought about — but the abstinence requirement must be dropped. Who knows how many have contracted STDs and died because of lack of proper education of sex, and lack of options. There is nothing promiscuous about governments handing out condoms or information on contraception. Withholding those devices and that information is harmful to cause of most of us who want to stop the spread of AIDS and let a woman choose whether she wants to get pregnant.

Another Muslim cartoon row

BBC News:

Hundreds of Danish Muslims have been demonstrating in Copenhagen against the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad they consider offensive.

The cartoon depicts the Prophet with a bomb in his turban.

All major Danish newspapers decided to republish it after Danish intelligence said it had uncovered a plot to kill one of the cartoonists.

Over-sensitive Muslims of the world: Get over the Danish cartoons depicting your profit. It's called free speech; get used to it. For those who don't remember the riots and death threats two years ago, see here.

Just remember, there's a difference between tolerance and absolute accommodation. If they want to survive in free societies, religions will need to be able to stand up to criticism — or shut up. No death threats; no fatwas; let's settle this in a civilized manner, not by evoking religious barbarity. Up until now, most modern societies have given into religious insanity far too much.

The end of Musharraf?

Pakistan held elections today, the results of which are flowing in as we speak...

The Times:

President Pervez Musharraf’s supporters conceded defeat last night in a landmark parliamentary election that could seal his political fate and resurrect democracy in Pakistan after eight years of military rule.

But while the two main opposition parties appeared to have swept the vote, neither was expected to win an outright majority, setting the stage for a coalition government in this chronically unstable country.
...
Final results are not expected until tomorrow, but preliminary figures suggest that the PPP will win the most seats followed by the Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister.

One can only hope an opposition party will emerge as winner in this election, and that the dictatorial Musharraf will finally face impeachment. Most Pakistanis want him out anyway.

Meanwhile, a NYT op-ed warns that instability in Pakistan is a problem to all of us — the south Asian country holds active nuclear weapons (not to mention that it's a hotbed of Islamic terrorism).

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.

More posts coming soon...

I would like to apologize to all my readers for not posting much the past month or so, but expect regular postings from today on! I am also working on a series of essays about religion and other fundamental topics, and I hope we can have an open debate about these pressing philosophical issues. In addition, more eco-tips will be coming as we enter March.

An overlooked Chad inherits regional problems

Thousands of Darfur refugees have spilled over into Chad, adding to the instability.

"Since Friday, following the bombing in west Darfur, 12,000 people have crossed from Darfur to Chad in an area called Birak," said Helene Caux, a spokeswoman for the UNHCR.

Chad may turn out worse than neighboring Sudan, where much of this trouble originated in (see final paragraph).

Meanwhile the UN is attempting to provide aid to the tens of thousands of Chadians fleeing their capitol.

Even as there is fighting in the capitol, there are fears of a cross-border war between Sudan and Chad.

A senior UN official on Friday warned that a reported proxy war between Sudan and Chad through rebel groups on each side of their border threatened to destabilize the region and could lead to a wider conflict.

Jean-Marie Guehenno, the French head of UN peacekeeping operations, made the remarks to the Security Council as Sudanese troops attacked three communities in western Darfur, killing dozens of civilians, according to a Darfur rebel chief.

This is all likely to raise Chad's rank on the Failed States Index, as divisions within the country ignite in violence, and conflict from Sudan reaches across Chad's eastern border.

In all three of these stories, the UN is involved, which is — for the most part — a good thing.

While the Darfur conflict in Sudan is roughly localized to a specific region, the fighting and instability in Chad affects the entire country, including the capitol, thus endangering a larger number of people. Not to play down the seriousness of Sudan's genocide, of course. But at the moment, since a UN force is already forming in Darfur, Chad looks to be a more pressing issue. Instability doesn't stop at the border. Khartoum isn't in flames; but Ndjamena practically is.

Super (Tuesday) aftermath

The primary results tonight solidified the campaign of Republican John McCain; he currently almost triples Romney in number of delegates. McCain won delegate-rich states such as New Jersey and New York, and is on track to win California. It looks like Huckabee supporters in the realist camp chose (i.e. defected to) McCain after all. However, Super Tuesday only intensified the campaign on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton currently is ahead of Obama in the crucial state of California, and has already taken such states as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York; whereas Obama found his strength in the south, taking Georgia. Candidates on both sides are in a near tie in the telling bellwether state of Missouri. Obama won his home state of Illinois, another important state delegate-wise. (When I say 'won' I mean either solidly won or is projected to win. Either way they'll take it.)

Points have been made about Obama's liberalness (e.g. National Journal report — see this post), but the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are more complex than we take them to be. Political Compass, a site I've written about before, has a new graph up of all '08 candidates positions on a two-dimentional political chart.

When examining the chart it is important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.

Obama is more 'liberal' on Iraq — in reality, all current candidates fail on Iraq in my book; there is a lack of moderacy — whereas Clinton has more left-leaning domestic initiatives, such as healthcare.

I have yet to support a Democrat, although I am starting to lean towards Clinton because I'm getting sick of Obama's pledge for yet-undefined 'change'. Overall the Democrats have failed to not disappoint this election season. I stick to my support of McCain on the Republican side, although he is, after all, a conservative.

For more results, see CNN.

P.S. I promise to devote the rest of this week to non-election news and issues. It's so easy to get carried away...