Hear that poofing sound? It’s the showering, shattering of electronic pixels as one by one, British Intelligence destroys al-qaida Web sites.

The move cuts critical communication lines among terrorists. Suddenly they can’t plot and giggle together through sinful Western Internet technology. They’ll have to go back to inscribing on Stone-Age tablets or something. Or give up terror altogether.

In war, it’s not enough to just cut financing lines and indoctrination houses like madrassas - communication lines are important, too. It’s so in any war. Britain and the U.S. should have done this a long time ago. This is war and victory is our objective. That haze of electronic pixels we hear being zapped is one of war’s best victory sounds.

Keep on zapping, Britain!!!!

GatewayPundit has a letter from Zimbabwe. The locals there are terrified. Houses are being razed left and right and those homeless must sleep in the freezing weather. Soon, all houses will be razed or taken over by the state. The writer argues that genocide is coming. The letter-writer warns that this isn’t business as usual in Africa, it’s something new and truly evil. They need help. Read it here.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The best part about CAFTA is upon us - Hugo Chavez has come out screaming on Venezuelan television about CAFTA’s passage. And why shouldn’t he scream about our CAFTA victory? A rich El Salvador, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica are the last things Chavez wants to see. It’s bad enough that these democracies are friendly with the U.S. - now they have free trade rights, too, and as nations they have embarked on a great regional mission to become as rich as America. Why shouldn’t they be? They’re our friends.

But for Chavez, it’s pain upon pain. Not only has Central America repudiated him utterly, in favor of the U.S.A., and set up a bulwark against tyranny on the Caribbean’s entire western flank. Chavez’s whole Masterplan For The Takeover Of The Americas has been destroyed. There will be no big prize of Mexico at the end of the communist rainbow for Chavez and Fidel Castro, the pass has just been blocked forever. And Danny Ortega is sunk, too.

Rejoice anew about the stunning victory that was CAFTA this week, a great collective effort by the peoples all over this country and Latin America to make prosperity, not state control, the answer to all that ails the hemisphere.

UPDATE: Here is the story in English. Savor.

Yesterday Robert posted an entry, Pro-Mubarak Thugs Beat Up Kefaya Protesters, dealing with the attempt by democracy activists in Egypt to hold a rally and Hosni Mubarak’s violent reaction. There is also an article in today’s New York Times (registration required) on this, so I won’t go into the details. I wanted to add that there are some new photos of the attacks on protesters. You can see them here and here. (Hat tip: The Arabist Network)

I would like to suggest that now is a good time for President Bush to announce that the United States is ending its aid to Egypt, or at least reducing it drastically. It is time to cut our association with Mubarak.

A reader named “Cynic” made a response to my post, The Atlantic Monthly on Yasir Arafat, which raised both a valid factual point and an argument that needs to be rebutted, to explain why it is wrong. Cynic wrote:

What is known and not discussed is that the State Department went along with the Arab League and the EU, in the 80s, and ???????elected???????? Arafat, and his PLO, as sole representative of the Palestinians.

Now had this not come about, how many lives could have been spared?
Imagine if the the families of the dead and the maimed could take legal action against those politicians/diplomats?
Maybe they could get Edwards to take this tort case? :-)

The factual point is true in the sense that governments, when faced with an insurgency movement, have to decide whether or not the insurgents have any valid claims, and if so, who can be recognized as a legitimate representative of these claims. In the case of the Palestinians, it was clear that they had some valid claims, but at the same time that all of the major organizations purporting to represent the Palestinians had been involved in terrorism. Arafat was chosen because
- (1) he and his PLO were at least rhetorically calling for peace and compromise, and
- (2) he genuinely had a significant following among Palestinians such that he might be accepted by them.
Although the decision to recognize Arafat as the leader of the Palestinians was in retrospect clearly a mistake, it was not entirely unreasonable given what was known at the time that the first Bush administration helped arrange the Madrid talks.

The danger here is in Cynic’s suggestion that U.S. officials and others could be sued for their decisions. As a matter of sovereign immunity, diplomats and others in similar positions cannot be sued in thier personal capcity for a decision to accept a foreign leader as legitimate. Were that the case, then U.S. sovereignty would be lost since officials could no longer make decisions based on what best served the national interest, but rather on the basis of what served the views of an international court and global legal activists. In order for there to a lawsuit there must be a legal system, and an international court which could haul American officials before it would put an end to the status of the U.S. as a free, sovereign state. Since our sovereignty is the whole point of Americans’ having a government, this is a principle which cannot be compromised.

And in case anyone is thinking that such a suit might respect U.S. sovereignty by being filed in a domestic U.S. court, this would violate the separation of powers principle, giving the judiciary control over foreign policy. It would therefore be unconstitutional.

Contributed by Kirk H. Sowell of Window on the Arab World, and More!

Fidel Castro’s goons were in for the surprise of their lives when a whole neighborhood in Havana rose up and beat them back with sticks when they tried to confiscate a barrio TV set. A line was crossed. Nobody gets between Cubans and their TV sets. Nobody.

Fausta at BadHairBlog, citing someone named ‘Cake Eater’ has a truly marvellous comparison of the efforts of the McCartney sisters to break the back of the vile IRA terrorists, versus the non-efforts of too many Muslim “moderates” to halt the Islamofascists among them.

it’s been speculated that it’s because these moderate Muslims are afraid to speak up, for fear that the Islamofascists will turn on them.

Well, it appears that six women—who loved a man as a brother and a fiancee—proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back when it came to the IRA. Robert McCartney, a Belfast Catholic, was murdered for no other reason than he was critical of the IRA and had the guts to speak truth to power. When the IRA offered to “take care of the matter” the women who loved him refused, and instead opted to speak out. The IRA is an organization that used as much terror on its supporters as it did the British.

It should be a lesson to those moderate Muslims we only hear from when they’re worried about being attacked themselves that only by speaking out and denouncing the Islamofascists acts—by refusing to play the game the Islamofascists way—will they spare themselves an IRA-like rule of terror.

Fausta’s post, expertly argued, is well worth reading here.

Any time Danny Glover, Babs Streisand or Michael Moore open their big Hollywood mouths, the media come running, happy to feed these bawl-babies with free publicity.

But let Puertoriqueno singer Ricky Martin, declare his intention of improving the U.S.’s image abroad, particularly among Arabs, using his experience as a Boricua, and these media suddenly go silent, desperately silent. To heck with that.

Ricky Martin is out to spread democracy and I am going to say something! Check out GOPinion’s full story about this admirable young man here.

Developing countries almost never have civil society organizations, making them vulnerable to tyrants who are always happy to fill the void with … tyranny. Rare indeed are the PTAs, the Elks, the Kiwanis, the Ladies’ Auxilliaries, the Neighborhood Watches, the Surfriders’ Foundations, the Explorers’ Club, the Roadrunners - and all the much-maligned but critically necessary spontaneously organized private groups that are the building blocks of democracy.

So it was a joy to read that in determinedly democratic El Salvador, our new CAFTA ally, Salvadoran locals got together to clean up the beaches. And had wild exuberant Latin American fun together, making it a party. Tell me that isn’t a society that doesn’t have a mission. Those people have a mission!

Having spent the week with the Salvadoreno and Guatemalteco immigrants to learn their feelings about CAFTA, I learned that everyone from the region feels a deep sense of mission to pull itself out of the pit of poverty and tyranny and take off together. I am not kidding, it is an awesome thing to see Central Americans continuously pull together. Not through the state but through each other. You not only see it, you feel it, you experience it, you hear the echoes upon echoes of these great people who are going to carve themselves up a very big slice of the pan-American Dream pie out there. They aren’t going to be third-world for long. Central Americans already pulled together to great effect for the passage of CAFTA. They also are pulling together to improve farm production with a farmer-to-farmer program with the gringos up north, who were incredibly impressed. Now they are pulling together to clean up the beaches. It is an absolute thing of beauty.

It’s the biggest demonstration since the August Recall Referendum. Chavez sicced the firehoses on the thousands of demonstrators. Miguel Octavio has the story and the first dramatic photos here.

UPDATE: Daniel has further information here. And Instapundit has taken note, too.

UPDATE: Associated Press reports that rocks and bottles were hurled at the thousands of opposition marchers by two dozen chavistas screaming insults.

UPDATE: Reuters reports that the chavistas blocked the marchers and set piles of garbage on fire.

Jim Hoft is rounding up all the news on this.

In other news, the candlelight vigil against terrorism being organized by Egyptian bloggers was cancelled. Big Pharaoh posts his reaction. Egyptian Sandmonkey is also feeling melancholy, and so is Karim Elsahy. Better luck next time guys, I wish it would have worked out.

An exceptional example of good journalism, the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly has a front cover article on Yasir Arafat, “In a Ruined Country: How Yasir Arafat Destroyed Palestine.” It is very detailed, and I think it would be especially enlightening to those who haven’t followed Arafat closely over the years, but even if you have it is worth reading. Written by David Samuels, it is based not simply on documentary records but on a series of interviews with old Arafat companions following his death. This is what makes it entertaining. You can’t read it online without a subscription, but the article is worth the cost of the entire magazine easily.

The article isn’t simply about Arafat, though, it is about Palestinian society. As we await the coming Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip next month, this article provides a timely context. Here are a few highlights:

• The corruption of the Palestinian Authority under Arafat was breathtaking. Samuels cites a 1996 PA report which indicated of the year’s budget, 43% had been embezzled, 12.5% went to Arafat’s personal office (to be spent at his discretion), and 35% went to the myriad of security and intelligence services which Arafat maintained, leaving less than 10% for all other expenses like education or health.
• Arafat’s corruption was not personal but megalomaniacal. Defying the stereotype of the Third-World dictator living lavishly in his palaces, Arafat, when not travelling abroad, lived simply with minimal personal expenses. Arafat’s corruption, rather, was all about power - a never-ending series of Swiss accounts and secret hoards with which he bought off virtually everyone in Palestinian society. It was to the point that if a poor Palestinian couldn’t get medical treatment, Arafat would pay for it out of pocket, so they would all be dependent on him.
• The whole world was complicit in this scam called “The Oslo Accords.” Much of Arafat’s money was funneled to him from taxes on Palestinian products by Israel through accounts that allowed him to siphon off whatever he wanted. As blameworthy as Israel’s actions were, it is important to remember that whenever Israel held up Arafat’s payments, he was criticized by the European Union, the Arab states and the UN, and sometimes even by the United States. The whole world was aware of this fraud and went along with it.
• Samuels discusses how Arafat maintained his control over Palestinian terrorism throughout the 1990s even after denouncing it before the world. Arafat would arrest members of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to make a show, and then when negotiations weren’t going his way, tell them it was okay to launch an attack. This has been known for years, and openly acknowledged now.
• A sad but comical example of Arafat’s brutalization of the Palestinian people is told through the story of Iyad Sarraj. Sarraj, a human rights activist and leader of a mental health organization, told Samuels that during the 1980s most of his patients were victims of torture by the Israelis. But during the 1990s, they were victims of torture by the Palestinian Authority. When he complained, Arafat had Sarraj himself arrested, beaten and tortured. What a tortured “peace process” this was.
• One note of interest is why President Bill Clinton failed in his attempt to secure his legacy by negotiating a final peace. After Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s peace offer and responded with attacks on Israelis, there was division within the Palestinian leadership when they saw that Ariel Sharon was going to be elected. Arafat spoke with the Saudis and they told him to just say no because Bush was going to be elected, and he would give Arafat more than Clinton would. Of course the Saudis were wrong; Bush never met with Arafat, and wouldn’t speak to him. But this is consistent with what I have always known, since Saudi Arabia was involved in paying suicide bombers’ families an indemnity at the time - up to $25,000 per terror attack.

The “Oslo Peace Process” was nothing but a fraud, and the worst part is the complicity of the whole world. Even the United States agreed to this nonsense. As we look forward to yet another attempt to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, we need to learn the lessons of the 1990s. There must be a Palestinian political entity which is financially transparent, tolerant of a free press, representative of the Palestinian people, and free from any association with terrorism. This includes the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of Fatah, which is headed by current Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas. First there must be peace inside, and only then can there be a final and complete peace with Israel.

Contributed by Kirk H. Sowell of Window on the Arab World, and More!

The Iranian regime for decades has been a state sponsor of terrorism, both domestically and internationally. Concern is ever the more mounting after the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who may have been involved in, or even the leader of, the 1979 embassy hostage crisis. But how directly involved is the Iranian regime in funding and aiding terrorist groups? Apologists might say that the regime’s money trail and links to groups like Hizb’allah and Islamic Jihad are too obscure to trace and may not even exist at all. Well, they’re apologists, what do you expect?

Even if there was ever evidence against the terrorist regime, this is it. Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, an astute Iranian activist who I’ve had the pleasure of exchanging a few emails with, translates several articles from the Iranian press detailing suicide-bomber recruiters and their registration centers in the middle of Tehran.

Iran’s president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad’s spiritual guide, Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Messbaah-Yazdi, is also the brains behind recruiting suicide bombers. He does so via ads placed in some of the Iranian daily papers.

Alireza Nourizadeh, Iranian scholar and Middle East and Islam pundit, reports in the London-based Arab-language newspaper, A-Sharq Al-Awsat, that Yazdi’s adverts started being published in local Qom newspapers, such as Bartouskhan. Messbaah-Yazdi is regarded to be the spiritual guide of the Coalition of Hardliners in the Islamic Parliament’s assembly. The coalition’s chief and campaign manager for the women’s suicide-bombing missions, Elias Nadran, formed the Zeytoon organization six months ago for women who want to carry out suicide attacks against ‘enemies of Islam.’ The huge majority of the women volunteering have turned out to be Palestinian.

At this juncture, since 6 months ago when The Zeytoon organization began working, 3 large gatherings have been organized; one in the large and very depressing Tehran cemetery, Behesht’eh Zahra, the second in a cultural center/auditorium in Tehran, and finally and as recently as two weeks ago, in the northern city of Tabriz.

In a recent interview with Iranian scholar and Middle East pundit, Alireza Nourizadeh, Mohammad-Reza Sayyari, a young man who had at one point been a volunteer but whose curiosity had led him to investigate the propriety of such acts in Islam, speaks of the pie-in-the-sky promises made to the innocent and hopeless youths by Messbaah-Yazdi. Sayyari explains that Mesbaah-Yazdi promises the volunteers (both men and women) perpetual sexual stamina and the abundance of available men and women of various races and religions for these volunteers to enjoy, after death in heaven. Mr. Sayyari, who had spoken with Ayatollah Montazeri, the dissident Ayatollah, currently under house arrest in Qom, was told that such acts are considered haraam (or religiously prohibited and forbidden) and therefore had discouraged the young Sayyari from continuing with his decision to join.

Nourizadeh also reports that the volunteers are put through rigorous training in four camps funded and run by Al-Quds Brigade (a.k.a. The Jerusalem Brigade) and the Revolutionary Guard. The boot camp includes physical training, ideological indoctrination, building explosives, code-cracking classes, and finally foreign languages classes, specifically Arabic and English as well as many other ‘useful’ languages.

The terrorist-breeding regime of the Mullacracy has also now taken to pitching tents in the streets of Tehran in order to facilitate the registration process for those interested in joining up. An approximate 95% majority of those registering are in fact Iraqi, Syrian, Afghani and Palestinian. Iranians registering are recruited from among the poor.

She also reports on suicide bombers being spread all throughout Iran as a deterrent to growing violent protests against the regime:

The Islamic Republic’s support and funding for suicide bombers and missions are well-known facts to many. Now the Islamic Republic, in response to the stream of continued protests around Iran and clashes with protestors, has begun installing suicide bombers around the various provinces in Iran. The plans for creating and instructing brigades that are meant to be on constant alert are underway.

The Commander of the headquarters known as “Lovers of Martyrdom”, said in an interview with the regime publication Partow: “I have had numerous meetings with the Supreme Leader, Khamnei who enthusiastically provided us with his guidance. Of course in Tehran, we have stationed four such brigades, as opposed to the one in each of the other provinces.”

Iran signing up suicide bombers? Who would have thought! But really, words aren’t enough. Anyone can type up a report and say that it’s the truth. Right?

So seriously, don’t take my word for it. Just look at the pictures instead.

Bahrain isn’t exactly known for its vibrant civil society and liberal democracy, but it has slowly been developing since King Hamad began introducing slow reforms when he took power in 1999. That’s why protests there are so interesting to highlight. Today, 4000 protestors took to the streets because of a law recently passed that would restrict the greater freedom of association that had been earlier granted. I can imagine that wouldn’t sit well with anybody!

MANAMA (AFP) - About 4,000 activists demonstrated to protest the ratification of a law regulating political associations in Bahrain, which opposition groups said will restrict their activities.

Many protestors had tapes on their mouths as they marched toward the seat of the government in the center of Manama.

“The law is another step back on the way to free opinion,” said Jassem Al-Mehzea, head of the Al-Wassat opposition association.

The law was passed by parliament early this month and ratified by King Hamad last Saturday.

The associations, which stand in place of banned political parties, said the law would restrict their funding by banning donations from foreign countries.

Opposition groups also object to a provision raising the minimum age to join associations from 18 to 21.

The law states that political associations can be formed only so long as they are not based on class, profession, sectarian, or geographical principles. So far, associations have represented Sunni and Shiite Islamists, as well as liberals, leftists and Arab nationalists.

Under the new law, the societies will have to re-apply for their licenses from the Justice Ministry within three months. Note that one of the most important provisions is that the associations cannot be based on certain benchmarks of identity such as religion. Members of nine different societies banded together to protest this law, as they should, because it will most affect them given their make ups. Look at the names of some of them and you will realize that several opposition groups to the monarchy are Islamist while others are liberal.

Protesters only carried signs highlighting their objections to the law. The silent rally was organised by nine societies under the theme No to Political Societies Law.

The societies included Al Wefaq National Islamic Society, National Democratic Action Society, Islamic Action Society, Al Wasat Islamic Arab Democratic Society, Progress-ive Democratic Forum Society, Pan Arab Democratic Society, the National Brotherhood Society and the Bahrain Society for Public Freedoms and Protection of Democracy.

Earlier, a joint committee responsible for the rally said in a statement that the silent march reflected the restrictions imposed on the societies by the law, which, they claimed, was aimed at keeping them quite.

The societies are protesting against provisions of the law which stipulate that societies could not be allowed to be set up or should be dissolved if they maintain a religious or sectarian identity.

Islamists, leftists, nationalists, or liberals; it doesn’t matter. I hope they pull through and get their political associations freed up. It is particularly because these people are able to more freely associate that they are able to come together for this protest. While Bahrain may not yet be known for its liberal civil society, it isn’t exactly known for its religious extremism either. Backtracking the current reforms will mostly stifle the former while stoking the latter.

Forbes presents to you t a list of the 100 most powerful women in the world. This goes without saying, but not only is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice the most powerful woman in the world, but she uses it to advance the most important cause there is: the advance of freedom. She is joined by Ukrainian Prime Minister and Orange Revolutionary Yulia Tymoshenko, ranked third on the list. And Burmese freedom fighter and nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who to this day remains under arrest, ranked number fifteen on the list. This is a tribute from Publius to these brave and worthy women.

Condoleezza Rice #1

Yulia Tymoshenko #3

Aung San Suu Kyi #15

In the wake of terrorist bombings against his country, Egypt’s President Mubarak has declared his candidacy in the upcoming presidential elections. Not that there was any doubt that he’d run for a fifth term, but now he has a platform to go on.

President Hosni Mubarak announced his bid yesterday to run in Egypt’s first multicandidate elections on Sept. 7, promising new legislation to “besiege” terrorism and replace the country’s much-criticized emergency laws.

Mubarak, 77, Egypt’s leader for almost a quarter of a century and a key U.S. ally in the Arab world, has cast himself as a moderating influence in the turbulent Middle East.

He won four presidential referendums as the sole candidate. But amid local and U.S.-led calls for greater freedoms in the Middle East, Mubarak directed the parliament this year to amend Egypt’s constitution to allow for direct presidential elections open to more than one candidate.

While the move was initially hailed by pro-democracy proponents, opposition activists have since complained that the amendments did not go far enough and, instead, placed almost insurmountable restrictions on people wanting to challenge Mubarak.

The speech he gave in front of his old high school outside of Cairo was reminiscent of my run for student council in the ninth grade. He stressed his ability to provide security “first and last.” Alright, maybe quite a bit different from my own campaign, but it was really the first time an incumbent president has ever had to act like he’s running for office. Liberal opposition leader Ayman Nour was the first to apply for candidacy when the offices opened, and he is seen as the chief opposition to Mubarak.

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian opposition leader Ayman Nour on Friday applied to stand against President Hosni Mubarak in presidential elections on September 7, arriving early in the hope of having his name at the top of the ballot papers.

Nour, leader of the liberal Ghad (Tomorrow) Party, told Reuters his group was the first to turn up at the headquarters of the Presidential Election Commission when it opened to receive nomination papers in the morning.

But he failed to obtain any assurance that the names would be listed in the order in which candidates submitted their papers or even that they would be in alphabetical order, he said. In Arabic, Nour would come before Mubarak alphabetically.

“There was a disagreement on that point. The chairman of the commission (judge Mamdouh Marei) said the commission would study the matter,” he said by telephone.

A delegate for Mubarak turned up later to present the president’s own papers, the state news agency MENA said.

The basis of multi-candidate presidential elections have to be seen in the context of American pressure for greater liberalization in the country, despite the fact that Mubarak will likely win without any trouble. In general, the strategy is to allow reform to slowly take place so that civil society can develop and overtake sympathy with radical Islamists. The first step of this, as with what happened in Chile under Pinochet, is to completely reform the economy. Mubarak did this in 2004 with his new cabinet, and it has sent the stock market soaring with investment pouring in. This has a liberalizing effect all by itself.

The next step is encouraging a liberal civil society while making sure that radical elements don’t hijack the country. Mubarak’s address, most importantly, said that he would end all of the emergency laws in the country which allow the government to suppress all dissent. In conjunction with that, he said he wold adopt harsh anti-terrorist laws to combat those forces inside the country. Effectively, this means that the government will be trying to suppress radical Islamist movements while the system becomes open for liberal candidates and discussion. The creation of vibrant, liberal civil society is the most important thing that can be done as elections come into play.

Ayman Nour will most likely not even come close to winning, but it will open a debate within Egyptian society. Debate itself is what has been missing, and it is the one thing that can begin the transition. Suddenly, we’ll no longer have the dissent stifling authoritarian government of Mubarak versus insane Islamic radicals, but a slowly reforming authoritarian regime competing in the marketplace of ideas with the expanding notion of liberalism. All of this, while terrorism takes a back seat to progress.

With so much talk of the return of the Great Game in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan’s maneuvers between the powers and its neighbors makes for one of the best case studies. The refugees who took flight from Andijon across the border to Kyrgyzstan following Karimov’s May massacre has been one of those issues that the new government has had to deal with carefully. At once, the new government must raise standards of respect for human rights both for itself and to please the United States, and on the other hand it must not earn the scorn its neighbors and isolation from Russia. Since Russia has exclusively backed the Uzbek government’s action in a bid of strategic solidarity, and Karimov is demanding the return of the refugees, this makes the Kyrgyz government’s decision that much harder.

Having to balance between two sides means doing two things; not necessarily putting on two faces, but being careful about the actions taken. Even though Karimov demanded the return of the refugees, the Kyrgyz government decided to allow them to leave the country to Romania, where they will then be taken to various countriesfor resettlement.

Bucharest, 29 July 2005 (RFE/RL) — A planeload of Uzbek refugees who fled to neighboring Kyrgyzstan following a government crackdown in May has arrived in Romania.

The 440 refugees were expected to be temporarily housed in Romania before being relocated to other countries. The departure of the Uzbek refugees from Kyrgyzstan was organized by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

A spokesperson for the UNHCR said 15 refugees — detained at Uzbekistan’s request — remain in a detention center in the southern Kyrgyz city of Osh. Kyrgyz authorities have said the 15 will not be freed until officials are sure they did not commit serious crimes in Uzbekistan.

The temporary detainment of 15 of the refugees would be one of the concessions made to the Uzbek government. Chances are, they will be released soon enough. One important action that was not taken that many observers worried about was the unwillingness of the Kyrgyz government to criticize the Uzbek government over its handling of the situation. But seriously, why start a relations war when they can simply keep their mouth shut while working toward a solution? The important thing is that the new Kyrgyz government is willing to take a stand for the human rights now that it is in power. As I’m writing this, actually, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty just posted a story on how Kyrgyzstan’s handling of the refugee situation has been deemed an overwhelming success.

Roza Otunbayeva, Kyrgyzstan????????s acting foreign minister, told journalists late today that Bishkek is unlikely to extradite the remaining 15 to Uzbekistan.

The departure of the 440 Uzbek refugees from Kyrgyzstan puts an end to 10 weeks of pressure, negotiations, and diplomatic notes between Bishkek, Tashkent, and international organizations.

Muratbek Imanaliyev, the former Kyrgyz foreign minister, tells RFE/RL that Kyrgyz authorities have dealt well with opposing pressure from Uzbekistan and the United Nations.

???????I believe the decision to take the refugees to a third country was the most optimal option, because, as we know, the Kyrgyz leadership has been caught between two fires on this issue. On the one hand, the international community demanded that Kyrgyzstan should follow the international convention it signed Äon the protection of refugeesÅ. On the other hand, there was Uzbekistan????????s leadership, which also had support from some other states, Äasking for them to be returnedÅ,??????? Imanaliyev said.

Uzbekistan had put strong pressure on Bishkek, saying some of the refugees were guilty of serious crimes, including terrorism and extremism during the violent clashes in Andijon in May. Human rights groups say the clashes between government troops and demonstrators may have left as many as 750 people dead, including many women and children.

Uzbek officials put the death toll from the violence at 187, saying most of those killed were government troops and extremists.

Alex Vatanka, the Eurasia editor at the London-based ???????Jane????????s Country Risk??????? security publication, says Bishkek has turned the Uzbek refugee crisis into a public relations opportunity.

He says the fact that Kyrgyz authorities decided to demonstrate their cooperation with international bodies like the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, sends a positive signal to the world community.

???????What the Kyrgyz decided to do — which was only to return a simple handful of the refugees immediately after they arrived and then allow the remaining to stay in Kyrgyzstan and allow, in the time that passed since, for things to cool down slightly — it????????s made it a much better thought-through process than simply a kind of panic response to the immediate Uzbek demand when Andijon happened in May,” Vatanka says.

Vatanka goes on to note how this is good for the Uzbek government as well, and why they really shouldn’t want these refugees back:

Vatanka says Uzbek authorities are also winners in the situation, as it is ultimately not in their interest to have the 15 men back in Uzbekistan.

???????Why go there and create more damage to your own reputation than it has already sustained in recent weeks and months? ÄUzbek authoritiesÅ can almost be sure that if they go and make a claim, saying ???????We want these refugees back,???????? the world media would love to have another go at Uzbekistan, saying: ???????Here it is, ÄUzbek President IslamÅ Karimov is trying to get these innocent people back into Uzbekistan so he can torture them.’ That????????s the way he will be portrayed. Hopefully, Karimov has some advisors telling him to let this one go,” Vatanka says.

Vatanka predicts the remaining 15 refugees will eventually follow the rest of the group and leave Kyrgyzstan for a third country.

It almost seems to bad, because I was really looking forward to ripping Karimov a proverbial new one. But really, it looks as if the situation has been worked out for the best that such a situation can be made out to be. Check out Registan, who has an exclusive picture of the busses leaving from the refugee camp.

I wanted to highlight this because it’s really very dramatic given how much the international eye has refocused on Serbian war crimes. The wife of one of the leaders indicted for genocide spoke out on regional television stations appealing for his surrender. I can’t even imagine how hard that must be.

29 July 2005 (RFE/RL) — The wife of war crimes indictee and former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic appealed to her husband in a broadcast carried by several regional television stations yesterday to surrender to the Hague-based war crimes tribunal.

Bosnian and international media said the appeal came as a surprise to regional political, military, and journalistic communities, while a EUFOR commander suggested it was a logical consequence of the 60-year-old’s decision to evade trial.

An adviser to Serbian President Boris Tadic, Jovan Simic, said the situation is “very serious” and that “we will probably know ÄKaradzic’sÅ answer very soon.”

Ljiljana Zelen-Karadzic stressed that their family can no longer live with the incessant pressure from unnamed international and local authorities seeking his arrest for .

“Our family is under constant pressures from all sides,” Zelen-Karadzic said in an emotional appeal. “Our lives and existence are threatened. That is why I have to make a choice between my loyalty to you and toward my children and grandchildren. And I have made it.”

She stressed that “it is painful and difficult for me to plead with you. However, I am pleading with you with all my heart and soul to surrender.”

CAFTA is often compared to NAFTA, but the roots of the trade pact are very different. They began in 1983 when the great Ronald Reagan launched his Caribbean Basin Initiative. As he fought the march of communism with all his strength, the far-thinking President Reagan also knew that U.S. might is based not only on military power but on economic power and more particularly, the ability to share our hope with others. The American Dream is also the Honduran Dream, the Salvadoran Dream, the Costa Rican Dream, the Guatemalan Dream.

Now, with CAFTA, we all share the same dream. CAFTA unites us, and not only does it unite us, it builds democracy and civil society through free markets. It also destroys communist tyrants like Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, all of whom tried to stop CAFTA. They lost. And with CAFTA, we are all Americans now.

This is Reagan’s final triumph.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the extraordinary French observer who chronicled how democracy rose and developed in America, is 200 years old today. In the Age of Democratic Revolution & Civil Society, he gave us all a roadmap that is more important than anyone ever realized. Great economists like Hernando de Soto, who first underlined the importance of property rights, got much of his material from American history and much of that he took from de Tocqueville.

Alexis de Tocqueville is a true polestar of authentic democratic revolution and a great capital-L Liberal.

The Adam Smith Institute blog has a marvellous essay on this authentic great revolutionary here.

It looks like a somewhat promising election is about to go down the tubes. It looks like deposed military strongman Vieira won Guinea-Bissau’s runoff election. But allegations of fraud are coming from the other candidate, Sanha, who is the current ruling party’s candidate.

Guinea-Bissau’s former military ruler Joao Bernardo Vieira has won run-off presidential elections, the electoral commission has announced.

Mr Vieira, known as Nino, came to power in a coup and ruled for 18 years until overthrown in 1999 by the armed forces.

Hours before the provisional results were announced, a spokesman for Mr Vieira’s rival said he would reject the results because of fraud allegations.

Rival supporters briefly clashed in the capital after the announcement.

The election is intended to end years of coups and political instability.

During his campaign, Mr Vieira described himself as a gift of God to the people of Guinea-Bissau coming back to once again lead them to development and prosperity.

Rumours

Mr Viera took 55% of the vote compared to 44% gained by his challenger Malam Bacai Sanha, the electoral commission said.

Both candidates had previously promised to respect the outcome of the election but a spokesman for Mr Sanha, Desejado Lima Da Costa said there had been fraud in two places, including the capital, Bissau, which must be addressed first.

He also criticised the head of the electoral commission for refusing requests for a recount.

European monitors said voting was “calm and organised”.

Mr Sanha gained the most votes in the first round of voting.

Before the results were announced, electoral commission spokeswoman Vera Cabral Monteiro said:

“The results will be published Thursday if we have all of the security guarantees in place.”

“Without those guarantees, we cannot release the results, even though we have them. We cannot endanger people’s lives.”

There were some disturbances during campaigning, and one person was killed when police opened fire on former President Kumba Yala’s supporters protesting against his failure to make the run-off.

An attack by gunmen on the country’s presidential palace and interior ministry also raised tensions ahead of the poll.

The results need to be independently investigated and definitely not completely confirmed prematurely by international observers, as is the case sometimes. I wonder if Jimmeh was there? But the case also exists that Vieira did win. When populist country destroyer Yala ran and lost in the first round of the election, he pledged all of his support to Vieira, which could have tipped him to win over Sanha. Both circumstances are troubling. If the past few decades have taught us anything, populists and strongmen are not what Guinea-Bissau needs to move out of its hole.

Ugandans went to the polls today to vote in a referendum on allowing multiple parties run in elections. Political parties were effectively outlawed 19 years ago, but President Museveni is being pressured by foreign donors, who supply half of the government’s budget, to enact reforms. Turnout was very low largely due to torrential rains and partly due to apathy.

Ugandans are choosing whether to allow multiparty politics in the East African country in a referendum Thursday, the first step in reforming the country’s constitution, which forbids political parties from campaigning in elections.

President Yoweri Museveni banned multiparty politics when he came to power in 1986, insisting political parties were tribally based and responsible for years of partisan violence and civil war.

Under pressure from international donors and Ugandan activists, Museveni agreed to reintroduce multiparty politics, if a majority of voters approved.

Opposition groups have boycotted the US$12 million referendum, insisting it was a waste of money and the reforms should be instituted without a vote.

Electoral commission chairman Badru Kiggundu made a last-minute appeal late Wednesday to Uganda’s 8.5 million registered voters to participate in the referendum.

“I appeal to voters to turn up in large numbers and exercise their democratic rights by choosing a system of their own choice,” he said.

The opposition parties called for the referendum not to be held; not because they disagreed with multi-party elections, but because it was a waste of money given that everyone wants it. It could have simply been agreed upon within the legislature. The truth is, as the article notes, that Museveni is under pressure for donors for change in the country. By holding a referendum, he creates the illusion of popular support for “his” initiative while maintaining control over the country. Effectively, if you vote “yes,” you’re voting for his new system, but if you vote no, you’re voting to maintain the system that he rules already. Since political parties are currently illegal, Museveni gets the dual benefit of keeping his donors happy while identifying political opponents.

Like other narcissistic totalitarian leaders, his plans are all the more apparent simply by what he says. Just look at what he says here, in context of new political parties and the referendum.

Museveni said that the referendum is not a contest between political parties and the Movement insisting that it was important to free those who feel conscripted into the Movement, disarm those that have been spreading damaging propaganda against his government in the international community and to allow the minority that have refused to embrace the Movement ideology to belong to their own home.

“We are not asking you to vote on what is better between the Movement and political parties; that one we decided a long time ago. The Movement wants to rid itself of those people,” Museveni said. “There is nothing wrong with the Movement; it is the best. The question is how long should we wrestle with people who have persistently refused to join us for the last 19 years?” he said.

Talk about being straight forward! And if there is any other indication of intent, his rubber-stamp parliament last month passed through an amendment that would allow presidents to run without limitation. Oh, wait. What other Ugandan presidents are there? That’s right. None. Just Museveni.

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams in April called on the IRA to lose its arms after getting totally snubbed by the usual supporters in Irish America. Yes, even Ted Kennedy gave him the cold shoulder. This announcement seems several months in the making, though hardly anyone believed the organization would seriously embrace the message. They are saying that it will only work through peaceful, democratic means to achieve independence from British rule, though questions of their current political legitimacy still exist in my mind, given that they achieved their status through the “armed struggle.” But most importantly right now, if they keep their promise, today should be the end of all terrorist attacks permanently in over three decades.

The Irish Republican Army has announced an end to its armed campaign against British rule, and that it will pursue its goals through peaceful means.

The outlawed group said the armed activity ends Thursday. It called on its militants to peacefully work in developing political and democratic programs.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the move is a “step of unparalleled magnitude” in the recent history of Northern Ireland. Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern and the White House also welcomed the announcement.

Gerry Adams, the leader of the IRA’s political wing Sinn Fein, said the move will help revive the peace process.

The IRA said it believes its armed struggle was legitimate - but an alternative exists in ending British rule in Northern Ireland and uniting with Ireland.

The IRA is blamed for the deaths of 1,800 people in its armed campaign, which lasted more than three decades. A cease-fire has been in effect since 1997.

Most significant about this announcement is that it comes on the heels of the 7/7 bombings, Britain having reinforced its already strong willpower against terrorism. The IRA must have realized that in the face of a nationwide crackdown against such groups and activities that it must not have been far from the radar, making it a perfect time to finally make the announcement. In terms of the fight against terrorism, this is a big win. However, I still have my reservations, as the “armed struggle” is not the only dimension to the organization.

The most obvious problem with the statement is that the IRA will not be dismantled as an organization. This means that the intimidation, beatings, and illegal fund raising will still continue. Also, in order for Sinn Fein and the IRA to work toward a united Ireland in a democratic way, the north must consent to unification. Here’s why that doesn’t look to happen any time soon, and why this will be a problem for the IRA.

They explain that armed struggle is ending because the conditions are right to achieve a united Ireland. In fact, a united Ireland looks no more closer than it does when the Provisional IRA was formed in 1969.

As the last census found, Protestants remain in a majority in the north of Ireland, constitutional change is predicated on unionist consent, Ian Paisley is the leader of unionism, the post boxes of Belfast are still red and the union flag still flies on top of City Hall.

If the status quo remains in, say, five years’ time, how will the IRA leadership be able to explain to its members, past and present, that the slaughter and the carnage of the last 35 years was somehow worth it?

Today’s statement places Gerry Adams et al as hostages to the fortune of history.

What will the IRA do in several years time if its cause comes to a standstill? Will it resort to terrorism once again? Or is the cause of unification not as important as maintaining shadow political and economic control of southern Ireland? Call me cautious, but while the armed struggle may in fact be over, the root of its existence is still in play with all the other symptoms persisting.

On Tuesday I discussed how pressure from the ASEAN countries forced Burma to forgo the chairmanship, a notable break from a general policy of nonintervention with regards to any particular country’s internal affairs. The move was cheered by the United States, the EU, and pro-democracy activists everywhere. Representatives from both bodies had threatened to boycott the meeting if Burma was to take the 2006 chair, which would have dealt a severe diplomatic blow as such a thing had never been done before. Speaking of other boycotts, though, President Bush just signed into law another year of sanctions against the Burmese military junta.

US President George W. Bush today signed a law imposing trade sanctions on Burma for an additional year, punishing its military rulers for detaining opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The law bars imports from the country.

Burma has been ruled for more than four decades by the military. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi - whose National League for Democracy won a landslide election victory in 1990 only to be denied power by the army - remains under house arrest.

The import restrictions were first imposed in 2003.

Under the legislation, the import ban must be renewed each year and expires after three years.

Now that Burma is being cornered by the more democratic countries of the world and region, what is an entrenched totalitarian regime to do? Oh, that’s right! Find new friends. Lucky for them, there is a giant communist country right down the road that is interested in propping up authoritarian regimes all over the world. No, not the Soviet Union. Silly. That’s so 20th century!

No, while the United States and the EU are threatening a boycott of ASEAN over the Burma chairmanship, China decides that it’s going to boycott as well; except it’s going to send its foreign minister to Burma instead.

July 28, 2005 (DVB) - The Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing met with Burma????????s military junta, State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) chairman Gen Than Shwe and prime minister Gen Soe Win in Rangoon on 28 July.

The two were seen separately by the Chinese minister at the country????????s Parliament building and discussed matters on closer tie and increasing trades between the two countries, according to reports from Burma.

Li who skipped ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Laotian capital Vientiane made a surprise visit to Rangoon on 27 July, will return directly to China in the evening. His visit came after Burma agreed to give up its chance to chair ASEAN in 2006 due to pressures from the West and member countries.

Some observers assumed that the Chinese minister????????s visit to Rangoon is connected to the latest development. But former Burmese ambassador to China and now a veteran politician Thakhin Chan Tun told DVB that the visit was just a social call on the part of the Chinese who want to strengthen the tie between the two countries in competition with other powerful neighbours.

In other words, the Burmese dictatorship is becoming internationally isolated and needs help. Just like with Zimbabwe, the Chinese are ready and willing to support the regime in exchange for needed resources and trade. Not to mention a partner in authoritarianism.

in the House.

Victory for our hemisphere.

The full list of how they voted.

Our friend Will has analysis and a good roundup of what other bloggers are saying here.

IBD has an editorial saying this trade treaty will benefit businesses across the board, citing the word of Central Americans who are in the middle of this. It is here or here.

Sigh. I am too tired to comment. But I am overjoyed.