Miguel Buitrago has done a very valuable translation of an interview with Felipe Quispe, a Bolivian romantic indigenous leader running for president whose views are even more extremist than those of Evo Morales. It’s positively surreal but an absolute must-read for perspective on what an out-of-it space case this guy is in this election year. He discusses the coming bloodshed he sees as inevitable, his study of Machiavelli, his burning desire for power, his priority of employing all the unemployed intellectuals and his inability to compromise politically on anything. Quispe reminds of Grenada’s Eric Gairy. Read the whole thing here.

Aleksander Boyd has posted a long and extensive report on the state of democracy in Venezuela from its leading democracy advocate, Sumate. The report shows in precise terms the parlous state of Venezuelan democracy and the news is not good. But it is a very important and historic report and Alek read all of it and urges the rest of it to do the same. He writes:

Sumate has produced the most comprehensive report about the state of democracy in Venezuela. I highly recommend to read through and analyse the facts presented. By far the best resource for information on Venezuela.

Read it here or here.

El Universal has its weekly Venezuelan land-expropriations roundup, illustrating how the increasingly Marxist government is taking ever greater numbers of rights from the people. The disturbing string of ongoing confiscations is here.

Argentina is rapidly hurtling toward the front of the news with the upcoming Summit of the Americas and President Bush’s visit to the beautiful but sinking-economically-to-the-bottom country. All this will be front page by the end of the week.

David Sasaki at Global Voices has an excellent blog roundup on all that’s being written in the blogosphere on events in Argentina. It’s a good baseline for news you can’t get anywhere else. Read it here.

Following the approval of the new Iraqi constitution despite opposition by the majority of Sunnis, Sunni Iraqi leaders are getting serious about the political process and their own stakes in the new Iraq. This past week a new Sunni coalition party was formed from three parties - the Iraqi People’s Conference, the Iraqi Islamic Party, and the National Dialogue Council. According to the Iraqi newspaper Al-Bawaba, which emphasized not once, but twice, that these were the Sunnis who benefited from Saddam Hussein’s rule, the new party would be called “The Iraqi Consensus Party.” It program is to encourage Sunnis to stop boycotting, stop the killing of Iraqis (without condemning attacks on Americans), and encourage the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

There are also new developments in the alignments of the Shia parties. The ruling United Iraqi Alliance is losing popularity, while the secular party of former prime minister Iyad Allawi is getting stronger. The UIA is also undergoing a shakeup, with the militant Moqtada Sadr joining, and four liberal parties, including the Iraqi National Congress led by Ahmad Chalabi, leaving.

More details from a report by al-Hayat:

One the eve of the end of the period for registering the electoral lists tomorrow, three Sunni organizations announced a new coalition to enter into the elections, moving beyond their opposition to the results of the constitutional referendum, and hoping to focus on demanding the withdrawal of the American military, following the increase of pressure internally on the administration of President George Bush with the increase of the number of Americans killed beyond the 2,000 mark and the decline of his popularity to a very low average…

And within the context of the political process the Shia leader Moqtada Sadr announced that he would enter the elections in the Anbar in coalition with the Sunnis…. And following the failure of the Sunni attempts to defeat the constitution, the leaders of the Sunni parties declared the formation of a coalition to enter the December elections under the name “National Consensus Party.” The new coalition includes the Iraqi People’s Congress, the National Dialogue Council and the Islamic Party. The coalition encouraged Iraqis to reject any new call to boycott the political process…

The general secretary of the Islamic Party, Tariq Hashimi, said in a press conference held by the three parties “that a number of entities will enter into this front.” And he added that “participation in the election has become a national necessity and a legal necessity… and we wish all who do not participate in the electoral process and are still opposed to the principle of participation to understand that our project of rebirth and reform is not served by irresponsible speeches…”

Sunni leaders announce the formation of a new coalition to contest elections. (al-Sharq al-Awsat)

The news report by al-Sharq al-Awsat is shorter but also included the point that the three groups “decided to ‘leave the doors open for other political forces’ to join its coalition.” The article likewise noted Moqtada Sadr’s declared intention to coalition with the Sunnis.

Five points strike me as requiring emphasis here. First, note how opposition to the war at home encourages America’s enemies abroad, both the terrorists and the more pragmatic anti-American bloc. For those who opposed the invasion of Iraq, that debate is over. They need to bear in mind that the world can hear them, and it has an effect.

Second, at the same time, this is a “resistance” with which the United States can deal. If they want U.S. troops to leave, then they must actively support the Iraqization of the war against the jihadist groups. To the extent that U.S. troops are not needed in any given region, they can be withdrawn from that region. But no timetable should be set for withdrawal other than this - we’ll leave when the job is done.

Third, note that the points about Sadr coalitioning with the Sunnis is now being contradicted by a more recent report from al-Hayat, which I discuss below. It appears the that ruling United Iraqi Alliance coalition is undergoing a major shake-up, and that Sadr is joining it, while others are leaving.

Fourth, it is worth emphasizing that the Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the other grand ayatollahs are not endorsing a political party or coalition this time. I’ve long held a positive view of Sistani’s role in this process, going back to shortly after the fall of Saddam, but this is a good thing. It was good that Sistani endorsed the United Iraqi Alliance list back in January to get the process rolling, but the Shia don’t need guidance on this now.

Fifth, note the warning from the leaders of the new Sunni party to other Sunnis - you need to participate, and if you don’t, keep your mouths shut and stop saying irresponsible things.

The banner the girl is holding reads “Elect Iraq.” (Al-Bawaba)

Now that the registration deadline has passed, Al-Bawaba has published a report “The Most Prominent Parties and Blocs Competing in the Iraqi Elections” (descriptions below are from the article, I was not familiar with a few of the smaller groups):

• United Iraqi Alliance: ruling party, main parties are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Dawa, newly joined by Moqtada Sadr’s faction (more on this below).
• The Kurdish Coalition: With the departure of the Kurdish Islamic Party (discussed below), this now just includes the National Kurdish Union led by Iraqi President Jalal Talibani and the Kurdish Democratic Party headed by Masud Barzani.
• The Iraqi National Accord: Secular Shia party led by former prime minister Iyad Allawi.
• Iraqi Consensus Party: New Sunni coalition discussed above.
• United Iraqi Front: Sunni party which boycotted the referendum and has called the results fraudulent.
• Iraqi National Congress: Secular Shia party led by Ahmad Chalabi, as discussed below, they have just left the ruling party.
• The Arab Accord: Arab nationalist group.
• The National Two Rivers Front: Christian party.

A few other parties are mentioned but with little or no description, and certainly with no chance of winning. These are the main parties above.

Al-Hayat is also reporting Monday on unexpected changes in the coalitions. First, it is reporting that the United Iraqi Alliance, the governing alliance which had contained several parties, is breaking up due to a loss of popularity and a shuffling of power within the coalition. The article reports that they are expected to only get half the support they received in the previous election, which was 48%, while the bloc led by former prime minister Iyad Allawi seems to have doubled in strength.

It is reported that Sadr’s group is now joining the UIA, which is not a good sign, and that it is being abandoned by four liberal parties, including that of Ahmad Chalabi. The article notes that it isn’t clear whether Chalabi and the other liberals left because Sadr was included, or whether this was part of their strategy, to separate themselves from the religious UIA, thus forcing an alliance of convenience between Sadr’s militant Shia party and the more moderate but nevertheless Islamist parties SCIRI and Dawa, which head the UIA. I’ll be returning to this issue.

The al-Hayat article also reports that the Kurdish Islamic Party has withdrawn from the previously united Kurdish list. So now there are two Kurdish factions; one secular two-party bloc, and one Islamic party on its own.

Each time Iraq has an election, a greater portion of the population becomes energized by the political process. This is to be expected. To the extent that some of the parties are hostile to the United States, that is to be expected as well. The rise and fall of the fortunes of the Islamist UIA and the secular Shia parties will be something I’ll be following closely through December.

Kirk H. Sowell, Arab World Analysis.com

Zanzibar held presidential and parliamentary elections over the weekend. As with many elections in Africa that we have covered here at Publius the aftermath has been a violent one with protestors clashing with state police forces. The opposition is claiming victory although, as is suspected, fraud is likely to be committed on a wide scale.

Results are starting to trickle in from semi-autonomous Zanzibar’s elections on Sunday. The islands’ main opposition group is alleging that serious irregularities have taken place, while the ruling party dismissed those allegations.

As the vote-counting was under way, the two key contenders in the elections, the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi, and the main opposition group the Civic United Front issued statements outlining their concerns.

CUF presidential candidate Seif Sharif Hamad told reporters that, based on his party’s experience of Sunday’s elections, he concludes that they were anything but free and fair.

“The electoral process has been marred with a number of shortcomings,” said Mr. Hamad. “First of all, a number of our party agents were not supplied with results sheets, and as such that may lead to the results to be cooked in some areas. Secondly, we have realized that about 80-thousand people could not vote, and some of them had voting cards. Their names were listed outside, but they were not in the register. Because of that, you find these people are denied their right Äto voteÅ.”

Other opposition complaints include: instances where the ruling party had brought in truckloads of youth nicknamed “janjaweed” and others to vote for the ruling party at some polling stations; the discovery of what the Civic United Front says were extra ballot boxes at locations that did not have polling stations; and police intimidation and brutality at several polling stations and within Stone Town.

Mr. Hamad called for the Zanzibar Electoral Commission to address the opposition concerns before issuing final results, and says his party plans to stage peaceful protests if members determine that the results do not reflect the will of Zanzibaris.

The ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi denies that Sunday’s polls were riddled with irregularities. CCM official Kidawa Saleh explains.

Zanzibar is semi-autonomous from the rest of Tanzania and has its own House of Representatives with 50 seats. According to this report, preliminary results show 15 seats on the main island going to the ruling Socialists, with 18 seats on the second island so far going to the opposition. This has not been the only contentious elections since multi-party democracy was restored to the country in the early ’90s, however.

There have always been clashes between the opposition and the ruling party. One might consider it somehow strange that the Socialists are still in power given how popular the opposition party is in Zanzibar. But then again, it isn’t really all that surprising given the credibility and legitimacy of most African governments. The results won’t be out for a while, but a winning result for the Socialists wouldn’t exactly make me blink, though I can imagine that after all this time, people are getting sick of the same thing and are going to continue to rise up against the government.

Speaking at the “World Without Zionism” conference, the president of Iran said that he wanted Israel to be “wiped off the map.” Here is a picture of him at the conference:

But that’s not the whole thing. Gary Metz over at Regime Change Iran has the exclusive picture that the media isn’t showing you.

That’s the United States broken at the bottom of the glass, just before Israel falls down as well. Make sure to read the rest of Gary’s post, as he outlines the Islamic Republic’s war plans from its own mouth.

It is true that the investigation just about completed by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is not related to the Iraq war, but the incident giving rise to the investigation does relate to one of the reasons why the liberation of that country was necessary. For background you probably aren’t getting from the MSM, see my post, Background to the Plame Investigation: Iraq was Seeking Uranium from Niger for its Nuclear Ambitions.

In the unlikely case that you missed the details of the investigation and the indictment of Scooter Libby and need to catch up, check out my post Mr. Libby’s Exponentially Stupid Cover-up. The post contains links to the special counsel’s website and the text of the indictment, which is an interesting read. After reading the indictment I got the headline for my post from the idea that Libby’s story sounded more stupid each time he retold it (i.e. its stupidity increased exponentially).

For those interested in economic development, I also have a post on the implications of Saudi Arabia being accepted into the World Trade Organization.

Felipe Calderon’s entry into the Mexican presidential race for 2006 creates a whole new dynamic in the election. It’s something I’ve believed since the beginning.

Calderon is from the right-leaning PAN party, same as incumbent President Vicente Fox, but he comes across as a different player because he wasn’t Fox’s choice as successor. Fox himself is viewed as a disappointment by many Mexicans for his failure to really reform the country. He’s not an utter disaster but there’s nothing worse than soured hopes from a man who was brought to office as Mexico’s first opposition candidate in over 70 years and who failed to live up to the promise of instigating a real democratic revolution. But perceptions of disapproval from Fox mean that Calderon has significant credibility among those who are alienated from Fox.

There are two interesting accounts out now about Calderon, and the impact he is making in this election. One is from The Economist and the other is from The Financial Times. Both are excellent. I will see what, if anything, might be gleaned from the Mexican blogosphere about this fresh new candidate who has at least a chance to beat left-leaning Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador when elections are held around mid-year in 2006.

To start:

Calderon’s entry is no wrap for the non-AMLO voters and, things will remain unpredictable. Boz has some analysis on AMLO’s gains in the north, a PAN stronghold, here.

Boz has some additional analysis here - I agree with all of it:

Calderon will definitely inject new life into the race. A mostly clean primary win really benefits his image (he????????ll be hit later because he was backed by the teacher????????s union, but that????????s not too much of an issue).

This past week AMLO told the PRI and PAN to unite against him and prevent an ???????electoral massacre???????. It was a cute line but shows some hubris. I think he????????ll be surprised that this race will be close.

From my side, I have nothing against AMLO winning (I actually see Madrazo as the worst of the candidates), but I think Calderon is the candidate that Mexico deserves to make this a good democratic race and give Mexican voters a real choice.

As a final side note, it????????s interesting that several times while writing this comment I almost referred to Calderon and Madrazo as the ???????opposition???????. Calderon is obviously with the party in government and Lopez Obrador is the party in opposition. However, AMLO has been the front runner for so long, that he????????s lost some of that upstart appeal and has really become the candidate to beat. Peaking too early may cost him now that there????????s a new candidate in the race.

Now this is something you have to see!

Venezuela’s Francisco Toro has challenged Venezuela’s Gustavo Coronel to an ‘Opinion duel’ on a special blog they set up for just that purpose. They are arguing about the nature of the ‘ni-ni’’s, those people in Venezuela who have not made up their minds about whether they support Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez or not. The ground rules are posted, with each post limited to 750 words and no more than four posts allowed.

Naturally, both parties will argue like Adams and Jefferson, rather than Chavez and his latest Barbie doll, so reason will be the order of the day. Venezuela’s opposition could come to an eventual consensus from this peaceful exercise in opposition deliberation. It sounds absolutely fascinating.

My money’s on Gustavo Coronel winning but I will read Francisco Toro’s arguments with interest. Go see the whole thing here.

Breaking news - and likely trouble. An electoral board has ruled that the Dec. 4 presidential election will not go through, due to a redistricting dispute. Now, the possibility of roadblocks and using food as a weapon looms. The current caretaker president - who’s in office only because the last two presidents were thrown out by roadblockers - said he would resign if elections were not held by Dec. 4. Well, they’re not being held.

I have a blogosphere reaction roundup to follow. But first, here is the news:

Agencia EFE has the story here:

Electoral court suspends Bolivia’s December ballot

La Paz, Oct 28 (EFE).- Bolivia’s CNE electoral tribunal announced Friday the suspension of early presidential and general elections set for Dec. 4.

The announcement came after lawmakers failed to meet the deadline set by the CNE for agreeing on a potentially destabilizing congressional redistricting that the tribunal demanded as a prerequisite for the balloting.

“The CNE finds itself obliged to inform the citizenry that it is no longer possible to hold the general election on Dec. 4, 2005, as previously scheduled, as all the pending technical and operational activities cannot be completed,” the court said in a statement.

Since the CNE’s initial order was handed down Sept. 22, Bolivians have remained in suspense as to when, or even whether, the balloting will take place, given resistance to the reallocation of legislative seats on the part of Indian-populated western highland provinces that stand to lose representation in favor of prosperous, mainly white Santa Cruz in the east.

Blog reactions:

Miguel Buitrago of MABB says that the election isn’t exactly halted, only that a court says it cannot meet the Dec. 4 date. He says the executive branch still can, but it all does indicate the parlous state of Bolivian democracy that this is going on at all. A new date, Dec. 18, is being bruited around.

UPDATE: Miguel Buitrago of MABB has a first-rate new post, expertly explaining what is really happening. “What a chaotic situation,” he opens. But after reading his post, at least it will make sense.

Eduardo Avila at Barrio Flores has an excellent concise analysis about Morales’ reaction, the impact on Bolivia’s voters, and where this is potentially headed.

Alexey at Alexey Writes has some perspective on the growth of the blogosphere as Bolivia’s crisis worsens and adds some thoughts about the inadequacies of newspaper coverage and the need for debate.

Jim Schultz at the leftist Democracy Center sees a lot of potential for trouble, too. He has some firsthand color of what the campaign looks like on the ground in Cochabamba today here.

Alvaro Piaggio at Blog de Bolivia in Santa Cruz cites some of Evo Morales’ previous statements in the wake of the ruling and explains that it is proof of his hypocrisy.

Antonio Saravia at The Economist en su Laberinto discusses Evo Morales’ campaign strategy of ‘elect me or you’ll get roadblocks.’ He calls it ‘Your money or your life’ and compares it to highway robbery. He also discusses the differences between Evo Morales and his ex-terrorist running mate and points out that they are not all that unified as a team.

I don’t think I’ll ever get used to the weather here in Boston. But anyway, I’m sick again and have been for the past three days. It seems to be climaxing today so that’s why I haven’t blogged. You know it’s bad when you can’t even swallow your own saliva! So have a nice weekend everyone.

One of the world’s most important under-reported stories is the ongoing struggle for political influence and commercial advantage in Central Asia - mainly Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyryzstan and Tajikistan - between Russia, China and the United States. Security Watchtower has an important post, The Battle for Central Asia, which is worth reading and which links to a series from Radio Liberty on the subject.

Although the security of petroleum supply and counter-terrorism are important themes in the struggle, there is also an ideological struggle based around democratization. A couple of points to highlight:

“China will feel that if Central Asia is governed by the pro-U.S. regime or government, it will destabilize China’s Xinjiang region and will give Beijing a lot of trouble.”

…

“After the events of the ‘colored’ revolutions in Georgia and in Ukraine, above all after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, there are Äno longerÅ any doubts in the political class as a whole concerning ÄtheÅ contradiction — basic contradiction — of interests between the United States and Russia.”

I highlight these issues to illustrate an otherwise inexplicable source of tension in the region. Specifically, the Turkic peoples of northern Afghanistan are ethnically and religiously related to the Muslim peoples of western China. If Afghanistan succeeds in creating a democratic culture, this might be exported to the non-Han (i.e. non-Chinese) populations of China, thus challenging Beijing’s control.

Kirk H. Sowell, Window on the Arab World

The bloggers have come up with a real big one on voter fraud in Venezuela. Miguel explains it out very well here.

Venezuelan congressional elections are being held on Dec. 4 and a court has ruled in favor of stacking the vote today. See my post here. But that’s not the only problem.

Now Javier at Notiven has found thousands of Gonzalezes all born on the same day and the same state, 95% of them in Zulia. He’s got the documents to go see. Here is a translation below from the original on Notiven:

Can Venezuelan Electorate Authority explain this?
ID Express of the Gonzalez last name

Much has been said that venezuelan authorities created voters for the 2004 recall- referendum in order to put ahead President Ch????vez with ghost voters, but it has been very hard to prove. Here is my contribution.

A couple of days ago, El Nacional newspaper with a data link, and Miguel Octavio’s Blog mentioned that data from the Venezuelan electorate authority - CNE showed that there were 2,002 individuals with last name Gonzalez registered at the CNE whose date of birth was March 17th 1974, and 95% of these are registered in Zulia State.

My initiative consisted in reordering the data using their ID Numbers, and a second sort using the two last names to prove that something strange happened. Remember, according to the data, all these Gonzalez were born on the same date, all around Venezuela, but the way the ID’s are assigned in Venezuela, all of them were at the same place at the same time and you walk out knowing your number, it’s not assigned centrally.

I found that on 562 Gonzalez, their ID is one number more than the previous Gonzalez. Below you can see an example.

ID. Last Name, First Name Center Table State Municipality
22,154,292 GONZALEZ GONZALEZ JOSE RAFAEL 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,293 GONZALEZ ROSA ELENA 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,294 GONZALEZ EDILIA 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,295 GONZALEZ GONZALEZ SARAY DEL C 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,296 GONZALEZ JHONY ENRIQUE 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,297 GONZALEZ CARMEN 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,298 GONZALEZ VICENTE 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,299 GONZALEZ IPUANA FRANCISCO 63065 3 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,300 GONZALEZ AMALIA 63060 1 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,301 GONZALEZ GONZALEZ KARINA 63060 1 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,302 GONZALEZ MARIA CRISTINA 63060 1 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,303 GONZALEZ IPUANA CELMIRA DEL C 63060 1 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,304 GONZALEZ JOSE ANTONIO 63060 1 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ
22,154,305 GONZALEZ IPUANA JORGE MIGUEL 63060 1 EDO. ZULIA MP. PAEZ

For the next group of data, it’s sorted by Last Name ( many people use their two last names ). Observe the second last name or maiden name: the difference between the first and second, and third and fourth group is an additional letter “U”, and once again, all these were born on the same date.

22,124,235 GONZ????LEZ EPIAY???? JAKELIN
22,151,184 GONZALEZ EPIAYU JUAN CARLOS
22,158,448 GONZALEZ EPIEYU ALBA LUZ
22,148,364 GONZALEZ EPIEYU ALICIA ROSITA
22,148,352 GONZALEZ EPIEYU BASILIA
22,176,701 GONZALEZ EPIEYU ELIZABETH
22,159,405 GONZALEZ EPIEYU MERCEDES
22,176,703 GONZALEZ EPIEYU PEDRO NEL
22,151,163 GONZALEZ EPIEYUU CRISPIN
22,151,287 GONZALEZ EPIEYUU HILDA
22,158,367 GONZALEZ EPIEYUU JOSE
22,158,820 GONZALEZ EPIEYUU ROSA BEATRIZ
22,176,663 GONZALEZ EPINAYU ALCIRA
22,176,668 GONZALEZ EPINAYU CARMEN
22,159,38 GONZALEZ EPINAYU MARIA ANTONIA
22,176,562 GONZALEZ EPINAYU MARIA EUSEBIA
22,151,202 GONZALEZ EPINAYU VICTOR JOSE
22,148,753 GONZALEZ EPINAYU VIRGINIA
22,159,383 GONZALEZ EPINAYU ZORAIDA
22,148,730 GONZALEZ EPINAYUU FRANCISCO

After the above, whatever your conclusion, be assured that something fishy happened; no wonder the CNE does not want their data and electorate books to be audited.

Javier C????ceres
28/oct/2005

UPDATE: Daniel Duquenal has a superb new analysis of this state of affairs here.

On Academic Elephant’s superb blog, I found a small post that resonated with me: The tendency of the mainstream media to belittle U.S. officials when they visit small countries.

There are all kinds of valid reasons to criticize them, and from many angles. But to savage Donald Rumsfeld because he paid a visit to distant Mongolia or distant Paraguay is absolutely despicable. The news media has mocked such visits, written them off as proof that Rumsfeld can’t get any other friends, and insulted the countries themselves and their customs. Elephant notes that the media focused almost exclusively on a horse gift the Mongolians presented to Rumsfeld. Well, yes. And then they ignored the real gist of the meeting which was trade and security. I noted how the media focused on a claque of protestors in Paraguay who were exactly the problem (as Cuban agents) that Rumsfeld was meeting the president about.

The only thing the media haven’t done is realize something inspiring is happening: The small countries have sought dialogue on issues of mutual importance and officials like Rumsfeld have sat down and given them some well-deserved attention. There’s plenty that’s right with that.

But the mockery of the media is relentless on these trips, and probably one reason why many small countries have not gotten the attention they merit. What U.S. official would want to visit such countries amid such harassment and insults? Both Mongolia and Paraguay have tried hard to improve their situations, bringing out many free market reforms and have begun efforts to extend trade ties. What’s wrong with any of this?

The mainstream media does a disservice when it acts like adolescents snapping towels like a bunch of losers in a locker room against the efforts of the U.S. to give attention to small as well as major countries. They also reveal an embarassing parochiality in their ignorance of these countries. In their minds, if it’s not London, Paris or Baghdad, if there’s no bureau there, it’s a country to be laughed at. It’s their mentality and I know it. They should be ashamed. It’s not the size or the power of the country that counts - it’s how good the country is that matters.

Besides, there are no small countries if there are sound institutions, some kind of democracy, good currency, fair justice and decent incentives, and absence of corruption. No such thing as small if democratic revolutions exist in them. Just ask Singapore, Estonia, El Salvador, or Luxembourg. Not one of those countries is insignificant or unimportant.

Read Academic Elephant’s take here, and my furious essays on media mockery against Paraguay here.

UPDATE: Elephant has more thoughts here.

Charles Krauthammer really gives it to Brent Scowcroft today - as the world’s foremost anti-revolutionary. Scowcroft has spent his entire life obstructing democratic revolution. If you believe in democratic revolution, you will never look at that man the same way again. He pretends to be oh so safe and sane. But he’s set democracy back decades in many places and still hasn’t paid a cent for it. Read it here.

In a significant defeat for Venezuela’s democracy, a new voting system installed by the Chavista government, called ‘los morochas’, which disproportionately benefits Chavista incumbents, was affirmed by Venezuela’s Supreme Court, an appointed body stacked with Chavista loyalists. It is expected to raise Hugo Chavez’s representation in the Congress - where he already has a majority - to Kim Il Sung levels of popular ’support.’ The bell tolls for Venezuelan democracy with this ruling.

Non-government organizations like Sumate have stated that this is a blow for democracy and there is no chance of fair elections being held now. This is a very meaningful issue to Venezuela’s blogging community and all who blog in the name of democracy - a roundup is here:

Miguel Octavio has a group of news links and notes that anyone who thought the Supreme Court would rule any other way, given its composition., was dreaming.

Daniel Duquenal has additional details of fraud in the electoral registry, and some polling figures as well.

Francisco Toro has a long item filling out the details of the currently emerging democratic opposition and what it’s up against here. He also has a Sumate-EU update here.

Gustavo Coronel has a comprehensive account of where Venezuela is heading, including a section on trouble in the electoral component.

…on poverty figures. It’s one of the most disgusting things he’s ever done.

Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald, in one of his best columns, uncovered what bloggers have been saying all along: poverty has risen, not fallen, in Hugo Chavez’s ’21st-century-socialist’ Venezuela, supposedly a champion of the poor. They of course meant: creating more poor during a time of record high oil prices. The item is here.

Miguel Octavio had the original item on the re-cooked statistics on poverty, probably as a result of Oppenheimer’s column.

In all, it amounts to the Cubanization of Venezuela’s once-reliable statistics, a corruption of true knowledge about the country and the results of Chavismo, and obviously a bad attempt to cover something up.

Boz has an excellent roundup of all the polls being taken around the hemisphere, with at least one for each country. The polls are invaluable tools for sensing which way the winds of change are blowing in this coming fateful election year in the Americas.

He also has a link to a very valuable poll from The Economist that shows how the attitudes of the public from different countries stack up against each other.

In this particular poll, note the powerful pro-market sentiment expressed by the stars of Colombia, who rate number one in our hemisphere for faith in free markets. There’s also the gratifyingly warm feelings toward the U.S. by our dear friends in Central America - followed by free-trade-seeking Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. Those are our friends. We need to start treating them like that!

One other detail that interested me: the two nations with the most negative sentiment against the bullying, meddlesome Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez were the fragile nations of Ecuador and Bolivia. Hugo Chavez better start laying low and taking his hands off, he’s an unpopular guy in those countries, and not to be trusted.

The United Nations has issued another report regarding the situation between Lebanon and Syria, which takes notice of Syrian actions above and beyond that of the assassination of ex-PM Hariri as laid out in the Mehlis Report. The Larsen report, prepared by UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen for the purpose of measuring the success of implementing resolution 1559, warns about an increase of arms flow from Syria to Palestinian camps, as well as the continued presence of Syria-backed Hizb’allah and the economic pressures that Syria is trying to exert on Lebanon. The full text is here, and here are the relevant parts about Syrian involvement.

39. Besides Hizbullah, as I stated in my report to the Council of 1 October 2004, there are Palestinian militias in Lebanon. Such armed groups have enjoyed relative autonomy inside Palestinian refugee camps, which the Lebanese authorities do not generally enter. While there has been no fundamental change in the status of such groups, a variety of recent reports has suggested that there has been an increasing influx of weaponry and personnel from Syria to some of these groups. The issue has also been raised with me by a number of senior Lebanese and other officials. The Government of Syria has informed me that smuggling

of arms and people across the Syrian-Lebanese border does indeed take place, albeit in

both directions.

40. The Government of Lebanon has informed me that it has undertaken significant measures towards restricting such an influx of arms and people and the free movement of weaponry and armed elements to and from the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon in recent weeks, in particular since the end of September 2005. The Lebanese Armed Forces enhanced their deployment along the border with Syria and increased both mechanized and foot patrols. The Government of Lebanon has also informed that the Lebanese Armed Forces further increased their presence, erected new checkpoints, and tightened controls around positions of Palestinian armed groups headquartered in Syria to the south of Beirut and in the Beqaa Valley. On 7 October, the Lebanese army conducted raids against posts held by Syrian-headquartered Palestinian armed groups in the Beqaa Valley, in the course of which weapons were seized. The Government of Lebanon has informed me that the Lebanese Armed Forces also detained and deported a number of infiltrators of Palestinian origin who carried Syrian identification documents.
…
55. Complications have also unfortunately arisen from the lack of a clearly agreed upon and demarcated border between Lebanon and Syria, and have highlighted the need for a formal border agreement and demarcation of that border on the ground between the two countries. There were not only difficulties related to the verification of the full Syrian withdrawal, given the presence of a Syrian army battalion at Deir al-Ashayr at a location that the United Nations found impossible to determine as Lebanese or as Syrian territory. There have also been difficulties related to the control of the borderline between Lebanon and Syria, and the issue of the illegal transfer of arms and people towards armed Palestinian groups in Lebanon, which has threatened to cast a shadow on the efforts aimed at bolstering Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence. I reiterate my expectation that a formalization of bilateral relations would contribute significantly to alleviate such concerns. I welcome Prime Minister Seniora’s statement to me on 17 October that he favors the establishment of mutual diplomatic missions and that bilateral talks on the issue should resume as soon as possible.
…
58. I was greatly concerned when shortly after the withdrawal of Syrian troops, military assets and the intelligence apparatus, Syria closed its border with Lebanon to Lebanese truck drivers. The closure of the border had considerable effects on the Lebanese economy, which remains in a difficult situation and can only recover with the help of all regional and international partners of Lebanon. I was relieved when the Governments of Syria and Lebanon resolved the crisis after a few weeks.
…
61. Whilst an internal dialogue on the issue of the arms of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias in Lebanon has begun, there remain a number of fundamental concerns. As I have noted, a group engaged in the democratic political process of opinion formation and decision-making cannot simultaneously possess an autonomous armed operational capacity outside the authority of the state. More broadly, the existence of armed groups defying the control of the legitimate government, which by definition is vested with a monopoly on the use of force throughout its territory, is incompatible with the restoration and full respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of the country.

The weapons are coming from Syria through the Bekaa Valley, by no coincidence the area where Syria has always had the most control. It has been known for a long time as a growing ground for the illicit drugs and arms trade, but it’s coming to a spotlight now that Lebanon is becoming fully sovereign and is having to deal with these issues left over from the occupation by Syria. This arms smuggling is an obvious attempt at sowing further discord in Lebanon, but the Lebanese Army seems to be taking a huge step forward by completely surrounding the Palestinian camps to make sure that they can’t themselves cause havoc.

The report also takes shot at Syria’s border closing that started back in late June and lasted for several week. It stopped trade of Lebanese goods almost completely, in what was an overt attempt to punish Lebanon. It also noted, of course, the more than a dozen car bombs that have been unleashed since the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

This is a double-whammy for the U.S.-French-British alliance in the UN for pressuring Syria into fully cooperating with the Mehlis investigation; which was bad enough for Assad already, but this will give an even stronger pulse to their demands.

However, at the moment, Russia, China, Algeria, and even the Lebanese government do not want sanctions imposed on Syria at this time. For the former three, they simply want to prolong this process as long as possible in what is an encroachment onto their territory, saying that we should wait for the full report to come out in September. It seems to have weakened the call for sanctions, in any case. What we’ll likely see now is a UN resolution that will demand the Syrian government, perhaps including Assad himself, cooperate completely with the rest of the Mehlis investigation and then it will face sanctions if it does not. Lebanon wants an international tribunal to try those indicted by the report, and if their calculations are correct about what the full report could entail, then it should in the end be a trial of every top member of the regime.

If that happens, Assad definitely won’t put himself up for trial, and the country will face sanctions unless Russia and China go against world opinion and veto a resolution anyhow. Now that the EU is behind a resolution calling for Assad to cooperate, a Russia-China veto post-investigation would be another step in the ongoing polarization of the free and unfree worlds. In that, what may be even more important than finding ways to make Syria cooperate — which it won’t — will be finding a way to make sure that Russia and China are in a position where they have to ditch the dictator.

With the media headlining the anti-war camp’s bullet points and trumpeting the fact that 2,000 U.S. troops have now died in Iraq, it is time for some perspective. While we always hope to keep our own casualties to a minimum, war is part of the routine of life, and the reality of war is that casualties are inevitable. The idea that 2,000 fatalities is a high number for a war of any significance is not defensible. Below I have listed the total number of American military fatalities for the two world wars, the Korean war and the Vietnamese war (non-combat deaths are separated out for the former two, because death from disease was so much more common during those conflicts):

• World War I: 116,708 (63,195 from disease and other non-combat causes)
• World War II: 407,316 (115,185 from non-combat)
• Korea: 36,914
• Vietnam: 58,169
• Iraq (2003-2005): 2,001

The fact that so many Americans find our current casualty level to be disturbing is itself an ill omen for the future of U.S. foreign policy. The United States will be fighting in other conflicts before we can win the global war, and we will certainly not win it if our will is this easily shaken. I realize that part of the problem is that the threat of Baathist Iraq has been downplayed, but nevertheless this is a problem.

Kirk H. Sowell, Window on the Arab World

The big news in Azerbaijan is that, less than two weeks away from parliamentary elections scheduled for November 6, President Aliyev has ordered that NGOs be allowed to monitor the election and that indelible ink must be used to prevent double voting. All of these are measures requested by the OSCE in order to hold transparent elections. So I’ve titled my post to mock the headline used by ABC News, as you’ll come to find out, for good reason.

Oct 25, 2005 ???????? BAKU (Reuters) - Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev on Tuesday ordered steps to ensure a November 6 parliamentary vote is fair after Washington voiced concern over a police crackdown in the oil-producing ex-Soviet state.

Aliyev wants indelible ink applied to voters’ fingers and parliament to scrap a ban on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) monitoring the election, state television reported.

Both measures were recommended by democracy watchdog the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe but had been rejected by Aliyev’s administration.

Aliyev ???????? son of the previous head of state ???????? said he changed his mind because he wanted “the final phase of the election process to pass off ??????? in accordance with the law.”

It looks like the circus has come to Baku.

There are a couple of big problems with this scenario, not the least of which stems from how late in the game these reforms are actually being implemented. In the past, local officials in support of the current government have generally failed to implement such measures. That’s a problem, because most officials support the Aliyev government and are influenced directly by bribes and coercion. Hey, ranking 137 on Transparency International’s corruption report must mean something!

Also, even if we look at the election as free and transparent as possible — which is unlikely — the campaign has been far from fair. Opposition candidates have received only a miniscule amount of the state television airtime that government candidates have received. That’s just the start of it. The government has even recruited candidates with the same names as opposition candidates in some districts so as to confuse voters. Another big thing is the constant breakup of opposition rallies. While it has been generally lenient since around May, the government has shown that, when challenged by the opposition, it will be relentless in its crackdown.

It has already allowed the United States to dispatch exit pollers to nearly 1000 polling stations so that results will be known almost immediately. However, the decision to allow NGOs to monitor the election is more interesting. At such a late stage, the opposition will now need to scramble and organize their observers as quickly as possible. But opposition and international NGOs aren’t the only ones that exist. I think that the government will likely have NGOs set up so that, when the opposition tries to claim fraud, there will be an equal number of other NGOs affiliated with the government who will try to dispute their claim.

Everything also goes back to events in the past week, when Aliyev had several ministers in his cabinet fired; ones who, unlike those in the security apparatus, were seen as dissenters and possible collaborators with the opposition post-election. Even though there is no chance that the opposition will win near a majority of the vote, it was widely seen that those opposition candidates who did get seats would work with reformers in the government. That option is pretty much off the table now that they’ve all been dismissed or arrested.

And speaking of the security apparatus, Aliyev must be sweating the opposition’s hopes of a colored revolution, because he keeps relying on police force more and more. Just like in 2003, the opposition will try to hold a big protest after the election and subsequently try to force Aliyev’s ousting. And, just like last time, the government will probably put them down.

The opposition has indeed grown stronger in numbers and incredibly in unity since then, so anything can happen. But the most likely thing that will happen at that point, and it will certainly be a turning point in many regards to Azerbaijan’s domestic and international politics, is that any revolution that tries to manifest itself will be more violent than velvet.

Venezuela’s main newspaper, El Universal, in a true blog style, is now putting out a weekly roundup of all the Zimbabwe-style land confiscations engulfing Venezuela under the far-left Chavez regime. The list of all the farmers who have had their ranches taken away ‘in the name of the people’ is long and horrible, given the fact that all of these productive farms will soon fall fallow. It’s also revolutionary tinder. No society can build itself on a foundation of stealing from others.

It’s an important roadmap for the coming news and there is enough of it going on now that they have new material every week. Read it here.

As we noted here, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has offered to take questions from the public through the BBC. It’s about what you’d imagine, with readers asking some fairly tough questions, along with plenty of softballs, and Chavez replying glibly and smoothly. If you ask me, it looked coached, due to the suaveness of Chavez’s answers, quite unlike the rougher impromptu ones he gave to Ted Koppel and the Washington Post. Contentwise, it sounds as though Chavez intended to be a crowd-pleaser in the West, because his BBC words not matching his words at home. If that’s so, it’s a propaganda effort rather than a true candid interview. Not only that, Venezuela’s bloggers warn that it’s full of lies. Chavez, after all, is good as a propagandist but has left a long and remembered word-trail elsewhere. He’s good but not that good.

Aleksander Boyd has the transcript of the whole thing here. And Daniel in Yaracuy does an admirable job, in two parts, dissecting all of Chavez’s dissembling. Daniel is sharp and witty and his acerbic essays are well worth a look here and here. Miguel Octavio exposes yet another string of Chavista mendaciousness here.

Stefania in Sardinia reminds us to think of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is marking her tenth year of house arrest under the thugs who run Burma.

Suu Kyi is the rightful leader of Burma. She also is a brave woman who has stood up to the gross tinpot military thugs in her struggle to bring democracy to her beautiful country. She is a revolutionary democrat who ranks with Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel in the annals of revolution. But her struggle is long and hard and she is still under house arrest by these unsavory, illegitimate rulers who have no business being there. She asks:

Aung : Please use your liberty to promote ours.