Vietnam is the latest in a string of countries to negotiate a trade pact and open up its markets to U.S. companies:

Vietnam and the United States have signed a new trade deal which will open the Southeast Asian country’s markets in virtually every sector.

It paves the way for Vietnam to enter the World Trade Organisation this year, 11 years after it began applying.

Vietnamese officials want to finish talks with the Geneva-based WTO in July.

The new agreement is the latest in a series of business deals and diplomatic steps by Hanoi to integrate its fast-expanding economy into the global trading system.

Vietnam will open its markets to a range of U.S. agricultural goods, services and manufactured products.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, the country has been ruled by a communist elite. But in the middle of the 1980s, that first generation of ideological leaders phased out, and the leadership introduced economic liberalization reforms much like those those undergone in China over the past couple decades. They were not like their predecessors. They did not care about created a harmonious and egalitarian society; only making money and ruling the country. In effect, Vietnam has really become an authoritarian capitalist state.

It is certainly a corporatist crony capitalism at best, but the influence of increased outside investment trickles down to aid in modernizing the entire country. Vietnam just got a late start. Over the past few years, China and India have become destinations for the offshoring of low-skill jobs in America. Now that Vietnam is entering the fray, it too is following in the cycle, as China and India lose these jobs to it.

Vietnam is rapidly emerging as a viable offshore IT development location, offering lower prices, less employee churn, and greater stability than rival sites in India.

That is the view of IT recruitment and outsourcing specialist Harvey Nash, which currently provides a range of services for application development, software testing, maintenance and support for UK customers including the Discovery Channel and the Princes Trust from its 1,200-strong development centre in Hanoi.

Paul Smith, global managing director for IT outsourcing at Harvey Nash, said the firm’s Vietnamese operations were currently growing at 40 percent a year and insisted the country has the credentials to challenge for much of the offshored IT work currently heading to India.

“Developers salaries are 15 to 20 percent lower than in India and 80 percent of Vietnamese graduates have science degrees, with 9,000 to 10,000 coming into the market each year,” Smith said.

Smith also argued that Vietnamese developers are less intent on moving to Europe or the US compared with their Indian counterparts, so staff turnover is far lower. “We experience less than five percent churn compared to 35 percent at some Indian service providers,” he said. “That is really important for development work as customers can feel pretty confident that the team that starts the project will finish it.”

???????Soft??????? benefits such as low crime rates, safe water and good infrastructure also make it easier to attract western clients, according to Smith. “We do development work for Äaccountancy software firmÅ CedarOpenAccounts,” he said. ” When they began working with us their HR department came and did due diligence and they have had no problem convincing UK staff to come out here.”

Look to the ’90s, when China was churning out cheap toys and t-shirts. Now it’s producing all ranges of higher quality products. India, too, is following that trend. Both are experiencing incredible growth. But with the emergence of countries like Vietnam as destinations for cheap labor and cheap products, India and China are going through their own off-shoring crises, and are being forced to scale the ladder upward toward modernization. They are even facing labor shortages in certain areas, hard as it may be to believe. Wages are being pushed up because of it, leading to better lives for people at the bottom rung of society.

Vietnam will follow their lead. Trade and investment lead to modernization, which has shown to be the eventual delivery-boy of democracy. Japan and South Korea half a century ago were considered backward countries, whose populations were far too predisposed to authoritarian leaders to ever become democratic. But they did. The title of “communist” really means nothing when compared to the processes that the country is actually undergoing. In fifty years, Vietnam may not be so backwards itself.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States embarked on a mission to assist the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries to establish democracies. The US saw as a key factor in establishing democracies that the emerging nations go through a period of transitional justice. One of the keys to transitional justice was to encourage these new nations and their governments to adhere to the rule of law. The Department of State spends billions of dollars on programs and training to encourage the rule of law, and many embassies have personnel assigned as Rule of Law Coordinators. Government officials from the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries were provided training in the many facets relating to the rule of law. Simply put, rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with established, documented (in writing) laws that are transparent and enforced equitably, so that no one is above the law. Therefore, those who make the laws, and those that enforce the laws, are themselves bound to adhere to them.

For the countries that were undergoing a major transition from a totalitarian regime to democracy, this assistance with transitional justice was an initial test for the establishment of real democracy and the rule of law. Teaching, and establishing, the rule of law in a society that has little, or no history of it, is a major challenge. The most difficult challenge is changing the attitudes of government officials and the general public so that a political culture is created in which nobody is above the law.

United States foreign policy mandated an emphasis on the rule of law, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in remarks to the American Bar Association’s Rule of Law Symposium, said,

Where the rule of law is undermined by government corruption, we are offering incentives for honest and transparent behavior. Anti-corruption is one of the key standards of our Millennium Challenge Account initiative, an initiative that rewards good governance and the fight against corruption. And in just the past year, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has signed new development compacts with five countries that are worth hundreds of billions of dollars to those countries, each of which involves significant political and legal reforms.

America strives to realize our calling as a nation of laws, not of men, a nation that holds all governments and citizens, especially our own, to principles that transcend mere brute force or will to power.

America is a country of laws. We will always be a country of laws. And we will remain an international leader because we will be committed, not simply to our strength but to our love of liberty, our support for democracy and most of all, our devotion to the rule of law.

The USAID, at their website says this:

The term “rule of law” embodies the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law, fairness, and both constitutional and actual guarantees of basic human rights. A predictable legal system with fair, transparent, and effective judicial institutions is essential to the protection of citizens against the arbitrary use of state authority and lawless acts of both organizations and individuals.

In the past I was personally involved in training in the former Soviet Union relative to the rule of law and other associated law enforcement topics. During the training I would advise the participants that Albert Venn Dicey, a British constitutional expert, once wrote:

… every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. The reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. ÄAppointed government officials and politicians, alikeÅ … and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorise as is any private and unofficial person.

I would always like to discuss a real case of how the rule of law works in the US. For example, I could use the case of a US Congressman under investigation for bribery, who was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant, and whose conversations about alleged illegal activity were recorded, and two search warrants executed to recover cash hidden in a refrigerator, and to seize incriminating documents being held in his congressional office.

I would point to the fact that one branch of government (the executive branch) went to a second branch of government (the judiciary) and presented information to establish probable cause and then, after receiving authorization, conducted consensual intercepts of conversations and executed search warrants on a member of the third branch of government (the legislature). I would point out how the FBI, in its almost 100 page affidavit for the search warrant of the congressional office clearly established probable cause, established that they exhausted every effort to get the documents from the Congressman, established why they believed there were incriminating documents in his congressional office, and then wrote eight pages of procedures that they would use to ???????filter??????? and ???????minimize any potentially politically sensitive items,??????? and to ensure that no documents were seized that may ???????fall within the purview of the speech or debate privilege of the US Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 1, or any other privilege.??????? I would point to this as a perfect example of the rule of law, and to the tenet that no one is above the law.

When I finished, I know that one or more of the participants of the training would raise their hands to ask questions. The questions would go something like this: But, isn????????t your legislative branch of the government going to hold hearings about the abuse of their offices? Aren????????t the Congressman saying that they are above the law? Didn????????t I read that the US Congress is going to pass legislation to restrict law enforcement from executing search warrants on members of Congress. Didn????????t you tell us that the rule of law means that those who make the laws, and those that enforce the laws, are also bound to adhere to them? I heard one of your Congressman on televison say that the FBI ignored the wishes of ???????our police,??????? does your legislative branch have their own police that protects them when they violate the law?

I would have to answer, yes, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, called the search “profoundly disturbing.” He also said that he planned a legislative response to the search, and his bill would be patterned on a law limiting searches of news media offices. Yes, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi together criticized the FBI’s search of the office of a Congressman who is under investigation in connection with the alleged acceptance of bribes. Yes, House majority leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters yesterday that Congress will somehow speak to ééthis issue of the Justice Department’s invasion of the legislative branch. In what form, I don’t know.” Yes, I would say, one Congressman from California, being interviewed on FOX News, called the Capitol Police, ???????our Police.??????? Yes, the Capitol Police did protect a Congressman when he was driving, obviously impaired, and yes, they did try to prevent the FBI from executing the search warrant.

At this point I would tell the participants we are going to take a break before they could ask more questions, and then I would retreat to the men????????s room wondering why we spend billions of dollars trying to convince other governments of the importance of the rule of law, when our own politicians have not grasped the concept. I would think back to 1994 when the Republicans in Congress issued the Contract with America which said, “FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress.”

I would return to the training knowing that the approval rating for Congress hovers at 21%, close to an all-time low, and that nearly 50% of all Americans believe that mostly everyone in Congress is corrupt????????at least the public gets it so maybe there is hope. Instead of passing legislation to restrict the rule of law, maybe Congress could pass a law to divert some of the funds being used to train foreign officials, and setup a training program on the rule of law for the US Congress.

From the news:

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (AP)–The Nonaligned Movement, the world’s biggest bloc after the U.N., emphatically backed Iran Tuesday in its nuclear standoff with the U.S., and condemned Israel for occupying Palestinian lands.

Meeting in Malaysia’s administrative capital, the foreign ministers of NAM member nations also demanded that Israel accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without delay and open its nuclear facilities to international inspection.

On Iran, the ministers “re-affirmed the basic and inalienable right” of all countries to develop, produce and use atomic energy “for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination and in conformity with their respective legal obligations,” said a NAM statement at the end of the two-day meeting.

The declaration shies away from any criticism of Iran, which is accused by Washington and its allies of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied this, saying its nuclear program is merely to generate electricity.
Ä…Å
NAM’s 116 members - two were admitted Tuesday - are mostly developing countries that have little clout in the international arena. Some are stridently anti-U.S. nations such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba, in addition to formerly pro-Soviet India.

While NAM is in no position to change U.S. views on Iran, its collective voice can be seen as providing moral support to Tehran.

The NAM ministers issued a separate statement on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that condemned the “ongoing Israeli military campaign against the Palestinian people.”

Originally established as a bloc of countries officially unaffiliated with any of the major power blocs — the United States and the Soviet Union — in 1961, the organization was largely discredited because of its near outright alliance with the latter power. Most of its members are small, developing countries, so it makes up a large majority of the countries represented in the United Nations, and almost all of the governments are authoritarian in nature. Take a look at the map below to get an idea of where these ministers are coming from.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that this statement should come out of the NAM. Even after the end of the Soviet Union, it kept its predominantly anti-American mindset with regards to international relations. But then, dictators have always tended to be. This has discredited the movement in modern times, as it is obviously not a movement that has succeeded in the least bit in its supposed war against poverty.

Fifteen years ago pro-democracy activists in Russia tore down a statue in front of the Moscow KGB Headquarters. The statue was a monument to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the Cheka, the predecessor agency of the KGB. Back in 2002 the mayor of Moscow suggested that the statue be restored, which caused an uproar, and even the former KGB official, and President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was opposed to the restoration.

Felix Dzerzhinsky, known as Iron Felix, was responsible for mass arrests, brutality and thousands of executions. Once, when discussing the type of person he was looking for to work for the Cheka, Dzerzhinsky stated, “Just round up all the most resolute people you can, who understand that there is nothing more effective than a bullet in the head to shut people up. Experience has shown that you only need a small number of people like that to turn a whole situation around,”

So, someone this infamous that even President Putin wants to distance himself from, would not be glorified by any government, right? Not so fast, on May 26, 2006, a new monument, the exact replica of the statue torn down in Moscow in 1991, was unveiled in Minsk, Belarus. The statue now holds a place in the Military Academy of Belarus. Of course, the head of the Belarus KGB (Lukashenko kept the name KGB for his security service) attended the unveiling of the statue. The Belarusian Helsinki Committee rights group condemned the new statue and called it “an insult to the memory of the millions of victims of the repressive machine founded by Iron Felix.” The head of the Belarusian border guard service, Gen. Alexander Pavlosvsky, defended the decision to erect the statue, and said, “Dzerzhinsky was not an odious figure, he is someone who merits respect.”

Need I say more?

I don’t know exactly why but this manic photo caption by Castro-regime Cuban boat refugee Charlie Bravo at KillCastro absolutely cracks me up every time I read it.

See what you think here.

The road to forming a new Iraqi government, from the elections in December last year to its actual formation no more than a week ago, splintering between the country’s different ethnic and religious groups has been everyone’s concern. Sunnis attacking Shiites, and vice versa. Even with the end of the insurgency, the development of death squads supplied by Iran have continued the extra-judicial killings.

On the political level, despite all of the killings, things have chugged along slowly but surely. Of these developments, however, the most interesting and perhaps the most important has always been the breakdown of the Shiite alliance as each party pursues its own interests in the new Iraq. Up until now it has always been simply on the political level, with parties haggling over minister portfolios and nominations. Now the politics have converged with the violence. With the tough issues coming to the forefront, such as disarming sectarian militias, distribution of oil wealth, and preventing Iranian influence, the Shiites themselves have splintered down the middle and are fighting each other.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Factional struggles among ruling Shi’ites could flare into warfare over Iraq’s vital southern oilfields, officials said on Monday as the new, Shi’ite-led government prepared to send a top-level peace mission to Basra.

“The situation in Basra is worrying. It is getting increasingly tense,” a senior government official in Baghdad told Reuters on Monday, two days after President Jalal Talabani raised the alarm and urged government action to ease friction.

“It could turn to an open armed conflict between Shi’ite groups if it is not resolved,” the official added.

Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki himself could head a delegation to Iraq’s second city this week, officials said. Last week, one small faction warned it could halt oil exports from Basra if it did not win concessions from the Baghdad government.

Security has deteriorated sharply in Basra over the past year as rival factions from the Shi’ite majority tussle for a share of the power handed to their branch of Islam by the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated administration.

One must understand that the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance is not as united as its participants pretend it to be. If they truly were, then there would be no need for it to be made up of so many different parties. These loyalties are tribal in nature, with each trying to be the most powerful. The breakdown of the UIA is coming now that the country’s biggest problems are coming to a head, as these problems are due to and can only be solved by the Shiites themselves. Some of these groups have no interest in doing so as it would mean giving up their own power.

Therefore, it may not be Baghdad where this all comes down to, but Basra. It is in Basra where all of these Shiite groups converge.

Newly elected Prime Minister Jawad al-Maliki, from the Dawa Party of the UIA, has vowed to crush all militias that are causing sectarian strife. He has also stated that he will not allow Iranian infiltration into the country. Meanwhile, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army militia is fighting back as its prominence is largely due to killing for what it portends to be Shiite interests. It is this same militia that receives aid from Iran and has vowed to defend Iran over Iraq. The Shiite nationalists are having to fight their own co-religionists as each decides which homeland to defend.

Oil is again proving to be the kingmaker commodity. The Fadhilla Party, to whom the governor of Basra belongs, is demanding greater control of the oil spoils, which in turn would increase its power. All the other groups are fighting for more of this as well. Whoever controls Basra controls most of the country’s current oil production. So whoever can do this can build the biggest militia and wield the most power. Moqtada al-Sadr is even moving into Kirkuk, which the Kurds have already claimed, and that will only cause clashes between the Kurds and Shiites who, until this year, were ruling coalition partners.

Never before has actual fighting between the Shiites been so large. As the new majority and most powerful ethno-religious group in the country following the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, they have become to a large degree just as demented and power-hungry. But since they are a majority, infighting between them will affect everyone. This is something that only a nationalist culture can counteract. As long as there are groups in the Shiite alliance that are not loyal to Iraq itself, the fighting will continue.

Twenty-four years ago, June 8, 1982, Ronald Reagan spoke to the British House of Commons. In that speech President Reagan said, in part, the following:

We’re approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention — totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy’s enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But none — not one regime — has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.

Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe–indeed, the world–would look very different today.

The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise to us. Wherever the comparisons have been made between free and closed societies — West Germany and East Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam — it is the democratic countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our time is this: of all the millions of refugees we’ve seen in the modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward the Communist world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the line, the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from leaving.

Almost one year later President Reagan gave his famous speech in which he called the Soviet Union an ???????evil empire.??????? He was vilified by many in the media and the political left for these comments. President Reagan would later comment on that speech by saying:

At the time it was portrayed as some kind of know-nothing, archconservative statement that could only drive the Soviets to further heights of paranoia and insecurity.

For too long our leaders were unable to describe the Soviet Union as it actually was. The keepers of our foreign-policy knowledge - in other words, most liberal foreign-affairs scholars, the State Department, and various columnists - found it illiberal and provocative to be so honest. I’ve always believed, however, that it’s important to define differences, because there are choices and decisions to be made in life and history.

The Soviet system over the years has purposely starved, murdered, and brutalized its own people. Millions were killed; it’s all right there in the history books. It put other citizens it disagreed with into psychiatric hospitals, sometimes drugging them into oblivion. Is the system that allowed this not evil? Then why shouldn’t we say so?

Well, several months ago at its parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg, France, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) said so—PACE passed a resolution, Need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes, condemning the crimes committed by totalitarian Communist regimes. The Council of Europe reported in its resolution that the crimes committed by totalitarian Communist regimes have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labor, persecution against ethic minorities and religious believers, deprivation of freedom of belief, thought, speech and press and other crimes. The resolution specifically states that, ???????The Assembly is convinced that the awareness of history is one of the preconditions for avoiding similar crimes in the future. Furthermore, moral assessment and condemnation of crimes committed play an important role in the education of young generations. The clear position of the international community on the past may be a reference for their future actions.???????

A report issued by PACE noted that since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, information obtained from archives illustrate that there is no essential difference between communism and Nazism. The report states that both ideologies proclaim the establishment of a “perfect” society and the need to sweep away all obstacles. Both totalitarian regimes adopt similar means to maintain their power, for example, organizing youth groups, carrying on ideological propaganda in schools, implementing military control in society, cult worship of leaders, deprivation of freedom of speech and persecution with every conceivable method against their opponents.

You probably didn????????t read much about this PACE condemnation and their report in the US media. It seems that the media has a difficult time expressing negative comments, or reporting on any moral outrage directed at Communist. Just as when President Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire, the media, and many on the political left, see this resolution as, to quote President Reagan, ???????some kind of know-nothing, archconservative statement.??????? To point out the atrocities of the Communists is seen as McCarthyism. The mainstream media and the political left realize that ???????some??????? of the Communists were bad, but gee????????let????????s not dwell on the Communist????????s inadequacies, after all the capitalist system has its faults too.

But anyone who has been through the Museum of Soviet and Nazi Occupations in Estonia, or the Occupation Museum in Latvia knows that 50,000 Estonians were deported, 75,000 Latvians were arrested out of a total population of 126,000, also 20,000 were shot and almost 60,000 (including children) were deported to godforsaken regions in the Soviet Union where many died. People were rounded up in the middle of the night and loaded into cattle cars with very few of their belongings. If you visit the KGB Museum in Lithuania you will learn that 350,000 people — one tenth of the country’s population — were imprisoned, deported to Russian gulags or massacred in Lithuania. In a grim and depressing underground building you can see where the KGB torture took place and where, in the execution room, prisoners were shoot twice in the back of the head by a special KGB unit, and then the bodies were stacked in piles until they could be secretly trucked away to mass graves. When I visited these museums it convinced me that the Soviet Union was an ???????evil empire.???????

Of course this was only part of the horror. There was the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Don Cossacks, Stalin intentionally starved 5,000,000 Ukrainian peasants, not to mention the murder of 6,500,000 Kulaks. It is estimated that Stalin executed almost a million Communist Party members during the Great Terror. The list could go on and on. It was really easy to become a victim of the Communist tyranny????????you only had to be wealthy or own property. Or just be from the wrong country, or the wrong political entity. You could end up deported or dead for being the parents of the wrong person, or the child of someone on the Communist????????s list, or the spouse of someone in disfavor. Or you could just be a Pole, Hungarian, Romanian, Ukrainian or a Muslim (it is estimated that 2 million Muslims were murdered in the Soviet Union.) You could end up deported or dead if you were in the wrong profession????????Communist didn????????t always like teachers, religious people or writers.

We all know the horrors committed by the Nazis, and documentaries, stories, movies and various media remind us that we can never let something like that happen again. We have prosecuted Nazis responsible for the atrocities, and until this day we still hunt for fugitive Nazis????????as we should. But, what Communist has been prosecuted for the atrocities committed in the Soviet Union? (Karl-Leonhard Paulov and Mikhail Farbtukh are the only two men that I know of who have been convicted–in Latvia–of Stalin-era crimes.) What Hollywood movie tells the story of the atrocities committed in the Soviet Union? How many documentaries have you seen on PBS about the mass deportations, the murders and the torture in the former Soviet Union? Have you seen films showing the gulags, the KGB torture rooms, the mass graves discovered, like the one near Minsk that is estimated to contain over 250,000 bodies?

The effects of the repression, the loss of liberty, the total control of humanity in the Soviet Union left scars on the people that only now are disappearing with the youngest generation????????anyone over 30 years old in the former Soviet Union countries still feels the consequences of the Communist legacy. What would the countries of the former Soviet Union be like today if they were not held back and brutalized for more than 50 years?

If we ignore or forget the atrocities committed by Communist regimes, then history will lose its meaning. Future generations will never know why we fought the Cold War, and why the sacrifices of so many brave people were for a just cause. Will the history of Communism and the atrocities committed be taught as a right-wing conspiracy plot; invented by the Ronald Reagans of the world? Will we lose sight of the damage being done by the remaining Communist regimes in China, North Korea, Cuba and some of the thugs in South America?

The PACE resolution calls for ???????all Communist or post-Communist parties in its member states which have not yet done so to reassess the history of communism and their own past, clearly distance themselves from the crimes committed by totalitarian Communist regimes and condemn them without any ambiguity.??????? I applaud them for their efforts, and I call on the western media to do the same????????reassess the history of communism, and condemn the atrocities without any ambiguity. The media and historians can make sure that we don????????t forget and that we learn from the past.

Stalin once said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” Let????????s not prove him right.

Source: Reuters, via Yahoo!

I never thought I would utter such words.

A long time ago, Alan Garcia was Peru’s pain-in-the-ass leftwing president, from 1980-1985. He was only 35 then, and apparently not the same person he is now. He’s grown up. And he’s turned his spectacular talent to be a pain-in-the-ass to the guy it belongs on: Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Garcia’s reading Hugo Chavez precisely in bullseye language that resonates with Peruvians … and with me. He’s telling Hugo Chavez to his face exactly what a creepy tinpot dictator he is, which is something Chavez needs to hear.

I’m awed, really impressed by the guy, and he’s likely to win Peru’s presidency next week. I always hated the guy up until now. But now I can see why he’s popular with Peruvians.

Alan Garcia rocks.

I boldfaced the cool stuff so you can see the extent of his rhetorical talent - Agencia EFE reports it here:

Peru’s Garcia rails against Chavez

Lima, May 29 (EFE).- The man favored to win the Peruvian presidency next week railed against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, calling the leftist-populist president an aspiring “kinglet” who seeks viceroys in neighboring nations.

Alan Garcia, who previously governed Peru from 1985 to 1990, said Sunday that his rival in the June 4 presidential runoff, Ollanta Humala, wanted to extend the reach of Chavez’s government.
Chavez, a strident antagonist of the Bush administration, is “a kinglet who from the Caribbean wants to have his delegates and viceroys in Peru and Ecuador,” Garcia said. He also called the Venezuelan leader “a little dictator with money.” “There have been dictators without money in the Americas. This one had it easy because he has $70 billion a year just from petroleum,” Garcia told Radioprogramas.

Garcia, on a visit to the southern city of Arequipa, some 1,030 kilometers (640 miles) south of Lima, said an administration headed by him would ask elections officials to investigate whether Humala received money from Venezuela.

“If I am elected, I’ll ask for an exhaustive investigation of the funds and if it was proven that money was received from abroad, he (Humala) could be prosecuted for treason to the fatherland,” Garcia said.

On Sunday, Chavez again called Garcia, whose term in office ended with Peru’s economy in shambles, a “bandit” and “irresponsible.” Chavez said that if Garcia won the presidency, Venezuela would not have diplomatic relations with Peru.

The Venezuelan president criticized Garcia during a visit to the Bolivian town of Tiahuanaco, near the border with Peru, from which he broadcast his weekly radio and television show.
“How can you have diplomatic relations or anything with a government run by a vagabond, an irresponsible guy like that,” Chavez said.

The Venezuelan president wished Humala good luck in the race for the Peruvian presidency. EFE pau/hv

One little note about Garcia’s choice of words - I find it especially interesting that Garcia calls Chavez “a little dictator.” It’s exactly the words Ronald Reagan used on the only Latin leader who gave him more trouble than Garcia himself - odious Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. Garcia knew Reagan well because he was always giving him a hard time. Now, it’s fascinating to see Garcia learning from Reagan. I hope it extends well past words - Garcia does seem to know how to learn.

UPDATE: Garcia’s now bringing up something I’ve always wanted to see someone bring up: Chavez’s long history as a wife-beater. Garcia, going below the belt, calls it ‘unmanly.’ Go, Alan!

Polls have closed at 3 p.m. today.

These elections were to elect governors of several Italian provinces,city councils and a regione, Sicily.

First exit polls ( be cautious, we may recall how they were dead wrong in the recent political elections in Italy) are like the following:

Election for the governor of Sicily: Salvatore Cuffaro ( Democratic Christian Union of the Center, center-right) 53,1 % , Rita Borsellino ( center-left ) 42,2. Source: Ansa.

Election for the City Council of Milan: Letizia Moratti (center-right) 49-51% , Bruno Ferrante (center-left) 48-50% . Still too close to call. I expect Moratti to win.

Election for the City Council of Naples: Rosa Russo Iervolino (center-left) vs. Franco Malvano , still too close to call. It is the first time an election in Naples is too close to call. Naples has always been ruled by the Left, so the too-close-to-call factor means that the right has gained much in the last few months. Unfortunately, some minor candidates have been discovered exchanging votes with the local mafia, the camorra.

In Turin, Sergio Chiamparino (center-left) leads Rocco Buttiglione ( center-right) 60%-30%. This is nothing surprising, as Turin is also a leftist city. And, in my opinion, Buttiglione (considered as “too catholic and clerical”) was not the appropriate person chosen to challenge the current mayor, Chiamparino.

In Rome, also a leftist city, current mayor Walter Veltroni ( center-left ) leads Alemanno (social right-winger) 58-40. Again, the candidate proposed by the center-right was not the best one. Personally, if I was living in Rome, I wouldn’t vote for any of the two candidates. Alemanno is from the quasi extreme-right. He is anti-capitalist and he has told he doesn’t intend to renounce to Mussolini’s ideas. He is a “reformed fascist”, but still a fascist. Of course, Veltroni is not at all better. He is from a former communist parties, whose ideas are also not good. In Rome, many consider themselves either leftist or fascist (meaning they are nostalgic of Mussolini, and that includes many youths).

There are many more city councils and provinces whose results have not yet been published in the Interior Ministry’s website.

Stay tuned as I’ll post updates!

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdo????an visited Algeria this past week. Meeting with Algerian National Assembly Speaker Amar Saadani on Monday, Erdo????an met with president Bouteflika on Tuesday. After their three hour meeting, the two leaders announced an accord of “friendship and cooperation.” Erdo????an visited a veterans cemetery and the Algerian military museum, surveying artefacts from Algeria’s Ottoman period and praising Algeria’s veterans. “…..The heroes of the struggle for independence in Algeria are the best examples for today’s generations,” Erdo????an said. Erdo????an also made statements in relation to his county’s desired assencion into the European Union, sating that ???????If the EU is to become a Christian club, it should announce this.???????

The picture above is interesting. Here we have the tiny Algerian president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika (right) recieving the Turkish Prime Minister in a rather traditional manner, usually seen among leaders of Islamic and Middle Eastern states. Erdo????an, the leader of the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, one of Algeria’s former colonial rulers, is greeted by Bouteflika as a member of the Haras Joumhouri, the Republican Cavalry looks on. We see the convergence of history here. On the one hand, we have the presidents of the Modern, Bouteflika and Erdo????an, as well as the Cavalryman. On the other we have a traditional greeting among men whose nations were at one time, at least ostensibly, one.

The Haras Joumhouri’s purpose is to provide the Republic with a fashionable display of Algerian traditions to foreign dignitaries and on official occasions. Like many other cavalry units today, it is symbolic in nature. Wearing baggy green trousers (”serwal”), red shirts (”kamisa”), long white capes (”bernous”) and tall white caps with the nation’s coat of arms, the Haras Joumhouri is entirely the invention of the modern Algerian state, though created with the traditions of the pre-Republican era in mind. Its equestrian nature makes a call out to the Numidian and Bedouin cavalry of antiquity and the early Islamic period. Its stately presence calls back to the time of Islamic pomp and procedure when Algeria was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The colors of the Haras Joumhouri’s uniform, like the Algerian flag it is modeled upon, shout back to the resistence of the Emir Abdel Qadir, that chivalrous Sufi who formed his own statelet in the aftermath of the French invasion until, or so the story goes, he was sold out by the Moroccan monarch, forced to surrender by the French, and exiled to Syria. Somewhat of a Muslim Jurgurtha, Abdel Qadir’s tale has become one of the corner stones of Algerian nationalism, and his statelet is often held to be the beginning of the Algerian state in Algerian historiographies.

A picture of the Haras Joumhouri, one with saber, the other on horseback.

The photograph shows two nations, both now out of the Ottoman bind, coming together and building their futures in the image of the Modern. Erdo????an’s nation is one of the few demoracies in this world that is populated by a vast majority of Muslims. Far from being perfect, Turkey has since the time of Ataturk associated itself strongly with Europe and made great progress in terms of modernization and secularization. Algeria is similar, yet quite different. While Algeria, like Turkey, has turned its back on its colonial past, it has not secularized the state in its entirety, as Turkey has, nor has it made the transition to a democracy. It has all the trappings of one, but without the substance that is carried by Turkey or any other (semi) democratic state. Turkey has tried to escape Islam. Algeria has, by and large, tried to rediscover it, relatively speaking. Though less Islamically inclined than the populations of many other Muslim countries, Algeria’s state has been legitimized in the name of a collective Muslim identity. Turkey’s has been formed on an ethnic one. The Algerian state does not make references to great “Algerian migrations” into what is now Algeria, like Turkey’s does to the migrations of Turks into Anatolia. Algeria is a nation created in the fires of the Independence War; Turkey is one whose national identity has been fabricated in some places, and in other legitimized by race. The Algerian state and the Turkish state differ quite a lot in their workings and nature.

Nevertheless, these two leaders can come together and sign agreements of friendship and share a common history in an amiable setting. Turkey is a nation to be admired, as is Algeria. Both have made great achievements since they became independent. Algeria has overcome, for the most part, an Islamist scourge, and has gone from a mostly illiterate nation in 1962 to one of the most literate countries in Africa. From a collection of paupers to a nation of some of the most well off men and women on their continent. Turkey has gone from a semi-feudal medival empire to a modern, economically significant, secular, capitalist nation-state. Yet both nations must move out of backwardness in key areas: their own history and their dealings with minorities.

Algeria and Turkey both seem to have trouble in being honest with their youths about the history of their nations. Algeria’s government rarely acknowledges the fact that Islam arrived in the region by force. Many inhabitants of what would become Algeria did convert willingly to Islam, but many, if not most, did not. This is a problem found in many Islamic countries. Few Algerian historians would fathom investigating the possibility of positive things happening as a result of French rule. Still other historians of the Berberist persuasion seek to do the same with the time period following the arrival of Arabs into Algeria. Turkish historians seem to not be capable of relating the truth about the “Turkification” of Anatolia from a predominantly Hellenistic region. I have read more than a few essays giving a simple, ahistorical, explanation for this: “The Turks have always dwelled in Turkey.” On the issue of the Armenian genocide, it is hard to find a Turkish historian that deviates from the state line that it “never happened,” or was not a genocide despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Both Algeria and Turkey have behaved abusively towards their national minorities, Berbers and Kurds, respectively and particularly. In Algeria, any time that Berbers have protested, peacefully or otherwise, for political and cultural equality they have been met with bitter and brutal force. In Turkey, as Kurds have agitated for autonomy, independence or any form of ethno-political representation they have been met with similar and often more hideous force, and quickly identified collectively with the extreme (nota bene: there are many Kurdish terrorist groups, but are certainly not representative of the mentality or nature of the entire Kurdish population).

Turkey and Algeria’s new accord has much, I believe, to do with Bouteflika’s recent anti-French rhetoric. Turkey has declared the French colonization of the country to have been a genocide, and France’s idea of criminalizing denial of the Armenian genocide in response. It does not hurt that Turkey is one of Algeria’s biggest trading partners either.

As strikes have forced the Algerian government to regroup, it will be interesting to see how the new Prime Minister of Algeria, Abdel-Aziz Belkhadem, will deal with Algeria’s history and minorities, as well as economic matters. Mr. Belkhadem, who has been described by El Watan as having “little experience” with economic affairs, is perhaps no better suited to deal with the Berber problem than was his predecessor. But let us hope for the best and that Mr. Belkhadem can start up the same amount of progress in the area of ethnic relations, housing and wages that Algeria has made in literacy and modernization and that Turkey has made in the economic field and secularization.

Celebrating democracy, with a great leader they voted for and won!

You know what this means … I don’t have to explain a thing…

Source: Reuters, via Yahoo!

Source: Reuters, via Yahoo!

Colombia is headed for the polls today, and wonderful President Alvaro Uribe is likely to win in a landslide.

He only needs to get past the 50-percentage point mark to avoide a runoff, and that’s likely to be a piece of cake for him. He’s got a 30-point lead in the polls over his nearest rivals.

It’s not hard to see why. Uribe’s brought confidence, security and prosperity to Colombia, something it’s not seen in decades, something that looks so fresh, so beautiful, so different, so amazing … how could Colombians not pass up on such a fabulous prospect? They see it right in front of them!

What’s more, he’s got a great campaign platform. Bloomberg reports:

For his second term, Uribe, 53, promises to provide health care to all of Colombia’s 41 million inhabitants, ensure every child receives education and make loans available for the poor to set up businesses. He also plans to cut the rate of taxation on personal and corporate income and reduce a tax on financial transactions.

Although Uribe looks like a wimp, and having been a Harvard professor, he’s a nerd of sorts, he’s anything but a wimp. No current leader anywhere in the hemisphere has shown the courage against violent Marxist narcoterrorist guerrillas that he has, his resolve to destroy them unwavering. Not only that, despite his always looking ill-at-ease in pictures, he’s got a silver tongue for words that sings to the hearts of Colombians. His appeal is huge, it’s just not obviously visible to us here in the states.

But what he does and who he is are clearly obvious. Number one, he’s a bona fide, no apologies, ally of ours. How many leaders, besides the notable Tony Blair and John Howard, do we see like that? He’s one of them. Uribe’s resolute in destroying the dopers who plague both our countries, vowing to sacrifice all he can to do that. He never steals any of the puny paltry aid money we give him (it’s only a couple billion spread over several years and that’s very low by U.S. aid standards, especially for such an important war being fought) and he’s never let it corrupt anyone. He is proudly free trade, and signed a free trade pact with us, so that ties between our two great countries can grow closer and stronger. He’s enacted free market policies to make his country strong and prosperous because that’s the best way to fight Hugo Chavez (and eeeuw, how’s you like him for your next door neighbor?) Colombia’s economy has blossomed as a result. Lastly, crime has gone way down in Colombia, with murders down 37% and kidnappings down 72%. Tourism is awakening. People are no longer scared to walk around in the big cities because the killers and kidnappers are gone.

Very quietly, Uribe’s the hemisphere’s star leader and Colombia’s voters are going to give him a second term to finish the great job he started. He’s a marvel. With Uribe’s real and Reaganesque leadership, somehow Colombia’s voters aren’t impressed with populism the way other, leaderless nations are. Let’s see those results in action - because for all we know, maybe they will tell voters elsewhere that other choices than populism are possible.

iViva Colombia!

Counting ballots in Colombia. Source: El Tiempo

Colombians arriving at the polls. Source: Gustavo Bandres, El Universal

Uribe waiting in line to vote. Source: Reuters, via Yahoo!

UPDATE: Reuters reports that the election is peaceful and serious, and the guerrillas are nowhere in sight - democracy has advanced so strongly that even the guerrillas are telling people to go vote. Tell me that isn’t a sign of the guerrillas being on the run. Compare and contrast to Uribe’s first election a few years ago - guerrillas were shooting people standing in voting lines. No more. It’s called the scent of victory, and I don’t mean just electoral. Read it here.

BLOG ROUNDUP:

Steven Taylor at PoliBlog has a copy of the actual Colombian ballot here. He’s also got profiles of Uribe’s opponents here and here. And here, he discusses media exaggeration of the rise in the polls of one of Uribe’s opponents, but has some thoughts on how new parties are rising in Colombia, something that, in my opinion is healthy in a democracy.

Matthew Shugart at Fruits and Votes thinks this election will be historic, not just because Uribe is the first guy who can run for a second term, but because the election will probably diminish the once-dominant liberal party, which may make room for new left parties to emerge. Read it here.

Adam Isacson at Plan Colombia and Beyond, a critic of the drug war, has a writeup of all the candidates’ positions on the war on drugs here. You can see the absolutist stance against drugs and the no-apologies friendship with the U.S. throughout the Uribe profile - a valuable post indeed.

Jefferson Morley at Washington Post has a good primer on what’s going on in this election and why it matters. Read it here.

Andres Mejia-Vergnaud at VCrisis has an excellent essay discussing how market-friendly Alvaro Uribe is - he is, with a couple caveats. It can be read here.

Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons says he’s not a big fan of Uribe and worries about the concentration of power he will amass if he pulls off this election as strongly as polls indicate. He thinks how Uribe governs should affect how the U.S. dispenses its aid. His item can be read here.

FIRST RESULTS:

El Espectador seems to report that President Uribe has a powerful lead of 69.14%, against his nearest rival, Carlos Gaviria, with 19.80%, in first results. It needs to be better confirmed, but here it is.

El Tiempo reports President Uribe is winning big, in early results. He’s got 64% of the vote, with his nearest rival, Carlos Gaviria, getting 22.97%, with 1.6% of the vote counted. The story in Spanish is here.

Bloomberg reports that Uribe’s got it in the bag, with about 60% of the vote, against Gaviria’s 24%, and about 13% of the vote counted. Stock market’s already going hog wild, gaining 8% just last Friday, and about 800% since Uribe took office. Read it here.

BLOG REACTION:

Boz at Bloggings by Boz has a great concise list of five important points to understand and note about President Uribe in his reelection victory. It’s well worth reading here.

Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit has a terrific first-rate roundup on Uribe’s background, his views and his implications for those of us in the U.S, along with a great collection of photos here.

Steven Taylor at PoliBlogger has the third - and most important - in his series on Colombia’s candidates, on who President Uribe really is. It’s excellent reading here. He’s also got a discussion on what a growing new left movement means for Colombia. The group that’s now making a respectable showing is not enough to knock out Uribe this time, but represents a new development on the Colombian political scene.

Miguel Octavio at Devil’s Excrement in Caracas compares and contrasts Colombia’s swift electoral results with Venezuela’s $300 million ultramodern system that still hasn’t managed to get the results of the December 2005 congressional race tallied. Read it here.

Daniel Duquenal at Venezuela News & Views has a BRILLIANT and thoughtful post with tons and tons of fun facts about the election - such as the fact that almost all the expat Colombians in Bolivia and on border with Venezuela voted for Uribe in much higher percentages than ordinary Colombians. Bogota, too. I take issue with his calling Uribe an ‘authoritarian,’ but overall, it’s a juicy, meaty post-election analysis, completely riveting, wonderfully informed and an absolute must-read here.

Adam Isacson at Plan Colombia and Beyond who is an Uribe critic, has a pessimistic take on how tough and trouble-plagued Uribe’s second presidential term is likely to be. It’s good reading anyway, but I disagree with some of his views on Uribe not caring about ending poverty or stomping out AUC guerrillas or fostering civil society. Based on what I seen and read of Uribe, he explicitly cares about those things and intends to focus hard on them. Not only that, I would argue that he’s discounting the ongoing progress on them. Unlike Bolivarian Venezuela, Colombia has a diversified economy that’s actually growing. Anyway, it’s a nicely written piece here.

UPDATE: And here is something we needed! Tom at An American In Colombia has on-the scene observations and photos of the election in action. It’s two great in-depth pieces on the meaning of the election and the feeling in the streets. It’s a must-read here and here. Oh, and … catblogging, too! You gotta click on!

ONE MORE THING:

One last thing, not really a blog report, just a blogger’s note: Juan Forero of The New York Times is a Colombian from New Jersey with a well-known grudge against President Uribe. Forero absolutely hates the guy. His report is predictably like swallowing castor oil, but what’s really funny is his headline, which he may or may not have written - it’s ‘Bush Ally Coasts To Second Term In Colombia.’ If Forero wrote it, it’s because he knows that that’s the best way to make New York Times readers hate the guy as much as he does. Bush wasn’t part of this election at all, Uribe is no particular ally of Bush, he’d be friends with whoever is in office, and Forero has to go bring up Bush, he can’t stand to mention anything about Colombia’s democracy or Colombia’s issues - Bush is the best shorthand for anything odious, ain’t that right, Juan? Even more telling, the NY Times changed the word “Bush Ally” to the more accurate “U.S. Ally” in its story later (it since looks like it’s back to “Bush Ally”) because someone obviously caught the bias and made an amendment. You can just see the uncorrected original on Google here and the Times story here. Note also that the Forero story has an especially unflattering picture of Uribe, unlike the rest of the media. Forero just can’t help himself!

East Timor, with less than a million people, is like a small town, with small-town niceness … and small-town small-mindedness. It’s also coming off a 25-year populist guerrilla war for independence, meaning that there are a lot of unemployed soldiers and guerrillas around, without a purpose.

The barely-developed half-island won its independence from Indonesia in a 1999 referendum that came about by fluke, when, in an unguarded moment, the loose-tongued, clownish Soeharto successor, BJ Habibie, said that if the Timorese really wanted a referendum, he’d darn well give it to them.

It turns out they did.

And independence, after decades of human rights abuses, and Indonesia’s monstrous currency devaluation, won by a strong margin. The winners were former Marxist guerrillas who said they were no longer Marxist, and it might have been true. But they also had a very nationalist-populist caste to them, which probably informed what the future Timor would eventually become.

Habibie and the rest of the Indonesians - some of whom had established themselves very well there over the years in Timor, lost big and had to leave.

In a bath of bloodshed, soldiers aligned with the Indonesian army slaughtered and burned and murdered their way out. The world panicked at the potential for violence, which was huge, and finally, after many people were killed - I vividly recall the refugees cowering in a church for safety being burned to death by Indonesian soldiers and paramilitaries - and finally, the United Nations, under the late Sergio Vieira de Mello, was sent in to restore order. The Australians did the heavy lifting, but elections were organized and a power-sharing arrangement was established. It was supposed to be a success story. Then the UN, taking its furniture with them, left, and East Timor began, around 2000.

In light of the fact that Timor had literally nothing after Indonesians smashed their way out of there, it became evident that Timor would become an aid republic. Spoils would be important. Excercise of democracy would be one thing, but dividing up the cash would be another. And in light of that, it used the U.S. dollar as its first currency. There was talk of developing oil and coffee but to date, it’s all very minimal. Aid republic is what Timor still is. And its main purpose is to still figure out how to divide the unearned spoils. When I talked to the prime minister of East Timor in New York about it, he said dollarization would last no more than three years, but he liked the setup. I told him it would be dumb to set limits to it, because people would start arbitraging and hoarding. Anyway, they’re still an aid republic of no development and they still use the dollar. It’s sad and it’s a shame. But it all seemed very normal for awhile.

Until this year.

One group of ex-guerrillas turned soldiers, supposedly closer to rebel guerrilla chief Xanana Gusmao, who’s now the president, believed they weren’t getting the promotions they deserved. And another group, from the eastern half of the island, were. That caused a formation of them to break away from the army and form their own rebel faction. They had pals in the cops, so the cops and the rebels battled the army regulars. It’s been brewing for about three weeks, but it’s only in the last six days that real warfare has broke out.

The prime minister called in the Australians, who sent 1400 troops. The Malaysians sent about 500, right behind them. The Portuguese send another few hundred and the Kiwis said they’d send about 200. Timorese cheered when they landed and they immediately restored order. But the minute they moved away from the chaos, the fighting is starting up again. Houses are burning, city dwellers are fleeing, and people are dead. It’s massacre and machete time again in East Timor. Unemployed youths, carrying machetes, have joined some of the rebel factions.

The prime minister is calling it a coup attempt and a threat to Timor’s fragile democracy.

It’s probably easy to say you want democracy if you’re the guy in power by virtue of democracy. But if people are being systemically excluded from the system, and you aren’t doing anything about it, maybe you deserve the trouble you get.

On the other hand, this might be petty bickering over who gets the top bunk. I don’t know at this point, but I find it sad to see all the refugee pictures and fear and grief on those blameless people. All that, due to a dispute over the best jobs and promotions? It’s a fight over spoils. And that is about the most undignified reason to destroy democracy that I can think of.

When will people stop viewing democracy as a matter of spoils and instead view it in terms of ideals?

Glenn at Instapundit has more links and further thoughts here.

Why is this man smiling?

And why should we smile back?

This may shock you, but he’s happily, shamelessly taking credit for the U.S. House and Senate votes on immigration this week. He didn’t have all that much to do with it, except a little and except that it was none of his business.

Nevermind.

We gotta smile back.

Fox’s political party is reaping big from these immigration reform bills being hashed out in Washington. And Mexican elections are around the corner. With World Cup headed at us like a freight train in June, something that will stop all political activity and war throughout the world for a few weeks, good feelings about Fox’s “role” in passage of these immigration bills is a major last thing Mexican voters will remember as they head for the polls July 2.

Go on, let him take credit.

Vicente Fox’s center-right, free-market PAN party, and its candidate, Felipe Calderon, is likely to reap big.

This is good news for everyone, including us in the U.S.

The PAN party is running on a platform of job creation, and of opening Mexico’s closed energy sector to put Hugo Chavez out of business and provide more oil for us since the clowns in U.S. Congress still don’t get it about offshore drilling.

Mexico’s gains in transparency, in better market regulation, in sound stable currency, in fiscal discipline and in a rising stock market - and believe it or not, job creation - will continue apace and not be rolled back by an inward-looking Hugo-Chavez-style populist in Mexico.

The odds of the good guys winning in Mexico have just got better, because of the Congressional immigration bills. No matter what we think of the immigration bills - and there will be a lot of mudslinging here before it’s over - the effect of this news south of our border is very good indeed.

Everybody can find something to smile with Vicente Fox about in that!

Vicente you hound dog!

Enjoy the story here.

A few days ago, I was blogging about the tombs of Imogiri, near Yogyakarta, in central Java, discussing them as the place I was at onset of Indonesia’s democratic revolution in 1998.

Today, those tombs are at the epicenter of the deadly earthquake in Indonesia, centered in Bantul. Hospitals are overflowing and more than 3000 are known dead in the first 12 hours, it will soar much higher.

I noted earlier that Indonesia has a lot of eerie coincidences. I just wish this wasn’t one of them. There are people I know there, and I am quite worried. I will have to try to reach them, this is too close to the Indonesia I know.

Source: AFP, via Yahoo!

BLOG ROUNDUP:

Harry Sufehmi at Harry Sufehmi says he’s all right, but got an email from a friend named Eko who lost two relatives. He went to the Yogya blogger community and saw only one post. He hears that communication has been badly damaged, and given the scale of the disaster, it might be hard to even want to blog. His post is here.

Shinta at Honeycomb who lives in Jakarta is busy batting off expression of concern, explaining that Jakarta is too far away from Yogyakarta to feel any earthquake in Yogya, here.

Bridget at GOP Vixen blames third-worldery for the high death count in this Yogyakarta quake. She might be right but in my opinion, she might be speaking too soon - the intensity of the earthquake is often related to how deep in the earth the temblor was, and with an active volcano going on nearby on Mount Merapi, it might have been quite shallow. That said, I do blame third-world concrete construction for this kind of death toll - the traditional Javanese wood houses were developed to prevent exactly this kind of quake damage - and Java is the world’s most densely populated as well as oldest continous civilization in the world. Those old wood houses were developed for a reason and it’s a shame hardcore concrete houses replaced them - they may look modern but they are not practical in that earthquake climate.

Carolyn at Solo Femininity says pray for Indonesia.

Hat tip: Real Clear Politics

Pastor K at Musings says his daughter was ok, a couple hours from the quake’s epicenter. He says it was so unexpected and the only thing you do is be prepared.

NEWS:

Jakarta Post has the latest earthquake news, plus photos, of the damage, alongside stories of the explosive new violence in East Timor, the ongoing volcano trouble, and new human-to-human bird flu outbreaks here.

Sploid has lots of news, linked throughout, here.

The Independent of London has some exceptional coverage, it’s the only newspaper that seems to recognize the historic treasures at stake and the importance of this royal city in Java’s history. Knowing the place, I am more upset at the loss of people but the area is a jewelbox and that’s important too. Read of its significance here.

CNN has a good story (probably by my friend described in my Indonesia post linked above) and a photo gallery here.

Read this entire article in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs. But if you don’t, then you should at least see the following, which is relevant. It is written by Jorge Castaneda, once Mexico’s foreign minister, regarding to two different lefts in Latin America.

A TALE OF TWO LEFTS

Just over a decade ago, Latin America seemed poised to begin a virtuous cycle of economic progress and improved democratic governance, overseen by a growing number of centrist technocratic governments. In Mexico, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, buttressed by the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, was ready for his handpicked successor to win the next presidential election. Former Finance Minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso was about to beat out the radical labor leader Luiz In????cio Lula da Silva for the presidency of Brazil. Argentine President Carlos Menem had pegged the peso to the dollar and put his populist Peronist legacy behind him. And at the invitation of President Bill Clinton, Latin American leaders were preparing to gather in Miami for the Summit of the Americas, signaling an almost unprecedented convergence between the southern and northern halves of the Western Hemisphere.

What a difference ten years can make. Although the region has just enjoyed its best two years of economic growth in a long time and real threats to democratic rule are few and far between, the landscape today is transformed. Latin America is swerving left, and distinct backlashes are under way against the predominant trends of the last 15 years: free-market reforms, agreement with the United States on a number of issues, and the consolidation of representative democracy. This reaction is more politics than policy, and more nuanced than it may appear. But it is real.

Starting with Hugo Ch????vez’s victory in Venezuela eight years ago and poised to culminate in the possible election of Andr????s Manuel L????pez Obrador in Mexico’s July 2 presidential contest, a wave of leaders, parties, and movements generically labeled “leftist” have swept into power in one Latin American country after another. After Ch????vez, it was Lula and the Workers’ Party in Brazil, then N????stor Kirchner in Argentina and Tabar???? V????zquez in Uruguay, and then, earlier this year, Evo Morales in Bolivia. If the long shot Ollanta Humala wins the April presidential election in Peru and L????pez Obrador wins in Mexico, it will seem as if a veritable left-wing tsunami has hit the region. Colombia and Central America are the only exceptions, but even in Nicaragua, the possibility of a win by Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega cannot be dismissed.

The rest of the world has begun to take note of this left-wing resurgence, with concern and often more than a little hysteria. But understanding the reasons behind these developments requires recognizing that there is not one Latin American left today; there are two. One is modern, open-minded, reformist, and internationalist, and it springs, paradoxically, from the hard-core left of the past. The other, born of the great tradition of Latin American populism, is nationalist, strident, and close-minded. The first is well aware of its past mistakes (as well as those of its erstwhile role models in Cuba and the Soviet Union) and has changed accordingly. The second, unfortunately, has not.

And this, a news article from Bloomberg regarding President Bachelet’s State of the Nation address that she gave to Chile a few days ago.

May 22 (Bloomberg) — Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said the government this year will spend interest derived from its copper revenue without tapping the rest of its windfall.

Chile, the world’s biggest copper producer, will spend the funds on police, health care and scholarships, Bachelet said in her first state of the nation address yesterday. The government, which is keeping its windfall revenue abroad to try to curb gains in the peso that are hurting exporters, probably has earned about $150 million in interest from the revenue, said Leonardo Suarez, head of research at brokerage Larrain Vial SA.

Bachelet’s comments may ease concern that she will succumb to pressure from lawmakers to ramp up spending amid the surge in international copper prices, Suarez said.

Bachelet, 54, said that the government will be ééprudent” and stick to its policy of saving its windfall from the metal to spend in years when prices drop. Record prices have increased political pressure to spend the funds, Suarez said. A poll last month showed that almost three-quarters of Chileans want to spend the money now. Bachelet said that the current prices for copper, which have more than doubled in a year, won’t last.

ééThe history of Latin America has too many booms that are badly managed that ended in crisis,” Bachelet told congress in Valparaiso. ééOur continent has abundant oil, tin, wheat, coffee. But none of these riches has guaranteed the development of the nations that possess them.”

Oil, tin, wheat, and coffee, she says. Almost all of Latin America remains dirt poor because for centuries all of these countries with all of these resources have been governed by people who throw it all away. The trend continues, and is being amplified, by people like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia who — despite the rhetoric — are using their countries’ natural resources to buy political favor instead of actually building a transporation, education, and healthcare infrastructure. This is the kind of left that embodies the traditional Latin American nationalist populism that Castaneda talks about.

But there is another left in Latin America that embraces competitive markets, signs free trade pacts, governs democratically, and actually uses the country’s resources to benefit the people. In this, Chile almost stands alone, but it is a shining example of what Latin America can be. Bachelet is resisting the politician urge to spend-spend-spend, saving up copper revenues for much rainier days and only spending the interest on things that improve everyone’s lives. It is a kind of fiscal fortitude that the U.S. electorate has wet dreams about. She and her center-left Concertacion alliance embody the new, humanist left in Latin America, which cares most about improving their country to improve the lives of people.

Saving copper money isn’t the only thing she’s doing. Huge highways, one right alongside the Mapocho River that cuts straight through Santiago, are being completed and making work times much more efficient. Investments in education and healthcare, along with innovative legislation to make hospitals and schools compete to obtain government money for patients and students, is leading to improved and expanded services for everyone. Small-business and salaries are surging, with the upperclass suburb La Dehesa being flooded with construction of cookie-cutter houses for the rising middle class. The left is actually changing Chile for the better, turning it into a land of prosperity and openness.

It is this left that the United States must embrace and promote in order to fight the anti-democratic leftists like Chavez. I would venture to say that Chile is the only truly, fully consolidated democracy in the region with no chance of turning back. That kind of achievement is hard won, and will be harder yet to reach in the rest of the continent. But it can be done. Venezuela and Bolivia can be prosperous democracies one day as well. They just need a new left.

Who is President Bush????????s favorite choice to become Secretary General of the United Nations? Look for the United States to support the President of Latvia, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, to replace Kofi Annan when his term expires Dec. 31.

Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the President of Latvia, has a history that has taught her the importance of democracy and freedom. President Vike-Freiberga was born in Riga, Latvia in 1937. During World War II Latvia was occupied by the Russians, then the Germans, then again by the Russians, and then was forced to join the Soviet Union at the close of the war.

After the war Ms. Vike-Freiberga????????s family fled the oppression of the USSR and went to Germany, where they lived in refugee camps before moving to French Morocco. Subsequently they settled in Canada when she was 16 years old. She had a distinguished academic career in Canada, becoming a professor of psychology with a specialization in the relationship between thought and language. She was also well known in the Latvian community as an author of several books and a collector of Latvian folk songs.

After the fall of the Soviet Union Ms. Vike-Freiberga moved back to Latvia to head the Latvian Institute. Then unexpectedly she was drafted to become Latvia????????s President and won election. In a male dominated country known for political corruption, she has managed to win reelection, and has maintained the image of being extremely honest and not beholden to any cliques or parties. She has often been compared to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and has been called the Baltic Iron Lady. President Vike-Freiberga supported the Iraq invasion, and she said at the time that the experiences of the Baltic states and other post-communist governments in Europe had given them firsthand experience in the need to stand up to a tyrannical government before it is too late. Latvia is one of the countries that have a small number of troops in Iraq. During the lead up to the Iraq war French President Chirac criticized some of the former Soviet Union countries for supporting an invasion of Iraq. Chirac stated that, “immature Central and East European nations missed a great opportunity to shut up” over the divisive Iraq issue. President Vike-Freiberga was visiting Washington, DC at the time and she responded to Chirac????????s comments by saying, “We did stick our neck out, and we will not pull it back.” She went on to say that, “My predecessor in 1939 hoped to keep a low profile, and it didn’t work. We have seen the results of appeasement. It is much easier to tolerate a dictator when he is dictating over somebody else’s life and not your own. I don’t think we can find security by hiding away in a hidey-hole. In our history, we have learned that our only chance for real security is standing with our allies and hoping they will stand by us.” Many Americans were so impressed with her comments that they flooded the Latvian Embassy and the Department of State with phone calls asking what goods were sold by Latvia and what could they do to support Latvia.

President Vike-Freiberga is a favorite of President Bush and he truly appreciates her belief in democracy and freedom. She is also well liked and respected by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Forbes magazine ranked President Vike-Freiberga 48 among The Most Powerful Women In 2005.

Of course her candidacy for the UN post will not be a cakewalk. An important key will be China. China has declared on several occasions that it is time for Asia to assume the Secretary General????????s post. There are several candidates from Asia, including Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, Surakiart Sathirathai of Thailand, and Ban Ki-Moon of South Korea. And the candidacy of President Vike-Freiberga would cause great angst for Vladimir Putin, as she has been an open critic of Putin and Russia.

Several months ago word was spreading through the security services of several Eastern European countries that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) was going to start a disinformation campaign to discredit President Vike-Freiberga so as to prevent her from becoming the UN Secretary General. The rumors were so strong that the Latvian Security Service (SAB) began an inquiry into the alleged FSB smear campaign. President Vike-Freiberga????????s candidacy for the UN Secretary General post is a problem for Putin, since he does not want it to happen, but would not like to be seen opposing a female from the former Soviet Union.

President Vike-Freiberga would be an honest, strong and tough Secretary General of the United Nations. Her love of freedom and democracy, her distaste for tyrants and oppressors would serve the UN well. Because of this she will probably never make it, but one can only hope.

Ibrahim Gambari is the man behind the scenes in Burma lately. He’s the undersecretary for political affairs over at the UN, and on a recent trip, he was actually allowed to meet with the leaders of the military junta. Even more, he was the first foreign diplomat in a very long time to meet with detained democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her jail time is supposed to be over on May 27th, at which point she would be thrust back onto the political scene. Will she be let out? Gambari offers us some clues as to what is going on.

Gambari has just returned from a visit to Rangoon, where he was allowed a 45 minute meeting with the pro-democracy leader. He was the first foreigner to see her in more than two years.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Gambari said he had asked senior General Tan Shwe to release Aung San Suu Kyi when her current term of detention ends May 27.

“Yes. We did ask, and not only about her but other detained persons for political reasons, and this was directly, because we are not sure whether the messages get to the highest authorities, but it was delivered,” he said. “I cannot give you a sense whether this would be done or not, but certainly we hope so, and it’s not far, the 27th is this Saturday.”

Gambari would not say what response he received. But he said Burma’s ruling generals appear to want to open a new chapter in relations with the international community. He said he was encouraged that Burma’s chief of police, Major General Khin Yi, had publicly stated that he no longer considers Burma’s democracy leader a threat to stability.

“As for the chief of police, I can only guess it could be one of two things,” he added. “Part of that statement said, she is losing support in country anyway, but also to try to denigrate her importance, but it could also be a way of preparing the ground if they were to decide to release her.”

The Burmese military junta is coming to a crossroads soon. Suu Kyi is supposed to be released soon. A UNSC resolution on the country regarding repression is pressing forward. Ethnic conflict is stirring. Inflation is soaring, with government and security agents becoming disgruntled that their pay cannot sustain a living any longer. It could very well be that soon enough, the country will transition from the current regime.

Given by the police chief’s statement that her freedom will not cause instability, Suu Kyi is likely to be released this Saturday. It has always appeared to me that the junta has basically played a waiting game with her. After all, it’s been around 16 years since the government refused to hand over power to the democratically elected government. Given the repressive measures introduced, and the National League for Democracy’s leader in prison, no doubt the democratic forces have not been able to organize and resist as they once did. If she is released, the regime is betting that it will be seen as a good enough concession to warrant dialogue with the international community. And with dialogue comes aid and trade!

Gambari indicated that Burma is ready to open up to the international community, but this sounds like the same old routine where a government is facing crumbling internal legitimacy and must look outward for it. It can no longer guarantee stable prices of even basic goods, making it obvious that people — especially middle-ranking officers — will begin to rebel more and more. The only way to cure this problem is to open up to trade.

Of course, the United Nations will go for any bone that is thrown its way. But extending its line on life is not the best way to go about things. Getting propped up and heading off the UNSC resolution is all that the regime is trying to do. Any concessions on human rights would only be temporary and only symbolic at best, as such abuses cannot be remedied unless that absolutist system that exists is demolished completely.

If we’re going to see something happen in Burma, we need to see Suu Kyi released when she is supposed to be, and she needs to be allowed to organize the NLD. To make sure this happens, the best avenues for pressure are through nearby countries like Thailand, India, and China. Especially China. The case must be made that the collapse of the military regime would not necessarily mean instability in the region should Suu Kyi become prime minister and the international community then — and only then — steps in to ensure a smooth transition to democracy. If this can be done, then there really may be a chance for ensuring that enough liberalization is carried out to allow political change.

I can????????t top Rob????????s pictures of the Montenegro celebrators, but the Montenegro vote for independence does have significance for Serbia and the Balkans over and above the beauty of their independence supporters.

Everyone (including me), and especially the intelligence agencies in Europe, expected Serbia to turn over Ratko Mladic prior to the May 1 deadline issued by the EU. Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (CTFY) accused Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica of misleading her by insisting a month ago that Mladic’s arrest was imminent. The failure of Serbia to capture and hand over Mladic shows the weakness of Kostunica, and his inability to control the military and the Serbian security services who are believed to be protecting Mladic.

The EU, which set the bar high for a successful vote for Montenegrin independence (more than 55%,) was not looking forward to an independent Montenegro. But, now the frustration with Serbia has reached a level that the EU is happy with the independence vote, and will move forward, albeit slowly, to begin preliminary steps for discussions with Montenegro to join the EU.

Since Serbia did not arrest and turn over Mladic, the EU has broken off any further talks on Serbia????????s ascension to EU membership. With Montenegro????????s vote for independence, Serbia????????s perceived reluctance to cooperate with the CTFY, and lack of control over the military and the security services there will now be great pressure on Belgrade to solve the Kosovo situation. Kosovo is the UN-controlled province that was formally a part of Serbia. British and American diplomats are privately saying, and publicly hinting, that they believe that Kosovo, with its ethnic Albanian majority, should be granted independence by the end of 2006. Serbia refuses to even consider the idea, but will now face more pressure to do something to resolve the Kosovo problem.

There is a risk that Montenegrin independence and Serbia????????s isolation could cause a reaction in Serbia that would be to the political advantage of the most extreme elements in Serbia. This could be the moment that the hard line nationalists and the Serbian Radical Party (SRP) have been waiting for. If Serbia becomes more detached from Europe and the West the SRP could take over the government in future elections.

Another problem that may manifest itself in later years is that Montenegro????????s independence will split a Muslim region (Sandzak) in two????????with part of the region in Montenegro and part in Serbia. Ethnic Bosnian Muslims make up around 45 percent of Sandzak’s population of about 420,000 people. Some Muslim radicals have been calling for an independent enclave in Sandzak, and the region could become a breeding ground for radical independence movements. Some in Sandzak have already declared that they will not respect a border between Serbia and Montenegro that runs through Sandzak.

Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo????????and the Balkans in general– are areas to watch in the coming year. Don????????t forget????????World War I started in the Balkans.

The SMCCDI has two reports on the protests underway in Iran here and here.

Below, some photos of the demonstrations.

In my next Iran-related post, I’ll write more in detail about these demonstrations.

Students are protesting in Iran, and according to this report, it’s against Iran’s nuke program. Some of it has turned violent. Police are blamed.

GatewayPundit has the scoop, and a tremendous roundup of this big potential democracy revolution here.

It was Publius’ and Venezuela Today’s scoop last May 10.

Hugo Chavez has a new role in Hollywood, not as an Oliver-Stone conspiracy hero, but as a videogame villain. Apparently, he caught wind of our post because we were the only ones posting about it, and has now blown up, calling it a CIA conspiracy and all kinds of entertaining things that ensure his reason for being in the world videogame pantheon of villains.

Enjoy this news here!

The Miami Cuban community is often maligned as a bunch of “older Cuban men” who’ve not been able to get over the loss of their “stuff” from the thieving and murderous reign of Fidel Castro. They are portrayed as troglodytes, fanatically rightwing, living in the past, playing dominoes, recalling the good old days, sexist and totally irrelevant. Definitely not the “in” crowd to such “cognoscenti” who dismiss them.

Well, Miami Cubans have a way of throwing those stereotypes right back in the faces of their accusers, who are often U.S. leftist ignoramuses with no understanding of the Cuban-American experience, no grasp of what it is like to flee a monstrous tyrant, no ability to listen to that experience and learn, and with big enough egos to think these Miami Cubans can be talked down to, lectured, put in a box, and dismissed as irrelevant. Some, of course, are happy to do the bidding of Fidel Castro, who is an avid supporter of this stereotype.

It’s baloney. Miami’s vibrant, lively exile Cuban community, just this weekend put on an in-your-face Cuba Nostalgia festival, for those who dismiss them as irrelevant “older Cuban men.” And they just happen to look like this:

Source: Julio Zagroniz

Such is the vibrance of the Miami Cuban community! Take a look at the mix of old and young here:

One thing ignoramuses who hate the Miami Cuban community don’t know is that Latin culture in general is not broken down in market segments - that’s a gringo phenomenon and it dates to the 50s and 60s, all that ‘youthquake’ and ”Pepsi generation” rubbish. It’s something hippies think, faithful to their television sets and corporate branding, even as they babble to themselves that they are free spirits while doing everything advertisers tell them to do, so that they, too, can feel groovy. When one is lost in a rapidly changing society, as they are, uniformity feels good.

Well, I got news for such Miami Cuban haters: Miami Cubans and other Latinos are not lost, they know exactly who they are. They don’t care about generational divides. Ibrahim Ferrer and Ruben Gonzalez achieved their great fame in the 80s and 90s, when Ry Cooder ignored their ages and just listened to their music for the Buena Vista Social Club. For Cubans, or Mexican, or other Latinos, if they like you, they like you, and they don’t care what your age, your income, your university or your market niche is. In that regard, they are very different from Perfect North American Idiots who think everyone goes in a box, and “Older Cuban Men” are especially irrelevant. But they are not irrelevant. Their dismissers are the ones who don’t know anything. These Free Miami Cubans, right here, in all their vibrance, show otherwise. And guess what? They win, too!

Val Prieto, at Babalu blog covered this event in Miami, and wrote several fascinating entries that tell the truth about the Real Free Cuba. Just click here and keep scrolling.

The Amir of Kuwait, Amir Sabah al-Ahmad, has dissolved the Kuwait parliament with new elections set for June 29 (the constitution requires that they be held within two months). This follows a week of intense conflict unprecedented in Kuwaiti history brought about in response to a government proposal to limit the number of voting districts from 25 to five. Opposition members of parliament - formal parties are not allowed under the Kuwaiti system - are protesting because, they allege, the new system will allow the government to redraw the boundaries in a way that hugely favors a minority of the population, presumably those most supportive of the government. A petition supported by 29 of 50 parliamentarians demanded the resignation of the cabinet, and so Amir Sabah al-Ahmad dissolved parliament. The Amir only took office in January following a succession crisis caused by the ailing health of the crown prince, and the tension has negatively affected the Kuwaiti stock market.

(The English version of Al-Sharq al-Awsat has an article which provides some historical background to constitutional developments in Kuwait, although it doesn’t actually explain the cause of the instant crisis, perhaps because readers are assumed to know. This article from the Kuwait Times provides more detail on the current crisis. Arabic sources: Al-Hayat, Due to Intense Differences of Opinion and the Exchange of Accusations Between Parliamentarians… The Amir of Kuwait Dissolves Parliament and Elections are Set for June 29; Al-Quds al-Arabi, The Amir of Kuwait Dissolves Parliament to Prevent Removal of the Prime Minister.)

A separate article in Al-Hayat on Tuesday (page 3, “Kuwaiti Election Campaign Begins Quickly”) reported that Amir Sabah al-Ahmad complained to the editors of the country’s newspapers - they published the speech - saying that the opposition was improperly bringing about a fitna - internal division - and that satellite TV channels - Al-Jazeera surely included here - were presenting the issue in a way that was hurting Kuwait. The article noted that opposition legislators were trying to unite around opposition to the government’s constituency reform plan. It also noted that, for the first time, women would make up the majority of the voters in the country since a large number of men would not be voting because they worked in the security and judicial branches (it was not explained why this rule was in place to begin with).

It is difficult to see what the ruling family thought they were accomplishing here; indeed, it seems that they didn’t think this through very well. The Sabah family has ruled Kuwait since independence, and genuine democratic reforms began under pressure from the United States following the 1991 war. While granting the elected parliament relatively more power in recent years, the Sabahs maintain control of the levers of power, including the defense and oil ministries, as well as the position of prime minister (currently Nasir Muhammad al-Sabah). Amir al-Ahmad thus presides as a kind of constitutional monarch over a government in which his family still maintains significant direct control.

The opposition, for its part, is divided into two informal factions, the Islamists, who are very strong, and the liberals, who are weaker, but both oppose this measure. Sources indicate that the new election will take place under the old system, so it is hard to see how this is going to come out well for the government. This could be the beginning of a fuller democracy in Kuwait, or it could lead the Sabahs to pull back on democratization and recentralize power. With Iraq still stabilizing, Iran almost literally breathing fire down their necks, and the Saudis struggling with their own radical Islamists, it is unlikely that Amir al-Ahmad would choose the current time to bring about rapid change.

Sowell is a specialist in Middle East affairs and the author of The Arab World: An Illustrated History. For more information about his book and other writings, see Arab World Analysis.com.

I have dreaded this topic, because I hate the revolting Jimmy Carter more than anything. The only good thing Jimmy Carter did was give back the Panama Canal and make me a flaming Reagan Revolutionary. In other words, he’s a perfect example of a stopped clock being right exactly twice a day. Everything else Carter ever did was not only bad, it was PROFOUNDLY bad. He’s a textbook example of what not, what never, to do.

That’s why his Carter Center’s coming back into the news is so utterly repellent.

But come back he is. He’s sent his emissaries back to Caracas, ahead of the December election. He got a $10 million new grant for some kind of electoral observation activities from the U.S. Aid office. Who the hell and how the hell that happened is beyond me. This guy ought never be allowed near another election. He breaks everything he touches. Carter is the human garbage who certified Hugo Chavez’s fraudulent recall referendum, paving the way for his consolidation of total power, his total unaccountability and his growing human rights violations. Caracas is awash in crime, drug dealers are growing ever more powerful, people are dead, Castro’s men run several Venezuelan ministries, there’s no future for young people, and there is no way to dislodge Hugo Chavez from power.

Anyway, Miguel has written up some recall referendum studies, showing just how flawed that 2004 vote - which gullible Carter announced was all ‘free and fair’ - really was. It’s technical but worth reading. And look at it this way: Carter is incapable of understanding it, so that’s why we need to.

Read it (link corrected!) here.