Free Belarus

Kaplan On The Troops

2006-01-10T00:05:00.000-08:00

The American Enterprise has an interview with Robert Kaplan in its January/February issue. Given the time he spent with American troops while writing his new book Imperial Grunts, Kaplan has a good perspective to answer the following question. (Far better, at least, than does John Murtha).

TAE: We hear much in the establishment media about morale problems in U.S. military ranks, and reporters often seek out disenchanted troops to put in front of microphones. Have you encountered widespread morale problems among American fighters in Iraq?

Kaplan: Absolutely not. I’ve only met two kinds of soldiers in the combat arms community: Those who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, and those who are pulling every bureaucratic string to get deployed there.

I spent the summer of 2004 with a group of marines in Niger and sub-Saharan Africa, and every marine in that platoon was trying to get to Iraq. A few months later, one of them got lucky and ended up leading Iraqi forces into combat in the second battle of Fallujah. He was a sergeant from Georgia, and after the battle, he sent me a long e-mail flush with pride. And that’s not just a cutesy-pie story—that’s basically what I encounter all the time.

The only disenchantment is found in the Reserves and the National Guard, mainly because they signed up for a short time and end up serving many months. That’s a system that needs reform. But generally speaking, morale is better than it’s been in a very long time.

Keep in mind there is very little combat going on now. Most deployments feature more humanitarian missions than combat. Even in Iraq, the troops really have to search far and wide to find combat activities.

As an aside, for what it's worth, I won't pretend I'm the biggest fan of Kaplan's analysis of the regions to which he has traveled, generally because no matter where he writes about, the final analysis can usually be summed up as "Intractable ancient, ethnic hatreds." When he said this in Balkan Ghosts, and Clinton used his book and the analysis therein to support his decision to stay out of Bosnia, Kaplan criticized his decision heavily, saying all he had written was a travel book. The strength of Kaplan's work is that they do provide extraordinary detail on out-of-the-way places, but his one size fits all analysis of the world's problems gets a little tiresome. He's done that to some degree (although far less than in his past works) in Imperial Grunts (of which I've read about half by now). Otherwise, it provides extraordinary detail on challenges and missions carried out by American troops deployed around the world. It certainly puts him in a better position to know the thoughts of these soldiers than John Murtha.

Here are some other interesting answers from the interview.

TAE: Have you talked to any of the troops about their feelings on Abu Ghraib?

Kaplan: Yes, and there are several levels to this. First and foremost, every soldier I’ve talked to has wanted to scream, “What were those idiots thinking? Who were their commanders? They should all be put in prison because they’ve besmirched our name! And even though 99 percent of what we do is good, nobody is writing about it because of these few idiots!”

That’s the first level. The other level is that after about six weeks of blanket coverage, they started disliking the media. They knew that the first few days of coverage were legitimate, because this was a terrible abuse. But after a few weeks, when the new revelations became smaller and smaller and less and less significant, the continuing blanket coverage obscured the great work that the U.S. Army was doing.

At that time, for example, they were involved in very restrained, close-quarters urban combat in Karbala, fighting that made Black Hawk Down look easy. Yet very little was written about it. And that’s when I heard soldiers start saying that the media was part of the problem.

TAE: You argue in your new book that evangelical Christianity has played an important role in making the U.S. military more moral, more disciplined, and more discerning. Explain that for our readers.

Kaplan: After Vietnam, one of the many motors that helped transform our military into a disciplined organization capable of complex exercises was the resurgence of religion. Perhaps most importantly, religious Christianity cut down on drinking and misbehavior. That in turn weakened the lure of the officers’ clubs, which narrowed the barrier between officers and enlisted and non-coms. I attended quite a number of religious services during my reporting for Imperial Grunts, and I never found them intimidating, proselytizing, or coercive. And the religion bucked up morale during difficult moments.

Read the whole thing.

Democracy's High Price?

2005-12-24T22:40:00.000-08:00

In contrast to the laziness on the New York Times' editorial staff, an excellent editorial in the Washington Post today about the lack of attention being paid by Washington and Brussels to promoting democracy in Belarus and sustaining democracy in Ukraine, while Putin continue the Great Game unabated.

AYEAR AFTER Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Russia's effort to combat the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe continues unabated. Its latest weapon is natural gas. As the heating season got underway this month, Moscow announced through its state-controlled energy company, Gazprom, that it would more than triple the price it charges Ukraine for gas supplies, to $160 per 1,000 cubic meters. When Ukraine's government sought to negotiate a more gradual increase, Moscow threatened to raise the price further, to more than $200, or cut off supplies as of Jan. 1. Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to trigger this crisis just as Ukraine approaches a crucial parliamentary election on March 26. Thanks to Mr. Putin, soaring energy prices for Ukrainian consumers may be a punishing issue for the former Orange revolutionaries.
Next door in Belarus, pro-Moscow President Alexander Lukashenko has no such worries. He, too, has an election coming up, on March 19; he abruptly scheduled it last week, the day after holding a summit meeting with Mr. Putin. At that meeting, Mr. Putin agreed to hold the price of gas for Belarus steady next year, at $46 per 1,000 cubic meters. Belarus's democratic opposition, which had been preparing for a presidential election in July, was left with one week to register its candidate and just a few more to campaign, without the benefit of mass media, money or the right to free assembly.

[...]

Will the West stand up for democracy in Belarus and Ukraine? So far there's not much sign of it. The European Union decided shortly after Mr. Lukashenko's announcement to postpone the launch of a radio service intended to provide uncensored information to Belarusans. Poland's foreign minister, Stefan Meller, spoke with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about Ukraine's gas price problems during a visit to Washington this week, but they did not reach agreement on a concrete response. Many in the administration remain unwilling to react to, or even acknowledge, Mr. Putin's aggressive campaign to undermine Mr. Bush's pro-democracy policy. As U.S. lassitude continues, Mr. Putin's price keeps going up.

With elections coming up in both Belarus and Ukraine in March, it is going to take more than calling Lukashenka a dictator to bring real change. The US and EU could really effect change if they tried. Russia is operating from the disadvantage, but the US and EU give it the advanatage by doing nothing. Russia is unlikely to fall in with China if we make Moscow mad. It knows its fortunes are in the West, but it is intent on being pulled kicking and screaming the entire way.

The Intellectual Lightweights At The New York Times

2005-12-24T20:46:00.000-08:00

The New York Times had an editorial today that was, unsurprisingly, simple-minded and lazy, showing no intellectual rigor or original thought - in other words, typical of the New York Times. In it, the editors, having noticed that Evo Morales won the Bolivian election - get ready for this - blamed it on Bush!

The political balance in Latin America has clearly been shifting to the left. Nearly 300 million of South America's 365 million people live under left-wing governments. While many of these governments, like Brazil's and Chile's, have worked hard to cooperate with the United States, others, like Venezuela's, have gone out of their way to bait Washington. Mr. Morales gives every indication of following the Chávez approach. And there could be similar lurches to the demagogic left in the numerous Latin American elections soon coming up in places like Peru, Mexico and Nicaragua.
One explanation is that nearly two decades of Washington-recommended economic and trade policies have not done much for millions of urban and rural poor. Another is that the Bush administration has not shown much interest in addressing Latin American social problems. And Mr. Bush has done a terrible job of cultivating personal relationships with Latin American leaders.

The fact that Bush doesn't have friends in Latin America on the same level as, say, Tony Blair or Junichiro Koizumi, could be just as much a reflection of the leadership in Latin America as one of Bush's friend-making abilities. That aside, this editorial is nothing short of comical in its lazy attempt to understand Latin American politics. Take, for example, this op-ed by Georgetown professor Michael Shifter.

Despite these labels, viewing Latin America through a strictly "left-right" lens doesn't make sense today. It is too simplistic, and it obscures the region's highly differentiated political landscape. Latin America is undergoing considerable social and political ferment. Street protests have forced a string of presidential resignations — in Bolivia and Ecuador, for example. Economic and political reforms haven't tamed the unrest. As poll after poll has shown, Latin Americans are disenchanted with politics of all colorations and with the lack of remedies for mediocre economic growth, scant job creation and stubborn poverty.

The political responses to this sour mood are far from monolithic. The prescriptions promoted are so varied as to render suspect any overarching, catch-all term — including "leftist." Politically, Latin America is, and will likely remain, a patchwork, marked by hybrid social, economic and foreign policies.

To illustrate: Chile under Lagos (his likely successor and fellow Socialist Michelle Bachelet is expected to continue his policies) reflects Latin America's most successful model, one that blends reliance on free markets and trade with targeted progressive social policies. The results — in terms of sustained growth and poverty reduction — have been impressive.

Brazil's Lula, like Lagos, has controlled spending, a policy not usually associated with the Latin American left. Unlike Lagos, however, Lula's government has been critical of hemispheric free trade initiatives.

Argentina's Kirchner, charting his own peculiar course, takes an anti-U.S. stance, pursues closer ties to Venezuela's Chavez and consistently defies the international financial community. Neighboring Uruguay's first "leftist" government (in office since March) has been distinguished chiefly by more conservative economic policies than its predecessors.

Like Shifter says, and as I pointed out yesterday, politics in Latin America no longer follows any left/right scheme. Instead, political camps are broken into populist and pragmatic, with varying degrees of each often adopted by the leader. There have been populists and pragmatists on both the right and the leftAs I said yesterday, politicians like Lagos and Lula, while recognizing the power of a populist platform, have ultimately come to recognize the efficacy of pragmatism over populist policies. Lula is hardly a regular guest at the Crawford ranch, and his free trade stance differs markedly from that of the Bush administration, but he's usually not actively trying to give Washington headaches with his policies. Chavez has not, but he also has vast amounts of oil revenue to fund his irresponsible policies.

The question remains which path Morales will take. On the one hand, it needs a great deal of foreign investment in order to make use of the pool of natural gas underneath the country (drilling practices with which Venezuela's state oil companies are not terribly efficient). On the other, the populist rhetoric of anti-imperialism and fighting what has supposedly been the cause of all of Bolivia's woes will not sit well with potential investors.

The Times editorial also pushes the idea that Latin America's drift "to the left" is somehow a backlash to Bush's presidency. This is an outright lie. The central tenets of the Bush administration's policies in Latin America have been democracy, free trade and open markets. It's worth dragging out this Chilean poll I liked to during the FTAA Summit last month. Between 60 and 80% of respondents in all South and Central American countries, with the exception of Chile, Venezuela and Uruguay are satisfied with democracy. Support hasd dropped since the 1996 poll in some countries, but has remained the same (including in Bolivia) or increased in others (Peru, Ecuador and to a lesser extent in Paraguay). Meanwhile, support for authoritarian governments "under certain conditions" has declined significantly during the Bush years.

Likewise, between 60-80% of respondents in all countries except Argentina and Paraguay believe the free market is the only system for them. Those who agreed in Argentina and Paraguay amounted to only slightly less than 60% - let's call it 55-57%. Support for privatization, which had been declining since 1998, the earliest year on the chart (I'm pretty sure someone else was in office who, according to the times, apparently wowed everyone in Latin America with free markets and democracy) has increased nearly 15% since the financial crises of 2002.

On a similar note, Russell Crandall, the former NSC Director of Western Hemisphere Initiatives I quoted yesterday, has a piece coming out in the Winter edition of The National Interest of what he learned about Latin America in his time at the NSC (he left in September 2005). The article is not out yet, but Nikolas Gvosdev, the National Interest's editor, has a preview at his blog, The Washington Realist.

Alarmist headlines notwithstanding, Latin America is not on the verge of violent, anti-American revolutions nor has the United States abandoned its backyard. To be sure, leftist leaders at times will keep a healthy distance from certain U.S. policies, but we should not interpret that as a wholesale rejection of market-led economic policies, democracy or general interaction with Washington.

Crandall himself gives his own preview of his findings, with some commentary on the media's role in playing up the supposed US-Latin American divide.

“I’m much more skeptical now of what I read in the press because reporters often don’t have the full story, or are predisposed to cover an event from a certain angle. And over the course of my time in government, I often asked myself if I perhaps I had done too much pontificating from my own ivory tower in education.”
Based in part on his time in the White House, Crandall has written an article for the winter edition of the widely read journal, The National Interest, that he hopes will help set the record straight on current relations between America and Latin American nations. Entitled “The Myth of the Latin American Backlash,” the article contends that media focus on vocal protests in South America against U.S. policies ignores the fact that relations between North and South are the strongest in almost fifty years. “Contrary to the general impression, there’s been significant progress on making democracy the only game in town in the Western hemisphere,” he said. “Almost all governments in Latin America are cooperating with us now on key issues such as making military forces more respectful of human rights, and both sides are eager for progress in trade relations.”

He writes in the article, “The region at times is stymied by a vicious cycle of voter apathy, poor public institutions, anemic economic activity and continued social unease. But the most encouraging sign is that Latin Americans seem predisposed to solve social and economic problems via the ballot box. Popular dissatisfaction with the pace or outcome of reforms has not lead to revolutions or coups d’état.”

Crandall concludes that a continued low-key U.S. approach to the region is best because, “A number of Latin American governments—especially the leftist ones—are hesitant to be seen as too close to Washington; yet, behind the scenes they are developing increasingly deep and trustful relationships with the United States.”

The Times' editorial does nothing more than further illustrate the continuing decline of serious thought at that newspaper. In fact, in a shallow attempt to blame Bush for something else, perhaps the Times has given the United States too much credit by assuming Latin America's political fortunes are wholly reliant on the actions taken by the United States. The Times wraps up its self-serving bloviating with this statement that beggars belief.

When denunciations of Yanqui imperialism in Latin America start coming from the presidential palaces as well as the streets and opposition benches, Washington needs to change its ways. The friendship of neighbors is a terrible thing to lose.

Nevermind that Bolivia's biggest foreign investors are countries like Brazil, Britain, Spain, France and Argentina. Nevermind that the uproar that led to the fall of Sanchez de Lozada (Goni) and Carlos Mesa had more to do capitalizing on anti-Chilean sentiments than anything done by the United States. At stake was whether a pipeline that would export Bolivian natural gas would run through Chile or through Peru (an out-of-the-way route that would cost an additional $600 million). Goni said Chile, given that that was the most logical route and the one most likely to pull in the up-front support of foreign investors.

Hopefully, Morales will want to take the Lagos/Lula pragmatic path rather than the Chavez populist path. If so, not only will the US have little to worry about, but Morales will be more likely to actually accomplish something as president. Should he take the Chavez route, he'll have a much more difficult time bringing about change, and the US will still have little to worry about because chances are good the Morales regime will implode as a result of isolation from just about all of its neighbors and the US. The ball is in Morales' court.

The New York Times, however, will certainly continue publishing lackluster editorials such as this one that display little research, thought or analysis.

Morales And The Latin American Populist Cycle

2005-12-23T21:25:00.000-08:00

Much has been said recently about Evo Morales' election victory in the Bolivian presidential race. Publius is somewhat worried at the outcome of the election, as are some of the other bloggers linked to by Publius. One of these, however, is less than concerned.

Morales will be a headache for the US, that much is for sure - the same way fifty years of populist leaders in Latin America have been headaches for the United States. Since the end of the Soviet threat in Latin America, however, a total of two of these governments have been truly worthy of American concern: Castro and Chavez. Morales' election does not make three.

For more than a decade now, Latin America has been electing leaders based on who gave the most rousing, charismatic speech from a balcony. These have included leaders both on the left and the right, although the former has been more common. Let's count them. Most recently they have included Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador, Lula in Brazil, Chavez in Venezuela. Past populists have included Alan Garcia and Alberto Fujimori in Peru, Carlos Menem in Argentina, Mexico City's current mayor and possible contender for the Mexican presidency next year Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Alfonso Portillo in Guatemala, and the list goes on. And this was only within the last twenty years or so!

Most of these leaders came to power on platforms of anti-imperialism and standing up to the yanqui and the "Washington Consensus." Some, like Lula and Kirchener have enjoyed more success than others (although Lula has spent the past year or so trying to distance himself from major corruption within his administration) and it's no coincidence that these two are among the few of the Latin American populist class who recognized the necessity of working with Washington, and the added benefits of doing so.

As for the others, Garcia's Peru suffered skyrocketing inflation and some of the worst human rights abuses during the government's fight against the Maoist terrorist group, Sendero Luminoso. Fujimori's presidency was not much better. Although he deserves credit for defeating Sendero and cutting down on state human rights abuses in the process (although admittedly not by the most democratic of means), his presidency ended in charges of massive corruption including top administration officials buying support from numerous congressmen. Fujimori fled Peru and has spent the last 5 years in exile in Japan with a Peruvian warrant out for his arrest. Menem's "free market reforms" were built on a platform of scandals and corruption, especially in privatization of state-owned industries. His corrupt "reforms" set the stage for the collapse of the Argentinian economy in 2001.

Portillo's Guatemala suffered through 5 years of one scandal after another, including money laundering and the creation of bank accounts in Panama, the US and Mexico that served as slush funds for administration officials. Gutierrez was driven out of Ecuador by the Congress earlier this year on a plethora of charges, including violent repression of demonstrators taking part in oil strikes, funnelling public funds to political allies, politicizing the judicial system to pardon past presidentsfacing charges of corruption, to name a few charges. Much like Fujimori in Peru, he is currently under arrest following his return to Ecuador in a delusional attempt to regain power.

By legalizing coca and befriending Chavez, Morales will be sure to present the United States with a headache it doesn't need. But the best option the US can take is to sit back and watch the Morales regime self-destruct. Chavez will certainly shovel money to Bolivia, but he is not going to get the same bang-for-the-buck, so to speak, that he gets by shoveling money to Castro, the yanqui imperialist's age-old enemy in the Western Hemisphere. Morales will certainly continue with the rhetoric that he has already started by calling Bush a terrorist, but eventually no one is going to care. Chavez gets attention because he has money and oil, and because idiots like Pat Robertson help Chavez make his case. Castro gets the attention, well, because he's Castro. But Morales? Who cares? Who's he?

Morales has actually been on the scene in La Paz long before the recent election. He was leading the masses to the streets to protest the imperialist-ties of the previous two governments, leading to their eventual downfall. But it's not just America he's been protesting, which is yet another reason why he's bound to fail: he'll be causing more than a mere annoyance to his own neighbors.

Relations with other South American leaders have not been as warm [as with Chavez' Venezuela]. On Monday, Morales said that he had asked President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil to return to Bolivian control two refineries Brazil's state-run oil company, Petrobras, bought from Bolivia in 1999.

Brazil is actually one of Bolivia's largest foreign investors in the oil and gas industry, along with Britain, France, Spain and Argentina. The United States isn't even that high on the same list of investors. Now, with Morales' rhetoric about nationalization and "re-negotiating contracts" with foreign firms, he's not likely to make many friends.

The problem: Morales is trumpeting a vague plan to "nationalize" a gas exploration and production industry dominated by foreign companies, but Bolivia doesn't have the cash or expertise to take over the job, Latin American experts and oil analysts say.

[...]

Morales clearly needs allies. Bolivia's cash-strapped state-owned natural gas company -- Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos -- would need billions of dollars and technology to go solo as a legitimate explorer and producer of natural gas.

Furthermore, Morales and Chavez both recognize that they won't be able to count on Venezuela's petrodollars forever, nor will Venezuelan companies be of much help in Bolivia.

Chavez has lavished petrodollars across South America, trading oil for cows with Argentina, pledging to help finance a $2.5 billion refinery in Brazil and promising to work with other nations on a pipeline linking Venezuela with Brazil, Argentina and possibly Bolivia.

But experts say Venezuela's PDVSA lacks experience in natural gas extraction. And while Venezuela is rolling in cash as the world's fifth-largest petroleum exporter, Chavez is also spending huge amounts at home to bankroll programs for the poor based on socialist ideals
"Chavez hasn't reached his financial limit, but he is nearing it," said Patrick Esteruelas, a Latin America analyst at the Eurasia Group in New York City.

So Morales' policies could end up making things worse for Bolivia, given the pool of natural gas upon which Bolivia currently sits.

Deep under the earth in Bolivia lies enough natural gas to supply South American consumers and industry for years, a windfall that could ease the astonishing poverty in one of the continent's poorest countries.

But hurting Bolivians' economic fortunes has been a habit of Morales' for some time, mostly under the banner of political expediency. As Russell Crandall, political science professor and former Director for Western Hemisphere Initiatives at the NSC pointed out in early 2004, Morales capitalized on a century of mistrust between Bolivians and Chileans to kill a deal to run a pipeline through Chile to the sea, a deal that would have created numerous jobs and millions of dollars in annual revenue for Bolivia.

The controversial plan to export Bolivia’s vast natural gas reserves (Bolivia holds Latin America’s second-largest gas reserves) through a pipeline that would end at a Chilean port prompted Sánchez de Lozada’s opponents into the streets. Evo Morales and his supporters painted the pipeline proposal as yet one more way that the country’s economic fortunes were being sacrificed at the altar of globalization. Morales pressed this case despite the fact that the pipeline would generate numerous jobs and an estimated US$500 million in annual revenue for the Bolivian government, capital that Bolivia desperately needs if it is going to improve its health and education systems. The project will require around US$3 billion in investment, most of which will need to come from foreign sources of capital as Bolivia is a severely capital-deprived country.

Relying on Bolivia’s historic dislike of Chile, following Bolivia’s defeat at the hands of the Chileans in the War of the Pacific in the late 19^th century, Evo Morales instead has demanded that Bolivia must instead “industrialize” the reserves by using the gas in value-added processes. While this alternative certainly resonates intuitively and emotionally with many in Bolivia who have not fully benefited from the country’s economic liberalization process, there is little to indicate that this strategy would be more beneficial than the pipeline and would likely worsen the situation of the poor majority. Carlos Mesa, the interim president who replaced Sánchez de Lozada as president, has announced that he will hold a referendum on the pipeline issue. The problem with this solution, however, is that so much of the opposition to the pipeline is based on emotion and hysteria whipped up by the likes of Evo Morales. Compounding the problem even more is that indigenous leaders have promised to return to their “ideology of fury” and “more blood, more fighting and more rebellions” if Mesa does not meet their demands.

This has sadly been a political trend in Latin America for decades. Chalk "the populist temptation" up to the "Ibero-Catholic familial-centered culture", as Samuel Huntington and Lawrence Harrison (to name a few) have done, and to some degree that is the case. This is overstated, however, as Catholicism has nothing to do with it (as seen in, say, Ireland), and there are plenty of Latin American governments that have been far more successful, disproving the notion that capitalist democracy is somehow antithetical to Latin American culture. Likewise, as I wrote on last month, a recent poll of Latin Americans shows overwhelming support for free market capitalism and democracy, and less overt, but still overall support for the United States and the Bush administration.

What's the answer then? Maybe there isn't one, which is of course the cop-out explanation. The populist pattern tends to follow a more or less consistent pattern, with the populist making a mess, the relatively more free-market president doing its best to clean it up and put the country back on the right track, followed again by the charismatic, pragmatic politician. As Crandall pointed out:

With its paternalism, lofty goals and emotive rhetoric, populism has tended to capture the hearts of Latin Americans as well as observers of Latin America. Indeed, few non-populist leaders can compete in the romantic category with populists such as Castro, Chávez or even Morales. Yet, while youth around the world might not wear their likenesses on t-shirts or berets, in recent years it has been the more plodding, often charismatically-challenged leaders such as Ernesto Zedillo in Mexico, Ricardo Lagos and Eduardo Frei in Chile, and Brazil’s Fernando Henrique Cardoso who have done the most to address the many ills that face the region’s normal populist constituency—the poor. In Brazil, for example, hunger alleviation is an integral component of Lula’s current political agenda. While that goal is certainly noble, it is worth remembering that it is strongly predicated upon the success of President Cardoso’s elimination of hyperinflation in the mid-1990s, which remains Brazil’s most effective social policy in its modern history.

Perhaps the answer is in part psychological. As longtime Mexican strongman Porfirio Diaz used to say, "Poor Mexico! So far from God, yet so close to the United States." Despite the accuracy of the statement, and given that Mexico is singing a different tune now with wide open borders witnessing a steady stream of illegal immigration northwards, this sentiment has been oft-adapted by many a Latin American populist leader, but perhaps has yet to be separated in the Latin American mind from the financial mess so often created by the same leaders, who tend to continue their rise to power with promises to fight yanqui imperialism, be it real or imagined.

Whatever the reason, until the repercussions of concrete actions give the United States more of a reason to think so, Morales' electoral victory should not be treated with too much undue concern. The real danger will be to the Bolivian people. With any luck, he'll come to realize, like Lula and Kirchener, that the only benefits Chavez can provide him would only provide short-term fixes. If not, Morales has no reason to think his fate will be any different than the string of Latin American populist leaders who came into power with "mandates" and left power amid scandal, corruption and economic collapse.

Daniel Benjamin Continues Clinton-Era Hackery

2005-12-23T19:35:00.000-08:00

Daniel Benjamin, the Clinton era-NSC staffer (who somehow jumped directly from NSC speechwriter to Director for Transnational Threats with a mere four years of NSC staffer work in between - perhaps an indication of the level of importance given to counterterrorism by the Clinton administration) propagates a long-held myth of the left that claims the "unabashedly conservative" Washington Times ran a story that "leaked" the fact that the US was tracing bin Laden's location through his satellite phone.

On Aug. 21, 1998, the Washington Times, the capital's unabashedly conservative newspaper, which regularly breaks more intelligence-related stories than any other daily, ran an article saying that Bin Laden "keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones." This occurred less than two weeks after the destruction of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam by al-Qaida and the day after the United States had bombed al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. After that report, Bin Laden stopped using his phone and let his aides do the calling.

[...]

The Washington Times story was a classic case of "sources and methods" being compromised.

Benjamin then goes on to make the outrageous claim that the satellite phone was our best chance of finding bin Laden, and that Sieff's leak was somehow a direct cause of 9/11.

If there was one piece of intelligence in the entire file on Bin Laden that might have spelled the difference between 9/11 happening or not, the satellite phone was it. When Osama hung up for the last time, the United States lost its best chance of finding him and, perhaps, preventing the deaths of 3,000 people.

This claim is staggeringly so outrageous and dishonest. Benjamin's book "The Age of Sacred Terror" (co-authored by fellow NSC staffer Simon Reeve) is 400+ pages of unabashed cheerleading for the Clinton administration's counter-terrorist efforts. Three years later, Benjamin has not relented in his hackery. Sieff's article did mention the satellite phone. It does not mention how the US kept track of bin Laden, just that he used the phone. Perhaps he heard this from a leak, but he could just as well have read this BBC piece from the day before (August 20, 1998 - Emphasis mine).

Mr bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire dissident, spoke to the BBC by satellite phone one hour before the attack, denying involvement in the embassy bombings.
However, he said he would continue his war against the Americans and the Jews until the liberation of the Islamic holy places. (HT: PrairiePundit)

Something tells me Bin Laden's goons would hit up BBC online before they ever made it to the Washington Times. There were probably instances where his usage of the phone was reported even before that, but either way Bin Laden obviously was not trying to keep secret the fact that he used a satellite phone. The worst part is, the much-ballyhooed 9/11 Commission Report has continued this myth that the Washington Times was responsible.

This information was more useful than it had been in the past; since the August missile strikes, Bin Ladin had taken to moving his sleeping place frequently and unpredictably and had added new bodyguards. Worst of all, al Qaeda’s senior leadership had stopped using a particular means of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times.[105] This made it much more difficult for the National Security Agency to intercept his conversations.
105. See Martin Sieff, “Terrorist Is Driven by Hatred for U.S., Israel,” Washington Times, Aug. 21, 1998, p. 1.

The context of this story is that Benjamin claim's Bush's analogy between then and now (that the media's leak of the satellite phone story and the leak of the NSA program are one in the same) is bogus. He claims that, because everyone knows the NSA intercepts phone conversations, that the leak didn't do much damage to national security, while the 1998 leak did.

It is also a matter of public record that the U.S. government has the right to obtain warrants to allow it to listen in on the communications of individuals in the United States for both criminal and intelligence investigations. Furthermore, it has frequently been reported that the FISA Court, the secret court that issues warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, almost never turns down applications. In short, no terrorist with half a brain thinks his communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment strictures against unlawful search and seizure.

Clinton's lackluster counter-terrorism efforts (led in the NSC by a promoted speechwriter) aside, this is nonsense. If that's the case, let's just open up the NSA to the public! Let's give guided tours of Fort Meade. Maybe we can even hold a contest whereby the winner gets to play SIGINT analyst for the day! The revenue would sure help decrease the deficit by allowing us to cut down on funds earmarked for the Intelligence Community. Yes, people "know" that the NSA listens in on phone conversations of suspected terrorists. But there are details to the program that remain secret for a reason. Surely Benjamin knows from his speechwriting-cum-NSC counterterrorism chief days that there is far more to intelligence programs such as these than just "let's tap some phones." It is these details that Bush refused to discuss in the analogy Benjamin labeled as "bogus."

Benjamin then goes on to talk about the European "secret prisons" and how the two cases somehow boil down to Bush getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

This is the second time in a matter of six weeks that stories about administration excesses in the war on terror have brought the administration grief. The other was Dana Priest's Washington Post piece about "black site" detention centers. That story does appear to have compromised sources and methods to some extent, and it may have increased the physical risk that CIA officers face. It could also have a long-term cost in terms of the viability of our liaison relationships with other intelligence services, as publics, especially in Europe, begin to insist on restrictions on cooperation with the U.S. intelligence community. Post editors had to weigh those potential harms against issues of prisoner abuse and the right of the public and of Congress to know what the Bush administration is doing in our name. (emphasis mine)

This is amazing. Presumably, in his non-speechwriting days at the NSC, Benjamin never came across any information that he felt he shouldn't be allowed to go home and tell his family or report in a press interview all in the high-minded, hypocritical name of letting "the public and Congress...know what the Clinton administration [was] doing in our name." There's a reason it's TOP SECRET! There's a reason you have to wait at least a year to be cleared to know this information. (Of course, Congressional leadership DID know about the NSA program, but that's another story.) Notice too the ease with which he brushes of the admittedly increased physical danger faced by CIA officers and the damage to sources and methods that resulted from the Post publishing the story about the "secret prisons" ("black site detention center" does sound good - if you're going for maximum effect). To Benjamin, this damage is somehow less important than being the second, thrid or fourth reporter to note that bin Laden used satellite phones. That "damage" caused the death of 3,000 people in Benjamin's warped mind. Putting CIA officers at risk and damaging REAL sources and methods is nothing. I'd be interested in knowing what Benjamin's reaction was to the "leaking" of a CIA employee who was so covert that she had to go out and pose for Vanity Fair and Time within the next two years. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Dueling Polls

2005-12-19T20:42:00.000-08:00

The general usefulness of presidential polls/approval ratings has once again been brought into question by contradictory Washington Post/ABC and CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls.

According to CNN:

A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll conducted over the weekend found his approval rating stood at 41 percent, while more than half, or 56 percent, disapprove of how the president is handling his job. A majority, or 52 percent, say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, and 61 percent say they disapprove of how he is handling Iraq specifically. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll interviews were conducted before President Bush's Oval Office address, which was broadcast on primetime television Sunday.

And yet, via Instapundit, we learn of the Washington Post/ABC News poll:

President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he is handling his job. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism -- a traditional strong point in his reputation that nonetheless had flagged to 48 percent in the November poll.

Like the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, this one does not take into account last night's speech or this morning's press conference.

So what's a right-wing reactionary Bush-lackey to think?! One possibile explanation, of course, takes into account the fact that Bush's approval rating in the Gallup poll never changed. While his rating in the WaPo/ABC poll had plunged to the low-to-mid thirties in October/November, the Gallup poll had consistently put his approval rating in the low 40s, where it remains to this day. According to Gallup, therefore, the past two months, which had hardly been wanting for negative news for the administration has had absolutely no effect on his rating.

Likewise, a new strategy and aggressive counterattack against Democrats who had calling for immediate withdrawal and accusing Bush of lying his way into war had no effect on his approval rating. This leads us to two possible conclusions. We are either left wondering exactly what actions taken by the administration are needed to affect the president's approval rating in one way or the other, or Gallup has some problems in its polling methodology that need to be tweaked.

The Pro-Americans

2005-12-19T20:30:00.000-08:00

OpinionJournal.com has an op-ed by two members of the advisory board of a group called Terror Free Tomorrow (a number of 9-11 commission members are involved, but rest assured the intelligence community is not mentioned). Interesting polling numbers out of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world. It seems Americans aren't really hated anymore. A poll carried out by TFT and AC Nielson Pakistan shows the effects of what a little humanitarianism can do.

In the first poll in Pakistan since the earthquake of October 8, 2005, Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the United States than at any time since 9/11, while support for Al Qaeda in its home base has dropped to its lowest level since then. The direct cause for this dramatic shift in Muslim opinion is clear: American humanitarian assistance for Pakistani earthquake victims.

The increase in the favorable opinion of America isn't just a one-off result of assistance in recovery efforts, as that does nothing to explain the dramatic drop in support for al Qaeda and suicide bombing. What's more likely is that the presence of the American military in the earthquake zone has caused some Pakistanis to concede that just possibly Americans weren't the infidels that they had previously assumed us to be. Before, radical clerics in madrassas were proclaiming America to the the Great Satan. Now, however, it's the previously maligned American military helping them recover bodies of their loved ones and find a way to survive in the wake of the earthquake. Odd, that. Here's what the poll found (emphasis mine):

Key Findings of the Poll:
73% of Pakistanis surveyed in November 2005 now believe suicide terrorist attacks are never justified, up from 46% just last May.
Support for Osama Bin Laden has declined significantly (51% favorable in May 2005 to just 33% in November), while those who oppose him rose over the same period from 23% to 41%.
US favorability among Pakistanis has doubled from 23% in May to more than 46% now, while the percentage of Pakistanis with very unfavorable views declined from 48% to 28%.
For the first time since 9/11, more Pakistanis are now favorable to the United States than unfavorable.
78% of Pakistanis have a more favorable opinion of the United States because of the American response to the earthquake, with the strongest support among those under 35.
79% of those with confidence in Bin Laden now have a more favorable view of the US because of American earthquake aid.
81% said that earthquake relief was important for them in forming their overall opinion of the United States.
The United States fared better in Pakistani public opinion than both other Western countries and radical Islamist groups.
While opinion of the United States itself improved significantly, this did not translate into increased support for US-led efforts to fight terrorism. Tellingly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism grew, from 52% in May to 64% now

TFT's website has lots of additional information on favorable opinions of America among Indonesians and Palestinians as well.

It's On (And More Dirty Tricks)

2005-12-17T20:10:00.000-08:00

The Belarusian parliament yesterday announced the date for the 2006 presidential elections. Originally scheduled to be held sometime in July, they are now to be held on March 19, a full three months ahead of schedule. No doubt this is yet another attempt to disadvantage the opposition by giving it less than half the time it originally expected to have to run a campaign.

No surprise that the announcement came a day after Lukashenka met with Putin at Sochi, on the Black Sea.

The meeting was closed to the press, but the Kremlin said "energy cooperation" was high on the agenda. Diplomats said the meeting may have been used to secure Russian economic and geopolitical support for Mr Lukashenko's re-election.

[...]

Diplomats believe that Thursday's meeting may have been used to secure cheap gas and oil for Belarus, preventing any economic upset in the near future. "Economic problems would be the spark for any unrest," said one western diplomat, adding that such a prospect looked unlikely now.

The good news from the opposition is that its various factions are finally unified around a single candidate. The New York Times explains why this has Lukashenka (and Putin) so worried.

Mr. Lukashenko is eligible to run again only because of a constitutional amendment approved in a referendum in October 2004 that abolished presidential term limits, allowing him to seek office indefinitely. That referendum approval, officially supported by 77 percent of voters, was widely denounced as a fraud. An independent survey of voters leaving polling places indicated that only 48 percent had voted in favor of abolishing term limits.
Mr. Lukashenko has responded defiantly to international criticism. With the election approaching, his government has put independent newspapers under new pressure by revoking their ability to be sold through state-owned kiosks or delivered through the state postal system.

The two houses of Parliament also toughened criminal penalties for organizing protests, joining banned organizations or speaking against the national interest. The legislation, awaiting Mr. Lukashenko's signature, would impose prison sentences of up to three years for anyone convicted of advocating the overthrow of the government and up to two years for "discrediting the country."

Parliament voted to set the election for March 19 in a hastily called session. Under the country's Constitution, twice revised by Mr. Lukashenko, the next election could have been held as late as July. But with Mr. Milinkevich's campaign showing signs of winning popular support, according to its own polls, many of his aides believed that Mr. Lukashenko would move to compress the election campaign.

The explanation given for the date change by the Central Election Commission is nothing short of comical.

Nikolai I. Lozovik, a spokesman for the Central Election Commission, said in a telephone interview that the date had been set because of more prosaic concerns: "July is the time of vacations." He added that March elections were "an old Soviet tradition."

If it's such an old Soviet tradition, why were they unofficially scheduled for July for so long? Better keep Lukashenka and the government better informed of these "old Soviet traditions," even if they're just made up on the spot.

The key here that determines how Belarusians will vote, and what their reaction will be to the inevitable massive fraud is what their opinion is on Lukashenka having a third term following the October 2004 referendum that abolished term limits. As the Times article suggests, even if Belarusians generally supported Lukashenka, they weren't overwhelmingly supportive of the referendum. This Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty report from the week before the 2004 referendum suggests the same thing.

The Lithuanian polling company Baltic Surveys, which is affiliated with the Gallup Organization, conducts opinion surveys in Belarus on a regular basis. The director general of the company, Rasa Alisauskiene, says recent polls by her firm indicate that Lukashenka would enjoy significant support if he does run again for president.

"Currently, 34.5 percent say they would vote for Lukashenka in any [future] presidential election, [while] 31.5 percent say they would prefer another candidate. Twenty-four percent have no opinion," Alisauskiene says.

However, Alisauskiene says, Belarusians appear less inclined to make changes to the Belarusian constitution necessary for Lukashenka to run again.

"During the last month, the number of people who support the referendum and changes in the constitution enabling Lukashenka to run for president for a third time has increased only slightly -- by some 2 percent. The number of those opposed did not change. The number of undecided voters remains the same -- around one-fourth of all voters. The latest figures say 35.7 percent support the referendum, 44 percent are against," Alisauskiene says.

The major reason for Lukashenka's popularity, according to the pollsters?

Alisauskiene says Lukashenka's popularity can largely be explained by the weak and divided political opposition. She says it is difficult to have a strong alternative leader in a country where the opposition is so firmly repressed and where a free media is almost nonexistent.

For the sake of the opposition, and for the sake of a democratic Belarus, 2006 better be the year where that all changes. Despite the manifold attempts by the government to disadvantage the opposition, there is far more reason for optimism now than ever before.

Lukashenka Shows True Leadership

2005-12-15T13:25:00.000-08:00

Just when you thought all was lost in Belarus, that the country was devoid of true leadership, the government leaves us with egg on our collective face by showing how REAL leadership works.

Belarusian lawmakers have passed legislation that would crack down on Internet dating and online spouse searches in the latest of a series of stringent government controls backed by authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko.

What possible reason could the government have to put online dating at the top of its list of threats to the state?

Authorities said the measure, which was passed 101-1 by the lower house of parliament Wednesday, was intended to help halt human trafficking in the former Soviet republic.

Ahh yes, match.com: a diabolical front for human trafficking. But the new bill would do more than just outlaw online dating.

The bill also would require Belarusian students to receive written permission from the Ministry of Education to study abroad if the length of stay is longer than 30 days. Foreign companies seeking to hire Belarusian students for summer jobs also would need ministry approval.

"The measures are directed at improving the mechanisms guaranteeing effective counteraction to human trafficking _ one of the most dangerous phenomena modern society faces in its development," First Deputy Interior Minister Alexander Shurko said.

So, let me see if I've gotten this right. According to the Belarusian government, the three main facilitators of human trafficking are, in no particular order: online dating, study abroad and internships in other countries. Is it any wonder this government can't get any respect from anyone else in the world besides Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba? Perhaps, at least in the latter two cases, foreign influence is the biggest fear with an election coming up next year. As for banning online dating? Well, I'm flummoxed.

Another Newspaper Evicted In Belarus

2005-12-10T21:38:00.000-08:00

The crackdown continues. This time an independent newspaper dared to protest in favor of a
free press.

The editorial office of the independent Pinsk-based newspaper “Myastsovy Chas” (publishing house “Intex-press”) has received a written notification from the administration of the hotel “Sport”, that the tenancy contract would be cancelled starting from January 31, 2006. The administration of the hotel belonging to the Belarusian Defence and Sports Technical Society (BelOSTO) does not provide any reasons for its decision.

The term of the tenancy contract between the administration of the hotel and the editorial office is to expire in July 2006. The editorial office pays rent and community facilities regularly, and the renter had never had any complaints.

The editor-in-chief of the newspaper Viktar Yarashuk views that as another move of the local authorities aimed at stifling the independent newspaper. Pinsk regional printing office denied concluding a contract with the newspaper; Pinsk branch of the “Belsajuzdruk” refused to cooperate with the newspaper. The “Myastsovy Chas” has not been included to the catalogue for subscription in the year 2006, and postal offices un Pinsk refuse to subscribe readers for the newspaper. In this connection the editorial office of the newspaper in its issue of December 8 addressed its readers with a proposal to take legal action against postal workers, who violate constitutional rights of citizens for receiving information, and also the Belarusian “Law on press and mass media”. (emphasis mine)

Keep up the mantra: "Oh, but he provides stability!" Would you take the life of a mindless robot in return for a lower crime rate?

Looking West

2005-12-10T21:10:00.000-08:00

Still catching up on what I've missed in the past week or so, Ukraine and President Viktor Yuschenko held a two-day conference in Kiev last week, which included delegates from Balkan, Baltic and Black Sea countries. The forum dubbed itself "Community for Democratic Choice," and announced three objectives: promotion of democracy, regional stability and economic prosperity.

The basic principles of the Community of Democratic Choice are contained in a joint statement signed by Saakashvili and Yushchenko last August in the Georgian resort town of Borjomi.

The Borjomi Declaration, as the joint statement is known, envisions the Community of Democratic Choice as a "powerful instrument for removing the remaining divisions in the [Baltic-Black Sea] region, human rights violations, and any type of confrontation, or frozen conflict.”

Participants in the Kyiv forum today adopted a final declaration in which they vowed to work closely together “with a view to strengthening peace, democracy, and prosperity on the European continent.”

Of the nine founding members of the Community of Democratic Choice, two -- Georgia and Moldova -- are confronted with unresolved separatist conflicts, which started during the period of turmoil that preceded the Soviet collapse.

[...]

Yushchenko today hinted Ukraine and Georgia might use the new grouping to attempt to internationalize their respective sovereignty disputes. He said the Community of Democratic Choice would put a particular emphasis on conflict resolution.

“The achievement of stability -- in particular through the regulation of existing conflicts -- will create prerequisites for opening up the significant economic potential of our region," said Yushchenko. "In this way, we will foster political, security, and economic rapprochement between the Western and Eastern part of the European continent, and the development of each nation."

Many see this forum as another attempt to pull countries out of the Russian sphere of influence, which it most likely is. Russia, however, is doing nothing to help its situation, and is only making things worse. It's response was typical: knee jerk emotional reactions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly declined an invitation to attend the forum, sending an embassy official in his place.

A headline on Russia's "gazeta.ru" information website today referred to the new grouping as "The Unfriendly Community."

"Gazeta.ru" commentator Ilya Zhegulyev wrote: “Hiding behind democratic slogans," all of the members of the Community of Democratic Choice will use the forum to "voice their grievances toward Moscow.”

Amazing that sovereign nations might have grievances, and that 45 years of Soviet rule might have had something to do with that!? That said, Russia is only digging a whole for itself. It likes to believe that it doesn't need the West, and that it can fall back on China to balance against Europe and the US, but it is dreaming. Russia has gotten more benefits for little cost from Western involvement in Central Asia in the last 5 years than it did in previous decades trying on its own. It took them 6 years to realize the invasion of Afghanistan was a failure, and when they saw Islamic extremists on their border both in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, the Coaltion forces fixed their problem within weeks.

Likewise, Russia's even less likely to look to China than it is to look at the West. For all its rhetoric in the Shanghai Cooperative Organization to get US troops out of Central Asia, look at its extremely restrictive customs policies on its border with China. Moscow has spent more than a little time worrying that China simply planned to swallow up Russian territory near the border for population spillover. The history of distrust is simply too great between those two countries to ignore it all and pretend they have a common enemy. Likewise, for all of Russia's bitching and moaning about Western incursion through NATO, the EU and the US, it eventually comes to accept every such incursion. Go back and look at the bloody racket it put up just before the Baltic states were to join NATO. It realizes that it can't stop it, and it eventually comes to accept it, but it shoots itself in the foot by refusing to take whatever advantage of the new situation it can. Maybe they can content themselves with pretending they still hold influence over a nevertheless exceedingly pro-Western ruler like Nazerbayev, but it's very clear that the world is not going Russia's way - and it has only itself to blame.

Meanwhile, Lukashenka had some choice words for the Community for Democratic Change.

Alyaksandr Lukashenka is confident that there is no future for the organization which foundation was proclaimed in Kyiv, the Community of Democratic Choice. This opinion was expressed in Beijing, answering the questions of journalists, the Belarusian state agency BelTA informs. “You have chosen so-called democracy, so go this way. Why do you oppose East and go to the West? Firstly, nobody needs them in the West. The EU needs to “chew up”, to “digest” the Eastern-European states that have joined recently. Secondly, with what do they go to the West? What shall they bring? Crime, robbery, banditism? They will show how to seize power in an unconstitutional way? Europe doesn’t want that. Maybe some European leaders welcome such things, but only in others’ states, and not in theirs,” Lukashenka stated.

According to Lukashenka, the reaction to the foundation of the Community of Democratic Choice should be tranquil. “If they want to gather in front of the TV cameras, hag out – do as you please. Let them gather, make statements. But I think that there is no future and prospects for this community. I think it’s a political organization. But except for bare politics there is economic basis. No matter how eagerly you campaign against East, you will come there all he same for sales of your products. What for do they step on the same rake?”

I've got to believe that people, no matter where they live, want just a little more in life - like perhaps freedom from fear - than to be absolutely sure they won't be victim of what is already a statistically improbable purse-snatching - even if that "security" comes at the cost of not being able to think freely.

Promoting Democracy Sometimes

2005-12-09T21:27:00.000-08:00

With regards to my questioning of the lukewarm condemnation by the Bush administration of the less-than-free and fair Kazakh elections last week, the Christian Science Monitor has a different viewpoint. It is convincing, but I'm not sure I buy it.

The most prosperous and stable nation in Central Asia, a Muslim -majority country that practices religious tolerance and free-market principles, this oil gusher is a potential democratic model in the region.
But it's precisely for these attributes that Washington is choosing to see a glass half full in this election, instead of emptying it out with a barrage of criticism. US diplomats acknowledge the vote's shortcomings, but point to this multiethnic giant bordering Russia and China as a democratic work in progress. That long-view emphasis is a wise one.

Sixteen years ago, when Kazakhstan gained independence from the Soviet Union, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev inherited a dirt-poor dumping ground for Soviet populations, gulag camps, and harmful nuclear tests.

Now, it's producing 1.3 million barrels of oil a day (the Kashagan field is bigger than Alaska's North Slope), and is expected to become a top-10 oil exporter within a decade. It's reduced its poverty rate to 12 percent (the regional rate is 44 percent). By sending young people to study in the West, Russia, and China, it's cultivated a talented civil service. And it's one of the best performers in nuclear nonproliferation.

Mr. Nazarbayev is popular. Reliable surveys showed 60-70 percent support for him before the election, and the same range in exit polling. The vote may be inflated, but it reflects popular will. True, the elections were flawed (ballot stuffing, harassment of campaign staff, intimidation of voters). But they were also the most progressive to date, allowing accurate voter registration lists and free media time for the opposition.

Looking ahead, Central Asia is becoming an ever more tense geopolitical battleground over energy and ideology. Islamic jihadists see it as a target to radicalize Muslims; the US, Russia, and China want the oil. The first Kazakh-China pipeline is set to open soon.

Meanwhile, Russia, acting more and more like the old Soviet Union, is circling its regional wagons against popular demand for democracy. The latest country to hitch itself to Moscow's circle: Uzbekistan (which massacred protesters in Andijan in May).

Russia has deep economic and cultural roots in Kazakhstan. It's spreading chilling, anti-US disinformation there amid growing anti-American sentiment.

Nazarbayev promises political, democratic reform. Indeed, that's the only way he can maintain stability and wealth in the long run. But his diplomats also warn the US not to act as the world's "democracy police." Encouragement, not a lecture, please.

The point that the Christian Science Monitor misses is that, regardless of how life in Kazakhstan is better now than 14 years ago, the reality is that for it to ever truly democratize, whether it's now or in the future, Nazerbayev (or his heirs, if his daughter does indeed take over after he steps down due to health concerns) will have to go. Nazerbayev has indeed improved the standard of living in the country, but that has rarely served as the impetus for democratic change. As many, such as Fareed Zakaria, have pointed out, democracy needs more than just a popular election to survive; it needs the institutions of democracy and the economic wherewithal to provide for its citizens. Nevertheless, many have used the argument, particularly in reference to China, that "engaging" a country economically will eventually bring about a demand for democracy. What we've seen in China, however, is a state that has grown exceedingly wealthy and has spent that money by building a powerful military that could pose a future threat to the United States, and by repressing any demands for democratic participation by its citizens. Just today, 20 people in China learned that "engaging" a state economically to allow for democracy can just as readily backfire.

Arguing that Kazakhstan's Western educated civil service will promote future democracy is equally as baseless in historical fact. The Chinese civil service is likewise full of Western-educated elites who have made little puch for democratic reforms. The reason is obvious: they benefit from the status-quo! How many terrorists and dictators have been Western educated? Did that make them any more likely to respect the ideals of democracy, minority protections and human rights? The West has done a bang-up job transferring its technical knowledge and expertise to foreign students, but perhaps not quite as good a job at transferring knowledge of its moral philosophy and democratic norms. One possible explanation for why this is is that it is no longer politically or culturally sensitive to think of the Western style of government as morally superior to any other type of government. "What works for us might not work for them" has become the oft-repeated mantra.

Finally, while Nazerbayev might be setting the stage for a transition to democracy, it is unlikely that such a transition will happen under his rule. How common is it for a state to truly democratize under the same regime that has ruled in an authoritarian manner for years? Not very. There are usually two types of transition to democracy. There's the Zakarian transition, whereby everything needed to democracy, short of the actual elections and respect for human rights, is put in place by an illiberal regime. Although Zakaria doesn't get into this next aspect, when this is the case, the transition to democracy usually ends with that regime being ousted from power. This is what happened in Chile, where Pinochet liberalized the economy, but killed 3,000 people in the process. So convinced was he of the people's desire to see him remain in power, he held a referendum, which was promptly rejected and Pinochet fell from power. More common, however, is that the regime in power will ignore the needs of the state, enriching itself through policies of corruption and only falling by popular demonstration. This is what happened in Central Europe at the end of the Cold War, and in Ukraine and Georgia in recent years. Neither of these cases involve a corrupt and authoritarian leader willingly giving up his hold on power and transitioning to democratic rule. The reason for this is because it's simply not a common occurrence.

Nazerbayev seems to fit into the former category, in that the standard of living has improved, but democracy will only come when he is gone. The Bush administration should have the foresight to recognize this.

Update: For the state of democracy in Kazakhstan, consider this story of an opposition leader's "apparent suicide" - by shooting himself twice in the chest (including once directly in the heart) and once in the head.

THE wife of a leading opposition figure in Kazakhstan found him sprawled in a pool of blood in the billiard room of his villa in Almaty.

Zamenbek Nurkadilov had been shot twice in the chest, piercing his heart, and once at close range in the head, investigators say. By his side lay a cushion with two bullet holes in it. Yet three weeks on, police in the city are still treating the case as a suspected suicide.

“It’s unbelievable,” his wife, the popular singer Makpal Zhunusova, told The Times. “How does a man shoot himself in the heart, then in the head, and then throw himself on the floor?”

That is just one of many awkward questions being asked of the Government in this former Soviet Central Asian nation before Sunday’s presidential election.

The Opposition has linked Mr Nurkadilov’s death to his criticism of President Nazarbayev, who has ruled since 1989 and is standing for a third seven-year term.

Mr Nurkadilov was the Emergencies Minister and a close friend of Mr Nazarbayev until he switched sides last year and became his harshest critic. He once compared the President to Nicolae Ceausescu, the late Romanian dictator.

“I see no other explanation for his death other than a political one,” said Zharmakhan Tuyakbai, 58, a former Speaker of parliament who is the main opposition candidate. “It is dangerous to get involved in politics in Kazakhstan.”

It's hard to look at that and think "glass half full."

Free Democrats and Greens Unite In Germany

2005-12-09T20:34:00.000-08:00

Well, not in any political sense, but they did share the same opinion that former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has leapt openly into a giant conflict of interest by taking a position as Chairman of a joint Russian-German oil pipeline initiative that he and Putin signed off on less than two weeks before he lost his job as Chancellor in the German elections.

Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder landed a job Friday as board chairman for a Russian-German gas pipeline that he championed while in office, a post that deepens his already close relationship with the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin.
At a groundbreaking ceremony about 250 miles north of Moscow, Alexei Miller, the chief executive of Gazprom, the Russian energy giant that holds a majority stake in the pipeline partnership, said the Schroeder-led board would be involved in "reaching all strategic decisions on all areas of the company's activity."

In September, Schroeder and Putin signed an agreement on behalf of their countries to build the $4.7 billion pipeline. Ten days later the German leader and his party lost an election, leading to his resignation last month. He resigned his seat in Parliament as well, and the German political world has been speculating about his future ever since.

[...]

Opposition politicians denounced the appointment as a conflict of interest. "It stinks," said Reinhard Buetikofer, co-chairman of Germany's Greens, who were a coalition partner in Schroeder's Social Democrat-led government, the Associated Press reported.

Rainer Bruederle, a leading member of Germany's pro-business Free Democrats party, said that if Schroeder's responsibilities were more than ceremonial, the deal could call into question whether he can distinguish between public and private affairs.

What amazes me is how this man can continue to be help up by the anti-war crowd as the epitome of moral authority while the American president remains Chimpy McBushitler.

More interesting is how this pipeline deal got its start.

The chief executive of the pipeline consortium is Matthias Warnig, a German who heads Dresdner Bank's arm in Russia and is a longtime friend of Putin's. The Wall Street Journal reported this year that Warnig was an officer in the Stasi, the East German secret police, and met Putin during the late 1980s when the Russian president was based in East Germany as a Soviet KGB officer.

Did I mention moral authority?

Book Recommendation

2005-12-09T19:04:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Surprise, Security and the American Experience by Yale's John Lewis Gaddis, and I strongly recommend anyone interested in an inherently fair-minded account of the historical origins of the Bush Doctrine read it as well.

First, Gaddis is one of my favorite people to read within international relations, primarily because he approaches current problems through a historian's lens, rather than getting so caught with identifying the independent and dependent variables as political scientists are wont to do, focusing on the "science" aspect of their work, that they often miss the point of the question and the hundreds of years of invaluable history at their hands for analysis. (See Gaddis' The Landscape of History for a highly amusing comparison of the historians' tradecraft with that of the social scientist).

In his latest book, however, Gaddis counters the argument that the Bush Doctrine policies of preemption, unilateralism and hegemony have no basis in American history. On the contrary, he argues, these three goals have been, to varying degrees, central to American foreign policy since the Monroe presidency, when they were implemented by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams.

Gaddis uses three case studies of how surprise attacks on American terrotiry have provided the catalyst for changing American grand strategy. Following the British invasion of Washington, D.C. in 1814, during which they set fire to the White House, Adams sought to make sure such an event could not happen again. He sought to make America hegemonic in the Western Hemisphere, rejecting the balance of power, multipolar system in Europe. Furthermore, he sought to make sure America did not rely on the goodwill of others to ensure its security. Gaddis argues that Washington got the idea of opposing "entangling alliances" during peacetime from one of Adams' earlier writings. Despite the attempts by the Pat Buchanans of the country to use the "entangling alliances" warning to justify their position of hunkering down and isolating the country from the rest of the world, this was by no means support for isolationism. In fact, Adams was a master treaty-maker, and his goal was an expansion of US power and influence, but not through the means that would make the US reliant on someone else for some aspect of its security.

Finally, and most controversially, Gaddis argues that preemption is rooted in American history. After the British attack on Washington, Adams took the initiative to support preemptive attacks on other states that threatened American security. Great Britain, Spain and Russia still had possessions in North America that posed a potential threat to the United States. For example, Florida, ostensibly under Spanish control, was the 19th century equivalent of a modern day failed-state. Adams supported Andrew Jackson's legally questionable raid into Florida after a series of attacks by Creeks, Seminoles and escaped slaves and authorized the execution of two Englishmen accused of leading the raids.

Preemption continued as part of the American national security strategy throughout the 19th century, with the annexation of Texas, California and the southwestern territories that today make up Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. Polk's policy of Manifest Destiny, which it is today fashionable to malign in politically-correct circles, was also a policy outcome of this strategy. Preemption also became part of the American strategy when looking overseas, and justified US intervention in Cuba and the Philippines, out of fear that crumbling Spanish authority would allow for these territories to be taken over by hostile powers like Germany and Japan, and in Central America and the Caribbean.

These policies of security through expansion continued following the Pearl Harbor attack, with some aspects being enhanced and others momentarily de-emphasized. Hegemony through expansion remained the ultimate goal during WWII and later during the Cold War. Unilateralist interests, however, were cloaked in a multilateral framework since, for example, Roosevelt's goal was to let the Europeans and Russia do most of the fighting in Europe for the US. The underlying American strategy, however, remained one of security through hegemonic expansion. Out allies were willing to accept this, Gaddis argues, because there always existed the idea of "something worse" than a relatively benign US hegemony. Preemption too remained a policy of the Roosevelt administration, but they found it useful to make it appear as if the Soviet Union "had fired the first shot."

Gaddis then looks at the Bush Doctrine following September 11th, and sees policies that are rooted in American history. He does not, however, finish without criticism of the Bush administration. He argues:

The third and most recent surprise attack - that of September 11, 2001 - made it clear that surviving authoritarian regimes, even if feeble or falling, can breed terrorists capable of attacking the United States with devastating results on its own soil. The Bush administration, therefore, has called for yet another expansion of the empire of legitimacy: it can no longer respect the sovereignty of any state that harbors terrorists; it must preempt such threats wherever they appear; it will extend democracy everywhere. The precedent John Quincy Adams set has at last produced what he warned against: an American government that deliberately goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy - lest those monsters attempt to destroy it. It's here, then, that the Adams legacy and the Bush strategy part company, for such a quest, Adams feared, would make the United States the "dictatress of the world." Bush, in contrast, sees the United States as securing liberty throughout the world.

Coming after the previous 110 pages of the book, this argument seems to be a somewhat narrow analysis of Adams warning about monsters. The United States, in Adams' day, occupied a fraction of the North American landmass. It was not the most powerful nation in the world, and it had enemies attacking it over land from the north, south and west. The only power truly capable of launching a sea-based attack were the British and, as Gaddis pointed out earlier, they were just as interested to keep other Europeans out of the Western Hemsiphere as we were, and we were thus able to rely on British naval power to enforce the Monroe Doctrine. As a result, the clearest threats to American security were coming from land, and it would be a strategic mistake to then look for additional enemies to fight across the seas. As Gaddis also points out earlier in the book, we cannot count of the stopping power of the oceans anymore to protect our security. While looking overseas for enemies would seem incomprehensible in Adams' time, as September 11th proved, it is the next logical source from whence our enemies will seek to attack us. Adams' legacy of preemption, unilateral interests and hegemony are still quite relevant, but his warning against looking overseas for enemies no longer is.

Furthermore, it has been a habit in the public sphere to characterize Bush and the neo-conservatives' policy of democracy promotion as simply "something to do" (my words, not Gaddis') since we have no better way to pass the time. The policy of democracy promotion actually ties in quite nicely with Gaddis' favorable review of security through expansion. It is not the idea of the democratic peace, that democracies do not fight one another, that underlies the Bush doctrine, regardless of what he says in his speeches. We are not reshaping our security strategy to prevent a war between, say, Ghana and one of its democratic neighbors, to name a random hypothetical. Rather, the Bush Doctrine calls for security through expansion to ensure that states that could potentially threaten American security under a rogue regime are, more or less, like us. Democratic principles obviously play an important role, since the Soviet Union was not able to count on peace and unconditional support in states on which it imposed its system of government, but of central importance is that states support the same principles and have the same goals we do. In this sense, the first 110 pages of Gaddis' book hold a stronger opinion, that the Bush Doctrine is the logical extension of Adams' national security strategy.

Nevertheless, Gaddis does raise a strong point that a requirement to ensure other states don't try to balance against US hegemony is that the "possibility of something worse" continue to exist. While Gaddis may be a bit alarmist in suggesting that some states are considering that the Islamic fundamentalists might not be as bad as US hegemony, his is the best argument thus far for explaining the need for allies. We must continue to ensure that an alliance does not hinder or decrease American security, but we do have to maintain a sort of propaganda campaign, asserting that benign US hegemony is the best option for the world.

Read Gaddis' book.

Lukashenka Is Scared Of Colors

2005-12-09T18:31:00.000-08:00

I'm a little late on this, but Lukashenka has before him amendments to the Belarus Criminal Code that would make it a crime to "damage the internal security of the state" (read: say anything bad about the Lukashenka regime before, during or after the presidential elections next summer). The amendments passed both houses of parliament (big surprise), and are waiting to be signed into law by the great dictator himself.

One change forbids "calls or exhortations for foreign nations or foreign or international organizations to commit acts intended to damage the internal security of Belarus, its sovereignty or territorial integrity." Another forbids "distribution of material containing such calls" and violators would face up to three years in prison, more if the calls are distributed through mass media.

Other changes in the code would criminalize "training or other preparations for participation in group actions or gross violations of social order, and equally, financing or other material assistance for such actions."

Of course, this just goes to show how increasingly nervous Lukashenka and his cronies are in anticipation of the elections, and how worried they are that protests similar to those in Ukraine last year and Georgia in 2003 might follow what is sure to be a one-sided campaign full of propaganda, lmited exposure in state-run media for the opposition (if any), electoral intimidation , ballot stuffing and discrepancies in the official count. The OSCE realizes as much.

Ake Peterson, the Minsk-based representative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said Friday the amendments "have the potential to be a flagrant violation of a number of the OSCE principles and commitments that Belarus has subscribed to."

He said the article on discrediting the state raised particular concern "since it provides for criminal liability for submitting to an international organization false information on the situation in the country." The provision could undermine the OSCE's work, Peterson said.

This latest news makes one wonder what Lukashenka meant by these comments.
Today Lukashenka stated that he won’t withdraw his application at the presidential elections, unless the people ask him to do so. “I won’t withdraw my candidature myself. You must say: Lukashenka, it’s enough!” the head of the state told, addressing the dwellers of Loeu, during his working visit to Homel region.
Sure, they can say "Lukashenka, it's enough!" They will then immediately be picked up by the KGB and carted off to jail for doing so.

But, hey, what's the fun in being a ruthless dictator if you can't contradict yourself every now and then?

Here's an idea though, for OSCE and other election monitors for next summer. They shouldn't say "there were some improvements, but not good enough" or "there were some strong areas," like during last week's Kazakh presidential elections.

The assessment of some 465 monitors from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) noted some improvements on earlier elections but said flaws "limited the possibility for meaningful competition".

Or consider this unfortunate comment from our State Department (the one that's supposedly pushing democracy)

The United States also said the election did not meet international standards, though some improvements were shown over previous votes.

"They did some things well. There were other areas where they fell a little short," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said in Washington.

They either made every effort to follow the standards or they didn't. Let's try a little moral clarity on for size here. Shame the regimes in these countries, don't make it sound like they're a student studying twice as hard to pass his next test. They don't make these changes to slowly work their way to free and fair elections; they make these symbolic, yet meaningless changes to get international monitors to say "there were some improvements..."

Update: See additional commentary on Kazakh elections, with analysis of the Christian Science Monitor's opinion of what is going on.

Welcome Gateway Pundit readers. Look around, and check out this book from John Lewis Gaddis on the Bush Doctrine.

9/11 Commission Rears Its Ugly Head

2005-12-05T02:54:00.000-08:00

The 9/11 Commission, which has since gone private as a self-annointed panel of wisemen who are supposedly experts on organizational planning and the intelligence community from their years in the Senate or as lawyers, has announced that it is troubled by the lack of measures taken by the Bush administration and Congress to protect America.

The bipartisan panel plans to issue a report Monday assessing the federal government's response to the recommendations it made last year.
The group was created by Congress in 2002 to investigate aspects of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It released its final report with a slew of recommendations in a nearly 570-page book in July 2004.

That slew of recommendations? In a 570 page book, 338 pages were narrative of what happened (not what went wrong, just what happened). Only a measley 90 pages contained analysis and recommendations. Richard Posner, a federal judge in Chicago and professor at the University of Chicago Law School (and part owner of the Becker-Posner blog) has this to say about the analysis and recommendations section.

Anyone who harbors hope that the pattern [of attacks] can be disrupted will read with mounting dismay the 90 pages of analysis and recommendations that follow the narrative part of the 9/11 Commission's report. For they will come to very little, even though they constitute virtually the entire analytical foundation of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Even the prose sags, as the reader is treated to a barrage of bromides, such as "the American people are entitled to expect their government to do its ver best," or "we should reach out, listen to and work with other countries that can help" and "be generous and caring to our neighbors," or that we should supply the Middle East with "programs to bridge the digital divide and increase internet access" - the last an unconsciously ironic suggestion, given that encrypted email is an effective medium of clandestine communication.

Posner even preempts the Commission's complaints. This from the article on how troubled the commission is:

The two men, and the other members of the former commission, also want funding for first responders to be distributed based on risk -- with more likely targets receiving a bigger chunk of the funding -- rather than on a per capita or geographical basis.

Posner:

Strict proportionate equality would indeed be arbitrary. But not only is information lacking that would enable precise allocative criteria to be formulated; in addition, to make Washington and New York impregnable, so that terrorists can blow up Kansas City with impunity, wouldn't do us any good (the psychological impact of striking the American heartland might be even greater than than that of another attack on the East Coast). This is one of the abiding problems of preventing surprise attacks: one cannot be strong everywhere, but if resources are therefore so heavily concentrated on the likeliest targets that others are unprotected, the latter will become inviting targets.

[...]

Illustrating the psychological and political difficulty of taking seriously threats that haven't materialized in the past, the recommendations in the commission's report are oriented toward preventing what is already rather unlikely - a more or less exact repetition of 9/11.

Posner also addresses the issue of creation of the position of Director of National Intelligence. CNN hails this as the only case of the President listening to the commission, but Posner points out the absurdity of how it was created. DNI has deputies that are reporting to multiple bosses in rivalous agencies, including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security and CIA - each with consistently overlapping duties. In other words, a bureaucratic nightmare.

Which brings us to the real problem surrounding the 9/11 Commission - the media's complete lack of anything resembling critical analysis of the recommendations, accepting its findings as if it were a decree handed down by God.

Between issuance of the 9/11 Commission's report and the enactment just a few months later of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Acto of 2004, based largely on the commission's recommendations, there was no sustained public debate over the merits of the recommendations. They were taken for granted; critics such as Henry Kissinger were ignored.

Kerry seized on these findings, declaring them the word of the Almighty during the election last year, so Bush had no choice but to show full support as well.

Of course, CNN continues this uncritical trend still today. I like Tom Kean, but it's hard to do so when overly pretentious nonsense like this comes out of his mouth.

Added Kean, "God help us if we have another attack and we haven't done some of these things."

Then there's this:

The United States also needs to repair its image in the world, Kean said.
"We've got to talk about the kind of image we have and the things we do to create that image," said Kean. "If we don't, there's going to be more terrorists created than the ones we're now killing."

And the media just laps this stuff right up.

Realism. Idealism. Is There A Difference?

2005-12-02T21:33:00.000-08:00

Elliot Cohen has an excellent op-ed in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal on the opinion within the realist establishment, as articulated by Foreign Affairs managing editor Gideon Rose, that anytime American foreign policy goes astray, realism puts it back on the right path. This idea, Cohen argues, is usually based on a caricature assessment of what foreign policy has wrought that is supposedly "wrong."

Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan a disappointment, our allies loathe us, and the promise of a foreign policy based on humility has turned into finger-wagging lectures about responsible discourse--not to mention declarations about being either with us or against us. This (admittedly caricatured) view of the current American predicament has yielded up a yearning for what the managing editor of Foreign Affairs has called "the perennial hangover cure" for American foreign policy--realism.

Cohen argues, however, that modern day realists such as Rose and Brent Scowcroft have strayed from the tenets of the original realists, like Thucydides.

But contemporary realists have wandered far from, say, a Thucydides, who described the contest between Athens and Sparta in terms of fear, honor and interest, but who also, in the Funeral Oration, gave us a glowing depiction of a free society that still inspires those who read it. They have wandered very far from more recent realists like Raymond Aron, who denounced fascism and communism not merely as threats to the national interests of France, but to the survival of free societies everywhere.

Cohen's op-ed makes for a strong rebuttal of the argument put forth by the likes or Scowcroft, Rose and all of the realists in academia that realism and idealism are fundamentally contradictory, and that there is no room for American values in its foreign policy. From John Quincy Adams, to George Bush today, American presidents have pushed policies that Scowcroft would be proud of as well as policies that would please even the most devoted idealist.

Was Franklin Roosevelt an idealist when he cut deals with Stalin in order to maintain the coalition against Hitler? Or was he, on the other hand, a realist when he proclaimed the Four Freedoms? Was Ronald Reagan a realist when he called the Soviet Union an evil empire and challenged its leaders to tear down the Berlin Wall? Or was he an idealist when he made deals with Communist China and Islamic fundamentalists to contain and roll back Soviet power?
And is George W. Bush a realist when he proclaims the universal aspiration of men and women to rule themselves, including in the Middle East? Can we really call him an idealist when he refrains from criticizing too harshly the brutal means used by Russia to suppress the insurgency in Chechnya?

[...]

When examined closely, the careers of all of its presidents embody such uneasy inconsistencies--the Wilson who fought for the League of Nations also sent the Marines to Vera Cruz (and not for benevolent reasons), and even his Fourteen Points for ending World War I embodied both idealistic aspirations and prudent concessions to reality (such as that which forswore attempts to restructure the government of Germany, or that which merely called for negotiation between colonial peoples and their European rulers).

Perhaps this is simply the reality of the office. Academics and others outside of government can sit around discussing what would work theoretically all they want. The problem, however, is that when in government you have to do what works. Just to speculate, perhaps this might be an appropriate description of how this foreign policy, combining both interests and ideals, should look.
We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom.
Perhaps not coincidentally, the name given to this policy is "democratic realism." The person who coined it is Charles Krauthammer. Another name by which it has been described, a name generally assigned to Cohen as well, is neo-conservatism.

CNN: The News Is That There Is No News

2005-11-30T22:10:00.000-08:00

I was reading CNN.com today and noticed the headline - "Poll: Most doubt plan for Iraq victory" in reference to the President's speech today and the new 35 page strategy for victory. I thought this was interesting, since I hadn't even had a chance to watch the speech or look at the document yet. Then I read a bit into the story, and here's what I found:

The poll conducted Wednesday does not directly reflect how Americans are reacting to Bush's speech, because only 10 percent of the 606 adult Americans polled had seen it live and two-thirds had not even heard or read news coverage about it.

So, my only question is this - what's the point? Why is this news?

Good News On Religion in Belarus

2005-11-20T21:22:00.000-08:00

Forum 18 is reporting on a Belarussian government memorandum that it has gotten its hands on stating the concerns in the government that it is becoming increasingly incapable of cracking down on religious activity in the country.

Thus, referring to a subsequently Russian Orthodox Church Abroad parish in the village of Ruzhany, Marchenko writes: "A group of Orthodox believers who have broken away from [the Moscow Patriarchate] SS Peter and Paul Church have been meeting for services illegally for two years. In that time state representatives have found neither the time nor the opportunity to influence these believers or to assist the local priest in returning them to the fold of the [Moscow Patriarchate] church. In their stead, however, Uniate [Greek Catholic] missionaries and even a representative of the Patriarch of Constantinople have visited the aforementioned group and each attempted to form their own subordinate community. Moreover, priest I. A. Grudnitsky, who was prohibited from performing services by the Synod of the [Moscow Patriarchate] Belarusian Orthodox Church in 2002, has begun to visit the group regularly. And even in this case, Article 193 of the Administrative Violations Code has not been implemented."

[...]

"An even more depressing situation," in Marchenko's view, exists in areas where groups of Council of Churches Baptists "have operated illegally for many years." (The Council of Churches Baptists refuses on principle to register with the state authorities in post-Soviet countries). He estimates that each of these congregations conducts two or three services a week, or 150 a year, "but in 2004 the regional law enforcement agencies brought only five charges under Article 193."

[...]

In his January 2005 report, Marchenko points out that a group of Council of Churches Baptists "is freely and systematically distributing throughout Brest city and other populous parts of the region religious literature printed in the USA and Russia" in violation of Article 26 of the 2002 Religion Law. This allows only registered religious organisations to distribute religious literature – after it has been assessed by the state, if imported – at locations designated by the local authorities. "Thus," laments Marchenko, "every Saturday in the Vulka suburb of Brest, a group of three to six persons sets up a mobile library and distributes Baptist literature from abroad which does not bear any details of its origin, and this is well known to the city executive committee."

[...]

..."an illegal water baptism near Vychulki village in August 2004 which lasted more than four hours and had over 300 participants, including spectators." Brest region's top religious affairs official also catalogues local authorities' failure to prosecute unregistered groups of Eastern-rite Catholics [Greek Catholics], Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists and Pentecostals, even though they are familiar with the locations of their meetings.

[...]

Marchenko's report also expresses concern about "the unfavourable circumstances in which religious communities, especially Protestants, are situated." Thus, he writes, 121 religious communities have received permission from municipal and district executive committees to conduct services at residential premises, and religious communities have consequently developed "a practice of buying a residential building, usually in a populous area, with the intention of using it for prayer meetings." Without any form of official agreement, he continues, "such buildings are re-equipped as prayer houses, signs are hung up, services are conducted, while legally the house remains a residential property."

[...]

In June 2005 Evangelical Belarus News Service reported that two registered Baptist communities in Drogichin [Dragichyn] district and Ivatsevichi (Brest region) were unable to obtain permission to build new prayer houses on the sites of their old ones, both located in residential areas. New Generation Church, which is affiliated to the charismatic Full Gospel Union, also reports being unable to change to that of prayer house the designated usage of a building it owns in Baranovichi.

After each of these reports were made by Marchenko, government police and security forces raided and fined each of the specific churches of which he wrote. Nevertheless, these are good signs. One interpretation is that the government is simply becoming more lax and trying to co-opt a number of these groups under its umbrella of influence. The Soviets and Communist governments of Eastern Europe tried this same tactic under the guise of "normalization." What this allowed the dissidents in the various countries to do, however, was get inside the regime and break it up from the inside.

The other possibility is that the Lukashenka regime has just overplayed its hand, and is literally unable to continue poking its nose into every aspect of civil society to ensure compliance with the regime. Either way, it's bad news for the regime. Religious institutions played a huge role in opposition movements in Eastern Europe, and in a way managed to almost secularize their message into a non-denominational appeal to all groups by stressing human rights and debate on the morality of the communist regimes. It certainly helped that they had a valuable ally in the towering figure of moral authority that was Pope John Paul II, something that Belarus obviously lacks, but no matter which way you spin it, this government report is bad news for the regime.

Kos Kidz Go To The Movies As The AP Spins The News

2005-11-20T20:43:00.000-08:00

Koz Kid Armando has obviously seen Goodnight and Goodluck recently. Everyone he disagrees with has become a "New McCarthyite." I'll ignore the fact that it's getting really old, and that by throwing that charge around haphazardly, he puts himself in the position of being accused of McCarthyism himself.

No matter, he brings up another attempt by the media to portray Bush and Cheney as attacking as unpatriotic anyone who disagrees with the administration's war strategy.

After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

Of course, Cheney did no such thing. Terence Hunt of the Associated Press wants you to think that Cheney called Murtha "reprehensible" for calling for an immediate pullout, and that Bush has stepped in to calm down his vice-president. Not only did Cheney not call Murtha "reprehensible," but he also hasn't called any critic of the strategy itself "reprehensible." Here's what Cheney actually said.

And the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city

Is he attacking Rep. Murtha? Nope. Is he even attacking anyone who suggests that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed? Not at all. What he is arguing, and what Bush has been arguing for the past two weeks, is that any suggestion that the administration lied to get the country into the war in the first place is "reprehensible." The debate over the strategy and policies being used in Iraq right now is a completely separate issue from how we got into Iraq in the first place. Some disagree with both, some agree with the war but not how it's been fought. Others are more or less happy with the war and how its been fought. But one cannot conflate the two and pretend an opinion on one has anything to do with an opinion on the other. What's it going to take to stop the media from hiding the difference between criticism of his Iraq policies (meaning how the war is being fought) and lies about how the war began (saying he willfully manipulated intelligence)? What's it going to take to get the media to honestly report on which of these charges the Bush administration is attacking its opponents?

Here's what President Bush said in his first speech attacking the Democrats for accusing him of lying to get us involved in the war in the first place.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Can it be any more clear? You don't like the strategy being used to fight the insurgency? That's fine, the president welcomes the criticism. But when you "rewrite the history of how that war began" you are not talking about the Iraq policies, the strategy being used or military tactics; you are questioning the very legitimacy of the war, and are calling the President a liar in doing so.

Therefore, Bush's statement in the AP article, that there is nothing unpatriotic about questioning his war strategy, is what he and Cheney have been saying all along. Bush has not toned down his defense that accusations that he lied to get us into the war are deeply irresponsible. Additionally, Terence Howard is trying to isolate Cheney by arguing that even Bush is changing his tune and trying to control his vice-president.

So here's my question: now that it's clear that the media is spinning the story against Bush and Cheney and unashamedly in favor of Murtha, and furthermore portraying Cheney and Bush as calling Murtha "unpatriotic," is it ok to question the media's patriotism? What will it take to finally get a press that reports the news instead of passing off editorials on its front page?

Call Reuters; Let Them Know the Difference Between Reporting And Editorializing

2005-11-19T01:57:00.000-08:00

Reuters, under the guise of "reporting," provides this hit piece on George Bush and the Republicans.

Fighting a decline in public support for the Iraq war and his own leadership, U.S. President George W. Bush and Republican allies have chosen to court his political base with a campaign-style offensive against Democrats.

The Republican National Committee on Friday unveiled a new television advertisement accusing Senate Democrats of dishonesty for turning against a war they originally supported, although polls show the broad U.S. public following a similar track from support to disillusionment.

It was the latest volley in an offensive Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney launched last week to attack war critics as unpatriotic and hypocritical.

No mention has been made of the "offensive" launched weeks ago by Democrats accusing the President of the United States of lying to the American people. Those are extremely serious charges, they were bandied about by Democrats with little regard as to the consequences, and absolutely no proof was offered to back up those allegations. Now, under normal conditions that would seem highly irresponsible, at best. But when the President tries to defend himself, he's suddeny on the "offensive" and "escalating." As Glenn Reynolds, noting the similarities in press coverage, asked last week, "Is Bush actually Israeli?"

I think Rep. Schmidt of Ohio needs to observe the decorum of the House a bit longer before launching into personal attacks. I think it is a mistake to label Rep. Murtha as a member of the "Surrender Brigade." I haven't been terribly happy with Republicans lately, their political actions or their behavior. That said, John Murtha will probably get over being called a coward by a Congresswoman from Ohio who has barely been in office a few months. That is entirely different than suggesting that the President of the United States willfully manipulated intelligence to lead 2,000 Americans to their death. When you factor in all the various commissions that have said he didn't manipulate any intelligence, and when you take into account all of the Democrats who were on the same page, it's just political stupidity. For Reuters to claim that the administration is on an "escalating" "offensive," is no less disgraceful. I wonder what Alan Elsner would think if he had been personally accused of the deaths of 2,000+ of his fellow Americans?

I was watching the debates today prior to the vote, and one Congressman, Jack Kingston (R-GA), brought up a good point, one which Republicans should have hammered home more. He said that the resolution voted on was not the Murtha Resolution. But he pointed out that, to the rest of the world, it was the Murtha Resolution, because thanks to the international media, to the rest of the world, all the Murtha Resolution proposed was an immediate withdrawal of forces, end of story.

He noted how Al Jazeera, for example, led their news with the story of how a prominent Congressman had called for immediate troop withdrawal. The troops themselves woke up to the news that a Congressman decided they had failed and should therefore go home. That this is not what the Murtha Resolution entailed is irrelevant - because of an astoundingly irresponsible media (particularly the US media), the world now saw the Murtha Resolution as the withdrawal of troops, defeat for the US in Iraq and the beginning of the end for a Democratic Iraq. That the House would vote against that bill right away, according to Kingston, was absolutely imperative to assure the troops that their country was still behind them and to assure the world that the US will accept nothing less than victory.

The Two Americas

2005-11-18T21:39:00.000-08:00

John Edwards was right, there are two Americas! Only the divide is not between rich and poor, it's between elites in this country and everyone else. The Pew Research Center released a poll yesterday comparing opinions on a number of issues between elites in various sectors of society (including academia, the arts and science) and everyone else. The results are startling.

When asked about Coalition efforts to establish democracy in Iraq, 56% of the general public (non-elites) said we will be successful. Compare that to 27% in academia, 33% in the media, a staggeringly low 13% in science/engineering (the most heavily Democratic group, according to the survey) and 28% within the foreign affairs sector (read: State Department). 64% of elites in the military, however, said we will be successful. Now the question should be asked: who is in a better position to know whether we will succeed - the military elites or the university professors sitting in their offices in America and the scientists who spend 12 hours a day in the lab?

When asked about their opinion of President Bush, 40% of the general public gave him a favorable approval rating. While that's nothing spectacular, compare that to 21% in the news media, 15% in the foreign affairs establishment, 12% in academia and 6% in science and engineering.

When asked their opinion on the US joining the International Criminal Court, "majorities in most groups of influentials say the US should join." Not surprisingly, the military is the one exception. Numbers for the opinion of the general public were not provided.

The general public believes that prisoner abuse at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were the result of isolated misconduct by American soldiers rather than an official policy sanctioned by the government. "Solid majorities" in at least 5 of 8 elite groups, however, believe the incidents were the result of official policies (ie: they believe the administration specifically made a policy to torture suspects). I bet the news media, academia and science/engineers make up at least 3 of those 5 groups.

Getting into more detailed questions on Iraq and the War on Terrorism:

48% of the general public believes taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do. Compare that to 11% of Scientists and Engineers, 21% of academia and foreign affairs and 28% of the news media.

70% of the general public believe President Bush's call for democracy in the Middle East was a "good idea," thouch opinion on its potential for success is evenly split.

Here's the kicker. 46% (or 63% depending on how their categories are defined) of the American public believe "torture" (not defined) of terrorist suspects is justified, including 15% saying "often" and 31% saying "sometimes." 17%, by the way, ssaid "rarely," but how that differs from "sometimes" is not clear. Compare that to 11% of scientists/engineers who say "often" or "sometimes," 7% of academia that say "often" or "sometimes," and 21% of the news media that say "often" or sometimes." The only statistic that is important here, however, is the military response since they (the "elites") are the ones accused of either sanctioning or covering up alleged abuse. Only 19% of the military said "often" or "sometimes."

Every category of elites with the exception of religious leaders and military leaders declared "global climate change" to be one of our "top foreign policy goals." Scientists/engineers placed it first, with terrorism only coming in at third. The general public ranked global climate change nowhere in its top 7 priorities, but did place energy independence at 5th.

Among those in the general public generally more informed about foreign affairs, opinion of the UN drops dramatically - by 24% from those who got 0 out of 3 current events questions right (67% favorable rating) to those who got all 3 questions right (43% favorable rating). Rating among elites was not available. So much for that whole "Only ignorant Fox News viewers don't like the UN" bit.

There are some troubling aspects of the survey, however, including a decline across the board (other than in foreign affairs) for an active US leadership role in the world. The media is, of course, highlighting this story in their headlines and reports, claiming that the US is becoming increasingly isolationist. In reality, however, the number supporting an active leadership role (37%) is only down 8% (from 45%) from when the survey was last taken in October 2001, a month after September 11. If support for an active US role in the world was only at 45% immediately after 9/11, then the people taking the survey have a different idea of what "active role" means than the American public that overwhelmingly supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In other words, don't expect the Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul presidential ticket anytime soon.

By posting this, I do not necessarily endorse the majority opinion of any one issue. This is merely to show you that the elites in our society are growing increasingly out of touch with average Americans. Therefore, for example, when Democrats in the Senate keep blathering on about how Samuel Alito is "outside the mainstream," be aware that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Yuschenko On Belarus

2005-11-17T21:20:00.000-08:00

Ukrainian President Victor Yuschenko is asking the West to stop isolating Belarus and the Lukashenka regime.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said Belarus must not be isolated, and vowed to do everything possible to ensure the triumph of democracy in that country.
"I am convinced that Belarus must not be left in isolation. Contacts must be built and assistance provided for the country's advancement towards democracy," Yushchenko told businessmen and politicians in Paris on Tuesday.

The Ukrainian president said he had assured Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko on many occasions that "Ukraine is prepared to be an active partner for Belarus in these democratic efforts."

"I want Belarus to be a democratic and prosperous country, and will do everything I can to help it attain this goal. Europe will make a mistake if it seals Belarus in a cocoon," Yushchenko said.

With the utmost respect to Yuschenko, I'm not entirely sure what he is talking about. Considering Lukashenka as a viable partner to bring democracy to Belarus is absurd. Yes, on the one hand isolation doesn't help the people, but Lukashenka himself has done enough to isolate the country over the last eleven years. I don't doubt that Yuschenko wants a democratic Belarus, but his own experience has shown that it is extremely rare for someone who has ruled with an iron fist and no regard for human or civil rights for more than a decade can suddenly "see the light" and embrace liberal democracy. I'd like to ask Yuschenko whether he was of the opinion that Leonid Kuchma could suddenly become a democrat (small d) if the West had engaged rather than isolated the country. We've been trying this "engagement" tactic with China for years, without much to show for it other than a country that is growing militarily and economically yet is still completely incompatible with democracy or respect for human rights.

In Defense Of John McCain

2005-11-17T15:41:00.000-08:00

It's become pretty commonplace these days on the right to attack John McCain as a Republican in Name Only hungry for the spotlight. For those that find themselves in this camp, take into account three things from the past week.

1) McCain was one of only 17 Senators to vote against pulling the rug out from underneath the President and our troops just to win some political points at home.

2) As Glenn Reynolds is reporting, McCain "rips into those calling for a troop withdrawal."

Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.

But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress' mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory.

3) As Glenn also reported last week since he was unfortunate enough to have actually watched Face the Nation, McCain is the ONLY Republican Senator (and therefore the only Senator) to actively counter the attacks on President Bush that Bush LIED to invade Iraq.

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.

McCain has been the most consistent supporter of the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general. Do I need to remind readers of this speech he gave in the belly of the beast at a security conference in Munich in February 2003.

Just as some Arab governments fuel anti-American sentiment among their people to divert them from problems at home, so a distinct minority of Western European leaders appears to engage in America- bashing to rally their people and other European elites to the call of European unity. Some European politicians speak of pressure from their "street" for peaceful solutions to international conflict and for resisting American power regardless of its purpose. But statements emanating from Europe that seem to endorse pacifism in the face of evil, and anti-Semitic recidivism in some quarters, provoke an equal and opposite reaction in America.

There is an American "street," too, and it strongly supports disarming Iraq, accepts the necessity of an expansive American role in the world to ensure we never wake up to another September 11th, is perplexed that nations with whom we have long enjoyed common cause do not share our urgency and sense of threat in time of war, and that considers reflexive hostility toward Israel as the root of all problems in the Middle East as irrational as it is morally offensive.

The legacy of the German election campaign last fall has complicated and harmed U.S.-German relations. Millions of Americans have been stationed in Germany over the course of six decades, creating the kind of abiding friendship our people share with few other countries. Many of us, Americans and Germans, have trouble understanding why a German chancellor would seek re-election on a platform reduced to criticism of the United States, assailing a friendship so many Americans and Germans have sworn to protect, and from which so many Americans and Europeans have benefited. That said, we are still friends. And I am confident we can act together to build on the long history of alliance between our nations to build an even stronger friendship. I believe many Americans will put this issue behind them if Germany meets its responsibilities in NATO and the Security Council on the matter of Iraq.

History teaches that hard choices deferred - appeasing Hitler, choosing not to deter Saddam Hussein in 1990, failing to act sooner against al Qaeda - often bring about the very circumstances we wished to avoid by deferring action, requiring us to react in freedom's defense.

The government of Saddam Hussein is a clear and present danger to the civilized world and the values that unite our people. His moral code is so perverse that he has gassed his own people. He has attacked five of his neighbors. His will to power has so affected his judgment that he has started two major wars and lost them, each time imperiling his own grip on power. He is the worst kind of modern-day tyrant - a conscienceless murderer who aspires to omnipotence and who has repeatedly committed irrational acts since seizing power. Given this reality, containment and deterrence and international inspections are unlikely to work any better than did the Maginot Line 63 years ago. Containment has failed. Deterrence has failed. As long as Saddam remains in power, he will deceive, bribe, intimidate and attack his way out of any containment scheme.

He's strongly pro-life and, though he voted against the tax cuts, has been, along with Coburn and Kyl, one of the very few voices of fiscal sanity in the Senate. He was a vocal supporter of Bush in the election last year. Some Republicans are now mad at him because of the McCain Amendment on torture, and I am probably more with them than with McCain on this, but given his background, his stance on this issue is hardly surprising. His one stance that I would openly criticize is McCain-Feingold. But for those who criticize him for the McCain Amendment or McCain-Feingold, you can start criticizing him for disagreeing with you on a handful of issue as soon as you start criticizing President Bush for not agreeing with you on every issue. I don't know if McCain would be my first choice in the primaries since I don't know who else is running, but I can safely say I would have no problem voting for McCain if he were the candidate in the general election.

Chuck Hagel Reminds Us Why He'll Never Be President

2005-11-16T22:41:00.000-08:00

Self-styled foreign policy guru Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Senator who unilaterally declared the Iraq War a failue last fall, decided that it's better the country be united based on a series of lies at the President's expense than divided along the lines of truth and lies.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

Sure, disagree on Iraq policy all you want Chuck. Call the war a failure if you want. But determining the facts of how that war started has nothing to do with the policy determining how it is being carried out now. You have every right, nay obligation, to question the government. You have no right, however, to mischaracterize how the war started by accusing the President of the United States of deliberately lying to the American people when it is very clearly a larger systemic problem.

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late."

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Wow. He hasn't even announced that he's going to run and they're ready to give him the nomination. Anyway, Hagel, a soon-to-be one-time candidate for the Republican nomination, has thrown his hat in completely with the lying Democrats. No one is calling those who question the war policy unpatriotic. We are calling those who will grandstand for political purposes by accusing the President of lying unpatriotic. And the Vietnam War was lost not because Congress failed to pull the rug out from under the President and the troops by accusing the President of lying and declaring the war illegitimate. Hell, Johnson DID lie about Tonkin and the Congress still refused to call him out on it knowing what it would do to the war effort.

At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.

Hagel might be about the only one saying this. Has he picked up a newspaper in the last three years? Has he read about the events in Lebanon, the elections in Palestine and Iraq, Libya's decision to rejoin the international community, the stirrings of democratic electoral processes in Egypt and the general idea elsewhere that everyone deserves democracy and the possibility of not living in a society of perpetual fear that characterizes most of these dictatorships that are starting to crumble? Has he read about the protestors who DIDN'T show up on the streets of Damascus when the government called for a demonstration against the Mehlis Report? Hell, even where there is instability, and even if it's not a direct result of our actions, the Middle East is almost entirely turning against the bad guys. Witness Morocco and Jordan. The Senator should fire his entire staff for not keeping him better informed.

We lost Vietnam because the same people who we see on TV everyday now insulting Bush, declaring the war a failure (regardless of what Hagel thinks, that doesn't help and it's ironic that he's the one pulling that trick 30+ years later) and personally attacking the President were doing much the same back then. It's a sad state of affairs when the US Congress today is actively contributing to hurting the war effort. If they succeed in their efforts, and they're looking to appoint blame afterwards, they need go no further than the mirror to find the best place to start.

The Bush Defense

2005-11-15T20:39:00.000-08:00

I usually find myself in agreement with David Adesnik over at OxBlog, but he has couple posts from last night regarding Bush's defense against Democrats' charges of lying about pre-war intelligence that I find, quite simply, to be missing the point. His basic argument is that it's dangerous to equate throwing false charges against the President with a lack of patriotism. He argues that its acceptable for senators to change sides to suit the opinions of their constituency. Nevermind the obvious question as to whether they are acting according to the opinion polls of their constituencies or if their lies, and the President's failure to fight back until recently, are driving the low opinion polls. The more important point here, and the one with which I completely disagree, is this:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that most Democrats have come out against the invasion only because of the polls. This fact may demonstrate that the Democrats have no ideas of their own about foreign policy, but it isn't immoral. Public opinion has a democratic legitimacy of its own. Therefore, it is in no way unpatriotic for elected representatives to change sides in order to satisfy their constituents.

In democratic systems, there is an enternal tension between representation in terms of doing what the people want and representation in terms of doing what one believes is right. The role of politicians is to balance these competing demands on their allegiance.

Yes, this may be the case if, say, a senator backtracks on a pledge not to raise taxes or to cut some sort of subsidy because it's an unpopular position. What, I think, has not been addressed fully amidst the mock indignation of the Democrats' at Bush's temerity to defend himself is what effect their actions may have on opinion of the war, the war effort and the morale of those fighting that war. If we find that it is affecting any of those negatively, then I think we might have cause to question someone's patriotism for putting politics ahead of national security.

For a while, the Democrats' attack was that President Bush didn't have a plan to win the peace. That's certainly up for debate, but it wasn't a winning strategy for the Democrats because, well, John Kerry and Howard Dead sure as heck had no plan short of pulling out the troops. Within the last weeks and months, however, the Democrats adopted the tactic of saying this war never should have been fought in the first place, and that the President manipulated us into war. Sure, they had used that one in the campaign as well, but it never took precedence over the argument that Bush had no plan to win the peace.

Recently, however, things changed, and quickly. Joe Wilson's credibility had been shot for a long time, and both the Senate and the Butler Commission had reported on this. The indictment of Scooter Libby for prejury allowed Democrats to push the perception that the administration had in fact leaked confidential information and, as an extension of that, had reason to do so - because Wilson had apparently caught the President manipulating intelligence to bring us into war. We now know this is a load of bunk, and we know Scooter Libby was not indicted for breaking any national security-related law, but with a dual push from the Democrats and the media, a perception of deceit and manipulation was strengthened tremendously.

Initially, the Democrats began calling for Rove and Cheney to be fired, primarily a petty attack against two of their biggest foes, but eventually they realized they can really get on board pushing this "Bush LIED" meme, and look! They had an indicted administration official to prove it! So began the weeks of aggressive "Bush LIED" talking points. While Bush was in no great position in the opinion polls, this was also largely a hit from the fallout of Katrina (also largely a media/Democrat inspired hit) and Harriet Miers (almost all of his own doing). The Bush LIED hit job, however, caused his approval ratings to really plummet. More importantly, it caused the numbers of those supporting the war, the president's handling of the war and his handling of the greater War on Terror to enter a freefall.

As such, support for the war (which admittedly was not terribly high) is now hovering somewhere around the basement of the opinion polls. Republicans are starting to defect, and have only stopped short of including a timetable for withdrawl in their resolution which passed by unanimous vote. Meanwhile, American servicemen and women continue to fight and die for a war very few in America have any support for anymore. The question we need to ask is where this support has gone. Sure, there were plenty of grounds for criticism of the administration for its handling of the war in the aftermath of Saddam's fall, but there was still a majority, or very near a majority, supporting the aims of this war.

Now that the Democrats and the press have managed to get this idea that Bush LIED embedded in the majority of Americans' heads who now do not support the war, what do the men and women fighting the war have to fight for anymore? Despite the lame utterances that "'We support the military 1,000%.' 'Well, I support them 2,000%, so there!'" one has to consider what the effect is on the men and women fighting the war that the rest of their country doesn't even support. Is that harmful to troop morale? You bet. Is lowered troop morale bad for the execution of the war? You bet. Does that effect our national security? You bet it does. Is it legitimate to question the petriotism of someone who is willing to sacrifice troop morale at the altar of a winning electoral strategy? Absolutely.

David also argues that only if we can know that the Democrats are consciously lying in attacking Bush for manipulating intelligence can we then question their patriotism.

This argument does not, however, contradict my assertion below that if the Democrats are consciously lying about the origins of the war, then one may consider them unpatriotic. The right to change positions does not entail a right to lie in order to defend that change of positions.

What I guess I am missing from David's posts is how anyone can think the Democrats aren't lying now? Democrats were saying the same exact things about Saddam's supposed weapons capabilities both before and after Bush started making the case for war. They saw the intelligence, they knew what the consensus was among international intelligence agencies regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Based on that, they took the same position as the President: that Saddam needed to be stopped. Now they pretend they never said those things and that the President lied to them to start the war. This is patently false, and all you need is access to 4 years worth of print and video footage archives from press conferences, talk shows and interviews to see that the Democrats and President Bush were on the same page prior to the war. We know now that it was the wrong page, but everyone was on it together. To claim now that they were on different pages is, quite simply, a lie.

As such, I make two propositions here. The first is this: how about someone ask the men and women fighting in Iraq what their position is on the war. It doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Republican, pro-Bush or anti-Bush, or if they initially supported the war or not. I'm not calling for a mixture of the military and politics. Instead, how about asking them this one simple question: Given what you have accomplished thus far, and what remains to be done, do you think this war is worth fighting? I don't presume to speak for the members of the military, but I do have an educated guess as to what their answer would be. I could be wrong, but how can we know when everyone else back home is all too willing to play politics while they dodge IEDs in Baghdad. My guess, however, is that while opinion on Bush and Democrats might fall all over the place, the general consensus will fall somewhat in line with that of Luke Stricklin, the National Guardsman who served in Iraq and penned the song "American by God's Amazing Grace," from where the following lines come.

I really don't care why Bush went into Iraq,
I know what I've done there and I'm damn sure proud of that.

My second proposal, is that we all agree that it's time to clean house in Washington - not in the White House, but in Congress. If there are candidates who are willing to act in a way that is not patently unfair to the commander in chief or the men and women fighting the war, even if they criticizze the handling of the war - that part doesn matter, than we should give them the chance to do so. How's this for a new voting strategy in 2006: anti-incumbent, no matter which party currently holds the senate or house seat.

Howard Dean's Sooper Sekrit Plan To Win In 2006

2005-11-14T09:37:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean was on Meet The Press yesterday (by himself, he wouldn't come on together with Ken Mehlman), and I think typified where the Democrats stand on the issues today.

DR. DEAN: We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.
MR. RUSSERT: But those are words that will appeal to people. But when you go behind them, for example, what is the Democratic position on Iraq? Should we withdraw troops now? What do the Democrats stand for?

DR. DEAN: Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections.

MR. RUSSERT: But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security. There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem. There's no specifics. They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security. We want to reduce the deficit. We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.

DR. DEAN: Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that's what we're going to do. We're doing our best. Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school. We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

There you go folks, straight from the ass's mouth. the Democrats have no agenda whatsoever. Anyone remember John Kerry's sooper sekrit plan from before the election that was going to solve all of America's problems? And do also note the sad lies about the budget and those mean Republicans keeping this UC Davis kid from going to law school. If the Republicans don't clean up in 2006, they've only got themselves to blame. Dean's performance was a disaster overall, full of lies, distortions, questioning whether Michael Steele has really been the victim of racist attacks and dirty tricks by Senate Democrats and squirming when Russert pointed out what a failure he has been, and others think he has been as party chairman. More on that to come.

Tough Talk From Latvia On EU And Belarus

2005-11-14T00:16:00.000-08:00

Aldis Kuskis, a member of the European Parliament from Latvia, has some tough words for the EU on its Belarus policy in an op-ed published in the Taipei Times. Actually, no, it's more than that - Kuskis doesn't even bother to mince words. Here's the headline.

Europe must stop coddling despotic Belarus

Aleksander lukashenka's lunatic, dictatorial regime has no place in the European community of democracies

That's certainly a welcomed bit of moral clarity from Europe. Here's more and Kuskis pulls no punches.

The European parliament has consistently denounced Belarus as Europe's last dictatorship, yet EU member governments continue business as usual with Aleksander Lukashenka, the country's wayward and near lunatic despot.
This is especially true when there is a chance to save or make money. For example, for more than a decade, Germany's police forces, customs service, and even the Bundeswehr have been ordering uniforms from a state-owned factory in the city of Dzherzinsky, named after the father of the Red Terror and founder of the Soviet KGB, Feliks Dzherzinsky. Similar examples of such indifferent cynicism abound.

By treating Lukashenka as a favored business partner at the same time that the EU is trying to isolate him as an international pariah, European hypocrisy stands naked. Instead of indirectly propping up Lukashenka's regime through such cozy deals, Europe's governments must begin to act in accordance with what Europe's parliament has long understood: underwriting Lukashenka economically only prolongs his misrule. It is more important than ever that European parliamentarians unite and make their position clear.

No kidding! European governments and businesses making money off of tryannical dictators?!? Kuskis notes that the EP is split over Belarus' role in Europe.

But there are two radically different attitudes regarding Belarus's participation in European activities. On one hand, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has denied Belarusian politicians even informal access to meetings in Strasbourg. The Assembly condemned Lukashenka's usurpation of power when he twisted the constitution to grant himself a virtual lifetime presidency, and it has denounced the disappearance of those Belarussians who have dared to think differently from the regime.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has also taken a strong stand against the Belarusian dictator. As the Final Report of its mission last year to observe the Belarusian parliamentary elections clearly stated, the vote "fell significantly short of OSCE commitments."

Similarly, last year's referendum to eliminate term limits on the presidency "took place with unrestrained Government bias in favor of the referendum," and without "the conditions, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of the media, to ensure that the will of the people serves as the basis of government authority." But at the same time the OSCE is condemning these anti-democratic practices, its own Parliamentary Assembly maintains full-fledged cooperation with the Belarusian parliament. Indeed, the OSCE treats the Lukashenka-controlled parliament in the same way it does any EU parliament. So real parliaments and sham parliaments are treated as equals. The idea would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Kuskis' prescriptions to remedy this are, sadly, painfully obvious yet never considered.

This absurd situation must change. It is the duty of all members of EU national parliaments to reject this affront to their democratic dignity. Only democratic parliaments should sit as equals in Europe's democratic forums. The goal is not to ensure Europe's democratic purity, but to change the nature of Belarus's government. For that to happen, Europe's democratic voice must be heard within Belarus.
That won't be easy. Of the 1,500 different media outlets in Belarus today, only a dozen or so retain any form of independence. Even that small number is likely to diminish, as Lukashenka keeps up political, financial, and legal pressure on them. Indeed, Belarus's last independent daily newspaper recently went out of business.

The European Commission has allocated two million euros (US$2.3 million) to establish an independent radio station for Belarus, which must operate outside of the country because of Lukashenka. Working with the Belarusian association of journalists, this independent media outlet will broadcast from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and perhaps Ukraine.

This meager effort, however, is an insufficient response by Europe's democracies to the full panoply of Lukashenka's dictatorship: his docile courts, brutal jails, and corrupt police. Are a few hours of radio broadcasting really all Europe and the democratic West can muster? If so, Lukashenka must be laughing.

Parliamentarians across Europe and the West must join their voice together in a well-defined, united and ringing declaration that forces Western leaders to apply real pressure to Europe's last dictator. Such pressure brought results a year ago, with the success of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Nothing less than a united position against the despot of Belarus is necessary if Lukashenka -- and his Russian backers -- are to be forced to change their ways.

It's refreshing to see that the concepts of freedom and democracy haven't quite become old-hat in places like Latvia and Poland as they apparently have in Old Europe.

The Sad Case Of Andrew Sullivan

2005-11-13T18:01:00.000-08:00

Andrew's latest post, comparing the Wall Street Journal's editorial from yesterday advocating for the use of waterboarding in extreme cases, exemplifies why it is impossible to argue fairly with Sullivan. He takes the Journal's position that some extreme cases could warrant such methods, and jumps about a mile ahead, comparing the Journal to the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot - because Pol Pot used waterboarding too.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL AND POL POT: What do they have in common? They both believed that "water-boarding" wasn't "anything close to torture."

If this sounds familiar to you, that's because it's the same exact tactic Dick Durbin used in the Senate when he compared American servicemen to the Khmer Rouge and Nazis.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said. "Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Not surprisingly, Sullivan didn't think there was anything wrong with Durbin's comments. Both Durbin and Sullivan used the same tactic - an extremely disingenuous one - that is because they had these two things in common, they must be completely alike. Well, I'd be willing to bet both Hitler and Pol Pot thought the sky was blue, and Cheney probably does too. Conclusion: Cheney is a war criminal like Pol Pot and Hitler. What Sullivan and Durbin both fail to do is look at the situation any closer than the surface. Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of over 2 million people for no reason other than their status in life. The Khmer Rouge would beat people to a bloody pulp with iron bars because they didn't want to spend the money on bullets. They used tactics such as limb crushing, nail pulling and electrical shock while immersed in water. If we were doing any of those things, even if not en masse like the Khmer Rouge, then comparisons might be appropriate. To use waterboarding in a set of extreme cases only when there is an imminent threat to Americans and with only a handful of the most despicable and vile creatures on the face of the planet, doesn't really warrant too many comparisons.

Andrew's other problem is that he's been all over the place with what constitutes "torture." Two weeks ago, if you supported the use of fake menstrual blood to use someone's religion against them, you were a horrible, sadistic person. Since you're also a horrible, sadistic person if you support the use of waterboarding in extreme cases, why not just go all the way? Either way you'll be horrible and sadistic - may as well get some results out of being such.

But that is Andrew's problem - it's impossible to have a fair argument with him. Before his torture schtick, it was the gay marriage deal If you were against gay marriage, no matter what your reasoning was, you were a bigoted homophobe trying to turn this country into a theocratic state. Now, if you even happen to have questions about the McCain amendment (and I don't pretend to know the full story nor have I decided where I stand on it), you are a sadistic torture-advocate with no conscience and on par with one of the most infamous mass muderers of the 20th century.

Abdullah To World: Hey, Let's Fight Terrorism!

2005-11-12T13:07:00.000-08:00

King Abdullah II initiated the call for a novel approach to fighting the radical Islamists responsible for the deaths of nearly 60 in Amman this week: a "global fight against terrorism."

King Abdullah II called for a global fight against terrorism Saturday as Jordan acknowledged for the first time that al-Qaida in Iraq used three foreign suicide bombers to attack Amman hotels, killing 57 others.
The devastating strike was masterminded by Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, signaling his group is able to launch terror attacks outside war-ravaged Iraq. Abdullah called al-Zarqawi a growing threat to the Middle East and put the international community on notice that it must cooperate to fight terrorists.

"Terrorism is a sick and cross-border phenomenon. Therefore, eradicating it is the whole world's responsibility," he told the state-run Petra news agency. "The body parts we saw in Amman we see everyday in brotherly Iraq and have also seen in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other countries around the world."

I seem to remember seeing the same thing in America 4 years ago too, but nevermind that. I don't mean to make light of the attacks in Amman, and Abdullah is generally one of the West's better friends in the region, but, well, maybe these guys will stop rolling their eyes anytime President Bush talks about the same thing. Maybe they'll be be willing to accept that Bush isn't overreacting and is not trying to wage war on Islam.

UN To Lukashenka: Investigate Yourself

2005-11-11T20:45:00.000-08:00

The UN issued a demand that Belarusian authorities investigate the murders and disappearances of two journalists in the last year.

A United Nations human rights envoy on Friday urged Belarus to investigate the murders of two journalists and end "systematic harassment and persecution" of non-state media.

Adrian Severin, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Belarus, also called on authorities to ensure respect for the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

The deaths of Veronika Cherkasova in October 2004 and Vasil Grodnikov last month must be resolved and the perpetrators prosecuted, he said in a statement.

"The special rapporteur urges the government ... to clarify the murders ... and bring those responsible for these crimes to justice," said Severin, a Romanian lawyer appointed last year to the independent post.

When not referring to themselves in the third person, UN officials are still trying to figure out why Lukashenka and his thugs didn't "hop right to it" to answer the UN's questions of how these journalists managed to go missing or wind up dead.

The good news, however, is that after endless hours of late night sessions and many nights spent in luxury hotels while dining at renowned restaurants, UN officials did manage to come up with a cool sounding official title for Mr. Severin: special rapporteur.

Note To Bush: Fighting Back Is Working Already

2005-11-11T12:00:00.000-08:00

The best way to guage the success of Bush's attack on Iraq revisionists is to go see what the Kos Kidz are saying. After a couple weeks of (justified) schadenfreude while the GOP in Congress was imploding and Bush was hiding in the White House, they're running scared now. Kos has nothing to say about the actual speech, but instead chooses to point to the polls to show that Bush is wrong.

You are a liar Mr. President. The American People realize that now. You lied about the war. You lied about firing the people involved in the outing of a CIA agent. Oh by the way, the American People want you to keep your word and fire your "brain":

Kos doesn't realize, I guess, that the polls were only indicative of the success of the war-path taken by the Democrats these last few weeks. It doesn't mean what they said was true. Then Kos tries to rationalize Bush's attack to avoid facing reality.

For the last two major election cycles, 2002 and 2004, Republicans made electoral gains on the assertion that Democrats were weak on defense and only the Big, Bad, Republican Party could save the nation from the evil terrorists and their nefarious dreams of mushroom clouds over American cities.
Now, Bush is saying that he can't be criticized by Democrats because Democrats were with him all along?????

Great logic there, George.

The Democrats that voted for the war did the right thing. It was only in the three years since then that they've realized their voters (people like Kos) were pissed at them for doing that, so they pulled a 180 and started accusing the Bush administration of lying about everything and anything. Anyone who is willing to do that, to place hopes for political victory over consistent regard to national security does not deserve to have any power, anywhere.

Hopefully Bush continues to fight back, because by the response from the left, it's working already.

The Consequences Of Mundane Media Errors

2005-11-11T02:02:00.000-08:00

In an article on Secretary Rice's surprise visit to Mosul yesterday, Reuters includes a paragraph that, with just a few words, manages to completely misrepresent the political situation in Iraq and, in doing so, allows for drastically different reactions than would meet an honest account of the political reality in the country.

Washington fears that the marginalization of the Sunnis, many of whom opposed last month's referendum on a new constitution, would fuel the insurgency and further destabilize the country, keeping U.S. troops there longer.

Can you spot the mistake? It's in first line, where it says many Sunnis "opposed last month's referendum on a new constitution." Sunnis did not oppose the referendum. To make that argument would be to put forth the same line that the Iraqi political process excludes an entire part of Iraqi society. It would simply support the argument that the political process in Iraq is not truly democratic and, therefore, illegitimate. (I have problems with that argument in and of itself, given that all have the opportunity to particpate even if some choose not to do so, but that's for another argument. The argument that Sunnis are being excluded can no longer be supported even with this weak evidentiary suppory).

Sunnis, therefore, did not oppose the referendum. Many did, however, oppose the question included in the referendum - that is, whether the Constitution should be ratified. That is a huge difference as the latter argument recognizes that Iraqi society as a whole is choosing to partake in the democratic process, thereby giving the process far greater legitimacy than it enjoyed before the January elections, and even before the referendum. What's more, given the superb diplomacy of the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, some Sunni groups were even willing to support the constitution in exchange for keeping open the possibility for certain amendments. With that, Iraqi political society is not even engaged in strict opposition politics, but are actually deepening the commitment to democratic government by showing a willingness to continue diplomatic negotiations. Without this concession, Iraqi politics could have easily reverted back to the situation in which an entire group rejected the system because they had lost.

Bottom line, Reuters implies a situation in which the Iraq political experiment with democracy is a failed one. The reality is that sectors of the Iraqi political society are becoming increasingly commited to a democratic system of government.

This may not be an example of overt media bias - only the writer knows what she was trying to portray with this paragraph. It does, however, reflect poorly on journalistic standards of accuracy and thoroughness. Even the latter, without overt bias, can have serious consequences.

November 11

2005-11-11T00:10:00.000-08:00

Russia Getting Desperate

2005-11-10T21:48:00.000-08:00

Russia has had a bad few years with regards to its "sphere of influence." It's watched the United States open air bases in Central Asian republics, oil pipelines from the Caucasus be purposefully doverted away from Russia and towards Turkey instead, pro-Western democratic regimes replace authoritarian, bu Moscow friendly ones in Georgia and Ukraine and now the EU and US sticking its nose in Belarus, trying to achieve the same.

It has tried with fervor to convince the Central Asian republics to kick out the Americans, and with the exception of Uzbekistan, has largely failed. Even with Uzbekistan, Tashkent closed down the American air base not out of sympathy for Moscow's position - in fact it had been eager to have the Americans come in - but because the Bush administration dared to raise questions about Mr. Karimov's habit of unleashing the police to viciously beat any and all dissenters to his regime.

It is generally believed that Putin has had his full of Lukashenka, and wouldn't be sad to see him go, but that does not mean he wants another westward-orienting color revolution in Minsk. Following the EU's (somewhat toothless) announcement that it might impose sanctions at some future time if Lukashenka fails to take adequate steps towards democratization, Russia has announced that Belarus does not have a democracy problem after all.

The Russian Foreign Ministry disagrees with the European Union's assessment of democracy-related problems in Belarus, the ministry said Thursday.
"We know the EU's critical state of mind in regard to Belarus," the ministry statement said. "At the same time, we can't agree that Belarus is a problem zone in regard to democracy."

The ministry said any steps toward democracy in Belarus should take into account the local realities. "Imposing some universal schemes does not strengthen democracy or build a united Europe without dividing lines," the statement said.

What, exactly, are the "local realities" that distinguish Belarus from, say, Ukraine, Georgia or any other authoritatrian country in which the people decided that they were sick of being beaten and arrested whenever they dared to disagree with the government?

The McCain Amendment

2005-11-10T21:19:00.000-08:00

Greg Djerjian at Belgravia Dispatch posts approvingly that "Glenn Reynolds has come out in favor of the McCain Amendment." He mentions that this has been little noticed in the blogosphere as if Glenn recently changed from a pro-torture stance. This goes back to a spat Glenn and Andrew Sullivan had earlier this year in which Glenn was painted as a torture-lover and Andrew painted himself as a noble citizen forecefully opposing America's and the Bush administration's sadism.

As Jonah Golderg has said regarding much of Andrew's posts opposing "torture" and in favor of the McCain amendment, "there are a lot of stolen bases built into Andrew's conclusion." Jonah mentions that Andrew's resort to hyperbole of how America has supposedly lost it's soul under the Bush administration assumes that these practices were never used in any prior American war - especially the more recent wars including WWII. My issue (and position on the McCain amendment), however, is the same as Glenn's.

I'm against torture, but torture consists in applying electrodes to people's testicles, not "mocking their religion," wrapping them in Israeli flags, or frightening them with fake menstrual blood, and the McCain bill may be read as forbidding those non-torture activitities. They might be a bad idea, for a variety of reasons, but they're not torture, and one of the reasons the "torture" issue has gotten less traction than it might have is that too many people have blown their credibility by conflating things they don't like with things that are of a different order entirely -- and by letting their desire to bash Bush, or to distance themselves from him, become all too obvious.

Greg points to a post by Ramesh Ponnuru in which the latter distances himself from an editorial in the latest edition of the magazine for which he writes, National Review. Since I don't have my current issue, all I can go with is the selection Ponnuru quotes in his post.

Our view is that it is right and in our interest that enemy prisoners be treated humanely. The chain of command should have had a much better handle on how detainees were being treated (which would have prevented some of the infamous abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan). But we don't want to rule out pressuring high-value detainees in ways that fall short of torture but would draw the disapproval of Human Rights Watch. We have gained valuable intelligence through such means and could do so again. In today's political environment, however, it is impossible to say this without being accused of wanting to stack naked detainees in pyramids and break their legs. And here is where the McCain amendment could do harm: It will be widely interpreted as making it impossible to treat enemy detainees any differently from U.S. criminal suspects. This is an unreasonable standard, and one we will come to regret.

I find nothing in there that I disagree with, and I don't want to put words into Glenn's mouth, but it seems to me he is making the same argument. He does mention that "treating them badly" might not be a good idea either, but the distinction here between the two is important. I haven't read the US Army Field Manual on intelligence interrogation, to which interrogation techniques would be limited under the McCain amendment, so I don't know what techniques are permissable, but I think my issue, as is that of Glenn and the National Review editors, is that a distinction has to be made between torture on one hand and making someone stand for long periods at a time or making fun of their religion. If the McCain amendment makes that distinction, then I support it. Greg, however, dismisses that view by calling the editorial "a sad, sad moment in the history of that estimable periodical." Andrew, Greg and other supporters of the amendment automatically assume that anyone who wants to make that distinction must love torture and lack a "robust conscience," in Greg's words, as a result - an extremely disingenuous argument to make to be sure.

I do, however, side with Glenn that if anyone should be exempted from the limits on interrogation (which no one probably should if it is made the law), it should not be the CIA, parts of which has shown themselves time and again willing to undermine the president, his policies and the national security of the country to score what amounts to nothing more than a political victory.

Liberia Likely To Elect Africa's First Woman President

2005-11-10T14:48:00.000-08:00

Election officials are still counting ballots, but it looks as if Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a Harvard trained economist and former World Bank official, will win Liberia's run-off election against famous footballer George Weah.

A Harvard-trained economist was poised to become Africa's first female head of state Thursday as she built a nearly insurmountable lead in Liberia's runoff presidential election.
With about 90 percent of the vote tallied, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf led ex-soccer star George Weah 59 percent to 41 percent. The election is Liberia's first since the end of a 14-year civil war.

The Weah campaign is challenging the results, claiming that it found 150 stuffed ballots at 5 different polling locations.
Weah, the pre-election favorite, has challenged the results, claiming that ballot boxes were stuffed for his opponent. Election officials will conduct an investigation, but international observers said Tuesday's election appeared fair and downplayed Weah's charges.

"So far the level of fraud that he has indicated, at least publicly, would not seem to rise to the level that would challenge the results of the election," said Paul Risley, a spokesman for the United Nations mission in Liberia.

The Weah campaign said it found evidence of poll workers at five polling places stuffing a total of 150 false ballots marked for Johnson-Sirleaf after voting ended Tuesday. Although the ballots represented a sliver of the more than 800,000 votes cast, Weah's aides suggested that they were part of a wider campaign of "cleverly systematically orchestrated ballot-stuffing" and that election officials were complicit.

No one should think that there weren't problems, possibly even major problems, with this election, Liberia's first in a decade and a half. Nevertheless, looking at 150 stuffed ballots at 5 locations, when Johnson-Sirlead has such a commanding lead, is a bit silly and probably not in the nation's best interest. 150 stuffed ballots in 5 locations would mean about 30 ballots per location. If 800,000 people voted and Johnson-Sirleaf has 59% of those votes, that would mean approximately 10,933 polling stations would be needed, with 30 ballots being stuffed at each. Obviously, there might be more stuffed ballots that weren't found and more at some polling stations than at others, but it is extremely unlikely that they would make up the 328,000 vote difference.

Weah's aides said there was no other way to explain how Johnson-Sirleaf - who won 20 percent of the vote in October's first-round election compared with Weah's 28 percent - held such a commanding lead. She holds majorities in 10 of Liberia's 15 counties, including two that voted for Weah in the first round.

"We have to admit that in some areas, we are dumbfounded as to how she could be leading in areas that were traditionally our strongholds," said Sam Steve Quoah, Weah's campaign spokesman.

Of course there are explanations. There were 22 candidates in the first round. Between Weah and Johnson-Sirleaf, only 48% of the voters are accounted for. It is quite probable that many from the other 52% gave their vote to Johnson-Sirleaf's experience rather than Weah's popularity. Another explanation would involve a look at turnout both in the first round and in the runoff. If turnout was higher in the first round, it is possible that many of those who voted for the other 20 candidates stayed home in the runoff.

That being said, Johnson-Sirleaf would do well to distance herself from sentiments like these.

"When it boiled down to a stark choice between her and Weah, the public realized that they could not entrust the future of this country to an unschooled footballer," said Harry Greaves, a top aide to Johnson-Sirleaf.

It is completely unhelpful to compare this election as one between the right person and "an unschooled footballer." Another part of the article explains why.

A national hero with a thin education and no political experience, Weah captured the support of young voters, including thousands of unemployed males who once wielded Kalashnikov rifles as child soldiers.

Weah's success proves that something can be made of life in Liberia that doesn't involve guns, gangs and violence. The fact that those youths put down their rifles and went to the voting booth instead speaks volumes of the possibilities of taking advantage of Weah's personality cult. Johnson-Sirleaf would be well advised to do her best to bring Weah into the new government somehow, and Weah would be equally well advised to work with the new government as neither of them likely want those children to go back to the same life.

This is how Liberia's election is demonstrably different from, say, America's. Our candidates compete to see who will get to enact their preferred policies to make America better. In Liberia, Weah and Johnson-Sirleaf have no such luxury. As such, they should be cooperating to save the state. They can worry about policy differences used to give power to one faction or another later, once they've ensured that there will be a later for Liberia.

The Grey Lady's Delusions

2005-11-09T02:15:00.000-08:00

Leave it to the New York Times to claim that last nights elections were somehow a major victory for Democrats and against dirty campaigning and President Bush.

It's always dangerous to read national sentiments in local election results, especially when the balloting is as scattered and sparse as it was yesterday. But a few things seem obvious. Negative campaigning lost its punch. And George Bush's political capital turned into a deficit.

First, the issue of "dirty campaigning" in NJ. The debate over whether Forrester should have used the quote from Corzine's wife is a fair one, but here's what the media hasn't been telling you. Forrester's campaign did not go out and solicit a quote from Corzine's ex-wife. The New York Times itself was the one that published that quote in an earlier article. The Forrester campaign simply scrolled the text of one of the Times' own articles. Corzine called this "Bush-Rove smear tactics," which the Times was all too willing to repeat.

Here's what's also not as well known. As Kos himself reported (although he of course called it a "great ad") Corzine ran an ad with a kid named Carl Riccio (either high school or college aged, it is not clear which) who is in a wheelchair after an accident during a high school wrestling match. In the ad, Riccio says "Doug Forrester doesn't support embryonic stem cell research. Therefore, I don't think he supports people like me."

That is not exactly above the belt, folks. I'm sure Riccio is a smart kid, but does anyone really think the Corzine campaign didn't sit him down and pull a John Edwards a-la Christopher Reeve where the latter implied that if it weren't for Bush's opposition to embryonic stem cell research that Christopher Reeve would have been up and walking instead of having died last fall? That's an incredibly cheap move, reducing the campaign to ad hominem attacks and the politics of personal destruction. But the New York Times won't be mentioning that one or that one can take a stance against embryonic stem cell research and not be "against people like" Carl Riccio. The Times will just stick with distorting the story of the Forrester ad.

As for the other elections, John Podhoretz sums it up best that the results of this election were almost 100% status quo. Republican (sort of) incumbent wins in New York. Incumbent parties win in NJ and VA as Democrats are replaced with Democrats. Republican initiatives in blue California defeated, Democratic initiatives in red Ohio defeated. Even in Virginia, where the margin of victory is being touted as a win for Democrats, Podhoretz points out that in 2001 Mark Warner won by the same margin, only for Democrats to have a disastrous 2002 election. Sure, Bush's appearance at a campaign rally last night didn't help Kilgore. Given the Republican victories for state attorney general and lieutenant general (who got higher vote totals than Kilgore), could that instead say something about the race Kilgore ran rather than some negative or neutral effect of Bush's appearance? Bottom line, this election means nothing. The Times should have heeded their own advice in their first words about not assessing national outcomes based on these status quo local elections and never printed this editorial in the first place.

In an equally hilarious and desparate attempt to paint this as a Democratic victory, Kos points to the fact that Democrats won...on the Tucson, AZ city council. Oh dear, Bush really better fire Karl Rove if he couldn't deliver victory to Tucson's city council! But wait, maybe that's because he was too busy working in Chautaqua county, NY where Republicans won the county executive and attorney general's offices from Democrats?!

Cracking Down On Religion in Belarus

2005-11-09T00:23:00.000-08:00

Forum 18, a religious rights group out of Norway, has been doing an excellent job of detailing continuing crackdown on religious organizations in Belarus, including evangelical Christian groups and Hare Krishna devotees. The latter group had appealed to the UN, which gave the Lukashenka regime until November 12 (Saturday) to fix make right these violations. So far the regime has done nothing and we'll have to see what the UN's response is. I'm sure it will be something drastic like a "strong condemnatio." Ok, wishful thinking - more like a "mild rebuke" or a "statement of concern."

Belarus has yet to meet a 12 November deadline, set by a UN committee, for confirming the correction of a religious freedom violation against Hare Krishna devotees, Forum 18 News Service has learnt. In a decision with implications for other religious communities (such as the New Life charismatic church), the UN Human Rights Committee found that Belarus had violated citizens' rights under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights by refusing to register a nation-wide Hare Krishna association. Two devotees, Sergei Malakhovsky and Aleksandr Pikul, complained to the Committee, which set a 90 day deadline from 23 August for correcting the violation.

Now another report from a missionary aid group in Belarus confirms reports that the regime is making it increasingly difficult for such groups to move around and reach out to different groups. In the words of one member of that aid group, "the doors are starting to close."

Tim Burns, of Global Aid Network, or GAiN-USA, confirms the reports of increased harassment against Christians in Belarus.

He is trying to get a winter project team assembled to go into the country. They don't know how much longer the doors will be open, so the time is now to take the Gospel in. "It is beginning to be a little bit harder to go into certain areas. Some public schools we were able to go in before with open arms are not so welcoming anymore. Our staff on the ground there, are really starting to see a difficult time to get into some locations."

Burns doesn't think the government will stop GAiN-USA from coming. But the chill is cause for concern. "We've been blessed by God to have some open doors that other organizations, perhaps, cannot, because we've been there for over 15 years."

Their teams have a long history in the region of bringing not only the Gospel, but also much needed aid to the orphans and poor. The people they help are often isolated and feel forgotten.

That's why it is so important, Burns adds, to keep going to them with their message. He acknowleges that time is short. "Those doors are starting to close somewhat and we don't quite have the freedom that we used to have to proclaim the Gospel."

Find other reports from Forum 18 here.

Bush's Woes?

2005-11-08T08:47:00.000-08:00

Why are the media beating to death the idea that today's elections could reflect "Bush's woes?"

U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine acknowledged a little nervousness as he voted Tuesday in his race for governor of New Jersey, one of several contests being closely monitored for evidence of how the GOP's recent struggles are influencing voters.

You've got a neck-and-neck race in New Jersey, what has for over a decade been one of the bluest of blue states (following up on Bush's major gains there in 2004) between an incumbent Senator and a man who has already lost one statewide election. How would a narrow loss there reflect Bush's supposed "woes?"

In Virginia, you've got an equally close race between the Republican and a man personally endorsed and campaigned for by an extremely popular Democratic outgoing governor. A loss there would hardly be indicative of Bush's "woes" anymore than either of Gov. Warner's wins there were indicative of the GOPs supposed "woes" at the time.

Meanwhile, is Bloomberg's assured victory over Fernando Ferrer (who received campaign help from Al Sharpton and...Barack Obama!) in New York indicative of any GOP "woes" in Washington? Bloomberg may not be a raging conservative, but the Democrats had to bring in an Illinois senator to help out in the mayor's race for the overhwelmingly blue New York City. Why is that not indicative of the Democrats' "woes?"

Kilgore and Forrester will probably be unable to beat the forces going against them in their respective races, but perhaps the media should stop kidding itself that it has anything to do with Bush or the Republican Party.

EU Waffles On Belarus

2005-11-08T00:32:00.000-08:00

The foreign ministers of the EU member states met yesterday in Brussels. On the agenda was the lack of democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus. The foreign ministers were expected to take a stand against Belarus, so strong that they warn that they might impose sanctions on the country at some point in the future if they don't conduct democratic elections next summer.

Foreign ministers of the 25 European Union member states are expected to address the struggle for human rights and democracy in Belarus during a meeting today in Brussels.

The foreign ministers are expected to warn that sanctions could be expanded if next year's presidential election, in which President Alyaksandr Lukashenka is seeking another term, do not meet international standards.

The EU currently imposes visa restrictions that affect six top Belarus officials, banning them from entering the EU.

Yeah, but we've all seen how effective those visa restrictions are when banned officials have friends in high places.

She said the EU is seeking, however, to avoid alienating the Belarusian population as a whole with measures such as broad economic sanctions.

Well, that's reassuring, but the EU is deluding itself if it thinks sanctions are going to do much of anything, especially when their own leaders are so willing to disregard them. Strong rhetoric from the US has been far more effective in isolating Lukashenka by calling him "Europe's last dicator" and head of one of the "last outposts of tyranny." Additionally, vocal support from Poland and the Baltic states has been instrumental in keeping the opposition to the regime in the public eye. This rhetoric, backed up by support for the opposition in promoting a civil society proved quite effective in Georgia and Ukraine, and is far more likely to work in Belarus than vague threats from the EU regarding the possibility of future restrictions to ban Lukashanka's henchmen from travelling to Paris.

AP, Jesus And The 2004 Election

2005-11-07T23:02:00.000-08:00

CNN.com is running an AP story about the All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA being investigated by the IRS for reportedly using its tax-exempt status to intervene in a political campaign. In question is the October 31, 2004 (2 days before the election) sermon given by former Rector of the church, George Regas that was extremely critical of Bush and very strongly implied that the parishioners should vote for Kerry. The article makes it sound like the IRS is harassing the church for a speech a "guest preacher" gave, but only at the end of the article do they admit that Regas was actually the church's former Rector.

The Internal Revenue Service has warned a prominent liberal church it could lose its tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon a guest preacher gave on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, church officials say.

The Rev. George F. Regas did not urge parishioners at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena to support either President Bush or John Kerry, but he was critical of the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts.

Technically, its true that he didn't explicitly tell his congregation to vote for Kerry, he even said in the beginning of the sermon (pdf) that he wouldn't tell the congregation for whom they should vote. But here's what he did say, after already bashing the war and the pro-life position (more on this later).

All this needs to be part of our thinking on November 2nd. Conservative politicians with the blessing of the Religious Right have strongly advocated the dismantling of social programs that provide a decent life for children once they enter this world. The ultimate test of a society is the king of world it creates for its children...No matter what rhetoric is used, any public policy that makes a child's life more miserable is an abomination before God.

True enough, he didn't say "go vote for Kerry," but he might as well have. Here are some other choice excerpts.

Jesus continues: "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.

Something tells me Jesus is not a national interest realist, but imagine that! A Christian pastor using the rhetoric of Brent Scowcroft to criticize a move to oust a vicious dictator who routinely raped, tortured and murdered his own people. Thats gotta be a new one.

Jesus turns to President Bush again with deep sadness. "Is what I hear really true? Do you really mean that you want to end a decade-old ban on developing nuclear battlefield weapons, as well as endorsing the creation of a nuclear "bunker-blaster" bomb?

I guess Jesus hasn't read the newspapers since 1972. The Cold War is over. The presence of the weapons treaties only served to maintain the antagonisms between Russia and the US. Furthermore, even the lead negotiator on those treaties - Henry Kissenger - agrees that there is little relevance left to those diplomatic relics of Cold War. I'm not really sure what the relevance of this is for a church congregation on a Sunday morning in 2004, but I'm guessing it's another one of the left's attempts to prove they stand for "moral values," however ambiguous they may be. This statement about nuclear weapons treaties (really just a throwback to Regas' days protesting Reagan's nuclear policies) together with this one about abortion, best illustrates the Democrats' pathetic attempts to form their own kind of "moral issues."

Whether you are pro choice or against abortion, you do not have the right in this diverse, pluralistic society to force your beliefs and opinion on others. Nor does the President of the United States. There can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on the abortion issue.

I'm not pro abortion but pro choice. There is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child. To force the unwanted on the unwilling, to use a woman's body against her will and choice, is morally repugnant.

Someone whould ask Pastor Regas a few questions. Does the President have the right to tell me that my (hypothetical) opinion that it is okay to shoot someone will not fly in this country? Is that an unjust law? Second, what of the very nature of abortion? Is it not "vicious and violent" as well? Finally, his "unwanted on the unwilling" comment is, in my mind, simply antithetical to everything the Bible teaches. Democrats will be quick to point out to opponents of gay marriage that the Bible is full of Jesus accepting society's unwanted and outcasts, which is very true. So why is Regas, who explicitly calls the unborn baby "unwanted," so quick to forget this? Does it matter that the baby might be wanted by someone else not the mother? According to Regus, their "unwanted" status makes them irrelevant and easily disposable.

As for the "unwilling" part - how about teaching the mother some concept of personal responsibility? Regas makes no distinction between abortion for all and only when the mother's health is in danger, so it seems like he supports the mother's right to a care-free, risk-free lifestyle with no concept of responsibility. Is that the position Jesus would take? But, hey, I'm no minister. Regas is the one with the "Rev." before his name. What do I know?

If Jesus entered this debate, I think these words might come from his lips: "Shame on all those conservative politicians in the nation's Congress and in State Legislatures who have for years so proudly proclaimed their love for children when they were only fetuses - but ignored their needs after they were born."

Despite the fact that that is simply untrue, there's not really much to rebut Regas with on his "Republicans hate the poor" schtick since his argument is nothing but a bunch of generalizations and ad hominem attacks, so ignoring the ridiculous hyperbole in the second part of the sentence, can we turn that around? Can we say "Shame on George Regas for ignoring those who are the most defenseless because the mother is "unwilling?"

But wait! Here's the proof that Republicans are evil - and it's not Jesus who provides it. Apparently Bill Moyers has all the answers that even the Son of God cannot provide.

Bill Moyers says these Religious Right advocates have hijacked Jesus.

Oh, well then. Why didn't you say so earlier?!

All that being said, the IRS investigation is stupid. Democrats will be quick to point to Catholic bishops who urged voters not to vote for someone who advocated abortion, but the difference is that the Church did no say that if someone advocated abortion you had to vote against him. They did say that you cannot vote for someone specifically because they supported abortion. You could vote for that candidate if you were doing so for other reasons. Thus it was ok to vote for John Kerry if you opposed the war, for example. There were, however, other churches that made some overtly political moves, such as kicking members out of the congregation for voting for Kerry. In general, this is just dumb. But that works both ways - liberals can't sit there and get indignant about the Catholic church taking a position when they support churches like this one in Pasadena.

Just an aside, though. My church has had visiting priests who were liberal, some who were conservative and some who refused to bring politics to the church at all. Christian doctrine does not fall neatly in line with either political party. Thus, many churches opposed the war and advocate stronger measures for social justice while at the same time opposing abortion. Therefore, regardless of what pastor happens to be speaking on any given day, if they bring up politics at all, it will usually be, if at different times, critical of certain aspects of both parties.

It seems to me with this All Saints Church, however,that it is not so much a church as a liberal advocacy group. This is not all bad, since taking a look at their website I see stories advocating taking action to end the genocide in Sudan, Katrina relief efforts as well as writings regarding the legacy of Rosa Parks. Yet, the rest of the website is full of liberal talking points, including the following.

Calling the initiatives on California's upcoming referendums "trojan horses."
Linking to the ACLU and League of Women Voters to "get informed."
A very specific call to support Cindy Sheehan during her protest in Crawford,
Calling for support for hotel workers to unionize\
Numerous other sermons bashing Bush and quoting from such websites as commondreams.org

Also included is a report from a symposium in Washington, DC about how to "take back the moral values debate from the Religious Right." Noting how apparently no mention is made about respecting life with regards to abortion, and emphasis instead on "environmental issues" and the vagueries of "social justice" (generally a euphemism for increased welfare) they're not doing a very good job. Perhaps because Christians in American generally have a hard time believing that you take life seriously if you cast off aborted babies as "unwanted," as if that justifies such an action.

Rev. Regas' closing in his sermon unintentionally recognizes this reality, when he tells the congregation to "take all that Jesus means to you. Then vote your deepest values." That's exactly what the people did! Thanks Rev. Regas!

A Call To Support France

2005-11-05T15:51:00.000-08:00

I am not a big fan of the French. I like my freedom fries and my freedom toast. I've been just as annoyed by French intransigence in recent years as many others on the right. But now, I am appealing to all those same people to support France. Yes, support Sarkozy (that one's not too hard to do), support Chirac and even support de Villepin. They were more interested in gloating during Hurrican Katrina and reveling in what they saw to be the waning of American power. Parts of the French government made no secret of their opposition to Coalition forces during the Iraq War. It is not difficult, therefore, to understand why many are watching in glee as French Muslims are rioting in the streets of Parisian suburbs. But that is not a wise course of action to take.

We supported France during WWII primarily out of our own interests, since the spread westward of Nazism was more than we could stomach. Certainly, there were those that supported the US forces, and if you go to Normandy you will still see those people paying their respects at the American cemetaries. Nevertheless, France has reveled in making life as difficult as possible for America in the 60 years since the war. Now, however, we have to support France out of the same regard to our interests. Despite the media's preference for downplaying the significance of mere "Muslim youths" acting out of "economic distress," there is a very real threat presenting itself in France and elsewhere in Europe. An increase in power for Islamists in France might not make too many Americans sad - but it should, because all it needs to do is establish a foothold there before it can spread easily to American allies elsewhere in Europe, including Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK.

Now is not the time to sit smugly and say enjoy the tight spot in which France finds itseld. Now is the time to back whichever French leader can best fight these rioters. Although he has been sick lately, Chirac hasn't shown his face much except to issue an appeal for "tolerance," presumably to scold Sarkozy for speaking blunt truths and calling the rioters "scum." De Villepin seems to be weakening with increased rapidity. Sarkozy has at least called a spade a spade, but it doesn't seem like anyone in the leadership has been willing to do what is necessary to end this. That's what we need to work on with them.

Neither is it the time to point out the obvious macro-explanations for these riots (aging, secularized European population, ill advised forced secularity, etc.) Now is the time to take back the streets. Only later will it be time to strongly encourage France and other European countries to do something about their immigration policies, both so they know who is coming into their country and so they approach more efficient policies for integrating the new immigrants into French society. But I will say this - for all the European countries enjoy pointing out America's supposed hatred for Islam and Muslims, American Muslims are far better assimilated into American society than are European Muslims into their societies. It seems to me, for all the touted "success" of the EU, individual European nationalisms are the ones that will face the biggest challenges in the immediate future.

Lukashenka Proves Doubters Wrong

2005-11-05T00:35:00.000-08:00

It's true. Lukashenka has proven the skeptics wrong. Not in the way you think, though - he hasn't suddenly adopted democracy and respect for human rights. What I mean is that, if you thought Lukashenka couldn't be any crazier, he goes and pulls a whopper that leaves even his fiercest opponents staggering. Check this one out:

Belarus President Aleksander Lukashenko said Sweden and Germany should be blamed for everything that goes wrong in his republic because he used these two countries as models when setting his political goals.

“When I was a young president still, I set up my political objective aimed at building a socially-oriented economy and I have named the countries that were examples for us. These were technology-rich Germany and the socially-oriented economy built by the Swedish model,” the Interfax news agency quoted Lukashenko as saying on Thursday.

“If we are doing something wrong we are not to blame, but rather you, because we have learnt from you,” Lukashenko said when receiving credentials from newly-appointed Swedish ambassador.

Lukashenka was "elected" in 1994. The GDR and Stasi had been defunct since 1990. Perhaps he would care to explain how he got the idea from Germany that it would be a good thing to disappear opposition journalists, deny basic human and civil rights to the people, impose an arbitrary rule of law that would silence any dissent, employ secret police, ban all concept of a civil society and even make it a crime punishable by time in jail to make fun of him. Lot's of people have had a laugh or two at the expense of Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schroeder. None of them are currently in jail, or were ever even arrested for doing so.

Sweden is ranked 6th most transparent and Germany 16th by Transparency International. Belarus is ranked 107th and is only that high because most of the countries towards the bottom of the list are tied for the most corrupt in the world. Sweden and Germany are both among the freest states as rated by Freedom House. Belarus is Not Free and its position is in rapid decline as of recent. Sweden is ranked 2nd in the world in the UN Human Development Index. Germany, even with its recent economic problems, is ranked 19th. Belarus is ranked 62nd and that's only artificially boosted by the two less relevant components of the index rating - high literacy and life expectancy. GDP per capita (PPP), the more important indicator of life in Belarus, is among the lowest in the world. You may live a long time, and be able to read, but a whole heck of a lot of good that is when you can't buy anything and the economy is a shambles.

So what, exactly, does Lukashenka and his regime have to be proud of from their 11 years in rule? It seems to me the model is not broken - in fact it works magnificently. The problem, rather, seems to be the implementation, and that can be blamed on no one but Lukashenka. Perhaps next time he could read the instructions a bit more carefully.

The Real Latin America

2005-11-04T12:37:00.000-08:00

Sure, there's a few thousand people protesting the Bush visit to Latin America and the FTAA summit. Bring in Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez and Maradona and it must be indicative of how the entire region feels, right? Wrong. Let's take a look at the rest of Latin America, courtesy of The Economist. It seems, after the economic meltdowns there, especially in Argentina, in 2002-2003, that the people there are beginning to look in the right direction again. Surprisingly, that direction doesn't include vile hatred of America.

Political institutions are a little less reviled and presidents are still quite popular even though many are nearing the end of their term. Respondents are slightly more optimistic about their economic prospects, and a bit less hostile towards the United States. They are even starting to warm again to privatisation.
Latinobarómetro, a Chilean organisation, has carried out similar surveys each year since the mid-1990s. So the poll has captured shifts in opinion in the region during a decade that saw initial enthusiasm for democracy and free-market reform tempered by recession (severe in places), and followed by the advent of leftish governments and then a strong economic recovery. Through this switchback, says Marta Lagos, Latinobarómetro's director, what is striking is the underlying stability of opinion.

Support for democracy is above 60% in 8 out of 11 South American countries, and nearly all of Central America. The only country where it is significantly lower than in 1996 is Peru, and you can thank Alberto Fujimori and his reign of corruption and authoritarianism for that.

60% of the people in at least eight countries, as well as Central America, believe "the market economy is the only system which can develop your country." Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay are below 60%, but not by much. They are all in the high 50s - not bad, especially for a country like Argentina that was in financial meltdown three years ago.

Ad for the question of "is the privatization of companies beneficial," after a steady decline in the late 90s, and bottoming out in 2003, agreement with this statement is now on a steady incline for the first time in over seven years, increasing at the rate of 5% a year.

Support for America has declined since 2000, but has increased since 2002-2003 during the war. The only countries where anti-Americanism is greater than pro-Americanism are Venezuela, Uruguay and Argentina. Thus it is no surprise we are seeing the protests right now in Argentina. Support for America has increased since 2003 in Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Bolivia, and support has remained extremely high in Central America throughout the past 5 years.

Even George Bush is liked far more than Fidel Castro, and only slightly less liked than Hugo Chavez. That doesn't seem like much, but you'd never even know that much by reading the newspapers. As The Economist writer says, "the appeal of Chavismo in the region may be more limited than is often claimed." What's more, in two nearby countries most vulnerable to Venezuelan influence, Ecuador and Bolivia, only 9% and 5% respectively have a favorable opinion of Mr. Chavez. Latin Americans would rather look to Lula in Brazil than to Caracas.

So next time CNN puts up a picture of a star footballer smiling right next to Hugo Chavez, you can be confident knowing more Latin Americans, while they may respect his athletic skills, would probably, like Michelle Malkin, add him to their list of moonbats when it came to politics.

UPDATE: The geographical error included regarding Ecuador and Bolivia has been fixed.

Belarus Confused

2005-11-02T21:54:00.000-08:00

I had to laugh while reading this story from Belarus' National Internet Legal Portal about "Belarus and Germany discuss[ing] ways to to create a positive image of the two states abroad."

This venture is obviously bound to fail. The two countries are starting this attempt to promote a better international image from so far apart on the "respect" scale, nothing Belarus is going to do will put it even close to Germany. Germany may be going through some tough times, politically-speaking right now, but amazingly, both parties are working together through the electoral process to create a grand coalition that would be able to balance the state interestes that were revealed in the September election. Though I'm not much of a fan of Schroeder, the differences between the SDP and the CDU/CSU are minimal compared to the differences between Lukashenka's regime and the opposition.

Regardless of who is in power in Germany, the state will respect basic human and civil rights. Schroeder did not arrest CDU/CSU members in the lead up to the election. Journalists who disagree with the regime do not disappear into the night. Secret police do not break up opposition protests by beating protestors unsparingly. Yet, at the same time, Germany would not be described as politically and economically "stable." Still, very few, with the possible exception of some in the East, would welcome a return of communism. Even those in the east would probably not advocate a return of the Stasi or indiscriminate beatings of political opposition members.

That is a startling reality for those who claim Belarussians value stability over human rights. People do not look at the stable sociopolitical situation and say "Thank goodness, now please beat me and throw me in jail for disagreeing with you."

Belarus has no international respect. None. Zero. Zilch. I can't see the German government looking at this situation as anything more than a hilarious joke. Unfortunately, Belarus is confused about it's position in the international community, so much so that it laughingly assumes it can help Germany boost its international image in any way.

Saddam Knew The US Wasn't Bluffing

2005-11-02T21:21:00.000-08:00

In the two and a half years since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, and the subsequent discovery of the absence of weapons of mass destruction, there has been a great puzzle as to why, if he had no weapons, did Saddam actively try to thwart the weapons inspectors. The fact that he did this has led to two separate conclusions.

The first, is that Saddam's yes-men continuously told him that they were working on weapons, because that's what he had ordered, and they feared for their lives if they told him otherwise. As such, he thought he had the weapons all along. This explanation is, to me, somewhat weak. What motivation would they have for defying Saddam and halting the weapons building process? Saddam obviously didn't care about violating UN restrictions on weapons programs.

The second possibility is that Saddam figured the US was bluffing, presumably because he knew that everyone else knew that he had no weapons, and was left speechless when we actually did invade. This response, obviously, goes far to place the blame on the Bush administration, since even Saddam couldn't fathom the US doing something so misguided and stupid.

But now we know that Saddam knew the US wasn't bluffing. Saddam had accepted exile in the UAE, and it only fell through because the Arab League was not supportive of Saddam.

Deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein accepted an 11th-hour offer to flee into exile weeks ahead of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion but Arab League officials scuttled the proposal, officials in Dubai said.
The exile initiative was spearheaded by the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, at an emergency Arab summit held in Egypt in February 2003, Sheik Zayed's son said in an interview aired by Al-Arabiya TV during a documentary. The U.S.-led coalition invaded March 19 that year.

[...]

The anonymous Emirates official said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa did not bring the proposal to the summit's discussion because Arab foreign ministers had not presented and accepted it as league protocol dictated.

At the time, Arab League leaders said the summit decided not to take up the idea, citing league rules barring interference in members' domestic affairs.

If Saddam was actually worried about the US invading, enough to seek out exile (remember, exile could have prevented the whole invasion), then he knew the US was not bluffing. That raises the question then, why did Saddam continue to thwart the inspections at every turn? Why not come clean, show that there were no weapons, and survive to torture more people for years to come? It is pretty clear Saddam was trying to hide something, and that it wasn't just miscalculation leading to disastrous consequences on his part.

Democracy Not Even Worth Lip-Service

2005-11-01T22:42:00.000-08:00

Lukashenka shows that for all of his rhetoric regarding letting the people of Belarus decide the next presidency, he really couldn't care less about the people or democratic system of government.

Belarusian police have arrested 70 members of an independent election monitoring group attempting to register their group with the country’s authorities, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.
Nikolai Astreika, the leader of the Partnership group, said police raided the group’s meeting on Saturday and arrested all 70 members on charges of attending an unauthorized meeting.

How and How Not To Commemorate The Iraq War Dead

2005-10-26T01:59:00.000-07:00

CNN.com has joined with various other media outlets to mark the 2,000th military death in Iraq. CNN has a feature on Sgt. James Kinlow, one of those 2,000 dead. Little Green Footballs has been tracking what seems like an excessively morbid coutdown to 2,000 as if it were New Year's Eve among the media. The military has specifically asked the military not to degrade the dead or the demoralize those still serving in Iraq by treating this as if it were some sort of statistical milestone. But, of course, the media did exactly that, not really caring much about the consequences of their reporting.

CNN also has another article on the families of loved ones who have been killed in Iraq called "He's not just another name on the list." This is absolutely true, none of those servicemen and women should ever be treated as another name on a list. This past summer, at Arlington National Cemetary, there was on display "Faces of the Fallen," an extremely moving tribute to all those in the military who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. It consisted of an individual portrait sketch of each person who died. Most of them would also have notes from loved ones or complete strangers lying next to their portrait. Apparently it will be there until December 31, 2005, so I cannot recommend enough that everyone go see it. I guarantee you you will be struggling to keep from crying. It is in the "Women in War" hall (the big monumental looking building directly ahead at the main entrance to the cemetary.) For those of you who cannot make it to Washington, you can see a slide show of all the portraits at the exhibit's web site.

In any case, THAT is how you respectfully and poignantly commemorate the men and women who willingly went to Iraq or Afghanistan and gave their lives in battle. The way NOT to commemorate their sacrifice, or I suppose the way to do so if all you care about is making George bush look bad, is to pick a randomly selected number and call it a "grim milestone" in order to stir up controversy, achieve political goals and sell newspapers all at the same time. By focusing on nothing other than this "grim milestone" of 2,000, the media ensures that each of those 2,000 becomes just another statistic. People will become increasingly numb to overexposure to statistics and not care enough to take the time to learn about the people who died. To be fair to CNN and the Associated Press, their feature on Sgt. Kinlow and the other military families are mostly respectful, but it would be preferntial if they didn't immediately follow this up touting their artificially created "milestone" of 2,000 deaths. Some media outlets don't even bother taking as much time as CNN and the AP did to learn about the individuals who sacrificed more than most of us can even fathom.

Standing Up For Religious Rights in Belarus

2005-10-25T01:45:00.000-07:00

Vasily Yurevich, the administrator of the hugely popular New Life Church in Minsk was recently fined a third time in less than a year for using an "unathorized place of worship."
The administrator of the Minsk-based charismatic New Life Church, Vasily Yurevich, has been fined a third time for leading unauthorised worship. The latest fine is the massive amount of 3,825,000 Belarusian roubles (11,645 Norwegian Kroner, 1,488 Euros or 1,780 US Dollars), which is well over 10 times the average monthly wage in Belarus. The official text of the local court decision, which has been seen by Forum 18, relies upon police testimony – which Yurevich and congregation members strongly dispute - identifying him as the organiser of a Sunday service "by his outward appearance." New Life's Pastor Vyacheslav Goncharenko – who has also been fined for unsanctioned worship – insisted that the church would continue to meet for worship. It has also been denied state permission to turn a disused cowshed it purchased into a church building, on the grounds that it is technically a cowshed.
An earlier Forum 18 article, however explains the Catch-22 in which the congregation finds itself. They can't rent a building that would supposedly be deemed acceptable for worship, but the building they can buy they can't use because, well, it's not a church.

Prosecution of Vasily Yurevich is the main motivation for the December 30 warning, a copy of which has been received by Forum 18. Signed by vice-chairman of Minsk city administration Mikhail Petrushin, the document also notes that New Life Church has, “in violation of Belarusian legislation, held religious gatherings from September to December 2004 on premises not specially intended for such purposes.” After the church purchased the building in question - a disused cowshed - in 2002, all official agencies approved requests to change the designated land usage except for the religious affairs department of Minsk city administration. Without approval from this department, New Life Church was refused compulsory re-registration under the 2002 Belarusian religion law as soon as a November 16 2004 deadline expired

As a last resort, the 600-strong charismatic congregation has been using its cowshed for worship ever since being banned from renting a public 'house of culture' in September 2004. As Vasily Yurevich told procuracy officials in December, the church was earlier refused requests to rent public facilities by local administrations in every district of Minsk

The Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union notes that the New Life Church is not the only religious group to have been heavily fined for "illegal worship."

In separate cases, one Baptist punished for organizing “illegal” worship was able to overturn his fine in August, but two other Baptists have been fined.

The state has found it highly convenient to cloak the denial of basic civil rights in the excuse of bureaucratic red tape, but the denial of something as basic as the freedom to worship can not last forever. Let's just call it another crack in the increasingly shaky foundation upon which rests the Lukashenka regime.

Galloway Accused of Perjury, Accepting Kickbacks From Saddam Hussein

2005-10-25T00:52:00.000-07:00

For some more non-Belarus related news, one of the world's most vile human beings may be finally getting what's coming to him. The Senate released a report yesterday accusing British MP and terrorist sympathiser George Galloway of accepting more than $500,000 of oil money from Saddam Hussein through his wife and through his political campaign, Mariam appeal. Furthermore, he was accused of accepting vouchers for more than 23 million barrels of oil, which provided Saddam with $1.6 in illegal oil money. Even more, he was accused of perjuring himself before the Senate sub-committee to which he gave testimony in May. Remember that story, propped up by stories like this one, and this one and this one, and this letter to the editor, hecke we even got a book about it by none other than the world's most despicable human being himself, about how George Galloway went to Washington and stood up to the partisan Republicans like Norm Coleman? Oops. I guess he lied.

The Telegraph is feeling slightly vindicated after having lost a libel case to Galloway after the paper published documents discovered in post-war Iraq claiming much of the same charges against Galloway.

In April 2003 The Daily Telegraph found documents in Baghdad stating that Iraq had been supplying funds to him. Mr Galloway won the resulting libel trial. The case is being considered by the Court of Appeal.

The Telegraph article also has the most comprehensive detail of the movement of the money used in the kickbacks, including banks used and account numbers.

The report includes bank records showing a paper trail from Saddam's ministries to Mrs Galloway. It states that the Iraqis handed several lucrative oil-for-food contracts to the Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, an old friend of the Galloways. A month later, on Aug 3, 2000, Mr Zureikat allegedly paid $150,000 minus a bank commission of $20 from his Citibank account number 500190207 into Mrs Galloway's account at the Arab Bank in Amman.
The senate team also says that a $15,666 payment had been made on the same date to a Bank of Scotland account belonging to Mr Galloway's spokesman, Ron McKay. Last night Mr McKay said he had no recollection of the alleged payment.

The oil-for-food programme was designed to help Iraq's needy but was misused by Saddam to reward friends and allies. Mrs Galloway, 51, was asked by the Senate committee whether she or her husband had benefited from Iraqi oil sales. She replied: "I have never solicited or received from Iraq or anyone else any proceeds of any oil deals, either for myself or for my former husband." Mrs Galloway started divorce proceedings this year.

Mr Galloway would not appear before the sub-committee again but responded to 44 written questions. He again said that he had not benefited from Saddam's largesse. Asked whether Mr Zureikat had transferred oil profits to his account, he said: "No". Asked whether his wife or his associates, including Mr McKay, had received any oil profits, Mr Galloway said: "I have no knowledge of Mr Zureikat's business affairs."

Senate staff said at a press conference yesterday that they would send their report to Britain and Jordan for possible action against the Galloways and Mr Zureikat.

Three senior Iraqis in American custody, including the former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told the Senate investigators that the oil-for-food contracts were intended to benefit the British MP's political campaigns.

The report is being sent to Britain and Jordan for possible action to be taken against Galloway and his wife, but I say we indict him now for perjury. At the very least that will ensure we never have to see him in this country again or deal with his disgusting, self-aggrandizing promotional tours.

In Good Company

2005-10-24T23:30:00.000-07:00

Lukashenka and his regime are making friendly with some of the most interesting of regimes recently.

Belarussian Ambassador to Tehran Leonid Rachkov called for expansion of his country's scientific cooperation with Iran, IRNA reported.
During a meeting with Iranian Minister of Science, Research and Technology Mohammad-Mehdi Zahedi, Rachkov also welcomed promotion of bilateral ties in the fields of information technology (IT), electricity, environment protection and medical engineering.

How nice. Look who else they are getting friendly with these days.

Foreign ministers of Belarus and Venezuela Sergei Martynov and Ali Rodriguez respectively have discussed a possibility to arrange a meeting between the presidents of the two countries, Sergei Martynov told a briefing after the meeting with his Venezuelan counterpart.
The meeting between Alexander Lukashenko and Hugo Chavez ‘might be held either in Belarus or Venezuela depending of the schedule of the presidents,’ Sergei Martynov said. ‘This will be further discussed in detail. We have agreed that we will do our best to arrange the meeting soon,’ he added.

Today the two ministers have discussed the state and prospects of the development of the interstate cooperation including issues on boosting cooperation between the two countries at the international arena, establishment of a sustainable dialogue at the high and highest levels, extension of the trade-economic ties, creation of a full-fledged legal-treaty base of the bilateral relations.

No doubt they will be talking about the mean, imperialist West interfering in their peace-loving democracies. Perhaps Lukashenka will even learn a few new words, like "yanqui" and "gringo."

You can always tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps, and that applies on all sides in this case.

Congratulations To Lukashenka

2005-10-23T18:51:00.000-07:00

Reporters Without Borders have knocked Belarus down eight spaces to 152nd out of 167 countries in its annual survey on press freedom in countries around the world. That's a truly impressive accomplishment for Lukashenka and his thugs. Only two more years at that pace and Belarus will be solidly in last place, digging dirt to try to go even lower.

Ukraine, meanwhile, jumped up 26 spots from last year (pre-Orange Revolution) to 112 and Georgia comes in at 99. Congratulations to those two countries for yet another reason why democracy matters.

Lukashenka Invites People To Kick Him Out Of Office

2005-10-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

Lukashenka, in another attempt to prove how much the people of Belarus truly love him, recently stated that he won't run in next year's elections if the people tell him not to. I would strongly suggest Belrus take him up on his offer.
Today Lukashenka stated that he won’t withdraw his application at the presidential elections, unless the people ask him to do so. “I won’t withdraw my candidature myself. You must say: Lukashenka, it’s enough!” the head of the state told, addressing the dwellers of Loeu, during his working visit to Homel region.
But, obviously, Lukashenka doesn't really intend to step down because he doesn't intend to let the people tell him "enough," and he admits as much.

Alyaksandr Lukashenka said that he would curb “all attempts to destabilize the situation in the country”.

“We have a compact and stable country, though some people are trying to unbalance it. They are to fail, and nobody would divert us from the path we pursue,” A.Lukashenk said.

The "stability" line can only work for so long though. Someday, be it this year, next year or some other time in the future, Belarus wil say "enough," deciding that the stability excuse just doesn't cut it anymore.

Freedom Wins, Every Time

2005-10-22T17:32:00.000-07:00

We here at Free Belarus love freedom and democracy wherever it may arise. That is why we are particularly happy that our friends in Lebanon, following the release of the Mehlis report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, and the rest of the world, have seen in the clearest light the true consequences of years of Syrian oppression.

Most Lebanese, of course, knew who was responsible, as did the rest of the world. The significance of the Mehlis report is that, hopefully, the international community might now be prompted to do something about it. After years of turning a blind eye on the horrors of life in Lebanon, the international community can no longer sit idly by as Syria continues running Lebanon like it's own personal playground. For everyone in the international community who has said that certain people can't handle freedom, or who deluded themselves into thinking people like Bashar Assad can change to adopt liberal democracy, just because the international community says so, after years of getting his way, can not sit by knowing what we now know. The people of Lebanon knew who was responsible. The great potential of the Mehlis report, while providing support for the people in Lebanon, is to force those who pay lip service to the ideals of democracy and freedom to actually back up their words with action.

President Bush is taking the lead on stirring the international community to action. France, to its credit, is also taking the lead in drafting a UN resolution imposing sanctions on Syrian and Lebanese officials involved in the assassination. But this is why George Bush has potential to be remembered as a great president. People remember Reagan today not for the details of his budgets, or his Supreme Court nominations, but because when everyone else thought the Soviet Union should be allowed to exist, he thought otherwise. When no one thought Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria or any other of Moscow's playthings would ever see democracy in their lifetime, Reagan knew otherwise.

Years from now, people in and outside of America will look at Bush and remember him for suggesting the regions of the world that had been written off by the rest of the world could actually thrive under democracy. They won't remember the Harriet Miers nomination. They won't remember Cindy Sheehan. They won't remember excessive spending. They'll remember his presidency as the 8 years in which freedom found a home in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Georgia, Ukraine and who knows where else - all because he dared to suggest that freedom and democracy are God's gifts to everyone. To contrast this with the prevailing wisdom that has been emphasized the status quo for decades, here is the response of the Russian foreign minister.

For his part, the Russian foreign minister Sergy Lavrov said that his country desires "the victory of justice in the issue of assassinating Hariri," stressing the need of settling this problem in a way not to destabilize regional security.

Unfortunately, the quest for stability is what has brought us here in the first place.

Long Shot?

2005-10-22T00:48:00.000-07:00

Following up on that last post, I was reminded of this story that Publius linked to regarding last weekend's "Day of Solidarity With Belarus." Someone better get that general and tell him to get ready to change sides, because if this is any indication, there are far more people looking for democracy in Belarus than any outside observer suggests.

More than 100,000 citizens of Belarus have taken part in the Day of Solidarity on October 16. The action has been supported in many Belarusian towns and in many countries of the world. In this connection representatives of the civil society of Belarus proposed continuing holding Days of Solidarity with political prisoners, disappeared oppositionists, their families, independent journalists, with all who fight for freedom and democracy in Belarus, on the 16th day of every month. They called upon the Belarusians to switch off the light in their apartments on November 16, 2005 at 8 p.m., and to light candles of Freedom. “According to our estimation, more than 100,000 people have taken part in the action on October 16, and about 500,000 have been informed about it. It is very good for a start.

Estimates by sponsoring organizations are always inflated, but one gets the feeling that something has started that Lukashenka and his thugs will not have as easy a time beating back as they have in the past.

There Is Such A Notion As Human Dignity

2005-10-22T00:02:00.000-07:00

The New York Times had a revealing piece last week on the opposition movement in Belarus. It acknowledges many of the ingredients lacking in Belarus that would otherwise facilitate the spread of democratic ideas - a lack of newspapers and television stations. Nevertheless, what isn't mentioned is what has long been used as the reason why the people of Belarus wouldn't back an attempt to overthrow Lukashenka: this idea that because the government keeps wages high during times of unrest the people would continue to support him. This is, of course, nonsense.

"Lukashenko has exhausted the possibility of strengthening his power," said Aleksandr Milinkevich, a physicist who leads an improbable coalition of politicians and civic leaders mounting an even more improbable challenge in the election for president next year.
"Sometimes he thinks if he raises wages a bit, people will love him again, but not everything is measured by bread and salo," he said, referring to the salted pork fat that is consid ered a delicacy in this part of the world. "There is such a notion as human dignity."

The issue isn't that people still overwhelmingly support Lukashenka. The issue is fear, and as the downfall, sooner or later, of just about every dictatorship throughout history has shown, freedom has far greater endurance than does fear.

Belarussians, he said, are ready for a change in leadership, something suggested by opinion polls. The main challenge is to overcome people's fear of openly opposing Mr. Lukashenko's state.

The following exchange between opposition supporters and a military general is the most telling evidence that the primary obstacle to ousting Lukashenko is to show those who don't support him yet are afraid they're only a minority, that there are others who think like them as well.

"If 100,000 people come out on the streets, I don't think that the government will stand," he said. "One general, during an illegal rally in Minsk, said if you come out with 2,000, we will continue to beat you, as we have. But if we see that 100,000 come out in the street, then we will join you."

In his book The Case For Democracy, former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky breaks down the population of a dictatorship into three segments: the true believers, the dissidents and the doublethinkers. It is this last group, the ones who "no longer believe in the prevailing ideology, but who are afraid to accept the risks associated with dissent," that grows in number the more repressive a dictatorship becomes. As Sharansky said, "the number of true believers is always far smaller, and the number of doublethinkers much larger, than outsiders assume." The case has been the same in 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe, in 2003 in Georgia, in 2004 in Ukraine and probably right now in Belarus. That the excuse that the people actually overwhelmingly support Lukashenka is no longer being used is rather instructive.

Another Opposition Journalist Killed

2005-10-21T23:41:00.000-07:00

Another journalist opposed to the Lukashenko regime has been found dead under "suspicious circumstances."

A Belarusian opposition journalist has been found dead in suspicious circumstances, prompting EU efforts to find out if the incident represents Minsk's latest attempt to gag independent media in the country.

The body of Vasil Grodnikov, a writer on political and social affairs for the independent Minsk-based Narodna Wola newspaper, was discovered by his brother lying next to a telephone in his home in Zaslaul, near the capital, on Tuesday (18 October) morning.

The reporter's family claims he was murdered, saying his head and the wallpaper were covered with blood but with no signs of a break-in to the property, according to a statement forwarded to the Belarusian NGO Charter 97.

One western embassy in Minsk told EUobserver that an internal police report confirms the family's fears and states that Mr Grodnikov was killed by a blow to the head with a blunt instrument.

Lukashenka is running scared. Another sham election is coming up next year, and if Lukashenka's actions in the past year are any indication, he thinks a "color revolution" is possible in Belaurs - which means the rest of us should think so too.