Mexican elections: On September 6, Mexico’s Federal Electoral Court (TRIFE) declared right wing PAN candidate, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, the winner of the July 2 presidential election by a margin of just 243,000 votes (0.58%), out of a total 41 million votes.


Mexican elections
The Bolivian Constituent Assembly
Ecuadorian elections
Nicaraguan elections
Venezuelan elections
A Bilateral Trade Agreement on Investments with Uruguay is approved in the US
Meeting of the non-aligned countries movement
G–20 meeting
US elections – The debate about torture
French elections come closer
Elections in Sweden – Interruption of the social democratic era
Regional elections in Germany – a setback for Angela Merkel
News from the Middle East – Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Palestine ….
The crisis in Darfur
Military coup in Thailand
World Bank and IMF meeting in Singapore
The UN General Assembly – reforms and the promotion of decent work

Mexican elections

On September 6, Mexico’s Federal Electoral Court (TRIFE) declared right wing PAN candidate, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, the winner of the July 2 presidential election by a margin of just 243,000 votes (0.58%), out of a total 41 million votes.

Judicial appellations filed by the runner-up, Andrés Manoel López Obrador of the leftist PRD, requesting a recount of the votes were utterly ignored in spite of strong evidence of electoral fraud.

For two months the PRD organized demonstrations – generally attended by more than a million people–, including huge rallies in downtown Mexico City, an encampment on the Zócalo, the city’s central square, and a blockade of the capital’s main avenues in an attempt to put pressure on the TRIFE to recount all the votes

Yet to hold demonstrations in venues where they would obtain the most visible proved to be a nuisance to the population, the blockades in particular.

Calderón’s inauguration is due on December 1, when he will inherit a politically divided country and will have to rely on an alliance with the PRI –Mexico’s third political force in Congress– to govern.

The assembly chaired by López Obrador on September 16 deliberated in favor of the suspension of the mobilization and proposed a civil disobedience movement and non recognition of Mexican institutions, starting with not recognizing the legitimacy of the new president of the republic. The assembly proclaimed López Obrador as the president-elect and decided to swear him in as such and as the leader of a shadow government on November 20, a symbolic date since it marked the beginning of the Mexican Revolution in 1910.

Although the PRD is not a monolithic party, with all of its members fully committed to leftist positions, it does have, however, enough strength to sustain an efficient opposition against the new administration. Calderón, on the other hand, will have to govern with an alliance that will cost him the earth and that will have to be constantly renegotiated, a scenario which, compounded by the PRD’s opposition, promises him six tough years ahead.

A cleverer move by Calderón would have been to subscribe to the demands for a vote recount, for if that had occurred and confirmed his victory, he would have come out stronger from the process. Apparently, however, Calderón himself also doubted the fairness of the election and decided not to take any chances.

The irony at this point of the game is that those political sectors more to the left and linked to the Zapatistas, who campaigned for annulling the vote on the grounds that the PRD and the López Obrador candidacy did not represent any significant change in relation to the other parties and candidates, now recognize that the PRD’s electoral participation, the radical contestation of the Mexican electoral system and the September 16 assembly that decided for the establishment of a shadow government represent the most important political actions of the country’s history over the last years.

The problem is that right now no regret or self-criticism will remedy the situation. López Obrador was not sworn in as president because the right waged a fierce battle against him, beginning with the initial attempt to impede his candidacy, followed by a vile smear campaign, culminating in the fraud. The campaign in favor of the null vote on the grounds that all candidacies were “flour from the same sack” (birds of a feather) helped the right to elect Calderón. A different campaign might have contributed to the defeat of the right wing forces –and defeating the PAN and the PRI simultaneously would have meant a lot in view of the Mexican history. Even if a victory of the PRD did not entail the immediate and full acceptance and implementation of the Zapatista claims, these would surely advance more rapidly had they been able to overcome their sectarian stance in a country with more democracy and with a government more respectful of the social movements.

Read more in En rebeldía, López Obrador traspone el Rubicón
Political Crime and Incompetence – The Fraud in Mexico
Mexico’s Time of Troubles

The Bolivian Constituent Assembly

The beginning of the discussions to draft a new Constitution for Bolivia ended in a deadlock. The call for the election of constitutional delegates established a two-third majority to approve it, a point which was assumed by the opposition, represented by a minority in the Assembly, as the need to pass each item separately with, at least, two-thirds of the votes.

There was an attempt to strike a deal over the point under discussion, but no breakthrough was made because the indigenous and peasant sectors of the MAS adopted a position according to which a minimum two-third majority would be necessary only for the final vote on the whole of the constitutional workings and, should this requisite not be met in up to three voting sessions, a referendum would have the final word. For the approval of each of the Constitution’s paragraphs a 50% plus one vote majority would prevail.

One of the difficulties encountered by the new Bolivian administration stems from the government’s composition itself, for inside it there are those who are working too hastily and less carefully than the circumstances would call for to impose certain policies, as was the case of the minister of energy, Soliz Rada, who has recently adopted measures to accelerate the expropriation of Petrobrás, even at the expense of the good relations between the Brazilian and Bolivian administrations and of the ongoing negotiations. He ended up being dismissed by Evo Morales and was replaced by a new minister more attuned to president’s posture.

The opposition, faced with the decision by the MAS to carry on with the assembly’s proceedings, opted to abandon the sessions and organized a 24-hour stoppage against the central government in the states where it has a stronger political presence, and which are precisely those that voted in favor of the provinces’ autonomy at the constitutional assembly election: Beni, Santa Cruz, Tarija and Pando.

The answer was yet another mobilization by MAS supporters, who blockaded the roads that give access to the state of Santa Cruz, the strongest oppositionist stronghold, from the rest of the country to harm a traditional business fair, Expocruz, which is held at this time of the year.

The MAS also advocates that the Constitution be original and not derived. From a legal and formal point of view, an original constitution is the charter approved prior to the existence of a state as, for instance, following a declaration of independence or in the wake of grave political turmoil leading to the dismantling of that particular state. On the other hand, a constitution is derived when a country’s charter is reformed by building on the existing laws.

Bringing forth these two options in the Bolivian case is a political issue, for the core debate is the dispute over the economic, social, political and cultural model that the new constitution will offer the country. The opposition, represented by a traditional local elite with strong ties abroad, is resolved to keep the reform within certain boundaries. The Evo Morales administration, however, talks about “re-founding” the republic and embedding various nationalist aspects in relation to the economy and the exploration of natural resources. Its vision regarding land ownership and the agrarian reform also clashes with the elite’s vision, and the same occurs in relation to the ethnic question, extremely relevant in a country where most of the population is of indigenous origin.

Attempts to reach an agreement to allow the participation of all stakeholders in the discussions at the assembly are ongoing, since it would be politically negative for the right to sabotage the process Similarly, it would also be unacceptable that the minority held the power of veto over the decisions of the majority.

Read more in Acuerdo preliminar reanima Asamblea Constituyente boliviana

Ecuadorian elections

The first round of the presidential elections in Ecuador will occur on October 15 with ten candidates competing and, among them, only one woman: León Roldós Aguilera representing the Democratic Network and Democratic Left (RED-ID), which is preferred today by 20% of the electorate. Other contestants are Rafael Correa, from the Alliance Country (AP), a former minister of the economy, and a leftist nationalist, who is the second in the preferences with 19%; Cynthia Viteri, from the right-wing Social Christian Party (PSC), who has 9% of voting intentions; Álvaro Noboa, from the Institutional Renewal Party (PRI), an entrepreneur who was defeated by Lúcio Gutierrez in the last election in 2002, and who is presently the fourth with 9% too; Fernando Rosero, of the Ecuadorian Roldosista Party (PRE), in fifth with 4%; Gilmar Gutierrez, of the Patriotic Society (SP), the former president’s brother who also has 4%; Luis Makas, of the Pachakutik Movement – New Country, an indigenous leader whose group opted for running alone owing to the negative consequences of the alliance with Gutierrez in the last election, and who has 2% of voting intentions. In addition to these candidates three other candidates complete the list of contestants: Jaime Demerval of the Democratic Forces Agreement (FD) and former parliamentarians Luis Villacis and Marco Proaño.

The figures presented are of a Gallup poll which also points to the existence of 49% of undecided electors. Still it seems the second round will be between social-democrat Leon Roldós and Rafael Correa, who self-defined as leftist and is a friend of President Hugo Chávez’s of Venezuela.

Read more in an interview with Ana María Larrea (Razões internas sustentam candidatura indígena de alto risco) and Nuevo cambio en el tablero electoral ecuatoriano.

Nicaraguan elections

The electoral campaign in Nicaragua was set off in late August and, besides a new president for the country, 90 representatives to the national congress and 20 representatives to the Central American Parliament (PARLACEN) will be elected.

The election is due on November 5, and if no candidate reaches the 50% plus one vote threshold there will be a run-off election. There are five registered candidates:
Daniel Ortega, of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), who is the front runner in the polls with 31.4% of the preferences of a possible total of 3.4 million voters;
Eduardo Montealegre of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance – Conservative Party (ALN), a dissidence of the traditional Liberal Party that is ruling the country today through President Enrique Bolanos and who has 29.1% of the electorate’s preference;
Edmundo Jarquin Calderón, of the Sandinista Renewal Movement Alliance, who replaced Herty Lewitis, the former mayor of Managua who died in the beginning of July. The candidate of the Sandinista dissidence is presently in the third place;
Jose Rizo Castellón, of the Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC), is in the fourth place, and;
Edén Pastora, the famous “Commander Zero”, who has been a Sandinista, a liberal, a conservative and even a “contra”, is in the fifth place, with 1.1% of voting intentions.

With the exception of the last candidate, who has very remote chances of being elected, what characterizes this contest is the fact that several candidates might win the election. In spite of the emergence of a dissident Sandinista Front Party, Daniel Ortega still holds the lead in the electorate’s preference and, notwithstanding the fact that he has been trying to soften many of his past political positions and even tried to build an alliance with the PLC a few months ago, the possibility of his winning the election is still frightening many local and international economic agents.

A couple of weeks ago, members of the American-Nicaraguan Chamber of Commerce proposed that the remaining candidates united around a single candidate to be chosen by means of a public opinion poll, an idea rejected by all of parties involved.

Read more in Comienza la campaña electoral, ¿habrá segunda vuelta?.

Venezuelan elections

These are scheduled to happen on December 3, and President Hugo Chávez is running for reelection. The opposition unsuccessfully tried to gather around a single candidacy, possibly because the evaluation is that Chávez would be hard to defeat and this way all have a chance of participating in the political debate. Several candidates stepped forward, but the strongest is the governor of the state of Zulia, social-democrat Manuel Rosales. Recent polls, however, attributed 58.2% of the votes to Chávez if the election were held today.

Another theme driving Venezuela’s foreign policy today is a coveted seat at the United Nations Security Council for the 2007-2008 term. Some of the seats are rotating and distributed by continent. In this case, Venezuela is wrestling for the position against Guatemala and is said to have gained wide support in Latin America, Asia and the Arab countries.

Read more in Chávez suma votos para entrar al Consejo de Seguridad.

A Bilateral Trade Agreement on Investments with Uruguay is approved in the US

The US-Uruguay bilateral trade agreement on investments, signed at the Summit of the Americas in November 2005 in Mar del Plata, was ratified by the US Senate last September 12. This is the same proposal that had been negotiated during the Jorge Battle administration, which, however, was unanimously approved by Uruguay’s Chamber of Deputies with 84 votes in the last week of 2005. Yet, ratification instruments are still pending definition prior to the agreement’s coming into force.

According to US government officials, “the bilateral agreement will help to promote prosperity for both countries built on economic and trade relations”. Currently the US is Uruguay’s largest commercial partner, and US direct investments in the country in 2004 amounted to US$ 533 million.

This kind of agreement broadens investor interest since gains are further hedged against unanticiapted local policy changes. Yet the disadvantage is that the treaty also establishes that US investors in Uruguay will be able to resort to the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as the controversy solving organism, constraining the Uruguayan state’s sovereignty with regard to determining its domestic investment rules.

At present another Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is being negotiated. Despite the resistance put up by trade unions, the Uruguayan left and even by some entrepreneurial sectors contrary to the signing of an FTA with the US, the Uruguayan government has announced it will move forward, although that might not necessarily mean reaching an agreement because Uruguay won’t be given any additional advantage than those offered by the US to Colombia and Peru, much closer countries from a political perspective. Besides, depending on the content of a possible agreement, Uruguay will have to withdraw from the Mercosul in order to prevent ‘triangular trade’.

While the Frente Ampla keeps on reaffirming its opposition to the FTA model conceived by the US as part of a strategy to leverage the FTAA in the rest of the continent by means of bilateral trades, Uruguay’s President Tabaré Vázquez announced that, in virtue of the controversy, he will be the only spokesperson on the theme since in his words “the exploratory negotiations tend toward a potential agreement to increment trade with the US”.

For more, log on to the Frente Ampla’s site.

Meeting of the non-aligned countries movement

The XIV Conference of the Movement of Non Aligned Countries was held in Havana, Cuba, from September 11 to 16. Today this international association of countries counts among its members with 117 countries from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The only European country to take part is an Eastern European country: Belarus.

The movement’s origin is an initiative by rulers Nehru from India, Sukarno from Indonesia and Nasser from Egypt to call for an African-Asian Conference of newly independent countries, which was held in Bandung, Indonesia, on April 18–24, 1955 with the participation of 29 heads of state. Brazil attended as an observer.

The Bandung Conference approved ten principles that included the defense of right to the self-determination of the peoples and the fight against imperialism and neo imperialism. It also approved the creation of the Non Aligned Movement seeking to bring together countries that have rejected the then two-only alternatives of automatic alignment with either the American or Soviet imperialism. The movement’s first conference was held in Belgrade, former Yugoslavia, in 1961.

The present conference marked a moment of revitalization of the movement, particularly with regard to the discussion on the kind of the opposition to be adopted against the new world order as preached by the US and on the possibilities of greater South-South cooperation and integration. It also issued a condemnation of the Israeli attack against Lebanon.

For Cuba this was a good opportunity to attract world attention and for acting president Raul Castro to present the country’s positions with reference to the themes under discussion. Many of the government officials present were able to visit Fidel Castro, who is still convalescent.
Read more in Movimiento No Alineado busca unidad sobre conceptos fundacionales and at the movement’s official site.

G–20 meeting

This was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on September 9 and 10. Besides the G–20 members, the meeting hosted the coordinators of various interest groups working within the WTO, which can either be permanent as with agricultural negotiations or ad hoc as is the case with the elimination of subsidies to cotton.

These groups are:
– the G–33 represents countries whose interests lie primarily with agricultural negotiations but which at the same time have a significant share of their populations dependent upon subsistence agriculture and therefore claim for special treatment in case of trade liberalization of agricultural products;
– the ACP, which represents former European colonies in Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific which have been granted certain trade preferences and subsidies by the European Union;
– Relatively Less Developed Countries, the African Group and Cotton–4, and;
– NAMA 11, composed of some G–20 member countries who refuse to make any trade concessions on non agricultural products, among them Argentina, South Africa and Venezuela.

Attending the meeting were also government officials from the US, Japan and the European Union, in addition to the WTO Secretary General, Pascal Lamy.

The meeting was held under the initiative of the Brazilian government, which coordinates the G–20, in an attempt to jump start world trade negotiations after the deadlock in the ambit of the Doha Round, and the failed negotiations that took place in late June.

The reason for the lack of consensus is the European stubbornness to reduce its export- driven farm subsidies and its restrictions on the importation of agricultural products, as well as the American refusal to reduce its domestic farming subsidies.

No new development occurred in the Rio de Janeiro meeting, despite the various contacts chiefly with officials representing the developed countries present. Expectations were high with regard to a possible restart of negotiations between upcoming November and March next year because this period is demarcated by the American parliamentarian elections and the beginning of the discussions over the new Farm Bill.

There are two political factors at present that might prompt some change in the American posture and, in turn, pressure European negotiators to be more flexible. The current American Farm Bill allows the Bush administration to grant domestic subsidies to US farmers of some US$ 40 billion. In practice, they are subsidizing approximately US$ 22 billion and have thus offered at the last WTO meeting to cut subsidies by half, that is, reduce them from US$ 40 billion to US$ 20 billion!

For more, visit the official site of the G-20 and the Brazilian G–20 site.

US elections – The debate about torture

Less than two months away from the elections to the US Congress, a research sponsored by newspaper The New York Times in partnership with TV network CBS revealed that most respondents disapprove of the parliamentarians conduct and that 75% of the population believes that seat-holders do not deserve to be reelected. This same probe showed that the popularity of President George W. Bush is still flat at 37%, figures which have persisted since last August. Also, 50% of voting intentions were for Democrat candidates against 35% of voters who intend to vote for the republicans.

The striking finding of the poll was an increase in the number of respondents (from 30% to 37%) who approve of the way the war in Iraq is being conducted. Yet ever more supporters of the war effort and GOP members try to dissociate their image from the president’s and his disastrous campaign in the Middle East, with an eye on the upcoming November 7 elections.

Bush’s strategy to strengthen his party through an agenda targeting security issues had initially suffered a setback with the senate’s reaction to his bill on military detentions. The White House proposal established that the courts to be set up in Guantanamo would not need to comply with the Geneva Convention minimum legal protection requirements. Additionally, the use of evidence with no material proof obtained through coercion would be allowed and make conviction possible without granting the defense access to the records.

The Senate’s first reaction to the contents of Bush’s proposal came from the Republicans themselves through the members of the Armed Forces Committee, Senators John Warner, Lindsey Graham and John McCain (a veteran of the Korean War, who was captured and tortured during that conflict). Instead of supporting the bill, the group produced a new bill that, however flawed it still is, would enable the establishment of courts in Guantanamo in accordance with the standards of the US Supreme Court.

Yet in the end, the Senate and the House, Republicans and some Democrats, reached an agreement whose content is similar to the exceptional laws enforced in the US only during the Civil War and the two world wars. They thus sanctioned the Military Commissions Act of 2006, or the Detainee Bill, whereby the president of the United States defines who is an “enemy combatant”, how long he/she will be detained and the forms of interrogatory to which they may be submitted provided these do not cause permanent physical or psychological damage. Third party testimonies will also be accepted.

The bill which is also being dubbed the Torture Bill by the opposition also forbids “gravely” disrespecting the Geneva Convention and sets that defendants won’t be able to claim it was disrespected during the trials. Habeas corpus was suspended for military detainees.
These proposals were approved in the senate by 65 votes in favor against 34 nays and, after a similar result in the House, were sent to the president to be sanctioned.

It’s a return to the Middle Ages. The use of torture to extract confessions and enable convictions, also used by the Holy Inquisition, started to be abolished in Europe during the XVIII century Enlightenment, almost 300 years ago! Yet with the ongoing electoral campaign, the Bush administration is striving to show the electorate that the republicans are defending the country against terrorists, unlike the democrats. That’s why some democrats have pragmatically supported the proposals to avoid being seen as less concerned with the country’s security than the republicans.

It was precisely as a function of this effort that Bush confirmed the information that the US government had kept detainees in CIA-run secret prisons abroad, and that he intends to transfer them to Guantanamo. With that, Bush and his aides expected to raise public opinion’s sympathy for the republicans’ side, but what he accomplished was to create a very embarrassing situation to some of his European allies, who will now have to explain to their citizenry to what extent they supported the Americans’ illegal maneuvers.

On the occasion of the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly, the US president built his speech on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to address the theme, when referring to a post terrorism world. Yet it seems his administration is not familiar with the whole content of the document, starting with article 5 which reads that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

For more information, check out the results of the poll mentioned and read A Fear of War Crimes Tribunals and Impeachment – Why Bush Really Came Clean About the CIA’s Secret Torture Prisons.

French elections come closer

Three years ago, France’s President Jacques Chirac achieved considerable popularity at home and abroad for having led the opposition against the war in Iraq. The disastrous unfolding of the war proved him to be right. Yet a series of domestic political crises may have tainted his legacy as he completes his 12th and last year in the post.

Chirac, who last visited Washington in November 2001, declared he was not bothered by the fact that conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of the Interior and candidate to next year’s elections, had received a statesman reception on his visit to the United States for the ceremonies in memory of the September 11 victims. On the occasion, Sarkozy met with Bush and his closest advisors.

Both belong to the same political party, the “Union for a Popular Movement” (UMP), in the coalition that is presently ruling France. Despite not being close to his minister, Chirac stated that Sarkozy’s visit to the US had been his request and that the conservative is an important member of his government. The kindness was not returned by Sarkozy who, without naming him, criticized the French president, complaining about the attempts to embarrass an ally by mentioning his government’s positions. His pro US speech also made reference to the US’s robust economy and rich cultural life, a rather unusual point for a Frenchman to make.

Chirac’s candidate was, until recently, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin who lost ground in the presidential race as the result of the disastrous way in which he had handled protests by students and trade union against the First Employment Bill he tried to implement, and his later involvement in as yet unconfirmed accusations against Sarkozy.

According to opinion polls, in the upcoming French presidential elections Sarkozy might have to compete with Ségolène Royal, a member of the Socialist Party and a former minister in the socialist administration. This is, however, the scenario desired by the country’s press, and which will not necessarily be followed the socialists.

To raise her chances in April 2007, Royal will have to cope with infightings and the aspirations of five or six of her colleagues including former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius. The also former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin had demonstrated some interest, but ended up withdrawing his pre-candidacy. The party primaries are scheduled for the upcoming month of November.

This is a pluralistic party, in which various political tendencies act, and that, quite often, even with regard to major decisions, has learned to live with conflicting positions. For example, in the French referendum on the European Constitution the party split up. While its chairman, François de Hollande, who happens to be Sègoléne’s husband, supported the adoption of the constitution, other party leaders such as Fabius campaigned for the no, which eventually came out victorious in the referendum.

The socialists have a good chance of winning both the presidential and the parliamentarian elections, due a short while later. However, in addition to having to untangle the internal fight over the nomination, the party will also have to define its government platform in light of a public opinion which is showing itself ever more xenophobic with regard to the European Union and immigrants, two key topics in the present situation.

Elections in Sweden – Interruption of the social democratic era

Fredrik Reinfeldt, Sweden’s opposition leader, saw his center-right coalition come out victorious in the country’s general elections, putting an end to twelve years of social-democratic governments. His main campaign banner was a proposal to diminish taxes and pare the welfare system as a way to fight unemployment, currently one of the electorate’s main causes of concern.

Reinfeldt and the opposition bloc led by his Moderate Party obtained a slight advantage over the social-democratic prime minister, Goran Persson, and his allies of the Green Party and the Communist party (48.1% of the votes to the moderates against 46.2% to the social democrats), which however allowed Reinfeldt to announce to his supporters: “The Swedish people have voted in an alliance government”.

The Swedes, who also elected 349 members of parliament, have one of the world’s most onerous tax burdens, and even though most of the population trusts the well-established welfare system, were sensitive to a reform platform.

The election was closely followed by governments of other European countries who also face problems caused by the population’s aging and its impact on public health and pension systems. In spite of Sweden’s strong economic performance under the social-democratic administration, opinion polls showed that voters favored changes in the country of little over 9 million inhabitants, which were underscored by a strong campaign by the right against the coalition headed by Persson.
The Moderate Party was defeated in 2002 elections, yet Reinfeldt managed to boost his party’s prestige and appeal, bringing it more to the center and advocating changes in both the tax system and benefits offered. His alliance, which includes Liberals, Christian Democrats and the Party of the Center, sustained that “years of benefits in excess and high taxes had corrupted the will of the Swedes to work”.

His intention is also to sell some 200 billion Swedish krona (US$ 27.6 billion) worth of shares the government holds in some companies. His list might further include the privatization of bank Nordea, of telecom TeliaSonera and of airline company SAS.

Besides that, Reinfeldt defends Sweden’s entrance in NATO should there be some sort of European agreement on that and wishes the country to be more involved in the European Union, though not having presented any plan of holding a referendum on the adoption of the euro in the next four years.

It is expected that the new government, which will be sworn in on October 6, will work more closely with neighboring Denmark, whose Liberal Party recently won elections with the same platform.

For more, read “Sweden begins new era of centre-right government”.

Regional elections in Germany – a setback for Angela Merkel

Outranking Condoleezza Rice, Angela Merkel was voted the world’s most powerful woman in 2006 by Forbes magazine.

Seen as a conciliator in the international arena, Merkel has impressed world leaders, especially those composing the coalition headed by the US and the UK. Striving to revive the German economy, the Chancellor has been promoting closer relations with the US, bearing in mind the effect that may have on the trade balance, with bilateral annual trade above US$100 billion.

Yet less than one month after having been voted the most powerful woman in the world, Angela Merkel endured a harsh defeat in the German regional elections held on September 17. Her popularity in the international sphere did not translate into votes at home. Her party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), had its worst result since its foundation in 1949, staying 9 percentage points behind the SPD’s social-democrats.

According to opinion polls, the popularity of the CDU has fallen dramatically as a reflection of a plan to raise taxes, harshly criticized by entrepreneurs, and a plan to reform the German health system.

Meanwhile, Berlin’s social-democratic mayor, Klaus Wowereit, was reelected by a comfortable margin and the far-rightwing National Democratic Party (NPD) obtained 7.3% of the votes in Mecklenburg, Western Pomerania, winning six seats in the state parliament. Merkel’s electoral base has become the fourth German state to have an NPD representation after Bremen, Brandenburg and Saxony, this last one also boasting a representation of yet another far right party, the DVU.

One of Germany’s poorest regions, with a higher than 18% unemployment rate, Mecklenburg’s votes have confirmed a tendency which has been causing concern to analysts. The still persisting differences between the economies of the old Eastern and Western sides become plain to see in the effect far-right platforms have over the less prosperous part of the country.

For the rest of the year and early 2007, Angela Merkel has ahead of her the challenge of strengthening her party’s and her own positions, as next year Germany assumes the rotating presidency of the European Union in the first semester, with the expectation of rekindling the debate on the European Constitution, and the chairmanship of the G–8 in the second half of the year.

For more, read “The 100 Most Powerful Women – #1 Angela Merkel”

News from the Middle East – Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Palestine….

At the time of this edition, there remained 20% of Israeli troops to withdraw from Southern Lebanon, where more than 5,000 UN peace-keeping troops had already been deployed. The air and sea blockade against the country was only lifted a short while ago. Even so no significant armed incidents had been reported except for those on the first days of the cease-fire when Israeli commandos launched raids against the Bekaa Valley.

Today, Lebanon’s political forces are concerned with the reconstruction of the country and the recomposing of its political system. The recent Hezbollah celebration in Beirut on the victory against the Israeli aggression was a show of strength with the objective of neutralizing Lebanese political sectors more sensitive to the pressure made by the US and the EU to disarm and isolate the group. The next step will be to broaden its space in the government which today is limited to two ministries and 14 seats in parliament, despite its supreme leader, Hassan Nasrallah, having reiterated that he does not intend to disrupt Lebanon’s political unity, which is built on assigning key posts in the government to representatives of the main ethnic and religious groups.

In Israel, opinion polls demonstrate that the present government coalition would not be reelected if elections were held today, and would be replaced by the right represented by the Likud, possibly in composition with Yisrael Lieberman’s far right. Unfortunately the criticism is attributed to the military failure in the recent campaign against Lebanon and not to any other more down-to-earth reason, which is yet another demonstration of the long road ahead before peace can be reached.

On the other hand, in Palestine the Al Fattah, which today is a minority party in the parliament, resumed its political offensive by proposing a popular referendum on the recognition of the state of Israel and by supporting a peace plan elaborated by illustrious Palestinian political prisoners as Marwan Bargouthi and others from the Hamas, which also implied this recognition. However, a massive Israeli military offensive against the Gaza Strip, which killed 291 people in the course of the months of July and August under the justification of a Palestinian attack at a border patrol position and the kidnap of a soldier, eclipsed any peace initiative.

A new attempt by the Palestinians to try and break the isolation imposed by Israel, the US and the European Union, including a financial embargo on the Palestinian Authority, was announced by chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the form of a coalition government composed of Al Fattah and Hamas. Yet, today’s premier who is from Hamas, Ishmael Haniyeh, says he won’t join a government that recognizes the State of Israel.

The theme has, in practical terms, been superseded, for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which is the forum of convergence for all groups, had already manifested this recognition at the time of the Oslo Agreement. Sure, statements to the contrary spark tensions and constitute excellent breeding ground for radicals on the other side. Still, those who have the obligation of spearheading peace initiatives are those who have more to offer, in this case Israel and its allies.

In Iraq, by acknowledging the fact that the number of fatal casualties in the country has mounted to more than 5,000 per month, it becomes evident that there is a civil war going on. The debate in parliament, inconclusive this far, is over a proposal for the federalization of the country which has the support of the Kurds. These see in the proposal a possibility for the creation of an independent state, Kurdistan, a hypothesis rejected by neighboring Turkey, where the Kurds have fought for autonomy for centuries. The Sunnis, who have lost the power they had with Saddam Hussein’s defeat, oppose the idea, for the areas they inhabit are largely poor and desert-like.

In sum, there are no short-term prospects of a solution, aggravated by foreign intervention and the military occupation by the United States.

Iran, in turn, has rejected the ultimatum by the United Nations Security Council to suspend its uranium-enrichment program and endeavored in a an effort to create alternative international relations, as the recent visit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela and Cuba, before attending the opening ceremony of the UN’s General Assembly.

The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed El Baradei, accused the government of the United States of exaggerating its evaluation of the actual capacity and true intentions of the Iranian government of building atomic weapons, echoing the unfounded charges the US made in regard to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

The last drop was spilled by Pope Benedict XVI with his prelection in Germany, where he made a series of negative considerations regarding the way Muslims spread their gospel in the Middle Ages which, understandably, raised protests from Middle East citizens and country governments.

At any rate, tensions persist and the greater share of responsibility for the situation lies with foreign interference.

For more, log on to the International Middle East Media Center, read IRAN: Tough Bargaining Ahead Over Nuclear Issue, and information on the reconstruction of Lebanon.

The crisis in Darfur

In Periscope 3, we commented the fact that, after the signing of an agreement between the government and the SLALSM last May, rebel forces contrary to the peace accord had united in the National Redemption Front, led by Ahmed Diraige, the former governor of Darfur.

Thus continues the conflict in the Darfur region, where more than two million people have fled their homes to live in refugee camps. Another estimated 300,000 people took refuge in Chad, while the total number of fatal casualties remains elusive with estimates pointing to 500,000 people, dangerously closing the gap with the 800,000 estimated victims of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

The African Union (AU) had already brokered a cease-fire in April 2004, which was a non starter. The monitoring group composed of UN, AU, US and EU representatives had no better luck.

The AU peace forces, composed of just 7,000 poorly financed and ill-equipped men, saw the end of their mandate to carry out a peace mission in late September. Their deployment in Darfur, an area about the same size of France, was prolonged until December 2006 by the UN, which also approved at the General Assembly to reinforce African troops with 100 communications officers, in addition to supplying equipment. The Arab nations have also pledged –in the same forum– to provide financial means for the operation.

Ghana is presently presiding over the United Nations Security Council and it is expected that the African country may use its position and seize the opportunity to galvanize the support of the international community to raise Darfur’s importance on the agenda.

However, the greatest obstacle remains the refusal by the president of Sudan, Omar Al Bashir, to allow an international, non African peace-keeping force to enter the country with a UN mandate, a position that he has managed to sustain with the support of China’s and Russia’s abstentions at the Security Council.

In spite of his attending the UN General Assembly, the Sudanese president was little receptive to calls for allowing the entrance of the UN troops into the country. Bashir declared that the international mission would entail the re-colonization of the country and that he, should it be necessary, would resign and join resistance forces.

For more, see Periscope nº 3 and read SUDAN – a Nation Divided.

Military coup in Thailand

Though disputed by France and England during the XIX century, Thailand is the only country in Indochina which was not colonized by European powers, unlike its neighbors Myanmar, Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia, which were under British domination; Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, colonized by the French, and Indonesia, colonized by the Netherlands.

Thailand, which was known as the Kingdom of Siam until 1948, is a parliamentarian monarchy. The present king, who is called Bhumibol Adulyahed, is 78 years old and is descended from the Chakri dynasty, which has occupied the throne since 1872.

During the Cold War, Thailand was a strong supporter of the United States –when it even came to be an important base for the American troops fighting the communist insurrection in Laos between 1961 and 1975­–and developed a strong military position amidst the conflicts in Indochina between the 1950s and the 1980s.

The military have always had a strong participation in the country’s political life. The 1991 coup –in a succession of 17 since the first one in 1932–, which instated parliamentarianism, lasted just over one year. From 1992 until today, Thailand has practically been the only country in the region to boast a western style democracy, which was just disrupted with the latest coup that deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on September 19, when he was attending the opening ceremony of the UN General Assembly.

The new “strong man”, who has the support of the king, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin. The justification for the coup would have been a rise in corruption practices during the Shinawatra government, a millionaire entrepreneur who is known for his centralization of power and arrogant attitudes, which rendered him great antipathy in the country’s urban centers. His family, for instance, sold the shares they held on a large telecommunications company, Shin Corp, to a Singaporean investor without collecting taxes. Besides, he had tried to promote army officers with close ties to him at the expense of career officers.

The military closed congress, but not the political parties, established censorship on the media and banned any political partisan activity. General Sondhi has affirmed that the military will stay in power for a maximum period of one year, the time needed to form a new government and draft a new constitution.

This may indicate that one of the reasons for the coup was to impose a more authoritarian constitution with regard to politics and a more liberal one with regard to the economy, since the 1997 constitution in force is considered the most democratic in history, having been drafted on the basis of a wide-sweeping process of public consultations, something rare in the country.

Despite the promise of a quick return to normalcy, we know what this kind of attitude can lead to. What is interesting to observe is the fact that, regardless of some concerns expressed by western governments over the events, there were no vehement condemnations as there had been on other occasions.

World Bank and IMF meeting in Singapore

Created in the post war period to guarantee worldwide monetary stability and provide credit for the European reconstruction and development, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, organizations set up by the Bretton Woods Agreement, are going through an identity crisis.

Refusal on the part of many countries to negotiate new loans and follow their recommendations is raising questions regarding these institutions’ legitimacy and role. This was the backdrop to the joint IMF/World Bank meeting held in Singapore. Customary protests were suffocated by the government, which even forbade activists and NGO representatives from entering the country, including those invited by the meeting’s organizers. Their alternative was to promote a parallel meeting in Batam, Indonesia.

As the most significant outcome of the meeting of more than 180 officials from member countries a change in the IMF decision-making system was announced, a historical claim by the social movement and the organizations monitoring the Fund’s activities.

Though constituting the IMF’s largest reform in history, the attribution of a higher voting weight to China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey has had little effect on the organization’s decision making, since the power of veto of these four countries will grow by a mere 1.8%.

Since IMF decisions depend on 85% of the votes to be approved, in practical terms the actual power of veto still lies with the United States, which retains 17% of the total, with the changes bearing little effect on the democratization of the processes. On the IMF Board of Governors, for instance, which has a total of 24 seats, Africa only has two, while holding 4.4% of veto power. The G–8 has 48% of the IMF votes and 47% of the World Bank’s. Latin America had 7.7% of the votes and very little is to change with an increased Mexican share.

In anticipation to criticisms against these cosmetic changes, the IMF announced that by 2008, in the second phase of the overhaul, it will adjust the votes of emerging economies and poor countries.

Brazil supported the readjustment of the four countries power of veto weights, but proposed the adoption of a new criterion to calculate the participation of each member country built on PPP (purchasing power parity), which was rejected by the IMF Director General, and former minister of the economy in the Aznar administration in Spain, Rodrigo Rato, with the support of the developed countries.

Brazil and 49 other developing countries questioned the plans for the second phase of the reform process advocating that they do not reflect the real participation of these economies in the world market. In Latin America’s case, according to data provided by CEPAL, in the 2006-2007 two-year term, the continent will grow at a 7% pace, the highest rate after China.

Social activists are right in calling for a broader reform to address the fact that decision making within the Bretton Woods’ institutions is not democratic, and even less transparent, and only serves the interests of a small group pf developed countries.

Read more in World Bank-IMF annual meetings 2006 civil society boycott, governments feud over corruption and votes.

The UN General Assembly – reforms and the promotion of decent work

During the run-up to the General Assembly, the UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, who is about to leave his office, released a report assessing the activities of the organization in 2005 which includes a proposal for a UN reform and the suggestion to include four new targets for the 2000 Millennium Goals.

According to Annan, the measurement of the world’s poverty and development levels would only be complete with the inclusion of the concepts of decent work, whose importance has already been underscored within the International Labour Association (ILO) and the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), of access to HIV/AIDS treatment, of pre natal treatment, and of an assessment of biodiversity loss.

The inclusion of the concept of decent work meets a long-standing demand regarding the targets, in which the question of development would entail focusing in some way on the question of employment and income generation.

The organization is expected to continue tackling other questions pending from the 2005 World Summit and some new themes such as the reform of the United Nations Security Council, a follow-up to the work aiming at the accomplishment of the development goals agreed upon at an international level, renewed efforts to protect the environment, the international convention on terrorism, preempting armed conflicts and the revitalization of the General Assembly.

Another important discussion will be the appointment, by recommendation of the Security Council, of the UN’s eighth Secretary General. There are several candidates, but those appearing to have the greatest chances today are the South Korean Ban Ki – moon and the Indian Shashi Taroor.

However, and despite the need and the goodwill of many, overhauling the UN so that the organization as a whole, and the Security Council in particular, may reflect the reality of 2006 and not that which existed in 1945 when they were created, is no easy task.

In addition to attending the opening session, traditionally carried out by the Brazilian president, President Lula also participated in the inaugural ceremony of the International Drug Purchase Facility (Unitaid), the fruit of efforts made by the Brazilian government and the governments of France, Norway and Chile. By taking an effective role in this debate and with the publication of the good results obtained with the investments in the country’s social policies, Brazil has risen to a prominent role in the international scene with regard to alternative mechanisms to finance development and combat hunger and poverty.

At present, in addition to being actively engaged in the discussions on the theme in the scope of the United Nations, Brazil also coordinates the ongoing work in the area of Poverty and Development of the Helsinki Process, an initiative by the governments of Finland and Tanzania that discusses ways to approach globalization- and democracy-related issues.

For more on this issue, read President Lula’s speeches at the opening session of the United Nations’ General Assembly and at the inaugural ceremony at the International Drug Purchase Facility, the provisional agenda of the 61st General Assembly Session, “Mudar a ONU é quase impossível” by Paul Kennedy in newspaper O Estado de São Paulo, September 24, the Report of the Secretary General on the work of the Organization in 2005, and the Helsinki Process.