Inauguration of new presidents in Latin America, the São Paulo Forum, the Mercosul Summit, Mexico, United States, Guantánamo, french elections, Darfur, Somalia, South Africa, and the World Social Forum in Nairobi are some of the issues on the february ediction. Read more


Inauguration of new presidents in Latin America
Is there a leftist alternative surfacing in Paraguay?
The São Paulo Forum
The Mercosul Summit
Mexico
United States – Bush’s new tactic
Guantánamo: five years of activity
2007 – a crucial year for the European Community
French elections: candidacies are practically defined
News from the Middle East
Darfur
Somalia
South Africa’s upcoming elections
The incoming UN Secretary-General’s first steps
The UN Report on Global Warming
Chirac proposes creation of new environmentalist organization
Control over the Internet and the International Telecommunication Union
World Social Forum in Nairobi

Inauguration of new presidents in Latin America

In addition to President Lula, who began his second term on January 1, between the 10th and the 15th, also took office, in this order, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, the two last ones being the newest members to join the continent’s progressive and leftist governments.

To ensure the continuity of this process of political advance in the region the only positive result still pending is connected with the Argentinean presidential elections due in the second semester of 2007. President Néstor Kirchner himself, or his wife, Cristina Kirchner, who was elected senator two years ago, will race in this election against the right.

Chávez was sworn in to his third consecutive term, which ends in 2013, pledging to adopt measures to implement a socialist regime in Venezuela. His first action proposals compose the strategy that he intends to pursue to transform the Venezuelan reality.

Venezuela is the world’s fifth largest oil exporter, yet the country has a startling concentration of wealth and an alarming number of people living below the poverty line. As with most oil-exporting countries, its economy is not diversified and relies almost exclusively on oil production.

The country’s right-wing political parties are demoralized and the traditional left is split over supporting or opposing Chávez. The overwhelming majority of the traditional trade unions went to the opposition and lost their social and political intervention capacity, since they were extremely dependent upon the State previously. That without mentioning that the majority of the population is in the informal sector of the economy and was never represented by them.

So far, the government’s platform entails the following axes:
– to strengthen the social policies currently being implemented, like those in the area of education, health, sanitation, housing, solidarity economy, and the popular discussion “mesas”(tables), among others;
– to nationalize power and telecommunications services;
– to create a new political party, the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela, and obtain the authorization from Congress to rule by decrees in several areas, as the nationalization of companies, for a period of 18 months. The authorization, called the “Lei Habilitante” (the Enabling Law) was approved on January 31;
– to uphold the foreign policy, stressing both south-south relations and relations with oil-exporting countries.

The right and the international media have treated the proposal to nationalize the two sectors mentioned as an extremely serious case, apart from declaring that Chávez intends to rule by decree in a single-party regime.

The foreign policy, besides underscoring the nationalist stance of his administration, is also designed to tend to a concern of Chávez’s which is that of thwarting abrupt crude oil price drops, given the fact that it is this commodity that represents the source that funds Venezuela’s internal social policies and the aid it provides to some other countries, Cuba for instance. There are even studies evaluating the possibility of charging differentiated retail gasoline prices at the pump depending on size and age of the automobile. The problem is that such measure deepens the problems stemming from export dependence on a single primary product, not to mention its consequences to other countries, they themselves dependent upon oil imports.

At any rate, regardless of the right’s screaming, we’ll have to wait to see whether the implementation of a regime in which state economy prevails over the market and the political organization of the people attains hegemony over the State will be possible. The main challenge is diversifying the economy and, thereby, building broader social organization tissue.

Ortega and Correa began their terms under much tougher conditions. The former by assuming the presidency of Latin America’s second poorest country in alliance with sectors of the Nicaraguan right, by not holding a majority in Congress and by having to come to grips with the American presence, which has always been stronger in Central American that in the rest of the hemisphere. Given the circumstances, Daniel Ortega laid out a moderate government program whose efficacy in meeting the electorate’s expectations is still to be confirmed.

Rafael Correa, on the other hand, reaffirmed in his inaugural speech the political and economic positions defended during the campaign, particularly his intention to convoke a Constitutional Assembly to define a new constitution for the country. In the Ecuadorian political framework, in which the right has the upper hand in Parliament and in the Judiciary branch, the Constitutional Assembly constitutes an imperative toward the country’s democratization and modernization, with 75% of the population supporting the initiative.

In the first round the political coalition that elected Correa opted not to launch candidates to parliament, betting that the poor image of that institution with the country’s public opinion would strengthen arguments in favor of a new constitution. Therefore, it has no representatives in Parliament, with the exception of only one female member of parliament who belongs to the Socialist Party, which supported Correa in the second round.

The majority parties in Congress –the PRIAN and the PSC– oppose calling a Constitutional Assembly; in favor are the Socialist Party and the Patriotic Front of former president Lucio Gutierrez, this last party seen as a nuisance by Correa because it was founded under the banner of convoking a Constituent Assembly, a proposal the Front later quit only to opportunistically revive it now.

Hence, Correa’s bet is that the traditional parties’, institutions’ and politicians’ poor image will contribute to foster a strong popular mobilization that will convince Parliament to convoke the Assembly without imposing restrictions. For now, the strategy is working, though, apparently, there is no plan B should the call fail (Read more in Presión social por la Asamblea Constituyente).

Is there a leftist alternative surfacing in Paraguay?

Paraguay is one of the few countries in South America where the left has practically never had any electoral clout. The only practical experience was a rather pragmatic term of office by Carlos Fillizola, a former health-sector Unitarian Central of Workers (CUT) leader, who was mayor of Asunción in the mid-1990s.

The history of the Paraguay’s development has as its highlights a war waged against the country by its two big neighbors (Brazil and Argentina plus smaller Uruguay) in the late 19th century, which cost the country dearly; the fact that Paraguay is an eminently rural country, which did not undergo a substitution import process; the signing of the Yaciretá and Iguaçu Treaties with Argentina and Brazil for the construction of two hydroelectric power plants over whose tariffs it has no control; and the fact that it was one of the last countries to re-democratize after a 35-year-old brutal dictatorship that only ended in 1989.

The Stroessner regime had a puppet political party –the Colorado Party–, which was deeply involved in the State apparatchik and the public service, and which is, to date, the country’s hegemonic party. Parties that occasionally place themselves in the opposition, as the Liberal Party and the Febrerista, have never managed to outweigh the Colorado Party in the elections. Whenever there are more fierce contests over a particular post in any political sphere of the country, they generally only involve members of the Colorado Party.

There is, however, a movement in civil society called “Citizen Resistance”, involving unions, peasant organizations, landless people’s organizations, NGOs and sectors of the Catholic Church, among others, that have been trying to organize in order to present itself as a political alternative.

For the first time ever a presidential candidacy representing these social sectors and with good electoral prospects seems to be emerging in the person of the progressive former Catholic bishop of San Pedro Sula, Fernando Amindo Lugo Mendez, heading a movement named País Possível (Possible Country).

Mendez is being pressured by the right and by the high hierarchy of the Catholic Church, including the Pope himself, not to renounce the clerical life. Yet, early in January, Fernando Lugo announced that he would quit his cassock to run in the 2008 elections and try to promote a government of social justice. Today he would have the preference of 42.5% of the electorate against 37.3% of the incumbent Paraguayan president, Nicanor Duarte, who cannot run for a second term, though he spoke of changing the Constitution to allow his reelection.

This may be the beginning of an important contest, one which is to be followed by and have the support of the Latin-American left.

The São Paulo Forum

The XIII São Paulo Forum meeting was held on January 12–14, in El Salvador, where it gathered leftist parties from 33 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as some guests from other continents.

The debates held through seminars and plenary sessions focused on a basic document that contemplated four main axes:
– the formulation of anti-neoliberal politics;
– the fight against colonialism and imperialistic interventionism, and for the resolution of armed conflicts;
– the fight against militarization, and;
– the relation between political parties and social movements.

An important political debate over the present Latin-American and Caribbean reality concluded that neoliberalism still retains the hegemony, although threatened by the rise of popular struggles and the electoral results favoring the continent’s left and progressive sectors, not only at the federal levels, but also in states and municipalities.

Also, gender- and ethnic-related themes were singled out, particularly the concern with violence against women and the defense of the rights and integrity of indigenous peoples.

The Cuban Revolution got the Forum’s member parties’ unanimous support, while the blockade imposed by the US on that country was repudiated.

In the action plan approved are included initiatives such as the creation of a monthly electronic newsletter, of a hemispheric political education school and an electoral watch, besides the organization of a political-cultural festival. A resolution was also approved to the effect that members of the Forum should have policies targeting the youth and the promotion of arts and culture. Building on the discussion about the relations with the social movements, held in partnership with representatives of the Hemispheric Social Alliance during last year’s Social Summit in Cochabamba and again in El Salvador, a proposal was brought up to request the inclusion of the Forum in the World Social Forum’s International Committee with the status of observer or full member- ­whichever is possible-, given the fact that it is a network of political parties.

The event was closed at a stadium in San Salvador with a public ceremony in homage to Shafik Handal, an important FMLN leader who ran in the country’s last presidential election, and passed away last year.

The Mercosul Summit

The Mercosul Summit was held on January 18-19, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, preceded by expectations of the approval of two important measures: the incorporation of Bolivia as a Member State and the elimination of the American dollar as the exchange reference currency in the commercial transactions within the bloc.

There was no consensus over Bolivia changing its status of Associated State to Member State before its foreign tariffs are harmonized with the TEC –the Common External Tariff– despite the precedent of Venezuela’s accession without the adequate tariff adjustment either. A motion was passed to create a Working Group to address the issue.

In the case of the direct exchange of local currencies, a procedure that is expected to eliminate costs in the bloc’s trade operations, discussions between Brazil and Argentina have advanced considerably, a decision being made to implement a bilateral regime before extending the new system to the other member countries.

An update report was given on the advanced stage of negotiations aiming at the establishment of trade agreements between Panama and the Mercosul, as well as with the Gulf Cooperation Council, which represents several countries bordering the Persian Gulf.

The presidents reaffirmed their cooperation in the fields of human rights and education and their commitment to overcoming asymmetries, mainly economic, between the smaller and bigger countries of the bloc. There is an expert meeting scheduled to deal with this last theme in the upcoming month of April. The meeting also approved the first projects to be financed by the Mercosul Fund for Structural Convergence and Strengthening of the Institutional Framework (FOCEM), in particular a program to combat foot-and-mouth disease in the region.

Prior to the presidential meeting was installed the Mercosul Consultative Forum for Municipalities, Federated States, Provinces and Departments. The Forum replaces the former Expert meeting for Municipalities and Intendancies (REMI), and may turn out to be a relevant body for the participation of local authorities in the construction of the Mercosul, mainly for those local governments organized in the Mercocities Network (Rede Mercocidades).

Resolutions approved at the Mercosul Social Summit, held in Brasilia in December, were presented at the meeting by Brazil’s CUT Trade Federation president, Artur Henrique dos Santos, and welcomed by all presidents, who expressed their commitment toward backing the realization of the social summits at the next presidential summits.

The next pro tempore presidency will be exercised by Paraguay and, coincidentally, the summit also approved the inclusion of Guarani, a language spoken by 80% of Paraguayans, as yet another official Mercosul language.

Mexico

Calderón’s administration had a bad start. Apparently to compensate for his lack of legitimacy, he decided to govern in an authoritarian way, and has been pushing for even more radical neoliberal adjustments than his predecessor, Vicente Fox.

His latest measure was to increase the price of corn flour, a basic staple in the elaboration of tortillas, Mexicans’ main food. Mexico’s corn production was devastated after the coming into force of the NAFTA in 1994, unable to take on the competition posed by the cheaper imported American corn due to Uncle Sam’s Farm Bill subsidies. Hence, the Mexican government is forced to pour in its own resources to avoid an unsettling tortilla price hike.

There have already been some initiatives by trade unions to organize demonstrations to protest the measure.

Meanwhile, the Oaxaca committee on the violation of human rights concluded that 23 people were killed during the conflict –and not just the eleven officially recognized–, plus tem others who were seriously injured and/or raped. The committee also confirmed the involvement of gangs in support of repression.

Governor Ruiz is still at the head of the Oaxaca state government precisely because of the support he receives from the federal administration, particularly that from the federal police force.

United States – Bush’s new tactic

As mentioned in issues 9 and 10 of the International Periscope, the Iraq Study Group (ISG) made recommendations on how to mitigate the problems brought about by the war in Iraq, which are basically the use of diplomacy and the reduction of the presence of American troops on Iraqi soil.

Bush, nonetheless, and in spite of Robert Gates’ nomination as Secretary of Defense to replace outgoing Donald Rumsfeld, announced his decision to scale up the number of American troops in Iraq, in an address to the nation made on January 11, by sending 20 thousand new soldiers. His political tactic is to escalate the war and, if possible, involve Iran in the conflict (Read the non-official transcription of Bush’s statement).

Even among those who support the war the measure is regarded as a mistake since, according to military analysts, 20 thousand additional troops are insufficient to stand up to the hardships of the present stage of civil war in which Iraq has been engulfed.

Meanwhile, the new Democratic majority in Congress passed a motion, with no practical effect, condemning Bush’s announced measure. As argued by Senator Chuck Schumer (Dem – NY), this is the first step to convince those senators and representatives that supported Bush and the war before to act more consistently.

On January 22, the day before President Bush delivered the traditional State of the Union address1, Bush’s popularity, according to CBS news opinion polls, had reached a new record low –only 28% of the population approved of his administration while 66% said they were against sending more troops to Iraq and 33% reckoned the war is the country’s biggest problem today (Read more about the CBS News polls, Bush’s official address and video and the Democratic Party’s response and video by Senator Jim Webb).

In the meantime, tensions between the United States and Iran keep mounting. In late January, it was disclosed that President Bush had authorized a few months earlier the use of “lethal force” against Iranian agents in Iraq. And a week before his address, American military troops stormed into an Iranian representation office in northern Iraq.

The greater part of the American media has, however, focused its coverage on the controversial statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Israel and the Holocaust, as well as on speculations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Some investigative reporters, however, have insisted that the Bush administration shows clear signs of willing to go to war against Iran.

In January 2005 and again in April 2006, Seymour Hersh, a reporter for the New Yorker magazine, wrote about some covert operations carried out in Iraqi territory by American military personnel stationed in Afghanistan. He drew attention, too, to the then ongoing studies inside the Pentagon, in cooperation with Israel, on potential operations against military targets inside Iran, supporting local opposition groups and possible air strikes against sites where Iran conducts its nuclear program.

Hersh felt compelled to write because such operations, which are usually carried out by the CIA, are being planned and executed by “special forces” and, therefore, do not require that Congress be informed as, theoretically, would happen in CIA operations (Read more of Hersh’s article).

Many other newspapers, magazines and internet weblogs are, like Hersh, delving into the issue. Internet news publication Raw Story published an updated timeline on the Bush-Iran relations. Though Bush labeled Iran as a party to the “axis of evil” back in 2002 for allegedly backing terrorism and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, efforts designed to trigger a conflict with that country began long before that.

The story reveals that as far back as 1992, a group that included vice-president Dick Cheney (at the time Bush Senior’s Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (the incumbent president of the World Bank) and Zalmay Khalilzad (the current US ambassador to Iraq and slated to become the American ambassador to the United Nations) wrote a secret document proclaiming that the US should be the only superpower in the world, specifying the need to prevent and block the existence of regional competitors, Iran included.

Such doctrine was later updated in 2000 in a document titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, published by the neo-conservative think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This group was created in 1997 with the objective of promoting America’s leadership in the world, and the war in Iraq is seen as the first step in that direction.

Former PNAC members were appointed to key functions in the Bush administration. Also joining the already mentioned Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz and Khalilzad are John Bolton, ex- US ambassador to the UN, Francis Fukuyama to the president’s bioethics council, Donald Rumsfeld, former secretary of defense, and many others in military and diplomatic posts.

In March 2006, the most recent US National Security Strategy document listed Iran as the US’s number one threat, not only because of its nuclear weapons, which still do not exist, but also due to Bush’s accusation that that country was the world’s leading terrorist supporter. The Bush administration has been making a point of repeatedly connecting Iran to the September 11 attacks, and is accusing that country of giving asylum to people and organizations involved in the attacks.

In the State of the Union Address, President Bush made his position clear. Among his statements: “These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.”

Should Congress fail to act firmly and annul the authorizations the president was granted to initiate military actions (in September 2001 and October 2002), and vote against increasing the military budget that the Executive just presented, the Bush administration will feel it has enough authority to expand the intervention in Iraq and initiate military actions against Iran, even without Congress’s approval for yet another war whose justification was artificially engendered.

1 – The State of the Union address is delivered by American presidents every month of January, usually at a joint session of Congress. Since 1966, the opposition party makes an official response/commentary address.

Guantánamo: five years of activity

Perhaps the date was randomly chosen, but the announcement of new troops being sent to Iraq was made by President Bush on the same day that the prison in the American military base in Guantánamo, Cuba, completed its fifth year of operation.

The prison, built in 2001 and set in operation in 2002, has been used to confine, so far, 775 suspects arrested by the American executive branch for allegedly having ties with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, all classified as enemy combatants who, nevertheless, are not entitled to the rights provided for by the Geneva Conventions. The detainees are sent to Guantánamo without any legal support and, according to many denunciations, are submitted to all kinds of physical and psychological torture.

According to November 2006 data, of the 775 prisoners, 340 were released, leaving 435 people in the compound, of which, 110 have already been considered eligible to be released, and only 70 will have the right to a trial. The remaining 250 are incarcerated until further notice.

The UN incoming Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has declared himself against the prison facility and stated that Guantánamo should be closed down. Many demonstrations around the world marked this grim anniversary.

According to Amnesty International, the base “has come to symbolize the hypocrisy of the promises made by the United States in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, where there should reside respect for human dignity and the Rule of Law. Torture, humiliation, discrimination, fraud in courts and disregard for binding obligations entered into under the provisions of international treaties, everything happens in almost complete impunity”. Amnesty International has a special web page with information about the prison and campaigns for its closure.

2007 – a crucial year for the European Community

During the period beginning on January 1 and ending in June 2007, the presidency of the European Union will be in the hands of Germany, which has set itself the challenge of rekindling the European Constitution of October 2004 a signed by the EU member countries. Although by Dec 2006 it had been ratified by Germany, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta, it was only approved by popular vote in Spain and Luxembourg.

With the accession of Bulgaria and Rumania to the bloc at the beginning of this year, the European Union now has 27 member countries.

Many analysts view Germany’s self-imposed task as a mission impossible. The ratification process by the member countries was temporarily suspended after it failed to win the support of the majority through the popular consultations of 2005 in the Netherlands (June 1) and France (May 29).

The main argument against the charter is that it does not tackle the concrete problems Europe is facing in relation to problems such as global warming, globalization and immigration. Those advocating a stronger European Constitution than the document under appreciation further propose that the president of the European Council should be elected and that the bloc should have a Foreign Relations Minister to facilitate intervention in times of international crises.

Additionally, the EU faces the challenge of consolidating the participation of its 10 new members -those who joined the bloc in 2004-, while concentrating efforts on aligning both Bulgaria and Rumania with the group’s standards before approving the entrance of new members.

Turkey has been holding negotiations to join the EU since October 2005, with very slim chances, though, of entering the bloc before 2015, according to analysts, in view of the sweeping economic and social reforms it needs to undertake. Also, its occupation of Cyprus and its limited European territory have long been a cause for a certain resistance, which is further compounded by the assassinations of Armenians by the Turkish ultra-right nationalist group Grey Wolves, as with the recent assassination of a journalist.

Croatia too is considered a candidate to accession to the European Union although, according to projections, this will only be possible in 2010, negotiations due to end in 2008 or 2009; and Macedonia, despite Greece’s reservations.

Besides the Constitution, other priorities of the Angela Merkel administration at the presidency of the EU are economic growth, job generation, promoting gender equality, climate change and immigration and asylum policies for foreigners.

The German EU presidency innovated by drawing up the area’s programme jointly with Portugal and Slovenia, the two next countries in line to preside over the EU, and thus guarantee the program’s continuity (Read more about the UE programme Jan 2007–June 2008).

Apart from presiding over the EU, Germany is leading the G8 in 2007, and a German was elected to head the European Parliament. Conservative Christian Hans-Gert Poettering, of the same CDU party as Angela Merkel, received 450 of the 715 votes in the election held in January 2007.

This should therefore be a key year for Merkel after her 2006 popularity ratings fell and translated into her defeat in the German local elections.

The Constitution issue is not expected to be settled before 2009, but there is great interest with regard to the steps the German stewardship will propose to reignite the debate.

French elections: candidacies are practically defined

The French Socialist Party decided in the closing months of 2006 that MP Ségolène Royal will be the party’s candidate to the 2007 presidential election, and the far-right National Party, as always, should launch Le Pen if he manages to be discharged of a legal problem concerning his accounts in the last campaign.

The right-wing Unity for a Popular Movement (UMP)party chose Nicolas Sarkozy through a single-candidate primary, one third of registered voters not turning out, including incumbent president Chirac.

Parties more to the left tried to come up with a single candidacy from the French political sectors which campaigned for the victorious “No” in the referendum on the European Constitution. Discussions revolved around the launching of Jean Luc Melanchon, former minister of professional training of the Leonel Jospin administration and the leader of one of the Socialist Party’s internal factions that campaigned for the “No”, in spite of the party’s official position for the approval.

Yet, many have not resisted the temptation of launching candidacies which, with limited chances of victory, allow participation in the political debate and make their parties known. Those who have already launched their candidacies are: Olivier Besancenot of the Revolutionary Communist League; Arlete Laguiller of the Workers’ Struggle; Gerard Schivardi of the Workers’ Party; Marie-George Buffet for the French Communist Party; and the last one was José Bové for the Anti-liberal Alliance. Together they represent little more than 10% of voting intentions, but may turn out to be decisive to Ségolène’s candidacy in a seemingly unavoidable second round.

The margin separating Ségolène’s from Sarkozy’s voting intentions is slim. He seems set to capture the votes of Le Pen’s extreme right in a second round scenario, representing today some 18% and enough to place him ahead of the Socialist Party’s candidate, who would probably have the votes of the left. All will depend on to what extent the French electorate will engage in the campaign and turn out to vote, especially the electorate to the left of Ségolène.

The definitive candidacies should be officially announced in April, provided certain legal requisites, such as written support for a candidacy by a minimum of 500 mayors –a provision which might hamper the freelance candidacy of Bové– are fulfilled.

News from the Middle EastTo say that the situation in the Middle East is deteriorating is, truly, a repetition of previous Periscope commentaries. More and more the context offers fewer alternatives in the short term, mainly because of the American strategy to escalate the war in Iraq and, if possible, drag Iran into the conflict.

In just one terrorist action, on Feb 3, in a Shia-inhabited region of Iraq 135 people died, prompting conclusions that the authors were Sunnis, the political hegemonic community during the Saddam era.

Saddam was hanged on Dec 30, 2006, after a trial marred by irregularities sentenced him to death for the massacre of a group of Shias when he was president. The ruling was swiftly ratified by a higher court, which established a 30-day deadline for the sentence to be carried out.

Although he still had to be tried for other crimes, as the attacks and deaths of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons, there was a political decision to execute him the faster the better. He was under American custody and was handed over to Iraqi security forces, controlled by the Shias, who conducted his hanging.

The horrific scene of his hanging and of the insults made by his executioners crossed the world almost instantly, and if the intention was to eliminate a reference to the rebel sectors and curb their angered impetus, the effect was the opposite. Violence just keeps on increasing (Read more in “The consequences of killing Saddam” and in “Bush: Saddam execution looked like revenge killing”).

In Palestine too the conflict proceeds between Hamas and Fattah members. The former has a majority in Parliament, while the latter has the presidency of the National Palestinian Authority. The threat made by President Mahmoud Abbas of calling new parliamentary elections was responded with more violence, and the number of casualties and wounded is soaring.

In Lebanon the deadlock also continues. Daily protests organized by the opposition against the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora –with some fatal casualties reported– have occurred uninterruptedly for two months now, with protesters calling for parliamentary elections to recompose the government.

Lastly, the popularity of the two most important members of the Israeli government –Prime Minister Olmert of the Kadima Party and Minister of Defense and Labour Party member, Amir Peretz– shows no signs of reversing a continuously falling trend. Not even the inclusion of the far right in the cabinet has contributed to reverse the unpopularity brought about by the defeat in the military incursion into Lebanon, in addition to social problems stemming from previous neoliberal adjustment programs, which have not as yet been tackled.

Besides the lack of popular trust in the government, Israel’s president, Moshe Katsav, who plays a merely ornamental role, is being accused by four former women staffers of sexual harassment and rape. He had to step down from the post and is to go on trial. Olmert quickly proposed his replacement by a seasoned politician, Labour’s Simon Peres, in yet another attempt to build alliances.

In sum, there is a shortage of actors with the required capacity to deal with the full dimension of the conflicts.

Darfur

Atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region persist despite the negotiations held and the several frustrated accords signed between the government and the non-Arab ethnic guerrilla groups late last year. Not only do the actions by the Janjaweed against the non-Arab population continue, but also the federal government’s air strikes against their villages.

The agreement previously reached by the central government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) was undermined by the death in a plane crash last month of SPLM top leader, Dr. John Garang, who, as part of the agreement, had been appointed Vice-President, and who could have contributed to a peace deal in Darfur as well.

There were attempts to approve UN resolutions condemning the Sudanese government, but the commercial interests of several countries, particularly of China, prevented any relevant resolution from being approved. The UN decision was simply to authorize an increase in the number of African Unity troops in the country, and to undertake a new investigation into the incidents, despite their widespread coverage and the 200,000 deaths, two million refugees and three million people depending directly upon international aid (Read more in “Good intentions and sad results”).

As a result, Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al – Bashir was passed over for the second time for the post of Secretary-General of the African Union, at a recently-held meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where John Kufuor, the president of Ghana, was elected.

Somalia

Somalia, together with Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea, form the region known as the Horn of Africa, which was colonized by England and Italy. It is a historically divided country, split into regions where different ethnicities predominate, though the majority of them follow Islam.

Independence was achieved in the 1960s, when Colonel Siad Barre became president of the country, a post he occupied until 1991 through an authoritarian single-party regime. During the first half of his government, Somalia allied with the socialist bloc. Yet when he attacked Ethiopia in 1976 to try to occupy the mostly Somali-populated Ogaden region, the Ethiopians received support from Russian military advisors and Cuban troops. Having been defeated, Barre breaks up with the bloc.

The end of the Siad Barre era in 1991 marked also the end of a centralized government in the country and the rise of local clan and ethnic governments, who started fighting each other under the leadership of warlords. During the Clinton administration, American troops, purportedly under humanitarian reasons, intervened in the country in an operation that did not last long after 17 marines got killed while the world watched their bodies being dragged across the streets of the capital Mogadishu.

After 15 years without a central government, only recently some clans started to gather around more orthodox Islamic principles and created a militia called the Union of Islamic Courts, which managed to dominate several regions of the country, including Mogadishu.

The Bush administration, however, on considerations that the coalition was a potential Al – Qaeda ally, wove an alliance with the main warlords, formerly enemies of America, and with the support of the Ethiopians forced the militias of the Islamic Courts to withdraw from Mogadishu, and installed a new central government. American planes were used to back the coalition by bombing southern parts of the country.

The situation, however, is far from settled. The warlords lack the unity and legitimacy required to rule the whole country and cannot count on the permanent presence of Ethiopian troops. The Islamic Courts, whose tactic of withdrawing from the capital has left their power intact, are backed by Eritrea, an arch-rival of Ethiopia, against which it fought for years to obtain independence.

Besides, Somaliland, an important region of the country which seceded and formed an autonomous and democratic government system, bears no relation to the groups fighting today. This region is economically more advanced than the rest of the country and surely will not give up its accomplishments peacefully (Read more in “Destabilizing the horn”).

South Africa’s upcoming elections

Founded in 1912 and a symbol of the anti-apartheid struggle in Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) is today South Africa’s majority ruling party, occupying the country’s presidential office and governing all the provinces. In alliance with the South African Communist Party and the COSATU, the country’s largest trade federation, the ANC took power with Nelson Mandela in the 1994 presidential elections.

This year the ANC will hold its annual conference on the eve of the 2009 presidential elections. Thus, whoever is chosen the next ANC president might become too the party’s presidential nominee or, at least, wield enormous influence on the selection process.

Thabo Mkebi, the country’s president in his second term after succeeding Mandela in 1999, has been the ANC president since 1987. By the Constitution, only one consecutive reelection is permitted, but there are sectors within the party who advocate a third term, which would entail a constitutional amendment –theoretically, not very hard to accomplish since the ANC alone holds 2/3 of the votes required in Parliament.

However, to propose such a change would take a higher degree of internal consensus, which is presently more difficult to achieve since three candidates aspire to replace Mbeki at the party presidency, one of them being Jakob Zuma, the incumbent vice-president of the republic.

Many believe that Zuma –who, for lack of evidence, has just been judicially discharged from an accusation of rape– would set up a more left-leaning government. The dispute involving ANC candidacies even sparked in-fights during the COSATU congress over the composition of the trade federation’s executive board.

The two other names running for the ANC presidency are those of Tokyo Sexwale, an entrepreneur, and of Cyril Ramaphosa, a historical party member and an anti-apartheid champion, today acting as a financial sector investor, who lost the party’s presidential nomination in 1997 to Mbeki.

The unfolding of that process should galvanize everyone’s attention not only because of the importance it has for the African continent, but also in terms of the ever closer bilateral relations between South Africa and Brazil.

The incoming UN Secretary-General’s first steps

As mentioned in the previous issue of our Periscope, Ban-Ki Moon took office in late 2006 to replace Kofi Annan at the head of the United Nations.

The eighth UN Secretary-General went on his first international journey in late January to meet with leaders of the European Union in Brussels. The agenda focused on global issues such as the Balkans, the crises in the Ivory Coast, Somalia and in Darfur, Sudan, climate change and human rights.

Next, Ban-Ki Moon made his first visit to Africa, where he declared that the situation in Darfur is one of his main priorities at the moment.

On his visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Secretary-General met with president-elect Joseph Kabila and praised the country’s electoral process before attending the African Union Summit in Ethiopia, where he met with the Sudan’s President Omar el-Bashir.

Yet, despite his first public commitment toward solving the problems in Darfur, there is little hope that he will mobilize UN peacekeeping forces in greater numbers or even attempt to engage member countries of that African organization in local actions.

Ban-Ki Moon is a South Korean career diplomat known for keeping a low profile. Thus it is very unlikely that, as he starts his tenure, he will make any far-ranging decisions.

The only concrete proposal made so far by the new secretary-general involves the reformulation of the UN peacekeeping area, given the growth in the number of missions. Ban-Ki Moon’s suggestion is to separate the department in two distinct divisions, but few details regarding the proposal have been disclosed.

The UN Report on Global Warming

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released, on Feb 4, its fourth report containing the assessments conducted by the group since it was installed in 1998 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in partnership with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN body too.

This fourth update drew attention for the alarming tenor used to address the issues of climate change and the role of mankind in increasing the greenhouse effect and the subsequent warming of the planet’s temperature which, according to the study, will rise by up to 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century.

In the 2007 report it is also stated that human activity has a 90% probability of being the main cause of global warming over the last 50 years. In the third report, released in 2001, human activity was responsible for 66% of the change.

The first report was concluded in 1999 and played an important role in the establishment of a negotiating committee so that the UN General Assembly could create the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992 and enacted in 1994. The second report, made public in 1995, produced key elements leading to the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

It is expected that the release of the current document will be useful to policymakers in addressing, mainly, the problem of the increasing use of fuel fossils, the greatest cause of the gas emissions that result in warmer temperatures.

The president of the United States, George W. Bush, despite his close ties with the oil industry, stated that his country will reduce consumption of gasoline by 20% over the next ten years, by investing in biofuels, following the example set by the Brazilian government’s well-succeeded programs.

The IPCC is open to the participation of all WMO and UNEP member countries. Today, 2,500 scientists from over 30 countries form the group that conducts the analyses and reviews scientific materials on the theme.
Also participate in the IPCC working group international organizations, NGOs and governmental bodies.

The work is divided into 4 groups:
Group 1 – scientific basis
Group 2 – impacts, adaptation and vulnerability
Group 3 – mitigation
Group 4 – expert group for the inventory of greenhouse gas emissions.

Group 4 is coordinated by Brazilian Dr. Thelma Krug, of the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) and by Japanese Dr. Taka Hiraishi (Read more in the report’s summary “Climate Change 2007 – the physical science basis”).

Chirac proposes creation of new environmentalist organization

Last December President Jacques Chirac of France disclosed a proposal to create a new environmental organization within the framework of the United Nations to be named the United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO).

The proposal was laid out after Chirac met with the organizing committee of the Paris Conference for Global Ecological Governance, which the French government will host this February.

According to the president, the conference, which is to have the participation of representatives from some 60 countries and many international non-governmental organizations, will present an “inventory of the global situation of the environment and its alarming degradation, and […] proposals for internationally accepted priority policies”. Still according to Chirac, the Paris Conference will serve as a stage where “many countries may declare that they want the UNEO [to have] the material resources necessary to act and ensure respect for certain rules {which are] essential to the conservation of the biosphere”.

It has been reported, however, that South Africa, China, India and Brazil are against the creation of the new organization. What’s more, many believe that the proposal is being raised at this moment so as to reflect upon the general elections in France due next April and May.

Though his proposal dates back to 2002, the mandate of the new organization was never clearly defined while certain of its tasks are already performed by organizations such as the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a few other secretariats charged with the monitoring of, for instance, Environmental Multilateral Agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.

Although Chirac was elected president in 1995 and reelected in 2001, his chances of winning the contest are very slim not only because of his age –he is 76– but especially because his popularity is very low in the opinion polls. Besides, his party has already nominated Nicolas Sarkozy for the next presidential elections.

Regardless of the electoral motivation and the criticized lack of clear goals, some activists see the idea as an important step toward improving environmental conservation. According to Susan George of the Transnational Institute, in an interview to IPS news agency, “UNEP is nothing more than a mediating body, lacking the financial means and mandate to act in a concrete way. Sooner or later, a global organization to deal with the environment will have to be created”.

Control over the Internet and the International Telecommunication Union

The new secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Hamadoun Touré, announced soon after he took office in mid-January that his agency has no intention whatsoever of running the Internet or challenging its control by the Icann (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a nonprofit organization which, nevertheless, reports to the American government’s Department of Commerce.

Touré was elected last November after defeating Brazilian engineer Roberto Blois, and replaced Yoshio Utsumi at the helm of the agency, which has 191 member countries and approximately 640 private-sector members.

His statement was made in response to the proposal made by Brazil, India, China, Iran, Cuba and other developing countries that the Internet control be democratized and made by an international entity within the scope of the United Nations, like the ITU.

The Brazilian proposal was raised in 2003 and was the object of much debate at the World Summit of Information Society, held in Tunisia in 2005. Pressured by the Americans’ opposition, the UN created a working group that on its first meeting, in November 2006, did not even discuss the theme.

Touré affirmed that his organization would not be the adequate forum to fulfill such role because it lacked the necessary resources, and expressed a concern that Internet governance still lacked conceptual definiteness. According to him, his tenure at the ITU will focus on improving cyberspace security and on facilitating access to the network as a means to bridge the gap between poor and rich countries.

The theme of security was raised by the United States under claims that the Internet may also become a tool for the organization and action of terrorist groups.

Since March 23, 2006, six days after the war in Iraq began, Iraqi sites, among them the government’s official site and the country’s UN mission site– all duly registered at the Icann– have been taken off the air without any explanation whatsoever.

The US-backed Iraqi government new web page contents in Arab and English.

World Social Forum in Nairobi

The VII World Social Forum was held in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital, between Jan 20 and 25. The choice for the African continent sought to accomplish several objectives such as broadening the engagement of the African social movement in the process and, although one of the vertices of the 2006 polycentric forum was the city of Bamako in Mali, it was also crucial to engage Eastern Africa more, given the rather different political and cultural realities that distinguish the continent’s Anglophone and Francophone countries.

Surely the African presence broadened; yet to a lesser extent than expected. Some blamed the registration fee which, though only US$ 5 for African participants, was still expensive, as were and are plane ticket prices in relation to local standards. Add to that the conflicts along the borders of some neighboring countries, Somalia and Sudan for instance, which also prevented the arrival of delegations by land.

Some 40,000 people attended the event but, despite certain glitches –poor sound system and power cuts at 7 pm–, the event’s format was quite similar to previous editions. As a novelty, the holding of some twenty assemblies on the January 24 programming with the objective of building initiatives for action with regard to the different themes (Read more in “World Social Forum Special Coverage 2007 – IPS News”).

The few incidents reported stemmed from the local organization’s marketing decision to, in an attempt to help improve the event’s budget, make a buck out of catering and selling phone cards and arts and crafts. Also, security was carried out by the local police who, unlike the Kenyan population, did not always show the same kindness.

A crisis also seems to be looming, one that could be accounted for by the Forum’s growth, yet is probably something more complex than that. The visible symptom is a lack of definition about “what to do” in 2008, since the VIII WSF will only happen in 2009, its venue still pending definition. There are talks of mobilizations which, nevertheless, have no date or purpose defined. The International Committee is to meet at the time of the G8 meeting in June to decide on these matters.

The less visible, though not less pressing problems, are: a balance between debate and action in the process; the social movement’s relations with governments and political parties; the WSF funding; the inability of the organizers to reach out to the poorest sectors of the real social movement as the quilombolas (slave descendants) in Brazil, the homeless worldwide, among others who have no financial means at all to participate in the events; and a difficulty in building a West-East synthesis for organizing the Forum and addressing its outcomes as, for instance: is the format born in Porto Alegre able to meet the African reality?

Some organizations as the Via Campesina have already decided on their own to prioritize those activities more closely related to their claims, and had very little participation in Nairobi.

Apparently new mechanisms should be in place to promote the debate on the future of the Forum, which we hope are found, for the initiative is too important to simply fizzle out (Read more in “Asamblea de Movimientos Sociales”).