The International Periscope nº 15 talks about the elections in Argentina, Guatemala, France and Ireland. Other issues in this session are the press freedom in Venezuela, the correa Administration’s first 100 days in Ecuador, the geopolitical dispute between the U.S. and Russia, the World Bank and Bush’s new appointee, and others.


Kickoff for the Argentinean electoral process
Uribe seeks to change political agenda in Colombia
Ecuador – Correa Administration’s first 100 days
General elections in Guatemala
Press freedom in Venezuela
United States – Bush rides again
Parliamentarian elections in France
Parliamentarian elections in Ireland
Geopolitical dispute between the U.S. and Russia
War rages on in the Middle East
The World Bank and Bush’s new appointee
China’s National Climate Change Program
The G8 Summit in Germany
The 96th ILO Conference
The 37th General Assembly of the Organization of American States

Kickoff for the Argentinean electoral process

The definition of the Argentinean political situation started to be drawn on June 3 with the holding of the first round of the Buenos Aires municipal elections. The rightwing candidate, Mauricio Macri, won with 46.5 percent of the votes while Peronist Daniel Filmus, backed by President Nestor Kirchner, was second, with approximately 25 percent of the ballots. The incumbent mayor, Jorge Telerman, ran for reelection but, as he came third, he is out of the second round.

Macri, an entrepreneur and president of Argentina’s arguably most popular soccer club – Boca Juniors, had run in the last capital city mayoral election against Frepaso’s Aníbal Ibarra in 2003, when he also won the first round. He eventually lost, though for a slight margin. Later on Ibarra was impeached by decision of the Municipal Chamber because he was held politically accountable for the fire in the Cro-Magnon dance club, in which tens of youth died. His substitute was Telerman, who also belongs to the Peronist Justicialist Party (PJ), though linked to a different political faction than that of Filmus. Macri was a supporter of the former president, who also belongs to the PJ.

The second round will take place on 24 June, and it won’t be easy to defeat the right this time. Still, the latest polls show an 8 percent difference in favor of Macri, who has 48 percent of the electorate’s preference against Filmus’ 40 percent, just two weeks away from Election Day, which still allows considerations of a possible turnaround.

Kirchner’s popularity is still high and his reelection to serve a second term has always been considered probable. Yet, a possible Macri victory, due to the capital’s electoral weight, will cheer up the right for November’s presidential election. At any rate and regardless of the local electoral results, it is still early for prognoses, for a flourishing economy and positive progressive policies still favor Kirchner’s reelection.

His main opponent is likely to be former minister of economy Roberto Lavagna, with the support of a sector of the Radical Civic Union (UCR), for the other sector supports Kirchner. Elisa Carrió is expected to launch her candidacy once again, though with little prospect of winning.

Another Argentinean election worth following closely is the one for the government of the province of Santa Fé, due in September. There, Socialist Deputy and former mayor of Rosário, Hermes Binner, is leading the polls against a PJ split up between two candidates, which only boosts his chances.

Uribe seeks to change political agenda in Colombia

President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia has been under a lot of pressure over the last months because of a string of accusations that members of his cabinet, as well as loyal governors and lawmakers, are involved with far-right paramilitary groups. (See Periscopes 12, 13 and 14).

The deal he negotiated with the commanders of the United Self-Defenses of Colombia (AUC), whereby they would turn in to justice and get reduced prison sentences in exchange for confessing their crimes, ended up producing strong evidence to be used in court. The Supreme Court took the depositions seriously and ordered the arrest of 12 parliamentarians and 2 governors, and prompting the resignation of the foreign relations minister, whose brother had ties with the AUC.

In addition to this scandal, which has been dubbed the “Paragate”, American Democratic Party congressional representatives, who hold the majority in both houses of Congress today, have refused to move forward the approval for the U.S.–Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and are trying to reduce the American aid to Plan Colombia, particularly the percentage forecast for military aid.

Uribe’s political straits only get some relief because the Colombian media defends him with great tenacity and manipulates opinion polls.

To try to remove the “Paragate” from the political agenda, Uribe has been trying to generate a series of facts to manage to free the hostages under the control of the FARC, among who is former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who was kidnapped five years ago. Since she has dual nationality, French and Colombian, recently elected government led by Sarkozy is also supporting Uribe’s initiatives, going as far as to include a mention to the fact in the recent G8 declaration at the Rostock meeting. An expected collateral gain was to strengthen Sarkozy’s image in France.

The FARC guerrilla demands the demilitarization of two municipalities, Pradera and Florida, which represent an area of approximately 800 sq km, to serve as a base for the exchange of prisoners and as a condition to start possible peace talks.

Uribe, however, disdained this claim and announced that he would, unilaterally, free 120 FARC members and expected that the FARC, in exchange, released 56 people allegedly under the group’s custody.

As a first step the Colombian government released Rodrigo Granda, who is now under protection of the Vatican’s Nunciature in Bogotá. He used to be a FARC representative abroad, but he was arrested in 2005 in Venezuela, under circumstances that undermined relations between the two countries. A rumored version that Granda had been released to act as an intermediary in the negotiations was denied by him.

The guerrilla group, in turn, thanked the fact that it was recognized as a party to the conflict in the G8 declaration, but declared that it does not accept unilateral impositions. It seems logical because Uribe, apart from refusing to establish formal dialog –which would contradict the tough rhetoric that guaranteed his two presidential electoral victories–, gives no assurance that he will keep his side of the deal and release the prisoners.

This second concern is well founded because, the very crucial moment for any type of deal between the government and the FARC to be struck, Uribe traveled to the U.S. for the second time in a month.

The trip’s objective was once again to lobby the Democrats and coax them into approving the FTA; yet, this time, he had the support of a specialized lobbying office and of Colombian singer Shakira, who lives in the United States. The high point was a dinner in honor of former president Bill Clinton for his role in kickstarting Plan Colombia, during which the former president declared that there were “advances in the eradication of the coca production in Colombia”, a public relations stunt much to the interest of the Colombian government.

In practice, this was a new factoid. Democratic Party leaders suggested that Uribe should only return next year, when they will ascertain whether there had been any progress in Colombia with regard to human and labour rights –a condition they impose to approve the trade agreement.

Regardless of the nature of the demand, the figures are indeed appalling. Just in relation to actions against labour freedom, there have been 2,475 assassinations of unionists and labor activists since 1986. Last year alone there were 72 and this year 10 so far, according to the monitoring by the Medellín National Labour School.

At any rate, the agenda of the Colombian press has changed. Let’s see if the “Paragate” theme returns. (Read more at http://www.sfgate.com and http://www.latimes.com).

Ecuador – Correa Administration’s first 100 days

President Rafael Correa of Ecuador has gone past the 100-days-in-government period and the assessment is positive. He obtained success in the first part of his main strategy, which was that of passing a bill calling a Constituent Assembly to overhaul the country’s Constitution.

The Supreme Electoral Court has recently announced that process to elect the constituent deputies is scheduled for September, and the swearing in and beginning of the works for October. Deputies will have a six-month deadline to draft the new Constitution, a period that can be extended for another 3 months, when the document will be submitted to a referendum.

However, as in every country where a progressive force is in power, Correa is being strongly pressured by the big media into not involving himself in the electoral campaign. The entrepreneurs who own these vehicles fear that the same vision and popular support that sustain the Correa administration will become hegemonic in the composition of the Constituent Assembly.

Correa has already stated that he will campaign in favor of the progressive candidates, and filed a lawsuit against the owner of one of the country’s largest newspaper, who signed a calumnious article against Correa. Not surprisingly, the accused seeks shelter in press freedom to defend himself and dismisses the legal action as a dictatorial act.

These issues aside, Correa also adopted a series of measures that distinguish him from his predecessors –pressure on banks to reduce interest rates, installation of a Truth Committee to investigate abuses and violations committed in the 1980s and 1990s, a curb on tourism to the Galapagos archipelago because of its presently endangered ecological balance, and legal action seeking US$ 6 billion in reparation by Chevron for the pollution caused in the Ecuador’s Amazon region.

He has also managed to conduct an independent foreign policy and has cultivated good relations with the South-American countries. One of his most recent negotiations was with Petrobras regarding the possibility of the Brazilian company investing in the exploration of Ecuadorian oil. (Read more).

General elections in Guatemala

In early May, the Supreme Electoral Court of Guatemala called for preparations to begin with a view to the 9 September upcoming election. Twenty international observers will monitor the Guatemalan campaign and another 150 delegates representing the Organization of American States (OAS) will arrive in the country before the voting.

Today Guatemala has 5.6 million voters who will choose the president and vice-president, the deputies of the unicameral Congress, mayors and local council members. All together, 3,000 office-seekers will be elected.

In the last opinion poll released in Guatemala, the presidential candidate for the National Union for Hope, Álvaro Colom, was ahead of the race with only 20.6 percent of the voting intentions. He is followed by Otto Perez Molina of the Patriotic Party, with 11.1%, Alejandro Giammatei, former chief warden of the Guatemalan penitentiary system, of the Great National Alliance, with 7.1%, and in fourth, Rigoberta Menchú, for the Encounter for Guatemala, with 2.9% of voting intentions. There are some 42% of undecided voters.

However, opinion polls are not reliable, and Guatemala, one of the countries with the largest number of political parties registered in Latin America –forty-seven– already has 15 presidential candidates and may have some more by the end of the registration period on 10 July.

The most controversial issue surrounding the electoral process thus far was the registration of former dictator Efrain Rios Montt, who is running for a seat in Congress. His de facto administration lasted one year (1982–1983), after which period he was overthrown by a new military coup. He commanded a strong repression against the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG) guerrilla and was responsible for the assassination of some 15,000 peasants, mostly indigenous, and for the exile of another 70,000 people to neighboring countries, in addition to having expelled nearly half a million Guatemalans to the mountains.

His participation in the ballots, however, will grant him immunity and thus keep him from being extradited to Spain –where a petition similar to the one against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was filed– or being tried in Guatemala for the crimes committed during his military rule.

In spite of the strong protests and attempts staged by social organizations to impede his candidacy from being registered, the Supreme Electoral Court accepted his application, stating that it could later be revoked.

Since the toppling of the reformist government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 by a mercenary army organized by the CIA and by United Fruit Co., until 1985 Guatemala was governed by the military or their marionettes. From the beginning of the armed resistance against the military regime in 1962 to the signing of the definitive peace accords between the government and the URNG in 1996, more than 100,000 people died and still today, Guatemala is only second to Colombia in terms of violence levels in Latin America. (Read more at http://noticias.aol.com, http://www.rigobertapresidenta.org , http://mi-guatemala.tripod.com and http://www.agenciapulsar.org).

Press freedom in Venezuela

Venezuela’s hottest issue involving the President Chávez administration is the end of a concession to a private television network, RCTV, which spurred criticisms from every side, even from well-intentioned people. Internally, the opposition has manifested itself against the measure through a part of the Venezuelan student movement, particularly from students of the private universities of Caracas.

This was the alternative that the rightwing politicians devised to manifest themselves without openly appearing, which would link the movement to the same forces that staged the 2004 coup. Yet, those following more closely the events in Venezuela realize the interests at stake and that the students who have mobilized come from the middle and upper classes, traditionally oppositionist. (Read more).

What is in discussion is not “libertad de prensa” (press freedom) but rather “libertad de empresa” (company freedom), for radio stations and television channels operate under concession in Venezuela, just like anywhere else in the world.

In a recent study presented by the president of Chile’s College of Journalists, Ernesto Carmona, he comments on the revocation of 141 TV and radio concessions over a period spanning from 1934 to 1987 only in the United States, plus giving examples from other countries. In about 40 cases, the American government did not even wait for the end of the concession period, which was not RCTV’s case.

Margaret Thatcher, for instance, canceled the concession of one of England’s largest TV channels and simply stated “Just because they had the station for 30 years, should they have the monopoly?” RCTV held the concession for 53 years and, obviously, the renewal of its concession was not an acquired right. But as everything else in the Venezuelan political life that polarizes opinions, this is yet another fact and one that will also pass. (Read more at http://www.congresobolivariano.org, http://alainet.org/active/17821 and http://alainet.org/active/17748).

United States – Bush rides again

After four years since the occupation of Iraq with all the terrible consequences of the plan masterminded by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz and other top U.S. government officials, an idea starts to gain credence that the country’s invasion had another clear purpose besides that of tapping into the region’s oil: enabling the installation of military bases in that Middle Eastern country.

In what is being dubbed the “Korea Model”, the strategy would be to apply in Iraq the same model of occupation used in South Korea, where the United States have maintained troops for decades. The plan would be to maintain a limited contingent of troops outside the urban areas, ready to strike at any moment, an Iraqi government aligned with the United States and possibly another half-century of military garrisoning.

In addition to statements by Tony Snow, the president’s spokesperson, and by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates defending the idea that the U.S. will not pull out completely, as was done in Vietnam, the second man in command of the American army in Baghdad, General Ray Odierno (General David Petraeus’s deputy) has declared in interviews that he believes that the occupation as was conducted in South Korea would be an excellent solution for Iraq. (Read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com and http://www.gulfnews.com).

There is a recommendation that for now government officials and close Bush advisors should not make any statements on the record. But when asked about the issue, many demonstrate there is an elaborate plan is being designed to that end. These sources say that the plan would require 3 or 4 bigger military bases, all outside urban areas, where the number of incidents and deaths has risen considerably. Among such bases are Al Asad, the Balad Air Base, located some 80 km from Baghdad, and the Tallil Air Base, in southern Iraq.

Critics of the occupation contend that there is no historical parallel between the wars in Iraq and Korea; nor is there any similarity between them, except for the absurdity of the occupation. The analogy, an extreme simplification of the situation, serves only to show to the American citizens that the Bush Administration has a plan for Iraq and the end of the occupation.

In addition to a plummeting popularity because of the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration’s handling of domestic affairs only has a 32-percent approval rating, which is why he is trying to save his legacy by passing a new immigration bill.

The measure is viewed by the president’s advisers as the only chance Bush has to ensure that his name will go into American history for something apart from the war waged against Iraq.

The immigration legislation reform pledges to legalize millions of undocumented workers in the United States, while strengthening the country’s borders and organizing the supply of temporary workers for the country’s employers. The bill, drafted by the White House and a group of 12 Democrat and Republican senators, sets out a merit system to assess those individuals who seek to obtain the green card. This scoring system, the bill’s highlight, will be a centerpiece in the debate preceding the bill’s passage.

It would work like this: someone applying for the green card can score a maximum of 100 points, 75 of which assigned according to the applicant’s formal education and professional skills, 15 points related to his/her command of the English language and the remaining 10 points attributable on the basis of whether the applicant has any family bonds in the United States.

The criteria presented favor professionals with a college background in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, but less qualified workers whose services are in high demand as, according to the government, nurses, nannies and food industry workers will also be benefited. Spouses and children will also have their immigration approved, but siblings and children of age will be submitted to the same scoring evaluation system.

Bush and the group of senators that participated in the bill’s drafting were clearly concerned with ensuring that there was a screening of the immigrants which might, in the long run, contribute to the advancement of the American economy.

Yet, particularly from within the Democratic Party, opposition voices start to be heard pointing to the immigration bill’s drivers based on social engineering and class prejudice.

The debate most certainly has implications to the American economy. Around 23 million workers (of a total 145 million) are immigrants and, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the country still needs foreign work force to grow and fill the professional gap in certain fields.

The bill has put pressure on the pre-candidates to the 2008 presidential elections to take sides on the issue, which is bound to stir heated debate inside both parties.

After the announcement of the bipartisan immigration plan in early June, Senator Hillary Clinton, regarded as one of the favorite candidates to get the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for the presidency of the United States and former New York City mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, one of the main Republican Party candidates, opted not to take a stand on the issue. After one week, both candidates stated that they were open to support the initiative provided some changes were introduced.

None of the pre-candidates supported the bill but Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona. McCain’s position puts him in direct confrontation with Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts, who has made strong speeches against the proposal, seeking with that to boost his support from the party’s most conservative sectors.

In the Democratic Party, an intricate game of interests is unfolding. There is no consensus in the labour movement, yet there is a concern that the bill would create a regulatory framework for temporary work without any guarantee that these workers will obtain the American citizenship. John Edwards and Barack Obama have displayed similar positions of caution in relation to the temporary workers’ program.

Although the electoral campaign in the U.S. officially starts only in January 2008 with each party’s state primaries, the pre-candidates to each party’s nominations are working at full speed.

In the Republican Party there have already been three debates with the pre-candidates while the Democratic Party held two. The most recent Democratic Party presidential debate was televised by CNN on 3 June, and mediated by the network’s anchor Wolf Blitzer.

For more information on the latest debates, organized by CNN, see: CNN Democratic Debate – June 3rd, 2007 and CNN Republican Debate – June 5th, 2007.

One of the candidates to get most of the spotlights, despite the short time he gets during the debates and the limited funds he raised for his campaign, is former senator Mike Gravel, a Democrat of Alaska, whose last term of office ended in 1981.

He has been the only one to assume a radical stance in relation to the war in Iraq, demanding the immediate withdrawal of the troops and criticizing a possible standoff with Iran –in addition to other themes such as a proposing the adoption of proportional income tax and the establishment of referendums and other direct democracy mechanisms in the U.S.

In the two debates held, Gravel challenged the positions of his party’s three most important candidates with regard to a potential nuclear attack against Iran. All the other candidates state, “All options are on the table”, when addressing the sanctions against Iran and its nuclear program.

Gravel certainly will not be elected to represent his party in the 2008 presidential elections, but his participation is of vital importance to improve his party’s electoral process. (Read more).

Parliamentarian elections in France

Sarkozy started his presidential term in top gear. Apart from a strong mediatic presence, Sarkozy moderated his speech with the aim of boosting his rightwing UMP party’s electoral performance in the parliamentarian, second-round elections that took place on 17 June.

France has 577 electoral districts, each electing one parliamentarian. Those who obtain more than 50 percent of the votes in the first round, provided voters’ turnout reaches 40 percent, are automatically elected. When one of these conditions is not met, there is a second round with those candidates who obtained at least 12.5 percent of the votes. Usually, this favors several negotiations between those parties with greater affinities, when one withdraws a candidacy in one district in exchange for support for another candidate in another district.

The first round’s result signaled to the right’s land-sliding victory and the possibility of the left reducing its presence in Congress. Tough the second round was not that easy, the UMP elected 324 members of parliament (56.2%). Still the best news was for the Socialist Party, which elected 209 parliamentarians, 60 more than in the last election. The Greens elected four against none in the previous legislature, and the Communists lost six, going down to 15 from 21 before. The center fell from 29 to 25, split between two parties: the New Center with 22 seats and Bayrou’s Democratic Movement, which only elected two other candidates apart from Bayrou himself.

Le Pen’s National Party and two other far-right parties failed to elect any representative. The unpopular former Prime Minister Allain Juppé, now Minister of the Environment, did not elect himself and resigned the office of minister.

Hence Sarkozy has a majority in the National Congress to approve his policies, but it is still too early to assure whether his popularity will hold when he starts proposing bills designed to sustain neoliberal adjustments, which, judging from his platform and statements, he will try to implement. Read more at http://english.aljazeera.net and http://www.counterpunch.org.

Parliamentarian elections in Ireland

Ireland has been a republic since 1949, after many years of fight against the British domination. Independence had been conquered in 1922, though only for the, mostly Catholic, 26 counties to the south of the country. The six remaining counties that form Northern Ireland, where the Protestants are the majority, have remained bound to England until today.

The conflict in Northern Ireland has historical roots that precede Ireland’s independence, but are sparked by the attempts by the Catholics living in the six counties to conquer civil and political rights, which began in the 1960s.

For a very long time, Ireland was one of Europe’s poorest economies, apart from its extreme conservatism under the influence of the Catholic Church. However, starting in the 1990s with the support of the European Union’s Regional Development Funds, Ireland invested heavily in information technology and quickly displayed impressive GDP growth rates, to the extent that the country was dubbed the “Celtic Tiger”.

Ireland’s most important parties are the Fianna Fáil, (center-right conservative nationalist), Fine Gael (Christian Democrat linked to the landowners), Labour (center-left) the Greens, the Sinn-Féin (“We Ourselves”, Socialist and linked to the IRA), the Progressive Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and other less representative parties.

At the election held on 24 May, 3 million Irish turned out at the polls to choose the next government. The 166 members-elect of the Irish Congress, the Dáil Éireann as it is known in Gaelic, took their offices on 14 June, when they convened to elect the Taoiseach, the Prime Minister, and submitted the result to President Mary McAleese’s approval.

Even with the progress made by the main opposition party, the Fianna Gael, up 20 seats to 51, center-right Fianna Fáil party withheld the largest representation, with 78 seats in Parliament, against opinion polls prior to the election which forecast the party would lose 20 seats.

The smaller parties maintained the same level of representation: 20 seats for Labour, six seats for the Greens, the Sinn Féin confirmed only four of its five previous seats, the Progressive Democrats fell from eight to two seats and the Socialist Party lost its only representative.

In comparison with the 2002 general elections, the number of independent candidates elected dropped from fourteen to five.

With the results obtained, partly thanks to a campaign based on the argument that changes in the government might hamper the country’s thriving economy, the most likely outcome should see current Prime Minister Bertie Ahern start his third consecutive. For the first time since 1977, however, Ahern’s political base did not achieve the majority required to rule alone. Ahern is expected to ally with the Progressive Democrats and the independents to form his government coalition. (Read more on the parties’ official web sites at http://www.fiannafail.ie, http://www.finegael.ie and http://sinnfein.ie).

Geopolitical dispute between the U.S. and Russia

The insistence by President Bush on carrying forward his project of installing a missile shield in Poland, and a radar to guide them in the Czech Republic, triggered strong reactions from Russia. The last ones were a test with a new, more powerful intercontinental missile and the intention to point some directly at Europe.

Bush’s argument is that the missiles in Poland are to be used to intercept potential missile strikes by Iran and North Korea. It is a far-fetched justification, for Iran, despite all the recent polemic, does not have, at least for now, the nuclear technology to manufacture weapons of such magnitude, and would very unlikely take such an aggressive attitude. As for North Korea, an attack against the U.S. would follow a different course than that over Europe.

The intention is to draw some of Russia’s neighboring countries out of its sphere of influence, something Putin cannot accept if he is to keep and possibly broaden Moscow’s geopolitical hegemony. Despite the demise of the former USSR, Russia still has many comparative advantages as its mighty atomic arsenal, 20 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves, an accelerated growth rate and a permanent seat on the Security Council with veto power.

What’s more, soon there will be presidential and parliamentarian elections in Russia, and a nationalist rhetoric is essential to ensuring the continuity of the status quo, though Putin, according to the Constitution, is not eligible to run for the presidency for a third term.

During the G-8 meeting at Heiligendamm, the theme was not on the agenda but pervaded the various parallel meetings. Putin made a proposal that put the Americans on the defensive: he offered a Russian radar base located in Azerbaijan as a means to collaborate with his American partner’s security concerns and suggested that the missiles could be installed in any other U.S. allied country, such as Turkey or Iraq, closer to the routes of the possible attack.

Bush was obliged to say that he would study the offer, but charged against Russia again by proposing independence to Kosovo, a former Serbian province now under a U.N. mandate since the end of NATO’s military intervention in that country. This is another thorny issue, for Russia had not consented with the bombardment against its ally Serbia, and continues to support Serbian intentions of retaining Kosovo, where the population is mostly ethnic Albanian, as part of its territory.

War rages on in the Middle East

In addition to the Middle East’s customary dead ends, about which we have written in the Periscope monthly, over this most recent period three new facts have aggravated the situation: the risk of a civil war opposing Palestinian groups, especially in the Gaza Strip; the armed conflict in Lebanon between the army and a new armed group, the “Fattah al Islam”, bred in the Palestinian refugee camps of Lebanon; and Turkey’s pressure on the Kurds in northern Iraq.

As if ignoring the coalition government negotiated in March between President Mahmoud Abbas’s Al Fattah and Prime Minister Ismail Hanieh’s Hamas, there was an outbreak of clashes between the two groups’ militias that culminated in an all-out battle for the control of Gaza. Eventually the Hamas won out, forced the Fattah militias out of Gaza, and took control of the area. Al Fattah, however, kept is political hegemony over the West Bank, which, unlike Gaza, still has Israeli presence.

Abbas withdrew the Fattah from the coalition, dissolved the government and appointed a new Cabinet, a situation the Hamas will obviously refuse to recognize.

A main concern is that the conflict involving these two parties and their militias, which has already cost the lives of over 100 Palestinians, should escalate into a war that would drag the whole of the Palestinian population. To their enemies that would be a blessing, for it would further adjourn the constitution of a Palestinian State.

The U.S. and the European Union have manifested their intention of supporting Abbas and isolating the Hamas, but the fact is that they are also responsible for what is happening because they cut Palestine’s financial aid when the Hamas won the parliamentarian elections in early 2006 to pressure the group into recognizing the State of Israel, triggering its radical reaction. This was one of the greatest manifestations of hypocrisy of the last times, and their behaviour made it clear that they only accept electoral results they deem convenient.

Social and political conditions have deteriorated alarmingly since then. The 180 thousand public employees who have not received their salaries in almost a year entail the suffering of nearly one million people.

Besides unlawfully occupying Palestinian territory, Israel further compounded the situation by taking part in the economic boycott of Gaza and withholding tax-collection proceeds belonging to the Palestinian Authority. Plus bombarding the Palestinian civilian population and murdering militants of the Palestinian armed groups.

The justification is too the non-recognition of the State of Israel and more rocket launching from Gaza against the neighboring Israeli city of Sderot.

It is still unclear how the Israeli government will deal with the problem, for Prime Minister Olmert’s political maneuvering space is very limited. His principal ally in Parliament and in the government coalition, the Labour Party, has just replaced its president, Amir Peretz, by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who is also to replace him in the Ministry of Defense.

Barak had announced that Labour would break up with the government if Olmert did not resign, but this might not occur because the ruling majority has just elected Labour’s Shimon Peres as President of Israel, regardless of the quasi-symbolic nature of the post.

The problem is that, should Labour decide to leave the coalition and thus bring about the dissolution of the government and the subsequent call for general elections, polls today show that right wing Likud would win. Therefore, there is likely to be some deal allowing for the substitution of Olmert by Barak himself.

Further north the Lebanese army engaged in a fight with, until then unknown, Fattah al Islam group. Though the Palestinian Liberation Organization guerrillas fled Lebanon in the 1980s during the civil war, thousands of Palestinian refugees continued to live in the many camps scattered around that country.

Life in these camps is one of precariousness and poverty, a fertile breeding ground for the rise of organizations like Al Qaeda and its likes. This seems to be the case of this new group the Lebanese Army has decided to eliminate. However, after two weeks of combats, the group resists and demonstrates to be stronger and better organized than the Lebanese army assumed.

The Hezbollah, one of Lebanon’s most important political factions, warned that the government should try to seek a compromise, for an armed conflict, even if the army wins, would only generate resentment and attract the presence of the Al Qaeda to Lebanon, worsening the situation. (Read more).

Lastly, Iraq, which is already living a situation of sheer day-to-day chaos, runs the risk of being faced with yet another disrupting factor, this one represented by the Kurds occupying the northern part of the country.

This population, currently one of the largest ethnicities in the world, still does not have an autonomous National State. This is due to the way the great powers divided the Ottoman Empire after the First Great War in the Treaty of Sévres, distributing this population between Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran.

The Kurdish Labour Party (PKK) took to arms to struggle for the Kurdish National State and has since been targeting Turkey, in particular, where, after Iraq, most of the Kurdish population lives.

Possibly the only beneficiaries of the American invasion of Iraq may have been the Kurds, for they were strongly oppressed by the Saddam Hussein regime and now, besides taking part in the coalition government, exert control over Iraq’s northern region, though not with the status of autonomous territory.

Turkey complains that the PKK militants are attacking Turkish military from bases inside Iraqi territory and threatens to retaliate. This possibility would introduce a new actor into the conflict and would cause even more embarrassment to the U.S., for both Turkey, formally neutral so far, and the Kurds are American allies with regard to the occupation of Iraq.

The World Bank and Bush’s new appointee

With the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz from the presidency of the World Bank, the Bush Administration had to choose his substitute. This happened amidst growing discontent with the filling of the post with yet another American and after Wolfowitz’s failed miserably at the head of the institution, criticized for his lack of experience and preferential treatment given to a girlfriend.

More than ever before, calls were reiterated that the screening process regarding the presidency of the World Bank should be reformed. In a survey done in late May, by think tank Center for Global Development, nearly 85% of the 700 specialists interviewed condemned the current selection criterion, according to which U.S. appoints the bank’s president after informal consultations with other countries. A similar percentage expressed their support for a merit-based screening process, without regard for nationality.

In addition to his lack of experience with development-related issues, Wolfowitz also carried the weight for having been the architect of the war in Iraq and for having worked over the last 28 years in projects linked to the U.S. government and to the group identified as neoconservatives, among which are included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. If that did not suffice, he also served as Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Indonesia and was one of General Suharto’s main supporters. So much so that, when he was chosen to preside over the bank in 2005, several pro rights and democracy advocacy groups in Indonesia organized protests.

Bush’s new choice is no different; yet the bank’s board should ratify the nomination of Robert B. Zoellick on 30 June. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, Zoellick was the United States Trade Representative and he took advantage of that delicate moment to push his agenda forward by arguing before Congress that the approval of the Trade Promotion Authority should be included in the framework of the “Fight against terror”.

Zoellick came to insinuate that there would be a link between the 9/11 terrorists and the anti-globalization movements. In a speech at the Institute for International Economics, just a few days after the attacks, Zoellick declared, “In the wake of the shock of 13 days ago, many people will struggle to understand why terrorists hate the ideas that America championed around the world. […], it is inevitable that people will wonder if there are intellectual connections with others who have turned to violence to attack international finance, globalization, and the United States”.

The tactic worked and the banner of “fight against terror through trade” became a bill which passed by a margin of one vote in Congress, regulating the fast track option of the Trade Promotion Authority.

Nourishing the post-attacks paranoia, Zoellick helped to ensure funds for transporting 2,500 soldiers and police officers to Miami in 2003 during the 8th FTAA Ministerial Summit in order to contain the demonstrators.

At the time, he also made attacks against those developing countries that did not agree with his trade agenda. That included Brazil, India and other medium-sized countries which, in Zoellick’s words, were “employing a rhetoric of resistance and protest policies” at the World Trade Organization and blamed them, especially Brazil, for the collapse of negotiations.

After one and a half year in the role of chief trade negotiator, Zoellick had failed to revive the WTO negotiations and to materialize the FTAA, and left his post in the same week of the deadline for the signing of the hemispheric free trade area.

Besides a fierce critic of the anti-globalization movement and developing countries, Zoellick drew concerns because of his trade agenda driven by the interests of big business.

Having the mission of combating poverty on a global scale, the World Bank will again have a president appointed by the United States –a privilege stemming from that country’s condition of the institution’s largest donor– who is very unfamiliar with development themes.

Zoellick, currently a senior executive at Goldman Sachs, former Under-Secretary of State and Trade Representative, has committed himself to working to restore the World Bank’s credibility. However, both activists fighting for transparency and accountability in the management of the World Bank and development aid agencies are concerned. Apart from having been chosen behind closed doors, Zoellick is still strongly linked to the United States’ political and entrepreneurial power circles. (Read more).

China’s National Climate Change Program

On the eve of the G8 meeting with the presence of five developing countries, whose main theme focused on the discussions regarding climate change, China unveiled an environmental plan dubbed the National Climate Change Program highlighting a reduction in consumption and the increased use of renewable forms of energy, designed to diminish its emissions of greenhouse gases by 2010.

The plan does not propose targets for the reduction of the emission of pollutant gases and, basically, reaffirms the Chinese stance –fiercely defended by its active delegation to the debate on the third report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), underscoring that the greatest responsibility for combating greenhouse effect still lies with the developed countries, which produced the effect until recently, without compromising the developing countries’ growth.

With the world’s largest population and boasting record economic growth rates over the past 27 years, at today’s pace by 2009 China should reach and overtake the United States as the world’s greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, a point which has drawn much criticism against the Asian country in the international arena.

China’s National Climate Change Program, detailed in a 62-page document, establishes objectives for 2010 based on 2005 data. To accomplish such targets, the Chinese government intends to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent, scale up the use of renewable sources in the energy matrix between 7 and 10 percent, and reduce the emissions caused by rice plantations as a result of the organic decomposition caused by this type of crop.

Additionally, the program includes the theme of childbirth as one of the commitments in relation to the climate, for according to the document, since the 1970s the Chinese government would have prevented the birth of 300 million people and therefore the generation of 1.3 billion tons of CO2.

If the Chinese government targets are achieved, some 1.5 billion tons of CO2 will not be emitted into the atmosphere, the equivalent to 25 percent of the 6.1 billion tons emitted by China in 2004.

However, recent experience shows that China will find it hard to keep growing at the current level and at the same time achieve the reductions proposed. In 2006 there was also an official target to reduce by 4 percent per GDP unit the consumption of energy. The fall observed was of a mere 1.23 percent, due in great part to the resistance by the Chinese provinces to sacrifice their economic expansion. Today, 70 percent of the energy used in China comes from coal burning, while the Chinese industry uses seven times more energy than its Japanese counterpart. (Read more at http://www.ccchina.gov.cn and http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/en/).

The G8 Summit in Germany

The recent G8 Summit (a group formed by Germany, Canada, the United States, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and Russia), held on 6–8 June at a resort on the coast of the Baltic Sea, ended with vague promises and no substantial commitment toward more humanitarian aid for Africa or a post Kyoto Protocol international agreement.

The leaders of the G8 countries left Heiligendamm, a German seaside resort, without any agreement on how to conclude the Doha Round or how to eliminate farming subsidies in the industrialized world.

Nor was any agreement reached to establish new rules for the highly speculative hedge funds (an investment theoretically seeking protection against price fluctuations) or the political status of the Serbian province of Kosovo. The only deals struck were the reduction, on a medium-term basis, of greenhouse gases and the renewal of the aid to Africa, both deemed weak commitments.

On 8 June, the G8 leaders agreed to allocate US$ 60 billion “over the next years” to fund the struggle against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and another US$ 500 million for the “Education for All” program in Africa. Specialists, however, considered such measures a setback if compared to the commitments made by the G8 in 2005 at the Gleneagles Summit. In Scotland, two years ago, the promise was to double development aid by 2010, which would entail an annual increase of some US$ 50 billion starting in 2006.

According to declarations made by Oxfam, the new amount destined to Africa means that in practice Africa will only receive some extra US$ 3 billion by 2010. Before the Heiligendamm Summit, Oxfam had already published data showing that the G8 would be short to fulfill the commitment made at Gleneagles by some US$ 30 billion, adjusted to US$ 27 billion with the new announcement. (Read more).

Apart from the reduction in the forecasted aid, also criticized were the failure to set a real calendar for the allocation of the new funds and a lack of definition regarding how much of this amount actually represented new relief or just the recycling of other initiatives already underway.

To make matters worse, the new commitment to concentrate efforts on the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria does not even fulfill the goal established by the United Nations for G8 countries, which sets forth an annual spending of US$ 15 billion until 2010 only to address the HIV/AIDS issue. In Germany, it was decided that only US$ 12 billion would be spent on the three diseases.

The agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is also being received as a speech designed to address international environmental policies. The group’s declaration considers and expresses its concern in face of the IPCC reports that “concluded that, global temperatures are rising thanks to the activities of human beings and that due to the rise in temperatures drastic changes are forecast in the structure and function of ecosystems with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, as, for example, with regard to water and food supplies”.

Nevertheless, the presidents of the United States and Russia, George Bush and Wladimir Putin respectively, only agreed to “consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan, which include reducing global emissions by half by 2050″, according to the declaration.

The present agreement opens the way for negotiations to be held under a U.N. framework, with the participation of the United States, which is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. The G8 declaration, however, does not propose any real framework and the follow-up negotiations –which are to begin with the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, at the conference to be held upcoming December in Bali, Indonesia–, will be the first real test to the United States’ commitment to the theme, as well as a chance for China and India to get more deeply involved too in the post-Kyoto process.

The novelty came on account of the invitation to the heads of state of South Africa, Brazil, China, India and Mexico to attend the G8 discussions on the so-called Heiligendamm Process, on the topics of freedom of investments, corporate social responsibility, innovation promotion and protection, cooperation on energy efficiency and technology issues, and on development policies.

The idea is that this group of countries, which is being called by the media the G5, would follow the activities of the G8, and maintain an ongoing dialog for a period of two years until the 2009 summit in Italy, where cooperation topics would be reviewed, and their results measured. Yet it seems that the rulers of many of these countries have no interest in continuing as G8 guests but wish instead to set their own agenda by including more developing countries, even if they are to meet at the same time and place.

During the conference there was intense social mobilization protesting against the G8 attitudes and the war in Iraq. Despite the meeting’s isolated venue, more than 20,000 activists were present and there were many confrontations with the German police, one of the most violent in Europe.

Next year’s meeting will be hosted by Japan at Hokkaido. (Read more at http://www.g-8.de, http://www.economist.com and http://english.aljazeera.net).

The 96th ILO Conference

Held between 30 May and 15 June, the ILO International Labour Conference had the participation of more than 3,000 government, worker and employer representatives. During the conference several committees convened, among them the Committee on Application of Standards, the Committee on Sustainable Enterprises, the Committee on the Fishing Sector and the Committee on Strengthening the ILO’s Capacity.

After an impasse over the election of the Conference president on 30 May, on 1 June Kastriot Sulka of Albania’s Ministry of Labour was elected president of the 96th Session defeating the representative from Congo. Also elected were vice-presidents Carlos Antonio da Rocha Paranhos (representing the governments), Michel Barde (representing employers) and Marc Blondel (representing the workers). Ambassador Paranhos is the permanent representative of the Brazilian Mission to Geneva. Michel Barde is from Switzerland and Marc Blonder is a member of the ILO Board of Directors, former general secretary of the Force Ouvriére and delegate of the French workers.

At the Conference the workers took the initiative of seeking to approve a special mention on Colombia so that the ILO undertook more rigorous monitoring of the constant and unacceptable violations of union freedom in that country. However, the employers boycotted the forum where such decision could be made and the governments refused to go against the employers’ position. Therefore, everything remains as it is. (Read more).

The 37th General Assembly of the Organization of American States

Held in Panama on 3–5 June, the 37th General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) had more than 100 items to discuss on the agenda, as the peace process in Colombia, the Malvinas Islands, the maritime issue in Bolivia, the Women of the Americas’ International Year, support to Haiti’s development and many others.

Nevertheless, the most important outcome of the meeting was the signing of a joint declaration by all the countries of the continent regarding sustainable development and the use of energy from renewable resources. The Panama Declaration on Energy for Sustainable Development can be seen in full, as a Word document, on the OAS web page. Read the Declarations and Resolutions approved by the General Assembly at its 37th session.