The South American Energy Summit
President of Colombia still under suspicion
United States –a difficult outlook for Republicans
Blair announces date for stepping down
Right wins presidential elections in France
Turkey’s soul-searching
Russia – Diplomatic problems and Putin’s future
Crisis in the Israeli government
Japan and China closing ties – Wen Jiabao’s visit to Tokyo
Elections in Nepal
Presidential elections in Timor Lorosae
Elections in Nigeria
Wolfowitz and the World Bank scandal
Third IPCC report on climate change – proposals for action

The South American Energy Summit

On April 16, on the Island of Margarita, Venezuela, the First South American Energy Summit convened twelve of the continent’s presidents to debate energy integration, building on the present power grid.

Expectations were high for the meeting because of the importance of the subject and the controversy stirred by Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro against the expansion of the production of sugar cane ethanol, advocated by Brazil, and which has gained much publicity with the Brazil–U.S. discussions toward a potential cooperation program in this area.

The declaration, however, was positive and mentions the decision made by the South American Community of Nations to explore an energy integration that builds on the present grid consisting of oil, gas, petrochemical industry, hydroelectric power plants, thermoelectric power plants, biofuels and waterways, and is committed to the harmonizing of energy generation, agricultural production, environmental preservation and adequate labour conditions.

The summit also resolved to create a South American Energy Council composed of one representative from each of the twelve countries, and which will be responsible for putting forward a proposal containing guidelines for an integrated energy program at the Second South American Community of Nations Summit to be held this year in Colombia. The integration initiative was renamed by consensus Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR).

In parallel with this debate, discussions were held toward the creation of the Bank of the South, which, as yet, has not attained the necessary consensus across the continent. There will be an expert meeting in Quito, Ecuador, on May 15, to analyze the bank’s feasibility.

Other proposals were submitted as those by the countries that signed the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua, as for instance to extend the ALBA relations framework to all countries of the continent, to support the creation of the Bank of the South, which would be a the region’s ‘Central Bank’, and to create a common currency, which Evo Morales suggested should be called Pacha (Earth).

Read more in América Sur: Declaración de Margarita: Construyendo la Integración Energética del Sur [2007-04-18], Por una Sudamérica con moneda propia and Nace UNASUR.

President of Colombia still under suspicion

The most recent update on the charges against Álvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, of involvement with paramilitary groups is the accusation made by Alternative Democratic Pole senator Gustavo Petro, that when Uribe was the governor of the province of Antioquia, the paramilitary used two of the president’s family farms as bases for their incursions.

Although the senator was not able to produce any material evidence to the charge, the facts demonstrate that it was during the Uribe administration in Antioquia that the paramilitary groups grew the most in that province, and it is widely known that Uribe in person organized a self-defense group called Convivir (Living Together) which later on, as with most of these groups, joined paramilitary forces.

In face of the accusation that is circulating in the United States that Colombia’s Army Chief General Mario Montoya is linked to the paramilitary responsible for the disappearance of human rights militants, Uribe decided to visit the U.S. to personally explain the case and unblock Plan Colombia aid package the American senate is withholding on account of the scandal.

In spite of the eloquent praises Uribe got from President Bush, the visit was nothing but embarrassment. Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who coordinates the U.S. Senate sub-committee in charge of authorizing the remittal of funds worth US$ 55 million to Colombia, said he is not convinced of the general’s innocence, and that was after Uribe’s statement that there was no evidence of the general’s involvement, and would not therefore give the green light to release the money.

At a meeting with Democratic Party representatives to discuss the approval of a Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the U.S., the lawmakers declared that they would not approve it if the killings of unionists did not cease and provisions on the promotion of environmental and labor rights were not included in the agreement.

To top it all, and not to mention the street demonstrations against his visit, at a meeting with human rights organizations, also attended by U.S. legislators, Uribe lost his temper while trying to answer questions about Colombia’s serious situation. Read more in Visita de Uribe aos EUA, The plot thickens, again – The “parapolitics” scandal edges closer to President Uribe and Leahy blocks aid to scandal-tainted Colombian military.

United States –a difficult outlook for Republicans

In spite of the opinion of 57 percent of the American people that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake, still the military budget requested by President George W. Bush to Congress was the second largest since World War II, with only a fraction of it earmarked for home security. He requested a budget of US$ 623 billion for military expenditures in fiscal year 2008, which starts next 1 October. Read more about the U.S. public opinion in a poll dated 20-24 April.

According to studies undertaken by the group Foreign Policy in Focus – a joint project by center-left think tanks Institute for Policy Studies and International Relations Centre – military expenses account for over 50% of the share of the budget that is negotiated between the president and Congress.

The budget proposed for 2008, under the rubric national security, allocates 90 percent of the funds to military expenditures while preventive programs get only 4% and the Department of Homeland Security receives 6%. Military expenditures represent today twice as much as what they were just seven years ago, as can be seen on the table below. We may also conclude that if the government this year is requesting the same as last year, it is because it anticipates the continuity of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

National defense budget (US$ Billion)

Source: Budget of the United States Government Historical tables 2001–2008

The budget submitted in February ignored both the recommendations by the Iraq Study Group to promote a transition from a foreign policy strategy based on military power to one based on diplomacy, and the latest opinion polls that show that Americans believe that unilateral foreign policy is worsening the U.S. image abroad and making the country more prone to terrorist attacks.

Combat fighter F22, for instance, will receive extra funds of more than US$ 600 million in fiscal 2008. The same amount could triple the American plans of canceling the foreign debt of poor countries or increase by 50% U.S. contributions to peace-promotion programs.

The use of part of these resources is still subject to the approval of the U.S. Congress. In late April, both the House and the Senate approved an extra US$ 124 billion for military operations abroad. However, the use of these funds, according to the text passed in both chambers, is contingent upon the withdrawal of the American troops from the Iraqi territory by October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year.

Bush vetoed the bill claiming that it “established a date for the beginning of U.S. troops pullout imposed under adverse conditions for army commanders”. Read more in The Bush Veto, Iraq Funding and Permanent Occupation.

Before Bush vetoed the bill, some Democratic legislators had already confirmed that in such case they would approve an emergency bill without a deadline for the withdrawal of the troops. This measure, however, would include some criteria for the military and some goals for the Iraqi government to demonstrate whether there had been any progress in reconciling Sunnis and Shias.

To gain time for the 28,000 additional soldiers that were sent to Iraq in the first months of this year to show some results, Bush asked his commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus, to present a report on the progress of the operations for early September.

With that the Republicans, who were wary of defending Bush’s dubious versions as to when the war will end, now have a calendar and some time to recover while the administration will seek to produce clearer indications of military and political progress in Iraq. Democrats also have their sights on that date as the next moment to, based on Petraeus’ report and its findings, restart attempts to pull the troops out.

Resuming the debate in September, both for Republicans and for Democrats, is very important in view of the approach of the formal start for the 2008 presidential election campaign.

However, even if it were possible for Bush to present any result favoring him, still the political situation for the Republicans looks quite difficult. In the latest opinion poll, done by Newsweek magazine on May 2­3, whoever the Republican candidate is, even the best ranked in the poll, s/he would lose to a Democratic candidate. Moreover, in the same survey President Bush’s popularity was the lowest ever of all American presidents, at 28 percent. Read more.

In the Republican Party, the best placed candidate, Mitt Romney, is being compared to John Kerry in a series of jokes as the Republican flip flop from Massachusetts, which is how the Republicans called Kerry during the electoral process in which he was defeated by George W. Bush. Romney is being questioned for having changed his opinion in recent interviews on women’s freedom of choice with regard to abortion when he was elected governor in 2002, under pressure by the party to make him more palatable to the Christian conservative constituency.

The more recent scandals involving the Grand Old Party and the less vocal contest between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards inside the Democratic Party set the anti-climax context before the much-awaited news from Iraq comes in September.

In April, in addition to Alberto Gonzalez’s deposition before the Senate, during which the Attorney-General spent most of the time declaring that he did not recall the circumstances surrounding the firing of eight attorneys for political reasons, a private email system operated by the Republican Party was found to be working inside White House offices. Some of these messages might prove that the firings of the attorneys were politically motivated and not based on performance criteria as claimed by the government.

This system, according to Democrats, may also have been used to hide contacts made with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted of blackmail, and is presently serving a sentence for fraud. According to them, there is evidence that the system was used to address political and government issues, violating thus legislation that protects federal files.

What’s more, after Gonzalez’s participation in the firings of the attorneys became evident, Democrats want to have access to the Republicans’ communication system inside the White House, which not only was used by Bush’s special advisor Karl Rove and his staff, but also by other government officials. Some Republicans believe that the greater part of these emails, many written in a hurry and with no regard for the likelihood of their becoming public, may contain inside information with more details than expected on the Bush administration’s political activities.

Blair announces date for stepping down

British Prime Minister Tony Blair finally gave in to pressures from within his own Labour Party for him to resign to the party presidency and the post in the government, and he announced that he will resign next June 27. Gordon Brown, the incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer, is expected to occupy both posts, for today he would have the majority of the votes of the Labour representation in Parliament.

Blair’s resignation was being negotiated since the last parliamentarian election in 2004, when the number of Labour seats dropped significantly. There were several causes for Labour’s decline.

Among them were the British participation in the war in Iraq, for Blair sent some 45,000 troops to the Middle East against the opinion of the majority of the population, and the terrorist attack in London, which caused the deaths of more than fifty people and was interpreted as a consequence of the support of the British government to Bush’s war.

Although the economy has grown at higher rates than those of the European average over the last years, the British social debt is huge. The neoliberal adjustment implemented by Thatcher brought about a great reduction in the income of the majority of the population, by means of flexible labour legislation, welfare cuts and higher public services prices.

In spite of some compensatory policies, Blair did not improve the welfare system. Even the economic growth of the last years was due to a housing boom; however, it is estimated that the debts made by those who bought their own houses amount today to one trillion pounds.

The agreement to take Brown to the Prime Minister’s office had been discussed by them since they ran for the presidency of Labour in 1994, and later when the party retook power in 1997 with Blair at the head. In spite of Blair’s reluctance, pressure from within his party increased after the last district and county elections, which represented a loss for Labour and an important political victory for the Tories of the Conservative Party.

It is expected that the gradual withdrawal of the British troops from Iraq, which has already been announced, and the new party and government leadership exerted by Brown, who will likely take advantage of his performance in the cabinet, may avoid a defeat in the elections scheduled for next year. However, today’s polls give Labour its lowest historical mark in the electorate’s preference, 27%, and signal to a Tory victory led by MP David Cameron.

Right wins presidential elections in France

The first round of the French presidential elections, held on 22 April, had the following result after all votes had been counted:

In terms of the order of those most voted, the result confirmed the forecasts in the opinion polls, with the exception of Le Pen of the National Front, who confirmed his fourth place yet obtained the lowest electoral percentage since his first presidential race in 1988. For someone who made it to the second round in 2002, the 2007 election, which marked his farewell from electoral contests due to his age, happened in an atmosphere of political defeat. Apparently Sarkozy’s anti-immigration rhetoric stole his votes. Turnout was high, at 85%.

The result of the second-round runoff election held on May 6 gave Sarkozy the definitive victory by 57%, against Ségolène’s 47%, a difference of 6%. Despite the defeat, this was the socialists’ best result since François Mitterrand’s second election in 1988, especially if one considers that in the last election the socialists did not even make it to the second round.

Regardless of all the effort, the result of the first round already showed that it would not be an easy task for the Socialist party to beat the right and retake the country’s presidency. If we add up Sarkozy’s votes to those of the candidates to his right –Le Pen, Villiers and Nihous–, this represents 45.01% against a total of 36.46%, adding Ségolène’s 25.84% to the 10.62% of the candidates to her left.

Assuming that there was a complete transfer of the votes of the right to Sarkozy and of the left to Ségolène, still the Socialist candidate would have to lure at least 2/3 of the votes given to center-right candidate François Bayrou, a long call indeed.

Although Ségolène won praise for her performance in the debate on the eve of the elections and even managed to force her rival onto the defensive, actually it was Sarkozy, by adopting a softer style than usual to appeal to the electorate in the center, who won. For that, he had the support too of the majority of the UpD, though not from the party’s candidate, Bayrou. Bayrou debated with Ségolène on television, said he would not vote on the rightwing candidate, yet did not declare his support for Ségolène either.

The majority of the European countries today are governed by the right, with the exception of Italy, Spain, Norway and England. Yet Prime Minister Prodi’s situation in Italy is quite delicate, whereas polls in England forecast a victory of the conservatives in the 2008 parliamentarian elections. The Finnish government that has just been set up is a coalition of the center with the right, unlike the last years when the coalition involved the social democrats and the center. Read more in Periscope 13.

The French presidential election could have altered this picture, a hope that did not materialize, and now not only a rightwing president like Chirac is succeeded by another one called Sarkozy, but the replacement of Chirac for a new president who is much closer to the ideals defended by George Bush. This is undoubtedly a setback.

On June 10 and 17 there will be parliamentarian elections, for in France legislative elections are also held in two rounds. Expectations are that the right will keep its majority. Bayrou, who presented himself as a man of the center, though he was actually the right wing’s Plan B, took advantage of the electoral campaign and the result obtained and consolidated a more long-term political project. His party, the Union for French Democracy, has just been renamed to Union for Democracy, with Bayrou envisaging a broad, center representation.

Turkey’s soul-searching

Turkey was a great power in the past, the Ottoman Empire, which came to dominate all of the Middle East, the Balkans and a part of Northern Africa. The Russian Empire and the Western powers, notably France and England, gradually weakened it. It was reduced to its current territory when it was defeated in the First World War with its allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary.

The war of resistance by an army sector led by Kemal Ataturk against the winning powers between 1920 and 1923 took Ataturk to power and made it possible to renegotiate the humiliating peace treaty imposed by the Treaty of Sévres, which Sultan Mohamed VI had signed to avoid the total dismembering of the Turkish territory and heavy war reparations.

Ataturk founded the republic and ruled the country in an authoritarian way until his death in 1938. Yet he inaugurated the separation between the State and religion (Islam), banned the functioning of madrassas (Islamic schools), introduced the Latin alphabet, interfered in many customs, banning the need for women to wear veils and the prohibition on alcoholic beverages, all intended to “westernize” the country. Today his policy is known as Turkish secularism.

The army is still influential in politics today, with a track record of three coups d’etat since 1960. Aligned with “rightwing nationalism” originally, the army eventually embraced North-American national security doctrine, became a strong ally of the west during the Cold War and acted brutally to crush any leftist groups influenced by neighboring Soviet Union.

During the last coup in 1980, some 650,000 people were arrested and thousands tortured, banished and executed, not to mention the conflict with the Kurds, who have been fighting for their independence for a long time. The country’s historical militarism and oppression are used to explain why the left is so weak in Turkey: there are a couple of social democratic parties and the Communist party, which was only legalized in 2002.

Besides relations with the U.S., Turkey built institutional ties with Europe, becoming a NATO member in 1952 and a member of the European Common Market in 1963. Notwithstanding, its accession to the European Union is still uncertain.

This is the backdrop to the current political crisis triggered by the attempt by the Turkish Parliament, specifically by the majority AKP Party, to elect an Islamic president, the incumbent foreign relations minister, Abdullah Gul, to replace Ahmet Necdet Sezer, whose presidential term has expired, and with that introduce Islamic values in the country.

The opposition boycotted the first voting session in Parliament to elect Gul, and the candidate was denied the 2/3 necessary. The next voting, which required a 50% +1 majority, was nulled by the supreme court under the allegation of lack of a quorum, while the army released a warning against the risk of extinguishing secularism.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also of the AKP, proposed new legislative elections for the month of June and the possibility of calling a referendum to approve the introduction of the direct election for president of the republic.

Erdogan’s party had already won the elections in 1996, but at the threat of a military coup and in face of his party being made illegal, he resigned the post. The lay center parties elected Sezer president, but his government was demoralized by the acute economic crisis of 2001, very similar to the Brazilian or the Russian a short while before.

In 2002 new elections were called and the AKP, legal again, elected around 60 percent of the deputies, composed the government, conducted well the country’s economy and increased its popularity by refusing to support the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq. If snap elections happen in June, the forecast is that the AKP will have an absolute majority.

The ideological difference between the AKP and the parties that traditionally ruled this 62-million-inhabitant country is not big. What is at stake is the hegemony of the elite linked to the West as the industrialists, top army officers and the State bureaucracy and the elite composed by retailers, religious authorities and sectors of the national bourgeoisie, who command the support of most of the mostly Islamic population.

In spite of warnings made by the European Union, a new intervention by the Turkish Army under the guise of preserving secularism is not ruled out. The process is similar to the one that occurred in Algeria in 1991, when the Islamic Salvation Front won the elections yet a coup banned the party. However, the tenor of the differences separating Islamists and secularists in Turkey is much more moderate. Read more in EU has warned Turkey’s military to stay out of politics, as weekend clashes threatened the country’s most serious political crisis in a decade, Council of Europe Urges Turkish Army to Stay Out of Elections, Crisis pinches Turkey’s pocket, Turkish Constitutional Court must act in ‘full independence’ and Tension mounts in Turkey amid pressures for snap general elections.

Russia – Diplomatic problems and Putin’s future

The Russian government is demanding the extradition of millionaire Boris Berezovsky, currently exiled in the U.K., who is to be tried in his country of origin for having declared to British newspaper The Guardian that he is plotting a revolution to topple President Putin.

Although Putin has declared that at the end of his second term, in late 2008, he will leave the presidency, Berezovsky claims, “it will be necessary to use force to change this regime”.

Berezovsky received asylum in the United Kingdom in 2003, with the status of refugee, escaping from being tried on charges of fraud and money laundering. His asylum was granted based on information provided to the British government by former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, that there were plans to assassinate Berezovsky.

His statements have further worsened U.K.-Russia relations, already rattled because of the charges made by Russian dissidents living in London that the Kremlin was behind the death by poisoning of former KGB operative Litvinenko in 2006.

In view of the embarrassment caused by the millionaire refugee, the British government is being pressed not only to allow the extradition but also to review Berezovsky’s political status. The British law establishes that it is a prerogative of the courts to decide whether Berezovsky is to be extradited or not, but a government spokesman declared that the Russian’s statements are being analyzed in detail “so that his residency in the United Kingdom does not serve as a platform for a sovereign state to be overthrown by violent means”.

The majority of the Russian electorate supports Putin and is not very interested in revolutions, but Berezovsky’s comments seek to sharpen the opposition’s speech for December 2007’s parliamentarian elections and the 2008 presidential election. The Russian entrepreneur has offered his “experience and ideologies” to his contacts inside the Russian political elite, adding to that, “there are practical steps to be taken, especially, financial”.

In spite of his efforts, the rather weak electorally opposition against the Russian government is concentrated on the nationalist far-right and on Guennady Ziúganov’s Russian Communist Party. Yet, for better or for worse, Putin has already approached and is in good terms with the new Russian business community.

In his annual address before the Russian Parliament in late April, Putin repeated his attacks against the West, defined interference in Russian affairs as part of a “colonial style” treatment and threatened to suspend compliance with the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE).

Signed in 1990 to limit and redeploy heavy conventional armament in Europe, the CFE underwent a review in 1999 to reflect the changes brought about by the Soviet Union’s disintegration. The new version was ratified by Russia, but the U.S. and other NATO members refused to do the same unless Russia pulled out its troops from Georgia and Moldova.

During his announcement that he intends to declare a moratorium on the arms agreement, Putin underscored Russia’s growing annoyance at the anti-missile shield that the United States is planning to install in the country’s vicinities, with launching bases in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic.

The real issue for Russia is the U.S. and Europe’s advance to the East, which threatens Russia’s political alliances and influence on most of the countries that once were part of the former Soviet Union. For instance, today Ukraine and Georgia prefer to side with the West than with Russia.

Russian pressure and the harsher rhetoric adopted by both side have caused some concern in the international diplomatic sphere, particularly some European Union countries, Germany included, which are highly dependent upon the Russian gas supply. Now we have to wait to see how it all unfolds.

The threat was the highlight of Putin’s annual address, in which he denied plans for being reelected for a third term, yet frustrated expectations that he would nominate his successor for the January 2008 elections. According to pundits, although the Russian Constitution does not allow a third term, the president has not given up completely the idea of amending the charter to remain another four years in power.

The amendment was even suggested by the president of the Russian Senate to Putin last March and, according to newspaper Moscow News, 60% of the Russians want him to remain in the post, among other reasons, for his tougher, more assertive foreign policy, particularly when compared with that of his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, who passed away last April at the age of 75. Read more in Agência Russa Ria Novosti sobre o discurso anual de Putin and in a The Guardian series of special reports on Russia: 1) Back to the future with Putin – the president’s return to the era of authoritarianism. 2) Russia’s power play in Europe – Gazprom, its biggest company, and to many in the west a tool of the Kremlin’s expansionist ambitions. 3) From Russia, with love for the more exclusive side of London life – the influx of the super-rich into Britain and how they are making an impression on the capital.

Crisis in the Israeli government

When the Israeli parliament discussed the military fiasco represented by the invasion of Southern Lebanon in July 2006, one of the resolutions was to compose a parliamentarian committee to investigate the facts for a later report.

This committee has just presented a report named the “Winograd Report” which blames full responsibility on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Minister of Defense Amir Peretz and Army Chief Dan Halutz for the defeat, mainly for having ordered the attack without allowing the Israeli army to fully prepare for the operation.

Olmert’s popularity dropped to an extremely low level since the Israeli withdrawal, and is today around 2 percent. The report generated an even bigger crisis, with more and more people calling for the Prime Minister’s resignation. Olmert, however, has been able to resist because his coalition has a majority in Parliament and managed to defeat three different confidence motions submitted by opposition parties. The approval of any of these motions would have meant calling for a snap election and the ensuing victory of the Likud, a rightwing party, while the Kadima-Labour Party coalition would lose many seats.

His resignation, however, would not imply in new elections but merely in his replacement as party president and prime minister by the incumbent foreign relations minister, Tzipi Livni, who is Kadima’s vice-president. Livni, who has preserved her popularity, has already declared that Olmert should resign. In a similar process, within the Labour Party there are movements indicating that the party should remove Amir Peretz from the presidency, for the Labour’s electoral prospects are even worse after Peretz’s disastrous performance as minister of defense.

Japan and China closing ties – Wen Jiabao’s visit to Tokyo

In a rare visit by a Chinese leader to the Japanese parliament ­ –the first in 22 years–, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao underscored the two countries’ friendship, but made a point of demanding an apology from Tokyo for its war aggressions with concrete measures.

Japan has never admitted its responsibility for the war in the Pacific, albeit Socialist prime minister Tomiichi Murayama’s official apology to China for the war in 1995. Japan has never promoted an internal debate on its level of responsibility and never made a serious effort to propagate an alternative narrative to Yushukan, the military museum functioning inside the Yasukuni shrine.

The temple and the museum, which glorify Japan’s militarist past, constitute the cause of disagreement for the troubled relations of the country with its neighbors, notably China and South Korea. Former Prime Minister Junichi Koizumi visited the temple every year while he was in the post.

In order to improve relations with China, in October 2006, the newly appointed prime minister of Japan at the time, Shinzo Abe, visited Beijing. The initiative was reciprocated by Wen Jiabao on 11–13 April, the first visit by a Chinese leader to Japanese territory in seven years.

As for the Yasukuni shrine, which has in Abe an assiduous visitor, even more frequent than Koizumi, the Chinese believe in the tacit agreement that he will not visit the shrine as long as he stays in office. If this minimum agenda is fulfilled, the Chinese government seems determined to build a new strategic partnership with Japan, a movement that the Japanese government will likely endorse. The problem with Japanese politicians is their nationalism and the electoral repercussions should this point be eclipsed during the campaign.

Anyhow, a broad agenda was covered by both countries during the visit, such as, economic and environmental cooperation, dispute resolution mechanisms to address the territorial issue regarding the East China Sea (compounded by the existence of gas and oil) and measures designed to improve mutual trust on each other’s armies.

Wen Jiabao’s visit formalized a new dialog process between the cabinets for economic issues. Furthermore, Japanese companies will have a chance to take part in tender bids for nuclear energy projects and of parts of a project to build a fast railway line connecting Beijing to Shanghai, Wuhan, Dalian and Harbin in Manchuria. Japanese investments and expertise may also be used in environmental projects, including energy efficiency.

The dispute involving the East China Sea is potentially more dangerous. Despite the existence of demarcation lines separating both countries’ maritime waters, since China disputes that demarcation, the country has already started oil extraction in an area where the two countries exclusive economic zones overlaps.

Seven bilateral rounds to discuss the issue have been held and the little progress made has to do with China’s acceptance that the resolution of the conflict should not become a territorial issue but rather should foster the development of a partnership for the exploration of the oil-rich fields.

The improved bilateral relations, however, entail some risks. In Japan, there will be senatorial elections in a couple of months, and the upcoming period will be fully taken by sensitive anniversaries related to the Japanese actions carried out during the war against China. Any of these celebrations may rekindle the anti-Japanese sentiment that prompted the demonstrations in the streets of China in 2005.

The Chinese media emphasizes that 2007 is the 35th anniversary of the normalization of relations with Japan. However, many people should remember the year because 7 July marks the 70th anniversary of Japan’s invasion of China, and on December 13, the Nanjing massacre, Japan’s greatest atrocity in Chinese territory, will be remembered.

Despite all the turbulence, the success of Wen Jiabao’s visit may be capitalized by Abe since the reduction of tensions with China was his only achievement in the six months he was at the head of a government with very low approval ratings among Japanese voters due to the many scandals that surfaced during his term of office and to the perception among the population that he is a weak leader. Read more in O nó do nacionalismo japonês and a special report by Chinese Xinhua agency on Wen Jiabao’s visit to Japan.

Elections in Nepal

Forty-one Nepalese political parties have registered to take part in the elections to form the Constituent Assembly initially proposed for 20 June but cancelled some time later. The calendar for registrations established by the Electoral Commission was 31 March through 27 April.

Although the new date for the election has not been announced yet, the biggest Nepalese political parties registered in order to guarantee their participation in the process, among them, the Nepalese Congress, the Nepal Communist Party-Unified Marxist-Leninist and the Communist Party of Nepal Maoist (CPN-M).

The country’s eight main parties, including the CPN-M, have formed an interim parliament and the government since the old regime was overthrown in April 2006. At the time, King Gyanendra was obliged to return power to an elected parliament in view of the huge protests by the population. A peace treaty between the government and the Maoists was signed, putting an end to more than 10 years of armed conflict.

This was the first time the CPN-M registered to take part in an election since 1996, when it abandoned the institutional political path and started armed fight in the country. However, amidst the uncertainties surrounding the definition of the new date for the Constituent Assembly elections to be held, the Maoists have made an ultimatum to their peers in the government coalition for the country to be declared a republic from May 2007 onwards.

Without citing which, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, one of the main leaders of the CPN-M, accused foreign governments of trying to sabotage the elections. He also stated that the interim parliament failed by not dissolving the Nepalese monarchy and that, if that does not happen until the first week of the Nepalese month of Jeth, on 21 May, that his party will take to the streets in a now peaceful movement.

When the Maoists signed the 2006 peace treaty, both sides agreed to the need of holding elections in order to decide whether the country should remain a monarchy or would become a republic. However, as the new Electoral Commission is stalling the decision on the date of the elections, the former guerrillas are pushing their allies to transform the country’s political system through parliament.

A new clause sets forth that the Nepalese monarchy, with its 238 years of existence, may be abolished if two thirds of the members of parliament approve a law to that end. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and his Nepalese Congress party, the biggest in the alliance, which advocate that the choice must be made through a referendum, however, oppose the plan.

While the Maoists accuse Koirala of defending the king’s interests, the Nepalese Congress accuses the former guerrillas of violating the peace accord, extorting and intimidating the population. Apart from the coalition’s infighting, the territories located to the south of Nepal, on the Terai plains, have been the target of violent actions which have, since January, left a toll of 70 fatal casualties. Several ethnic groups have protested in the region, and are demanding the constitution of autonomous states for the distinct communities.

Two government officials have recently declared that the elections may be held next November. Nothing has been confirmed yet, in spite of the mounting internal pressure, plus pressure by the U.N., which fears that anti-democratic measures may be taken in this pre-electoral period.

Presidential elections in Timor Lorosae

As the second round of the presidential elections in Timor Lorosae came to an end, the winner announced was independent candidate José Ramos Horta, who obtained 69% of the votes against the Fretilin candidate, Francisco Guterres “Lu Olo”, who got only 31% of the votes, albeit his advantage in the first round. Ramos Horta managed to gain the support of nearly all the other first round contestants, besides being favored by the governments of the U.S. and Australia, two countries still with great presence and influence in the country, because of his political posture and the image he has from the times in which he advocated on behalf of the independence of East Timor before the U.N. and other organizations.

The important point is that the elections were held without the violence characteristic of the country’s last political disputes. On June 30 there will be parliamentarian elections. Among the candidates of the 14 political parties and coalitions, one of the most important is the incumbent president and former leader of the liberation armed movement, Xanana Gusmão, who will try to elect himself prime minister.

Elections in Nigeria

On April 21 Nigeria held presidential elections. This is the third time after the end of the last string of military dictatorships that lasted from 1984 to 1999. The electoral commission announced the victory of Umaru Yar’Adua, who was backed by the incumbent president, Olusegun Obasanjo, and obtained 70% of the votes. One week earlier there had also been elections in the country’s 36 states, with the president’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP) obtaining a majority, despite accusations of fraud by the opposition.

Obasanjo, a retired general, had ruled the country in the early 1970’s on a nationalist platform. In addition to that image, he is a Christian Yoruba, one of the country’s most populous ethnicities, which allowed him to return to power via an electoral process in 1999, and to be reelected in 2003. Last year, he tried to amend the Constitution to run for a third term, but the maneuver did not prosper.

The runner-up, with 18% of the ballots, was General Muhammadu Buhari, also a former dictator, who ruled the country in 1984-1985, and who became known for having banned 600,000 foreigners from Nigeria at the time.

The third, with 7% of the votes, was Atiku Abubakar, the incumbent vice-president, who broke up with Obasanjo and only managed to gain the right to take part in the contest through an injunction awarded the week before the election. Until then, a government decree prohibited those accused of corruption of running for president. The remaining candidates together got 5% of the votes.

The international observers monitoring the election reported that the process was compromised by a series of irregularities ranging from the disappearance of ballots and ballot boxes to the intimidation of voters by electoral officials inside polling stations.

Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country, with approximately 140 million inhabitants and around 250 ethnicities, among which the Hausas and the Fulanis in the north of the country, the Yorubas in the southwest, and the Ibos in the southeast, are the most numerous.

Nigeria became independent from England in 1960, but had few years of democracy throughout its history, which gained notoriety with the Biafran War between 1967 and 1970, when the Ibos seceded from the country. It is estimated that between 500 thousand and 2 million Ibos died in the war, due to the bombardments, disease and famine.

The country is rich in oil –­it is the world’s eighth largest producer­–, with its production concentrated mainly on the Niger River delta region. Yet, the country has no refineries or industries, and is highly dependent on imports. It is considered by organization Transparency International one of the most corrupt countries in the world, while 80% of its population lives in poverty.

The main social organization is the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), while the successive military governments managed to alienate the progressive and leftist political parties from the country’s political life. In 1993, the administration of General Sani Abacha executed nine militants of an organization called Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), among them journalist, playwright and environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa, internationally known.

Oil and gas exploration in the Delta region by multinational companies like Shell, Exxon, Agip, among others, has provoked great environmental damages, with no compensation on the part of the companies. In addition, the law establishes that only 13 percent of the taxes levied on the oil revenues should stay with the regional state governments, which is insufficient for large-scale social investments, even if they were willing to make them.

Replacing movements like the MOSOP, which sought to change the situation by political means, arose armed groups in the Delta region who have been kidnapping oil companies’ foreign technicians and sabotaging their installations. Regardless of the pompous names they bear –Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) and Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Forces (NDPVF)–, actually these groups are gangs that extort the companies through whatever means, for their own purposes.

In view of the situation, the electoral dispute only represented a traditional dispute between the Nigerian elites and not a process of transformation toward, at least, an economy less dependent upon a single input. Read more in NIGERIA: Watershed Elections – For Men, That Is by Sam Olukoya

Wolfowitz and the World Bank scandal

Ironically, the architect of the War in Iraq, appointed president of the World Bank by his friend President George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, would like his contribution to the institution to be remembered by his actions in support of the bank’s anti-corruption policies. However, after weeks of speculation, some high-ranking officials of the World Bank are asking Wolfowitz to resign his post, claiming that the institution’s credibility is in jeopardy because of the ethical rules Wolfowitz himself broke.

Wolfowitz granted a generous wage raise to his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a staff member of the Bank’s Department for the Middle East, before she was transferred to work for the U.S. government.

In the early days of the scandal, Wolfowitz declared, “I made a mistake and I apologize”. After two weeks, he changed his rhetoric and said, “the accusations of lack of ethics are false and misleading”.

On 4 May, the bank’s board of directors worked on their report on the case involving Wolfowitz and pondered whether he should be reprehended or even removed from the post. However, independently of the official resolutions – which will certainly be affected by a series of internal maneuvers and individual interests of the member states – the Wolfowitz and Riza affair illustrates once again the modus operandi of George Bush’s group.

In face of a “conflict of interests” for being his girlfriend’s boss, Wolfowitz negotiated a deal for Riza to remain on the bank’s payroll but to be seconded to the U.S. State Department. That should not be a problem had he not ignored the bank’s salary policies and guaranteed his friend a 36-percent salary raise, from US$ 136,660 to US$ 180,000 a year, and an additional 8-percent increase in 2007, raising her salary to US$ 193,000.

The argument of the bank’s president is that his girlfriend was about to receive a promotion when she was transferred to the U.S. government, a fact denied by the Human Resources Department of the IADB. The Department further stated that Riza’s raise was two times higher than that allowed by the bank’s internal policy.

If Wolfowitz had remained on the job for 10 years, he would make her salary move up over US$ 400,000 in 2015, which would benefit her with a generous retirement of around US$ 110,000 a year. World Bank rules determine that the retirement benefit should be calculated as an average of the employee’s three last years in service. Before that, Riza would receive approximately US$ 50,000 a year.

The negotiations to transfer Riza were concluded in September 2005. In October 2006, Anwar Ibrahim, the president of the Foundation for the Future, a private institution, got in touch with Robin Cleveland, a top Wolfowitz aide at the bank and requested that Riza be moved from the State Department to the Foundation. In December, Cleveland made a formal request to the institution’s human resources director for her transference to be approved.

She was given the task of developing a work plan whose focus would be the reform of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Anwar’s letter and other bank documents related to the case do not mention that he is a close friend of Wolfowitz’s, since the 1980’s, when Anwar was the Vice Prime Minister of Malaysia and Wolfowitz was the ambassador of the U.S. to Indonesia.

Anwar and Riza chose the foundation’s executive committee and defined the mission of “furthering and strengthening freedom and democratic practices in the nations of the Middle East and Northern Africa” through support to reforms, the media and human rights groups in these countries. Though not linked to the American government, the foundation received American federal funds worth US$ 35 million and another US$ 20 million from other sources. Notwithstanding, not a single grant or project funding has been awarded so far.

Despite the suspicion regarding the role of the foundation, the problem is still the fact that the bank’s ethics rules were broken in the Riza-Wolfowitz affair. After admitting that he made a mistake, now Wolfowitz is defending himself strongly by arguing that his role in the war in Iraq had prompted, according to him, the smear campaign now being waged against him. Even so, the bank’s executive board considered there was a conflict of interests and that he was guilty of having handled the issue the wrong way.

At a meeting held on May 17, the board approved his resignation and he announced that he would leave on June 30. Read more at the World Bank official site, Top Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers and Wolfowitz: corrupción en la cima.

Third IPCC report on climate change – proposals for action

The third and last part of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), considered the most important document on climate change, was released in Thailand last May 4. The importance of its content stems from the fact that this segment of the report addresses precisely those actions designed to mitigate the effects of global warming.

The group made up of 190 scientists and researchers from all parts of the world prepared the document presented in Bangkok to the diplomats on the delegations of the more than 100 countries present in order to negotiate the tenor of the final document.

The report calls for drastic changes in the patterns of energy use, without which emissions will grow by 40% between 2000 and 2020. The proposals include shifting to less pollutant fuels, a reduction in emissions in agriculture (caused by the use of pesticides) and efforts to achieve improved energy efficiency, with electric energy-saving buildings and lighting. Moreover, the group also suggests capturing carbon in coal-fueled plants and the use of renewable sources of energy.

According to the studies, the cost of the adaptations would not be high, in between 0.2% and 3% of the world’s gross domestic product.

The greatest challenge is how to adapt the industrialization of the developing countries to minimize the pollution created by energy generation and the construction efforts. For now, countries in this category are exempt from commitments related to emissions reductions, while at the negotiation table they seek to keep the advantages acquired with the Kyoto Protocol, which is to be renegotiated in 2012 and is expected to modify their status.

In order to fend off the mounting criticism it has received with regard to this part of the report, China played a crucial role by presenting 1,500 proposals to amend the draft. China is expected to outweigh the United States as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse effect gases now in 2007 since most of its energy is generated by burning coal. Both countries are alarmed at the possibility of an emissions cap being set, which would possibly require curbing the two countries’ industrial activities.

However, China and other developing countries defend the inclusion in the document of a mention that the developed countries were responsible for 75% of pollutants’ emissions, given that the growth and consolidation of their economies were based on the utilization of dirty forms of energy.

The first IPCC report attributed to human action the responsibility for climate change, the second described the consequences of the change, and this third report presents recommendations.

The conclusion of this round of analyses by the IPCC will be discussed at the next G8 meeting, to be held in June, in Germany, currently the country presiding over the group. Read the report Climate Change 2007 – Mitigation of Climate Change.