There's only so much IMF can do for Ukraine

By Ioana Botea

The global economic crisis has unveiled how vulnerable Ukraine is - not only in its political structures, but also in its economy. In the past six months, it has seen its government collapse over the war in Georgia, its financial system disintegrated and its currency shed a third of its value, it had a bitter dispute with Russia over gas supply, and it is now struggling not to default on its sovereign debt. The global slump in commodity prices has severely affected Ukraine which is highly dependent on its steel, fertilizer and chemical exports. Industrial output crashed by 34 percent over the course of last year, and according to Valery Litvitsky, adviser to the central bank, the economy contracted by as much as 20 percent in January alone.

Overwhelmed by huge public foreign debt, heavy private borrowing in foreign currencies, large current-account deficits, lax public-spending controls and unstable leadership, Ukrainian policymakers decided to plead the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance. Following Hungary, Ukraine received in early November 2008 a $16.5 billion two-year loan from the IMF, despite uncertainty regarding the country's ability to adopt the radical economic policies needed to restore confidence. The IMF package was focused on reviving the banking sector and consolidating its capacity to pay its large external debts.

The post-Soviet Ukraine has yet to achieve political stability. While some observers see the internal political struggle as part of the democratic process, others have dubbed it as immature and even farcical as orange-revolution allies, President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko have been sabotaging instead of supporting each other. The fact that the two political leaders are expected to compete against each other in the upcoming presidential election partly explains the dissention.

While politicians seem more preoccupied with the internal strife, concerns regarding the possibility of Ukraine to default on its sovereign debt are quickly intensifying. In an attempt to appease investor panic, Ms. Tymoshenko insisted that nothing in the government's finances warrants "pronouncing the word default." Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with Ukraine's fiscal and monetary policies has prevented the country from receiving the second tranche of the IMF loan worth $1.8 billion.

Desperate to find ways to finance the country's exorbitant deficit, Ms. Tymoshenko has been striving to consolidate political unity to confront the economic crisis. To regain IMF trust, she invited Mr. Yushchenko to cosign a declaration expressing readiness to cooperate with it. Ukraine's ability to overcome the crisis is now contingent on its leadership's wiilingness to stop the bickering and to finally combine forces.

Aso and Obama make face time, make nice

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso’s visit to the District came and went with not so much to show for it. Perhaps the meeting of the two leaders resulted in a needed affirmation of their alliance and will help them move forward together most productively in these pressing times. Aso, the first world leader to visit President Barack Obama in Washington, agreed to work with the United States president to stimulate economic demand and fight protectionism, "to work closely and urgently… to stimulate demand at home and abroad, to help other countries respond to the global crisis, [and] to unfreeze credit markets,” relayed a statement following the White House talks. Aso said that only the United States and Japan enjoyed sufficient economic strength to effect changes in the global economic recession. Obama responded in kind, adding that Japan linked America to the world economy and calling their relationship the “cornerstone of security in East-Asia.”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had just extended an invitation to Aso last weekend during a stop in Tokyo, demonstrating the Obama administration’s willingness to work with Aso, despite his lack of domestic and worldwide support. His 24-hour visit resulted in not much more than reassurance from Obama concerning the importance of the U.S.-Japanese alliance in Asia. The two leaders talked about North Korean nuclear and missile ambitions, Afghanistan, climate change and the global economic crisis.

While Aso praised the new administration for its North Korean crisis approach as clearer than that in the Bush administration, he warned that the economic downturn has limited China’s and South Korea’s abilities to provide assistance to North Korea.

While President Obama enjoys international popularity, Prime Minister Aso struggles to stay in power. A poll released this week showed that almost four out of five Japanese voters want Prime Minister Aso to resign. The unpopular minister did not enjoy the typical White House hospitalities -- including the joint press conference and lunch -- and some analysts said that Washington foresees Aso forced out of power soon. Washington meant to send a signal to the world not of support for Aso, but of commitment to Japan as a vital partner in addressing global economic and security crises. Michael Auslin, a Japan specialist, put it best: “If we continue to wait for the next Koizumi, the next strong leader, we’re going to be waiting forever.”

Ready-to-launch missiles create unrest, halt dialog with North Korea

By Imola Unger

During her official visit to Asia Secretary of State Clinton warned Friday that continued insults against South Korea will not improve US-North Korean relations. Hillary Clinton recommended returning to nuclear talks and signaled willingness from part of the US to resume diplomatic relations with the communist country.

North Korea's recent activity on what appears to be launch-ready missiles aimed at its southern neighbor, with an assessed capacity to reach the United States, has created disquietude in the international area. Warnings have been issued from a number of countries against a test fire and intelligence forces are keeping a continuous watch on the communist state. Secretary of State Clinton reminded that any such launch would constitute a violation of a 2006 Security Council act prohibiting nuclear activity in the country.

She identified the North Korean nuclear arsenal and increased number of military troops as a high security risk for the area and said the US would be willing to supply aid to the region on the condition that North Korea stop producing and deploying missiles. Clinton found Pyongyang’s reluctance to participate in any internationally conducted investigations or even negotiations unconducive to establishing a safe relation with its neighbor and the US.

Image by Btxtsf, released under Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.5 license.

South Korea's change in attitude favoring a more radical approach towards the North is not fostering positive changes with the Northern neighbor. Relations froze as Southern leader Lee suspended pursuing negotiations with the North and cut off aid to the country. North Korea began a threatening rhetoric toward the South and has also accused the United States of "frantically" plotting military action in the region, threatening to be ready to respond, which did not elicit a favorable reaction from America.

The Secretary of State’s remarks show little shift from the previous administration’s approach. President Bush called North Korea “an outpost of tyranny,” and Clinton’s phrasing was not dissimilar last week, threatening with no improvement on building friendlier ties with the country.

Clinton did not mention the topic of North Korea as one of the subjects discussed during her later China visit. Experts surmise the silence means not avoidance but uncertainty regarding influence on the country. Predictions as to North Korea's change in behavior are pessimistic. A change in US approach is therefore also unlikely to happen, an economic security specialist said in Seoul. Obama is likely to maintain an unyielding stance unless North Korea's denuclearization is achieved.

On Friday the Secretary of State announced the person of the new North Korea envoy, former South Korean ambassador Stephen Bosworth. Further major succession issues in the area include a potential heir to Kim Jong-il, who is said to have been in ill health as of late.

U.S. and India: Democracies of the Future

By: Jaya Spier

India has not ranked as a top priority with the new American administration in the month since Barack Obama became the forty-fourth President of the United States. However, Obama has inherited a positive relationship with this flourishing democracy. And now with the current situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan, India comes to play an important part as their interests do rest upon President Obama’s decisions.

In September of 2008 George W. Bush signed the nuclear deal that ended a thirty-year ban on nuclear trade between India and the United States. “The deal will give India access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel in return for inspections of its civilian, but not military, nuclear facilities.” (BBC.com)

This progress between India and the United States was a big step for the coming years. Obama has inherited this good relationship. However, if he is not careful with America’s economic policy he may damage this progress. India’s textile industry has taken a big hit with the economic crisis. Much of the clothing sold in the United States is made in India. With American people less willing to spend, there is a smaller demand for goods, resulting in a loss of jobs and production in India. 

The downward spiral occurring in the textiles industry, plus Obama’s protectionist attitude that has infiltrated his newly proposed stimulus bill does not bode well for Indo-American relations. Plus, with the United States paying attention in Pakistan and willing to aid them with the Kashmir issue in exchange for help in Afghanistan, India needs to proceed with caution. Luckily all is not lost, since Hillary Clinton is the new Secretary of State and the Clintons have had very friendly ties with India since Bill Clinton’s presidency. Perhaps Obama will be able to achieve his goals with Pakistan and Afghanistan without completely offending the Indian government. However, there have been rumors that the Clintons relationship with India will cause Hillary to lean in an Indian direction. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton will have to be careful and maintain a balance of friendship and objective action.

With Richard Holbrooke as the new envoy to South Asia and Afghanistan, Obama has sent the message that cooperation is key. During his visit to Pakistan this month, Holbrooke stressed that Islamic militant groups are a common threat for the United States, Pakistan and India. The FBI was heavily involved in investigations after the Mumbai attacks in November of last year. Working together is the next step for these three countries. It is also time for this new focus to forge clearer and stronger ties between the two democratic giants; India because of its large population and the United States because of its superpower status. 

Obama and Cuba: Potential Allies or Eternal Foes?

By Alyssa Landers

Within two days of taking office, President Barack Obama publicly announced his intention to close Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba.  In an effort to set a new precedent not only on torture policies but on respect for the rule of due process, The New York Times has quoted Mr. Obama as stating that “We believe we can abide by a rule that says, we don’t torture, but we can effectively obtain the intelligence we need.” 

 

In addition to the closing of Gitmo, the new administration’s professed commitment to bipartisanship and openness in foreign diplomacy seems to set the stage for a new kind of relationship between the United States and former enemies such as Cuba.   Recently, Republican senator Richard Lugar urged fellow senators to broaden their outlook on Latin-American relations and advocated for “lifting Bush administration restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, reinstituting formal bilateral cooperation on drug interdiction and migration, and allowing Cuba to buy U.S. agricultural products on credit.”  During his candidacy, Obama also pledged to “immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island,” thereby removing the restrictions of the Bush administration.   

 

Moreover, advocates of lifting the almost 50-year-old trade embargo with Cuba attest that it would “cost to the US economy at $1.2 billion per year” to maintain the blockade.  President Obama, however, stated that he intends to “maintain the embargo to press for changes in the Communist-run country.”  And with the current economic crisis as his top priority, Latin-American relations seem to have taken a backseat.     

 

Russia, on the other hand, wasted no time in securing ties with their former Cold War ally in an effort to develop new markets and re-establish diplomatic ties.  In fact, recent talks between Russian president Medvedev and Cuban leader Raul Castro (brother of Fidel Castro) have not only proven friendly, but downright nostalgic.  The two leaders talked of rekindling old ties, but carefully neglected to mention any plans for military re-alignment.    

 

President Castro, who admits that his “expectations of a change in U.S. policy may be too high,” made clear that he was open to talks with Obama.  But with the recent global economic crisis—which, in addition to three recent hurricanes in the region, hit the island particularly hard—Cuba is looking to gain an economic foothold.  The Obama administration, however, has made clear that it will not necessarily remove the trade embargo, thereby pushing Cuba toward more accepting allies, like Russia and China. 

 

What remains to be seen then, is whether or not President Obama will answer the call to end the trade embargo—a move endorsed by the United Nations as well as Cuba.  To date, the embargo has had no effect on bringing democracy to Cuba.  And while Mr. Obama set a precedent of respect for human rights in his closing of Guantanamo Bay, he may have to rethink his strategy on U.S.-Cuba relations.    

Chavez Ready to Meet Obama

By Michael Burgevin

After eight years of tension between Venezuela and the United States, President Hugo Chávez indicated last week that he is prepared to engage in conversations with the American government. “Any day is propitious for talking with President Barack Obama” announced Mr. Chávez to a news conference full of foreign correspondents on Sunday (nytimes). Mr. Chávez’s willingness to negotiate with the United States marks a dramatic shift from his recent criticism of President Obama. Relations between the administrations worsened in January when Mr. Chávez chastised the President for voicing concerns that Venezuela had offered assistance to Colombian rebels.

Fortifying a relationship with Mr. Chávez became increasingly important last Sunday when Venezuela passed a referendum that allows Mr. Chávez to run again for presidency in a vote declared to be democratic by the U.S. State Department. Mr. Chávez, who would have been forced to leave office in 2012, attempted to pass similar legislation in December 2007, but opposition forces managed to ignite a sufficient resistance against him. With the limit on presidential terms removed, many predict that if the political platform does not change dramatically in the next few years, Mr. Chávez will win again in 2012.

Venezuela’s relationship with the United States has been strained ever since the Bush administration tacitly approved of the failed coup attempt against Mr. Chávez in 2002. Affairs between the two countries worsened significantly last year, culminating in September when Mr. Chávez expelled the U.S. ambassador Patrick Duddy and recalled the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington under claims that the Bush administration was attempting to expel him from the presidency.

Mr. Chávez’s change of heart towards the American government has been accredited to the financial crisis in Venezuela. The United States still imports a majority of Venezuela’s oil. With crude oil prices having fallen so dramatically in the past year, and the credit crisis finally reaching Venezuela’s shore, many analysts believe that Mr. Chávez realizes the necessity of healthy trade relations with the U.S.

Some experts however are predicting a return to hostile relations as soon as Venezuela is able to realign its economic position. Allan Brewer Carias of the Columbia University Law School explained recently in an interview that “in order to maintain his leadership in the country (Mr. Chávez) needs to have an enemy, even though that enemy is a fiction.” Mr. Carias believes that it is only a matter of time before Mr. Chávez once again denounces the imperialist nature of the United States.

al-Bashir Arrest Presents Obama With Opportunity

By Rachel Oppenheimer

On Sudan and Darfur, President Obama's Africa team has begun a lengthy policy review and a search for a special envoy. But in light of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir's arrest on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, can the United States really collaborate with a war criminal in peace processes? Raj Purohit and Howard Salter of the Baltimore Sun propose that the Obama administration leads by example and leverages the pressure of the court's action on the Sudanese leader. If he publicly supports the arrest warrant and makes clear that the United States will not support any Security Council member's attempts to protect Mr. al-Bashir, Obama opens the door to collaboration with global partners to end the genocide and solidify a peace agreement.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 brought only fragile peace to Sudan's Darfur region. In January, the Enough Project and the Save Darfur Coalition wrote a letter to President Obama recommending the imposition of a no-fly zone over Darfur. Further, an implementation of the peace agreement would likely include a long-term United Nations peace-keeping group in the region, complete demilitarization of the militia groups, governance concessions by the Sudanese central authorities, and transfer of alleged war criminals to the International Criminal Court.

A change in American policy remains to be seen, but three Sudanese people provided BBC with their mixed thoughts on today's internal deal between Darfur's rebel Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) and the Khartoum government. “With elections coming up, it's in the government's interest to keep Darfur volatile,” remarked Ishag Mehki, an Interpreter in London. Gasim Badri, an Academic from Khartoum, said “It's time for Sudan's politicians to shape up or ship out.” But do the people have faith in the approach of the new United States government? Ghazi Suleiman, a human rights lawyer and member of the Southern People's Liberation Movement, doubts Obama's wisdom: “I know Obama's appointees. And I know their policy toward Sudan. Everybody here knows it. The policy is very aggressive, and very harsh. I think we will really miss the judgments of George W. Bush.”

Special Envoy Hobrooke Reporting for Duty

By: Jaya Spier

President Obama has recently added a new member to his growing club of foreign envoys. However, while Richard Holbrooke may be new to the Obama team, he is an old player when it comes to these games. Holbrooke has been involved with government since the beginning of his career in 1962 when he joined the Foreign Service after graduation from Brown University.

Since then he worked under President Johnson with Vietnam and then he served as a member of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Talks. Later he became Peace Corps Director in Morocco and Managing Editor for Foreign Policy Magazine. In 1977 Holbrooke became the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs under President Carter. During the four years that he held this position, the United States and China secured a diplomatic accord.

Holbrooke was responsible for negotiating the Dayton peace accords to end the war in Bosnia and now he has been appointed the special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems that if anyone can help the situation, Holbrooke can. “Between them, the two countries contain unstable governments, insurgencies, corruption and a narcotics trade, nuclear material, refugees, resentment of American power, a resurgent Taliban, and in the shadows of the tribal region that joins the two countries, Al Qaeda and presumably Osama bin Laden.” (NY Times)

It is a lot to tackle and Holbrooke has not had a lot of involvement in South Asia. As he said during a security conference in Munich “I have never seen anything like the mess we have inherited…It is like no other problem we have confronted, and in my view it’s going to be much tougher than Iraq.”

Holbrooke has been given access to two of the countries that he referred to in his 2008 article in Foreign affairs as part of the five neighboring “the center of the arc of crisis that directly threatens the United States' national security” the other three were Turkey, Iraq and Iran. (Foreign Affairs)

During Hillary Clinton’s bid for Presidency Holbrook was one of her top foreign policy advisors. He also criticized the Bush administrations for its policy in both Pakistan and Afganistan. Now “he has taken on a task so difficult that merely averting disaster may be the only triumph.”(NY Times) Holbrooke is set on getting in there and making a difference. He is an expert in his field and has fresh ideas on how to handle the situation.

 "What is required in my view is new ideas, better coordination within the US government, better coordination with our NATO allies and other concerned countries, and the time to get it right…Countries bordering Afghanistan must also be drawn in as part of a solution…including Iran but particularly Pakistan, where the Taliban and its backers in Al-Qaeda and criminal gangs have rear bases…All the neighbours... play a direct role and we're going to look for more of a regional approach.” (France 24)

 It looks like Afghanistan and Pakistan have major obstacles confronting their present and future as Holbrooke begins his tour examining the pros and cons of the current political scene, forging ahead to create new alliances and crush anything that stands in his way.

 

Holbrooke to Solve the Af-Pak Problem

By Ioana Botea

There is no doubt that the “Af-Pak” problem is one of the greatest foreign policy challenges of the Obama administration. Special envoy Richard C. Holbrooke was welcomed in the region with a bomb at the Pakistani border and coordinated attacks in the Afghan capital. The events are believed to be the result of a joint effort to intimidate the American representative, suggesting the fact that the neighboring countries represent two fronts of the same war. Mr. Holbrooke is visiting South Asia in order to reassess the security situation and propose a new U.S. policy for the region during the NATO summit in April.

The revival of the Taliban in the past two years has proven the need to redefine American engagement in Afghanistan. According to Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, the recent spread of the Taliban is attributable to the ineffectiveness and corruption of the U.S.-baked Afghani government. Mr. Obama has announced the intention to send as many as 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. However, the loss of the military base in Kyrgyzstan and the need to find alternative routes for the “surge” is likely to slow the process.

Indicating the complex nature of the situation in Afghanistan, Mr. Holbrooke declared in Munich that, “There is no Dayton agreement in Afghanistan. It’s going to be a long, difficult struggle.” He played an essential role in the peace agreement in Bosnia in 1995. Gaining support from Pakistan is very important in the attempt to improve security in the region. Not only do insurgent have ties with terrorist networks in Pakistan’s tribal areas, but they also obtain a large proportion of the funding from Pakistani patrons. Mr. Holbrooke has also expressed his willingness to engage in political dialogue with Taliban members willing to separate from Al Qaeda. Mr. Holbrooke now holds the heavy responsibility of improving the situation in perhaps the most problematic region in the world.

International Reaction to U.S. Stimulus

by Alyssa Landers

After the recent U.S. passage of the $789 billion dollar stimulus plan, the European Union (EU) is following suit, proposing many of the same measures as the U.S. government.  Specifically, the EU may be requiring all banks to report back to government in regards to their assets, as well as mandate their participation in the market.  France has also planned a similar auto-industry bail-out that would lend auto-makers 3 billion euro over a period of 5 years in exchange for a guarantee to keep plants running. 

 

Job losses overseas have also skyrocketed everywhere from the United States to South Africa, with no change in sight.  With unemployment levels at almost 30% currently, the nation of South Africa “hitherto fairly well protected by its well-regulated banking system from some of the squalls, will follow its main trading partners in America, Europe and Japan into a technical recession—two successive quarters of negative growth—for the first time in 17 years.”

 

Russia, like South Africa, had experienced a booming economy prior to the recent global crash.  However, Russian workers are not taking job losses in stride, with many taking to the streets to protest.  The Russian auto industry which, like in the United States, is on the decline, has suffered a huge blow due to the economic crisis, with many workers left jobless.  According to The New York Times, “when the economy was surging, Mr. Putin’s government had widespread support, and the opposition was marginalized. Now that times are tough, events in the Far East suggest broader rumblings.”    

 

Meanwhile, China pointed out recently that trade protectionism, part of the “buy American” mantra of the stimulus plan, can only lead to negative effects for global commerce.  G-7 nations (including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and the United States) also agreed that any movements toward protectionism were “populist measures” that would later be rebuked, pointing to the Great Depression as an example of the failings of protectionist trade policy within the context of promoting global prosperity.   

 

At the recent World Social Forum, a meeting of mostly-leftist “social movements,” nations such as Brazil recommended not only large-scale credit agency reform, but suggested that “the world’s economy should get a stimulus in the form of a green New Deal.”

 

Despite long-term considerations though, all countries affected by the crisis are vying to get their stimulus packages passed as expediently as possible.  Banks are now favoring domestic loaning policies, and citizens are demanding government subsidies to stay afloat.  Yet with the global economy largely at risk, a move toward economic nationalism could be damaging in the long-term.  

Clinton in China

By Michael Burgevin

If there was any doubt that President Obama recognizes the growing power of developing countries, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s impending visit to Asia indicates just how seriously the White House views relations with China and other Asian countries. Not since the 1960s has the Secretary of State flown east before flying west. Secretary Clinton, who will be landing in Japan today, will continue on to Indonesia, South Korea, and finally ending her trip in Beijing at the end of the week.

Although Secretary Clinton’s trip is highly symbolic in its recognition of Asian economic and political influences, none of the visits are expected to break significant ground on issues of diplomatic relations. “In all capitals, the secretary will be discussing common approaches to the challenges facing the international community, including the financial markets turmoil, humanitarian issues, security and climate change” reports State Department spokesman Robert Wood (reuters).

In a speech given last Friday at the Asia Society in New York, Secretary Clinton addressed the need to reform President Bush’s antagonistic policies towards China, stating that although “some believe that China on the rise is by definition an adversary . . . we believe the United States and China benefit from, and contribute to, each others successes” (nytimes).

Secretary Clinton has always maintained an outspoken position on the human rights atrocities of the Chinese government. Just last year while competing for the democratic presidential nomination in the U.S., then-Senator Clinton spearheaded a protest of Tibetan Monks, calling on President George W. Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics. Chinese authorities are well aware of Secretary Clinton’s record, yet seem to appreciate the emphasis that the United States has placed on the region.

It appears doubtful that Secretary Clinton will address human rights violations in her first visit as she did in 1995, instead remaining focused on issues central to the Obama administration. Topics expected to be covered in Beijing include military-to-military talks and strategic development against global warming. Secretary Clinton has also expressed her desire to engage the Beijing authorities in a discussion regarding North Korea. Some analysts, however, doubt that the United States can expect a significant response from China on these issues, sighting the recent crippling of the Chinese economy as a major deterrent in the development of international treaties.

Economy and Climate Become Focus of Clinton's Visit

By Imola Unger

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarked on a diplomatic trip to Asia Sunday, with the global economy crisis and the issue of climate change ranking high on the agenda. Clinton is scheduled to visit several countries in the region, including long-time strategic allies Japan and China, both decisive voices in the most pressing global crises. The destination is unusual for a first foreign visit in office, and is meant to emphasize the Obama administration's eagerness to strengthen and revive ties with the fast-emerging oriental economies.

Expectations as to the issues she will be addressing during meetings with Asian leaders primarily revolve around the economic crisis and climate policy, but nuclear proliferation and human rights are also very likely to come up. In her first major address as Secretary of State, Clinton announced Saturday that codependence is the feature that characterizes US-Asian relations best. Focusing primarily on China and Japan, she stressed the importance of joining forces and resources to resolve global issues on the political, economic, and environmental planes. It has been suggested that the U.S. and China could be "candle holders" in the realm of climate issues; one possible way is to establish a so-called "green relationship" which would pave the way for the rest of the world on handling the environmental crisis.

"Our mutual economic engagement with China was evident during the economic growth of the past two decades, it is even clearer now at economic hard times and in the array of global challenges we face from nuclear security to climate change to pandemic disease and so much else," the politician was quoted as saying. She appeared determined to exert some pressure regarding these issues as she went on talking about how she will emphasize Sino-US cooperation in Beijing. She is wary of attempting to use the occasion for enforcing any practical and drastic measures such as carbon emission caps or reviewed trade regulations, however.

China is not viewed as a threat to US economy, Clinton said, but is rather seen as a highly competent long-term partner. Utterances in a similar vein have signaled open breaking from the previous administration’s approach.

Heavy Democracy Gives Israel More to Worry About

By Rachel Oppenheimer

The final results of Israel’s tight general elections confirmed that neither main party can form a government on its own. Incumbent Kadima won 28 seats and opposition party Likud won 27, each well short of the needed 61 for parliamentary control. As a result, Centrist Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, who has declared her total support for the “Two Nation States” solution, calls for a collaboration deal with Benyamin Netanyahu, leader of the right wing Likud party and widely thought to become the next prime minister. “A rotation is the minimum that Kadima can demand so that a stable government sees the light of day,” said Avi Dichter, public security minister of Kadima.

Yet Yisrael Beitenu enters the picture with high influence, too. Thanks to leader Avigdor Lieberman’s racist ideology, Beitenu emerged as the third largest political movement. With 15 seats in parliament, Beitenu holds enough power to dictate its own ethnic cleansing terms for any impending power deal. Lieberman, the new kingmaker and an ultranationalist, will decide on the prime minister position and many worry about the stubborn and right-wing results of his increased role. Obsessed with maintaining the Jewish majority in Israel at all costs, Lieberman proposed forcing Arabs to take the loyalty oath or face the cancellation of their citizenship. His extremist ideas that project expelling or deporting non-Jews can only further Middle East crises and multiply racial, ethnic, and religious conflicts.

The Left has done its very best to hold forth this week, even given Meretz’s disappointing results in the elections. Meretz chief Haim Oron announced today that he will not step down as party leader. “For me, responsibility means working toward the rehabilitation of Meretz,” he said. “In light of that, I have decided not to resign.” If the Kadima party ultimately splits, Israel’s left may have to provide an alternative in the next elections cycle, argued Avshalom Ivan, Meretz representative in Knesset. Alongside Meretz, the Labor party needs to work hard to regain the public’s trust. The general elections cut down Meretz from five to three Knesset seats and Labor from 19 to 13. Instead of joining the new government, both parties prepare to sit in the opposition. The Israeli government sure has its plate full with fragmented and fractioned political voices.

Iraqis move beyond sectarian divide

By Ioana Botea



The provincial elections on January 31, 2009 marked a change on the Iraqi political map. In a departure from the violence, intimidation and apathy which characterized the 2005 ballot, the most recent elections were generally peaceful and optimistic. At one of the voting centers, 80-year-old Ibrahim Saleh told CNN that elections were “open to all society components to express their opinion freely” and that “this process is on track to building a functioning democracy.” Iraq’s provincial elections are significant for a number of reasons. First, the improved security situation is a good indicator for the health of Iraq’s political system. This initial round of voting is also suggestive of the relative strength of the political parties ahead of national elections scheduled for the end of the year. The Shi’ite-led alliance of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was determined the winner in 10 out of the 14 provinces, including Baghdad. As Prime Minister, al-Maliki managed to consolidate his position at the forefront of Iraqi politics primarily due to his successful attempts to tackle sectarian violence in southern Iraq and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, an increasing preference for secularists became evident. In 2005, Iraqis embraced their new found religious freedoms and opted for the party that reflected their Shi’ite or Sunni identity. Moreover, due to the fact that most Sunnis chose to boycott the elections to protest against American involvement, the Shi’ites achieved political power thus instigating sectarian conflicts which still persist. Six years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the people who continue to struggle with extreme poverty, urban decay and rampant violence are starting to consider the alternative of keeping politics and religion separate. Ayad Allawi declared in an interview for CNN that, “I respect religion. But religion needs to be depoliticized.” Moving away from sectarianism would not only reduce violence and improve economic conditions, but it would also contribute to the long-term goal of a stable and unitary Iraq.

Iraqis Head To The Polls

by Alyssa Landers

With the Iraq provincial elections finally at a close, the results are in—and not without unexpected results.  Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of the Islamic Dawa Party, who started his career as a Shi’ite political dissident under the Saddam regime, won approval in nine of the fourteen provinces with the highest rating in the southern and central provinces. 

 However, with almost forty percent of Iraqis out at the polls this year (as compared to a mere two percent in 2005), the results were far from unanimous.  In the north, for example, the Al Hadba party leads in the polls, followed by the Kurdish Ninevah Brotherhood.  In the western province of Anbar, the results were close, with the Iraqi National Project, the Sunni-led Sahwa (“Awakening”) Party, and the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) all in close competition. 

 In stark contrast to the somewhat chaotic elections of 2005, which were largely boycotted by a marginalized Sunni population, the elections that took place on January 31^st seem to have gone quite smoothly, with many speculating that a Maliki-led secular nationalism could translate to a full-blown, Iraqi-run Democracy.  Some even went as far as to say that “the war is over.”    

 Although Barack Obama had nothing but warm congratulations for Iraqis at the polls this year, the president’s commitment to a “responsible, phased withdrawal” from the area remains stringent.  According to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates the Status of Forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq (effective as of January 1^st, 2009), which “calls for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities by the end of June, and all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, at the latest,” will serve to “balance the interests of both countries as we see the emergence of a sovereign Iraq in full control of its territory.” 

 Yet anti-American sentiment still runs high in much of Iraq, especially among Sunni Arabs in the nation, leading some to question whether we can count on a newly-independent Iraq as a future ally.  With the recent elections, Sunnis have a definite chance of re-claiming power in Iraq, now with a more centralized focus. 

 However, the question of fairness of the elections remains unanswered, as some contend that Maliki’s "sweeping victory" in provinces like Baghdad and Basra occurred due to “voting irregularities” and as such plan to appeal any Dawa victory. 

 Whatever the speculations, conditions in Iraq have undoubtedly improved in recent months, with a significant drop in violence.  According to The New York Times, security remained tight and there were “no confirmed deaths,” which contributed to the celebratory air among Iraqi voters.  As one Iraqi voter stated, “I’m very happy…We could not do the same thing the last time because of the insurgency.”   

Mission: Iraqi Elections

By Michael Burgevin

As Iraqis headed to the polls on Saturday, January 31, journalists and reporters from around the world held their breath, waiting for their next headline full of violence and bloodshed. The real headline, however, was the lack of uproar. There were no missiles deployed, no foreign monitors killed, and only several well-contained outbreaks of violence. The country received international recognition for the relative smoothness of their elections. "I'm very much encouraged by what you have achieved,” said U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon while visiting the country last Friday. The 2009 elections contrast sharply with the last provisional elections in 2005, which were hampered by religious boycotting and insurgent control of several regions.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s Dawa Party was the overwhelming political winner. Preliminarily tallies show that candidates loyal to Mr. Maliki won many, but not all, of the provincial seats, including Baghdad. However, they do not control enough seats to operate without coalition building. The strong if not overwhelming support of the Shiite Party sends a dual message: many Iraqis desire a strong central government, but they do not want one party to control all political power (nytimes). Mr. Maliki’s party has reflected this message. “We don’t seek to rule alone or marginalize anyone. We are open to the other parties because we don’t believe in the dictatorship of regions” said Hassan Sinead, Member of Parliament and the Dawa Party.

Mr. Maliki’s success surprised those who predicted his downfall given his close ties to onetime president George W. Bush. Many cite his domestic development and national security as reasons for his popularity, suggesting that Mr. Bush’s war was not enough to completely wipe out the hope of future peace in Iraq.

The provincial elections have the potential to reintegrate Sunni Arabs back into the political system. Because Sunnis boycotted the 2005 elections, regions such as the Nineveh Province have been dominated by Kurds, even though Sunnis make up over 70 percent of the population. Initial election reports suggest that the Sunnis have began reclaiming such territories. Sam Parker, an Iraq Program Officer for the United States Institute of Peace, hopes that such victories will lead to Sunni trust in the political process. “The Sunnis are going to feel like that if they play the political game, they will get a fair shake when it comes to representation and distribution of resources,” said Parker in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations.

This is not to say that the crisis in Iraq has been solved, far from it. The claim of victory oversimplifies the realities of any international issue. With multiple assertions of fraud in the Anbar Provence, the murder of eight candidates, and the shooting of several protesters, no one could claim that Iraq has magically transformed itself into a secure country. Much will be revealed as the country gears up for its national elections at the beginning of 2010. For now, the world must hold judgment as we wait to see, were the elections a positive step towards political representation, or just another Mission Accomplished?

Iraq progresses with elections - to offset years of damage?

By Rachel Oppenheimer
Surprisingly, Iraq's regional elections proved mostly free and fair, popular, and generally absent of violence. With traffic banned and border crossings and airports closed, heavily protected Iraqis casted their provincial votes last Saturday. “The purple fingers have returned to build Iraq,” said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in reference to the post-vote indelible ink stains on index fingers. In 2005, some Iraqis found their purple fingers amputated by election boycotters.

This year's results demonstrated that parties promising security and national unity have come out ahead of the sectarian groups originally bent on dominating the country. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's non-sectarian State of Law coalition succeeded in provincial polls, strengthening the central state and winning support in time for the national elections later in the year. “This shows that the Iraqi voter wants to hear nationalist speeches as well as religious speeches,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman. Iraqis' primary concerns lie in security rather than a devotion to religious politics, al-Dabbagh argued.

Election results in favor of Al-Maliki surprise many, especially in light of his close ties with former President George W. Bush throughout much of the occupation. Perhaps after all of the Bush years atrocities, international Iraq war scorn, and fruitless searches for weapons of mass destruction, Iraq demonstrates hope of stability and democracy.

Victory, though, is a subjective term. A military officer in Baghdad's Sadr City district shot and injured two people as voters were chanting slogans at a polling station. Tribal sheikhs in Anbar province accused incumbent Sunni politicians of rigging the polls. The Economist reports almost cheerily about the death of eight candidates this election compared to the 200 back in 2005. Even alongside some evidence of progress, the continued violence and lower than expected turnout makes stability perhaps too powerful a word to stand by. The war's costs arguably still outweigh the benefits, with the United States' abysmal world standing and the daily increasing number of casualties. Marina Ottaway, director of Middle Eastern Affairs for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that “after all these years and the money that we've spent, I'm not sure we're coming out in a stronger strategic position.”

Peace and Democracy: Iraq 2009

By: Jaya Spier

Expectations for the results of the 2009 Iraqi provincial elections are at an all time high. In 2005 there was much violence and doubt concerning the democratic affair. Most Sunni Arabs and a portion of the Shia poor did not accept the previous candidates and refused to vote. However, this year the elections have come at a time of great change. 142,000 American troops are pulling out of the country and all parties involved seem to have followed the rules. “The new councils will exercise greatly enhanced powers such as the right to appoint and dismiss governors as well as preparing their own budget.” (Independent) There is no doubt that the Iraqi people are beginning to take charge of their future, the United States is no longer holding all the strings.

There were multiple parties participating in the elections for both Sunni and Shia populations. The religious groups experienced a backlash from the results of the last election and other more stable parties dealing with a more political agenda have taken up the Iraqi causes. Rather than the chaos that occurred in 2005, these elections have ended fairly peacefully. The amount of violence that took place before these elections was significantly less than during the ’05 elections. Candidates risked assassination and some did not live through it but over all there was much determination in the 14,400 candidates vying for just 440 seats. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon has congratulated Iraq on their successful elections. “The United Nations played a key role in organizing the elections - seen as a test of stability before a general election, due later this year.” (BBC) Reports show that people were happy voting this year, some for the very first time. After pulling this off with such a low rate of violence and a greater turn out on the Sunni side, it appears that democracy is really ready to take a chance.

As the United States enters a new age, it is pulling a lot of its influence out of Iraq to let the country deal with its own politics and woes. Troops are leaving and the Iraqi people are happy to see them go. Iraq is getting ready to stand on its own. Peace may have a chance in Iraq and this is the first step. If the United States and the international community are ready to cooperate then Iraq can finally move forward with peace and democracy.