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.