A couple of weeks shy of the scheduled presidential elections, Vice-President Abdu Rabbo Mansour Hadi announced in an official ceremony that he would run for president, adding that he hoped Yemenis would entrust him with the responsibility of running the affairs of the state.
On Tuesday, Yemenis across the country woke up to find that a number of posters advocating their electoral participation had been hung throughout their towns and villages, reminding them of their democratic, constitutional and civic duties. But since VP Hadi is the only candidate running for president, and no matter how few people decide to show up to cast their vote the veteran politician will still be pronounced the winner, many Yemenis are wondering whether the whole thing is a farce and if they should indulge in such a travesty of the democratic system.
From Sana’a to Aden, the eastern shore of the Red Sea to the leafy hills of Hadramaut, Yemenis from all faiths and political denominations are asking the same question: “What does this have to do with us?”

Flash Back

At the beginning of it all, when Yemenis decided during the ousting of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak to rise against their own dictator, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, they wanted to bring about real democracy, turning their country into a civil state where justice, freedom and equality would be revered notions, not just ink on paper. But as Saleh held on to his presidential seat and as blood started flowing through the streets of Sana’a, the capital and Taiz, a flash point of the Revolution, foreign nations scrambled to save Yemen from the precipice, too aware of its strategic importance within the region.

From that moment on, revolutionaries were put aside, ignored by the politicians, as diplomats and high ranking statesmen worked at finding a solution to the conundrum that had become Yemen. In between its many overlapping conflicts, widespread poverty and the threat of terror groups looming in the shadows, Yemen is unlike any other land. Very much like President Saleh put it himself, ruling over Yemen equates to “dancing over the heads of snakes”. But for one who truly understands the essence of Yemen, there is an order to the apparent chaos.

The GCC proposal that enunciated the terms of the power-transfer and its mechanisms never actually took into account the will of the people, but rather it was tailored around Saleh’s will, ensuring him an honorable exit with the promise of immunity. In other words, the fate of Yemen’s presidency was sealed by a group of technocrats and politicians, while the good people of Yemen were completely put on the back burner for it was “better this way.”

Democracy

VP Hadi, who is a member of the ruling party, was chosen by both the General People’s Congress and the Opposition as the candidate of the coalition, ensuring that no other contender would enter the presidential race.
And if even Western diplomats have argued that the move was intended to preserve the country’s unity and avoid a bitter battle for power from the various political factions, Yemenis saw no sense in it. Revolutionaries actually contested the legitimacy of the power-transfer deal from the very second it was inked in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, warning that they would continue to fight until Yemen power players would acknowledge their demands.

And although there was no further violent confrontation between the armed forces and the revolutionaries, at least not in the magnitude manifested before the agreement, hundreds of thousands of Yemenis across the nation are still demanding to be heard, rejecting as a whole “Saleh tailored plan.”

“Are you seriously telling me that a one-man-election can be called democratic? Are you telling me that after a year of suffering, blood spilled and all around misery, that the best the West and its minions could come up with is Hadi? Are Yemenis so stupid that the West does not trust them to choose their own leader? Why couldn’t we have a normal presidential elections like in Egypt based on the principle of political pluralism? Is it so hard to understand that Yemen wants a real civil state… not a make believe one where the old regime is still present but with a new face?” a leader of the Independent Youth argued.

Another sore point, which Yemeni are finding hard to swallow, lies in the fact that the United Nations, through its multitude of agencies, is currently throwing away several millions of dollars to organize the elections. “Millions of us are going hungry for we have lost everything in our struggle for freedom and rather than pull all the country’s resources together to bring some relief to war-torn areas, the government prefers to spend the UN money on stupid posters and presidential campaign? It is insulting to the nation. We don’t need posters but we need bread. So kindly Hadi, cash out your checks and feed your country,” said an English teacher in “Change Square”, the epicenter of the revolutionary movement.
Yemen is said to have spent 8 million dollars on Hadi’s campaign, with all the funds provided by Japan, Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Given that the majority of the population lives on under $2 per day, this money could have prevented 4 million of people from going hungry or could have provided 80,000 families with an average salary of $100 for a month. Many are warning that in spite of the coalition government’s claims that all will be fixed after February 21st with Saleh’s departure from power, one might want to have a look at who is leading Yemen’s military. With his sons, nephews and brother still very much in charge of the nation’s fire power, Saleh might not have yet said his last goodbye to Yemen. In which case, the GCC proposal will only allow the autocrat to regroup and plan his comeback.

While eyes of the American public are often turned toward the Middle East or Asia on foreign policy matters, America’s interaction with Mexico is perhaps the most ingrained foreign policy relationship. The Foreign Policy Association (FPA) emphasizes this partnership in its 2012 Great Decisions Television Series, aired by PBS. In Episode 3 – “Beyond the Border: The U.S. and Mexico,” Vanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings Institution and Andrew Selee of the Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute remind the audience why Mexico literally can’t be ignored. U.S. government dollars are spent on border policy, families are split between the countries, and 80% of Mexican exports are to the U.S. (though 40% of the content of such goods is American). As an FPA member, the message I take is that American leaders can progress the relationship further by engaging directly in Mexico’s political system, and focusing on more than border-issue politics.

In a cameo appearance for the episode, Julia Preston, the National Immigration Correspondent of The New York Times, reminds us that in 2000, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was voted out of the presidency after holding power for 71 years. Preston believes the degree of this change was not felt by U.S. leaders, who are normally preoccupied with immigration or illegal drugs when thinking of Mexico. In a sequel cameo, Arturo Valenzuela, the Director of the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, states that Mexico “is going through one of the great transitions of our time” from one-party state to pluralist democracy. This transition requires Mexican political leaders to adapt to a system in which power must be shared and parties not in government must act as opposition loyal to the system. The transition also requires time and effort from Mexican leaders, who simultaneously must worry about the war on drug traffickers. Mexico’s Ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, fervently links a healthy U.S. – Mexico relationship to the well-being of Americans, but also states that “non-traditional, trans-national security challenges” like drug cartels must be tackled jointly by both nations. While Sarukhan may be saying this because his military cannot control Mexico’s interior, Episode 3 sows seeds in the viewer’s mind that America is obliged to do more to foster positive change South of the Border.

Host Ralph Begleiter’s questions go down this line of thought – he inquires to Felbab-Brown, Selee, and the audience whether Americans are aware of the political transition occurring in Mexico (presumably he’s not referring to Mexican-Americans, who are 10% of the population). Begleiter also asks how the U.S. could build a wall between itself and a partner nation. Felbab-Brown points out that nineteenth-century U.S. actions, such as the U.S. – Mexican war, are still fresh in Mexican minds, along with the modern-day flow of drugs and money to the South that has turned many Northern Mexican towns into ghostly war zones. The Great Decisions panel and Ambassador Sarukhan do praise the Obama Administration’s effort to expand security cooperation as the joint responsibility of both states. This marks American efforts to go beyond the Mérida Initiative, a significant foreign aid program offered by the U.S. in 2008 to enhance Mexico’s armed enforcement capabilities.

Every Great Decisions watcher is entitled to his or her own reaction; mine is to wonder how U.S. policymakers at this moment can build up the bond with our Southern neighbor. Both countries have presidential elections this year, and there are 6 possible outcomes for the presidential duo who will carry the relationship forward. Also, the U.S. election is not until November. According to Duncan Wood of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, this uncertainty “should alert U.S. policymakers to the need to engage the leading contenders on security cooperation earlier rather than later with a view to understanding their positions and influencing their approaches.”[1] This should include a thorough investigation of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed firearms to pass directly into the hands of the cartels. However, deeper economic cooperation would positively affect security cooperation. The U.S. could incentivize Mexico to diversify the tax base away from PEMEX, the state oil company, and thereby open up new government revenue sources.

With regard to PEMEX itself, the company needs foreign investment to acquire new drilling technology and improve domestic refining capacity.  It would be beneficial to both countries if the U.S. oil companies could form an effective partnership with PEMEX. Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI, currently frontrunner in the presidential race, may be poised to implement such a reform. The PRI is most likely to control Congress, is best poised to engage PEMEX’s unionized workers, and holds more state governorships than any other party. However, in the past, the PRI has cooperated with the U.S. behind closed doors while shouting anti-American rhetoric in public. No doubt this would hurt the partnership, particularly in a U.S. election year. Hopefully American candidates and the State Department will follow the lead of Great Decisions, and engage the Mexican candidates proactively upfront.

Great Decisions TV webpage: http://www.fpa.org/great_decisions/?act=gd_tv

In an ideal world, the search for justice would always trump the pragmatic workings of politics. However rarely do we live in that world. Instead amnesties are granted in the hopes of a peaceful regime change, dictators are allowed to flee their counties for the permanent and well financed vacations exile while their victims remain to put back together what oppressive policies and violence broke. If enough time passes, as Haiti is now discovering with Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, those who grossly abused their power can often act like nothing happen. Of course justice is pursued by some countries determined to make sure that past wrongs are answered to, but success in those endeavors typically requires strong support from allied countries or organizations like the UN. Even then, messy politics makes for messy justice; accusations of bias in prosecution and worries about the cost of proceedings given the typically small groups of suspects tried are common, as are serious questions about the value of such proceedings for both victims and the political process. This, and not the ideal version we dream about, is the world we live in.

Recognition of these realities is one of the reasons why the International Criminal Court (ICC) took so long to come into being and is also a constant issue facing the court. In this battle between justice and politics, the biggest debate to date confronting the court is that of Kenya where it is believed high ranking politicians were involved in promoting the post-election violence that gripped the country in early 2008. The possibility of an ICC investigation was part of the agreement reached between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader (now Prime Minister) Raila Odinga, but was also contingent on the inability of the Kenyan parliament to pass legislation creating a domestic tribunal to try those responsible for the violence. After parliament failed to pass such legislation, the ICC opened an investigation and yesterday the decision on which of the “Ocampo Six” – the six people deemed most responsible for the violence – would be tried officially came down.

This is where the politics gets messy.  Not only was the post-election violence largely divided on ethnic terms which ended in a fragile peace, but the members of the Ocampo Six were and remain prominent political figures. For example, Uhuru Kenyatta is the current Deputy Prime Minister, Kenya’s wealthiest citizen and the son of the country’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta. On the other side is William Ruto, the former Minster for Higher Education and a prominent opposition politician. Both Kenyatta and Ruto enjoy significant support with their rural constituents and both have stated they would be running in the presidential elections later this year. Politically, these two are positioned on opposite sides of the conflict but may be facing the same fate. Unfortunately, they also have the ability to take down all of Kenya with them. Again, this is the world we live in.

So what is more important, justice or politics? By ruling that four of the six charged would stand trial, including Kenyatta and Ruto, the ICC stuck to their mandate and chose justice. Ahead of the announcement there was strong support for the court among Kenyans but also increasing fears that violence could once again break out. So far, that has not happened. But with politicians gearing up for their presidential campaigns and two of the major candidates now getting ready to stand trial for crimes against humanity, yesterday’s decision is only the start of this debate, not the end.

The next Republican Party candidate to challenge Barack Obama in the United States 2012 presidential elections became a little clearer in January, after Mitt Romney claimed a second victory by winning the New Hampshire primary and became a clear front-runner for the role. Romney had already won the Iowa caucuses in early January with 25 percent of the vote, but took New Hampshire by an impressive 39 percent, making him a clear favourite to challenge Obama in the November presidential elections.

Primaries and caucuses are party elections held in every US state, and the winner won’t be decided until August. However, if Romney wins, his attitude towards Pakistan may be cause for alarm, as he has a complete lack of experience on foreign affairs, besides a few months spent living in Europe and a few holidays and international cruises abroad.

Romney’s Views on Pakistan

With Barack Obama facing stiff criticism over the state of the United States’ economy, the winner of the Republican Party election could well become the next President of the United States. As the US President is the most powerful figure in world politics, Romney’s views of foreign affairs could well have a huge impact on Pakistan and future US activities in the region.

In a series of interviews on foreign policy, Romney has described Pakistan as like “dealing with a child,” a borderline “failed state,” and full of “radicals and extremists.” When asked how he would approach the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, Romney said:

“It’s more like dealing with an adolescent – I don’t mean to compare any nation to an adolescent, but just the fact that there’s no easy answer for how you bring a child to adolescence.” He added: “I don’t want to suggest that a country is like a child, but in the way that when you deal with another person we think of all these dimensions on which we try to influence them.”

He also suggested that he would counter those organisations within Pakistan that refused to cooperate with the United States. He said: “The right way to deal with- Pakistan is to recognize that Pakistan is not a country like other countries, with a strong political centre that you can go to and say, ‘Gee, can we come here? Will you take care of this problem?’ This is, instead, a nation, which is close to being a failed state. I hope it doesn’t reach that point, but it’s a very fragile nation … so we have to work with our friends in that country to get them to do some of the things we can’t do ourselves.”

He also said that he would continue to use drones in Pakistan, despite the tensions use of such military hardware causes. He said: “We have agreement with the people that we need to have agreement with to be able to use drones to strike at the people that represent a threat.”

Who is Mitt Romney

Romney is the son of the former Governor of Michigan, George Romney. He is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and spent time in a Mormon Missionary in France during his youth. He first entered politics in 1994 as the Republican candidate for the 1994 Senate election in Massachusetts, but lost. He was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but stepped down in 2006 after seeing through a series of austere spending cuts to eliminate the state’s $3 billion deficit. And while this economic experience may prove favourable with the American electorate, most of whom are tired of the failing economy, his views on Pakistan, could lead to increased destabilisation in the area, and result in further cooling between the two countries.

However, despite being frontrunner, Romney is far from being crowned the next president. First, he has to win the other caucuses and primaries, where he may face increased competition from the other Republican hopefuls: Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Texas Congressman Ron Paul, in particular, may prove a tough rival, and whoever wins the Republican Party’s nomination, still has to beat the more liberal Barack Obama, who, while flagging in the opinion polls, has nearly a year to win back the favour of the American people.

In his NYT op-ed today entitled ‘Don’t Do It, Bibi,’ Roger Cohen issued another stern warning to his favorite target, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In his piece, he warns about the grave repercussions if Israel were to attack Iran without political support from the United States.

This article is the latest installment in Cohen’s crusade against Netanyahu and the Likud-led governing coalition in Israel. Cohen solemnly recites all the ways in which Netanyahu has mistreated President Obama before he settles down and proceeds with his analysis of Iran’s nuclear threat.

Cohen argues that Netanyahu has stalled in his negotiations with the Palestinians because he foresees a rabidly pro-Israel Republican nominee beating Obama in the 2012 presidential elections. Yet in the next paragraph Cohen contends that Netanyahu is sorely tempted to bomb Iran before the elections because he and his advisors increasingly believe Obama can win in November.

Now, almost everybody following the Middle East understands that Netanyahu is a savvy politician who is not oblivious to American election cycles. Perhaps even more than most politicians, Netanyahu may be better characterized as “cynical” than “shrewd” in formulating his political agenda. And it may be true that Netanyahu indeed forecasts a Republican victory in 2012, but wants to hedge his bets by bombing Iran’s nuclear reactors while Obama courts the Jewish vote in the swing state of Florida.

However, Cohen makes the same mistakes in this article that he has consistently made throughout his analysis of the Iranian threat.

First, he implies that any attack by Israel would be a massive bombing campaign that would instantly and irreversibly unite all of Iran’s people under their oppressive regime and against the West. For starters, any aerial attack would be limited to the nuclear reactor sites and would probably result in few civilian casualties. With the possible tacit support of the US, in the last few years Israel has already attacked Iran’s nuclear program with a computer virus, assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, and sabotaged missile bases in Iran that resulted in dozens of Iranian deaths. Meanwhile, less than three years ago Iran’s regime was strongly challenged by its populace. While the theocratic government may have suppressed the mass protests in 2009, there is still a strong anti-regime sentiment among Iranians. Moreover, the “regime” itself is an uneasy coalition between Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that is showing highly visible signs of strain. I’m not sure how Cohen can absorb these facts and compute that an attack by Israel “locks in the Iranian Republic for a generation.”

Second (and he is not alone in this truly bizarre line of argumentation), he reckons that Israel’s security is threatened more by the status of the occupied territories than by Iran. I fully agree that Israel must keep striving to find a way to ensure that Palestinians have a fully functioning state. While the on and off again courtship between Hamas and Fatah certainly complicates matters, it is also reasonable to argue that the Netanyahu administration has shown a distinct lack of urgency in its approach toward negotiations with the Palestinians. I am also gravely aware of the risks that any aerial attack by Israel on Iranian reactor sites would entail (although per above I disagree with Cohen about their nature.) However, I struggle to comprehend how the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, which is grinding toward its 45th year of existence, can be compared to the existential threat posed by the nuclear program of a country whose stated intention is to destroy Israel.

By S. M. Hali

Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, a staunch and ardent supporter of the Kashmiri cause, is an American citizen of Kashmiri origin, from Indian Occupied Kashmir. He was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on July 19, 2011 for allegedly accepting monetary support from Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to lobby and influence the US government on the Kashmir conflict in violation of Foreign Agents Registration Act. His arrest came at a time when relations between Pakistan and the United States were already strained in the aftermath of the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Dr. Fai, who has been pillar of strength for the Kashmiri cause, organizing seminar, roundtable discussions and colloquiums for creating awareness in the world regarding the sad plight of the Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir, is a harmless person, devoting his life to the cause of his downtrodden brethren.

The United States of America, which is a melting pot of different ethnic origins, has been magnanimous in welcoming them. In fact, the Statue of Liberty, located at the mouth of New York harbor on Ellis Island, faces outward toward the nations, holding aloft the torch of freedom, the flame of hope, the promise of the future. She holds this torch high in the daytime and during the night as well. She shines her light in the midst of darkness. This symbol of freedom and hope was presented by the people of France to the people of the United States in 1886 in honor of the friendship between the two nations. Yet, the Statue belongs to all people.  Her message is universal, speaking to the hearts of those who cherish freedom everywhere.

Liberty’s image is one of strength, majesty, and hope, visible in her eternally raised right arm which carries the torch of freedom.  Holding aloft a light that never fails, she represents hope to the hopeless, welcome to the poor, courage to the meek. Facing outward toward the ocean, her lamp is a beacon on stormy seas, drawing to her shores, those from afar who seek a better life.  For these, and for countless others who embrace her message, the Statue of Liberty represents the Golden Door, which is the entrance into liberty and freedom from oppression that is the promise of America—a land, a people, a way of life. It is also the freedom of spirit and of choice that was declared an inalienable right in the US Declaration of Independence—a document whose date of execution, July 4th, 1776, is inscribed on the tablet she carries. The Statue welcomes all to this door—the lost, the needy, the rejected, and the exiled.  She invites them to step through it into freedom.

Immortalized in the poem of Emma Lazarus, the Statue speaks eternally the words of compassion: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." These words from the "The New Colossus," written in 1883, appear on the Statue’s pedestal.

For a nation, committed to the oppressed and downtrodden, victimizing Dr. Ghulam Nabi, a dedicated and unswerving freedom fighter is extremely contemptible. The decision to arrest Dr. Fai was taken while the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was touring India. It is apparent that the famed social worker was taken into custody only to please India. The overtures to the latest US paramour India have compelled it to take a number of unpleasant decisions, to woo it. Pakistan has been victimized and targeted while Kashmiri freedom fighters are now being incarcerated at the behest of India. The US is forgetting that Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai was also in contact with Indian diplomats and other officials. Besides carrying out activities with their involvement, he has also been gathering their support in organizing various Kashmir related functions. This does not make Dr. Fai a criminal. On December 7, 2011 Fai pleaded guilty to felony, conspiracy and tax evasion charges, but not for being an ISI agent.

The action against Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai has exposed US sincerity towards resolution of Kashmir Issue. President Obama, during his run up to the US presidential elections, had taken cognizance of the Kashmir issue and had promised that if elected, he would use his good offices to help resolve the flashpoint of Kashmir imbroglio, which has the potential of erupting into a war between nuclear weapons equipped India and Pakistan. The rivals have gone to war thrice during the last six and half decades and been on the brink of war on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, President Obama reneged on his promise to help resolve the Kashmir issue and cut the Gordian’s knot and bring peace into the region. When President Obama visited India, he was presented a petition signed by 4500 persons including the Kashmiri Diaspora and parliamentarians from the UK and US but Obama chose to disregard the petition.   

A legal question that arises is that in case, US law was being breached, why US authorities have taken so long to take action against Dr. Fai. It is now amply clear that the Indo-US nexus has chosen to victimize Dr. Fai a harmless human being only to pressurize Pakistan. His arrest was condemned by separatist Kashmiri leaders including Syed Ali Shah Geelani who called his arrest "a conspiracy by India to weaken the freedom struggle in Kashmir". The sentencing of Dr. Fai is scheduled for March 2012. Fai faces a five year sentence for the conspiracy charge and an additional three years for tax evasion. As part of his guilty plea, Fai signed an 81-paragraph "Statement of Fact" cataloging his crimes, with specific details as to the instructions and payments he received. The US judicial system should take into cognizance, that in pursuit of drawing US and international attention towards the trampling of Kashmiris’ rights, Dr. Fai had obtained the support of US legislators and parliamentarians like Dan Burton, Joseph R. Pitts and others. To single out Dr. Fai for victimizing him and incarcerating him for pursuing his noble mission is despicable

Source: Google Images

Last Saturday Russia witnessed one of the biggest anti-government rallies of the past two decades. Just a few months ago the possibility of a protest this large seemed very unlikely. Putin’s confidence ratings remained high holding steadfast belief in the efficiency of a strong ruling hand over the country, although the support for his United Russia party had begun to deteriorate.

Unlike previous public rallies, the Saturday march was sanctioned by authorities and, more importantly, had received an unusually extended, but rather neutral coverage, on state-run channels. Thousands of policemen and paramilitary troops stood ready to deploy security measures against possible ‘violations of the public order,’ however, that no arrests or clashes occurred as this peaceful demonstration was enough to make an important point: Russian people’s votes do matter.

Tens of thousands of people joined the rally across Russia protesting against fraud in the parliamentary election, discontented over how the election was handled and refusing to settle for the same type of governmental attitude of turning a deaf ear towards their opinion for the next decade. People of different political opinion came to the rally, united in their frustration with the United Russia party, demanding re-election and dismissal of the Central Election Committee chairman, and chanting ‘Putin must go.’

The rally made it quite obvious that the existing political leadership underestimated increasing public discontent over multiple cases of power abuse in the country, including among others the dismissal of prosecution against high-level officials in cases of fatal traffic accidents, and the fraudulent election of the current Chairman of Federation Council of the Russian Federation. These and other examples clearly showed the negligence and disregard with which current political leadership treats the opinion of Russian citizens and their rights.

Many ask now whether United Russia and Putin stand a chance of political survival. According to an exit poll by the Institute of Social Studies, the ruling party gathered about 38 percent of the popular vote, which is more than 10 percent less than the official number issued, however, it still places Putin’s party ahead of others. In addition, pro-government supporters organized another rally, which according to some estimates garnered close to 25,000 people on Monday. Much of that support could be explained by the lack of strong opposition with a clear and consistent plan of action, as well as the fear of returning to the political and economic instability experienced during the 1990s.

Meanwhile, the Saturday rally has provided opportunities for a new opposition to emerge. Immediately after the Saturday events businessman and billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, ousted from the liberal party Russian Cause in September, has announced his bid for presidential elections in 2012. Then, Russian ex-finance minister Alexei Koudrin said that he is considering forming a right-centered political party. Kudrin has recently left Kremlin over disagreement with Medvedev policies in September of this year.

One needs to be reminded that both, Prokhorov and Kudrin, come from Kremlin circles and their run for leadership has already been shadowed with suspicion over a possible Kremlin move to divert attention from critical issues at hand. This relation to the regime will definitely breed doubts among electorate in the future. Another question is whose interests this newly formed right-wing party will represent and how much vote it will be able to gather in Russia? The painful experience of the sweeping reforms of the 1990s is still vivid among Russia’s population, and so is a general distrust to the oligarchs reaching for political power.

What’s more, Russians tend to hold rather reserved attitudes towards opposition. November polls conducted by the Levada Center, a Russian independent polling and sociological research organization, demonstrated that for the most part, the Russian population remains very skeptical about existing opposition and finds that it rarely goes beyond simple criticism of the current regime to serious constructive proposals for improving the situation in the country. Hence, any opposition in the country will face a difficult task to win the confidence of the population.

In conclusion, last Saturday an empowered Russian population took a stand against fraud and corruption in the country. We will see in the coming months whether they have been heard in their demands for a change. Hopefully, the change will be timely and peaceful. As one recent Russian blog said, ‘no revolution is needed for a party that got 23 percent of popular votes to get 23 percent of the parliament seats and not 53 percent.’ Excellent point.

(c) BBC News – In pictures Tajik village life

Another year is coming to a close. It’s time to look back, recap and rewind 2011 in Central Asia. Let’s start with elections: two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, held elections this year.

Kazakhstan’s presidential election took place on April 3, 2011.

Guess who won? Not surprising to anybody who follows Kazakhstan in the news, it’s Nursultan Nazarbayev who garnered 95.5% of the vote (with a total turn out of 89.5%) outperforming his earlier achievement of 91% in the previous election in 2005. Nazarbayev began his fourth term in office and thanks to the amendments to the constitution that makes an exception for him as “the leader of the nation,” he can run for the highest office in the country an unlimited number of times. Read the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report here. Kazakhstan is due to hold early parliamentary elections on January 15, 2012. The snap election was expected following the April presidential poll, but was just announced last month.

Kyrgyzstan also held a vote for the country’s president. Prime Minister Almazbek Atambaev won an overwhelming share of votes on October 30, 2011 obviating the need for a run off. There was a gag on foreign press during the campaign, a strange thing by Western standards. According to the Guardian, “International observers had largely praised the runup to the election but some complained of counting irregularities. They said the scale of Atambayev’s apparent win indicated he may have benefited from reliance on state resources.”

Here’s a quick glance at year in review in Central Asia.

Kazakhstan:

U.S. Peace Corps Quits Kazakhstan. The exact reason is not clear, but Kazakhstan is definitely a loser in this situation as the opportunity for the Kazakh people to interact with foreigners and learn English got much smaller. It’s interesting that Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan are now the only countries in the Central Asia region with a Peace Corps presence.

In November, Kazakhstan witnessed one of the worst terrorist attacks the country has ever seen. A suspected militant shot dead four members of the security forces and two civilians before blowing himself up, killing another police officer, in the city of Taraz.

In October, two explosions hit the oil city of Atyrau in western Kazakhstan, killing a suspected suicide bomber.

Kyrgyzstan:

For Kyrgyzstan, the most important evens of the year were the presidential elections and healing the wounds of ethnic violence of 2010.

On May 3, 2011, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry or the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission (KIC) released its final report on the interethnic violence and clashes between the country’s ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbek communities last year. Read more about the findings here.

Tajikistan:

In January, the Tajik government ratified a 1999 deal handing over 386 square miles (1,000 sq km) of land in the remote Pamir mountain range to China.

The women’s lot in Tajikistan remains abysmal as is the situation with the freedom of speech and press.

The case of Urunboy Usumov’s is probably the most infamous this year. The 60 year old BBC reporter was arrested in June and sentenced to three years in jail over alleged connections to the Hizb ut-Tahrir group, but the judge granted him an amnesty and ordered his release. After his release, he told the BBC’s Uzbek Service he would appeal against his conviction. The BBC has strongly condemned the verdict, insisting Mr Usmonov was carrying out journalistic duties.

Last month a court in Tajikistan released two pilots, one Russian and one Estonian whose sentencing of 8.5 years in prison escalated the Tajik-Russian tension and caused a retaliation by the former.

By and large, the shenanigans between Russia and Tajikistan is not something new as it tried to raise petroleum tariffs for Tajikistan earlier this year.

Turkmenistan:

This year, Turkmenistan’s leadership received ample attention in the press and in the blogosphere along with other Central Asian leaders given the region’s democratic credentials.

Linking articles and news would probably make a long list…Just a few examples: here and here.

In other news, TAPI has been a bumpy road.

Uzbekistan:

In March of this year, for an unspecified reason, the Uzbek government shut down the Human Rights Watch offices in Tashkent. It is the first time in the organization’s 33 year history that it was kicked out from a country where it was operating. This ends HRW’s 15 year presence in Uzbekistan, since its established its offices following the country’s independence from the Soviet Union.

Much was written in the press and on the Internet about Lola Karimova, the youngest daughter of Uzbek president Islam Karimov, who in May of this year filed a law suit seeking €30,000 (US$43,000) in damages against a French news website Rue89, claiming that it described her as a “dictator’s daughter” and stated that she paid Monica Bellucci, the Italian actress, €190,000 (US$272,000) to appear at a charity event. On July 1, 2011, the French court ruled that the article was both fair and true, and could not be taken as a personal attack – the judge found that there was not sufficient evidence for the charge of libel under French law. But the issue of alleged payments to Belluci was not resolved. Ironically, the opposite of what Karimov’s daughter was trying to accomplish became obvious. The trial exposed human rights violations and the brutality with which the regime deals with opposition as two well-known exiled human rights defenders from Uzbekistan testified for the defense.

Ah,  Uzbek cotton, always creates a stir in the news every year starting in September when the cotton harvesting season begins in Central Asia. This year was no exception, although some welcoming developments took place. Sixty of the world’s major retailers, including Walmart, Walt Disney, H&M and Adidas agreed to boycott all products known to contain Uzbek cotton. In addition, The European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee unanimously blocked a trade deal that would have lowered the tariffs on EU imports of Uzbek cotton, citing objections to that country’s continued use of forced child labor in its cotton harvests. These are all promising steps.

Don’t forget about U.S. dealings with Uzbekistan. Despite it’s poor human rights record, the West depends on this Central Asian country for supply roots to Afghanistan.

Natural Disasters in the Region:

On January 24 a 6.1 magnitude earthquake struck a remote mountainous region of Tajikistan near the Chinese boarder. There were no reported deaths.

On July 19 a 6.2 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter just inside Kyrgyzstan shook the Fergana Valley affecting Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, killing at least 14 people.

Russia and Central Asia:

In October Russia signed a free trade agreement with seven other former Soviet republics among which are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. There are reports that Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan might join next year.

Kyrgyzstan named a mountain peak after Putin earlier this year – perhaps they had a feeling.

In little over a week since officially entering Mexico’s 2012 Presidential contest, the campaign of the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) Enrique Peña Nieto already finds itself in full damage control following an embarrassing performance by the candidate during the presentation of his new book and disparaging comments made by the candidate’s teenage daughter.

While speaking at the Guadalajara International Book Fair, Peña Nieto was asked to name three books that have shaped or informed his life. The Presidential candidate began by citing the Bible (while qualifying that he hasn’t read all of it “just parts”) and then proceeded to name partial titles of other books and mistaking the names of their authors. The three minute-long fumble (and accompanying stream of laughter from the crowd) would not of been as remarkable had it not been for the governor’s carefully guarded public image and reputation for being a polished and articulate politician.

The gaffe risks adding to perceptions that the candidate lacks depth and is simply the product of the country’s old guard and media duopoly (longtime supporters of Peña Nieto’s candidacy). Peña Nieto’s floundering also became an instant source for comedy on social networks, with twitter users offering book recommendations for the candidate under the hashtag #LibreriaPeñaNieto.

Further damage to Peña Nieto’s candidacy was added by his daughter, Paulina Peña Nieto Pretelini, who came to her father’s defense by re-tweeting a message from her boyfriend:

“Greetings to all of the idiots that form part of the proletariat and only criticize those they envy”

The tweet prompted an immediate closing of the adolescent’s twitter account and a public apology by her father (delivered via social networks of course). Apology withstanding, the damage by the young woman’s tweet had already been made. The classist overtones of the tweet revived feelings of elitism associated with the party (and people) who held Mexico’s presidency for an uninterrupted 71 years, and highlighted the country’s longstanding class divisions.

Peña Nieto’s long-held advantage in public opinion polls represents the PRI’s best shot at recapturing the office that it lost in the 2000 Presidential elections. The party’s popularity is an astonishing accomplishment for a group once synonymous with the corruption and authoritarianism of Mexico’s one-party rule. Peña Nieto’s fresh image and celebrity lifestyle (he is married to former soap-star Angelica Rivera) has for the most part succeeded in rebranding his party as one of youth, idealism, and competence. The elitism that Paulina Peña Nieto’s tweet projected is exactly the type of depiction that the party has worked to disassociate itself with.

While the candidate still holds a comfortable advantage over all likely opponents, his recent mistakes demonstrate Peña Nieto’s vulnerability to unscripted events and spaces not curated by the country’s media barons. Errors aside, Peña Nieto is sure to recover from this week’s mistakes and likely to maintain his lead in national polls.

1. Summary of the Past Year

Image Credit: The Atlantic Wire

This year was a wildly eventful one, headlined by the Arab Spring and the debt crises in both the US and Europe. Other major events included the nuclear accident and natural disasters in Japan, the Occupy Wall Street movement, the independence of South Sudan, the increase in drug-related killings in Mexico, the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and the Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood.

2. Most Unexpected Event

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which began in New York and has since spread to other major cities in the U.S.

The movement may have been inspired by the protests sweeping Middle Eastern countries, or it may have been a delayed reaction to the Tea Party’s call for more fiscal libertarianism. Whatever the source, the movement is still fairly inchoate in terms of its agenda. Some protestors have a specific platform of issues such as capital gains tax reform or mortgage modifications, some are deeply troubled by corporate influence on the political parties, and others just seem to be furious that there is such a socioeconomic divide in the country.

The movement’s lack of clarity is at least partially driven by its inability or refusal to organize itself into a centralized command structure. Only with such a framework can the Democratic Party harness the movement’s power and effect change in Washington. By not defining itself, the movement, perhaps unwittingly, is ‘doubling-down’-it’s essentially betting on a 60’s-style fundamental upheaval of the entire socioeconomic system, rather than incremental changes via the existing political processes.

3. Person (or group of people) of the Year

The protestors in the Arab countries that have resisted (and in some cases, toppled) their autocratic leaders. It remains to be seen how political developments unfold in the coming year, but these people have shown undeniable courage and increasing political sophistication in their struggle for democracy.

4. Forecast for 2012

The main focus in 2012 may not be the US presidential elections, which typically commands center stage. Regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats prevail, the European debt crisis and the events unfolding in the Middle East are the most pressing issues of the day.

With respect to the eurozone crisis, the focus now seems to be squarely on the European Central Bank and Germany. The ECB must decide whether to buy sovereign bonds to lower the borrowing costs for massively overleveraged countries. Meanwhile, Germany, as the main fiscal power in the region, must determine whether to support some sort of joint liability scheme for debt issuances by EU countries. Thus far, both parties have resisted these ideas.

However, I believe the ECB will eventually acquiesce. First, unlike Germany, it does not have to win over popular support. Its decision-making body is presumably comprised of knowledgeable economists who can access and integrate worst-case scenarios into their decision making process. Second, the ECB’s intransigence is based mostly on the conviction that intervention in the bond markets encourages reckless government spending, and that its role is strictly confined to managing inflation. However, it has already engaged in limited bond purchases, and may be persuaded that a massive bond-buying program is necessary to prevent deflation. On the other hand, Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, would have to convince her constituency that they should bankroll the profligacy of their southern neighbors. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Merkel is herself dubious about the merits of joint liability, this request illuminates the deep cultural divide between northern and southern Europe. Germans may be simply unwilling to share their wealth with neighbors with whom they do not identify ethnically or culturally.

Meanwhile, the Arab Spring is still a work in progress. Elections in Tunisia and Egypt seem to confirm the conventional wisdom that Islamists will emerge as the biggest winners. The main issue in those countries that have managed to overthrow their rules is how the Islamist parties that have the biggest pluralities (Enhadda in Tunisia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) will integrate the secular parties into the political process. The early indication that Salafist elements surprisingly garnered around 20% of the recent vote in Egypt does not bode well for these secular factions. The warnings of Islamist takeovers by the Republican Party in the US and by the Israeli government, dismissed as alarmist by more liberal elements, are materializing in the early stage. The precise nature of this “Islamicism” is still nebulous-while the Muslim Brotherhood has insisted that it will seek a coalition with the liberal factions, and that it would not impose its religious platform through legislation, the rise of the Salafist party will inevitably complicate these goals.