Why the Ayatollah would want for Ahmadinejad to lose these elections

Ruben Avxhiu

Ahmadinejad is bound lose these elections. If that materializes he has above all one thing to blame: His big mouth.
As Iran speeds up its efforts to become a nuclear power, Ahmednejad’s controversies have brought too much unwanted attention to the Ayatollah regime.
If Ahmadinejad had not promised the annihilation of Israel, chances are that the world would have been less aggressive towards Iran’s toying with nuclear energy. If he had not chided many of the Arab nations and had he not been so fervent in his anti-Western rhetoric, his country would have much less headaches with many in the international community.
Granted, that the fiery rhetoric earned him a lot of points among the radicals in Iran and “stole” youth segments from the liberal front. He became also popular in what is known as “the Arab street” for his uncompromised position towards Israel.
However, it is also possible that his wild popularity may have annoyed the Big Ayatollah, who wants no confusion on who is the true leader of the regime. His circle and probably people in the military and in other segments of the establishment may want to opt for a more cautious president for their country.
A new leader could relax some of the most decided enemies of Iran, could take advantage of the change in the course of the foreign policy of the United States and postpone if not avoid further sanctions from the outside world. Meanwhile Iran could continue in peace its work on enriching uranium.
Instead of getting in absurd debates over the existence of Holocaust, Iran has reason to look for a new phase in its relations with the West. The ghost of a military showdown has not disappeared from the horizon, even if Mr. Barak Hussein Obama is now talking from the White House.
Ahmadinejad has put in danger probably the most important initiative in the country since the 1979 Revolution. A nuclear Iran would change the balance of power in the Middle East and Ayatollah would claim the weight of a global leader. He would not want this vision being sabotaged just because the president is more into winning popularity on the street rather than into prudently steering the country in its final phase of the project.
Iran did not begin building up his nuclear technology under Ahmadinejad. During the 90s, one of the few points of antagonism between Clinton Administration and Yeltsin’s Russia was the continual sale of the Soviet nuclear technology to Teheran. The Moscow connection on this issue precedes Ahmadinejad, but the pressure on his predecessors was insignificant.
One can argue that the pressure increased because the process evolved into the final stages. However, no one can deny that public confrontational declarations of Ahmadinejad have energized the natural opponents of Iran and those who truly drear a Middle East with nuclear ambitions.
Whether Iran will choose someone who promises to stand up against America or someone who promises to walk a similar path but without fruitless confrontations, this will be revealed during the coming weekend. Both sides have good reasons to hope for a victory, however, the point of this commentary is that this time you don’t have to be a liberal to vote against Ahmadinejad. The clerics and the conservatives have good reasons too to see him ousted.

Spain, thy name is justice

March 11, 2004 - a terrorist attack in Madrid inspired by Al-Qaeda

Just today I read this excellent article by Liat Collins, in Jerusalem Post called “My Word: Whose war is it, anyway?”

 “The UN, Spain, Latin America – everybody wants to tell us how to solve our problems,” she says explaining why she turned down an invitation for a UN sponsored conference in Brazil with the theme “Latin America and Peace in the Middle East.”

 You can’t blame her. Next, we will have an international conference in Darfur on how to resolve the conflict of the Middle East and a majority of the UN members are likely to participate.

 After all, who cares for the millions of people who die prematurely every year in Africa from AIDS, hunger, genocide and various easily curable diseases. As long as it is not Israel killing them, who really cares?

 Liat Collins writes that Spain would “prosecute Israeli leaders concerning the 2002 operation in which arch-terrorist Salah Shehadeh was killed, tragically along with 14 civilians.” A Spanish judge also started a process against US officials who have allowed “torture” at Guantanamo.

 She writes:

 The UN and the Spanish inquiries bring to mind the old Monty Python “Spanish Inquisition” sketch in which one character, on being asked a question, would declare: “I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition!” The “cardinals” would then burst into the room and the Michael Palin character would exclaim, “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

It was easy growing up in Britain to ridicule the Inquisition, Monty Python-style. It’s less funny living in an Israel under threat not only of Kassams, Katyushas, Grads and Iran’s race for nuclear arms, but also with the feeling that any measure of self-defense will be investigated by some international court – bouncing like a kangaroo over the facts – in something resembling a parody. Now into all this will step the pope – not the Pythonesque character, but the genuine figure, with pronouncements of brotherhood and peace and the need to stop the “cycle of violence.”

 All this sense of self-righteousness that the leftist government and the politically biased judges have adopted in Spain is unbelievable. I don’t want to bring the old and gone past in this discussion, but I can’t help it. Latin America speaks Spanish today, because Spain colonized and exploited without giving anything back. It destroyed the culture of an entire continent.

 And don’t tell me this was a long time ago, because the only reason why Latin America is free today, it is not because Spain is a better country, but because it is a weaker one. If it was stronger you would have seen a different attitude.

Isn’t Spain the country that under this leftist (oh so peaceful government) mobilized its army against Morocco because of an empty island. This small piece of land is situated only a few meters from the African shores, but the Spanish say its theirs only because they’re stronger than Morocco? Give them some more strength and they will tell Chavez who the Venezuelan oil wells belong to.

Just see how much luck the Basques, the Catalans and all the others will have in winning independence from what is still part of or what is left of the Spanish Empire (the name is not used anymore).

Spain is weak and therefore nice. Its foreign policy is not based on principles. Therefore it shows the teeth to Morocco, but it whimpers in the face of Al Qaeda, Hamas etc.

The Spanish justices who are mobilized to prosecute Israel for the victims in Gaza have yet to prosecute Al-Qaeda for the terrorist attacks against the Spanish railroad station on March 11, 2004.

Since that fateful day when innocent Spanish blood was shed, Spain has changed dramatically its language against Israel, has withdrawn its troops from Iraq and has been nervously anti-American.

Terrorism apparently works.

Spain’s newfound submissiveness towards the terrorists, be them in Spain, in Gaza or in Iraq, is a betrayal to its allies. It is an invitation for the terrorists to bomb again in order to shape the foreign and domestic policies of the Western countries.

Of course, if Israel were to set up a couple of terrorist attacks in Spain, the Iberian country would turn again to be neutral in Middle East affairs. But because Israel is not going to do it, its former army leaders are likely to get an invitation by the descendants of the Inquisition. This time around though, religion is not the official pretext.

Will Africa Let Sudan Off the Hook?

By DESMOND TUTU

Cape Town

THE expected issuance of an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan by the International Criminal Court tomorrow presents a stark choice for African leaders — are they on the side of justice or on the side of injustice? Are they on the side of the victim or the oppressor? The choice is clear but the answer so far from many African leaders has been shameful.

Because the victims in Sudan are African, African leaders should be the staunchest supporters of efforts to see perpetrators brought to account. Yet rather than stand by those who have suffered in Darfur, African leaders have so far rallied behind the man responsible for turning that corner of Africa into a graveyard.

In response to news last July that Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the court’s chief prosecutor, was seeking an arrest warrant for President Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the African Union issued a communiqué to the United Nations Security Council asking it to suspend the court’s proceedings. Rather than condemn the genocide in Darfur, the organization chose to underscore its concern that African leaders are being unfairly singled out and to support President Bashir’s effort to delay court proceedings.

More recently, the Group of 77, an influential organization at the United Nations consisting of 130 developing states and including nearly every African country, gave Sudan its chairmanship. The victory came after African members endorsed Sudan’s candidacy in spite of the imminent criminal charges against its president.

I regret that the charges against President Bashir are being used to stir up the sentiment that the justice system — and in particular, the international court — is biased against Africa. Justice is in the interest of victims, and the victims of these crimes are African. To imply that the prosecution is a plot by the West is demeaning to Africans and understates the commitment to justice we have seen across the continent.

It’s worth remembering that more than 20 African countries were among the founders of the International Criminal Court, and of the 108 nations that joined the court, 30 are in Africa. That the court’s four active investigations are all in Africa is not because of prosecutorial prejudice — it is because three of the countries involved (Central African Republic, Congo and Uganda) themselves requested that the prosecutor intervene. Only the Darfur case was referred to the prosecutor by the Security Council. The prosecutor on his own initiative is considering investigations in Afghanistan, Colombia and Georgia.

African leaders argue that the court’s action will impede efforts to promote peace in Darfur. However, there can be no real peace and security until justice is enjoyed by the inhabitants of the land. There is no peace precisely because there has been no justice. As painful and inconvenient as justice may be, we have seen that the alternative — allowing accountability to fall by the wayside — is worse.

The issuance of an arrest warrant for President Bashir would be an extraordinary moment for the people of Sudan — and for those around the world who have come to doubt that powerful people and governments can be called to account for inhumane acts. African leaders should support this historic occasion, not work to subvert it.

Desmond Tutu, the former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

Three well-known experts evaluate the first year of the new state of Kosovo

Kosovars had reason to celebrate on February 17^th but many challenges are still ahead

 

The situation with the international recognition of the new state, the opposition of Russia, the relations with the Muslim countries, the risk of partition, Haradinaj’s role as a negotiator in Uganda and the perspective of the second year, through the eyes of Soren Jessen-Petersen, Stephen Schwartz and James Hooper

 

Kosovo became one year old last week. Do you think Kosovars had much to celebrate in their first anniversary? How do you evaluate this first year?

Jessen-Petersen: Kosovo should celebrate that it has been independent for one year – that is already good news. The first year has been marked by numerous provocations from Serbia and by a messy and confused international community. The response of the people and political institutions of Kosovo has been calm, mature and dignified.

Stephen Schwartz: I join Kosovars in celebrating the first year of partial, qualified, incomplete independence. Nevertheless, the new republic faces many serious challenges. These include, above all, the insecurity of the borders with Serbia, and provocative behavior by Belgrade’s agents inside the republic. We should be happy that the situation has not been irreparable damaged by Serbian imperialism. But much remains to be done. Our organization, the Center for Islamic Pluralism, is currently undertaking a critical examination of attempts by Serbia and its “international” allies to partition Prizren, a threat that must be definitively prevented.

James Hooper: Kosovo can celebrate several accomplishments. First, Kosovo has achieved a very large measure of self-rule since independence. If people like what the government is doing, they can reward it with increased electoral majorities; if they do not, they can vote it out of office. But the bottom line is that it is largely accountable for Kosovo policies, apart from issues involving EULEX. Second, it has a stable government able to make and enforce policies. Third, the issue of independence has been settled, which should not be forgotten. All of these taken together mean that Kosovars have been able to breathe more freely in the past year and relax somewhat because the tension regarding whether it would become independent has dissipated. I believe that the Kosovar people have needed a breathing space to decompress from the last ten years filled with war, international colonial administration of the country, and the question mark of final status.

A hot debated issue in Kosovo has been the pace of the international recognitions. What is your opinion on this issue?

Jessen-Petersen: Much more needs to be done by the political leaders of Kosovo to accelerate the pace and number of recognitions during the second year of independence. The consolidation of Kosovo’s independence depends, among other things, on a critical mass of recognitions. To reach that goal, we need 20-30 more recognitions.

Stephen Schwartz: The slow pace of international recognition, especially by the remaining members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, says more about the politics of most of the Arab states in the OIC than about the situation of Kosovo. The non-recognizing OIC countries give evidence that they are unconcerned with or even hostile to the future of a Muslim-majority European republic while Kosovo is clearly aligned with the United States and the Western democracies and represents moderate Islam and mutual respect between non-politicized religious communities.

The refusal of Spain to recognize Kosovo also reflects poorly on politics in Madrid. Spain claims to represent a progressive, multicultural position in Europe but has used its own minority national communities (Catalans and Basques) as a pretext to deny recognition of Kosovo. I recommend that Kosovo invest in a trade and cultural relations office in Barcelona (not in the Basque country) to monitor the Spanish situation and inform the Spanish public of the reality of Kosovar life. It is somewhat absurd to imagine that Macedonia and Montenegro have recognized Kosovo but that Spain has not.

Most absurd and dismaying, however, is the despicable position of Bosnia-Hercegovina in not only refusing recognition of Kosovo but in joining Serbia in the current customs boycott of the new republic. The delay in formal recognition of Kosovo by BH is understandable given the division of BH and capacity of the so-called “Serb Republic” to obstruct progress, but it is disgraceful that BH would refuse commercial transactions with Kosovo while Montenegro and Macedonia have normal relations with the new republic.

James Hooper: Kosovars can be proud of the 55 recognitions they have obtained but need to keep focused on the goal of acquiring many more recognitions. It should be a national priority to reach 80-90 recognitions by the end of 2009. That would deflate Belgrade’s continuing efforts to attempt to keep the Kosovo independence issue open.

Do you see possible scenario in which Russia would drop its opposition to the recognition of the new state?

Jessen-Petersen: In the short term no, in the longer term yes. Russia position has little to do with Kosovo but a lot to do with the broader international environment. If Russia feels that it is being taken seriously in the international arena, it would also have an impact on its position on Kosovo.

Stephen Schwartz: I see this outcome as highly unlikely. Russia is the main enemy of stability in the Balkans as well as in the entire former Communist zone of Eastern Europe, and further threatens the security of Europe as a whole. Having proclaimed its belief that Kosovar freedom is now a suitable excuse for the erection of mafia puppet states on Georgia’s territory, Russian imperialism will not give up this criminal form of behavior. The situation inside Russia has become much more dangerous than the West wishes to admit, and internal difficulties in Russia always aggravate tendencies toward external adventurism. Aggressive propaganda against Georgia continues and authoritative commentators warn that a second attempt to topple the Tbilisi government is being planned for this year. Russia has been, remains, and will continue to be the main enemy of Kosovo in the international arena and the enabler of Serbian imperialist pretentions.

James Hooper: No.

A positive shift from the Muslim countries would double the number of the states that recognize Kosovo. How do you explain their delay? What should Kosovo do?

Jessen-Petersen: We risk simplifying the discussion and the approach if we simplify this issue as one of religion. Each state has its own reasons for recognizing or not recognizing Kosovo. Kosovo needs to approach the issue of recognitions in a much more strategic way.

Stephen Schwartz: Answered above. I would only add that Kosovo can and should lobby the provably moderate Muslim governments, such as those of Morocco, Azerbaijan, and Indonesia for help in this area. Visits by Naim Ternava to the Saudi kingdom are insufficient to alleviate this situation. Gaining OIC members’ recognition is a many-sided task.

James Hooper: Kosovars who are Muslim—and of course there are non-Muslims in Kosovo—do not like to think of themselves as Muslims in the international context because of the way this term has been used in the Balkans by Serbs and others. However, to obtain broader recognition in the Islamic world, Kosovars have little choice but to exploit their religious affiliation. I would urge a stronger effort to woo the Organization of the Islamic Conference, including the establishment of a permanent representative to the OIC from Kosovo.

Many in Kosovo fear that the West gave up too much to Russia and Serbia by compromising a co-existence between UN and EU missions in Kosovo. Is there a true risk of partition for the new state?

Jessen-Petersen: As long as Serbia hangs on to its unrealistic hope of undoing the independence of Kosovo, there will be no partition. The risk is the day when Serbia finally realizes that Kosovo is lost. By then, I hope that the European integration process is underway for all countries in the Western Balkans. In that case, borders and partition, loses their relevance and meaning. Meanwhile, I trust that the US, EU and other governments stand firm on their principles, one of which clearly states that there will be no partition of Kosovo.

Stephen Schwartz: The obstinacy of Serbia and the machinations of Russia will not diminish quickly. Kosovars – indeed, the whole Albanian nation including its diaspora – must be prepared for a new and serious attempt to impose partition.

James Hooper: The danger of partition is real. The international community after the war ended in 1999 allowed the north to be de facto partitioned and apart from pious declarations have never made much effort to walk that back. The U.S. is much tougher than the Europeans in trying to prevent partition from being formalized. Kosovo needs to work hard to ensure that the U.S. sustains that position.

How would you evaluate the performance of the government of Kosovo during this first year?

Jessen-Petersen: I am not in Kosovo and it would be irresponsible to evaluate a performance that I have not followed closely.

Stephen Schwartz: The Kosovo government should have been and should be more active and committed in its opposition to external and internal Serbian provocations, and should be more critical and determined in its criticism of the bad politics of the international powers and foreign agencies.

Former Prime Minister, Ramush Haradinaj, is invited by the rebels in Uganda to become the international negotiator for a possible peace settlement with their government. He has agreed. What may this mean for his future? How do you see his involvement there?

Jessen-Petersen: I understand why they need him in other parts of the world. He is, however, more needed in Kosovo.

Stephen Schwartz: The Uganda invitation to Ramush Haradinaj is certainly diverting but from my perspective the former prime minister is needed in Kosovo, during the present difficult times, and his involvement in the affairs of a distant and, for Kosovo, irrelevant country, will probably not produce much of benefit to Kosovars.

James Hooper: I would encourage Mr. Haradinaj to move ahead with the mediation that he has been invited by some of the Ugandan parties to undertake. This could demonstrate that Kosovars are capable of stretching their talents and capabilities in a foreign policy sense beyond the Balkans and advance Kosovo’s reputation in Africa.

Finally do you dare to make a prediction of what we will see during the second year of the Republic of Kosovo?

Jessen-Petersen: A hope more than a prediction: Recognitions bringing us to a critical mass. And that the economy takes off creating much needed jobs.

Stephen Schwartz: I can describe what I hope for: establishment of an authentic army; full Kosovar control of the police; secure borders; no partition or schemes for partition disguised as false cultural protection; complete abolition of illegal Serb parallel structures, with establishment of total Kosovar authority throughout the republic, including in and north of Mitrovica; arrest and trial of criminals involved in the Serb parallel structures; sovereignty over Kosovar economic resources with adoption of a serious and well-founded development plan, including rational privatization; immediate and extensive upgrading of the Kosovar educational system; improved protection of labor rights and growth in incomes; expulsion of Wahhabi and other foreign radical Islamist elements from Kosovo (as well as Macedonia and Albania proper); removal of all international interference from the legitimate governance of Kosovo; replacement of Tina Kaidanow as a U.S. diplomatic representative in Kosovo; repudiation of the Ahtisaari Plan and the Six Points.

Along with a few suggestions of my own, these include the demands of the Vetëvendosje! movement led by Albin Kurti, which, and whom, I fully support.

We may dream of the arrival of sanity in Belgrade and Sarajevo, and the beginning of normal diplomatic and trade relations between Serbia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Kosovo. But these seem only fantasies right now. Perhaps they may prove real. I also dream of the day when the real flag of Kosovo, the flag of Skenderbeu, replaces the banner of “Ahtisaaria.”

James Hooper: I believe that the next year is going to be dominated by the economic downturn that shows many signs of becoming a global depression. If that happens—and I believe we are going to experience such a depression which the world has not experienced since the 1930’s—it will make it more difficult for Kosovo to achieve the economic growth that Kosovars want. Instead, Kosovo may find itself struggling, like so many other countries, to limit the extent of the economic contraction they suffer. To build in some insurance against this, the government should immediately put together a package for the IMF/World Bank to provide assistance this year. My greatest concern, however, is that the economic downturn in the region will bring out the nationalisms that have never completely gone away, especially in Serbia, and lead to an escalation of tensions and perhaps worse. Kosovars must be on their guard for this and maintain the closest security cooperation with the U.S., EU and NATO to ensure that adequate protective measures are taken on a timely basis.

Soren Jessen-Petersen is former Chief of UN Mission in Kosovo and currently heads the Washington DC office of the Independent Diplomat organization. Stephen Schwartz is director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and a well-known author and an early promoter of Kosovo’s independence. James Hooper “is a Managing Director of the Public International Law & Policy Group. He is the former director of the Washington office of the International Crisis Group (ICG), an independent non-government global advocacy organization that focuses on conflict early alert, prevention and containment.

(Interviewed by Ruben Avxhiu)

Israel: Fewer parties please

Knesset's floor - the parliament of Israel

It is only natural to dismiss any high expectations from these elections in Israel. Now we all know the story. Israel’s political life is so fragmented that building long-term functionable ruling coalitions is almost impossible. When the process of endless compromises end the result is always a weak government not only unable to carry a visionary foreign policy but often incapable even solving trivial domestic daily issues.

It is hard to find another country in the world that has a political scene more representative of its nation’s niches of interests. However, 18 parties sharing 120 seats in the Knesset is just too many for a country of this size. Actually, 18 is too many for a country of any size.

Israel does not need so many parties. They may be serving particular groups with some issues but they are making a bigger disservice to their own constituency by fragmenting the national political scene of the country.

Can this electoral system change, by including elements of the majority system (choosing candidates not only parties) or/and maybe raise the bar a bit so not everyone with a bunch of votes gets in Knesset?

I am not sure whether this is the moral thing to do in Israel today, but it certainly is the practical choice. Israel needs a solid government and the coming years are bound to be troubling for the entire world, with the economy gloomy perspective, the Iran dilemma, the post-American Iraq etc.

This has nothing to do with SHAS making impossible for Livni to govern. With fewer parties in parliament, different interests groups will be more inclined to create their  friends and allies within the main parties rather than run to create one of their own and complicate farther the situation in Israel.

Livni’s choice

Tzipi Livni, current Prime Minister of IsraelAn editorial by the Arab News in Saudi Arabia following the latest development in Israel notices that

The failure to form a coalition may have freed Livni from spending time and energy trying to appease an extremist partner. But there are fears that the next elections would be won by right-wing parties.

Livni’s efforts to dust off a Saudi peace proposal of 2002, did certainly turn heads in the Middle East especially in the Saudi Arabia. While still suspicious about her intentions Arab News openly favors her compared to her rival Benjamin Netanyahu, who according to this editorial:

Benjamin Netanyahu’s possible victory would put a definite end to any search for peace. Netanyahu of the Likud party refuses to discuss any final-status issues with the Palestinians, such as Jerusalem, the refugees and borders. He also strongly rejects the idea of a state for Palestinians.

I will not discuss the merits of this claim about Netanjahu, but I wonder if this is true what is the point of a peace agreement reached by one main party but rejected by the other? Instead of hoping for a Livni victory those who are seeking a quick resolution to the Middle East’s main conflict should hope to narrow the gap between the visions of Kadima and Likud. Otherwise, even in the best scenario you will be looking at a peace agreement that lasts only one election cycle.

Jesus bought a gun in Craigslist and shot Mohammad (Islam)

OK that is the title that I chose for this news. Somebody missed a chance to look at the strange combinations of their names.

I am not implying anything that has to do with religion so spare me the idiotic comments.

MAN SHOT BY ‘CRAIGSLIST’ GUN TAKES AIM AT SITE

By JENNIFER FERMINO and PHILIP MESSING

Posted: 4:28 am
September 5, 2008

A Manhattan boutique owner is suing craigslist.com for $10 million, claiming he was shot with a gun purchased on the popular Web site.

Calvin Gibson, 50, who was shot six times by his schizophrenic neighbor in the East Village on July 24, believes the classified site is partially responsible.

“But for defendant’s negligence in failing to supervise and monitor the content of the ads placed on its Internet service, [the shooter] could never have legally obtained the handgun,” according to the lawsuit filed yesterday in Manhattan federal court.

The alleged gunman, Jesus Ortiz, who is being held without bail, “has a psychiatric history and a history of violent crime,” Gibson claims in the suit, and could never have qualified for a gun permit.

“New York has an extremely stringent gun law,” the suit says.

He claims Ortiz told the cops that he bought the gun on craigslist, and that the suspect’s mother told others the same story.

Gibson was shot after he stopped at a deli on East Seventh Street near Avenue D. A teen, Mohammed Islam, 18, was also wounded in the random attack.

NYPD officials could not confirm the suit’s claim. A craigslist spokesman could not be reached.

jennifer.fermino@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09052008/news/regionalnews/man_shot_by_craigslist_gun_takes_aim_at__127576.htm

A strong and articulate attack on British Russophiles

Why has an odd alliance of leftwingers, Tories and bankers come out for this fascist kleptocracy?

By Edward Lucas

On Russia, at least, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg think alike. Belatedly and perhaps emptily, all three party leaders have condemned the invasion of Georgia and demanded a tough response. Yet a different and even odder alliance is taking shape on the other side. Its members include such unlikely figures as Andrew Murray of Stop the War Coalition, David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth, and historian Correlli Barnett, as well as anonymous but influential City bankers and lawyers.

The Kremlin’s most constant allies are the old pro-Soviet left: people such as Bob Wareing, the veteran leftwing MP for Liverpool, West Derby. He recalls warmly the wartime alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union, and the promise of social justice in the communist system. In the Morning Star, Andrew Murray blames the war in Georgia on American imperialism and contrasts it with the success of “Soviet nationalities policy” in promoting “the cultural, linguistic and educational development of each ethnic group, no matter how small or how historically marginalised”. Chechens, Crimean Tatars and other victims of Stalin’s murderous deportation policies presumably don’t count.

A simpler approach is pure Russophilia: people who love Russia’s culture or language, and rejoice in what seems to be a national rebirth under Vladimir Putin. A wider group is sparked chiefly by anti-Americanism. If you hate George W Bush then you may cast a friendly glance on the people who make life difficult for him, such as Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, or Putin in Russia. It is countries such as Russia, however spiky and unattractive, that can derail the new world order. Yet that’s odd. If, say, you feel that Muslims get a hard deal from America, then surely the Russian torture camps in Chechnya should make your blood boil?

In odd alliance with the anti-globalists are the champions of international business: those who do well out of selling goods and services to Russia. In the City, investment banks, law firms, accountants and consultants have enjoyed a bonanza thanks to their Russian clients. Auditors such as PricewaterhouseCoopers have not flinched at doing the Kremlin’s dirty work – for example in withdrawing their audit of Yukos, once Russia’s biggest oil company, which conveniently coincided with Kremlin allegations of fraud. For this pinstriped fifth column, business is business, and worries about human rights or the rule of law are tiresome distractions.

David Wilshire, a leading Conservative member of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly, has lobbied hard to make Mikhail Margelov, a pro-Putin Russian parliamentarian who used to be a KGB language instructor, the next president of the organisation, which is supposedly devoted to promoting human rights. Then come those such as the polemical Peter Hitchens, who have no great liking for tycoons, but a deep admiration for the nation-state. He writes: “I often wish we were more like Russia, aggressively defending our interests, making sure we owned our own crucial industries, killing terrorists instead of giving in to them, running our own foreign policy instead of trotting two feet behind George W Bush.” Russia, he says, has come to stand for national sovereignty and independence, while we give up our own.

Correlli Barnett praises the regime in Russia in a similar vein. In the past few days, for example, Barnett has said: “World peace? Give me Putin any day!”; and “the West should jettison moral indignation and global do-goodery as the basis of policy, and instead emulate Russia’s admirable reversion to 19th-century realpolitik”. The main motive here is dislike for the whole apparatus of modern diplomacy – multilateral organisations governed by international treaties and at least a notional commitment to human rights.

It is all very odd. Russia is an oil-fuelled fascist kleptocracy ruled by secret police goons and their cronies. It is authoritarian: critics risk forcible incarceration in psychiatric hospitals, or are simply murdered – such as the shooting dead in police custody of Magomed Yevloyev, an Ingush journalist, this week. It is imperialist: bullying neighbours with oil and gas cut-offs, let alone the occupation of Georgia, where Russia’s proxies have practised ethnic cleansing on a scale that recalls the atrocities of the wars in former Yugoslavia. And it is deeply corrupt and lawless: something that even Putin’s successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev, has acknowledged publicly. However bad other countries may be, it is hard to find anything there worth emulating.

· Edward Lucas is the author of The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West

Another Russian journalist arrested and shot dead without a trial

By ANDREW E. KRAMER

MOSCOW — A Russian journalist known for his opposition views was arrested at an airport in southern Russia on Sunday, then fatally shot in the head in what authorities said was an accident but human rights groups said was suspicious.

The shooting, in Ingushetia, and other recent violence in southern Russia suggested a possible further clampdown on domestic dissent, such as it is, in Russia’s volatile North Caucasus border region in the wake of the war in Georgia. The area has been under tight police control for years.

The Russian prosecutor general’s office said the journalist, Magomed Yevloyev, was shot in the temple while being driven from the airport to a police station, and said it would open an investigation into an accidental death.

“While police officers were attempting to transfer M. Yevloyev to an Interior Ministry office, an incident occurred,” said Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the investigative committee of the prosecutor general’s office, according to the Interfax news agency. “M. Yevloyev received a gunshot wound to the temple area.”

The local police in Ingushetia, meanwhile, told the news agency that Mr. Yevloyev was arrested for taking part in a terrorist bombing, and that he had tried to grab an assault rifle from a police officer in the car.

While not nationally known, Mr. Yevloyev’s Web site was closely watched by rights groups and local residents as an independent source for news from Ingushetia, according to Oleg P. Orlov, a researcher with the human rights group Memorial.

“He was very popular in Ingushetia,” Mr. Orlov said in a telephone interview. When local Internet service providers blocked the site this year, residents downloaded the news on their cellphones, which could still connect to it, he said.

The Moscow office of Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying the death was “suspicious” and called for an investigation.

A number of Russian journalists have been killed in recent years. Anna Politkovskaya, who covered the war in Chechnya, was shot in the entryway to her Moscow apartment in October 2006. Two other reporters from her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, died, one from an autoimmune disorder colleagues suspected was caused by poison.

It was unclear whether a recent jump in violence in Russia’s North Caucasus was related to the war in Georgia. Recently, Islamic Web sites have carried posts calling for a renewed struggle against Russia in the region, under the theory that the Russian Army was tied down in Georgia.

Over the weekend, a bomb was aimed at, but missed, an Ingush government minister; two policemen were killed in Kabardino-Balkaria; and a suicide car bomber struck a post of the Russian Interior Ministry in Chechnya, killing one soldier and wounding nine others and a civilian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/world/europe/01ingushetia.html?ref=europe

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are changing their mind

Facing stark international isolation, Russia is steering the two Georgian provinces toward the perspective of a territorial union with Russia. With only Belarus prepared to recognize them and with the sole supporting voice of Hugo Chavez, Russia is apparently doing some quick reevaluation of the situation.

South Ossetia Parliamentary Speaker Znaur Gassiyev said talks this week in Moscow between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity could lead to a merger within a few years time, The (Britain) Telegraph said Friday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/29/South_Ossetia_eyeing_Russian_merger/UPI-69641220029580/

Interfax also quoted Abkhazia’s foreign minister, Sergei Shamba, as saying his province “may become part of the Union State of Russia and Belarus”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7587598.stm

Is Russia rushing again in its diplomatic and political moves in Caucasus? Woudn’t this be seen as an annexation of these two territories, even if indirectly? Isn’t annexation a worse sin compared to support for dismembering of a country? After all US did not try to make Iraq its 51st state. Nor did it let Kosovo join Albania in some kind of a union.

Why is Russia moving so erratically instead of pondering the situation a bit more and weighting the options? Is this related to the upcoming annual UN General Assembly meetings with the leaders of all the world coming to New York? Is this related to the growing NATO presence in the Black Sea? Is this related to the Russian president miscalculations or emotional knee-jerk reactions? Is this related to the expectations of the domestic Russian opinion for the promised return of their country as a superpower in the world?

An interesting approach of why Russia decided to complicate further the situation in the Caucasus by recognizing these provinces as independent states is given here by Paul Golbe who translates and comments for us the analysis of the Russian expert of international affairs Fyodor Lukyanov.

First, he writes, “the Russian leadership like the overwhelming majority of Russians was shocked by the unanimous support the West gave to Saakashvili” — despite actions by the Georgian leader which most Russians believed were “war crimes” that the entire “civilized world” should be condemning.

When Moscow has talked about the West’s double standards in this case, Lukyanov continues, it in fact believes that the West has been acting with “unconcealed cynicism” there. As a result, in “this emotional atmosphere” and convinced that the West had gone too far, the Kremlin decided at each stage to take “a more radical position.”

Second, the Kremlin quickly came to understand that it would not be able to secure a political blessing for what it had achieved by military means. No one was prepared to help Moscow out, and to a certain extent the Russian government was trapped by its own actions in 1999. Then it insisted on the principle of territorial integrity in the former Yugoslavia.

But in the current situation, Moscow was not prepared to maintain that principle not only because of its military gains on the ground but also because the Russian leadership was convinced that in the current environment and given the West’s attitude, it would lose its position as the sole peacekeeping nation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

And third, Lukyanov argues, there was for the Russian leadership a compelling “internal factor.” Given the emotions that the Kremlin and its media had whipped up, the Russian people would have viewed any concession by Moscow not only as a sign of weakness but as an act calling casting doubt on Putin’s insistence that Russia is back as a power to be reckoned with.

Many Russian commentators and many ordinary Russians felt after the military phase of the conflict was over that Russia was about to have its victory on the ground “snatched away from it” by diplomacy. And consequently, the Kremlin concluded that it needed to take a more radical step to show that it was not backing down, however high the stakes became.

http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6940&Itemid=130

The article is also in Russian here: http://globalaffairs.ru/redcol/0/10214.html