A couple of those nations singled out in the State Department's Human Rights report are a little bitter. Abu Gharib is an easy target and most states use it although the one that didn't should have. Mexico took a different approach in criticizing the US:
Jose Luis Soberanes, president of Mexico's Human Rights Commission, also said the United States lacked moral authority to pass judgment on others, citing U.S. treatment of Mexicans who sneak across the border into the United States. He compared Washington's criticism of Mexico's record to "the donkey talking about long ears" -- the Spanish-language equivalent of "the pot calling the kettle black" -- "because the United States violates human rights, especially those of our countrymen."
So let me see if I get this straight...we are violating the rights of Mexican citizens because they are violating our laws and entering our country illegally. Of course we should not be worried about our pourous border to the south, unless you consider Hezbollah a threat. In Michigan a Hezbollah member has turned up, he got in the US through Mexico.
A Slate profile of Hosni Mubarak. My only issue with this otherwise excellent post is with the potential vice presidential selection of Omar Suleiman. There are a two big reasons why I think it's a no-go. Hosni does not want a VP. The whole idea of instability and that he is indispensable is what sustains Mubarak government. Putting a number 2 in place puts that illusion to rest. Another thing is that Mubarak wants little Hosni aka Gamal to take over the shop when he is gone. Suleiman and Gamal have been positioning themselves for years and it makes no sense for Hosni to give an upper hand to his son's rival.
When U.S. President George Bush announced his goal to make Iraq “a dramatic and inspiring example for other nations in the region”, political pundits generally scoffed at the veracity of such a proposal. Indeed, with Iraq in turmoil and U.S. support for non-democratic regimes at its peak since the start of the so-called war on terror, such statements were viewed at best as political cover for the administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction and at worst, a façade for wider American plans for regional domination.
Nowadays, however, the global punditocracy has changed its tune. While few are wholly attributing the unexpected winds of change currently blowing through the Middle East to U.S. policy alone, most affirm that the right combination of political pressure, grassroots civic movements and a healthy dose of sheer luck has produced what the Dallas Morning News calls “a moment of great drama and guarded hope” for democracy in the region.
Of course not all credit is laid at W's doorstep:
While most award a hard-headed U.S. policy in the region with a certain degree of credit for current democratic developments, analysts also allude to the near perfect storm of elements outside of any one government's control as responsible for the recent windstorm blowing through the Middle East. The Times of London, for example, writes that, possibly “the greatest catalyst for change was the death of Yassir Arafat in November,” whose “passing opened the way for elections in January and has led to the first real drive for peace between Israel and Palestinians in years.”
Also credited is the Syrian misstep in Lebanon and the international vote of confidence for Abbas.
If you thought Abu Gharib was embarrassing then how about the problems facing UN Peacekeepers in Congo. Apparently they are about as effective as the Iraqi police and have a platoon of R. Kellys on their hands. Here is what the Christian Science Monitor had to say -
Last June, some 3,000 rebels overran the eastern town of Bukavu, despite the presence of 400 peacekeepers, who were ostensibly there to protect civilians. Then in December came the UN report that chronicled 150 allegations of sexual misconduct, including an apparent pedophilia ring, rapes, and solicitations of prostitutes. All along, there have been unabated killings of villagers by militias of the Lendu ethic group, seemingly under MONUC's nose.
To fix the problem the UN is doing a couple of things. UN Congo chief and former US diplomat is on his way out and law breaking peacekeepers will face their accusers on their home turf instead of shipping them home. Peacekeepers are also adopting a more aggressive stand even retaliating to attacks on them. My only question if this is eventually applied systemwide is how will we respond to having our troops tried elsewhere?
Egyptian pro-democracy activist Saadeddin Ibrahim says that Hosni Mubarak's plan to hold open elections is a big deal. His enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that we don't know the details and Hosni could hose Egypt by setting up a Tunisian style elections in which the incumbent gets 96% of the vote instead of the usual 99%. Nonetheless he believes that the democratic genie is out of the bottle and it will be difficult for the NDP hacks to stuff it back. Ibrahim credits a number of factors for Mubarak's declaration and alludes to international pressure yet he ignores the interesting timing of the announcement. Less than two days before Hosni spoke Condi Rice called off a highly publicized trip to Egypt to protest the continued incarceration of dissident Ayman Nour.
Tung Chee-hwa, the top dog in Hong Kong and the man who has done more than any other to mobilize the pro-democracy movement in his domain, has finally been eased out by the Reds. Years of ineptitude finally caught up to him. I am certain that the indefatigable Martin Lee will miss him. The early favorite to replace Tung is a technocrat, Donald Tsang.
The brilliant iconoclast Christopher Hitchens notes the end of the "Arab Street". The amazing thing is that he wrote this before the news on Lebanon wrote. As he notes "the street" was usually a short-hand for Anti-American, anti-democratic, Islamic populism.
There was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the elections in Palestine, the elections in Iraq and now this. It is remarkable what the people of Lebanon have been able to accomplish in such a short time. It is also worth noting that for the first time we have been able to hear what the infamous "Arab Street" has to say. What the "street" seems to want is the right to determine its own future. By the way the blogs are heavy with commentary and opinions. Cons are giddy and lefties are confused.
Syria has turned over Saddam's half brother. There were those that said that Bashar al-Assad did not have it in him, but with his latest maneuver he has shown himself to be his father's son. As the NY Times notes the late Assad, known as the sphinx, managed to keep Americans at bay by granting well timed concessions Now Bashar is going the same route, although I would hope the W. won't settle for this pittance. Syria needs to get out of Lebanon, seal the border with Iraq and cut off Hezbollah. By the way I love the way that the Times refers to the Syrian Baath Party as "milder" than the Iraqi version. Is it because they only wiped out a whole city as opposed to a province or two? Kind of disgusting how the Times soft-pedals mass murder.
Closer to home the Christian Science Monitor and the Miami Herald mark the one year anniversary of the deposing of Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. It's disappointing but not surprising that the Monitor has the better work. The Monitor notes that Haiti is a still a mess and is probably in worse shape than before. My only quibble is the allusion that its 45 changes in government since 1804 is a sign of instability, can't it be said that we've had 41 in that same time frame? The Herald opts for a report on a three minute interview with Aristide on French TV where he blames the Che loving Regis Debray for his ouster. There is also a piece on the waning power of a prominent pro-Aristide group in Miami.
