Good news from Kyrgyzstan

Some good news from the new government of Kyrgyzstan. Supposedly the "temporary government" will soon be permitting previously banned human rights organizations to enter to enter the country. Let's hope this decision of the temporary government isn't itself temporary.

At least he listens to his mother!

This article seems a little bit absurd, but that does not mean that it isn't true. The president of Chechnya - who has been implicated on some very strong evidence of repeated and savage violations of human rights - sued officials from human rights groups who had the temerity to imply his involvement in crimes of torture, rape, and murder.

(One of these murders was that of a human rights activist last year, as discussed in earlier postings.)

Now - he is dropping his lawsuits. Why? Because his mother asked him to. So - the fellow - who runs his fief with an iron fist & is implicated in all these crimes - still listens to his mother.

It's kind of sweet.

Kind of weird.

Poland's shame

I saw this piece by Radio Free Europe yesterday. A shameful piece of pandering by the Polish government. I wonder what other quid pro quo was involved. I used to think that such symbolic honors were empty, but now I think they do have some significance. Every element that lets a repressive government claim legitimacy is important. A repressive government should be faced constantly with reproach for its repression. It is only through such consistent pressure that incremental change is possible.

Two Germans back opposing plans for European gas supplies

This appointment was interesting, and as the Italian analyst noted - a little ironic. In his new position, Fischer will be facing his old boss ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Fischer’s appointment makes sense, as the author of the RFE article point out, for a variety of reasons. One important point is that he has consistently supported Turkish membership in the the EU, and Turkey’s participation in Nabucco is absolutely essential.

Azerbaijan, meanwhile, is being noncommittal about favoring one option or another, as a previous article by Pannier points out. That said, it wouldn’t be surprising to see Azerbaijan under its current leadership align itself more closely with the Gazprom. The Russian government is less likely to raise bothersome questions about human rights and democracy.

What's the difference between Abu Ghraib and torture memos?

As I listened to this NPR radio interview with a former intelligence officer in Iraq yesterday, I was struck by the difference between the current reaction to the revelations about torture policy of the Bush White House and the reaction to the issue of torture that was raised after the photographic evidence of torture that leaked from the prison at Abu Ghraib.

Yes, there were newspaper articles and chest-thumping, but the level of outrage four years ago seemed considerably lower than it is now. Abu Ghraib was barely an election issue in 2004. OK - four years ago, we had grainy photos of tortured prisoners, not memos written in legalese. The Bush Administration at the time made the case that the people torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib were just “bad apples,” but why did so many people believe him?

What are the differences in the situation? Which differences are most significant in affecting how the mass media and the political elite are responding to the issue?

When Abu Ghraib became a scandal, the war in Iraq was still being hotly fought by US troops. At the end of 2004, about 138,000 troops were on the ground. Now, there are roughly 140,000 troops, but President Obama has pledged to withdraw most of them by August 2010. So, with the conflict less “hot,” perhaps there is room for more scruples and reflection by the public?

Does the fact that the public now perceives that the Bush Administration engaged in foolish policies leading to the economic crisis mean that the public is more willing to doubt Bush & Co. about other matters?

Of course, the change in political leadership at the top makes a difference. For all his talk about “looking forward,” President Obama has no political incentive to cover-up the sins of his predecessor. Yes, this could cause the Republicans in Congress to be obstructionist, but it’s hard to see how they could be any more contrary than they are already.

And in the changed environment, there are countless of other political actors who have greater freedom of action to demand more accountability from the members of the Bush administration. The ability of these actors to affect policy four years ago was quite limited; now, their demands carry more weight.

But I wonder also about the overall political and social climate of the time. I visualize the individuals in a society, suspended like pebbles in some sort of conglomerate rock. While certain individuals may move out of the norm, the individuals in general are constrained by the mass surrounding them. How else to explain this recent outburst of a commentator on the Fox News network, of all places?

I don’t think that this somewhat Gramscian understanding of society contradicts the other explanation - that the difference in the reaction to the issue in torture is being led by the political elite. These explanations can coexist. I’m just hoping that the mass of public opinion in the United States will shift - perhaps glacially - to a position that grants greater value to human rights.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

By the way, Krugman steps out of his regular area of expertise to write an excellent column on the issue in today's New York Times. While I completely back a thorough investigation of the issue, I also think Elizabeth de la Vega raises some good points about the need to completely think through a strategy for future prosecution of those who formulated the policy.

Also, here's a good side-by-side comparison between the legal memos and what actually happened.

Free elections and human rights protected in Azerbaijan

In a little less than three months, this country will conduct a presidential election. This is fairly certain. There were rumors that the election might be delayed but those have been emphatically denied by government authorities. The victor in the election is if anything even more certain than the election date of Oct. 15.
While I do not present myself as an expert in Azerbaijani politics, I am a fairly perceptive political observer. As far as I can determine, no candidate who will oppose the incumbent Ilham Aliyev has mounted any sort of campaign. Formally, the nominating process for opponents to the president will continue until late August, according to the Central Election Commission.

Meanwhile, President Aliyev makes full use of his position – grabbing headlines every day with pronouncements about Azerbaijan’s great future, its military prowess and the pressing need to regain properties lost in Nagorno-Karabakh. This is to say nothing of the thousands of huge posters of Ilham and his father Heydar that grace town squares, highways, restaurants and just about every sort of public space available in this country. How is a democratic election even possible when the public is subjected to such a propaganda campaign?

Quirk Global Strategies provides a cynical assessment of the coming elections. “Cynical “is probably not the right word. That implies an attitude that is darker than is justifiable. “Utterly realistic” is probably a better modifier.

This week’s issue of AzerNews – run by a government proxy – devotes page three to a lengthy discourse about the wonderful state of Azerbaijani democracy, the country’s great record on human rights, the wise reforms initiated by President Ilham Aliyev, and the general fact that the president is a great guy! Here’s just an excerpt from the article, written by Elshad Abdullayev:

“Ilham Aliyev, who has proven himself in 1995-2003 as a monumental, patriotic, pragmatic, and initiative personality with high administration skills in all areas of his activity, secured his undisputed victory by gaining the trust and confidence of the required majority.”

For whom is this written, I wonder?

But when I look at the headline of the article - “Governance mechanism promoting protection of human rights and freedoms” – I also think about my own country, and its own hypocritical stance about the protection of human rights. The subject is fresh in my mind, after listening to an excellent program about Guantanamo Bay prison. I really feel that U.S. citizens who do not travel abroad receive much less information about their government. Yes, I have read articles about this prison in the Washington Post and the New York Times, but the television coverage of the subject is largely sanitized. Viewers abroad receive more information about the U.S. government’s brutal treatment of prisoners. And the natural question is – “So, how are you going to lecture us about our government? How can you talk about human rights with a straight face, when your own president effectively has ordered a policy of torture?”

My reply to that question – which I have faced – is that many U.S. citizens oppose the Bush administration. Unfortunately, this opposition has been insufficient to cause the changes that are necessary.