Bush meets with Putin

Today in Bratislava, Slovakia, President Bush is expected to meet with Vladimir Putin of Russia and discuss a few issues concerning Russia's present condition, both internally and its dealings with foreign powers, specifically Iran and the Ukraine. My previous post touched on Putin's recent crackdown on dissent, both within the media and his own government (which includes his decision to appoint provincial governors instead of having them be elected). The latest issue of Newsweek featured a short, but informative article on the "many faces of Putin."

Hardly anyone dares to contradict Putin. Everyone saw what happened to Andrei Illarionov in late December, when he objected to Putin's decision to appoint, rather than elect, provincial governors. "Competition in politics is just as important as competition in the economy," Putin's top economic adviser told a packed press conference. "Limiting competition—in all aspects of life—leads to one thing: stagnation." Less than a week later he was replaced as Russia's G8 representative.

Indeed.

Russia's "backsliding"

We've always known that there are indeed a lot of things wrong with Russia. Its long and bloody history certainly speaks for itself. But ever since the fall of communism in 1991, the West has been hopeful that Russia could make democracy work for itself. The big debate is whether or not so vast a country, with such a history of firm autocratic rule, could ever advance into the modern democratic/capitalist world.

This debate has been rekindled among many intellectual circles due to recent events in our post- 9/11 world. The recent Chechen massacre at Beslan seems to have triggered a "backsliding" of democracy in Russia. President Putin has been tightening up on the press for a while now, but today criticism of the government is almost non-existent. In addition, Putin has given himself the power to appoint regional governors, as opposed to having them be elected by the people. The recent elections in the Ukraine were also a cause for a strain in U.S.-Russian relations. The fact that Russia supported the candidate that wanted to go off rigged election results is troubling. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Turkey revealed the U.S.'s concerns over the declining state of democracy in Russia.

"Obviously we have concerns ... it is important that Russia make clear to the world that it is intent on strengthening the rule of law, strengthening the role of an independent judiciary, permitting a free and independent press," Rice told a news conference in Warsaw, during a stopover en route to Turkey.

Aside from a decaying state of internal affairs, Russia's heavy involvement with Syria and Iran (i.e. selling weapons to Syria, selling nuclear plant materials to Iran) surely does not play well with the U.S. either. Hopefully, Bush's time with President Putin (still considered a "good friend") during his trip to Europe will yield some kind of result, whether it be internal reform or a shift in foreign policy (a little bit of both would be good). Nevertheless, Russia is definitely a state that we're going to have to continue to keep a close eye on. The rise of another Soviet-like dictatorship, armed with nukes I might add, is not something we want to see happening any time soon.

Syria makes a bid for Axis position

Amid increasing pressure from the U.S. over Lebanon, nukes, terrorists, and terrorists with nukes in Lebanon, Iran and Syria have decided to make a formal agreement to back each other up in this seemingly perilous time for outdated, autocratic regimes.

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.

On all grounds you say? Okay, let's just say for a minute that Iran makes a huge breakthrough with its nuclear program. Combine this with the fact that the Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed a major weapons deal with Syria (advanced short-range missiles are on the plate) and you've got a really nasty threat to Israel, especially when considering the possibility of Syria turning over some of these new weapons into the hands of terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

Among the first weapons transferred is the sale of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system mounted on armored personnel carriers, according to sources.

The system is highly effective against low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles, and the mobility offered by the carriers renders the new missiles difficult to detect prior to launch. A deal in the works may also provide Syria with advanced surface missiles capable of engaging multiple targets at once.

Yikes. Clearly these weapons systems are tailored to counter the threat posed by superior Israeli air forces. Sounds like the Cold War all over again.

Bush heads to Europe

Bush has a lot on his plate for his Eurotrip , yet I have my doubts about the amount of progress that will be made in trans-Atlantic relations. I especially have my doubts about this statement by Bush:

"We do not accept a false caricature that divides the Western world between an idealistic United States and a cynical Europe. America and Europe are the pillars of the free world," he said. "We share the same belief in freedom and the rights of every individual, and we are working together across the globe to advance our common interest and common values."

Of course, we all know the president has to say those kinds of things, but as far as I can tell, Europe has indeed been pretty cynical of late over matters pertaining to global security threats and the like. Also, that last part about "common interests and common values" is quite far-fetched. If anything, our interests and values have grown further apart over these last years. Europe clearly embraces a very secular, humanistic outlook on life, whereas the Bush administration takes a very hard-line approach to world politics, a viewpoint rooted in conservative Christianity (in other words, seeing things as black and white, right and wrong). Both viewpoints get you in trouble at times, I certainly do not mean to advocate for one over the other. However, when you're dealing with such serious threats as Iran or North Korea, or this new thing over democracy in Russia (or lack thereof rather), it is probably best not to wax and wane too much. We definitely don't want the "evil ones" to be walking all over us. But then again, that's just my opinion.

A new Arab renaissance

Thomas Friedman's recent op-ed Middle East column is nothing less than sweet. Ever since I started reading his best-selling From Beirut to Jerusalem, I have gained a very profound respect for the expertise of this man in matters pertaining to the Middle East.

Something really is going on with the proverbial "Arab street." The automatic assumption that the "Arab street" will always rally to the local king or dictator - if that king or dictator just waves around some bogus threat or insult from "America," "Israel" or "the West" - is no longer valid. Yes, the Iraq invasion probably brought more anti-American terrorists to the surface. But it also certainly brought more pro-democracy advocates to the surface.

I mean seriously, if you're looking for quality Middle East analysis, look no further than this guy. It is clear that we are witnessing a re-birth of Arab idealism, one that is not centered around hating the West, rather, one that desires to emulate those practices that have brought countless states up from destitution and into the modern world community.

This editorial is chock-full of thought-provoking passages, but there is one section at the end that is really mind-blowing. Friedman borrows an excerpt from Lebanon's leading newspaper, An Nahar. Journalist Samir Kassir writes:

Throughout history, Beirut's streets have been reserved for the "defense of pan-Arab causes." But with the funeral for Rafik Hariri, Arab nationalism has taken on a new aim, he declared: "Today, the nationalist cause has shrunk into the single aim of getting rid of the regimes of terrorism and coups, and regaining the peoples' freedom as a prelude to a new Arab renaissance. Thus hundreds of thousands of free citizens walked in Rafik Hariri's funeral - while only a paltry cortege mobilized by the single party and its intelligence apparatuses walked in [former Syrian President] Hafez al-Assad's funeral a few years ago. [With the Hariri funeral] Beirut was the beating heart of a new Arab nationalism. ... This nationalism is based on the free will of citizens, male and female. And this is what the tyrannical [Syrian] regime should fear more than anything else if it tarries about ending its hegemony over Beirut and Lebanon."

Arab nationalism has a new definition, according to Kassir. It was once a term that the West associated with tyranny, a pseudo-Soviet bloc alliance of Arab states rallying together against their powerful Jewish neighbor. But as Kassir so eloquently pointed out, this new sense of nationalism is based on the "free will of citizens, male and female." No longer is it a ploy by national socialist governments like the one in Syria to distract Arab citizens from the lack of freedom they can express by giving them a common enemy, but rather it is a genuine desire to break free from the old order. If the Middle East had a Berlin Wall, I think it would be safe to say, judging from recent events, that the pick axes have already been brandished.

Never say never

President Bush says there are no plans on the table right now to attack Iran. Yet he still managed to plant a significant bit of doubt when he added, in a press conference with European journalists, "you never want a president to say never." Sounds a lot like the kind of things he said before going to war in Iraq.

The bottom line though is, the free world simply cannot risk allowing Iran to get a hold of a bomb. If it means a military strike, then perhaps this is what needs to be done. Iran is a state that openly supports terrorists in southern Lebanon (Hezbollah) and continues to view Israel as an illegitimate state in the Middle East. European diplomatic initiatives must back up their words with the threat of force. Otherwise, the Iranian government will do anything in its power to stall negotiations until they are able to acquire a bomb, which experts in the intelligence community believe can happen within the next three to five years (editorialist Steve Weissman has a very interesting perspective on this). And by that time, our options will be severly limited, which is a slightly scary prospect to consider.

Private retirement accounts in the UK

I heard an interesting story on NPR today that really hit home how risky Bush's agenda is for Social Security reform.

I hadn't previously known that privitization of retirement funds is already being tried in Great Britain and that they are slowly weening themselves off of it. To summarize, people have made bad decisions with their money, and often times find their savings eaten up by private insurance companies due to a general decline in equity. Privitization would also mean micromangement of personal accounts, which requires a lot of time and careful regulation. In short, I think Bush should, as the story concludes, learn from Britain's mistakes and not try to pull a stunt here that we will be regretting later on down the road.

Sketchy Shiite options

This article by The New York Times caught my eye.

I was disappointed that Ayad Allawi's party only received 14 percent of the vote, but what is even more disappointing is that the United Iraqi Alliance has failed to reach consensus over their nominee for Prime Minister. They basically came together under the arm of Sistani in order to form a solid Shiite voting block, but now differences among the seperate parties within the alliance is forcing them into a somewhat ackward position.

After meeting for hours with Shiite cleric and politician Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, members of the United Iraqi Alliance agreed to hold a secret ballot to choose between two former exiles, Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Ahmad Chalabi, said Ali Hashim al-Youshaa, an alliance leader who attended the meetings. The vote is expected Friday.

So that's what it has come down to? Two guys that both have ties to Iran? And what is all of this about consulting clerics about candidates? Why are we suddenly mixing religion and politics?

A close aide to al-Sistani, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the alliance leaders will visit his office in Najaf to get his blessing for their choice for prime minister. If they cannot agree, al-Sistani will decide.

So basically, if they cannot agree, Sistani will name himself right? Great, another mullah at the helm of a Middle Eastern country. Of course, that is the absolute worst-case scenario, however, it is still a scary prospect when one considers that everyone on the table right now has some kind of tie to our dear friend Iran.

Al-Jaafari leads the Dawa Party, known for its close ties to Iran.

Chalabi, 58, who left Iraq as a teen, leads the Iraqi National Congress and had close ties to the Pentagon before falling out of favor last year after claims he passed intelligence information to Iran.

I used to like Chalabi (don't know much at all about Al-Jaafari), but after the whole thing with him and Iran, not to mention false intelligence over WMD's, I am not so sure anymore. Nevertheless, I would be willing to give him a chance. As the article points out, he is a secular Shiite and his party, the Iraqi National Congress, has worked hard over the years to give exiles (which include Kurds) a fighting chance at a new Iraq. We will just have to wait and see what plays out on Friday when the secret ballot is expected to take place.

Republicans for Dean

I just thought this little bit by Andy Borowitz was kind of funny.

I also enjoyed this excerpt from The Independent Florida Alligator:

"Summing up the feelings of these Republicans, former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich said of Dean to Fox News, “I think if (Democrats) have a true death wish, he’d be the perfect guy to go with."

I'm not a big fan of Fox News, but neither am I a big fan of Dean. I honestly believe the guy lost the race because he is just too out of touch with the mainstream. Sure, he seemed to do well in Vermont, but all of that rhetoric on Iraq and gay marriage sort of turned me off. Not to mention he went out of his way to go to church with Jimmy Carter that one day in order to prove he is actually a Christian (which he had to reiterate several times to the press). If the Democrats want to get serious about values the way Kerry and Edwards tried to, Dean is the last guy you want to nominate as the face of the party. I mean, come on, Vermont is like as blue as it gets. A state that is completely stuck in the 60's, and I don't mean segregation or Richard Nixon. If Howard Dean is the best the Democrats can come up with, then I truly fear that they have, as Gingrich said, signed a death wish.

More on Beirut bombing

I may have been too quick to put all the blaim Syria for a number of reasons, even though I still suspect their involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri. It makes enough sense that they would try to take out such an outspoken (not to mention, increasingly popular) Lebanese politician.

I heard today on NPR that the U.S. is recalling its ambassador from Syria. Yet, one expert that was invited made the point that Syria would be stupid to pull something off as gutsy as the recent assassination. It's already in the "crosshairs" of the U.S. over terrorism and its continued disregard for insurgents crossing over into Iraq.

In addition, CBC News made an interesting connection between Hariri and Saudi Arabia. Before I read this bit, I was unaware that there was already an Islamic group that was claiming responsibility for the attack.

"The 'Group for Victory and Holy War in the Levant' said it was behind Hariri's killing in a video shown on Al-Jazeera satellite television.

'For the sake of our mujahedeen brothers in Saudi Arabia... we decided to implement the just execution of those who support this regime,' a bearded man said on the tape.

The group was alluding to Hariri's strong links with Saudi Arabia and its ruling royal family. Those connections reportedly facilitated his early successes in earning an estimated $2-billion US fortune in construction."

Could run-of-the-mill Islamic terrorists be behind this attack? Was Syria involved in any way? It could seemingly swing in either direction. The presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon creates a "destabilizing" factor to begin with (at least, that's according to the Bush administration). Hariri not only spoke out against Syria, but he also made no secret of his contracts with the Saudi government, which we all know is despised by militants. So where does that leave us? Sometimes I wish I had Thomas Friedman's home number.

Beirut back in the spotlight

All fingers point to Damascus. Well, at least, my fingers do.

Of course you've all heard about the car bomb in Beirut by now. Isn't it interesting how it happened to target a former Prime Minister of Lebanon? Why not the one who is in power now? Rafik Hariri was a rich man to be sure, but more important was his image as a "as a breath of fresh air in a country dominated by former militia leaders." He openly defied Syrian occupation before resigning in 1998, which in the same way is like defying those terrorist groups like Hezbollah that Syria helps to operate out of southern Lebanon with Iran.

So far the U.S. has taken a leading role in coordinating a response to the attacks. White House press secretary Scott McClellan dropped a couple big hints in terms of who the U.S. is pointing fingers at.

"It's premature to know who was responsible for this attack, but we continue to be concerned about the foreign occupation in Lebanon," McClellan said. "We've expressed those concerns. Syria has maintained a military presence there for some time now, and that is a concern of ours."

"Mr. Hariri was a fervent supporter of Lebanese independence and worked tirelessly to rebuild a free, independent and prosperous Lebanon following its brutal civil war and despite its continued foreign occupation," McClellan said. "His murder is an attempt to stifle these efforts to build an independent sovereign Lebanon free of foreign domination."

Just look at how many times McClellan uses the term "foreign occupation" or "foreign domination" in those two excerpts. Not to mention Syria is explicitly mentioned as a "concern," even though just a sentence prior to that he makes the point that it is still premature to know who was responsible. Is it just me or is it getting hot in here?

Eason Jordan remarks

I hope this story gets picked up by the mainstream media soon. I'm reading a lot of snippets about it on blogs like Instapundit, but I'm waiting for some kind of coherent recap and analysis from a major news outlet like NBC or something. Sounds very intriguing to me; the backfire factor could be huge, whether it be on CNN's credibility or the DoD.

One more reason to despise the DMV

Most people hate going to the DMV for one reason: the massive lines. Well, those lines may get even longer if the Senate votes to pass a new U.S. immigration bill which obliges states to adopt a uniform driver's license. With this comes a requirement that state DMV's verify that their applicants are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants to make sure that terrorists don't get their hands on a license. This bill was approved by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives in a 261-161 vote.

This is just one example (most likely there are many more to come) of Bush's new initiative to tighten up on U.S. immigration. I respect the fact that the president is concerned about the safety of American citizens, but why do we need to bring the INS to the DMV? It may seem like a simple extra measure to the folks on the Hill, but it is clear that state governments are not happy about being slapped with this mandate without financial assistance from Washington.

"Governors, state legislators and motor vehicle departments have all argued that requiring verification of background information such as Social Security numbers and whether a person is in the United States legally would be burdensome.
The National Governors Association and a group representing motor vehicle department administrators said in a letter to House leaders that the measure is a "massive unfunded mandate."

As if the DMV couldn't get even more inefficient and bureaucratic. Now you have to plan on your license renewal being more of a day trip than an errand. In a nation that is used to picking up burgers at a drive-through window in under a minute, it would be best to brace yourself as this bill is passed on to the Senate for review.

All eyes on Iran

Today is the 26th anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution. From the looks of it though, this year might be the its last...

We witnessed a resilient President Khatami assuring the masses that Iran will give a "burning hell" to any invader. It's pretty obvious he's feeling the heat from the Bush administration to dismantle Iran's nuclear reactors. The Iranians must know by now that the European Union isn't going to use force in the matter.

"Iranian officials have been signalling impatience with the pace of talks and the "seriousness" of EU negotiators who are trying to persuade Tehran to scrap activities such as uranium enrichment which can be used to make atomic bombs." -Reuters AlertNet

Bush on the otherhand has proven that he can be quite the cowboy when it comes to dealing with the Middle East. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has specifically been quoted as saying military action is not on the U.S. agenda "at this time." Oh my, what time will that be then? I sure hope it's not when I get my draft notice...

The U.S. should definitely play it smart in this situation. Let the Israelis take out a couple reactors from the air like they did with Iraq in '81 and call it a day. A slug-fest with the Iranians on the ground would not be pretty. I don't think the American people have the stomach for another war like that. The ideal scenario here would of course be an internal revolt. President Bush elaborated on this in the State of the Union address, "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Perhaps a more Afghanistan-like scenario, with minimal troops on the ground, could succeed. At this point it's hard to gauge the overall consensus of the Iranian populace, but my guess would be that most are not in favor of the ruling clerics. In that case, it might not take much to stir up a hornets' nest. We just have to make sure it doesn't end up failing miserably like the Bay of Pigs. All it requires is a bit of wisdom on the part of the hotshots down at the DoD. Yet, as we've seen in many instances of its handling of the Iraq war, wisdom may be hard to come by. Yikes, a hostile encounter with a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is not something we want to screw up on. Not at all.

Another crack at Middle East peace

Newly-appointed Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is just back from the Middle East peace summit in Egypt, the first one held in about four years between the senior leaders of the Israeli and Palestinian governments.

Apparently there have been some significant developments, most noteworthy of them being a formal ceasefire between the two parties. It is interesting that this agreement should come so soon after the election of Mahmoud Abbas. I guess he doesn't even feel the need to waste time to consolidate his power. In fact, it is probably a smarter move to get the Israelis off his back before dealing with the Palestinians themselves.

Turkish press has been covering things quite well, with fairly frequent updates and summaries of events.

Overall I am very surprised at the number of compromises that were reached at this summit in Egypt. This was definitely the most productive meeting in recent memory. Israel actually agreed to withdraw from five West Bank cities and release 500 Palestinians prisoners, with another 400 to be released at a later date. Of course, Hamas still does not recognize any change in the "Israeli condition," but they're a lost cause anyway. It will be interesting to see how Abbas deals with them during his time as president (I've heard a lot about his wishy-washy position on militant activity, but he seems a lot better than Arafat so far). In addition, Egypt and Jordan made the first step in the deal to reinstate their diplomatic relations with Israel, which I was not aware of. I'd say things are looking optimistic in the Middle East right now...let's hope they stay that way.

State of the Union

Better late than never... I didn't get a chance to watch the entire speech until today. But even though it has been a couple days since the address was broadcasted, analysis of the speech by the MSM and bloggers alike has been ongoing. Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo in particular has been following up on Bush's Social Security rant quite well.

Amidst all of the usual Republican ideals we've all come to expect Bush to put forth in his speech (less taxes for government programs and less regulations on small businesses, progress on No Child Left Behind, more affordable yet more individualized healthcare, etc.), the State of the Union still had a couple of sticking points.

The first thing I caught onto was the President's bit about supporting renewable energy sources.

"My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. Four years of debate is enough. I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy."

Less dependent on foreign energy, eh? Of course, the first thing that came to mind here was the fact that the entire Bush family is in bed with the Saudis (sorry, I know that's a liberal stereotype). Of course, neoconservatives within the Bush administration might argue that through a partnership with a pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq, we may be able to wean ourselves off of Saudi oil, which in turn may lead to a confrontation with them over the funding of Islamic terrorists. Of course, at this point the Bush administration probably still considers Saudi Arabia an "ally" in the war on terror, which doesn't get us anywhere. Yet still, is not Iraqi oil considered foreign oil? When one considers Bush's statement, the implication is that essentially America will have to slowly detach itself from its obsession with big cars. Fubar! Everyone knows that Republicans (at least in my town) are the kings of SUV's. So what is Bush really saying?

The hottest topic on the domestic agenda was, of course, Social Security.

"The goal here [regarding privatization] is greater security in retirement, so we will set careful guidelines for personal accounts. We will make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds. We will make sure that your earnings are not eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees."

Wait, what? Mixing Social Security with the Stock Market? Something doesn't sound right here. Let's face it, people are dumb. What is bound to happen is that people are going to make the wrong choices when it comes to investments and then in the blink of an eye, their entire savings will be drained. Then who's gonna pick up the tab? The federal government? I think not. Clearly, there should be reform if the system will go bankrupt. However, I don't believe that privatization is the answer. The equation seems simple to me (then again, I'm not a politician so everything seems more simple). If more people are living longer, then the retirement age and/or qualifications for benefits must be adjusted to fit.

Now, on to the good stuff...

"America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

My honest opinion is that I think it would be best to take this guy seriously after the success of the Iraqi elections.

"...the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren."

It is clear from this speech that Bush's spectrum of freedom is widening. Only now are we beginning to truly understand the grand scheme of things. The democratic victory in Iraq was good for its people, but it was also meant to send a message to the rest of the region. Sure, that was always in the back of my mind in the two years the U.S. has been in Iraq (through all the toil in Fallujah as well), but suddenly now it seems like the entire concept has been given a violent shove to the forefront. Are we really talking about a grand awakening of the masses in the Middle East? Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan...Bush is seemingly hinging a huge part of his presidential legacy on the desire of the Islamic world to be rid of tyranny and despotism, with or without the involvement of the U.S. military. Interesting times indeed.

Finally, I wanted to make a note of the embrace between Iraqi human rights activist Safia Taleb al-Suhail and Janet Norwood, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq. This was a highlight of the event to be sure. The symbolic nature of the encounter was definitely moving. Two women from totally different backgrounds, both grateful to each other for making their sacrifice worthwhile. I was inclined to applaud as well.

What genocide in Sudan?

Can someone please tell me what it is with the U.N. Security Council and matters pertaining to conflict on the African continent?

"A U.N. special commission, which refused to declare the widespread killings in Sudan to be acts of "genocide," has been criticised for restraining its condemnation of the massacre of some 400,000 Sudanese in that politically troubled African nation." -allAfrica.com

Here we go again...it's almost as if the U.N. were a film company that just signed on to produce the sequel to "Hotel Rwanda."

I think we need a serious overhaul in the way this body functions. It seems kind of sad that the United States is the only country so far that is openly labeling Sudanese government actions as being synonymous with genocide. I mean, I hate to whip out the dictionary here, but I think the Security Council leaves me with no choice...

genocide (noun) :

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

The pro-government Arab janjaweed militia seems pretty intent on displacing and exterminating hundreds of thousands of ethnic African Muslims. So where does that leave us? Two words: political self-interest. What else is new with the Security Council? Russia and China are permenant members of the body with no intention of straining relations with Khartoum.

" 'On the U.N. Security Council, both Russia and China continue to oppose sanctions, for their own economic and political interests,' says Ann-Louise Colgan, director for policy analysis and communications at Washington-based Africa Action, one of the oldest non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working on African affairs. 'China is the single largest investor in the oil industry in Sudan, and Russia also has interests in continuing to sell weapons and other military equipment to the Khartoum regime,' she added. 'But neither China nor Russia wishes to antagonise the Government of Sudan, and neither one wishes to set a precedent for international intervention (or even punitive action) based on human rights concerns because of their own internal repression of ethnic communities,' Colgan told IPS." -Inter Press Service

This seems to be a continuing trend with China and Russia, the two ex-Communist (correction: one ex-Communist "mafia runs everything" state, one pseudo-capitalist authoritarian regime) superpower wannabes of the post-Cold War era. I guess they figure while they can't stand up to the U.S. using their own resources, military or otherwise, they can still show us up at the U.N., just like they did during the fiasco over Iraq not too long ago. Pride and self-interest is such a shame really. Especially when it is at the cost of others' lives...

Step aside Kofi...

"He definitely wants to do it."

That is the inside word from an anonymous U.N. official in response to allegations that former President Bill Clinton is making a bid for Kofi Annan's job as Secretary General of the world's most powerful (prestigious is probably a better word) international body. This particular bit of information actually leaked out last October, however, talk of Clinton's expected appointment as the U.N.'s tsunami "czar" by Annan seems to be rekindling the debate.

The funny thing here is that, if it were any other former president considering the job, the rest of the world would probably have a cow. Except in Clinton's case, what can I say, the world just loves this guy.

"Back in February of 2003 there were reports of a "major international move" to engineer Clinton into the post. Those reports suggested Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt." -WorldNetDaily

We all knew that Clinton was quite the diplomat, but damn... even France wants him! I guess after all of the stuff with Kofi Annan's corrupt son making deals with Saddam Hussein under the table got a lot of people to rethink the integrity of the current Secretary General. There were even reports that people were expecting him to resign before his term is up in 2006. It might be the perfect opportunity for Clinton to slip in and basically take the world over in a spectacular coup. Although, he might still have to create some kind of distraction, like ordering another Desert Fox or something.