There are some increasingly louder hints that relations between the US and Iran are approaching a thaw. A few moments to note:
First, US President Obama says (on al-Arabiya, no less) that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." So is Obama offering Supreme Leader Khamenei a low-five? Couldn't Obama just clench his fist and give Khamenei a "terrorist fist-jab"? Somehow it seems more appropriate.
Then, reformist former president Seyed Mohammad Khatami throws his hat in the ring for this year's upcoming Presidential election (TiVo alert: June 12). Khatami was the President from 1997 until 2005, when he was unseated by current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khatami was twice elected by a large majority on reformist platform, but lost support as his reformist policies wilted under pressure from conservative theocrats. Khatami is himself a high-level cleric, and traces his lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Khatami sought to break down Iran's isolation during his term, but US-Iran relations were monopolized by radicals on both sides -- Iran's Revolutionary Guards pushed nuclear development and funded Hezbollah (among others), and Bush shot down any chance of dialogue when he cast parts for Axis of Evil: The Good, the Bad, and the Insane.
Ahmadinejad came to power on a populist platform fueled by anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments. He often brought out this fiery rhetoric (America=Satan, Wipe Israel Off the Map, etc.) during his term, partially as an attempt to distract from his failing economic policies. So with the economy still sputtering, and his primary opponent a well-known Americaphile, we prepared for another outburst of bombastic nuttiness. But it never came.
Instead, on the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad said that he was ready to engage with the Great Satan (video). While this is not the first time Ahmadinejad has said he is open to dialogue, it is incredible, given the situation (remember he was speaking to a crowd of thousands of mostly hard-core revolutionaries yelling anti-Western slogans and playing Knock-The-Head-Off-The-Decadent-Western-Leader) that he made a point to show this openness. This says that Ahmadinejad no longer sees anti-Americanism as the political wedge issue it was in the past. And it may mean that dialogue will happen regardless of who prevails in the June election.
There are several reasons for this shift. Top of the list is the new US President. Obama may not guarantee successful dialogue, but under Bush it would have been impossible. The US withdrawal in Iraq, even in the planning stages as it is, helps reassure Iran that the US does not mean to be an imperialist power in the Middle East. Economic concerns also factor in, with Iran's economy suffering and in need of investment. Reuters reports that Royal Dutch Shell and Total have interests in developing Iranian natural gas deposits, and Iran would be sure to benefit if the US embargo were lifted.
Dialogue with Iran, even if eventually successful enough to allow full inspection of Iranian nuclear capabilities, establish formal diplomatic relations, and reduce or eliminate trade embargoes, will be slow and difficult. Hard-line elements in the US and Iran will continue to militate against restoration of full relations. For the US hard-liners, the issue is Iranian support of Islamic militants in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq. For the Iranian hard-liners, the issue is US support for Israel. As long as these issues have pull in their respective countries, progress towards full relations will be difficult to achieve. Diplomacy cannot be carried out piece-meal, and it cannot be carried out if politicians on either side are too preoccupied with their opinion polls.
Here's some advice for President Obama: when greeting Iranian leaders, feel free to shake hands, offer a low-five, or give a fist jab. Just don't try the traditional George W. Bush man-greeting.
March 16 Update: Khatami has thrown in the towel, seemingly bowing out in favor of Mir-Hossein Moussavi. The Reformist camp now has two candidates for June's presidential election:
Mir-Hossein Moussavi -- Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, current member of the Expediency Council (Iran's highest non-elected political body), and head of Iran's Academy of Arts. Moussavi is seen as a honest and centrist politician, drawing support from the reformists and some conversatives. He flip-flopped on a decision to enter the race, finally throwing his hat in March 10.
Mehdi Karroubi -- Speaker of Parliament until 2004, founder of reformist Assocaition of Combatant Clerics, and 3rd place Presidential candidate in 2005. Karroubi is seen as farther to the left than Moussavi, and has drawn support from leftists like Gholamhossein Karbaschi, formerly mayor of Tehran and influential in Khatami's previous presidential runs.
Some observers say that the Reformists will eventually narrow their camp to one candidate; clearly two candidates will make it more difficult to defeat Ahmadinejad. There are real differences between Moussavi and Karroubi, but both put economic issues at the top of their agenda. Moussavi is promoting his strategic "20-Year Outlook Plan", while Karroubi has promoted quasi-socialist policies such as distributing shares in Iranian oil companies and making substantial monthly payments to Iranian families.
Overall, Moussavi is seen as the favorite to become the sole Reformist candidate. He has a wider base of support among the political elite, and enough Reformist credentials to pull in the left wing vote. Karroubi's former organization, the Association of Combatant Clerics, has already endorsed Moussavi. However it is yet to be seen whether Ahmadinejad will be able to convince conservatives and tradionalists that he can fully represent their interests -- the addition of another centrist or right-wing candidate would make the road to victory much smoother for the Reformist camp.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Episode IV in Somalia?
Practice Question #1
Claude Monet :: Impressionist painter
Somalia :: _______
a) Octuplet-bearing California woman
b) Locale for new Johnny Depp movie, Pirates of the Gulf of Aden
c) The not-as-cute Jonas Brother
d) Failed state
Remember to show your work!
.........................
Please read Erratum Terrium's previous article on Somalia for background on the current situation (or if you need a study guide for Practice Question #1).
Last week Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was elected "President"* of Somalia, replacing the departed "President"*, Abdullahi Yusuf. Ahmed, as loyal Erratum Terrium readers may remember, was the political leader of the ICU (Union of Islamic Courts) -- which as its name suggests, is a loose confederation of sharia advocates. The ICU created a militia, which was able to wrest control of much of southern and central Somalia from various warlords during 2005 and 2006. They were able, for a short time, to bring a semblance of order to this land wracked by constant turmoil and disaster since 1991 (if not longer). Ethiopia invaded shortly after this order was established, suffered through an Iraqesque occupation, and have just finished withdrawing their troops in the past few weeks**.
Ahmed, an English-speaking former schoolteacher, is the country's best chance for peace. This is unfortunate for him. Men of peace do not have a long life span in this part of the world. According to the BBC, the presidential palace was hit by mortars on his first day there. The Al-Shabab militia, an off-shoot of ICU resistance to Yusuf's transitional government, has expressed no desire to work with Ahmed despite shared Islamist values. International reaction to Ahmed has been cool, despite his urgent appeals for aid.
A few days ago US Vice President Biden outlined a "new tone" for foreign policy under the Obama Administration***. Part of this new tone must be a reconsideration of the Bush Administration's blind opposition to Islamist politics. Political Islam contains a wide spectrum of beliefs and goals, and we can not continue to put any Muslim who speaks ill of the United States or advocates sharia into the same category as Osama Bin Laden. This mentality creates unnecessary enemies and wastes opportunities for our democracy-loving country to foster positive political developments in Muslim countries. To be sure, there are many Islamist groups who support terrorist acts and encourage abuse of women, children, and ethnic minorities. We cannot become blind to their reprehensible actions in our effort to legitimize Islamist politics. It is a delicate balancing act. Some would suggest that it is naive to think we can win over these hard-core America-haters with some sacks of rice. And they are right to be critical. But it is far more naive to believe that we can expand our circle of allies when we refuse to deal with political groups who don't already fit our narrow prerequisites. Metaphorized version: You will not win any converts preaching to the choir.
Somalia would be a great place to listen to Biden's "new tone" in US foreign policy music. Ahmed's new government needs international support, and it would not cost us much geopolitical capital to provide that support. We cannot guarantee success by acting, but not acting may guarantee failure. I need not quote Gandhi here. Instead I will offer this quote:
"...Today everyone thinks he or she is right and doesn't want to dialogue. We must abandon this culture. We must sit together, talk and come up with solutions to our problems. That is the best way forward."
Well said, Mr. President-Elect.
....................................
* The "President" of Somalia rarely exercises control over most of the country, most notably in the northern autonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland.
** Withdrawal subject to further considerations (see Platt Amendment).
*** It is still a little exciting to say, type, read, or think the words: "the Obama Administration".
Claude Monet :: Impressionist painter
Somalia :: _______
a) Octuplet-bearing California woman
b) Locale for new Johnny Depp movie, Pirates of the Gulf of Aden
c) The not-as-cute Jonas Brother
d) Failed state
Remember to show your work!
.........................
Please read Erratum Terrium's previous article on Somalia for background on the current situation (or if you need a study guide for Practice Question #1).
Last week Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was elected "President"* of Somalia, replacing the departed "President"*, Abdullahi Yusuf. Ahmed, as loyal Erratum Terrium readers may remember, was the political leader of the ICU (Union of Islamic Courts) -- which as its name suggests, is a loose confederation of sharia advocates. The ICU created a militia, which was able to wrest control of much of southern and central Somalia from various warlords during 2005 and 2006. They were able, for a short time, to bring a semblance of order to this land wracked by constant turmoil and disaster since 1991 (if not longer). Ethiopia invaded shortly after this order was established, suffered through an Iraqesque occupation, and have just finished withdrawing their troops in the past few weeks**.
Ahmed, an English-speaking former schoolteacher, is the country's best chance for peace. This is unfortunate for him. Men of peace do not have a long life span in this part of the world. According to the BBC, the presidential palace was hit by mortars on his first day there. The Al-Shabab militia, an off-shoot of ICU resistance to Yusuf's transitional government, has expressed no desire to work with Ahmed despite shared Islamist values. International reaction to Ahmed has been cool, despite his urgent appeals for aid.
A few days ago US Vice President Biden outlined a "new tone" for foreign policy under the Obama Administration***. Part of this new tone must be a reconsideration of the Bush Administration's blind opposition to Islamist politics. Political Islam contains a wide spectrum of beliefs and goals, and we can not continue to put any Muslim who speaks ill of the United States or advocates sharia into the same category as Osama Bin Laden. This mentality creates unnecessary enemies and wastes opportunities for our democracy-loving country to foster positive political developments in Muslim countries. To be sure, there are many Islamist groups who support terrorist acts and encourage abuse of women, children, and ethnic minorities. We cannot become blind to their reprehensible actions in our effort to legitimize Islamist politics. It is a delicate balancing act. Some would suggest that it is naive to think we can win over these hard-core America-haters with some sacks of rice. And they are right to be critical. But it is far more naive to believe that we can expand our circle of allies when we refuse to deal with political groups who don't already fit our narrow prerequisites. Metaphorized version: You will not win any converts preaching to the choir.
Somalia would be a great place to listen to Biden's "new tone" in US foreign policy music. Ahmed's new government needs international support, and it would not cost us much geopolitical capital to provide that support. We cannot guarantee success by acting, but not acting may guarantee failure. I need not quote Gandhi here. Instead I will offer this quote:
"...Today everyone thinks he or she is right and doesn't want to dialogue. We must abandon this culture. We must sit together, talk and come up with solutions to our problems. That is the best way forward."
Well said, Mr. President-Elect.
....................................
* The "President" of Somalia rarely exercises control over most of the country, most notably in the northern autonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland.
** Withdrawal subject to further considerations (see Platt Amendment).
*** It is still a little exciting to say, type, read, or think the words: "the Obama Administration".
Monday, January 19, 2009
Reflections on the Eve of the Inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the United States of America
Today is a day of celebration for Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
Tomorrow we will bear witness to the soft and wise words of our next President, a man who has already become a symbol of hope, though the dark skin of his hand has yet to brush the Bible or guide a pen across a new piece of legislation. As a stranded traveler watches a pair of distant headlights growing closer in the fog, our eyes are fixed on this man as he assumes the Office. And yet we cannot help but be shook out of this fixation long enough to feel the portend of gloom; layoffs and salary cuts, foreclosure and evictions, stock crashes and bank failures. There is hope, but with it fear. There is joy, but it can barely mask the anger.
We are angry that despite our hard work and unyielding belief in the holy fairness of our great country, things are not as they should be. We are giving more and getting less than past generations. We are finding our roads to success and self-improvement blocked by higher costs and burdensome debts. "What have we done to deserve such a mess!", we wail, and "Why when the profiteers ride the market too hard does the hoof always hit us in the mouth?". We did not revolt when corporate crooks were refashioned into government hacks, or when thousands of our sons and daughters in uniform fell in battle with an enemy with whom we had no quarrel! No, we did not march on Frankenstein's castle for these crimes! We went shopping online for iPods, we watched our fellow Americans sing and dance their way to embarrassment on prime-time television, and we voted for Democrats (eventually). We thought long and hard about buying a hybrid car. We asked God to get us that big promotion, or help us make that big sale. We whined about the decline of our culture and the decadence of our youth. We erupted in anger when young children saw a black woman's breast bared on national television in between beer commercials.
And somewhere in there, the corporate rush to profit overwhelmed rationality, and we were too distracted to make sure someone was looking over the shoulders of the number-crunchers. And now the house of cards built to reach the golden apple has collapsed, all too predictably, and we are all left holding the proverbial bag. There are great villains in this game, to be certain, but their deeds do not, and will never, absolve us of responsibility for the state of our nation or the state of our world.
We must remember this as we watch the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. He is certainly a remarkable man, both for who he is personally and what he represents culturally. In all worthwhile estimations, he has the tools and the dedication to be a great leader, ideal for the challenges and opportunities that present themselves at this moment in our history. However -- and I intend this to provide no humor -- he is not a racing horse. We cannot afford, literally or figuratively, to simply put our faith in him and his administration. We cannot stand idly by and simply hope that he is who we think he is. Obama is a great symbol, but symbols only acquire their meaning through the actions of their bearers: army grunts planting the American flag on Iwo Jima, or waving the two-fingered 'victory' -- now 'peace' -- sign as they return from liberating Nazi concentration camps. We must be those grunts, working hard to make sure our families and communities stay strong. We must not give this moment up to historical chance, we must fight to craft our nation and our world to suit us. We will tame the wild stallion that is the free market. We will demand and if necessary, supply, equal rights and equal access for all. We will raise our children in a better world. Some day, the face of President Barack Hussein Obama may grace our mountains and our currency, but in that carving will be contained our faces as well -- the faces of those who, starting tomorrow, will fortify their belief and their hope with passion and commitment.
Tomorrow we will bear witness to the soft and wise words of our next President, a man who has already become a symbol of hope, though the dark skin of his hand has yet to brush the Bible or guide a pen across a new piece of legislation. As a stranded traveler watches a pair of distant headlights growing closer in the fog, our eyes are fixed on this man as he assumes the Office. And yet we cannot help but be shook out of this fixation long enough to feel the portend of gloom; layoffs and salary cuts, foreclosure and evictions, stock crashes and bank failures. There is hope, but with it fear. There is joy, but it can barely mask the anger.
We are angry that despite our hard work and unyielding belief in the holy fairness of our great country, things are not as they should be. We are giving more and getting less than past generations. We are finding our roads to success and self-improvement blocked by higher costs and burdensome debts. "What have we done to deserve such a mess!", we wail, and "Why when the profiteers ride the market too hard does the hoof always hit us in the mouth?". We did not revolt when corporate crooks were refashioned into government hacks, or when thousands of our sons and daughters in uniform fell in battle with an enemy with whom we had no quarrel! No, we did not march on Frankenstein's castle for these crimes! We went shopping online for iPods, we watched our fellow Americans sing and dance their way to embarrassment on prime-time television, and we voted for Democrats (eventually). We thought long and hard about buying a hybrid car. We asked God to get us that big promotion, or help us make that big sale. We whined about the decline of our culture and the decadence of our youth. We erupted in anger when young children saw a black woman's breast bared on national television in between beer commercials.
And somewhere in there, the corporate rush to profit overwhelmed rationality, and we were too distracted to make sure someone was looking over the shoulders of the number-crunchers. And now the house of cards built to reach the golden apple has collapsed, all too predictably, and we are all left holding the proverbial bag. There are great villains in this game, to be certain, but their deeds do not, and will never, absolve us of responsibility for the state of our nation or the state of our world.
We must remember this as we watch the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. He is certainly a remarkable man, both for who he is personally and what he represents culturally. In all worthwhile estimations, he has the tools and the dedication to be a great leader, ideal for the challenges and opportunities that present themselves at this moment in our history. However -- and I intend this to provide no humor -- he is not a racing horse. We cannot afford, literally or figuratively, to simply put our faith in him and his administration. We cannot stand idly by and simply hope that he is who we think he is. Obama is a great symbol, but symbols only acquire their meaning through the actions of their bearers: army grunts planting the American flag on Iwo Jima, or waving the two-fingered 'victory' -- now 'peace' -- sign as they return from liberating Nazi concentration camps. We must be those grunts, working hard to make sure our families and communities stay strong. We must not give this moment up to historical chance, we must fight to craft our nation and our world to suit us. We will tame the wild stallion that is the free market. We will demand and if necessary, supply, equal rights and equal access for all. We will raise our children in a better world. Some day, the face of President Barack Hussein Obama may grace our mountains and our currency, but in that carving will be contained our faces as well -- the faces of those who, starting tomorrow, will fortify their belief and their hope with passion and commitment.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Military Juntas of the Twenty-First Century: Guinea
The leaders of the coup in the West African nation of Guinea plan to hold elections in 2010. A group of junior officers, led by Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, took power after the death of "President" Lansana Conte on December 22. Camara's junta has moved to consolidate power, "demoting" 22 generals, using force to intimidate powerful allies of the old regime, and threatening to execute anyone engaged in corruption. Guinea under Conte was named one of the ten most corrupt countries by Transparency International. Despite widespread support for the coup within Guinea, the new government was immediately shunned by the African Union and regional West African groups ECOWAS and the Mano River Union.
So there's a military coup in some little African country named after a flightless bird, or perhaps a unit of British currency...so what?
So... Guinea has the world's largest deposits of bauxite, the ore used to make alumina, which is then processed into aluminum. To illustrate the importance of Guinea to the international alumina market: during disturbances in 2007, the price of alumina jumped 76%. The country also has large deposits of iron ore, gold, and diamonds. Several multi-national corporations have multi-billion dollar extraction and processing projects planned, and other projects are already operating. There is a lot riding on control over these resources.
Gasps of horror as the junta announces, soon after seizing power, that it will be "cancelling all mining contracts". Interested parties include:
-Rio Tinto (British and Australian, world's 2nd or 3rd largest mining company), interested in building a $6 billion dollar iron ore project at Simandou (video). Their license to mine there, granted in 2006, was rescinded in August 2008, most likely because they were unwilling to pay additional bribes demanded by the Conte regime. Rio Tinto also owns Canadian aluminum company Alcan (the world's largest aluminum company) who has a stake in the Guinean national bauxite mining company (CBG), and is exploring its own alumina refinery. Rio Tinto has said the Simandou project, undertaken in concert with World Bank, has the potential to generate $10 billion dollars per year, and they had already spent more than $300 million to develop it. The value of this project was essential to Rio Tinto resisting a hostile takeover by BHP Billiton -- which leads us to our next interested party.
-BHP Billiton (Australian and British, world's largest mining company), co-majority stakeholder (33.3%) in the Guinea Alumina Corporation (which is 100% foreign-owned), as well as several other bauxite opertions. They had plans to build a $4.8 billion dollar alumina refinery. As noted above, they are attempted a takeover of Rio Tinto which would make their dominance of the mining industry unparalleled.
-United Company Rusal (Russian, world's second largest aluminum company), owns the Friguia Alumina Refinery, the purchase of which it was forced to renegotiate earlier this year by the Conte regime. The company is owned by Russian billionaire magnate Oleg Deripaska, who has faced some recent financial difficulties after being sued in British court by former Russian/Israeli business partner Mikhail Chernoy/Michael Cherney over shares in UC Rusal. Deripaska also had his visa revoked by the US State Department, and had ties to former Presidential candidate John McCain.
-Alcoa ( American, world's third largest aluminum company), owns a large stake in CBG (Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa both have a 45% stake in the Halco consortium, which in turn owns 51% of CBG - the Guinean government owns 49%). In July 2008, just before they extorted Rio Tinto over Simandou, the Conte regime replaced the existing Alcoa management of CBG.
-AngloGold Ashanti (British, South African, Ghanaian, large international gold miner), owns the Siguiri gold mine. The company was accused by Human Rights Watch of supporting a murderous group in the DR Congo in order to access a gold-rich area in that turbulent country.
-Benny Steinmetz (Israeli billionaire, invested in diamonds, real estate, and mining engineering projects through Bateman Engineering), several weeks before the coup claimed to have been granted half of Rio Tinto's Simandou area by the Conte regime.
check back for more later...
So there's a military coup in some little African country named after a flightless bird, or perhaps a unit of British currency...so what?
So... Guinea has the world's largest deposits of bauxite, the ore used to make alumina, which is then processed into aluminum. To illustrate the importance of Guinea to the international alumina market: during disturbances in 2007, the price of alumina jumped 76%. The country also has large deposits of iron ore, gold, and diamonds. Several multi-national corporations have multi-billion dollar extraction and processing projects planned, and other projects are already operating. There is a lot riding on control over these resources.
Gasps of horror as the junta announces, soon after seizing power, that it will be "cancelling all mining contracts". Interested parties include:
-Rio Tinto (British and Australian, world's 2nd or 3rd largest mining company), interested in building a $6 billion dollar iron ore project at Simandou (video). Their license to mine there, granted in 2006, was rescinded in August 2008, most likely because they were unwilling to pay additional bribes demanded by the Conte regime. Rio Tinto also owns Canadian aluminum company Alcan (the world's largest aluminum company) who has a stake in the Guinean national bauxite mining company (CBG), and is exploring its own alumina refinery. Rio Tinto has said the Simandou project, undertaken in concert with World Bank, has the potential to generate $10 billion dollars per year, and they had already spent more than $300 million to develop it. The value of this project was essential to Rio Tinto resisting a hostile takeover by BHP Billiton -- which leads us to our next interested party.
-BHP Billiton (Australian and British, world's largest mining company), co-majority stakeholder (33.3%) in the Guinea Alumina Corporation (which is 100% foreign-owned), as well as several other bauxite opertions. They had plans to build a $4.8 billion dollar alumina refinery. As noted above, they are attempted a takeover of Rio Tinto which would make their dominance of the mining industry unparalleled.
-United Company Rusal (Russian, world's second largest aluminum company), owns the Friguia Alumina Refinery, the purchase of which it was forced to renegotiate earlier this year by the Conte regime. The company is owned by Russian billionaire magnate Oleg Deripaska, who has faced some recent financial difficulties after being sued in British court by former Russian/Israeli business partner Mikhail Chernoy/Michael Cherney over shares in UC Rusal. Deripaska also had his visa revoked by the US State Department, and had ties to former Presidential candidate John McCain.
-Alcoa ( American, world's third largest aluminum company), owns a large stake in CBG (Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa both have a 45% stake in the Halco consortium, which in turn owns 51% of CBG - the Guinean government owns 49%). In July 2008, just before they extorted Rio Tinto over Simandou, the Conte regime replaced the existing Alcoa management of CBG.
-AngloGold Ashanti (British, South African, Ghanaian, large international gold miner), owns the Siguiri gold mine. The company was accused by Human Rights Watch of supporting a murderous group in the DR Congo in order to access a gold-rich area in that turbulent country.
-Benny Steinmetz (Israeli billionaire, invested in diamonds, real estate, and mining engineering projects through Bateman Engineering), several weeks before the coup claimed to have been granted half of Rio Tinto's Simandou area by the Conte regime.
check back for more later...
Military Juntas of the Twenty-First Century: Bangladesh
The secular Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, has won the recent Bangladeshi parliamentary elections in a landslide. Although the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Khaleda Zia, has challenged the election, the results seem clear and the elections were declared free and fair by international obeservers. This new parliament is set to take control of the impoverished nation from the military junta which had ruled for two years. The military junta (benignly known as the "caretaker government") began in early 2007, after the previous electoral battle between the Awami League and the BNP turned into a bloody and chaotic street war.
The results of 2008 are a big shift from the results of the last standing election in 2001. That election saw the right-wing BNP win 193 seats to Awami's 62, and the main Islamist party take 17 seats. In contrast, the 2008 elections see the Awami-led coalition take more than 260 to BNP's 31, and the Islamist party "almost wiped out". Note that there are 300 seats in the Bangladeshi parliament.
Between floods, poverty, cyclones, and military intrusions into politics, it seems unlikely that Bangladesh would be able to sustain democracy. And there certainly remains a possibility that the opposition parties will cause a ruckus and incite more violence. Hopefully the will of the people will be respected, and the "caretakers" will step aside as planned.
Hot off the presses: Uh-oh.
Bangladeshis line up to vote (courtesy of the CBC)
The results of 2008 are a big shift from the results of the last standing election in 2001. That election saw the right-wing BNP win 193 seats to Awami's 62, and the main Islamist party take 17 seats. In contrast, the 2008 elections see the Awami-led coalition take more than 260 to BNP's 31, and the Islamist party "almost wiped out". Note that there are 300 seats in the Bangladeshi parliament.
Between floods, poverty, cyclones, and military intrusions into politics, it seems unlikely that Bangladesh would be able to sustain democracy. And there certainly remains a possibility that the opposition parties will cause a ruckus and incite more violence. Hopefully the will of the people will be respected, and the "caretakers" will step aside as planned.
Hot off the presses: Uh-oh.
Bangladeshis line up to vote (courtesy of the CBC)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)