Break's Over

Time to start posting.  And, just to get it out of the way, a comment on the recent Marist Poll indicating a whopping 26% of the US public does not know from whom America won its independence.  In case you think this is just about internal US social and educational problems, think again.

Because the fact that one quarter of the adult population is either unsure or, more alarmingly, named other countries (including China!) may have something to do with the election of some of the most stupendously ignorant people on the planet. 

Representative Michelle Bachmann (R Minn), believes, among other things, that the G20 is a harbinger of world government because economic cooperation and coordination leads to political cooperation and coordination. And that is bad because the US should not surrender its sovereignty to others - a logical leap into the abyss of stupidity.

Governor Jan Brewer (R Ariz) claims that the flood of immigrants from Mexico indulge in beheading (among other things) of Americans. Which is why she needed the racial profiling and fascistic law so that police would be required to say "your papers - let me see your papers" because if they did not, any red-neck could sue the police department for failure to be Nazi-like enough.

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) - claims that Hezbollah is partnering with Mexican drug cartels in the U.S. borderlands and may be planning "Israel-like car bombings of Mexican/USA border personnel or National Guard units."  The last time she poked her head out from whatever rock she lives under, she was exposing Muslim intern spies on Capital Hill and terrorists running convenience stores.

Republican National Chairman Steele claims that Afghanistan is Obama's war of choice and the US should not be there, apparently forgetting all the years from 2001 when Obama was not in power and Steele's friends were.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) says that the US Constitution, Article 14, is a threat to security because it allows terrorist organizations to send pregnant women to the US, where any child born is automatically an American citizen. Consequently, I suppose, when they grow up they can embark on a terror campaign withing the US.

This list can go on and on.  The trouble is that these people glorify their ignorance in order to appeal to the least intelligent groups in the US and when elected, due to either a bitter, left-behind knuckle-dragging racist majority or the lethargy of those at the opposite end of the spectrum, can and do affect the foreign policy of the US with usually less than beneficial results.  These are the representatives of the 26%. The rest of the world should take note that if they come back into power, life will become much, much worse - for everyone.

Conservative Minority Government

Polls in England are showing an increasing likelyhood that the Tories will grab a little over 300 seats.  Sound like a lot?  Well, actually, yes and no.  It is certainly short of the 326 needed to have a majority.  But, it is not so short that they couldn't form a minority government simply  because Labour and the Liberals together could not reach a majority.  Thus, it seems increasingly likely that my absolute judgement a few days ago that the Conservatives would win a majority may - I repeat - may have been a mistake. 

A minority government wouldn't last a quarter, which means another election.  That would leave policy - economic and foreign - in limbo.  If the Tories could take the 326 seats, then attitudes toward the eurozone would change and the EU can forget about closer ties. The EU response to Greece - led by the Germans - has not been wildly successful. That alone helps the Conservative position that the UK can be part of the EU but not controlled by it (or, shall we say, Germany). A full blown Conservative win will be a blow to the EU - not that it is undeserved.  Coupled with the mess that the Greeks have managed to conjure up and the potential fall of Spain and Portugal, a Conservative win might require Brussels to rethink its economic and political positions.

Still a day or two, however, to go.

The Politics of Aid and Poverty Reduction

Over here Teddy Brett, Associate Director of the London School of Economics' Development Management Program, makes some very valid points about development aid that are frequently swept under the rug or simply ignored as inconvenient truths by project designers in the various aid agencies. In short, he correctly points out that politics in recipient countries often kills off poverty reduction efforts when the implementation of the effort touches political sensitivities of the corrupt elite.

The problem is endemic and donor agencies are incapable of addressing the issue, choosing rather to ignore corrupt government officials and elites, rather than simply cutting off the funds and allocating those to less corrupt governments. It is a choice of evils.


Furthermore, for some countries, finding substitute donors is somewhat easier, particularly if there is a geo-political or resource reason for investing the money. The Kyrgyz Republic, for example, has already been promised $300 million in aid from Russia which correctly sees the recent revolution, where evidence is mounting that it orchestrated, as an opportunity to establish a stronger foothold in the region - nothing wrong with that from their strategic interest point of view.

Then there is Sudan and other African countries with resources that China wishes to secure. Non-democratic or corrupt regimes are ignored merely because China sees no upside in political interference or moralizing. And in any event, that is a pot and kettle situation.

There are only two reasons for the enormous amount of aid rained on Armenia by the United States. The first is an incredibly powerful lobby in Congress (these aid funds are largely earmarked).  The second is purely geo-political: to counter Russian influence in Armenia.  In regard to the latter, purely political reason, the US has been singularly unsuccessful.

Let's be realistic. Aid is an arm of foreign policy and when that aid involves economic and structural reforms it will run smack into local politics and power centers which will either support or obstruct it depending on self-interest. That should not be a shock to anyone.

Poverty reduction is like apple pie and no one is going to say that they are not interested. How that poverty reduction is implemented is the difference. But in the end, it is all political and foreign aid assistance needs to be better formulated to address this fundamental.

Revised Prediction

Way back on January 1 I listed my predictions for the next decade. The first was the following:

Prediction 1 - The last free and fair election in Ukraine will be in January if Yanukovich wins so he can fulfill his threat to end "democracy".

OK. As I stated in that post, predictions would be subject to change as the inevitable chaos theory took hold. I'm modifying the prediction in three ways:

1. This is the next to last free election since Yanukovich won the election, but the margin was insufficient to let him have free rein with his policies.

2. Yulia Tymoshenko will prove to be a bigger problem for him than anticipated because of point 1 and the fact that she is rumoured to have Putin's support. Additionally, he can't afford to dissolve the Rada and does not yet have enough MPs to form a majority.

3. In light of point 2, Moscow will have to rethink its frequently aggressive positions regarding some of its neighbors, particularly Ukraine, as Ukrainians in the west and the region around Kyiv will not take kindly to their continued interference, especially if it becomes more visible on the ground.

Tymoshenko Re-groups

Image via Wikipedia

So there is no deal. Yulia Tymoshenko is not resigning and is going to fight in the Rada. The maneuvering has already begun.

Victor Yanukovych has said that by the end of the week he will form a new parliamentary majority. This would allow him to dismiss the PM and anoint her successor. If he cannot form a majority then he is in trouble. Meanwhile, ByUT - Yulia's party - has called for an early session of the Rada on the 24th. Can Victor put together his majority by March 2 - the last day for forming a government - if Yulia starts organizing first? That will be hard, particularly if Yulia can bring together 226 members of the 450 person Rada under her wing - which would prevent a vote of no-confidence and her dismissal. If she cannot then ByUT will go into opposition. Neither alternative is going to be helpful to the new president. And he is showing signs of intense worry.

We are holding coalition talks with absolutely all parliamentary groups...

Yanukovych said this yesterday in an interview on channel 1+1.


On March 2 either Yulia will be dismissed or Yanukovich is going to have to consider a coalition with ByUT, a very, very unpalatable option for him. Or - he can order a snap parliamentary election.

Tymoshenko is going to be repairing all her burnt bridges to hold together her coalition and the government - where the real power rests. Holding on to that will mean control of the budget, economic policies, the corporate sector and even most of the security forces.

It's easy to see, therefore, why Yanukovych is pressing hard because if he loses this battle a PM, who despises him and his party and who never, ever forgets, will doom his presidency. Stay tuned.

Election Notes

Ukraine - Yulia Tymoschenko has withdrawn her law suit challenging the election of the incoming Victor; Yulia is not resigning as PM; Yulia is really, really angry and will boycott the inauguration. The next question is what will Victor do with an angry and powerful PM. I suspect that Tymoschenko withdrew the court action for two reasons: she'd lose (but the ensuing instability would be unacceptable to the new president) and (therefore) a deal has been cut. What was the deal? As an aside - Russia has not decided yet if they will send someone to attend the inauguration ceremony. Considering their man won, the reticence is odd.

Egypt - I readily admit to a lack of knowledge about Egyptian politics following the Ptolemy era and my recent experience with modern Egypt was decidedly unpleasant. However, the beginnings of a campaign to get Mohammed ElBaradei to run for president of Egypt are strange. Egypt is not noted for its democratic system but regardless of the seemingly insurmountable barrier of a Mubarak dynasty, what is behind the decision to run? Does he have a base of support? Does his experience as head of the IAEA give him some experience for running Egypt? I simply don't know and if anyone does, let me know.

CPAC - OK. I know - no US politics. Get over it. Congratulations to Ron Paul for his enormous and meaningless victory over Sarah and Mitt. Run with it Paul. According to the Very Serious Pundits in Washington (that's you Mr. Broder) this is good news for McCain.

and, last but not least...

Niger - Anyone remember yellow cake? No? There is a lot of it in Niger. In a Niger version of elections, the army took over the reins of power on Thursday from the 71 year old president Mamadou Tandja who is now supposedly in Chad. Tandja was allegedly planning to extend, again, his rule without resort to a messy vote. In what may be one of the best understatements of the year so far, a French diplomat said "All I can say is that it would appear that Tandja is not in a good position". Salou Djibo, a squadron chief, has assumed the leadership role.