The Bailey Mail Politics World Feed

Relief as Mugabe Loses Zimbabwe Majority

The world breathed a sigh of relief today when it was revealed that Robert Mugabe's party had failed to hold its parliamentary majority after the partial recount, confirming speculation that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change had taken the majority of seats. Results remained unchanged in 18 of the 23 recounted seats, so, as Mugabe's Zanu-PF failed to win 9 of the seats, their majority was lost for the first time since 1980.

Unfortunately the results of the presidential election still have not been released, it is hoped that these will be revealed early next week. The seemingly fair result of the Parliamentary election will give hope however, that the Presidential election results, when they finally are revealed will be the way the people voted. Though in a place like Zimbabwe, with a leader like Mugabe you can never be sure whether he will allow a vote to go ahead that will depose him from power.

We can only hope that Zanu-PF will see that Zimbabwe sheds its Mugabe skin, because Africa is currently beginning to experience some good levels of economic growth on the back of massive growth in foreign direct investment from the world's two greatest emerging markets India and China, Zimbabwe's "troubles" are only serving to hinder it from realising its full potential.

Brown Meets South Africa Leader over Zimbabwe Election

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to hold private talks with South African president Thabo Mbeki, in the hopes that Mbeki will exert pressure on Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe to announce the results of the recent Presidential election. UK foreign minister David Milliband has said the United Nations is joined in its determination to have the results announced.

The western world is not only desperate for the results to be announced but desperate for the announcement to mean an end of Mugabe's dictatorship.

Mugabe became notorious around the world for his ejecting white farmers from their land, and stealing it back for the state, using any means necessary. His rule has become more violent has time has gone on, with protestors being badly beaten, and preventing the world press from entering the country to show the world the true extent of his brutality.

The international community is also desperate for the result to be announced; because they fear Mugabe is doctoring the results. And if the result brings about a run-off between Mugabe, and his leading rival Morgan Tsvangirai, there are calls to send in international observers to make sure the results are fair.

I will also be hoping that the result will say goodbye Mugabe, and I would bet that is what the people have voted for, whether it is what the result will say I don't know, and the international response if it doesn't is also unknown. Watch this space for further updates on the continued uncertainty over Zimbabwe's future.

Sudan Maybe Poised to Attack Chad

The land-mark accord reached between Chad and Sudan just two weeks ago is disintegrating, as both governments accuse each other of launching new raids into their respective territories, via their various proxies.

Ambassador Abd-al-Mahmud Abd-al-Halimthe, Sudan's Permanent Envoy to the UN, told his government's news agency:

"[Chad has] carried out major operations and logistic arrangements and facilitated the entry of rebels from inside Chadian territory to carry out sabotage acts and destabilise security in [Sudan's] Darfur region,"

According to the article, the Ambassador has informed the UN of Chad's violations. A pro-Sudanese website speculated that Chad is poised to launch a major offensive into Sudan, which would see thousands more civilians die in the now notorious Darfur region.

Ahmad Allam-Mi, Chad's foreign Minister staunchly denied the Sudanese claims to Diplomats at a meeting in Chad's capital N'djamena, a government source told IRIN on condition of anonymity. The source also said that Allam-Mi presented the diplomats with "irrefutable proof of the intentions of Sudan to attack".

It is quite possible that Allam-Mi did present diplomats with proof that Sudan intends to attack. According to a western Diplomat who attended the N'djamena meeting and also spoke to IRIN on condition of anonymity, "It [Chad] has been weakened [by recent rebel attacks] and to invade Sudan now would not just be stupid, it would be suicidal."

The Diplomat also said he was not so sure of Sudan's intentions regarding attacking Chad. But if Sudan's government has been behind the recent rebel attacks on Chad, which it almost definitely has, then the weakening effect the attacks have had will quite possibly be seen by Sudan's militant government as a chance to good to miss.

UK Government Determined to Pass Genetic Engineering Bill

The UK government is absolutely determined to push through a bill that would allow scientists, to create hybrid human/animal embryos and experiment in creating viable stem cells for use in the treatment of human terminal illnesses.

My first thought was "God No - they can't do that", but I feel obliged to tell you I was a big fan of dark Angel, a TV series where Jessica Alba starred as the victim of a US government program to that did exactly what the UK government now wants to let scientists do, only with the aim of creating super soldiers, and then when they all escaped the government hunted them down; funny how sci-fi becomes reality all too often.

So my initial feeling was probably something to do with that, but when I realised that the research is to try and save human lives my reaction changed. You never know what is around the corner, and when all is said and done, no one wants to lose a loved one, and most would give anything to prevent it, so if this research could lead to discoveries that save lives then I am afraid I'm all for it.

Not everybody shares my feelings however, the government is coming under increasing pressure from the church, and Brown has had to offer to let MPs tell the government if they cannot support parts of the Bill for ethical or religious reasons, before receiving "permission" to vote against the government. These allowances will only be made where it doesn't threaten the passage of the bill.

It does make me wonder why Gordon Brown is so desperate for the bill to go through? I was discussing the bill with a mate the other night and he joked: "is that really a nervous affliction or is there a little pig DNA in the mix." I also wonder, if Brown has to make such allowances for his party's support in getting the bill through, how he hopes to get it passed with the opposition?

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Pin Hopes on Iraq Resentment

The two main hopefuls in the race to become the Democratic Presidential candidate are both pinning their hopes on the level of resentment for the Iraq war. Barack Obama especially is relying on it, and not only a high level resentment for the war, but also a high level of support for a swift withdrawal. But as the situation in Iraq has improved and there haven't been dozens of US soldiers deaths on the news, the void has been filled by the slow and painful death of the U.S. economy, and so the Iraq war isn't the biggest issue on voter's minds at the moment.

Barack Obama has repeated continually that within 16 months he will withdraw all troops but a small residual force that would continue to train the Iraqi forces, and possibly deal with threats from Al Qaeda, Obama has outright stated that he will end the war in 2009 -- his exact words were:

"I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

Shortly after those strong words, Samantha Powers put her foot in it and said what should only be thought in a BBC interview, that Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a US Senator. He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now... It would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me."

Though Powers' views were widely seen as a realistic take on policy making, she received considerable heat for the comments, obviously because they detracted from Obama's campaign's main policy, and did the opposition's job for them -- though they would have had to wait till until he had actually gone back on a policy. Ms Powers later resigned after calling Mrs Clinton a "monster".

Hilary Clinton is being a, little more cautious, promising to start withdrawing troops two months into her Presidency and to remove 1-2 battle groups per month, but not committing to a timeframe for all troops to be withdrawn -- Clinton again would leave a residual force in place.

Meanwhile the main republican candidate Senator John McCain has benefited from the successes of the surge in Iraq, having been a big supporter of the policy. He is maintaining pretty much the same line as Bush has for the last few years -- stay the course -- that a withdrawal would be seen as a defeat by the extremists and would only strengthen their cause. He did however take it a little too far, saying that the US should stay in Iraq for 100 years if need be. A statement pounced on by Hilary Clinton:

"Senator McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Well, let's be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years"

The downside of a withdrawal so soon after the election, advocated by both Clinton and Obama is that it may damage Iraq's legislative elections due to be held towards the end of 2009. Among the downsides of indefinitely "staying the course" are: U.S. forces will endure battle fatigue, the cost will continue to spiral, many more US troops will die and the Iraqi government may never be able to manage the security of Iraq, if they feel they will never have to.

Truth be told, it is unlikely that the ability for the Iraqi government to hold their legislative elections or to secure their country for that matter, will stop those who would vote democrat to bring the US troops home in a hurry, after thousands have died for what is widely seen as an illegitimate war of aggression and imperialism.

In closing: I think that Clinton and Obama are playing the right strategy by saying they will withdraw US forces pronto, but I also think it is prudent that they should properly analyse all facts on the ground before proceeding to enact those policies. But they won't even get that chance if their plans to revive the economy aren't equally as popular with the voting public.

UK National Security Strategy Goes Down a Storm

U.K. Prime Minster Gordon Brown unveiled the "National security Strategy" for Britain, March 19, some of it isn't too bad, but there are a few measures that are down-right ludicrous. Like Brown's plan to send a 1000 member task-force of Police, emergency services, and judges to go to trouble spots around the world; to help failing states and countries emerging from conflict.

Can you imagine the tribal elders, responsible for law-making and authority of their respective villages and clans in Afghanistan or Somalia, stepping down and allowing British judges -- which would no doubt gain the name of infidels -- take over control of their clans and villages?

And how can a team of British police hope to achieve anything in such places when the British and US military couldn't? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Plans like that are reminiscent of the Blair idealism that has left us with troops still fighting in two wars. In fact it's worse because it's half-hearted:

When something goes wrong in a country and it leads to massive ethnic cleansing and such like in Kosovo in the 90's and Sudan today, you have to either decide: right we will intervene, and go in determined and clear of your objectives, or: right, we aren't going to intervene and sit back and let it happen. You certainly don't send a small team of policemen and judges -- especially in the current climate of resentment for the UK, which is now seen as the puppet government for US imperialism.

The Brown proposals I agree with are raising the number of emergency services staff to 4000, setting up a £20million fund to assist military personnel and their families to buy houses, and re-assessing the role of our reserve forces like the Territorial Army, and bringing their role into the twentieth century.

Brown also dished out his usual amount of buzz-word-filled whatever the public wants to hear; promising greater transparency of the Intelligence Services, and that the Intelligence and Security Commission's role would become more like that of the House of Commons select committee, holding its meetings in public rather than private. That is something that I can't ever see happening, and if it does the discussions will also be selected and no secrets will be revealed. As World War II proved, secrets are necessary to protect a country.

Brown is saying all the right things to keep the voters sweet in the run up to the next British General Election, and as usual his plans were attacked in good old election rivalry style. Conservative Leader David Cameron said it "sounded more like a list than a strategy" and raised the need for a similar body to the United States National Security Council to set strategies and ensure they are enacted.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said Brown's proposal was more like an assessment of what threats exist than a strategy on how to deal with them, calling on Brown to announce a "new full strategic defence review for our defence capabilities for today and the years ahead."

Iran's Conservatives Take Lead in Election, End Nuclear Negotiations

Iran's hardliners led by Ahmadinejad have taken a massive early lead according to the count thus far. With results from 190 of the 290 seats revealed, Iran's hardliners had taken 60 seats and the reformists only 33.

Iran's hardliners celebrated taking a massive early lead in the country's parliamentary elections by announcing that talks with the west over their nuclear program are over. This is a huge blow to anyone who still hoped this crisis could be resolved peacefully, and takes us one massive step closer to a US military attack on Iran.

It is unsurprising that the conservatives have taken such a lead in the provincial seats, because more than half of the reformists were banned from standing by the un-elected Guardian council of religious clerics, on the grounds that they lacked loyalty to the Islamic system.

One shimmer of light of the election, is that, according to so far unconfirmed reports, Ali Larijani has been elected in the parliamentary elections for the seat of Qom, an important religious city in Iran. Larijani is the former Iranian chief negotiator in the nuclear crisis, and advocate of a peaceful agreement with the West.

Larijani was a conservative and a supporter of Ahmadinejad, but their difference over the handling of the nuclear row led to Larijani and others breaking away and forming a political group now known as revisionists. Basically they don't want the sweeping changes to the political system that the reformists do, but they hate the way Ahmadinejad has allowed the economy to collapse, the main reason for which being UN resolutions targeting the economy, because of his failure to peacefully resolve the nuclear row. The reformists have taken 48 seats of the results so far revealed.

Last week's resignation of long-standing Naval Officer and central commander in the Middle East, General Fallon was widely regarded as a sign that war with Iran may be just around the corner. Another sign is Israel's preparations to go to war with Hezbollah, an Iranian backed terror group in Lebanon who would attack Israel in retaliation for any US strike on Iran. Iran's conservatives winning the provincial elections, and calling of negotiations over the nuclear row, I'm afraid to say, takes us far too close to war with Iran for my liking.

Bush Vetos Congress Bill on Ending CIA Torture

In a wholly predictable turn-of-events, U.S. President George Bush has vetoed a bill by congress aimed at stopping the CIA from torturing detainees. Because the Bill got through Congress by only a small margin it is unlikely the democrat-controlled congress will find sufficient support to overturn Bush's veto. Bush said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, because it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The Bill would have prevented the CIA from using controversial methods like water-boarding, which is putting the detainee in fear of drowning, sensory deprivation and other barbarous interrogation methods; restricting them to the 19 interrogation methods in the army field manual.

Bush said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not. He also said:

"The bill Congress sent me would not simply ban one particular interrogation method, as some have implied, instead, it would eliminate all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists."

What's that, guilty until proven innocent, they know they are terrorists before interrogation, typical Bush, and saying alternative hints at them being new and never previously thought of when quite simply they are just torture, which has been around as long as humans and was outlawed internationally for good reason.

Bush added: "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe."

Everyone might not agree with me here, but by resorting to torture the CIA has made itself as bad as the terrorists, and the Bush administration has slowly stripped away America's morals so there is no "freedom and the American Way" left for the CIA to be protecting.

At any rate, the CIA recently admitted publicly that they had used water-boarding on three people, including high-profile al-Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but not for the past five years. So, how has it a proven track record of keeping America safe? If they haven't used torture for five years then it kept America safe for two years from 2001 - 2003 and ordinary methods have kept America safe for five years, a 2 years longer proven track record of keeping America safe.

But to be honest I really doubt that the CIA hasn't tortured anyone for five years, unless they mean they haven't tortured anyone on American soil, which is quite possible and means that my observation that not-torturing detainees has kept America safer for longer than torture did still stands. Meanwhile rendition flights and "alternative interrogation techniques" destroy America's image in the eyes of the world and only serve to further anger and alienate any so-called moderate Muslims, pushing them into the arms of the fanatical, and making the fanatical maniacal.

Tensions Rise in Latin America Will Venezuela Attack?

The war of words between the U.S. and Venezuela took a step closer to becoming a war of bullets over the past two days. The possibility comes from the fact that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has threatened to declare war on Columbia if the Columbian army enters his country after anti-Columbian Guerrilla's after Columbia chased the Rebels into Ecuador the day before. The raid was successful in killing one of the rebel group, Farc's generals.

Chavez called the general's killing a "cowardly murder" and said any similar action into his territory would be seen as a "cause for war". Along with Chavez's words go ten tank battalions with air-support, which he swiftly sent to the border with Columbia, along with closing the Columbian embassy in Caracas.

The U.S. has recently been developing a good relationship with Columbia, and U.S. soldiers are in the country trying to assist them in dismantling some of the drug smuggling networks. Though the U.S. has specifically warned Columbia not to enter Venezuela, it is widely thought that if Venezuela does invade Venezuela that the U.S. will be drawn into the conflict. On the other hand it is also widely thought that this is just more bum and bluster for a man known for flamboyant but largely empty threats.

One commenter on the Daily Mail online where I read the article believed the move was a deliberate attempt to create tension to push up oil prices, a motive he believes is shared by Iran's Ahmadinejad. Another commenter wondered how the U.S. could even consider embroiling itself in another conflict when its military is already overstretched.

The overall feeling, including my own is that this is a storm in a teacup that will come to nothing. It is highly unlikely that Columbia will go against the U.S.' word and enter Venezuela on the tail of rebels. An Argentinean commenter on the same thread warned that if it does come to something the consequences will be drastic for a region beginning to find its feet economically.

New Cuban President: How Much Will Change?

Fidel Castro has finally stepped down as Cuban President, handing over power to his brother Raul Castro. The Cuban's at large mostly trust Raul and hope he will bring some relief, possibly with some quick-fire economic reforms. All Cuban's hope the new President will waste no time in standardising Cuban currency.

Cuban's currently have to buy consumer goods with convertible pesos (CUCs) the official hard currency, while their wages (avg. $15 per month) are paid in local pesos, you get 24 pesos for 1 CUC. Raul Castro said in his first speech as president he was studying a "prudent revaluation of the Cuban peso."

Rolando Bellman, a Cuban security guard said: "Raul won't be able to get the economy back on an even keel without dedicating a lot of time to economic improvements for Cubans, how can the state sell most its products and goods in a currency that it doesn't use to pay people? This is a big contradiction to resolve in the future."

The dual currency system is not the only administrative problem Cuba's new President will have to tackle:

Even the most basic goods are scare, wages are poor, and Cuban's aren't allowed to buy and sell their homes and cars. It is a common belief that this has led to rampant corruption and a strong black-market economy. Never the less, the people of Cuba trust Raul Castro because of his efficient management of the Cuban army, and it is expected he will begin introducing some small economic reforms very shortly.

30 year old Communist party youth organisation worker Ramon Gonzales said: "We've been getting worn out for many years, but I trust Raul to solve our problems." State worker Roberto Cassanova had a different take: "This is a tough task for Raul, a lot of problems have built up in the country." He told the Guardian as he bought Banana's -- ranting about corruption. The Guardian took an elderly slant from 76 year old pensioner Armando Gomez who said: "Raul will be the guarantee of the revolution's continuity but he must have the backing of a young and capable force in order to satisfy the needs of the country."

I personally conclude that little will change very much in the way Cuba is run. Internally the country may be run more efficiently, but I wouldn't expect any sweeping changes like an end to communism, or a better relationship with the U.S.