Right Wing Nut House

With all the stories and articles about the Miers nomination, the imminent denouement of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation into L’Affaire d’Plame, and the Republican party crack up, you may be forgiven for missing the biggest news of all.

War has been put on the endangered species list.

Yes. it’s true. The number of armed conflicts around the world have declined by 40% since the early 1990’s. And that’s not all. Several other indices of human suffering and wanton slaughter have also gone south. To wit:

* armed secessionist conflicts are at their lowest point since 1976

* the number of genocides and politicides plummeted by 80% between the 1988 high point and 2001

* International crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001

* The dollar value of major international arms transfers fell by 33% between 1990 and 2003. Global military expenditure and troop numbers declined sharply in the 1990s as well.

* The number of refugees dropped by some 45% between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came to an end

Is this some kind of witchcraft? Are we humans finally, after warring, butchering, murdering, and torturing each other for thousands of years, learning to live with one another in peace? What could possibly account for this sudden transformation of the human condition? Religious revival? Intervention by aliens?

If you guessed Kofi Annan and the United Nations, you win a cookie.

Yes, that United Nations. And yes, that Kofi Annan. It seems that while the United States was busy winning the cold war, containing Soviet expansionism, not to mention overthrowing two of the most repressive regimes on the planet, we were completely unaware that the good old UN was right there with us, standing shoulder to shoulder and cheek to cheek as together we overcame the odds and brought freedom and democracy to the peoples of eastern Europe, Asia, and Afghanistan and Iraq.

At least, that’s the UN’s story and they’re sticking to it.

Actually, the information is contained in a report by the Human Security Center, a non-profit group funded by public and private foundations from 5 countries including Britain, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. The UN connection comes from one of the Center’s co-chairs, Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The report finds that “the best explanation for this decline is the huge upsurge of conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding activities that were spearheaded by the United Nations in the aftermath of the Cold War.” The document is full of neat little graphs and charts all showing a downward trend in political violence over the last decade or so. From the looks of it, it seems that the Center has done a most thorough and complete treatment of the subject.

All but the part where America is largely responsible for these surprising developments. That particular element seems to have been misplaced in the report. Perhaps the authors screwed up the footnotes because for the life of me, I couldn’t find a single reference to the United States in the entire screed. Evidently, being a hyper-power has its limits. Maybe we should have bought an ad on their website.

The Human Security Center is puzzled that these remarkable trends have not been picked up by the media and trumpeted to the skies. The answer to that is a no brainer. Richard Fernandez has the easy explanation:

That’s not surprising given that probably nowhere has the process lauded by the Commission on Human Security been more in evidence than in Afghanistan, and more studiously ignored. The UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] itself admits that “more than 3.5 million Afghans have returned to their homeland since the end of 2001″, one of the most remarkable reversals of refugee flows in history — and then gives the credit to the United Nations — “when the Bonn Agreement set Afghanistan on the long and bumpy road to political stability and socio-economic development.” But what else happened in that time frame? Inquiring minds want to know.

Indeed. This kind of willful blindness is prevalent throughout the report. The Center’s myopia regarding US diplomatic and military triumphs in places like Kuwait, the Balkans, the Middle East, and elsewhere is symptomatic of a more troubling deficiency among global elites; a studious and deliberate obfuscation of history to achieve a desired political end. It’s not that the facts are hidden away collecting dust in some obscure academic institution. One would hope that at the very least, the authors of the report would have had access to the New York Times or The Washington Post to fill them in on what was going on in the world during the period under study.

Then again, maybe they did have access to those publications which is why they wrote what they did.

In a recent email exchange with a friend of mine, we both spoke of our emotional response to pictures of Iraqis going to the polls and how because of the disinterest of the national media, our grandchildren will probably be better informed of the struggle of the Iraqi people for freedom than we are today. Will they ask what it was like to be alive at such an exciting time in history when human freedom was on the march, spearheaded by the indomitable spirit of the United States? Sadly, reports such as this one will probably be more important to the historical record than contemporary accounts from eyewitnesses. Will our offspring notice the discrepancies between history as written by Internationalist organizations like the Center for Human Security and the first-person dispatches of observers like Michael Yon whose inspired writing of the struggles of the Iraqi people and the American military detail what our own media is either too lazy or too biased to report?

Clearly, the Center for Human Security’s report has succeeded in bringing to light the under reported drama of the progress being made around the world in conflict resolution and the sidebar story of the spread of freedom into areas where it never existed except in the dreams and aspirations of oppressed people. But to not mention the role of American leadership in these encouraging developments is pure cynicism. It bespeaks a mindset among many internationalists that the nation state is dying out and only supra-national organizations like the United Nations are relevant in the power calculations of the dictators, the holy men, the corrupt colonels and Generals who are responsible for so much human misery on the planet.

They see no correlation, for instance, between 135,000 American troops going through Saddam’s vaunted army with ease and Libyan strongman Ghaddafi giving up his weapons of mass destruction programs. Nor do they see that the powerful words spoken by an American President at his second inaugural could inspire democrats around the world to take to the streets and demand freedom and justice.

These are the underlying forces of history at work around the world, not the vainglorious pomposities and empty rhetoric of a powerless and cowardly United Nations. It must be up to us as contemporary witnesses to this transformational era in world history, not to let future generations be confused as to just who and what is responsible for these monumental changes. It is American power and American ideals that are rocking the world not the platitudinous nonsense of international elites.

A few months ago, I did a post on Avian Flu and how international health officials were keeping a close eye on the disease that at the time, showed no ability to jump from human to human. People who got sick from the disease got it by handling infected domestic fowl. Back then, I pointed out some of the consequences of a pandemic:

This is what’s giving the folks at CDC nightmares. If Bird Flu were to mutate into a strain that could easily be spread by casual contact among humans, it could wreak havoc on the world’s population and the economy. Why the economy? Here’s a look into a possible future where a Bird Flu pandemic is already a reality in the United States. It’s from a mythical blogger: (Hat Tip: Instapundit)

The United States is battened down before the storm. The government has outlawed all gatherings in public places. In past pandemics that never worked. But epidemiologists say that if we do it early on, it might slow the spread. Modelling also suggests that closing schools and universities is especially important as teenagers and young adults are among the worst hit. We just need to stop them from hanging out elsewhere. Stay at home, is the message blaring from every TV screen.

There’s a possibility that the disease in fact may have mutated to the point where human to human contact is possible. And that could mean by late fall, the world may be in the throes of a truly frightening pandemic which could kill up to 300 million people worldwide.

The culprit for allowing the disease to get out of control could be China. I found this via Winds of Change:

I’ve been following this for some time, basically the World Health Organization is doing everything NOT to raise the alert level from stage 3 to stage 5 or 6, and has tried to explain away clear cases of human-to-human transmission (these cases mean we’re at Stage 5 at least). There are also LOTS of rumors China is covering up an outbreak of Stage 6 human-to-human bird flu. China has been completely uncooperative with the WHO, refuses to let out most medical samples, and has even threatened epidemiologists. Nevertheless, the few published samples available from China (obtained from dead birds in Qinghai) all have genetic traits of strains that infect mammals, including humans. The worry is that these samples come from a major nexus in bird migration routes, meaning that this dangerous virus will soon be dispersed throughout Eurasia (it’s already popping up in Russia).”

The secretive way in which the Chinese government handled the SARS epidemic illustrates the problems totalitarian societies can cause the rest of us. By first denying there was a problem with SARS, then minimizing it, then underreporting the number of victims of the disease, and finally obstructing the activities of the World Health Organization before giving in and asking for help, China kept the epidemic alive. From China, SARS spread to Hong Kong, Viet Nam, and several other countiries in Asia. The disease made it to Toronto where an interesting dichotomy could be observed between the reaction of a totalitarian state to crisis and the efforts of a democratic society to deal with the same threat.

Thanks to a strategy that included public information about symptoms of the disease, close cooperation between government and health officials, and strict and effective quarrantine procedures, the Toronto outbreak of SARS was limited to 345 cases, 44 of which were fatal. It could have been much worse.

And now there are indications that once again, China’s secretive society may trigger another epidemic. This time, however, the results could be catostrophic. It’s estimated that between 1 and 3 million Americans would die in a Bird Flu pandemic. As Joe Katzman points out, the effects of the pandemic would be similar to those of a biological weapons attack:

In many ways, a pandemic isn’t really all that different from a major bioterrorism scenario. Winds recommendations #2-9 from my June 2002 Bioterror Readiness 10-Point Platform for Change still apply, for instance. So, unfortunately, do the comments in Bill Quick’s bioterror readiness post re: why the USA isn’t farther ahead in 2005. There’s a lot of heavy lifting to do, in order to change that picture. We may not have that time.

If we really want to “plan” for a dynamic scenario like this and get a fast fix out there, there’s a simpler way: don’t depend on a huge, elaborate system, but on fast point defense and overlapping measures. Spend about $1 million, and ship copies of SimOutbreak to every key official all around the country. In a scenario like this, fast and informed local reaction will be worth hundreds of millions in backup infrastructure. Include law enforcement and first responders in the distribution - they’ll probably be the first to see the signs. Have cities like my Toronto, hit hard by SARS, share plans and lessons learned.

Mr. Katzman has some good advice that I personally plan on following:

Spend a bit of time following this yourself, on a personal level, and think about what your contingency plans might be re: your family. Spread the word. Write your representatives. Point out that the WHO is soft-pedaling this, and may fail entirely.

In other words, begin building little islands of understanding and capability. Eric says “start planning!” I say “Plan less. Experience and communicate more. Become a pack in motion, not a herd in wait.”

In other words, don’t panic but monitor the situation. I’m not one of those people who plans for the worst but I’m definitely going to make some plans just in case things get out of control.

And I’m going to continue publicizing this. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for pointing me toward the the WoC post.

The recent revelations that one and possibly two of the London bombers visited Pakistan and may have trained at al Qaeda camps underscores the dilemma facing the United States when it comes to our relationship with Pakistani dictator General Pervez Musharraf. On the one hand, he and his military have been extremely cooperative in rounding up al Qaeda terrorists, including some of the group’s top leadership. On the other hand, Musharraf’s promised political and social reforms that would have neutralized Islamic extremists have not been forthcoming and, judging by recent developments, may have been a sham all along.

Since the attacks of 9/11, Pakistan has received $2.64 billion in aid, $113 billion of that in security assistance. What have we gotten to show for that money?

As mentioned, the Pakistani security services have rounded up a dozen or more of top al Qaeda leadership including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. KSM has since begun to talk and his insights into al Qaeda have been invaluable. The Pakistani’s also claimed to have killed 600 al Qaeda soldiers as well as hundreds of Taliban holdouts.

Pakistan has also operated as a forward base for our assistance to Afghanistan as both a center for international aid and a military staging area for Afghan operations.

The Pakistani’s have lent valuable assistance to Afghanistan in the training of both the army and internal security services.

Musharraf shut down al Qaeda training camps operating in Pakistan as well as promising to crack down on extremist schools - the madrasses - that indoctrinate hundreds of thousands of poor Pakistani children with a philosophy of hatred of the non-Islamic west.

As for the minuses, there are plenty:

1. Despite its extreme poverty, Pakistan continues to spend enormous amounts of money on its nuclear program that threatens an important emerging ally of the United States in India.

2. After an initial burst of reforms when Musharraf came to power in 1999, human rights groups in Pakistan complain that the pace of reform has slackened and, in some cases, regressed under pressure from Islamist elements in the Pakistani parliament and the military.

3. Instead of shutting down the madrasses, Musharraf’s government has allowed them to flourish and has done nothing to cut off the flow of foreign money pouring into the establishment of these schools.

4. Musharraf has deliberately weakened pro-democracy political parties which has allowed a coalition of extremist Islamist parties to gain ascendancy in parliament and in the countryside. The most radical of these parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, or MMA, controls two provinces in the mountainous northwest of the country on the border with Afghanistan where it’s believed Bin Laden may be hiding and it’s thought that the Taliban utilizes as a safe haven against coalition attacks. It’s debatable how much real control Musharraf maintains over these provinces as he has forbidden any coalition military operations there.

5. After shutting down al Qaeda training camps following 9/11, there is evidence that many of the camps have reopened with the government’s blessing.

Admittedly, Musharraf is in an extraordinarily dangerous predicament both for his government and his personal safety. The army - especially the intelligence service - is riddled with Taliban sympathizers according to many reports. And he has been forced to forgo important reforms because of the dicey political situation. In short, he is unable to make any headway against the traditional “mullah-military alliance” that has governed Pakistan since his predecessor General Zia turned Pakistan into an Islamic republic during the 1980’s.

This Newsweek article spells out some of the risks to Musharraf’s rule:

Senior government officials told news-week that the president worries that demolishing Zia’s legacy too rashly could spark widespread violence. Musharraf must also contend with elements of the armed forces who are steeped in General Zia’s culture. “Breaking away from deeply held customs will take some time,” argues General Sultan. “We believe in bringing change not through revolutionary but evolutionary means.”

Government critics point as well to other worrisome developments. While secular opposition parties are prohibited from holding public demonstrations, the MMA can call its people to the streets without the threat of a police crackdown. Pakistan will soon issue new machine-readable passports to its citizens. The government had planned to exclude any mention of the passport-holder’s religious affiliation on the document. But Muslim groups objected, and last month the government acquiesced to their demands. The new passports will not only identify the religion of every Pakistani, but also his or her sect. Religious minorities fear the passports will widen the sectarian divides that plague the country.

And this backsliding does not bode well for the United States in the War on Terrorism:

Gen Musharraf promised a policy of enlightened moderation but little has been done. Thousands of religious schools still spew out hate against non-Muslims and leaders of militant groups still wander the country giving sermons.

Gen Musharraf has squandered the lavish aid and support given to him by the US and Britain after September 11. Extremism continues to flourish and democracy is further away than ever.

This month the widely circulated magazine Herald reports that a dozen training camps for militants, which closed down after September 11, were revived in May with official blessing.

Last month several Pakistani-Americans arrested on terrorism charges in California, admitted to training in such camps. The London bombers were probably in touch with a local Pakistani group rather than al-Qa’eda.

President Bush has cut Musharraf an enormous amount of slack. It’s time for the Pakistani president to either put up or shut up with regards to democratic reforms and carry through on his promise to crack down on the madrasses that are poisoning the minds of young Pakistani’s and radicalizing another generation of Islamic militants.

And President Bush should absolutely and without delay tell Musharraf to shut down the al Qaeda training camps… or we will do it for him.

It’s time for Pakistan and its president to decide once and for all: Are they with us or against us in the War on Terror?

Charmaine Yoest has been “Janey on the Spot” this week, first blogging the G8 Summit and then becoming an eyewitness to history as she arrived in London immediately after the bombs had gone off. Her nose for a story had her interviewing young Brits about the bombing. What she found was both depressing and expected:

Directly outside I saw Davy D, a hip-hop DJ from Oakland. Together we went over to interview a group of young men standing together by the barricades. After they recognized Davey, they were happy to speak right up. We asked them why everyone seemed to be reacting so calmly and they all just shrugged. One said: “I was expecting this — sooner or later it was going to happen. I knew something was going to happen.” Then he continued: “Everyone thinks they know why it happened. . .”

Why?

Well, because George Bush and Tony Blair need to make it easier to go to war.

Davey and I glanced at each other. The interview moved on to other topics. Finally, as we wrapped up, I stopped the young man, just to clarify his comment. Did he mean, I asked, to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy by the government involved in today’s attacks? Just to generate support for the war?

“Definitely,” he said. “Definitely.”

Charmaine and her companion moved on and interviewed two young women:

It’s Tony Blair’s fault! They’ve killed 100,000 people — it’s like a boomerang.” Later she repeated this, talking about “killing innocent people” and “invading other peoples’ country . . .”

When we asked her the question about the calm, she shrugged too. “We’re used to it,” she replied. “Americans get patriotic over anything silly.”

We were starting to see a pattern

After another “Blame Blair-Bush” interview, Charmaine approached the “quintessential” British businessman and asked similar questions:

Spied him talking on the phone near the barricade and moved in. Warily, he agreed to talk.

No, he wasn’t surprised. “It’s been due to happen. Sooner or later.” He got the talking points, too.

Bu then he pointed out something very interesting that I had noticed only on a subconscious level. “This is the heart of Little Beirut” he said. We were indeed surrounded by people, like the young men, who appeared to be Arab. A strange and exceptionally cold-blooded choice of targets for Al Quaida, even by terrorist standards.

Finally, I asked him the Tony Blair question. He looked at me puzzled: “How can you blame Tony Blair?”

Those young Brits were mouthing the slogans and regurgitating the tripe they hear everyday from pop culture icons, left wing politicians and media, and a host of personalities whose ever escalating rhetorical flights of fancy with regards to the War on Terror have evidently done enormous damage to the spirit and ability to resist the Islamists among the young.

Too small a sample? Here’s more:

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

“As far as I’m concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better,” says Abdul Haq, the social worker. “I know it’s going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid -I pray for it, I look forward to the day.”

“I agree with you, brother,” says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. “I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I’ll tell them where to get it.”

(HT: Junkyard Blog)

All day long on Sky News, the refrain was repeated over and over. The attacks were Bush-Blair’s fault. If we weren’t in Iraq this wouldn’t have happened. Charmaine noticed something else; a curious lack of outrage and sorrow:

As our group re-assembled and walked back toward the hospital in a sudden grey London rain, we compared notes. We all agreed that we were observing a striking difference between English and American reactions to this kind of disaster. Perhaps later the impromptu teddy-bear memorials that characterize our American communal grief in the wake of tragedy will appear.

But, for now, the English we met were putting on the stiff upper lip.

I certainly hope so. From much of the reaction I’ve seen, with the exception of most politicians (who will probably wait until after the funerals to begin their Bush-Blair bashing) the reaction of the average Brit has underwhelmed me and left me with a sense that the Great Britain of today is a far cry from the Great Britain of my father’s day.

Would the British population of today stood up to Hitler? Would they have stuck with Churchill? Or would they have accepted Hitler’s “peace” offer that the Nazi dictator gave prior to the start of the Battle of Britain which guaranteed British sovereignty?

The Brits back then didn’t even bother to respond. In fact, the BBC gave an eloquent response rejecting Hitler’s offer without even consulting the government. Now that was a spirit of resistance.

Blair’s government won’t fall as a result of this tragedy. Nor will British troops be pulled from Iraq. But unless we see some signs over the next few days that the British people are beginning to wake up to the fact that George Bush didn’t bomb them but rather implacable, bloodthirsty Islamists, it may be time to start worrying about our best and closest ally in the War on Terror.

UPDATE

The quotes from the four Muslim youths wishing for nuclear armageddon in London were NOT given in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombing. As I just discovered, the quotes appeared in NRO’s The Corner on 7/7 and were taken from an Evening Standard article from April, 2004.

I regret the error and apologize for the confusion.

I was one of the five million or so AOL subscribers who tuned in to the Live 8 concert on Saturday. My interest was purely professional - something akin to the typical NASCAR fan who goes to a racetrack waiting expectantly for the spectacular crack-up.

I wasn’t disappointed.

Technically speaking, the event was great. There I was sitting at my computer a mouse click away from watching live performances in Berlin, London, Tokyo, Toronto, and Phladelphia. After a while, I stopped thinking about the enormous distances involved and just tried to enjoy the show.

Ain’t the internets somethin’ else?

As for enjoying the show, I managed to catch both an ancient looking Paul McCartney and a still defiant Madonna, whose middle finger salute was actually kind of appropriate. It reminded me of what these spoiled, rich, aging, philistines actually think about the rest of us. This Evening Standard gossip columnist fills us in on some really juicy details:

SIR PAUL McCARTNEY, who both opened and closed Live8, made sure every one knew exactly whose show it really was by continually strolling up and down the backstage area with his entourage of six in tow.

And when the McCartneys came face to face with the BECKHAMS it was always going to be interesting to see the result.

After praising Sir Paul on his opening number (which she was not actually there for), VICTORIA managed to infuriate the former Beatle by running off to hug an old friend. There were uncomfortable smiles all round because DAVID did not know how to explain his wife’s disappearing act to Sir Paul. When Victoria finally returned, Sir

Paul told her through gritted teeth: ‘Oh, well, if she’s more important than me …

BRAD PITT, on stage for all of two minutes, was furious that he did not have his own dressing room and RICHARD CURTIS, the director who heads the Make Poverty History campaign, had to vacate his for the actor

Whatever happened to the “We are the World” spirit where all the stars “checked their egos at the door?”

I guess there are some sacrifices stars just won’t make for a good cause.

And Live 8 was in fact, a good cause; if you are a member of a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) who would be partially responsible for divvying up the doubling of aid to Africa proposed by Geldof. The organizers are looking for some $25 billion in aid to the murderous kleptocrats and purloining shysters who make up the bulk of what passes for governments on that long suffering continent. A few weeks back, here’s what I said about that idea:

The problem with Africa, however, isn’t money. And doubling aid to the continent would be something akin to giving a convicted drunk driver his license back with a gift-wrapped bottle of Chivas Regal.

Others agree with that assessment:

As Paul Wolfowitz, the new head of the World Bank, pointed out yesterday: “Giving money to corrupt governments is a formula for ineffective assistance.” Wiping out debt is tantamount to giving money and it has to be done with very tight strings attached. It would also impoverish the World Bank, which should play a pivotal role in helping Africa to help herself. So an essential part of the plan to write off debts will also have to be an agreement to provide additional funding for the World Bank. It seems that the United States has been persuaded to hand over extra cash.

Money, carefully spent, is undoubtedly part of the solution to Africa’s problems. It can provide food and education but, for the long term, it can also fund the micro-banks that, with relatively tiny loans, can help individuals to set up businesses. The money Live Aid raised may not all have reached its planned destination but some did. The lunacy of Live 8 is that, apart from the costs that the marchers will bring, one of the biggest concerts for many a year will not be raising money for a good cause.

The hyperbole from many of the participants was pretty tough to take at times. Coldplay’s Chris Martin get’s the award for most outrageous statement made by a clueless musician when he said the event was “the greatest thing that’s ever been organised probably in the history of the world.”

Wesely Pruden just couldn’t let Martin’s idiocy slide by:

Since “the entire history of the world” includes the extinction of the dinosaurs, the eruption of Krakatoa, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the construction of the pyramids, the Resurrection of Christ and man’s landing on the moon, Live 8 had to be impressive mush.

And the mush certainly wasn’t helped by Geldof’s own outrageous statement after the show that “3 billion people were watching.” Even MTV’s website couldn’t swallow that one:

With millions watching the globe-spanning concerts in person (see “In The Crowds At Live 8: Music, Mud And A Shared Desire To Help”) and an estimated billion or more tuning in to the broadcast for what will likely be the most-watched music event in history, the twin messages of Live 8 were inescapable: “We don’t want your money, we want you” and “Three seconds.”

The latter was the figure given for how often a child dies in Africa of extreme poverty. Will Smith dramatically illustrated the point by repeatedly snapping his fingers and exhorting the estimated million-plus crowd in Philadelphia to do the same, creating an eerie crackling sound that slammed the point home.

One billion humans tuning into a single event is impressive enough. In fact, it’s about the same number of people who tune into the Super Bowl every year. And you can definitely say that the game is a helluva lot more entertaining than watching Will Smith snap his fingers.

For contained in Mr. Smith’s stupid gesture is a perfect illustration of why this event is a futile exercise in sophistry. The idea that “raising awareness” of Africa’s plight will save starving children is absurd. In order to save those children, you don’t have to snap your fingers, what you need is wholesale regime changes in 2 dozen or more countries where governments use starvation as the weapon of choice against rebelious populations. Africa’s problem is not lack of food. It is not a lack of arable land, or water resources, or agricultural know-how (they’ve been farming in Africa since before the Egyptians got themselves organized). At bottom, Africa’s problem is, well, Africans. Embracing the socialist doctrines of the old Soviet Union and Cuba during the 1970’s and 80’s, the grandiose schemes and huge development projects undertaken with some of the $220 billion in western aid that has gone to the continent since the 1960’s proved to be boondoggles of the first magnitude.

Dam building for electricity that nobody needs or can use is just one small example. What isn’t known and probably can never be calculated is the out and out theivery of aid funds by African leaders, their families, their extended families, their cronies, and the western companies who are forced into kickback schemes in order to win contracts with this human daisy chain of graft and corruption.

Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines says that companies that give out bribes and get involved in kickback schemes are partly to blame because they don’t blow the whistle. Who are they going to blow the whistle to? Not only will they lose the contract, their chances of getting another in that country or any one of 2 dozen other countries is about as good as the Cub’s chances of going to the World Series this year.

What’s to be done? US Ambassador to Kenya William Bellamy made the mistake of calling out African leadership on aid saying “Turning on the fire hose of international compassion and asking Kenya and other African nations to drink from it is not a serious strategy for promoting growth or ending poverty.”

Pruden gives us the Kenyan response:

President Mwai Kibaki, the Kenyan president, was off at the African Union summit in Libya, helping other despots draw up their gimme list. In his absence, a deputy fired back at Ambassador Bellamy, complaining that Kenya had been singled out for criticism just because it doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Aid for Africa, he told the ambassador, “should not get entangled with the politics of your dissatisfaction with a regime, unless you have decided on a regime change.”

Nobody has, unfortunately, and that’s exactly why aid for Africa is as close to hopeless as anything can be. Regime change all across the continent is sorely needed, even more than another concert by unemployed service-station attendants whanging away on electric guitars and other noisemakers

Precisely. Which makes Live 8 about as relevant to helping solve Africa’s problems as the activities of the masked anarchists who are gleefully running around Edinburgh smashing windows and torching automobiles as if to prove the efficacy of corporal punishment denied them when they were children.

I suppose I shouldn’t criticize an effort with such obvious good intentions. But when that effort is so short sighted and even deliberately blind to the real cause and effect of Africa’s misery, it’s imperative that the millions of impressionable youths worldwide who wouldn’t know a Mugabe from a Mandela not be misled into thinking that singing and dancing for one day with a bunch of over-ripe troubadours will solve anything.

The final round of parliamentary voting is over and the ghost of Rafik Hariri is smiling. Hariri’s son Saad and his anti-Syrian coalition captured nearly 75% of the remaining seats that were up for grabs in the North of Lebanon, giving them an outright majority in parliament:

Lebanon’s anti-Syrian opposition looked set to win outright control of Parliament last night in the decisive final round of the country’s first elections free of Syrian control in almost 30 years. Early indications from North Lebanon showed the united list of Saad Hariri, the son of murdered former Premier Rafik Hariri, had won enough seats to secure a majority in Parliament for his united opposition grouping.

Leading opposition politician Boutros Harb said: “According to incomplete results, we are heading for a total victory.”

The anti-Syrian opposition needed to secure at least 21 of the 28 seats up for grabs in yesterday’s poll to have a parliamentary majority. But it remains unclear whether the opposition will have the two-thirds majority required to end to the term of Lebanon’s pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, who still has a further two years in office after a controversial Damascus-inspired extension last September which was the catalyst for the uniting the country’s opposition groupings.

Hariri’s candidate lists went head to head with Free Patriotic Movement’s charismatic leader Michel Aoun who’s success during last week’s voting in the south almost upset the opposition’s applecart. Hariri was able to garner support that crossed sectarian and even clan lines by appealing to widespread anti-Syrian sentiment in the small towns and villages that dot the countryside. In addition, Hariri cannily aligned himself with popular opposition politicians like Strida Tawk Geagea, wife of imprisoned Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea as well as Sunni religious leaders such as Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Qabbani. The resulting coalition overwhelmed Aoun’s candidate lists which brought out some bitterness in the former Prime Minister:

Aoun accused Hariri of buying votes and playing on sectarian differences to secure victory in northern Lebanon, ruling out any chance of teaming up with him in parliament.

“We will be in the opposition. We can’t be with a majority that reached (parliament) through corruption,” he said.

As for vote buying, this from a European politician:

European legislator Jose Ignacio Salafranca said he took note of allegations of vote buying. He added: “Competition is high, which is a healthy sign.”

Reminds me of some places in rural America - especially in the South - where vote buying is still a grand old tradition. It usually takes the form of a a five or ten dollar bill pressed into the hands of voters on their way to the polls and many voters simply will not vote without the token bribe.

Aoun’s opposition was to be expected as he’s trying to carve out an independent niche for himself - something he couldn’t have done if he had joined the anti-Syrian opposition. By aligning himself during the elections with mainly pro-Syrian candidates, this anti-Syrian icon proved himself to be something of an opportunist, although Aoun apologists point to his strong anti-corruption stand as the reason for his alliance of convenience.

In addition to Aoun’s 23 seats, the Hezbullah-Amal alliance and their 35 seats will also be in opposition. And that grouping could prove much more problematic as the opposition seeks to form a government. No doubt the pro-Syrian militias will want some kind of internal security positions in the new government. If Aoun joins them, they could prove to be a powerful opposition voice.

Not to mention that theirs are the only militias that are armed.

Passions ran high during this round. But the people seem hopeful:

“I have never seen such participation at elections before,” said Anwar Chidiac, a 56 year-old Qobeiyat resident. “It’s such a phenomenon.” The North Lebanon polls, in which over 100 candidates fought for the remaining 28 parliamentary seats, was definitely the most heavily attended and competitive of all four voting districts, with sectarian tensions running high.

“I think that such a large number of voters is a healthy sign,” said 50-year-old Hakim Bakhos. “It really demonstrates how the current elections are taking place in a totally democratic atmosphere with no foreign interference, whatsoever.”

Described by many North residents as “emotional,” Sunday’s battle was extremely heated, as villagers left their homes to reach the stations - some heading there on donkeys. This round determines whether or not the 128-seat assembly would have an anti-Syrian majority for the first time since the 1975-90 Civil War.

The Captain sums it up nicely:

The course of the next four years appears to be set, as the Hariri-led government will pursue policies which pull away from Syrian influence — and Lebanon has its own elected government for the first time in decades. It’s an amazing and dramatic result for a country who appeared to be prostrate under the Syrian thumb until the US/UK-led Coalition “destabilized” the Middle East and parked itself on Syria’s eastern border. May this lead to even more “destabilization” and the furtherance of the wave of democratization to a region parched of freedom.

Can a multi-sectarian, anti-Syrian coalition government emerge when the politicians sit down and try and form a stable government? The people seem hopeful and the politicians themselves appear ready to do the heavy lifting necessary to make the people’s hope a reality.

Jeff Goldstein is a very funny fellow:

A popular German TV murder mystery show recently had an episode that could have come from the pen of Michael Moore and the conspiracy nuts on the left:

The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her. The drama concludes with the German detectives accepting the truth of her story as she eludes the U.S. government hit men and escapes to safety in an unnamed Arab country.As ludicrous as it may sound to most Americans, the tale has resonance in Germany, where fantastic conspiracy theories often are taken as fact.

Many Germans think, for example, that the 1969 moon landing was faked, and a poll published in the weekly Die Zeit showed that 31 percent of Germans younger than 30 “think that there is a certain possibility that the U.S. government ordered the attacks of 9/11.”

(HT: Washington Times)

Here’s Mr. Goldstein:

Another one of those German “thought experiments,” most likely (my favorite is, “what if the Jews were responsible for German unemployment, a flagging economy, and the loss of Germanic pride? Are Gypsies worth feeding? What if we handled the “gay” problem with big pizza ovens?”).
Oh well, let’s cut them some slack. They’re just brave thinkers—positing fictional scenarios as a way to expand their understanding of how the pragmatic concept of contingency obtains in the shaping and propagating of historiographical interpretations of world events.

And what harm ever came from that….?

And speaking of “thought experiments”…

Mel Brooks is also a very funny fellow. In fact, there’s only one time I laughed so hard I actually peed in my pants. It was the first time I saw Brooks’ riotously funny movie “The Producers.”

It’s a Broadway show now. Matthew Broederick and the very funny Nathan Lane played the characters portrayed by the incomparable Zero Mostel and comic genious Gene Wilder in the movie. The plot is simple. A down on his luck Broadway producer, with the help of a mild mannered accountant, seek to make millions by swindling investors. They do this by overselling “shares” in the musical (50% of the profits for one investor, %75% for another, 100% for another, etc.).

But in order not to have to pay out, they must find an absolutely sure fire flop of a show. They find it in a musical entitled “Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchetesgarden.”

Here’s the title song, played to the hilt using showgirls dressed in provocative storm trooper outfits and a huge swastika as a backdrop:

Germany was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me
LEAD TENOR STORMTROOPER:
And now it’s…
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We’re marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Rhineland’s a fine land once more!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Watch out, Europe
We’re going on tour!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany

Move over Mel…you got company.

The second to last round of Lebanon’s parliamentary elections proved out the old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows.

Michel Aoun, a former Prime Minister, former head of Lebanon’s armed forces, and until recently an exile with an arrest warrant out for him, swept to victory in Mount Lebanon and the Bekaa districts completing a political comeback tinged with irony. The candidate lists headed up by Aoun featured largely pro-Syrian parties. Aoun, a Maronite Christian, made his political bones fighting Syrian forces in 1990 in an aborted attempt to hang on to the post of Prime Minister in the face of Syrian interference.

Aoun’s lists were also victorious in the largely Christian enclaves of Kesrouan-Jbeil and Metn and Zahle. Aoun may well have beaten rival Maronite and key opposition figures, Nassib Lahoud and Fares Soueid.

As it stands now, anti-Syrian opposition candidates have won nearly 50% of seats in the 128 seat Lebanese parliament. Aoun is positioning himself quite nicely to be a major player when the parties meet after the elections and get to the business of forming a government. While its unlikely Aoun himself could capture the Presidency (the post under current election law reserved for Christians) it’s almost certain that an ally of his will be named.

Aoun was forced to align himself with pro-Syrian elements when negotiations prior to the elections with members of the Qornet Shehwan Gathering failed to bring him any alliances with the opposition. Today, former Druze warlord and opposition leader Walid Jumblatt called Aoun a “small Syrian tool.” That may be too harsh as Aoun is certainly as anti-Syrian a candidate as they come. More than his alliance with any pro-Syrian candidates however, Aoun’s stand against political corruption is what apparently attracted the most support for his lists.

Meanwhile, more headaches for the United States and the international community as the Hizbullah electoral list took the majority of votes in Baalbek-Hermel, which saw a total voter turnout of 50 percent. Three electoral lists competed in the Bekaa first district with a sweeping victory for Hizbullah and its allies, including the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the Baath Party, the Amal movement and the Phalange Party.

This result virtually guarantees that Hizbullah will improve on its current 12 seat representation in parliament. It also guarantees that the most difficult and immediate issue that will face the new government will be either the disbanding of Hizbullah’s armed militias or their integration into the Lebanese armed forces. Either course of action will have Israel watching very closely. The militias are armed to the teeth and have sworn death to Israel. Their continued independence would be a signal to the Jewish state that Lebanon will remain a threat and make any peace negotiations problematic. Israel still holds territory claimed by Lebanon and negotiations to return it would be difficult with Hizbullah’s 12,000 rockets aimed at settlements along the border.

The final round of voting takes place next Sunday. Then the difficult work of forming a government will start. While it’s clear that the opposition candidates will probably be in the drivers seat, in order to form a stable government some cabinet posts will have to go to pro-Syrian sympathizers. And in addition to the issue of Hizbullah militas, one of the first orders of business for the new government will be to come up with a new election law, one that will hopefully based on proportional representation in larger districts. The current set-up allows for too many smaller parties to have a disproportionate impact in elections.

Further Reading:

Daily Star. Also here, and here. And Washington Post article here.

Here’s a short bio of Michel Aoun.

We live in an age when the confluence of the political culture and the culture of celebrity have merged to form a seamless, media driven whole, a world where rock stars and movie legends are asked to comment on a wide variety scientific and technical issues whose complexity and in some cases obscurity, would tax the combined faculties of many institutions of higher learning.

There are some, including author Theodore H. White who traces this marriage of cultures to John F. Kennedy’s fascination with Hollywood and in particular, his study of the question of why the notoriety of people like Clark Gable and Marlyn Monroe transcended the small artists community of Hollywood and made them larger than life characters to the American people. Kennedy was the first Presidential candidate to use Hollywood stars in a huge way. All of a sudden, reporters were asking Sammy Davis Junior his views on race relations (questions that Davis generally refused to answer). Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Kennedy’s brother in law Peter Lawford not only campaigned for the President, they were included in the Presidential circle of friends and thus identified closely with Kennedy’s personality and policies.

It was the Viet Nam War that galvanized Hollywood and made movie stars into activists. With the breakdown of the studio system where stars were virtual prisoners of movie moguls and thus subject to strict limitations on their public persona, movie stars were suddenly free to comment on and participate in anything they wished. While certainly a liberating experience, the war spawned a generation of Hollywood stars whose extreme liberal politics led them to ever more outrageous public commentary on things they knew very little about. Do the thoughts of these celebrities have real world consequences? Ask the apple growers of America.

In 1989. a little known preservative used by about 5% of apple growers called Alar became a focus of concern because of it’s possible cancer causing ingredients. CBS 60 Minutes produced a scary story about what it termed “the most potent carcinogen used in our food supply.” Less than a week later, Congress held hearings on Alar that featured several experts from the National Resources Defense Council, the EPA, and the National Academy of Science. The hearing also featured actress Meryl Streep, whose dramatic testimony was seen on all three network newscasts that evening.

It was a perfect storm of high profile celebrity marrying up with the politics of the environmental movement. And it caused a panic that cost the apple growers of America $375 million in losses.

The only problem with this story is that it was a fairy tale:

Mass hysteria ensued. At a parent’s request, state troopers chased a school bus to confiscate a student’s apple. School administrators had apples and apple products summarily destroyed. Apple markets rotted overnight.

The NRDC, however, prospered. Fenton, its media consultant, stated in an interview for Propaganda Review: “The [PR] campaign was designed so that revenue would flow back to NRDC from the public. The group sold a book about pesticides through a 900 number on the ‘Donahue’ show and to date 90,000 copies have been sold.” Fenton’s strategy succeeded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

At the same conference, environmental-health expert A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D., then of the University of Maryland, stated: “The Alar controversy is a classic case of poor science applied to a societal decision, resulting in a poor final decision.”

Also at the conference, Dr. Richard Adamson, then director of the NCI’s Division of Cancer Etiology, stated: “The risk of eating an apple treated with Alar is less than the risk of eating a peanut butter sandwich or a well-done hamburger.” More recently, Adamson described the cancer risk from eating Alar-treated apples as “nonexistent.”

Even though both the EPA and the NAS testified at the hearing that the risk of eating Alar treated apples was extraordinarily low, it was Meryl Streep’s ignorant rant against apple growers deliberately trying to give children cancer that people heard.

And now Bob Geldof - rock star, concert promoter, organizer of famine relief for Africa, and all around celebrity saint - has decided to enter the world of international finance. The incongruity of someone who became famous through his participation in a punk rock band called “Boomtown Rats” who now wants to lecture the developed world on such arcane subjects as aid packages and third world debt relief seems to be lost on the media who are trumpeting Geldof’s latest brainstorm to the skies. Called “Live8″ because a series of concerts and protest march will coincide with a meeting of the G-8 in Britain this July, Geldof is following in the footsteps of that other globetrotting celebrity, U-2’s Bono whose expertise includes lecturing the developed world about famine, the AIDS pandemic, and other African issues that some have called little more than ignorant posturing.

According to its website, the goal of Live8 is as follows:

This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty.

The G8 leaders have it within their power to alter history. They will only have the will to do so if tens of thousands of people show them that enough is enough.

By doubling aid, fully canceling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children.”

Canceling some or all of Africa’s huge debt has been on the table of the G-8 for several years. It’s estimated that sub-Saharan Africa alone has $55 billion in debt that it can never repay. It would make sense to cancel at least some of Africa’s crushing debt burden and free up government funds for other development projects.

The problem with Africa, however, isn’t money. And doubling aid to the continent would be something akin to giving a convicted drunk driver his license back with a gift-wrapped bottle of Chivas Regal. Why does Geldof think that Africa has debt problems in the first place? Loans made by western banks and governments to the kleptocratic autocracies that pass for governments on that benighted continent have been swallowed up by both bad people and bad government:

Bitter experience suggests that even if these huge sums were multiplied tenfold, they would do little good. For Africa received £220 billion of aid between 1960 and 1997, the equivalent of six Marshall Plans, and finished up even poorer than before.

With the possible exception of President Robert Mugabe, everyone now accepts that Africa’s central problem is not a shortage of aid but “bad governance”. Put simply, the continent is filled with repressive and incompetent regimes whose chief pastime is grand larceny.

Decades of bitter experience have shown that authoritarianism is the enemy of development. But a British-sponsored commission has dodged an unambiguous demand for every African regime to embrace democracy. It is little short of incredible that this vital issue can still be skirted.

Still more depressing is the report’s coverage of corruption. This, we are told, is a “systemic challenge facing African leaders”. In a continent where Gen Sani Abacha, the late Nigerian dictator, was able to steal between £1 billion and £3 billion in less five years, this is no exaggeration.

Despite facts to the contrary, Geldof has decided that the western world must not only reform it’s aid programs but also “eliminate extreme poverty” whatever that means. And he’s holding western government responsible for this state of affairs due to “trade injustices.”

Breaking down trade barriers is always desirable. But what happens if the trade “injustices” are occurring on both sides of the trade divide? When African nations severely restrict food and electronics imports in favor of bolstering their domestic industries, why should western nations cut off their own noses to spite their faces and give Africans a break on their exports? According to Geldof, there apparently is no reason except “justice” whatever that is.

Geldof’s ignorance is not confined to issues. He also has the political instincts of a marmoset:

Anarchists from around the world are planning to cause chaos at next month’s G8 summit in Gleneagles as a row broke out last night between Bob Geldof and DJ Andy Kershaw over the absence of black musicians at events staged to benefit Africans.

With police fears mounting over Geldof’s call for one million people to protest at the summit, Kershaw last night condemned the almost exclusively white line-up for the pop concerts to coincide with the summit. “If we are going to change the West’s perception of Africa, events like this are the perfect opportunity to do something for Africa’s self-esteem,” he said. “But the choice of artists for the Live8 concerts will simply reinforce the global perception of Africa’s inferiority.”

But The Independent on Sunday can reveal that anarchist groups that have rioted at previous G8 gatherings are planning similar disruptions in Scotland and plan to hijack Geldof’s “long march to freedom” on 6 July and the Make Poverty History rally on 2 July. Anarchist groups will encourage protesters to “Make Capitalism History” instead.

So, for a concert to help call attention to African problems Geldof fails to book African acts? And to top it off, the moonbats are ready to hijack his “Long Walk for Justice” and turn it into a free-for-all. It appears that what Mr. Geldof is good at besides his many accomplishments as a musician is shallow thinking.

Chrenkoff, as usual, gets it exactly right:

It’s so much easier though to have a concert or an appeal for aid or debt forgiveness rather than for political and economic liberty. It’s difficult to imagine Robbie Williams and U2 playing for regime change in country X, or Madonna and Sting performing on stage for economic reform in country Y and international trade liberalization. But these are the things that actually matter. And so our boys from the 42nd Infantry Division are now doing more for the cause of solving world’s problems, than our boys from REM strutting the stage.

To believe that we can wipe out poverty simply by dumping a couple of hundred billion dollars into the hands of ruthless tyrants is worse than absurd; it’s morally dishonest. Proposing bad solutions is worse than not proposing any solutions at all. What Mr. Geldof is doing is using his celebrity to promote policies that not only are wrong, they’d be unattainable even if they were right.

In short, Geldof is fooling himself. And in the process, he’s fostering the notion among the uncritical young that world problems can be solved by singing and dancing and marching.

Would that t’were true. But like the Pied Piper, Geldof is leading the children astray. And what makes it unconscionable is that he’s achieving more notoriety in the process.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

As the Lebanese people make their way to the polls today for the first round of parliamentary voting, the confusing muddle of regional and sectarian candidates has generated some ennui among the populace.

In some districts like Beirut, the opposition, led by Said Hariri (son of the late political icon) and the old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt are united and virtually unopposed. In other districts, the opposition is fractured and contentious races involving other factions including Hizballah and the party led by former Prime Minister and political opportunist Michel Aoun expect to do well.

Here’s an excellent analysis on the strange bedfellows Lebanese politics has created in the last few weeks as both Hariri and Jumblatt seek to get the most out of the election:

The alliance between Saad Hariri and Hizb’allah’s Nasrallah was born out of a supposed deal struck between Nasrallah and the late Rafik Hariri just a week before his death. This deal was based on the notion that Hariri would not call on Hizb’allah to disarm personally, and Saad has affirmed this. Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party is also part of this alliance, and Nasrallah has urged his mainly Shiite followers to vote for Hariri’s lists in Beirut and Jumblatt’s lists in Aley-Baabda. In fact, many of the seats have gone uncontested and the opposition is likely to sweep them all. But Hizb’allah has also struck a sweet deal with another Shiite bloc, Amal, in order to retain total dominance of the South and likely Beqaa.

At bottom, is the electoral law written with the Syrian’s blessing and passed in 2001 that guarantees the various factions a certain number of seats. But the divisions in Lebanese politics go deeper than religion as this analysis points out:

The categories of “Muslim” and “Christian” are all but meaningless politically in Lebanon. The system is not based on the representation of “Muslims” and “Christians.” This is legally wrong, and assumes that “Muslims” are a monolithic, coherent political cluster, and the same goes for Christians. In reality, each one is divided into several sects, which are in turn divided into subcategories (families, regions, political inclination, etc.). Those are the divisions that count and are reflected in parliament and in the elections. The corollary to that are the alliances in the election and in parliament, which create what’s known as “real representation.” In part, this was the complaint of some in the Christian circles, that some “Christian” candidates on certain lists were really the choice of the dominant political figure or alliance in that particular district, as opposed to being the choice of the Christian voters (or certain Christian parties). In that sense, that particular Christian candidate will for the most part be allied in parliament with the non-Christian figure/list on which he ran. Of

These “lists” of candidates worked out in advance by political foes seek to bring some order to the chaos so that vote splitting between the many parties are kept to a minimun. To make up these lists, especially in areas where there’s fierce electoral competition, temporary electoral alliances are forged between parties that are likely to be at each other’s throats when parliament convenes.

Then, there’s the political wildcard represented by General Aoun whose last minute pullout from the Qornet Shehwan Gathering, the main Christian opposition group, has upset the applecart:

In Baabda-Aley, the Chouf, Metn and the North, Aoun will now challenge Jumblatt, Hariri and the scattered Christian parties. Even if these developments do not cause a complete upset (as no one truly expects they will), the unexpected shift has made the race too close to call.

Aoun had allied his FPM with Talal Arslan’s Lebanese Democratic Party, which will run alone against Jumblatt in the Chouf following the voluntary withdrawal of General Issam Abu Jamra to advance the chances of Arslan’s second-in-command, Marwan Abu Fadel, whereas Dory Chamoun and the Syrian Social National Party were excluded from this coalition.

Don’t worry. It gets even more confusing.

Aoun, who’s something of an anti-Syrian icon has made common cause with Talal Arslan’s pro-Syrian LDP. Arslan is a rival of Walid Jumblatt and expects to run well in the North. For Aoun, it was a case of having to align himself with someone and Arslan was about all that was left. Jumblatt has criticised Aoun for weakening the opposition at a crucial moment but in reality, the colorful former head of the Lebanese armed forces had little choice if he wanted to be a player in the new government.

And then there’s Hizballah. The US considers the “Party of God” to be a terrorist group. Indeed, the leader of the radicals, Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, recently bragged that his armed militia has 12,000 rockets aimed at Israel. And while UN Resolution 1599 urging the election called for disarming Hizballah, no prominent politician - including Hariri and Jumblatt - have done so. While tactically necessary, both men will be under pressure from the United States and the west after the elections to negotiate Hizballah’s disarming.

In a recent speech, Nasrallah seemed to lay out the conditions necessary for disarmament:

Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s fiery Liberation Day comments Wednesday in Bint Jbeil come in this context. Nasrallah linked Hizbullah’s disarmament with achievement of a peace settlement in the region and asserted the party will fight to the death anyone who thinks about disarming the resistance by force.

He urged parties that established contacts with Israel in the past and relied on the U.S. not to do so again, and suggested they reach an understanding with their local partners instead, including Hizbullah.

Tying disarmament to a general middle east peace deal would seem to be bad news. Some observers however, thought they saw a little give in Nasrallah’s remarks:

Nasrallah gave Hizbullah’s weapons a regional function when he linked disarming to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not to Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms.

Nasrallah’s speech came at a time when some Western ambassadors are polling opinions of Lebanese officials and leaders regarding implementation of the clause in UN Resolution 1559 related to disarming Hizbullah.

In other words, Nasrallah may have left the door open for the militia’s integration into the Lebanese armed forces, a solution that’s been mentioned by all the major opposition candidates.

Three other rounds in the electoral process are scheduled. It remains to be seen whether these electoral alliances will lead to a stable, independent Lebanese government or if the sectarianism and factionalism of the past will lead to chaos.

With so much at stake and with the “Cedar Revolution” still fresh in their minds, there’s a good chance that the participants will put aside their many differences and reach an equitable solution - one that embraces Lebanon’s political diversity and religious differences.