I'm obviously sympathetic to Matthew Cooper's complaint that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are cynically donning populist garb for the Ohio primary, but this is the wrong way to make the argument:

Likewise, Barack Obama who voted along with Clinton for recent trade agreements with Peru and Oman is also outraged by NAFTA. Please.

Cooper is comparing apples and watermelons. The Peru deal, as noted here, is a miniscule agreement that is primarily about lowering Peruvian trade barriers to U.S. goods. Similarly, the Oman deal includes a lot of language about opening the financial sector there to U.S. firms. Annual bilateral trade between the United States and Oman is not much more than $1 billion, and the two countries are not major trading partners. In both cases, the stated rationale for the deal was primarily geopolitical, not economic. So, it might be perfectly consistent to see the far larger NAFTA as a bad deal and yet support Peru and Oman.

Of course, neither Obama nor Clinton want to actually repeal NAFTA, mind you. They just want to "renegotiate" it -- a promise you can safely file in the same category as "closing tax loopholes" and "cracking down on wasteful government spending."

Noting the gripes and second-guessing coming from Hillary Clinton's campaign, Berkeley economist and blogger Brad DeLong evinces a dim view of political advisors:

There are two kinds of people who get involved in politics--those who care about the substance of policy, and those who want to get White House Mess privileges, or as a consolation prize become media celebrities. The first kind--the policy people--will be loyal to a politician as long as he or she is trying his or her best to achieve the shared policy goals. The second kind--the spinmasters--will be loyal to a politician as long as he or she is a winner who favors them. If a politician stops looking like a winner, or if a politician starts favoring others for what they hoped would be their west wing job, they will jump ship as fast as they can--and you will start seeing the "infighting" stories.

The moral? A politician with an ideological policy compass is best off not hiring spinmasters as his or her senior aides. Hire people who care about the substance of policy instead.

(Hat tip: Daniel Drezner)

Syndicated columnist Robert Novak asks why the U.S. government is still going to bat for Pervez Musharraf after the Pakistani president was so clearly rejected at the polls:

Overwhelming repudiation of President Pervez Musharraf by Pakistan's voters did not immediately dilute the Bush administration's support for him. On the contrary, the first election returns were barely in Monday night when the U.S. government began pressing victorious opposition leaders not to impeach the former military strongman. [...]

Since Bhutto's murder, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher has antagonized Pakistan's opposition leaders by insisting that Musharraf was committed to a ''good'' election while in fact voting rolls were being rigged. Minimal election-day vote fraud is attributed to Musharraf's weakness rather than strength. The army refused its cooperation, needed to really steal votes. According to Pakistani sources, the army high command was alarmed that Musharraf's unpopularity had undermined public esteem for the military.

These changes apparently escaped the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, which on election eve reported to Washington that Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League-Q would do well enough to force a coalition government. Vote rigging probably cost the opposition 25 seats, mainly in Baluchistan -- not enough to prevent a two-thirds majority by opposition parties that could vote impeachment in the lower house.

More on State's pro-Musharraf maneuvering here. It's not the first time in recent years the State Department has made a bad pre-election call. Condoleezza Rice admitted being surprised when she heard Hamas had won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006, despite plenty of signs that a groundswell of anger was brewing against Fatah. In fairness, these things are hard to predict. I, for one, expected Musharraf to do a better job with the cheating and thought there would be much more violence. But after the results are in, isn't it time to accept reality?

... I should note that Novak is wrong about the two-thirds majority, which the anti-Musharraf forces don't quite have.

Nawaz Sharif (John Moore/Getty Images)

Monday's elections in Pakistan were -- to use a timeworn cliché -- a political earthquake. Although the poll numbers were clear, very few Pakistan watchers expected that President Pervez Musharraf would allow the opposition to win in such a decisive fashion. In the end, South Asia expert Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told me, "There was a depth of resentment that not even the government's manifold efforts at shaping the outcome could prevent."

So what happens now? "With the quite utterly conclusive demise of the PML-Q,"  Tellis said, "the coalition that is likely to be formed will be between the PPP and the PML-N." (Referring to Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League, the Pakistan People's Party of the late Benazir Bhutto and now her husband Asif Zardari, and the PML-N of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, respectively.)

But what about Musharraf? "This result simply just cannot be good news for him," Tellis said. "I mean, this is absolutely devastating." Nawaz Sharif, you may recall, despises Musharraf for ousting him back in 1999, so there's little chance his party would want to keep the general around. The PPP is another story, Tellis said, and Zardari might be willing to let Musharraf stay on as president -- but with vastly curtailed powers. "I would not treat his departure from office as inevitable," Tellis cautioned. But for Pakistan, he said, the return of the moderate civilian parties represents "a very hopeful moment." Now we'll see if they can deliver.

2nd prize Spot News Stories
Roberto Schmidt, Colombia/Germany, Agence France-Presse
Kenya election unrest, Nairobi, 29-31 December

<-- Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next -->

AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

There was much insight but not much in the way of definitive answers in a talk held here at Carnegie today on the military's role in next Monday's Pakistani parliamentary elections. Journalist and author Shuja Nawaz felt that in contrast to previous elections, "the mood is not for direct rule" within the military leadership, but this mood could quickly change with circumstances:

There are no parties extreme enough to warrant intervention by the Army in the election... But demonstrations against rigging may force military leaders to bring out the Army. If things get out of hand, the Army may be forced to push for a change."

According to Ayesha Siddiqa of the University of Pennsylvania, rigging appears quite likely. The government recently banned the media from reporting election results from polling stations, increasing the likelihood of "ghost polls" with falsified results. (Check out FP's list, "How to Steal an Election Without Breaking a Sweat," for more on misreporting and media manipulation.)

Siddiqa also cautioned against viewing new Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kiyani as a "knight in shining armor" coming to the country's rescue. While Kiyani has demonstrated an encouraging desire to keep the Army out of politics, he also faces the expectation that the military will move against Musharraf if Pakistan descends further into chaos. It's also important to remember that Kiyani will retire after three years. Given the officer corps he has inherited, any major reforms may be fleeting. Siddiqa:

The military culture has changed dramatically during Musharraf's regime. Younger officers have a sense of empowerment now and tend to look down on civlians."

In other words, Kiyani may be watching how the election plays out just as nervously as the rest of us.

JIHAN AMMAR/AFP/Getty Images

We're in the midst of the most exciting presidential race in decades here in the United States. Pakistan's legislative elections are coming up on Feb. 18. And within the next two months, we'll also see elections in Russia, Spain, and Taiwan. But there's one more upcoming election that you probably haven't heard much about: the presidential race in Cyprus that takes place in two rounds on Feb. 17 and 24. Right now, there's a virtual dead heat between the top three candidates. Check out this poll here. It's in Greek, but the colors on the chart show it all: 30.0 percent to 30.1 percent to 30.5 percent.

You might be asking: Why should you care about a presidential election taking place on a tiny island that's home to fewer than one million people? We'll get there, but first, a little background.

Cyprus has been split into two entities ever since 1974, when Turkey invaded the island in response to a military coup that was backed by Athens. The northern part is currently recognized as a state by only Turkey. Everyone else recognizes the southern Greek-speaking part as the official government. As the EU expanded, there were hopes that Cyprus could enter as a united island, but unification talks sponsored by the U.N. were unsuccessful. Cyprus joined the EU, still divided, in May 2004. Current Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos, who is running for re-election, is considered by many to be a hardliner when it comes to Greek-Turkish rapprochement. One of his opponents, Communist Dimitris Kristofias, was previously in a ruling coalition with Papadopoulos, but decided to run on his own this time. The other front-runner is Ioannis Kasoulides, a member of the European Parliament and someone who is largely in favor of unification. The winner will be tasked with determining how unification talks move forward. 

So, the Cypriot elections mean a lot for the future Europe as a whole, and not just for the island itself. Turkey will never be able to accede to the EU so long as Cyprus is opposed, and Cyprus will continue to oppose it so long as Turkey still recognizes the north as legitimate. Cyprus also plays a major role in how the EU approaches prospective independence for Kosovo. Cyprus is opposed to independence for Kosovo because it's viewed as a vote against U.N. legitimacy. Greek Cypriots are also worried that Kosovar independence would be a rubber stamp for Turkish Cypriots to gain legal recognition. The most powerful states in the EU are in favor of independence for Kosovo. But as long as Cyprus remains opposed, the EU's goal for a common foreign policy remains stymied. The elections in Cyprus may seem like small peanuts compared to other happenings in the world, but there are a lot of people who are watching closely.

Following Mitt Romney's withdrawal speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain had this to say about the topic that has gotten him into such hot water with conservative activists and voters:

On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration. [UPDATE: Watch McCain getting booed here.]

That's pretty much what he's been saying on the campaign trail thus far, and it's been a good enough fudge to net him the nomination. Will conservatives be satisfied with this answer? Probably not, but it seems McCain may have smoothed over some rough patches today. David Freddoso of the National Review writes, "I think the proper reaction to McCain's victory is: Don't Panic. The world has not been destroyed just yet." Mission accomplished?

UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru chimes in— 

I'd prefer it if McCain took one more small step. It isn't enough that the border be secure; the illegal population has to start shrinking. (A lot of illegal immigrants came here legally and overstayed their visas, so securing the borders doesn't solve the problem.)

Personally, I think it's wrong to look at illegal immigration as a law-enforcement problem rather than a black-market problem. You can build all the walls you want, but you won't dry up illegal immigration until you drastically raise the number of legal immigrants you let in. But that is for another post and another day.

Early national exit polls suggest that the economy is the most important issue to Republican voters. Interestingly, the war in Iraq is only their third-most important issue, while immigration is the second-most important. John McCain has long been cast as the war candidate or the war on terror candidate by the pundits, yet it still looks to be a very good night for him. These early exits suggest that efforts to portray McCain as against the party on immigration and ill-informed on the economy have failed.

Democrats — top issue: economy 47%; war in Iraq 30%; health care 19%.

Republicans — top issue: economy 38%; immigration 24%; war in Iraq 20%; terrorism 15%.

David Paul Morris/Getty Images

Mike Huckabee was the surprise winner today in West Virginia, where Republicans held a statewide convention to decide where to allocate the state's 18 delegates. But the big prize tonight is California, where Mitt Romney has pledged to make his stand. The former Massachusetts governor flew across the country to California and then again from California to West Virgina—only to see McCain voters throw the race to Huckabee. No wonder Mittens was so cranky when the West Virginia results were announced. Having taken the red-eye from San Francisco myself last night, I feel Mitt's pain.

We've heard a lot about how folks around the world are tuning in eagerly to the '08 campaign in the United States. But what about China? "Sufei" from Sexy Beijing wanted to know what the Chinese "man on the street" thinks about the U.S. elections. The answer? Not much:

Judging from the video, Chuck Norris is not exactly a household name in China, either.

FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

At a congressional hearing Tuesday on Pakistan's upcoming legislative elections, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher had this to say:

We don't necessarily accept a certain level of fraud but if history is any guide and reports are any guide, we should expect some."

Not to pick on Boucher—as a diplomat representing a country that backs Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, he can't very well go out and speak the truth—but it's likely that Musharraf has already stolen the elections. Only amateurs steal an election on election day, as election experts say.

As Carnegie Endowment expert Ashley Tellis carefully explained to Congress earlier this month, Musharraf has to ensure that the new parliament will ratify his extra-constitutional power grab. But he can't be sure that his party will win enough seats in a fair contest (and based on Musharraf's cratering personal popularity, it surely wouldn't). So he either has to trust that his main political rivals—former PM Nawaz Sharif, whom he deposed in a military coup, and Asif Zardari, who believes Musharraf is responsible for his wife's murder—would honor a power-sharing arrangement, or he has to cheat.

And indeed, some of the techniques from this week's List, "How to Steal an Election Without Breaking a Sweat," are already being deployed: sacking judges, manipulating the voter rolls, criminalizing media criticism of the incumbent, and so on. "Some" level of fraud? More likely, there's going to be just enough of it for Musharraf's party to win (which is the U.S.'s preferred outcome at this point, anyway). The real question, though, is how will the opposition parties react? Will there be riots in the streets? Will the Pakistani military, now under the leadership of the reportedly apolitical Ashfaq Kiyani, be willing to shoot demonstrators? We'll find out on Feb. 18.

DIMITAR DILKOFF/AFP/Getty Images

Serbia may be a shrinking country, but international eyes are keeping a close watch on its presidential elections, scheduled for Feb. 3. This Sunday, voters will be asked to choose between pro-European candidate Boris Tadic and Russia-leaning candidate Tomislav Nikolic.

Much is at stake in the elections. The next president must navigate Serbia's path to EU accession and respond to a likely declaration of independence from Kosovo, Serbia’s Albanian-majority southern province. William Montgomery, former U.S. ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro, says about Sunday's election:

[It] will determine whether Serbia continues on a path (slowly or rapidly) towards integration into 'Europe' or alternatively, becomes a 'Belarus of the Balkans,' belligerently looking East instead of West and in some state of confrontation with the EU, the United States and its new 'neighbor,' Kosovo."

But with Serbian voters facing a choice between Europe and Russia, it is American icons that are getting all the attention. For over a month now, images of great U.S. presidents—George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and JFK—have appeared on Belgrade's billboards, along with quotes from presidential speeches, tweaked to support Kosovo as a part of Serbia. For instance, beside the face of George Washington appear the following words (in Cyrillic):

'The time is near at hand which must determine whether we are to be free men or slaves.' Kosovo is Serbia!”

Hollywood stars have been sucked into the Kosovo debate, too. Last week, Serbian news outlets claimed that George Clooney, Sharon Stone, Richard Gere, and Sean Connery all stood in opposition to an independent Kosovo, even crediting Gere with poignant statements such as this:

There must be something in that Kosovo, if they will fight for it so hard."

The Hollywood stars have denied making such claims, but the occasionally sensationalist Serbian newspaper Blic claims to know better: Just as Serbia has a been a pawn of Western powers, Clooney too has succumbed to international pressure, denying his statement against independence for Kosovo only after "the UN exerted pressure on the actor."

The uncle of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has gotten caught up in Kenya's latest spasm of unrest:

KISUMU, Kenya (AP) — U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's uncle has been a prisoner in his own home, trapped by postelection violence that has left more than 600 Kenyans dead.

Said Obama lives in this western city, near a slum that has been a flashpoint for violence. Police shot and killed four people here Wednesday while trying to prevent thousands of rowdy protesters from entering the city center.

"Yesterday I was confined to my house, it was just too dangerous to go out," Said Obama said. "I could hear bullets around the place so I stayed put and listened to the radio for news."

Clashes between rioters and police continued in Kisumu Thursday, though the New York Times reports that the worst ethnic violence has passed and the Washington Post says that the protests on both Wednesday and Thursday have been relatively small. Are opposition supporters giving up?

(Photos: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)