Mandela ends silence on Zimbabwe crisis (Independent)

Nelson Mandela has now thrown his tremendous moral prestige behind the increasingly widespread condemnation of Robert Mugabe's tyrannical regime in Zimbabwe. It's unfortunate that Mandela felt compelled to wait this long--other prominent veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, took that step years ago. But better late than never.

Mandela's statement about Zimbabwe was also carefully understated and even a bit oblique (in an almost Papal manner). But even with all those qualifications and reservations, this has to be seen as an important intervention by Mandela. It should contribute to the process by which Mugabe's remaining defenders--including Mandela's successor as President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki--are finding themselves increasingly isolated and discredited.

To quote from the report in the Independent:

Nelson Mandela has broken his silence on the Zimbabwe crisis to castigate the "tragic failure of leadership" in the violence-torn country.

The former president of South African did not issue any specific call for action, and did not criticise by name the 84-year old Zimbabwean President, a fellow activist from the days of the struggle against white minority rule.

But in his statement, read out at a fundraising dinner last night in Hyde Park for his 90th birthday, the statesman made clear the depth of his feelings on the matter. After speaking of his "sadness" about the conflict in Darfur, he said: "Nearer to home, we had seen the outbreak of violence against fellow Africans in our own country and the tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe."

It was Mr Mandela's first statement since Zimbabwe's 29 March elections, which triggered a wave of "electoral cleansing" by Robert Mugabe's supporters after he came a humiliating second in the presidential contest against his opposition challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change.

Mr Mandela made it clear in 2004 that he would no longer intervene publicly in politics. But his words will be an embarrassment for the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, whose mediation efforts on Zimbabwe have been criticised by the chairman of southern Africa's regional bloc and by Mr Tsvangirai.

The dinner, attended by Gordon Brown and a host of celebrities, was part of a week-long series of events in London marking Mr Mandela's 90th birthday, which culminates with a concert tomorrow.

His words were seen as hugely important because of the influence of the former political prisoner as the world's moral conscience, and came as African leaders became the latest to urge Mr Mugabe to call off the run-off vote scheduled for tomorrow. Mr Tsvangirai withdrew on Sunday from the election. [....]

A spokesman for Mr Mandela said: "He had to wait until the United Nations had finished and until it was clear that Mugabe was going to go ahead with this election."

The UN Security Council issued an unprecedented statement on Monday about Zimbabwe, agreed by all 15 members, including South Africa, which had resisted UN discussions. The council condemned the "campaign of violence" and the restrictions on the opposition, which it said made a "free and fair election" impossible tomorrow.

Then yesterday, an emergency mini-summit of Zimbabwe's neighbours in Swaziland issued a call for the election to be postponed, saying that conditions were not conducive for a fair poll. The meeting comprised the leaders of Tanzania, Angola and Swaziland – in their capacity as the Southern African Development Community's troika organ on politics, defence and security – who have themselves turned on the Zimbabwean President. They said they had invited Mr Mbeki, who did not attend, but he was briefed about the outcome of the meeting. [....]

--Jeff Weintraub

UN Security Council unanimously condemns the pseudo-election in Zimbabwe

This is only a non-binding resolution, and by itself it makes nothing happen. Nevertheless, the fact that it could be adopted at all (and that the South African government, which currently has a seat on the Security Council, felt compelled to accept it) may signal that a certain line has been crossed.

The UN security council last night warned Robert Mugabe that a free and fair election in Zimbabwe was "impossible", after the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai quit the presidential race and sought refuge in the Dutch embassy in Harare amid escalating violence.

As Mugabe's forces kept up their assault on the opposition, raiding the opposition Movement for Democratic Change's HQ and hauling away scores of people sheltering from abductions, beatings and worse, the security council unanimously adopted a statement condemning the government's "campaign of violence" that had "denied its political opponents the right to campaign freely".

It was the security council's first formal action on the crisis. South Africa, Mugabe's strongest regional backer, had hitherto blocked UN involvement in the crisis, but it agreed to the statement, a move described as significant by British diplomats.

An article in the Montreal Gazette ("UN declares fair Zimbabwe vote 'impossible'") elaborated a bit on that last point:

The government said Tsvangirai's withdrawal came too late to call off the election, but at the United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that going ahead in the current climate would only "produce a result that cannot be credible," and urged its postponement.

Ban spoke shortly before the 15-member UN Security Council unanimously declared on that the violence and restrictions on Zimbabwe's opposition made a free and fair run-off election was "impossible."

While the non-binding statement marked the Council's first formal action on the crisis, Zimbabwe said it will make no difference, and the run-off will go ahead as planned.

Council members had haggled over the wording for much of the afternoon.

Against strong opposition from South Africa, the United States and Britain drafted a statement that effectively called for Tsvangirai to be declared president if violence continued to render the run-off a sham.

The legitimacy of the move would be based on the declared results of first round of the presidential election.

"Until there is a clearly free and fair second round of the presidential election, the only legitimate basis for a government of Zimbabwe is the outcome of the (March 29, 2008) election," the draft statement said. [....]

At the UN, Ban avoided aligning himself with the U.S.-British call for the March 29 vote to be declared a basis for the effective conditional transfer of power to Tsvangirai.

Though he said he was "distressed" by the level of violence in the country, and that he understood Tsvangirai's decision to withdraw from Friday's ballot, he added he preferred to wait for the finding of all 15 members of the Security Council on the issue.

But Ban also spoke out against a movement - led by South Africa inside the Security Council - that is arguing the Zimbabwe crisis is principally an internal matter that the council, whose mandate is to consider events that threaten international peace and stability, should leave off its agenda.

"What happens in Zimbabwe has importance well beyond that country's borders," he said. "The region's political and economic security are at stake, as is the very institution of elections in Africa."

Meanwhile:

But the ruling Zanu-PF said the election would go ahead regardless despite Tsvangirai's withdrawal, while Mugabe repeated threats to pursue his opponents after the ballot. He warned he held the MDC responsible for the violence, and said the government would pursue those it regarded as responsible for the country's economic collapse, including white businessmen.

"Sooner or later we are going to accuse the MDC leadership of being vicariously responsible for the violence," he said. [....]

Earlier, Gordon Brown told parliament that governments should not recognise an election rigged "by a criminal and discredited cabal". The US said that without a fair election a Mugabe victory on Friday could not be seen as legitimate. The African Union said Tsvangirai's withdrawal from the race and the violence was a "matter of grave concern" although the organisation fell short of attributing responsibility to Zanu-PF.

The condemnations did little to curb the violence. Many of the people taken away from the MDC's headquarters by armed police in riot gear were women and children, families of MDC activists and officials, such as councillors. The police said people were removed from the offices in Harare for "health reasons". [....]

The Southern African Development Community election monitors are also privately saying that there is no way they will be able to endorse the election as legitimate, and they blame Mugabe. But it remains to be seen whether they will voice such criticism in public.

--Jeff Weintraub
=========================
The Guardian (London)
Tuesday June 24, 2008
Zimbabwe: more beatings, more abductions as the world watches
· UN security council says free and fair election impossible
· Opposition leader Tsvangirai seeks shelter in embassy
· Armed police take families away from opposition's HQ
Chris McGreal in Harare and Julian Borger, diplomatic editor

[Click HERE for video & audio supplements.]

The UN security council last night warned Robert Mugabe that a free and fair election in Zimbabwe was "impossible", after the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai quit the presidential race and sought refuge in the Dutch embassy in Harare amid escalating violence.

As Mugabe's forces kept up their assault on the opposition, raiding the opposition Movement for Democratic Change's HQ and hauling away scores of people sheltering from abductions, beatings and worse, the security council unanimously adopted a statement condemning the government's "campaign of violence" that had "denied its political opponents the right to campaign freely".

It was the security council's first formal action on the crisis. South Africa, Mugabe's strongest regional backer, had hitherto blocked UN involvement in the crisis, but it agreed to the statement, a move described as significant by British diplomats. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said earlier that proceeding with Friday's run-off ballot "will only deepen divisions within the country and produce a result that cannot be credible".

But the ruling Zanu-PF said the election would go ahead regardless despite Tsvangirai's withdrawal, while Mugabe repeated threats to pursue his opponents after the ballot. He warned he held the MDC responsible for the violence, and said the government would pursue those it regarded as responsible for the country's economic collapse, including white businessmen.

"Sooner or later we are going to accuse the MDC leadership of being vicariously responsible for the violence," he said.

Tsvangirai won the first round of elections in March, but withdrew from the run-off saying he could not ask people to die voting for him. His move has intensified foreign criticism of Mugabe.

Earlier, Gordon Brown told parliament that governments should not recognise an election rigged "by a criminal and discredited cabal". The US said that without a fair election a Mugabe victory on Friday could not be seen as legitimate. The African Union said Tsvangirai's withdrawal from the race and the violence was a "matter of grave concern" although the organisation fell short of attributing responsibility to Zanu-PF.

The condemnations did little to curb the violence. Many of the people taken away from the MDC's headquarters by armed police in riot gear were women and children, families of MDC activists and officials, such as councillors. The police said people were removed from the offices in Harare for "health reasons".

Violence proliferated elsewhere. The MDC said one of its MPs, Thamsanqa Mahlangu, was critically ill in hospital after being attacked by Zanu-PF on his way to a rally in Harare on Sunday. The rally was to be addressed by Tsvangirai, but was called off after thousands of armed Zanu-PF supporters occupied the venue and attacked people.

Last night, Lord Ashdown said military intervention could be necessary if the situation worsened. Zimbabwe, he told the Times, "could deteriorate to a point where genocide could be a possible outcome - something that looks like Rwanda".

Tsvangirai fled to the Dutch embassy within hours of withdrawing from the presidential race on Sunday. MDC sources said there was concern the government would arrest him or target him for assassination.

Until Tsvangirai pulled out, he was afforded a degree of protection as a presidential candidate. Zanu-PF attacked or arrested many other senior MDC officials, including the secretary general, Tendai Biti, in jail on trumped-up treason charges. But Zanu-PF needed to allow Tsvangirai to remain free, even if it detained him for brief periods to wreck his political rallies, to maintain the illusion of a fair election.

The Dutch embassy is one of the few in Harare which offers relative neutrality. Tsvangirai could not go to the British or US missions because it would be used by Zanu-PF to reinforce the claim that he is a tool of the "imperialists". Diplomats said that the South Africans and most African embassies would not want him; neither would the Chinese.

Zanu-PF said the presidential election would go ahead. The justice minister, Patrick Chinamasa, described Tsvangirai's withdrawal as an attempt to "hoodwink" Mugabe's supporters.

"Zanu-PF is not treating the threats seriously; it is a nullity. We are proceeding with our campaign to romp to victory on Friday," he said.

"Tsvangirai went into the election thinking that it was a sprint, and was not prepared for a marathon and wants to avoid defeat. He spent his time globe-trotting and gallivanting in Europe and left MDC supporters without leadership.

"Zanu-PF exploited the opportunity and campaigned vigorously for victory. When [Tsvangirai] returned, he realised that the tables had turned against him." The Zimbabwe government continues to blame the MDC for the violence. "The MDC and its western masters are waging a war on us, and we have been forced to adopt a defensive position to safeguard our political independence and national sovereignty," Chinamasa said.

Tsvangirai told South African radio yesterday that he was still prepared to negotiate a political solution with the government, but first there must be peace. He said: "We are prepared to negotiate with Zanu-PF, but of course it is important that certain principles must be accepted before the negotiation takes place. For instance, one of the preconditions is that the violence against the people must stop."

The MDC has said it is prepared to share power but that- as Tsvangirai won the first round of elections, and the party forced Zanu-PF into opposition in parliament for the first time since independence in 1980 - Mugabe must relinquish office. His ally, President Eduardo dos Santos of Angola, urged the Zimbabwean leader to end "all acts of intimidation and violence".

The Southern African Development Community election monitors are also privately saying that there is no way they will be able to endorse the election as legitimate, and they blame Mugabe. But it remains to be seen whether they will voice such criticism in public.

Zimbabwe crisis update

=> This Associated Press article doesn't have any new information, but it does provide a clear & concise round-up of the political situation right now, both within Zimbabwe and internationally:
"Zimbabwe Opposition Leader Pulls Out Of Election Due To Mounting Violence, Intimidation Against Supporters"

=> And an article from yesterday's New York Times brings home vividly why opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai finally concluded that enough was enough:
"Assassins in Zimbabwe Aim at the Grass Roots"

=> With respect to the changing international context, what is most striking is that even among other African governments and political figures, the taboo against publicly criticizing Mugabe and his regime is breaking down. Some people still buy the propaganda line that there is something "anti-imperialist" about Mugabe's tyrannical, destructive, and increasingly violent rule--yes, such people do still exist--but they no longer dominate public discussion. Here are some relevant highlights from the AP article:

Mugabe has shrugged off mounting international condemnation. But never before has he faced such criticism from other African leaders who now openly say Mugabe is an embarrassment.

Even one of Mugabe's staunchest allies, Angolan President Eduardo dos Santos, urged him to end "all acts of intimidation and violence," while current African Union chair Tanzania said it doubted the elections would be free and fair. The leaders of Rwanda and Kenya--which have both suffered deadly political violence--have been especially scathing.

Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa said Sunday that the runoff must be postponed. Mwanawasa, who currently holds the rotating chair of the Southern African Development Community and has long been among Mugabe's most outspoken critics in the region, said Zimbabwe had failed to meet minimum election standards.

He voiced particular frustration that he had been unable to reach South African President Thabo Mbeki, the region's designated mediator in the Zimbabwe crisis, and criticized Mbeki for not sharing information.

Mbeki is increasingly isolated both abroad at at home for his appeasement of Mugabe and his refusal to flex South Africa's economic muscle against his neighbor.

Within South Africa, incidentally, one major factor is that Zimbabwe's democratic opposition has been solidly supported by the politically influential Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)--which is not entirely surprising, the Movement for Democratic Change has strong roots in Zimbabwe's union movement and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, was formerly the head of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU).

But isolated or not, Mbeki still plays a crucial blocking role in preventing any constructive action by South Africa and other countries in the region, as well as by the UN. His continued support for Mugabe may seem almost inexplicable, and it is certainly indefensible. But in terms of the internal dynamics of South African politics, and of the ruling African National Congress in particular, Mbeki's growing isolation on the issue of Zimbabwe may actually help to reinforce his intransigence.

As for the rest of the world:

The European Union on Friday threatened to step up sanctions against Mugabe's government, and the United States and Britain want a special U.N. Security Council meeting.

"The government of Zimbabwe has failed to put in place the conditions necessary for free and fair run-off elections," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in an unusually blunt statement. "The campaign of violence and intimidation that has marred this election has done a great disservice to the people of the country and must end immediately."

From a realistic perspective, Ban Ki-Moon's statement is actually euphemistic and blandly understated. But coming from a UN Secretary-General, this really is "unusually blunt."

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also voiced sympathy for the opposition decision.

"It's evident Morgan Tsvangirai was left with no choice as he wanted to preserve the life and limb of his people," Miliband told the British Broadcasting Corp. "What's clear is that his (Mugabe's) rule has no legitimacy."

Facing reality and telling the truth about it is often a good first step. But will this growing wave of international condemnation of Mugabe and his regime actually produce any useful concrete results--especially since the South African government, which is the key player in the region, continues to equivocate? It's hard to feel optimistic.

=> Meanwhile, the latest report is that Morgan Tsvangirai has sought refuge in the Dutch Embassy in Harare.

--Jeff Weintraub

Zimbabwean opposition pulls out of the run-off election

The Movement for Democratic change has declared that it will no longer participate in a rigged election process marked by an escalating campaign of repression, violence, and intimidation:

Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai says he is pulling out of Friday's presidential run-off, handing victory to President Robert Mugabe.

Mr Tsvangirai said there was no point running when elections would not be free and fair and "the outcome is determined by... Mugabe himself". [....]

The opposition decision came after its supporters, heading to a rally in the capital Harare, came under attack.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change says at least 70 supporters have been killed and 200,000 forced from their homes by ruling party militias.

At a press conference in Harare on Sunday, Mr Tsvangirai said: "We in the MDC cannot ask them to cast their vote on 27 June, when that vote could cost them their lives."

"We have resolved that we will no longer participate in this violent, illegitimate sham of an election process."

"We will not play the game of Mugabe," he added. [....]

The MDC says Mr Tsvangirai won the presidential election outright during the first round in March.

The government admits he won more votes than President Mugabe, but says he did not take enough to win outright.

But in recent weeks, as the run-off approached, the MDC said it had found campaigning near impossible.

Its members have been beaten, and its supporters evicted from their homes, forcing it to campaign in near secrecy.

Mr Tsvangirai was arrested several times, and the party's secretary general, Tendai Biti, has been held and charged with treason.

The BBC's Peter Biles, in Johannesburg, says Mr Mugabe has made clear he will never relinquish power, saying only God could remove him. [....]

Under the circumstances, which are pretty terrible, this may have been the MDC's only viable option, especially since the alternative might have been a real bloodbath.

The results of this action will depend in part on international reaction, especially from other governments in the region.

Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the BBC: "Robert Mugabe has certainly not won the election, in fact the only people who can claim that are the opposition," which won the parliamentary vote in March. [....]

BBC Africa analyst Martin Plaut says the key question now is what Thabo Mbeki, president of Zimbabwe's powerful neighbour South Africa, will do.

He is in the best position to step up the pressure on Mr Mugabe, since Zimbabwe is so economically dependent on South Africa, our analyst says.

South Africa immediately responded to the news by calling on the MDC to continue talks to try to find a political solution. [....]

But Levy Mwanawasa, president of neighbouring Zambia, said the run-off should be postponed "to avert a catastrophe in the region".

He said Zimbabwe's economic collapse was affecting the whole region, and he called on SADC to take a similar stance.

"It's scandalous for SADC to remain silent on Zimbabwe," he said.

"What is happening in Zimbabwe is embarrassing to all of us."

True. Now we all have to wait and see what happens next.

--Jeff Weintraub
=========================
BBC News
Sunday, 22 June 2008 - 18:10 UK
Mugabe rival quits election race

Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai says he is pulling out of Friday's presidential run-off, handing victory to President Robert Mugabe.

Mr Tsvangirai said there was no point running when elections would not be free and fair and "the outcome is determined by... Mugabe himself".

He called on the global community to step in to prevent "genocide".

But the ruling Zanu-PF said Mr Tsvangirai had taken the decision to avoid "humiliation" in the poll.

The opposition decision came after its supporters, heading to a rally in the capital Harare, came under attack.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change says at least 70 supporters have been killed and 200,000 forced from their homes by ruling party militias.

At a press conference in Harare on Sunday, Mr Tsvangirai said: "We in the MDC cannot ask them to cast their vote on 27 June, when that vote could cost them their lives."

"We have resolved that we will no longer participate in this violent, illegitimate sham of an election process."

"We will not play the game of Mugabe," he added.

He called on the United Nations, African Union and the southern African grouping SADC to intervene to prevent a "genocide" in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe's Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu told the BBC that Mr Tsvangirai pulled out the vote because he faced "humiliation and defeat" at the hands of President Mugabe, who he said would win "resoundingly".

"Unfortunately," he said, the opposition leader's decision was "depriving the people of Zimbabwe of a vote".

Rally blocked

BBC Africa analyst Martin Plaut says the key question now is what Thabo Mbeki, president of Zimbabwe's powerful neighbour South Africa, will do.

He is in the best position to step up the pressure on Mr Mugabe, since Zimbabwe is so economically dependent on South Africa, our analyst says.

South Africa immediately responded to the news by calling on the MDC to continue talks to try to find a political solution.

"We are very encouraged that Mr Tsvangirai, himself, says he is not closing the door completely on negotiations," said a spokesman for Mr Mbeki.

On Sunday, the MDC was due to stage a rally in Harare - the highlight of the campaign.

But supporters of Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF occupied the stadium venue and roads leading up to it.

Witnesses reported seeing hundreds of youths around the venue wielding sticks, some chanting slogans, and others circling the stadium crammed onto the backs of trucks.

Some set upon opposition activists, leaving a number badly injured, the MDC said.

It said African election monitors were also chased away from the rally site.

The United States reacted to Sunday's developments by saying: "The government of Zimbabwe and its thugs must stop the violence now."

Beatings and arrests

The MDC says Mr Tsvangirai won the presidential election outright during the first round in March.

The government admits he won more votes than President Mugabe, but says he did not take enough to win outright.

But in recent weeks, as the run-off approached, the MDC said it had found campaigning near impossible.

Its members have been beaten, and its supporters evicted from their homes, forcing it to campaign in near secrecy.

Mr Tsvangirai was arrested several times, and the party's secretary general, Tendai Biti, has been held and charged with treason.

The BBC's Peter Biles, in Johannesburg, says Mr Mugabe has made clear he will never relinquish power, saying only God could remove him.

While Mr Tsvangirai's move will hand victory to Mr Mugabe, it is unclear whether the international community or election observers will confer any legitimacy on the process, our correspondent says.

Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the BBC: "Robert Mugabe has certainly not won the election, in fact the only people who can claim that are the opposition," which won the parliamentary vote in March.

Zimbabwean ministers said the run-off vote would go ahead, unless Mr Tsvangirai submitted a formal letter of withdrawal.

But Levy Mwanawasa, president of neighbouring Zambia, said the run-off should be postponed "to avert a catastrophe in the region".

He said Zimbabwe's economic collapse was affecting the whole region, and he called on SADC to take a similar stance.

"It's scandalous for SADC to remain silent on Zimbabwe," he said.

"What is happening in Zimbabwe is embarrassing to all of us."

"Then They Came for the Bahai" (Roya Hakakian)

The Iranian-American journalist and author Roya Hakakian (whose moving and illuminating memoir of growing up Jewish in revolutionary Iran, Journey from the Land of No, is well worth reading) sounds the alarm about the increasing persecution of the Baha'i community in Iran.

Ever since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Baha'i have faced especially harsh persecution from the Islamic regime, which does not consider the Baha'i faith a legitimate religion. Lately, under Ahmadinejad, this persecution has intensified. Hakakian worries that this repressive campaign may be escalating into a systematic effort to destroy the Iranian Baha'i community, not just to harass and oppress it.

As Hakakian points out, a contrast with the position of Iranian Jews is instructive. The Iranian Jewish community, which numbered about 150,000 in 1948, has shrunk dramatically over the past six decades, and especially since 1979. Most estimates now place the numbers of Jews in Iran between 10,000 and 20,000. But this is still dramatically larger than any remaining Jewish community in the Arab world, from which Jews have almost completely disappeared since 1948. The Iranian Jews survive as a precarious but formally recognized and tolerated subordinate community. The treatment of the Baha'i is more actively hostile.

In a 1979 meeting with five of the Iranian Jewish community leaders, Khomeini summarized his position on the local Jews in one of his quintessentially coarse one-liners: "We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless Zionists." The line has served as the regime’s position on the Jewish minority ever since. So important were these words that they were painted on the walls of nearly every synagogue and Jewish establishment the day after the ayatollah spoke them.

It did not prevent Jews from being relegated to second-class citizenry, nor did it enable them to thrive in post-revolutionary Iran. But it recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish existence in Iran and allowed the community to live on, albeit extremely restrictedly.

But it is the Bahai community that has been suffering the bleak fate assumed to be that of the Jews. It is the Bahais who are not recognized by the Iranian constitution. Decades ago, Khomeini branded them, among other unsavory terms, a political sect and not a religion, circuitously defining them as plotters against the regime. Iranian Bahais have been accused of espionage for every major power save the Chinese, and simultaneously so. They are not allowed to worship. Their properties are vandalized. Even their dead know no peace, as their cemeteries are systematically destroyed.

Their children cannot attend schools, nor can Bahai academics teach. That is why in 1987, unemployed professors, in an act reminiscent of the Middle Ages, established underground universities to educate the Bahai youth.

Last month, six Bahai leaders were arrested. They had already been accustomed to routine weekly harassments and interrogations, which is why some of their wives have taken up sewing blindfolds to keep the guards from forcing dirty ones onto their husbands’ eyes. What is most alarming about this particular arrest is that they have not returned home and are being kept incommunicado.

What compels me to write these lines is the eerie similarity between this and another historical parallel to which I have been a witness.

In 1979-1981, while the world's attention was fixed on the crisis surrounding the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran and the holding of US hostages, the Khomeinist regime used the opportunity to crush its domestic opposition.

Newspapers were shut down. Political parties were banned. Opposition group members were arrested and their leaders hauled off to stand before firing squads.

When it was all said and done, the hostages, despite their great suffering during 444 days of captivity, eventually returned home. But the secular opposition of the regime was practically obliterated, and in perfect silence, too, as all attention was focused on the news from the embassy.

The current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken a page from Khomeini’s book. He rails against Israel. He denies the Holocaust. Through these means he focuses all attention on Jews, and while the world remains perfectly oblivious his men assault the Bahais.

Though Ahmadinejad’s intentions against Israel are gravely alarming, in immediate terms, the community that is paying the most for his pan-Islamist ambitions is the Bahai. Since Ahmadinejad’s election to presidency, there has been a sharp rise in anti-Bahai literature in government-sponsored journals, which has, in turn, led to a rise in gang attacks against the community. [....]

And here is the crucial punch-line:

But for those in the West — especially for Jews, who know the lessons of World War II — the plight of the Iranian Bahais is most urgent: It is an act of destruction, not simply promised, but already underway.

=> The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, of which Roya Hakakian is one of the founding members, has compiled two systematic reports on the persecution of the Bahai in Iran: A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran and Community Under Siege: The Ordeal of the Baha’is of Shiraz.

--Jeff Weintraub
==============================
The Forward
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Then They Came for the Bahai
By Roya Hakakian

If one must master the knowledge that even bigotry is relative and comes in gradations, then I was a premature pupil. I learned this lesson when I was only 10.

In 1977, in an eclectic neighborhood in Tehran, my Jewish family lived on a narrow, wooded alley in what was then an upscale area, alongside two other Jewish families and many more Muslims. There was also a Bahai family, the Alavis, next door.

By then, I had already intuited that my relatives, in the presence of Muslim friends and neighbors, were somehow less flamboyant creatures, quieter and more measured. But the Alavis, debonair and highly educated, were mere ghosts.

Theirs was a corner house on the alley, one of the most beautiful in the neighborhood, and the first to be sold within days in 1979, after the return of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini. In a neighborhood so closely-knit that even the mailman dispensed pearls of pedagogical wisdom to our parents, the Alavis simply vanished one day.

No chance for tears, or promises to keep in touch. Not even a forwarding address. My mother insists they said goodbye to her, but my mother considers inventing happy endings a maternal virtue.

American audiences, their eyes brimming with anxiety, often ask me about the condition of Jews living in Iran today. But the hardships they assume to be the burden of the Iranian Jews is really the daily experience of the Bahais.

In a 1979 meeting with five of the Iranian Jewish community leaders, Khomeini summarized his position on the local Jews in one of his quintessentially coarse one-liners: "We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless Zionists." The line has served as the regime’s position on the Jewish minority ever since. So important were these words that they were painted on the walls of nearly every synagogue and Jewish establishment the day after the ayatollah spoke them.

It did not prevent Jews from being relegated to second-class citizenry, nor did it enable them to thrive in post-revolutionary Iran. But it recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish existence in Iran and allowed the community to live on, albeit extremely restrictedly.

But it is the Bahai community that has been suffering the bleak fate assumed to be that of the Jews. It is the Bahais who are not recognized by the Iranian constitution. Decades ago, Khomeini branded them, among other unsavory terms, a political sect and not a religion, circuitously defining them as plotters against the regime. Iranian Bahais have been accused of espionage for every major power save the Chinese, and simultaneously so. They are not allowed to worship. Their properties are vandalized. Even their dead know no peace, as their cemeteries are systematically destroyed.

Their children cannot attend schools, nor can Bahai academics teach. That is why in 1987, unemployed professors, in an act reminiscent of the Middle Ages, established underground universities to educate the Bahai youth.

Last month, six Bahai leaders were arrested. They had already been accustomed to routine weekly harassments and interrogations, which is why some of their wives have taken up sewing blindfolds to keep the guards from forcing dirty ones onto their husbands’ eyes. What is most alarming about this particular arrest is that they have not returned home and are being kept incommunicado.

What compels me to write these lines is the eerie similarity between this and another historical parallel to which I have been a witness. When the American embassy was seized in Tehran in November 1979, the world took the ayatollah at his word for the egregious act he vehemently supported — that it was solely against America. But for those living in Iran, the hostage taking turned out to be about everything but America.

Newspapers were shut down. Political parties were banned. Opposition group members were arrested and their leaders hauled off to stand before firing squads.

When it was all said and done, the hostages, despite their great suffering during 444 days of captivity, eventually returned home. But the secular opposition of the regime was practically obliterated, and in perfect silence, too, as all attention was focused on the news from the embassy.

The current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken a page from Khomeini’s book. He rails against Israel. He denies the Holocaust. Through these means he focuses all attention on Jews, and while the world remains perfectly oblivious his men assault the Bahais.

Though Ahmadinejad’s intentions against Israel are gravely alarming, in immediate terms, the community that is paying the most for his pan-Islamist ambitions is the Bahai. Since Ahmadinejad’s election to presidency, there has been a sharp rise in anti-Bahai literature in government-sponsored journals, which has, in turn, led to a rise in gang attacks against the community.

That the Bahais shy away, per religious mandate, from advocacy on their own behalf surrounds their predicament with even greater silence. But for those in the West — especially for Jews, who know the lessons of World War II — the plight of the Iranian Bahais is most urgent: It is an act of destruction, not simply promised, but already underway.

Roya Hakakian, the author of Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran (Crown, 2004), is a recipient of a 2008 Guggenheim fellowship.

Facing reality or "Blaming others"? (Farooq Sulehria)

I was alerted by Martin in the Margins to a piece worth reading in Pakistan's The News by Farooq Sulehria, who is described elsewhere as:

a prominent radical journalist and a leading member of Labour Party Pakistan. He is the author of the LPP’s booklet, ’Rise of Political Islam’, and translator into Urdu of ’Clash of Fundamentalisms’ by Tariq Ali.

(The "radical" tag there means "democratic left-wing radical"--the LPP appears to be affiliated with the Fourth International--not "radical Islamist" or "reflexive apologist for murderous dictatorships and theocratic fanatics, as long as they are anti-western and/or anti-Israel". I notice that Sulehria has also published in the usually loathsome toxic-left CounterPunch, many of whose contributors fit that last criterion nicely, so he is clearly not sectarian in temperament.)

Sulehria uses the occasion of Amnesty International's annual Human Rights Report to suggest that the Islamic world might benefit from a little honest self-criticism, as opposed to either ignoring its problems or blaming them all on outsiders. Yes, I know that sounds provocative, perhaps even "radical".

His piece is worth reading in full, but here are some highlights:

The Amnesty International report on human rights for the year 2007 is out. The Muslim world constitutes, as usual, bleakest chapter. Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. [....] And executions? Well, 335 in Iran, 158 in Saudi Arabia and 135 in Pakistan. Violation of human rights, it seems, is the only thing that unites the otherwise divided Muslim world. [....]

The report is no exception. The Muslim world cuts a sorry figure every time a global watchdog releases its findings. Freedom of expression here remains curtailed, Reporters Sans Frontieres annually reports. [....]

Similarly, it is either Bangladesh or Pakistan or Nigeria which is on top of Transparency International's corruption indexes. However, when Nobel laureates gather in Stockholm every December, Muslim scientists and writers are conspicuous by their absence. In case, as Naguib Mahfouz is crowned, he is stabbed and rendered paralysed. The irony, or tragedy, is that his attacker had not even read his excellent books. Or we disown Dr Abdul Salam just because he belonged to the Ahmadiya community. Salam's case deserves special mention since it underlines the absurdity that characterises this part of the world.

When all else fails, "Jews" and "Christian" West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. [....] True, imperialism and Zionism have a hand in our predicament. However, there are many wounds one can only describe as self-inflicted. [....]

Take, for instance, the Iran-Iraq war, one of the last century's bloodiest conflicts. There is no denying the fact that the United States backed the Saddam regime. But it was the Arab sheikhdoms, panicked at the Iranian revolution, that stoked the flames of war. And, ironically, now in the post-Saddam era when the "Christian" West has written off Iraq's Saddam-era debt worth $66 billion, Iraq's Arab brothers refuse to write off that country's $67 billion loans.

Similarly, last century's bloodiest Muslim genocide was not carried out by Serbs, Israelis, Americans, Europeans or Hindus. It was Pakistan's military that refused to respect a democratic verdict and plunged East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, into an ocean of blood. Millions were killed, maimed, raped and rendered homeless. Luckily, Pakistan has a "Hindu" neighbour. "Hindus are born enemies of Islam'. Hence, Pakistani children are now taught that a Bengali traitor (revered by Bengalis as founder of Bangladesh), in connivance with our "Hindu" neighbour, dismembered Pakistan. [....] The other big genocide was perpetrated by Indonesia. The target was: its own citizens who were members of the Communist Party.

Figures are not available but Israel perhaps cannot match Iran in executing Arabs. Iran's confessional regime is a champion of the Arab cause in Occupied Territories but Arabs of its Khuzestan province are regularly sent to the gallows. [....] And, by the way in the fallen "Emirate of Afghanistan" itself, Hazaras were slaughtered by the Taliban in their thousands almost a decade ago – mainly because Hazaras are Shia. In Iraq, more people have been killed in Shia-Sunni clashes than in resisting the US occupation. [JW: Many, many more.] Shia-Sunni clashes in Pakistan have claimed more lives than those lost in its wars against India. [....]

The list is long. Indeed, unending. However, the solution to all our problems is always simple: return to an imagined past which, mercifully for the people of the seventh century, never existed. [....] We kill Theo van Gogh when confronted with a film. We burn down our own cities in response to a blasphemous and racist caricature. Still, we refuse to understand that our answer to every "provocation" is either a fatwa or mindless violence – perhaps because creativity is anathema to us. Not because we lack fertile minds, but because we lack liberation and freedom -- liberation from self-imposed mental, moral, and cultural censors. And freedom to think and express. [....]

Yes, I know that Sulehria has failed to grasp the central fact that all these problems of the Islamic world are (somehow) the fault of Israel and "Zionism." But maybe there is a grain of truth in his analysis nevertheless?

--Jeff Weintraub
==============================
The News (Pakistan)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Blaming others
Farooq Sulehria

The Amnesty International report on human rights for the year 2007 is out. The Muslim world constitutes, as usual, bleakest chapter. Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. Punishments never handed down even during the Stone Age, have been awarded in 21st century Muslim world. In one case, two Saudi nationals were awarded 7,000 lashes. Yes, 7,000. And executions? Well, 335 in Iran, 158 in Saudi Arabia and 135 in Pakistan. Violation of human rights, it seems, is the only thing that unites the otherwise divided Muslim world.

The report is no exception. The Muslim world cuts a sorry figure every time a global watchdog releases its findings. Freedom of expression here remains curtailed, Reporters Sans Frontieres annually reports. Regarding freedom of expression, there is a joke often told in Arab world. At a meeting, a US journalist says: "We have complete freedom of expression in the US. We can criticise the US president as much as we like." The Arab journalist replies. "We also have complete freedom of expression in Arab world. We can also criticise the US president as much as we like."

Similarly, it is either Bangladesh or Pakistan or Nigeria which is on top of Transparency International's corruption indexes. However, when Nobel laureates gather in Stockholm every December, Muslim scientists and writers are conspicuous by their absence. In case, as Naguib Mahfouz is crowned, he is stabbed and rendered paralysed. The irony, or tragedy, is that his attacker had not even read his excellent books. Or we disown Dr Abdul Salam just because he belonged to the Ahmadiya community. Salam's case deserves special mention since it underlines the absurdity that characterises this part of the world.

When all else fails, "Jews" and "Christian" West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world. And every time a rights abuse is highlighted in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, a typical Muslim answer is: Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya. True, imperialism and Zionism have a hand in our predicament. However, there are many wounds one can only describe as self-inflicted.

Take, for instance, the Iran-Iraq war, one of the last century's bloodiest conflicts. There is no denying the fact that the United States backed the Saddam regime. But it was the Arab sheikhdoms, panicked at the Iranian revolution, that stoked the flames of war. And, ironically, now in the post-Saddam era when the "Christian" West has written off Iraq's Saddam-era debt worth $66 billion, Iraq's Arab brothers refuse to write off that country's $67 billion loans.

Similarly, last century's bloodiest Muslim genocide was not carried out by Serbs, Israelis, Americans, Europeans or Hindus. It was Pakistan's military that refused to respect a democratic verdict and plunged East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, into an ocean of blood. Millions were killed, maimed, raped and rendered homeless. Luckily, Pakistan has a "Hindu" neighbour. "Hindus are born enemies of Islam'. Hence, Pakistani children are now taught that a Bengali traitor (revered by Bengalis as founder of Bangladesh), in connivance with our "Hindu" neighbour, dismembered Pakistan. Ironically, of all her South Asian neighbours, Pakistan enjoys most cordial relations with the world's only Hindu state, Nepal. The other big genocide was perpetrated by Indonesia. The target was: its own citizens who were members of the Communist Party.

Figures are not available but Israel perhaps cannot match Iran in executing Arabs. Iran's confessional regime is a champion of the Arab cause in Occupied Territories but Arabs of its Khuzestan province are regularly sent to the gallows. Seizing the opportunity, one may also point out how only recently Afghan refugees were driven out of Iran as if Afghan refugees were not as Muslim as Palestinians. And, by the way in the fallen "Emirate of Afghanistan" itself, Hazaras were slaughtered by the Taliban in their thousands almost a decade ago – mainly because Hazaras are Shia. In Iraq, more people have been killed in Shia-Sunni clashes than in resisting the US occupation. Shia-Sunni clashes in Pakistan have claimed more lives than those lost in its wars against India. Ironically, this only "nuclear power" of the Muslim world is not being occupied on its eastern front by its "Hindu" neighbour but is losing territory on its western front to its own citizens.

One can mention from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the recent Hamas-Fatah infighting (a shameful tribute to Israel on its 60th anniversary). The list is long. Indeed, unending. However, the solution to all our problems is always simple: return to an imagined past which, mercifully for the people of the seventh century, never existed. Every time, a scientist in the West is ready with an invention, our readymade answer is: we knew about it 1,400 years ago what the West has found only now. We kill Theo van Gogh when confronted with a film. We burn down our own cities in response to a blasphemous and racist caricature. Still, we refuse to understand that our answer to every "provocation" is either a fatwa or mindless violence – perhaps because creativity is anathema to us. Not because we lack fertile minds, but because we lack liberation and freedom -- liberation from self-imposed mental, moral, and cultural censors. And freedom to think and express. Time to heed the great Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani, who said:

Five thousand years
Growing beards
In our caves.
Our currency is unknown,
Our eyes are a haven for flies.
Friends,
Smash the doors,
Wash your brains,
Wash your clothes.
Friends,
Read a book,
Write a book,
Grow words, pomegranates and grapes,
Sail to the country of fog and snow.
Nobody knows you exist in caves.
People take you for a breed of mongrels.

The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com

Let's face the truth about Zimbabwe (Norman Geras)

Another important African political figure who has publicly criticized Robert Mugabe's tyrannical and increasingly murderous rule in Zimbabwe (along with these) has been Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga. African heads of government don't normally criticize each other for such peccadillos, but Odinga's attitude may not be entirely surprising, since he has his own reasons to be upset about stolen elections.

Odinga is no angel himself, but most informed observers agree that he did actually win the Kenyan election for President in December 2007, before the results were rigged to keep incumbent President Mwai Kibaki in power. This touched off several months of terrifying inter-ethnic violence that was eventually calmed down by a political deal in which Kibaki remained President, with reduced powers, while Odinga became Prime Minister.

That background may help explain why Odinga has been willing to talk turkey about Zimbabwe, most recently in a speech on Tuesday:

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga’s critical remarks about Zimbabwe have reverberated through a speech he delivered Tuesday at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) during his first official visit to the United States. Describing the southern African country as an eyesore and an embarrassment to the African continent, Odinga called for President Robert Mugabe to resign if he fails to win Zimbabwe’s June 27 presidential run-off election. He criticized the silence of some African leaders, who he said have failed to speak out about election irregularities in Zimbabwe. The Kenyan prime minister also urged South African President Thabo Mbeki and other regional leaders of the Southern African Community (SADC) to get international monitors on the ground in time to curb election fraud in Zimbabwe’s presidential run-off.

Given everything, talk like this from the Prime Minister of an important African country is commendable and refreshingly honest. But as Norman Geras correctly points out (below), the truth is that even Odinga's formulations were unrealistically diplomatic. After everything that has already occurred, "whatever should happen between now and the actual voting," there is no longer any chance that a "victory" by Mugabe in the June 27 run-off election could possibly deserve to be considered legitimate.

But, in any case, held so soon after a wave of government-sponsored terror has swept across the country, this election is already long past the point where any impartial election observer could call it a free or fair one. Perhaps the various spokespeople feel restrained from saying it outright by the worry that to do so would invalidate the result should Morgan Tsvangirai still win, despite everything. There is a simple point to be noted here, however [....] Should the Zimbabwean opposition manage to prevail, even against what has been a campaign of intimidation, assault and torture, then it will have shown the will of the Zimbabwean people to get rid of the Mugabe regime. If Mugabe 'wins', the result is nothing but an ugly lie.

At this point, in short, there is only one possible legitimate outcome.

Hoping for the best (but not optimistic),
Jeff Weintraub
==============================
Norman Geras (normblog)
June 19, 2008
Only one possible legitimate outcome

From Zimbabwe:

Often the corpses are hidden, but occasionally the killers like to display their handiwork as a warning. Chokuse Muphango was murdered in Buhera South last week. His killers put his body on the back of a truck and drove it through town announcing: "We have killed the dog."

Ditto:

Four opposition activists... were burned to death last night after the house they were in was firebombed...

And here's a map of the campaign of violence.

Against this background, what is one to make of UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon's statement to the General Assembly?

Should these conditions continue to prevail, the legitimacy of the election outcomes would be in question.

Or what is one to make of this?

[Raila] Odinga called for President Robert Mugabe to resign if he fails to win Zimbabwe's June 27 presidential run-off election... The Kenyan prime minister also urged South African President Thabo Mbeki and other regional leaders of the Southern African Community (SADC) to get international monitors on the ground in time to curb election fraud in Zimbabwe's presidential run-off.

Given what has happened already, and whatever should happen between now and the actual voting, how can it be entertained as a serious proposition that this election could be free or fair? A statement from the foreign ministers of Tanzania, Swaziland and Angola is more robust in reckoning that to be improbable:

Zimbabwe's run-off presidential election next week is very unlikely to be free and fair, a group of southern African ministers said on Thursday, in the strongest regional condemnation yet of pre-poll violence.

"There is every sign that these elections will never be free nor fair," Tanzanian Foreign Minister Bernard Membe told a news conference. He was speaking on behalf of a peace and security troika of nations from the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

But, in any case, held so soon after a wave of government-sponsored terror has swept across the country, this election is already long past the point where any impartial election observer could call it a free or fair one. Perhaps the various spokespeople feel restrained from saying it outright by the worry that to do so would invalidate the result should Morgan Tsvangirai still win, despite everything. There is a simple point to be noted here, however, and it should not be beyond the grasp of those making the various quoted statements: in the circumstances prevailing the result could be considered democratically valid if Tsvangirai were to win but not if Mugabe does. That may sound paradoxical or perverse, but it is the only reasonable conclusion. If T runs a race with M and is forced to hop because M has smashed one of his ankles with a club, and T still crosses the finishing line ahead of M, T wins. M cannot legitimately win. Should the Zimbabwean opposition manage to prevail, even against what has been a campaign of intimidation, assault and torture, then it will have shown the will of the Zimbabwean people to get rid of the Mugabe regime. If Mugabe 'wins', the result is nothing but an ugly lie.

Some African governments (finally) begin to criticize Mugabe

Now here is what I would call a masterpiece of understatement:

Zimbabwe's run-off presidential election next week is very unlikely to be free and fair, a group of southern African ministers said on Thursday, in the strongest regional condemnation yet of pre-poll violence.

Aside from being understated, this recognition of reality also comes a bit late. But better late than never, perhaps.

So far, with very few exceptions, other African governments have supported Robert Mugabe and his regime, have run diplomatic interference for him, or--at best--have been reluctant to criticize his increasingly tyrannical rule as it has systematically destroyed Zimbabwe. Now the taboo seems to be breaking down.

"There is every sign that these elections will never be free nor fair," Tanzanian Foreign Minister Bernard Membe told a news conference. He was speaking on behalf of a peace and security troika of nations from the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Tanzania is also current chairman of the African Union.

Membe said he and the foreign ministers of Swaziland and Angola would write to their presidents "so that they do something urgently so that we can save Zimbabwe."

SADC is sending monitors to Zimbabwe for the June 27 vote.

Membe said their judgement on the conduct of the poll was based on evidence from 211 observers already inside the country.

Some of the observers saw two people shot dead in front of them on June 17, Membe said.

President Robert Mugabe is accused by opponents, Western countries and human rights groups of orchestrating a campaign of killings and intimidation to keep his 28-year hold on power in the once prosperous country, its economy now in ruins.

There are even reports that Mugabe's most important foreign defender and enabler, South African President Thabo Mbkei--who made himself a laughingstock two months ago by claiming that there was "no crisis" in Zimbabwe--is finally starting to back away from Mugabe:

South African President Thabo Mbeki has urged Mugabe to cancel the run-off and negotiate a deal with the opposition, South Africa's Business Day newspaper said on Thursday. [....]

Mbeki, who has led SADC mediation efforts in Zimbabwe, has been criticised for a quiet diplomatic approach that has failed to end a political and economic crisis driving millions of people into neighbouring states.

All this would have been much more helpful if it had come a lot earlier--at any time since Zimbabwe's downward spiral began in 2000-2001. At this point it's hard to know whether even a united, determined, and constructive policy by a coalition of important regional governments, led by South Africa's government, could help avert further catastrophe in Zimbabwe ... and, at all events, so far these reports suggest only the faint glimmers of possibility that a coordinated policy of this sort might emerge. The run-off election in Zimbabwe remains scheduled for June 27, and we'll have to see what happens between now and then.

--Jeff Weintraub
==============================
Reuters
Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:20am EDT
Zimbabwe vote cannot be fair-regional ministers
By Cris Chinaka

* Regional ministers say election unlikely to be free
* Mbeki urges Mugabe to cancel run-off vote
* MDC goes to court to appeal media ban

HARARE, June 19 (Reuters) - Zimbabwe's run-off presidential election next week is very unlikely to be free and fair, a group of southern African ministers said on Thursday, in the strongest regional condemnation yet of pre-poll violence.

"There is every sign that these elections will never be free nor fair," Tanzanian Foreign Minister Bernard Membe told a news conference. He was speaking on behalf of a peace and security troika of nations from the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Tanzania is also current chairman of the African Union.

Membe said he and the foreign ministers of Swaziland and Angola would write to their presidents "so that they do something urgently so that we can save Zimbabwe."

SADC is sending monitors to Zimbabwe for the June 27 vote.

Membe said their judgement on the conduct of the poll was based on evidence from 211 observers already inside the country.

Some of the observers saw two people shot dead in front of them on June 17, Membe said.

President Robert Mugabe is accused by opponents, Western countries and human rights groups of orchestrating a campaign of killings and intimidation to keep his 28-year hold on power in the once prosperous country, its economy now in ruins.

Mugabe lost the first round vote to Morgan Tsvangirai on March 29, but the opposition leader fell short of the outright majority needed to avoid a second round, according to official results.

South African President Thabo Mbeki has urged Mugabe to cancel the run-off and negotiate a deal with the opposition, South Africa's Business Day newspaper said on Thursday.

CRISIS

Mbeki met Mugabe and Tsvangirai separately in Zimbabwe on Wednesday to try to mediate an end to an increasingly violent crisis.

Business Day, a respected financial daily, quoted unnamed sources as saying that Mbeki tried to set up a meeting between Mugabe and Tsvangirai -- their first ever -- but did not receive a firm commitment from Zimbabwe's president.

It said Mbeki attempted to convince Mugabe and Tsvangirai to form a government of national unity.

Mbeki made no comment to reporters after the talks.

Business Day said that Movement for Democratic Change leader Tsvangirai agreed to meet Mugabe and told Mbeki that any run-off would be a farce.

The MDC said on Thursday it had launched an urgent court application to appeal against a state ban on media cover of its campaign. Spokesman George Sibotshiwe said the party had been told by the Zimbabwe Broadcast Corp. and Zimpapers that the state media organisations had been instructed not to accept opposition campaign advertisements or report on the party's campaign.

There was no immediate comment from ZBC or the Zimbabwe Newspapers group.

Mbeki, who has led SADC mediation efforts in Zimbabwe, has been criticised for a quiet diplomatic approach that has failed to end a political and economic crisis driving millions of people into neighbouring states.

The Tanzanian statement on Thursday indicated increasing impatience in the rest of SADC and a willingness to abandon the discreet stance of the past.

Mugabe blames his foes for the violence and has threatened to arrest opposition leaders over the troubles. Tsvangirai's party says at least 66 people have been killed by ZANU-PF supporters.

The United States and former colonial power Britain also accuse Mugabe of trying to intimidate opponents.

(Writing By Marius Bosch and Barry Moody; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)

"High speed trains are killing airplanes"

Here is a good idea--and one that is highly overdue here in the US. (Yes, various arguments against the idea of investing in serious high-speed energy-efficient rail systems also float around, but most of them are flimsy at best.) Perhaps someone might even bring this up during the Presidential campaign? (Via Instapundit)

--Jeff Weintraub
=========================
AutoblogGreen
High speed trains are killing airplanes
Posted Jun 17th 2008 10:35AM by Xavier Navarro
Filed under: Transportation Alternatives, European Union



Here's another harbinger: air traffic between cities that are linked by high speed train lines is significantly reduced. This was a notorious effect of the Paris-Lyon route (Europe's first high speed train link), and has been seen more recently in the Paris-London, Paris-Brussels and Paris-Amsterdam combinations. In the country where high speed trains are growing the fastest is seeing the effects as well: The Madrid-Barcelona high speed link in Spain (AVE), which started operating in March, has reduced by about 18.4 percent the air traffic between the two cities.

June is expected to offer more dramatic results. Railway traffic has increased steadily by five percent every month since then, and Renfe, the company that operates the line, has increased train frequencies accordingly. Train speeds are also going to be faster this fall, from the current 300 km/h to 350 km/h (186 to 217 mph) completing the 615 km (382 mi.) long trip in 2 hours and 15 minutes. The Spanish high speed train network is expected to be linked with France and the rest of the European continent in 2010.

[Source: El Periodico]

Has there been a military coup in Zimbabwe?

Before the Zimbabwean elections on March 29, a number of senior military and police figures indicated that, whatever happened, the political opposition would never be allowed to take power. These statements clearly amounted to a threat that an opposition victory would be met by a military coup--Mugabe and his ZANU-PF mafia would simply abandon the facade of elections and representative government and move to undisguised dictatorship.

Such things have happened before, after all. In 1990 the Burmese military dictatorship was forced by popular and international pressures to hold elections, in which they were massively defeated by opponents of the dictatorship led by Aung San Suu Kyi. They responded by ignoring the election results, putting Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, and intensifying their repression. As far at they're concerned, this has worked out fine for them.

On the surface, this kind of "Burmese" solution hasn't happened in Zimbabwe, at least not yet. Instead, the long-delayed official election results acknowledged that the opposition got more votes than the ruling party (though these results were clearly fiddled with to reduce the opposition's lead) and Zimbabwe is officially is officially scheduled to have a run-off election for President on June 27 (though the ZANU-PF power structure has unleashed an escalating campaign of violence, intimidation, and repression to make sure that the voters don't deliver the 'wrong' result a second time).

Under the surface, however, the story may be more complicated. A number of informed analysts are apparently convinced that there has indeed been a kind of "military coup by stealth" in Zimbabwe. That is, the regime's repressive apparatus is no longer acting simply as the instrument of Mugabe's rule, but is largely running the show on its own account, with Mugabe himself relegated to a more secondary role. To quote some highlights from the article below, which presents the strongest version of this interpretation:

The campaign of terror sweeping Zimbabwe is being directly organised by a junta that took over the running of the country after Robert Mugabe’s shock election defeat in March.

Details of the organised violence are contained in a report released today by Human Rights Watch, corroborated by senior Western diplomats who describe the situation in Zimbabwe as a “military coup by stealth”.

The human-rights group and the diplomats name Zimbabwe’s effective rulers as the Joint Operations Command, a shadowy security politburo made up of military and police generals, senior intelligence officers, prison service officials and leaders of the ruling Zanu (PF) party. [....]

A senior Western diplomat traced the military takeover to the days after the March 29 election, when a stunned Mr Mugabe was preparing to stand down before the generals moved in. "The generals didn’t let him go," the diplomat said. "Afraid that Mr Mugabe’s departure would expose them to prosecution, they struck a deal guaranteeing his reelection." [....]

The military takeover has meant an explosion in the level of violence in Zimbabwe, as well as the de facto militarisation of food distribution prompted by last week’s ban on aid agencies. [....]

This analysis may or may not be overstated, but it sounds sufficiently plausible to be fairly terrifying. The implication would be that the Zimbabwean military and the rest of the ZANU-PF elite have ruled out any possible compromise with the political opposition that might weaken their own grip on power, and they are determined to do anything necessary to avoid losing power even if they take the country down with them. If so, then Zimbabwe may be headed toward a catastrophe even greater than what it has endured already.

Watching and waiting,
Jeff Weintraub
==============================
London Times
June 9, 2008
'Military coup' in Zimbabwe as Mugabe is forced to cede power to generals
Shadowy politburo instigates campaign of terror
Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent

The campaign of terror sweeping Zimbabwe is being directly organised by a junta that took over the running of the country after Robert Mugabe’s shock election defeat in March.

Details of the organised violence are contained in a report released today by Human Rights Watch, corroborated by senior Western diplomats who describe the situation in Zimbabwe as a “military coup by stealth”.

The human-rights group and the diplomats name Zimbabwe’s effective rulers as the Joint Operations Command, a shadowy security politburo made up of military and police generals, senior intelligence officers, prison service officials and leaders of the ruling Zanu (PF) party.

The report maps a chain of command leading down from the JOC to senior officers responsible for individual regions, and the local politicians and so-called “war veterans” and Zanu (PF) youth militias who carry out much of the violence as a proxy military force.

The report said that the scale of the attacks exceeds anything seen previously during Zimbabwe’s long history of electoral violence, and that for the first time militias are being armed with weapons such as AK47s, hand-guns and rifles. They have also used military transportation and even attacked from military bases.

A senior Western diplomat traced the military takeover to the days after the March 29 election, when a stunned Mr Mugabe was preparing to stand down before the generals moved in. "The generals didn’t let him go," the diplomat said. "Afraid that Mr Mugabe’s departure would expose them to prosecution, they struck a deal guaranteeing his reelection."

“This is a military coup by stealth,” the diplomat said. “There are no tanks on people’s lawns, but the Joint Operations Command runs this country.”

The military takeover has meant an explosion in the level of violence in Zimbabwe, as well as the de facto militarisation of food distribution prompted by last week’s ban on aid agencies.

Witnesses interviewed by HRW identified numerous senior security officers who report directly to the JOC as being involved personally in the violence, suggesting they are carrying out orders from above. Police involved in the attack on American and British diplomats last week were quoted as saying that their orders came “directly from the top”. Documents leaked by disgruntled army officers name 200 of them, each assigned an area to oversee in Operation Makavhoterapapi? or Operation Where Did You Put Your Vote?, a campaign to punish those who voted for the Movement for Democratic Change, particularly in traditional Zanu (PF) strongholds, and to prevent them from voting in the June 27 presidential run-off when Mr Mugabe goes head to head with Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader.

The use of the “war veterans” and youth militias as proxy forces was intended to cover up the State’s role in the violence. But in many cases documented by HRW, military involvement was explicit. Scores of attacks in Harare and surrounding townships have been carried out by uniformed soldiers. One victim described armed soldiers going from house to house in the township of Chitungwiza searching for MDC supporters and beating them: “I did not know my assailants, but they were in army uniform and drove an army truck. They were boasting of being given a three-day assignment to ‘bring hell’ to the people.”

Army officers have been personally involved in a number of “reeducation” meetings at which local residents are forced to renounce opposition and swear allegiance to the ruling party after being beaten and tortured. Beatings at such meetings account for at least eight deaths. The Army has denied any involvement in the violence.

The extent of Mr Mugabe’s acquiescence to the terror tactics remains unclear, but the moment he agreed to stay on, the diplomat notes: “Mr Mugabe became beholden to the generals to stay in power.”
-------------------
Searching for the truth

— Human Rights Watch was founded in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, to monitor the compliance of Soviet bloc countries with the Helsinki accords

— After growing to cover other regions in the 1980s, the various committees were united in 1988 as Human Rights Watch

— The charity, whose home is New York, is the largest US-based human-rights organisation

— Human Rights Watch shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for a joint campaign with other organisations to ban landmines

— Fact-finding teams visit countries where there have been allegations of human rights abuses. They visit the locations of abuse, interview victims, witnesses and others. The teams publish their findings in books and reports

— Researchers collected and corroborated stories of refugees from Kosovo and Chechnya, helping to shape the response of the international community to rights abuses there

Electioneering in Zimbabwe - Breaking bones, whipping, and asphyxiation

Norman Geras passes along a report from the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights. Some highlights:

ZADHR is deeply concerned about the continuing violent trauma being inflicted on the Zimbabwean population. The escalation in numbers and severity of cases of systematic violent assault and torture during May was of a scale which threatened to, and for brief periods did, overwhelm the capacity of health workers to respond. [....]

There has been a gross surge in both the quantity and severity of injury. Fracture cases alone increased three-fold in number from April to May. These documented cases speak for themselves in terms of the urgency of the need to stop the violence which is sweeping large areas of the country. [....]

Most of these fractures will have been sustained in attempts to defend the face and upper body from violent blows with a weapon such as a heavy stick or iron bar. As evidence for the sustained severity of the violence of many of the assaults there were several cases of multiple fractures to different areas of the body, for example one patient with fractures of the left ulna, right radius and a metatarsal (small bone of the foot), and another with a patella (knee cap) and bilateral ulna fractures. Three patients had skull fractures and 9 had broken ribs. Two of these cases had multiple rib fractures associated with haemothorax (bleeding into the space between the lungs and the chest wall, probably caused by penetration of the broken end of a rib, which can be rapidly fatal). [....]

However although post-mortem examinations are legally mandatory in such cases, few are being undertaken and therefore cases are only rarely confirmed by doctors. However 7 of these deaths occurred in hospital following admission for injuries sustained during violent assault or torture and a further three did have post-mortem examinations. One confirmed a broken neck as the cause of death. A second died as a result of intracranial haemorrhage (bleeding inside the head) with extensive facial injury indicative of having been beaten on the head. The second died as a result of probable acute renal failure secondary to extensive myolysis (destruction of muscle) and soft tissue necrosis with evidence of falanga and widespread whipping type injuries. In the third case, the body was found several days after abduction, and although it was partially decomposed, the detailed post-mortem which was carried out did not reveal evidence of beating or torture. The estimated time of death (nearer to the time of abduction rather than when the body was found) and the witnessed method of abduction in which the head was forcibly extended, the face covered and, with the victim prone, several attackers putting their weight on his back, are consistent with death due to asphyxia. [....]

These are snapshots from the ongoing campaign to re-elect Robert Mugabe.

--Jeff Weintraub
==============================
Norman Geras (normblog)
June 17, 2008
Health report from Zimbabwe

The following communication, from the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights, has been sent to me by a contact in Zimbabwe.
---------------
Cases of Systematic Violent Assault and Torture Overwhelm Health Professionals

17 June 2008

ZADHR is deeply concerned about the continuing violent trauma being inflicted on the Zimbabwean population. The escalation in numbers and severity of cases of systematic violent assault and torture during May was of a scale which threatened to, and for brief periods did, overwhelm the capacity of health workers to respond. Both first line casualty officers and specialists, especially surgeons and anaesthetists, to whom patients were referred had great difficulty in adequately managing the burden of serious physical trauma.

ZADHR commends the efforts of health professionals in Zimbabwe who continue to provide the highest possible quality of health care to victims of violence under extremely difficult circumstances.

In addition to individuals with significant physical injuries, members of ZADHR saw over 300 displaced patients with medical conditions such as pneumonia or asthma, or psychiatric diagnoses, in particular anxiety and depression, and many with chronic conditions such as diabetes whose medication had been lost or destroyed when the patients were violently forced, by arson or the immediate probability of injury or death, from their homes.

It is certain that a far greater number of patients will have been attended to by other members of the health professions, especially nurses, but will never have been near a doctor. Psychiatric and social problems may result in an even greater burden on health care workers than the frequently complicated but relatively clearcut diagnoses such as fractures.

One thousand and seven patients were seen during the month of May. 119 patients sustained fractures, more than 50 of which were recorded as confirmed on x ray. The remainder were clinical diagnoses, either with clinically evident physical distortion or with the broken ends of bone protruding through an external wound (compound fracture). 36 patients had fractures of the ulna (the inner or medial bone of the forearm), 27 of the radius (the outer or lateral bone of the forearm). Of these 13 had fractures of both radius and ulna, 4 had fractures of the ulna bones of both arms, and one patient had both radius bones broken. Seventeen further cases of fractured wrist, forearm or elbow were recorded.

Most of these fractures will have been sustained in attempts to defend the face and upper body from violent blows with a weapon such as a heavy stick or iron bar. As evidence for the sustained severity of the violence of many of the assaults there were several cases of multiple fractures to different areas of the body, for example one patient with fractures of the left ulna, right radius and a metatarsal (small bone of the foot), and another with a patella (knee cap) and bilateral ulna fractures. Three patients had skull fractures and 9 had broken ribs. Two of these cases had multiple rib fractures associated with haemothorax (bleeding into the space between the lungs and the chest wall, probably caused by penetration of the broken end of a rib, which can be rapidly fatal).

Forty five cases of fractures of the small bones of the hands (31) or feet (12), both hands (1), or both hands and feet (1) were recorded. Many patients sustained fractures to several bones, again witness to the sustained brutality of the assaults, and consistent with reports of hands and feet being pounded by a pestle (mutswi) in a mortar (duri).

At least two pregnant women, one 24 and the other 32 weeks gestation, were systematically beaten on the back and buttocks, resulting in extensive lacerations, bruising and haematoma formation. They were among the 312 cases classified as having severe soft tissue injury. This category includes widespread severe bruising, haematoma (collection of blood) formation, necrosis (tissue death), sepsis (infection, usually where there is extensive skin loss or abscess formation in a haematoma), or deep and extensive lacerations (cuts or wounds).

One patient, beaten extensively on the shoulders, back, buttocks and thighs, was also struck in the face and suffered a leak of vitreous humour (the transparent gel-like substance behind the lens of the eye) resulting in blindness.

There have been reports of over 53 violent deaths up to the end of May 2008. However although post-mortem examinations are legally mandatory in such cases, few are being undertaken and therefore cases are only rarely confirmed by doctors. However 7 of these deaths occurred in hospital following admission for injuries sustained during violent assault or torture and a further three did have post-mortem examinations. One confirmed a broken neck as the cause of death. A second died as a result of intracranial haemorrhage (bleeding inside the head) with extensive facial injury indicative of having been beaten on the head. The second died as a result of probable acute renal failure secondary to extensive myolysis (destruction of muscle) and soft tissue necrosis with evidence of falanga and widespread whipping type injuries. In the third case, the body was found several days after abduction, and although it was partially decomposed, the detailed post-mortem which was carried out did not reveal evidence of beating or torture. The estimated time of death (nearer to the time of abduction rather than when the body was found) and the witnessed method of abduction in which the head was forcibly extended, the face covered and, with the victim prone, several attackers putting their weight on his back, are consistent with death due to asphyxia.

There has been a gross surge in both the quantity and severity of injury. Fracture cases alone increased three-fold in number from April to May. These documented cases speak for themselves in terms of the urgency of the need to stop the violence which is sweeping large areas of the country. ZADHR reiterates its call on all parties to cease the use of assault and torture intimidation, victimisation or retribution. In addition to cessation of violence there are other urgent needs for affected individuals including shelter, food and water for internally displaced persons and mental and physical rehabilitation for victims of violent trauma.

"Y a-t-il une hypocrisie aveugle dans l’obamamania européenne?"

When you send something out into the blogosphere, you never quite know what will become of it. For anyone who's interested, I see that the piece Andy Markovits & I wrote about "Some Blind Spots and Hypocrisies of European Obamamania" is now available in a French translation, posted on a France for Barack Obama blog (below).

=> For a different kind of response to our piece from France, posted on Daily Kos by an American who lives in France and works as an elementary-school teacher, see "Obama's international appeal". As I said, the blogosphere can generate all sorts of complicated ripples, connections, and conversations.

Yours for the Republic of Letters,
Jeff Weintraub

========================================
France for Barack Obama blog
Blog sur les élections américaines 2008 et la candidature de Barack Obama - Comité français de soutien à Barack Obama

Y a-t-il une hypocrisie aveugle dans l’obamamania européenne?

Cet article a été publié par Archippe le Lundi 16 juin 2008 à 4:04 | Classé dans Autre, France & Obama | Tags: communauté politique, élections américaines, ethnie, Europe, Huffington post, Obama, Obamamania, Sarkozy

Par Andreï Markovits et Jeff Weintraub
Version française: Archippe Yepmou

Cet article fait suite à notre billet du 28 Mai, “Obama et les progressistes: un curieux paradoxe” où nous faisions remarquer qu’il y a quelque chose de déroutant à propos de Barack Obama lorsqu’on analyse le support de sa base progressiste. Andreï Markovits est actuellement en Europe (il est professeur Invité à l’Ecole de sciences politiques de Vienne), où sévit également l’Obamamania. Il existe toute une gamme de raisons pour cet enthousiasme, toutes compréhensibles et pour beaucoup d’entre elles admirables. Mais l’Obamamania à l’européenne (ce mot existe désormais dans la plupart de leurs langues) a aussi ses aspects paradoxal.

Le récit qui suit provient donc de Andreï Markovits depuis Vienne (qui y a comme nous le savons, ses entrées), alors maintenant je vais tourner ma plume vers lui. –Jeff Weintraub

Andreï Markovits: Depuis qu’Obama a décroché l’investiture démocrate, l’écrasante majorité européenne des médias, des milieux culturels et des élites politiques est euphorique. À bien des égards, je trouve cela merveilleux, cette totale euphorie. Dans un article que j’ai co-écrit avec Jérôme Karabel en Décembre 2007, nous faisions valoir que l’une des conséquences positives d’élire quelqu’un comme Obama Président serait d’aider à rétablir le respect pour l’Amérique dans le monde - et pas seulement à cause de son action politique depuis la maison blanche, mais aussi à cause de ce qu’il est et de ce que son élection représenterait pour la société américaine. Nous commençons donc à voir les effets de cette possibilité dans l’opinion publique européenne alors que nous avançons dans cette course démocratique.

Dans le même temps, je ne peux m’empêcher de souligner certains aspects de cette réponse euphorique, en particulier celle des élites d’Europe occidentale et des prestigieux médias, qui sont fallacieux et même hypocrites.

Dans beaucoup de ces réponses, le message fondamental longe les lignes suivantes:

Maintenant, enfin, mais est-ce peut être un hasard (une chance, pas une certitude) ces barbares d’Amérique sont peut être sur le point d’abonder dans notre sens – notons en substance qu’ici, « sens » et « sensibilité » peuvent se confondre. Contrairement au cow-boy Bush et ses dangereux supporters, Obama est pratiquement un européen honoraire, qui peut apprécier la sagesse, la vertu, et l’illumination généralement monopolisées par les Européens (ce qui signifie généralement les Européens de l’Ouest). Cela est souvent suivi par un ultime sceau d’approbation - ils seraient heureux de voter en faveur Obama eux-mêmes, s’ils en avaient la chance.

Tous très réconfortants. Mais après avoir suivi les médias européens avec certains soins depuis mon arrivée à Vienne le 1er Juin, j’ai observé très peu de reconnaissance de la contradiction qu’exerce cet adoubement sur leur réalité politique. Obama, ou quelqu’un comme Obama, de même milieu social et de style politique, aurait quelque difficulté à se faire élire ne serait ce que pour une élection mineure dans aucun de ces pays, et encore moins de devenir Président ou Premier ministre.

Il existe plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles ceci est vrai. En dépit des louanges pour Obama de l’Europe occidentale et du bavardage de ses élites, la réalité est que quelqu’un dans leur propre pays avec la politique d’Obama et son style risquerait effectivement de porter atteinte à leurs privilèges. Un candidat européen Obama avec le même message d’espoir et d’idéalisme ferait qu’un grand nombre de journalistes européens, d’intellectuels et de politiciens rouleraient des yeux. Et dans les pays d’Europe occidentale avec les systèmes de partis, il serait presque impossible pour quelqu’un comme Obama de percer la voûte hiérarchique des partis de façon aussi spectaculaire.

Mais la plus fondamentale des raisons réside ailleurs. Un certain nombre de pays européens ont élu des femmes à des fonctions politiques, même les plus élevées. Mais, comme Jerôme Karabel et moi le soulignions, aucun d’entre eux n’a jamais élu un non-blanc quel que soit l’origine à son plus haut bureau politique – c’est-à-dire chef d’État ou de gouvernement. (En fait, aucun pays « blanc » au monde n’a jamais élu une personne noire à son plus haut niveau politique.)

OK, ni les États-Unis à ce jour. Mais le plus révélateur est que dans ces pays, le nombre suffisamment élevé de non-blancs considérés comme nationaux par le système politique devrait rendre plausible l’hypothèse de ces minorités aux plus hautes fonctions.

En France (selon la manière dont les calculs sont faits), environ dix pour cent de la population est d’origine arabe ou d’Afrique sub-saharienne. Mais les 577 membres de la Chambre des députés ne comprennent pas une seule personne ayant ces origines. Le Bundestag allemand a quelques membres d’origine turque, mais leur nombre est minime et aucun d’entre eux ne joue un rôle de premier plan (par rapport à certains poids lourds afro-américains, cubano-américains et américano-mexicains membres du congrès gouverneurs etc.. aux États-Unis). On peut trouver quelques rares exceptions près, ici et là (Ayaan Hirsi Ali aux Pays-Bas par exemple, mais pourquoi a-t-elle donc dû quitter le pays?). Mais le fait est que ces exceptions demeurent rares.

Ce n’est pas non plus seulement une question de race (ou de racisme). En comparaison avec les États-Unis, les sociétés européennes ont une conception ethnique plus restreinte, à la fois de la pleine citoyenneté et de la communauté politique, qui rend difficile aux « outsiders » de toutes sortes toute réussite politique. Considérons par exemple le gouverneur du plus grand et du plus important État américain, la Californie; c’est l’immigrant austro-américain Arnold Schwarzenegger. Est-il encore concevable qu’un étranger né d’immigrants avec un drôle de nom étranger ou d’accent étranger puisse être élu Premier ministre du plus important Land allemand, la Rhénanie Nord-Westphalie? (Ne cherchez pas - la réponse est non.) Et idem pour l’Italie, la Grande-Bretagne, la France et le reste.

(Franchement, il est difficile d’imaginer que quelqu’un ayant le profil de carrière d’ Arnold Schwarzenegger puisse être élu à un poste politique important dans un de ces pays, même dans son pays natal, l’Autriche – ce qui n’est peut être pas une mauvaise chose, selon la perspective que vous adoptez.)

Tom Lantos, un membre du congrès récemment décédé et survivant de l’Holocauste en Hongrie, arrivé aux États-Unis enfant et qui a fini par devenir une figure importante de la politique nationale, avait l’habitude de dire que l’histoire de sa vie avait été possible « only in America ». Obama dit la même chose, bien sûr: «Dans aucun autre pays sur Terre mon histoire eût été même possible ». C’est une caractéristique du schéma politique américain qui peut irriter ceux qui y voient un tromper et exagéré slogan d’auto-satisfaction. Mais au moins dans le cas de Tom Lantos, cette formule est correcte. Non seulement parce qu’il était juif - la France, avec ses épisodes d’intense lutte contre l’antisémitisme, a eu plusieurs premiers ministres juifs, le plus célèbre état Léon Blum. Après la seconde guerre mondiale, le chancelier Bruno Kreisky a servi à son poste pendant une longue période en Autriche- mais surtout par ce qu’il était né à l’étranger et de parents étrangers.

Egalement, cette plus grande ouverture du système américain n’est pas circonscrite à l’inclusion des personnes d’origine étrangère dans le cadre d’un mandat électif. Prenons, par exemple les anciens secrétaires d’État Henry Kissinger et Madeleine Albright, tous deux nés à l’étranger, Kissinger parle encore avec un lourd accent allemand. L’ancien Président du Comité des chefs d’état-major, le général John Shalikashvili est né à l’étranger, avec un nom géorgien à sonorité exotique. Le prédécesseur de Shalikashvili au sommet de la hiérarchie militaire des États-Unis, l’ancien Secrétaire d’État Colin Powell n’est pas seulement africain-américain (comme Condoleezza Rice), il est par ailleurs le fils d’immigrants jamaïcains.

Aux États-Unis, des figures comme celles-ci sont venus à être considérées comme normales, l’exception passe même inaperçue. Existe-t-il des équivalents des Kissinger, Albright, Powell, Shalikashvili dans aucun pays européen?

Puisque nous avons parlé de la France, il est juste d’ajouter que l’élection du président Nicolas Sarkozy offre une exception à ce modèle européen, avec pour ce dernier un profil plus “américain”(en ceci et en d’autres égards). Son père est un immigrant Hongrois, son grand-père maternel a non seulement immigré de Grèce, mais est né Juif séfarade à Thessalonique. En raison de ce contexte et pour d’autres raisons, l’élection de Sarkozy a été reconnue comme une rupture radicale avec les traditions politiques françaises. En outre, bien que Sarkozy n’ait été particulièrement bienveillant quant aux questions d’immigration, on peut ajouter à son crédit la nomination de deux femmes d’origine nord-africaine et du Sénégal, l’une à un ministère majeur et l’autre à un secrétariat d’Etat.

Mais jusqu’à présent, Sarkozy est un cas particulier, les personnes qu’il a nommées - comme indiqué plus haut – restent des exceptions marginales dans le système politique français.

A tout prendre, le fait qu’un afro-américain comme Obama soit maintenant le candidat présidentiel présomptif d’un grand parti américain constitue une nouvelle percée historique pour la société américaine. Cette nomination éclaire également sur ces aspects par lesquels la société américaine elle-même est profondément exceptionnelle.

Pour être exact, des réactions à la victoire d’Obama ont inclu une certaine reconnaissance de ce point - et non des moindres - il semblerait, dans certains milieux en France. Voici quelques raisons avancées par un éminent Obamaphile français cité dans l’International Herald Tribune de vendredi “L’enthousiasme en France après la victoire d’Obama”;

« Il inspire différentes personnes pour différentes raisons, mais il inspire la plupart des gens » [....] « Pour une partie de l’establishment français, Obama représente un nouveau chapitre de l’alliance transatlantique [....] Pour les minorités ethniques, il incarne ce besoin de plus d’égalité. » [....]

«On ne sera jamais assez enthousiastes pour cette nouvelle, pariculièrement en cette période de fort anti-américanisme », notait le quotidien français Le Figaro jeudi.

« Avec Obama, une certaine idée de l’Amérique est de retour: celle d’une société généreuse où l’égalité des chances n’est pas une promesse vide de sens. Espoir et changement, les mots-clés de sa campagne, raffermir cette redécouverte de l’idéal américain, qui résonne autant à l’intérieur du pays qu’au-delà » [....]

Kama Des-Gachons, 28 ans, Française, est l’une des quelques 600 jeunes hommes et femmes qui assistaient à une conférence-débat le mardi 3 juin sur « l’effet Obama en France ». Ses yeux brillaient quand elle se mît à parler d’Obama. Non parce qu’il est démocrate ou parce qu’il s’oppose à la guerre en Irak. Mais parce que son père était un immigrant africain, comme le sien.

« Il me fait rêver », dit Des-Gachons, dont les parents sont venus en France en provenance du Mali. « J’ai même acheté un t-shirt avec le drapeau américain. l’Amérique est le seul pays où ceci peut arriver ».

Des-Gachons vit la campagne électorale américaine de manière viscérale, comme si elle disposait elle-même d’un vote. Peut-elle imaginer un Obama français?

« Pas de si tôt », a-t-elle dit. Malgré un diplôme universitaire à la Sorbonne, il lui a fallu deux années pour trouver son emploi actuel dans la finance.

« Mais qui sait? » a-t-elle ajouté, faisant écho à un espoir que de nombreuses personnes formulèrent dans la salle. « Si Obama est élu, cela changera peut être certaines perceptions ici en France aussi ». [....]

Peut-être. Entre-temps, « l’effet Obama » est un rappel de la véritable et durable réalité de l’exception américaine - pour le meilleur et pour le pire, mais dans ce cas surtout pour le meilleur. Peut-être que ceci pourra aussi faire rêver les gens ici en Europe?

- Andreï S. Markovits enseigne les sciences politiques et la sociologie politique au département d’études germaniques de l’Université du Michigan.

- Jeff Weintraub enseigne la théorie politique et la sociologie politique à l’Université de Pennsylvanie. Il a également un blog à l’adresse suivante: http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/

Article original paru sur au Huffington post.