A Kenyan policeman shoots at men setting homes on fire in the western Kenyan town of Kericho February 2.

What is it with Africa? Not only do we turn on each other, but we blame the outside. This is a cancer from within that we need to fix. More than a decade ago, when he was head of peacekeeping forces for the United Nations, Kofi Annan oversaw the blue helmets who failed to prevent the massacre in Srebenica and the slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda.
Those twin tragedies have tarnished his reputation ever since, even after two terms as secretary-general. Now retired, Annan has been asked to mediate in Kenya, where tribal killings that began after a disputed presidential election on Dec. 27 continue to rage.
He spoke with Newsweek’s Scott Johnson about the talks, which showed some progress at the end of the week, and the shadow of those past crises. Excerpts:

Johnson: Where do the Kenya talks stand?
Annan: We’re now at the critical item of resolving the political crisis. The two sides have stated their cases. The government side feels they won [the election] fair and square. The opposition thinks the government stole it fair and square. My problem is to bridge that difference.

How much do Rwanda and Bosnia weigh on you personally?
We are racing against the clock. The longer this goes on, the more killings go on, the more revenge killings you’re going to see in reaction. If you’re not careful you could have serious problems on your hands. We need to come up with a proposal to ensure we don’t come back to this every five years.

Once again you’re dealing with the maelstrom of ethnic cleansing.
Whether it’s genocide or ethnic cleansing, it always starts with the humiliation of one individual. Some were very quick to blame me for Rwanda. [That] was rather painful and odd for most of us at the Secretariat because the member states knew more about what was going on in Rwanda than we did. But quite apart from that blame, as a human being it weighs on you. It sits on your conscience É Not on your conscience because you É you É you couldn’t stop it as an individual, you couldn’t. But yes, [the conflicts] molded me. Some crimes are so shameful that we cannot stand back. We should ask, what can each one of us do?

You’ve said in the past that fratricidal wars are destroying Africa. Now it’s happening here in Kenya.
So what is it with Africa? Yeah. I posed this question in Rwanda after the genocide: what is it in our society that makes us periodically turn on each other? Not only do we turn on each other, but then we blame the outside. I say this is a cancer from within that we need to fix.

And you were criticized for it.
I was criticized for it. But it is a fact. It’s good to have the support of the international community and all that. But the root of the problem is here. We know what the problem is; we know what needs to be done.

What is the problem?
In Kenya, you have 42 ethnic groups. One needs to be very careful to let the people feel that the cloth of government is stretched to cover everybody, that nobody is left out or discriminated against in terms of economic well-being and resources, access to money and power. [Here] you have a constitutional structure that doesn’t distribute power evenly. You have a very powerful presidency in an environment like this, where each group watches for what the other group is getting and what they are not getting.

You’ve advocated the use of the Kenyan military. But there are ethnic divisions within the military.
I know. But what is the use of an army when it is not used to protect innocent civilians in harm’s way? Obviously moving goods to markets to provide supplies and services is important, but what’s the point if the people are dead? What can the international community really do in this case?
It’s important that the international community speaks with one voice. There are differences, but there is a convergence [of opinion]. They realize divisions between them will be exploited.

How has your thinking on this evolved?
Take Darfur--everybody knew the African Union
didn’t have capacity or the resources that were required, but they all went for the AU [peacekeeping mission], knowing the shortcomings, to be able to say we’ve done something. It is hypocritical. It’s dishonest. And it’s deceitful for those who are in the situation. In fact it may be better not to promise help that you know will not come.

You’ve said it’s difficult to understand African dictators today because they’ve lost the ability to talk. Is that applicable here?
After independence, we got into a situation where men who hungered for power went into politics, and we created a situation of winner takes all. In many countries, people who want to make money go into business. In Africa, people who want to make money go into politics. It is very unhealthy. It’s very profitable.

Are you rooting for Barack Obama?
I have no horse in that race.

Given your experience with the Clinton administration and Rwanda, would you be worried about another Clinton administration?
I think Clinton of today is a different man than Clinton that didn’t want to go to Rwanda. I suspect he’s also learned. Of course, it’s not Bill that is running. It’s Hillary. And we don’t know the team she will surround herself with. I’m confident that the reaction to a Rwanda-type situation would be quite different.
Newsweek

The conservative ascendancy in American politics is coming to an end. For three decades, the right has dominated, with the Republicans winning five of the seven presidential elections since 1980. Conservatives did more than just win elections: even when liberals gained power, they governed on conservative terms.
What were the most important accomplishments of the Clinton presidency? Balancing the budget, welfare reform and the expansion of Nato-not exactly left-of-centre projects. And of Jimmy Carter’s? The deregulation of the airline and natural gas industries.
Neither president set out to accomplish these goals. Indeed, they often resisted them. In the end they had to accept the limits of the possible-just as Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon accepted the limits of the possible in the liberal era from 1930 to 1975.
The things that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama want to do are likely to prove costly and counterproductive, if not outright disastrous.
Neither Mr Clinton nor Mr Carter created a single, major, permanent new national social programme. Mr Clinton failed to bequeath power to his chosen successor; Mr Carter failed even to win a second term.
John Mitchell, Richard Nixon’s attorney-general, predicted in 1970: “This country is going so far right you won’t recognise it.“ His prophecy was vindicated. Now its time is up: 2008 is shaping up to be the first decisive Democratic victory since 1964-a 1980 in reverse. The signs are gathering everywhere. Three-quarters of Americans now describe the country as “on the wrong track“. Almost 90 per cent express strong dissatisfaction with the costly healthcare system.
In primaries and caucuses, Democratic contests have drawn more voters than Republican ones. An early estimate after Super Tuesday suggests that, thus far, 11m Americans have cast ballots for Republican candidates, while more than 15m have voted for Democratic ones. Democrats outpolled Republicans by 20 per cent even in the state of South Carolina, maybe the most conservative in the nation.
Usually pundits expect that the party that chooses its nominee first will win the election. That will probably not be true this time. Although the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest looks likely to continue longer than John McCain’s march to the Republican nomination, Democrats tell pollsters they like both candidates--they are just deciding which they like best. Republicans remain divided, with Mr McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee each passionately disliked by opposing factions within their party.
In polls, Americans express preference for Democrats over Republicans on almost every issue surveyed, including such traditional Republican advantages as taxes, ethics and competence.
As things are going, the Democratic nominee will win a majority of the votes cast (unlike Mr Clinton). They will almost certainly gain an increased majority in Congress (unlike Mr Carter). If the present mood lasts, that nominee will have a green light to move the US in new policy directions (unlike either Mr Clinton or Mr Carter).
The stage has been set for the boldest and most dramatic redirection of US politics since Reagan’s first year in office. Of course, there are no guarantees in politics. An inept president could bungle his or her chances.
Unexpected events could intrude: a nuclear test in Iran, a major terrorist attack on US soil or some attention-grabbing political scandal. But given moderate luck and skill, the next president could join Reagan, Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the grand reshapers of politics and government.
Tragically, that reshaping is likely to be for the worse. The things that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama want to do are likely to prove costly and counterproductive, if not outright disastrous. A greater government role in healthcare, higher taxes, tighter regulation, more social welfare, an increased flow of low-skilled migrants with amnesty for those already here, a cut-and-run from Iraq: these are not measures likely to improve US competitiveness or enhance America’s standing in the world.
To prevent these negative consequences--to retrieve victory from impending defeat--would require more creativity and responsiveness than Republicans and conservatives have displayed for many years. Unless American conservatism can rejuvenate itself, the odds favour the liberal left holding sway until the day that its own errors and delusions lay it low again.
AEI.ORG

Pakistani commuters drive their vehicles past election billboards of general election candidates on a street in Rawalpindi on February 12.

Elections 2008, at the most crucial juncture of the history of Pakistan, are in the offing amidst the fear of massive rigging in favour of the king’s party aka PML-Q.
The mainstream political parties and civil society observers have already expressed their grave concerns over the manipulation of the resources and powers as part of pre-poll rigging in favour of former ruling party, which is now closely knitted with the old fashioned anti-democracy establishment.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), a prestigious civil society organisation, in this regard, has expressed its deep concern over the situation.
The organisation has urged election monitoring bodies and observers, domestic and international, to take note of the events leading up to the elections, and not confine their findings to the polling day alone. The HRCP notified that it had been following all developments leading up to the February 18 polling day and pre-election rigging was evident.
The concerns of political parties and civil society are not only real but need to be redressed immediately. The prospects of change, which ought to be the real objective of the elections, had largely faded with the manipulated election of the president.
Now, acts of omission and commission by the government machinery, including the Election Commission (EC), give credence to political parties’ allegations that the upcoming elections were being unashamedly manipulated.
Elaborating on some pre-rigging modalities, the observers have noted that caretaker ministers are openly campaigning for their relatives contesting the elections, government funds and machinery are being employed by political parties close to the president’s regime to garner votes, and large-scale transfers of judicial and administrative officers have taken place under the nose of the EC.
PPP, a leading political party of the country has recently disclosed that it has collected sufficient evidence against the nazims, former federal or provincial ministers and these have been submitted to Chief Election Commissioner as well as foreign and national media.
Its quite ironic that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), instead of taking a serious note of these allegations has refused to take an immediate action against anyone of the incumbent district, city district, town and tehsil nazimeen involved in manipulating the elections, using funds and staff for the election campaign of PML-Q candidates.
According to independent sources, City District Nazim Multan Mian Faisal Mukhtar, ex-Town Nazim Shershah (Multan) Abbas Akbar Mohni Shah, Former Punjab Minister for Social Welfare Rai Mansab Ali Khan whose son is Town Nazim of Shah Rukn-e-Alam , Jacobabad Nazima Saeeda Soomro, Rawalpindi Nazim Javed Akhlas and mostly from the Punjab province are amongst those who are openly involved in using state resources to benefit their kins belonging to the king’s party.
While the blatant foul play on the part of government officials was going on unhindered, the whole process held no promise of any kind of transition to democracy. The observers including mainstream political parties and civil society have rightly expressed their dismay on the situation.
According to these observers, it was apparent that the elections had been designed to perpetuate the military regime rather than to seek a peaceful transition to democracy.
Local and international observers should also take note of the pre-rigging tactics being employed by the regime and monitor and document incidents of malpractice on polling day, especially in the absence of a credible judiciary and a media restrained from freely reporting facts.
The plan of hijacking the will of the people also includes the manipulation of the polling results. The secrecy surrounding votes cast by government employees, the transparency of postal ballots and the returns received from Pakistani missions abroad, as well as restraints or hurdles imposed on the voting rights of women and forced labour.
The victimizing of the workers and candidates of popular political parties were also being reported from the Sindh province. Central Information Secretary of the Pakistan People’s Party, Sherry Rehman, in this regard has condemned the victimization of the PPP workers in Jacobabad and warned the police officials.
According to these reports, the TPO of Jacobabad Arbab Soomro, SHO City Mukhtiar Soomro, and SHO Mauladad Saeed Ahmed Jumani were leading the illegal operation against PPP workers in violation of law on the orders of Jacobabad DPO Muneer Khuhro.
These police officials have also impounded dozens of tractors, wagons and motorcycles to disturb the electoral campaign of the PPP nominated candidate.
NATION.COM.PK