South Korea elected a conservative president after 10 years of liberal rule. As much as the election of liberal presidents such as Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun reflected an almost euphoric optimism, the election of Lee Myung Bak reflects a widespread disillusion and cynicism. Even most of Roh’s supporters agree that Roh’s ‘revolutionary’ economic, educational and social policies failed to address the ‘polarization’ of Korean society—in fact, most data indicates that the divide between the rich and poor have increased over the past 5 years. This widespread dissatisfaction was reflected in the extraordinarily non-partisan support for Lee: a record high 48.7% of the voters supported Lee, and this transcended all party lines, generational divides, income divides, etc.
However, this does not signal a unification of South Korean society after ten years of violent ideological debate. The election functioned as a vote of no-confidence for Roh’s government rather than a support for Lee, as most of Lee’s supporters do not agree with his policies, or even think he is morally qualified for such a high post. Will Lee be able channel his current non-partisan support to deliver his promise of rapid economic growth? Or will the return of the Grand National Party, widely seen to be ‘elitist’ and immoral, alienate a generation of younger voters, creating a new opposition?
The assassination of Pakistan’s revolutionary woman, Benazir Bhutto, by religious extremists left the world in shock and peril towards the future of Pakistan. As the first female leader in the Muslim world and one of the greatest proponents of democracy in the region, the loss of Bhutto is one that will have startling effects worldwide. The Harvard and Oxford educated daughter of a former Pakistani PM had all the ingredients for a successful leadership in the Muslim world as well as massive popular support. So who could possibly fill her shoes?
It’s no surprise that when looking for a new leader for the PPP Pakistanis looked within Bhutto’s family and selected her son Bilawal to be their next leader, but what is somewhat disconcerting is the fact that he is only nineteen years old. A freshman at Oxford University, Bilawal seems hardly ready to tackle a chaotic Pakistan ravaged by riots, extremism and despotic rule among other things that even his more seasoned predecessors were hardly able to quell. Bilawal is determined to carry on the Bhutto legacy of a dedication to building democracy and he is going to need all the help he can get.
Various reports revealed that Al-Qaeda was behind the assassination and what is perhaps the most terrifying notion is that religious extremism seems to be rapidly spreading and gaining power despite our increased efforts towards its destruction. The War in Afghanistan after 9/11 was somewhat successful in targeting Al-Qaeda, but instead of finishing them off our little “distraction” in Iraq led to the U.S.’s abandonment of their initial mission. As a result Al-Qaeda has advanced from an extremist movement in Afghanistan to an overarching ideology for the radical Muslim world. This extremism has spread to other countries in the Middle East such as Sudan and as is becoming increasingly apparent has infiltrated Pakistan. What is somewhat surprising to many in the Western world is the appeal of radicalism to young people. They are looking towards these movements in times of despair and are joining the ranks in significant numbers compared to their more “traditional” elders. Although its somewhat cliché, young people are the future and this trend will have significant results. Perhaps Bhutto’s teenaged son is more qualified than we think… maybe he will have the youthful fire to efficiently counter religious extremism in Pakistan…
As noted in ‘Really Re-elected?’ Mikhail Saakashvili officially, technically won the elections in Georgia with 53% of the vote, besting his opponent, Levan Gachechiladze, who received less than half of that. But rallies in Georgia from opposition supporters show that it’s difficult to ever really win an election in the situation Saakashvili is in. Whether they’re true or not, allegations of fraud and poll-rigging are bound to fly. Which means that Saakashvili isn’t just the target of angry opposition in Georgia – Western countries that support the vote and want to let it stand (if only to maintain Georgia’s stability), are also on that list. It really is just getting hard to win around here. And not just for Saakashvili. The US has to support democratic elections: that’s is default stance. It is not their responsibility to conduct an investigation into whether or not the elections were ‘really’ democratic. That’s what the election commission and the courts are for. And then the US (and everyone else, t00) is supposed to support their decision. If we didn’t and sent in people to ‘ensure’ democracy, there’d be accusations of meddling with the questions over whether or not the elections were really democratic. Like there were questions during the Iraq election about whether or not the US’s presence was good or bad. Either way, there would have been criticism, just as either way, this Georgian election was going to come under fire.
This former cover of The Economist shocked me enough to immediately purchase this pricey weekly and discover the meaning behind this grappling concept. George W. Bush, Mr. Palestine?!
I was as stunned as anyone. With controversial books like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby accusing U.S. policy of being strongly influenced by Israeli lobbyists, and our committed support to the nation of Israel since its foundation, it’s somewhat startling to think that Bush could represent a free Palestine. But I think The Economist just might be on to something. With this decades-old conflict only escalating with time and the two sides stubbornly too proud to concede any of their demands, it seems that a third party is absolutely essential in brokering negotiations. Equitable solutions do exist, but the hot-ticket items must be brought to the table if they are ever going to be resolved. The article suggest that borders should be set to the pre-1967 lines, refugees should be able to return to post-1967 Palestine, and Jerusalem should be divided into the capital for the future Palestinian state and the capital for Israel… Can it really be as simple as that?
While an “equitable” division of land is clearly the only practical solution, we’d be hard-pressed to find Israeli or Palestinian politicians who will publicly agree to the plan without feeling like they have conceded any of their peoples’ centuries-long desires. Mr. Bush has the rare and precious opportunity, as the leader of a superpower, to force both sides into a lasting peace agreement, and it’s about time. He is, ironically, one of the only people in the world with the power and opportunity to create a free Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Well, good luck, “Mr. Palestine.”
