FP Passport (USA): Putin supports new term limits…for the next guy Vladimir Putin says he wouldn’t mind amending Russia’s constitution to prevent future presidents from doing what he did — returning to the presidency for a non-consecutive third term: On Wednesday, during a Q&A session in Parliament, Putin said it would be “reasonable” to remove the mention of consecutive terms. But he added that this would not affect him because such a legislation cannot be retroactive — implying that his third term would considered his first term under the new law. “Once it’s passed, I will have a chance to work for the next two terms. There’s no problem here,” he said in televised remarks. Now he tells us. 
View Separately

FP Passport (USA):

Putin supports new term limits…for the next guy

Vladimir Putin says he wouldn’t mind amending Russia’s constitution to prevent future presidents from doing what he did — returning to the presidency for a non-consecutive third term:

On Wednesday, during a Q&A session in Parliament, Putin said it would be “reasonable” to remove the mention of consecutive terms. But he added that this would not affect him because such a legislation cannot be retroactive — implying that his third term would considered his first term under the new law.

“Once it’s passed, I will have a chance to work for the next two terms. There’s no problem here,” he said in televised remarks.

Now he tells us. 

In Moscow’s Shadows (New York) Is Putin planning on building a new Russian national guard? According to Nezavisimaya gazeta (April 2, 2012), President-elect Putin is planning to create a new National Guard, a domestic security force uniting the MVD VV Interior Troops, the MChS Ministry of Emergency Situation forces and various other security and military elements. This Natsionalnaya gvardiya would include not just paramilitary security forces but also light airmobile units with their own transport aircraft, specialized motorized infantry brigades, and special forces. The Guard would also assimilate the 20,000 officers in the new Military Police, making it in many ways similar to the French Gendarmerie Nationale or Italian Carabinieri: a parallel police service, parallel military and internal security force all in one. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

In Moscow’s Shadows (New York)

Is Putin planning on building a new Russian national guard?

According to Nezavisimaya gazeta (April 2, 2012), President-elect Putin is planning to create a new National Guard, a domestic security force uniting the MVD VV Interior Troops, the MChS Ministry of Emergency Situation forces and various other security and military elements.

This Natsionalnaya gvardiya would include not just paramilitary security forces but also light airmobile units with their own transport aircraft, specialized motorized infantry brigades, and special forces. The Guard would also assimilate the 20,000 officers in the new Military Police, making it in many ways similar to the French Gendarmerie Nationale or Italian Carabinieri: a parallel police service, parallel military and internal security force all in one.

(read more)

A Good Treaty (USA): Nationalism and the possibility of a ‘color revolution’ in Russia With Russia’s sixth presidential election having reached its preordained conclusion, what remains unclear is how Moscow’s already seething political opposition will respond to the prospect of six more years of Vladimir Putin. If the protests continue, will they be met with harsh reprisals? That was the route taken in Belarus when Alexander Lukashenko won a fourth consecutive presidential term in 2010. Police intervened as soon as demonstrators assembled the night after the election, and hundreds of protesters along with seven presidential candidates were jailed. Alternatively, could we see a repeat of Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”, when demonstrators camped out in downtown Kyiv and the authorities backed off, allowing a re-run of the election, which the opposition won? In the Russian case, neither wholesale repression nor revolution is likely. After the State Duma elections triggered demonstrations last December, the Kremlin cannily abandoned its initial response of arresting protesters, and started issuing permits for demonstrations. Since then, the opposition has generally cooperated with the authorities in limiting their protests to officially sanctioned locations and times. The March 5 demonstration was approved for Pushkin square, about one mile from the Kremlin, and participants were only arrested after the officially-designated time had elapsed. If protests continue in their current pattern — peaceful gatherings at approved locations — then the opposition movement is likely to subsume into the background noise of Russian urban life. Opposition figure Aleksei Navalny has suggested that the time is ripe for escalating the level of confrontation, by protesting directly in front of government buildings and daring the authorities to crack down. Last week he wrote on Twitter, “Only Lubyanka. Only hardcore.” (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

A Good Treaty (USA):

Nationalism and the possibility of a ‘color revolution’ in Russia

With Russia’s sixth presidential election having reached its preordained conclusion, what remains unclear is how Moscow’s already seething political opposition will respond to the prospect of six more years of Vladimir Putin.

If the protests continue, will they be met with harsh reprisals? That was the route taken in Belarus when Alexander Lukashenko won a fourth consecutive presidential term in 2010. Police intervened as soon as demonstrators assembled the night after the election, and hundreds of protesters along with seven presidential candidates were jailed.

Alternatively, could we see a repeat of Ukraine’s 2004 “Orange Revolution”, when demonstrators camped out in downtown Kyiv and the authorities backed off, allowing a re-run of the election, which the opposition won?

In the Russian case, neither wholesale repression nor revolution is likely. After the State Duma elections triggered demonstrations last December, the Kremlin cannily abandoned its initial response of arresting protesters, and started issuing permits for demonstrations. Since then, the opposition has generally cooperated with the authorities in limiting their protests to officially sanctioned locations and times. The March 5 demonstration was approved for Pushkin square, about one mile from the Kremlin, and participants were only arrested after the officially-designated time had elapsed.

If protests continue in their current pattern — peaceful gatherings at approved locations — then the opposition movement is likely to subsume into the background noise of Russian urban life. Opposition figure Aleksei Navalny has suggested that the time is ripe for escalating the level of confrontation, by protesting directly in front of government buildings and daring the authorities to crack down. Last week he wrote on Twitter, “Only Lubyanka. Only hardcore.”

(read more)

Ballots & Bullets (UK): Have French twenty-somethings deserted the Socialist Party? Much has been made in recent days of Nicolas Sarkozy overtaking François Hollande for the first time in polling for the first round of the French presidentials. This symbolic croisement may or may not reflect a change in Sarkozy’s fortunes and the first step towards an historic electoral turnaround. It certainly reflects a trend to date found only in the IFOP polls, well within the margin of error and not replicated in the second round polls, which still all give Hollande a clear if reduced victory. This campaign key moment has overshadowed a potentially more interesting – and troubling – polling phenomenon overlooked by most of the press. On 14 March, the French press reported that an IFOP poll of les primo-votants – first-time voters – put François Hollande way out in front, with 31% of vote intentions, followed by Marine Le Pen (23%) and Nicolas Sarkozy (21%). The same day, a CSA poll carried out amongst those in the 18-30 age category concluded that Hollande was out of step with the young electorate, managing only 18% of this group, against 26% for Le Pen and 25% for Sarkozy. On Monday evening, amongst 18-24 year olds, an ostensibly earlier IFOP poll had 27% for Hollande, 26% for Sarkozy and 16% for Le Pen. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Ballots & Bullets (UK):

Have French twenty-somethings deserted the Socialist Party?

Much has been made in recent days of Nicolas Sarkozy overtaking François Hollande for the first time in polling for the first round of the French presidentials. This symbolic croisement may or may not reflect a change in Sarkozy’s fortunes and the first step towards an historic electoral turnaround. It certainly reflects a trend to date found only in the IFOP polls, well within the margin of error and not replicated in the second round polls, which still all give Hollande a clear if reduced victory. This campaign key moment has overshadowed a potentially more interesting – and troubling – polling phenomenon overlooked by most of the press.

On 14 March, the French press reported that an IFOP poll of les primo-votants – first-time voters – put François Hollande way out in front, with 31% of vote intentions, followed by Marine Le Pen (23%) and Nicolas Sarkozy (21%). The same day, a CSA poll carried out amongst those in the 18-30 age category concluded that Hollande was out of step with the young electorate, managing only 18% of this group, against 26% for Le Pen and 25% for Sarkozy. On Monday evening, amongst 18-24 year olds, an ostensibly earlier IFOP poll had 27% for Hollande, 26% for Sarkozy and 16% for Le Pen.

(read more)

Informed Comment (USA): Top ten Catholic teachings Santorum ignores Rick Santorum is claiming that if he wins the Illinois primary, he has virtually won the Republican nomination. It seems an appropriate time for this golden oldie: The right wing Republican politicians who have been denouncing the requirement that female employees have access to birth control as part of their health benefits as an attack on religious freedom completely ignore the church teachings they don’t agree with. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops. 1. So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you’ll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching. 2.The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum’s opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting. 3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.) 4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage. 5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying “We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children.” Santorum is a critic of welfare. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Informed Comment (USA):

Top ten Catholic teachings Santorum ignores

Rick Santorum is claiming that if he wins the Illinois primary, he has virtually won the Republican nomination. It seems an appropriate time for this golden oldie:

The right wing Republican politicians who have been denouncing the requirement that female employees have access to birth control as part of their health benefits as an attack on religious freedom completely ignore the church teachings they don’t agree with. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both Catholics, and wear their faith on their sleeves, but they are hypocritical in picking and choosing when they wish to listen to the bishops.

1. So for instance, Pope John Paul II was against anyone going to war against Iraq I think you’ll find that Rick Santorum managed to ignore that Catholic teaching.

2.The Conference of Catholic Bishops requires that health care be provided to all Americans. I.e., Rick Santorum’s opposition to universal health care is a betrayal of the Catholic faith he is always trumpeting.

3. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty for criminals in almost all situations. (Santorum largely supports executions.)

4. The US Conference of Bishops has urged that the federal minimum wage be increased, for the working poor. Santorum in the Senate repeatedly voted against the minimum wage.

5. The bishops want welfare for all needy families, saying “We reiterate our call for a minimum national welfare benefit that will permit children and their parents to live in dignity. A decent society will not balance its budget on the backs of poor children.” Santorum is a critic of welfare.

(read more)

Ballots & Bullets (UK): Notes on Putin’s victory: Is Russia changing? In the end, for all the fevered discussion of recent months, Putin’s third presidential election victory on March 4, 2012 looks on face value much like his previous two: a first-round landslide that surpassed all his opponents put together; the communists in a distant second, and a rag-bag of liberal, nationalist and pro-regime candidates polling in single digits. What’s more, Putin’s result comfortably surpassed the 49 percent score for the pro-regime United Russia party in December, the 50 percent threshold for avoiding a second-round and his 53 percent support in 2000. Of course, this score was likely massaged: it’s notable that Putin was the only candidate whose final tally surpassed the exit-poll estimate given by VTsIOM (58.3) and FOM (59.3), and even Russia-watchers who are not normally particularly anti-Putin (such as Anatoly Karlin) estimate the rate of fraud at 3-4 percent. Still, such peripheral fraud is nothing new to Russian elections and a support base of nearly 60 percent is enviable for a leader entering his twelfth year at the political apex. But Putin’s post-victory tears (though he blamed them on the bitter wind) indicate that this was Putin’s most emotional and hard-fought victory yet, and perhaps one that he was never fully sure of until the count. So is the initial impression of business-as-usual merely illusory? How much has actually changed? (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Ballots & Bullets (UK):

Notes on Putin’s victory: Is Russia changing?

In the end, for all the fevered discussion of recent months, Putin’s third presidential election victory on March 4, 2012 looks on face value much like his previous two: a first-round landslide that surpassed all his opponents put together; the communists in a distant second, and a rag-bag of liberal, nationalist and pro-regime candidates polling in single digits. What’s more, Putin’s result comfortably surpassed the 49 percent score for the pro-regime United Russia party in December, the 50 percent threshold for avoiding a second-round and his 53 percent support in 2000.

Of course, this score was likely massaged: it’s notable that Putin was the only candidate whose final tally surpassed the exit-poll estimate given by VTsIOM (58.3) and FOM (59.3), and even Russia-watchers who are not normally particularly anti-Putin (such as Anatoly Karlin) estimate the rate of fraud at 3-4 percent.

Still, such peripheral fraud is nothing new to Russian elections and a support base of nearly 60 percent is enviable for a leader entering his twelfth year at the political apex. But Putin’s post-victory tears (though he blamed them on the bitter wind) indicate that this was Putin’s most emotional and hard-fought victory yet, and perhaps one that he was never fully sure of until the count. So is the initial impression of business-as-usual merely illusory? How much has actually changed?

(read more)

Moderate Left (USA): Santorum and Obama big winners following last round of primaries Santorum is clearly the big winner, and not just because he beat Mitt Romney. No, almost bigger was the fact that Santorum knocked of Newt Gingrich in two southern states, one of which borders Newt’s home state of Georgia. That Santorum — a northerner from Pennsylvania — was able to come into the south and win does damage to Newt’s raison d’être. If Newt can’t win in the south, where can he win? Make no mistake, the delegate math is still against Santorum. He’d have to win roughly 66 percent of the outstanding delegates to win a first-ballot nomination. Considering that last night — on a good night — he got around 35 percent of delegates at stake, that’s going to be tough. But Rick doesn’t have just one path to the nomination. If he can keep Mitt from getting to 1144 delegates, Santorum has a chance to win at the convention, especially if he’s the candidate of the party faithful. That’s not out of the question. But he’ll have to surprise in some places, like Puerto Rico, where he has a puncher’s chance in an open primary. And he probably has to win the winner-take-all Wisconsin Primary on April 3, and steal a win in California or New York. If he can do that — and it’s a big if – he can keep Romney under 1000 delegates, and give himself a chance to go into Tampa with a plausible case for the nomination. … Obama benefits from a long, drawn-out Republican Primary, and he got that last night. While the math still favors Romney, it looks increasingly likely that the primary will go on through at least late April, and possibly all the way to California in June. This is fantastic news for Obama, as every dollar Mitt Romney spends attacking Rick Santorum is a dollar he can’t spend attacking Barack Obama. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Moderate Left (USA):

Santorum and Obama big winners following last round of primaries

Santorum is clearly the big winner, and not just because he beat Mitt Romney. No, almost bigger was the fact that Santorum knocked of Newt Gingrich in two southern states, one of which borders Newt’s home state of Georgia. That Santorum — a northerner from Pennsylvania — was able to come into the south and win does damage to Newt’s raison d’être. If Newt can’t win in the south, where can he win?

Make no mistake, the delegate math is still against Santorum. He’d have to win roughly 66 percent of the outstanding delegates to win a first-ballot nomination. Considering that last night — on a good night — he got around 35 percent of delegates at stake, that’s going to be tough.

But Rick doesn’t have just one path to the nomination. If he can keep Mitt from getting to 1144 delegates, Santorum has a chance to win at the convention, especially if he’s the candidate of the party faithful. That’s not out of the question. But he’ll have to surprise in some places, like Puerto Rico, where he has a puncher’s chance in an open primary. And he probably has to win the winner-take-all Wisconsin Primary on April 3, and steal a win in California or New York. If he can do that — and it’s a big if – he can keep Romney under 1000 delegates, and give himself a chance to go into Tampa with a plausible case for the nomination.

…

Obama benefits from a long, drawn-out Republican Primary, and he got that last night. While the math still favors Romney, it looks increasingly likely that the primary will go on through at least late April, and possibly all the way to California in June. This is fantastic news for Obama, as every dollar Mitt Romney spends attacking Rick Santorum is a dollar he can’t spend attacking Barack Obama.


(read more)

Balloon Juice (USA): Romney on Planned Parenthood: “We’ll get rid of that” Just as he bashes “Obamacare” with more fervor than any of the other candidates (in order to distract from the fact that he was for the individual mandate before he was against it), Romney is bashing Planned Parenthood—and, by extension, all women—to repent for his former support of women and reproductive freedom, and to wash away the stain of his prior pro-choice, pro-Roe viewpoints. (read more)
Pop-upView Separately

Balloon Juice (USA):

Romney on Planned Parenthood: “We’ll get rid of that”

Just as he bashes “Obamacare” with more fervor than any of the other candidates (in order to distract from the fact that he was for the individual mandate before he was against it), Romney is bashing Planned Parenthood—and, by extension, all women—to repent for his former support of women and reproductive freedom, and to wash away the stain of his prior pro-choice, pro-Roe viewpoints.

(read more)

Evidence may link Qadhafi to Sarkozy election campaign

Issandr El Amrani Arabist.net (Cairo):

Back in the early days of Libya war, the reasons for France’s rapid intervention were the subject of much discussion. One of the rumors that was floating was that Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, was eager to cover up the Qaddafi regime’s close ties with his own party and business networks including the financing of Sarkozy’s presidential campaign in 2007.

The rumor has now come back with a vengeance and possibly, proof. The quality (anti-Sarkozy) website mediapart.fr has published an incendiary document suggesting that the campaign was financed through Saif Islam al-Qadhafi to the tune of €50 million. The document, which was leaked by government sources and had previously been part of the evidence in a case involving the relationship between Sarkozy’s party and the arms dealer Ziad Takieddin, suggests an elaborate setup negotiated between the Qadhafis and Sarkozy’s advisors. The money was laundered through a Panama-based shell company and the Swiss bank accounts of the sister of a prominent right-wing politician also close to Sarkozy, according to mediapart.

In March 2011, just a few days before French jets struck Libyan army vehicles moving towards Benghazi, Saif al Islam gave an interview in which he demanded that France return the money used in the presidential campaign, threatening that he had details of bank accounts that could incriminate Sarkozy.

(full article)