Pinochet dies

General Augusto Pinochet has died at the age of 91. I believe the initial reaction from the UK foreign office was appropriate:

We note the passing of Gen Pinochet and want to pay tribute to the remarkable progress that Chile has made over the last 15 years as an open, stable and prosperous democracy.

Margaret Thatcher has apparently said she is "greatly saddened." That saddens me.

Según La Tercera, un 55 por ciento de chilenos opinan que Pinochet no debiera recibir honores de ex presidente en el funeral. (According to the Chilean newspaper La Tercera, 55% of Chileans believe Pinochet should not be buried with the honors of an ex-president).

News flash!

Via Milkmoney or Not

Ecuadorian elections

As usual with Latin American elections, the talk has all been about the presidential election in Ecuador, where leftist Rafael Correa defeated banana magnate Alvaro Noboa. Correa was originally aligned with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela but has moderated a little bit since, at least according to the Economist, who I trust more than I do in a matter to which I haven't paid a horribly large amount of attention.

There has been less discussion of the legislative elections. (The Wikipedia article doesn't really mention them yet). However, Ecuador uses a rather unusual voting system. For a discussion of how the system works, check out my comment at Fruits and Votes (the original post regarding both Correa's win and the legislative polls). Essentially, it is a strange open-list system. As far as I can tell, it's also possible to cheat. Individual votes on the open lists are weighted by the average number of votes everyone casts for candidates. In big constituencies (there are a couple, with 14 and 18 seats), pretty much nobody casts all those votes. In Guayas (18 seats) the average was about 8 votes. This means that if you voted for every individual that your party nominated, your 18 votes * 1/8 = 2.25 votes for your party, effectively. As far as I can tell, that's perfectly legal and possible.

Full results can be found at the Ecuadorian TSE.

Chávez coasts to another win

I have not said much about the upcoming elections in Venezuela. Suffice it to say that I would support Rosales and, when he loses, I will be disappointed but not surprised.

Day of reckoning

Everyone's out but the top five (Dryden will be eliminated in the second round as he has chosen not to drop out). Dion crept past Kennedy in the first round (by 2 votes), Ignatieff did not do as well as expected.

Predictions: I am rooting for Kennedy now. However I think that the odds are (1) Rae (2) Dion.

They are counting the second ballot now.

9:49 AM CT Check that. I predict Kennedy goes to Dion and Ignatieff's delegates go to Dion. Dion wins.

I think I heard someone on TV say they thought Kennedy "bombed" the speech. What?? Kennedy's speech was one of the best. Definitely better than Dion and Ignatieff. Unfortunately it is not the sole determinant of what happens.

1:37 PM CT I was at work for a while today and couldn't blog, but I was watching as Kennedy moved over to Dion. Kennedy sounded deflated and disappointed, but made it clear he was supporting Dion as the most in agreement with him and said that the goals were more important than the person. Now it's a toss up--Dryden went to Rae (but "freed" his delegates); Ignatieff was still ahead but not really growing; Dion and Kennedy together pass Rae, if Dion takes all of Kennedy's delegates.

Crazy and exciting...

1:43 PM CT I made it home just in time. This is ridiculously exciting!!! Rae is eliminated. My predictions are coming true. Question: What does Rae do now?? Deal with Dion, or with Ignatieff? I think most of his delegates would rather go to Dion.

1:52 PM CT Rae has released his delegates and will not endorse anyone. Well, Dion finished first, Ignatieff second. Ignatieff grew by only about 5 percent, representing Kennedy's delegates who didn't follow their candidate. Dion is on the move. I think the majority of Rae's delegates fall to Dion, and Dion wins. If that happens, what is the political future of Rae and of Ignatieff?

2:56 PM CT Talk continues. Comments on how Dion and Kennedy have been a team. Hedy Fry is backing Dion.

3:47 PM CT Jean Chretien is speaking. Gives Paul Martin a line by noting that he voted for his father 50 years ago. Notes that Liberals are the party that voted "no" on the war. No shot of Ignatieff's reaction. Continues speaking about Liberal accomplishments and unity.

4:46 PM CT And we're almost here. Ignatieff camp looks dejected, Dion and Kennedy look pretty happy. A lot of talk about the benefits/drawbacks of a convention vs. OMOV. The commentators do make a legit point that the leadership convention is extremely exciting. They talk a lot about how a convention shows young people that the party is fun (okay, but you don't have to have a leadership convention, any convention will do). The point, of course, is that the outcome is best--not to get caught up in process. I wouldn't say I know enough about the history of the whole thing, as it relates to Canada, to weigh in.

5:04 PM CT Dion is the winner 2521-2084. He and Gerard hold their hands up. Ignatieff looked almost like he was going to cry. He now is taking the stage and conceding--it's actually a pretty good concession all things considered. Now Martin is up to introduce Dion. Think this is about all I'm blogging. Until later...

Selecting Canada's next PM

I'm watching the Liberal convention online...

I have not taken the side of a single candidate during the race, although I have been most impressed by, and lean toward, both Stephane Dion and Gerard Kennedy. Dion's "three-pillar" approach emphasizing the environment and his experience are impressive; Kennedy's freshness, drive and enthusiasm, and his commitment to values, recommend him.

I have not seen any of the candidates give a speech before. I found Dion not particularly interesting, but his English was fine, something that has been mentioned as a weakness. He took too long and got sent off stage by the music. Kennedy's French has been, conversely, mentioned as his weakness. Not speaking French, I cannot evaluate, though he sounded all right to me. What I can say is that Kennedy really, really impressed me. His speech was risky--it placed blame on the party for its defeat and called on the party to find its values--but I found it both authentic and passionate, as well as true.

Of course, Ignatieff and Rae are still the front-runners, but anything can happen--it's a convention, after all.

More to come.


7:42 CT Rae gave a speech without notes about the Canada he wants. It was okay and the broadcasters liked it but it was not as energetic as Kennedy's and, of course, had fewer specifics and a few platitudes. Ignatieff's up and his pre-speech video is currently running. I've been trying to figure out what irritates me about Ignatieff, and I think it's just his conceitedness, which seems to permeate the campaign, and everything it produces as well... a little bit too slick and media-driven.

7:44 CT Ignatieff's brother Andrew (the original "Iggy"), in the video, noted that "it's not arrogance, it's normal human shyness." That's the word I was looking for--arrogance.

8:03 CT Ignatieff: "We are the party that will take us there." Right...I suppose he was talking about all of Canada, not the Liberals. :) A good speech, especially towards the end. Emphasis on Canada's place in the world, Canada will have the best, can have the best, so on. I'm surprised the cameras weren't on Volpe the whole time--they've been spying on him nonstop waiting for him to make the move over to Rae. Now they're trying to rope Brison into admitting that he's going to Ignatieff but he won't bite (even when they ask the same question five times, imagine that!).

I still don't like Ignatieff. His smug smile alone annoys me...

There we go, the announcer mentioned Volpe again. Commentators don't like Ignatieff as much as Rae or Kennedy. I still say Kennedy was the best.

Who needs a government?

Looks like things are a bit more complicated in the Netherlands than I thought. First, CDA + VVD + PvdV (Wilders) doesn't add up to a majority. Not to mention, nobody really wants to work with Wilders, who is rather controversial due to comments on Islam.

Okay, quickly apply the cordon sanitaire, and go... where? Christian Democrats and Labor (CDA + PvdA), ignoring the fact that they hate each other, still don't have a majority. The rumors have had a small Christian party (economic left/social right), CU, joining the government. Except that PvdA has demanded that the big gainers, SP, be involved in any discussion.

One of the outgoing Liberal (VVD) ministers commented that "the only winners are the anarchists" due to the inconclusive nature of this election. But it seems to be becoming a pattern, with Germany, Austria and the Czechs all voting inconclusively. Why? And will it lead to anything other than strengthening extremists, especially on the right?

Guy at A Fistful of Euros has a good commentary.

To the extreme...

Looks like the Rwandan government is going what we call "overboard"...

One can surmise that Kagame would have liked to do this for a long time and now he has a pretext to do so. He has never had good relations with France, as the RPF saw France as backing the genocidaire government. He and his ministers are probably legitimately offended (to be mild) at the accusations--if they're not true, they're essentially falsely blaming Kagame/RPF for allowing the genocide to begin (and if they are true then it's certainly an unpleasant reminder of a failed strategy, nonetheless). There is also the colonialist/colonized angle to this (who are they to judge us?). That has some merit.

Even so, to block all state institutions from operating, including the French school and RFI, is quite extreme and certainly shows the poor state of relations that Kagame and the French have had for years. As, of course, does the warrant that sparked off the whole situation.

Shouldn't be a surprise

To update a previous story,

BBC: Rwanda cuts relations with France

Rwanda has accused Paris of trying to destabilise its government. France said it regretted Rwanda's move to cut ties.

Paris has insisted the French judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, acted on his own authority and in total independence.

Issuing the warrants, Judge Bruguiere accused President Paul Kagame - who under French law has immunity as head of state - of ordering the former president's death. Mr Kagame has denied involvement.

Good move, Harper!

If you pay any attention to the winds that blow from up north, you know that there has been a debate among the politicos for a few weeks now: is Quebec (the province) a nation? This debate was sparked by the Liberal Party's Quebec branch, which, in advance of the upcoming leadership convention, passed a resolution declaring that the LPC should recognize Quebec as a nation, and sending it on to the convention. This has, thereby, stirred up a great deal of controversy in Liberal (and non-Liberal) ranks, with Michael Ignatieff generally blamed for having brought the issue up and played with the constitution for his own political ends, and other candidates paying lip service to "Quebec-as-nation" but saying further steps are not currently necessary.

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe finally seized on this entire issue to introduce, in the House of Commons, a resolution that "Quebeckers form a nation." And then Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a Conservative, for those not familiar), who wisely had avoided commenting on the entire situation and had been allowing the Liberals to self-destruct arguing about it, was forced into action. He pulled a very astute move: he introduced a resolution declaring that "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." In English-speaking Canada, "Quebeckers" generally refers to everyone from Quebec, and "Québécois" to French-speaking Quebeckers. (In French, of course, the entire thing is much more complicated, and much of this matter is the semantics: exactly what you define a "nation" to be and who or what is being referred to in the statement).

Essentially, Harper proposes to recognize French-speaking Quebeckers as a (sociological) nation. This is not a particularly controversial statement, not nearly as controversial as according the status to a legal entity, the province, which might indicate more rights. It is generally accepted, at least as far as I am aware, that the Québécois are a nation. Harper used words carefully and, as far as I can tell, he definitely wants this resolution to be interpreted as applying to francophone residents of Quebec only. [I tried to discern everything I could from the various blog entries, news articles, and the Hansard record of debate]. He has outflanked nationalists while reaffirming the unity of Canada, and all he is really conceding is that the francophones in Quebec are their own nation, which everybody knows anyway.

Now, I know there are a lot of details about this that I might not understand, not being Canadian or a lifelong student of Canadian politics, so I could be entirely wrong on my interpretation. Indeed, there are plenty of Canadians who are mad about it, there have been newspaper editorials against Harper for this. But much of the reason has been a lack of clarity about the two points I note above: who or what is being defined as a nation? and what is a nation?

Again, my take in the end--Harper did what he had to do, and well. The only people who really should be angry (besides the separatists, who got outdone) are the francophones everywhere else, who really are kind of cheated by this.

I'm posting only one link, to a blog post, but rest assured everyone is writing about it, so just search for "people from Canada" and you'll probably get about 30 million human comments and 9 million from polar bears (who, by the way, are the next in line to get nation status).*

*I love Canada. All in good humor.