View previous stories
	The End of Liberalism? by Andrei Belikov The Moscow News Russia / Poland   Date: 31 August, 2005   An opinion poll conducted by VTsIOM in mid-August showed that Russians do not regard the events of August 1991 as a triumph of democracy. Only 13% of the respondents said that if they could return to those days, they would give their backing to Boris Yeltsin. 18% said they would support the GKChP while 69% would stay away from the fight. Only 11% of the respondents believe those August events to have represented the triumph of democracy, which put an end to the ruling establishment of the CPSU. Three times as many respondents were certain that August 1991 was a tragedy that has had fatal consequences for the country.   It is perfectly clear that every passing year sees a decrease in the number of those who support such Russian liberals as Gaidar and Chubais. Yet there is no doubt that if the poll concerned the need for the nation to observe fundamental democratic rights and liberties, then the majority of Russians would declare for these freedoms. While the citizenry are unlikely to be against political liberalism, they definitely do not accept a liberal market economy and spiritual profanation of a pseudo-free society, which nullifies the country's traditions, history, and culture.   Under these circumstances, victory in the next elections will be won by those leaders who succeed in combining political liberalism with a socially oriented economy and moderate nationalism in the sphere of culture and spirit. One cannot help agreeing with Russia's most famous prisoner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who recently prophesied a communist victory in the next elections.   In any case, it is already clear now that a pro-Western development path - based as it is on cupidity and aggressive self-expression - has proved to be unacceptable to the majority of Russians. Such popular attitudes are also observed in China, and considering that the United States and its allies have antagonized the entire Islamic world, one can presume that the geopolitical situation on our planet could make a sharp turn in the near future. The West, which won the Cold War some 15 years ago, has squandered all the dividends it gained from that victory.   31 Aug. 2005   "Lech Walesa 25 Years Later", by Valery Masterov (The Moscow News - Warsaw bureau)   Twenty-five years ago, Solidarity, the movement that brought down the Communist system in Eastern Europe, was born   On August 31, 1980, an agreement was signed at the strikebound Lenin shipyard in Gdansk, Ploland - by Lech Walesa, an electrician and head of the shipyard strike committee; and Mieczyslaw Jagielski, deputy prime minister and chairman of a special government commission. Thus, the authorities almost fully accepted the 21 demands by the striking workers that are today inscribed on the shipyard's front gate, including the recognition of independent labor unions, the right to strike, the freeing of political prisoners and democratic opposition activists, and the abolition of censorship. The principal political force at that time - the Polish United Workers' Party (PURP) - could not but give in: Working people throughout Poland had shown solidarity with the shipyard workers.   Solidarity's triumph lasted for 16 months. On December 13, 1981, martial law was introduced, while the most active dissidents were interned or jailed. Solidarity was banned, but the wall of the authoritarian system had been breached.   Poland is preparing for the upcoming Solidarity jubilee on a grand scale. Not everything is going smooth, however. The preparations are accompanied by a good measure of controversy and debate about past achievements, the guest list, and the status of certain personalities. Solidarity itself is also divided: Former associates have now become political opponents. According to the Polityka weekly, "Solidarity's political victory left a bitter aftertaste: We acquired freedom but lost solidarity."   The honors committee for the celebration of Solidarity's 25th anniversary is headed by Lech Walesa, the legend of the public movement that rallied 10 million people and former president of Poland who is now actively promoting democratic experience from public platforms and rostrums abroad. He is still as unpredictable and contradictory as before. Once again, Walesa has stirred up the hornet's nest: He invited President Aleksander Kwasniewski, his one-time sworn enemy, to the celebrations in Gdansk; he appeared in a television debate with Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, the butcher of Solidarity, and indicated that he was closely watching the hustle and bustle around the presidential office (a presidential election is to take place on October 9).   We talked with Lech Walesa in Gdansk, where every street these days is reminiscent of Solidarity, while the local theater, Wybrzeze, is putting on a production with my interlocutor as the central character.   There has been so much of you on the stage, television, in the cinema, and even in comic strips that malicious tongues are saying: "Walesa is becoming a new mass culture icon." Does this bother you?   Ill-wishers have only hardened me. As for the fact that the Solidarity jubilee is getting broad media coverage and even exposure to the arts, one should only be happy about this. It is important that people, especially young people, know that a quarter century ago we were fighting not only for better living standards and full shelves in the shops but also for freedom of expression and civil society.   What made victory possible in August 1980?   We already had some experience in fighting. Ten years before that, we had taken to the streets, ending up defenseless before the ruling authorities which were armed to the teeth. There were bloody clashes, and about 40 strikers were killed. College and university students were also on strike. But what kind of spin did the authorities put on that? They said it was the lazy and idlers, those who did not want to work or study who were protesting. I managed to unite millions of people of different trades and professions. It was no longer about anarchists or punks, but about an organized struggle directed from a single center.   You are accused of believing the "Solidarity equals Walesa" myth. Is this really so?   I was a blue collar worker, hence my public credibility. Yet those who have achieved much are dogged by envy. They accuse me of ruling like a dictator. Otherwise we would have lost. I was responsible for everything. I was supported by the masses and I won with their support. The drama is that these masses had to pay too high a price.   But maybe the Solidarity myth did not justify itself in a free market environment?   I counted on two presidential terms to translate all of our demands into reality. I proposed a presidential system of governance, a different privatization program - 100 million to everyone, a new-generation Marshall Plan, various decrees, etc. But I lost the second election and failed to carry through all of my plans. I ended up as hostage to past successes - and to my own self. Of the once multi-million strong Solidarity, about 700,000 members have remained today.   But Solidarity keeps fighting: Shipyard workers demand an investigation into the purportedly illegal sell-off of the shipyard, and coal miners and railroad workers are also on strike.   I am ashamed that the democracy we were fighting for has led to this: MPs and government ministers are stealing millions, while working-class people are starving.   Do you agree with those lamenting the fact that the war with Walesa is turning into Walesa's war with Solidarity?   I am at war with Solidarity? It has simply become different - not bad or unviable. Today it is better educated and better suited for the 21st century; it knows how to talk to the capitalists and come to agreement with them. Meanwhile, I am intrinsically a revolutionary. So today's Solidarity is not to my liking. At the same time, I do not want to be a ceremonial bystander. So after the jubilee celebrations, I will quit Solidarity.   Nonetheless, you have issued a challenge to presidential candidates, saying: "I am going to fight. I am disappointed with what is going on in politics." Now, what is it that you do not like?   All of this claptrap around secondary, inconsequential matters: who should be stripped of his perks or whose case should be made public. I am raising signatures and I feel mobilized. But there is no way I can stand up to the demagoguery of the Kaczynski brothers or the flag-wavers from the League of Polish Families. I will see what the lineup is going to be in the run-up to the presidential election. If I see that I can count on support, this could make a difference. I will be under steam, ready to jump in until the very last moment.   Division among your former associates, who in their internal squabbles are also lashing out at you, is staggering. Or is it true that the Walesa legend has outgrown Walesa himself?   All of these disputes arise from the prevailing situation. Today, very little depends on Polish politicians. Once everything hinged on the Soviets, but now everything depends on the West. We went out of our way to get there, but now Brussels keeps making one demand after another - damn it! Now, try to offer the electorate a program if it has to be approved by some external force. Internal struggles get personal, destroying reputations. It is lamentable that sleaze, compromising material, based above all on state security archives, is becoming the main weapon here.   What is your opinion about the introduction of martial law?   The communist regime had zero tolerance for Solidarity because it did not fit into the system. Had I been in Jaruzelski's shoes, I would have come to terms with Walesa and joined European structures, expecting the Polish example to be emulated by other countries. But the general arrested us, and it is extremely difficult to carry out transparent reform with such an encumbrance. Ten years went down the drain.   You once said that you had pulled out the first stone from the Berlin Wall. Yet for some reason everyone forgot about Solidarity's second advent which brought into office the first non-Communist government in Eastern Europe following the 1989 elections.   This is price for the leadership. We knocked out the bear's teeth. That came before the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the "velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia. But even prior to that, a Pole had become a pope who then came to his motherland and said that there could not be a just Europe without an independent Poland. Then came Gorbachev with his perestroika and glasnost. Talking about the contribution to the demolition of the Communist system, John Paul II should take 50 percent of the credit for that, Lech Walesa and Solidarity, 30 percent. The rest can be divided among others, including Boris Yeltsin. Had he not put down the putsch and then extracted Russia from the Soviet Union, the process could have dragged on for a very long time.   Color revolutions in FSU countries have been called a new Solidarity era. How much reality and how much symbolism is there in this?   I went to Ukraine, but I did not wear an orange jersey. The question is whether people who have risen from their political slumber will manage to ensure real democracy or let one oligarchy to be replaced by another. It seems that the new Ukrainian authorities are already acting up. So I supported freedom, not personalities. The people will have a chance when they can take part in the division of national wealth and get to control the ruling authority. The world today, like Lego cubes, has some basic dimensions: freedom, democracy, pluralism, freedom of religion, and a free market environment. When these cubes do not match each other, relations aggravate. I am very interested in seeing our neighbors - Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - have as many matching dimensions as possible.   Obviously there is a shortage of matching parameters in Russian-Polish relations.   We are acting foolishly. That's all I can say. When I was president, I thought we would have wonderful relations with Russia. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We keep arguing and quarreling, while third forces are taking advantage of this. The more we quarrel, the more we - both you and us - let the West benefit from our quarrels. If we do not understand this and do not cooperate, we will become a laughing stock and an easy mark for others.
	Afghanistan's Long Road to Peace by Andrew North Reuters / IRIN News / BBC News, Kabul Afghanistan   September 18, 2005.   Landmark poll: Afghans are voting in the first national assembly election in 30 years. (Reuters)   Afghans begin voting in landmark poll   Polls have opened in Afghanistan's landmark national assembly and provincial elections and turnout is expected to be high despite threats of violence and a boycott call by Taliban insurgents.   The polls are being held amid tight security nearly four years after US-led troops drove the hardline Taliban from power.   It is nearly a year since Hamid Karzai won a presidential election the Taliban vowed but failed to disrupt.   About 12.5 million Afghans are registered to vote in the UN-organised elections for a Lower House of Parliament and councils in all 34 provinces.   Enthusiasm appears high and some people have queued from early in the morning at the 6,000 polling centres nationwide.   "I came early to take my turn," Qari Salahuddin said as he waited with about a dozen other people outside a polling station in the eastern city of Jalalabad. "We are very happy. I am so happy, I couldn't sleep last night and was watching the clock to come out to vote."   The chairman of the Afghan-UN election commission, Bismillah Bismil, urges Afghans to come out to vote, stressing that the ballot is secret. "We pray to God that today we have a peaceful, stable and acceptable election," he said. "As we have repeatedly said, your vote will be secret ... only God will know who you voted for."   The elections are the final part of an international plan to restore democracy that was agreed after the Taliban's 2001 overthrow.   Kabul, 2 Sep 2005 (IRIN)   Afghanistan: Electoral observation effort gearing up.   With a little over two weeks to historic parliamentary elections in Afghanistan, tens of thousands of observers are set to monitor the internationally-supported poll, the joint UN-Afghan electoral body announced this week.   According to Joint Electoral Management Body (JEMB), 2,200 independent observers and more than 30,000 political party and candidate agents have been accredited to scrutinise the Wolesi Jirga (lower house) and provincial council elections.   "Almost 34,000 national and international observers will provide a thorough oversight of the electoral process," the JEMB's Mohammad Nazari, said, adding that the electoral observation operation would continue until final election results were announced.   Around 12.4 million Afghans are eligible to vote on 18 September in two simultaneous elections for the 249-seat Wolesi Jirga contested by 2,777 candidates and in 34 separate provincial council elections contested by 3,025 hopefuls.   Observers are hopeful that the comprehensive electoral observation will reduce the chance of warlords and regional strongmen intimidating or coercing voters. Some candidates and voters have reportedly been threatened by armed groups.   "Every step of the polling and counting process will be open to the scrutiny of observers as well as political party and candidates' agents. Importantly, observers and agents will be able to follow convoys carrying ballot boxes to count centres, where they will be able to monitor ballot boxes 24 hours a day," JEMB chairman Basmillah Basmall said.   A total of 197 international observers have also been accredited to oversee the election, including representatives from the European Union (EU), the watchdog group Human Rights Watch (HRW) as well as members of the diplomatic community in the capital, Kabul. EU observers will deploy to 29 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.   20 August 2005 (BBC News)   Just under 12 million people will be eligible to vote in September's elections.   There is hope in Afghanistan that the forthcoming parliamentary elections will mark another step away from decades of bloodshed. But in Kabul, Andrew North is frequently reminded of the country's violent past.   It was a spring evening last year. Haji, the night-watchman at the BBC house, was carrying a pot of green tea to his room. There was a large thumping bang, somewhere in the direction of the American embassy and the Nato peacekeeping force headquarters.   Haji looked up briefly. "Rocket," he said, and with a weary smile carried on to his room. In fact, we had had a series of these random strikes over the past few weeks.   In most cases causing just minor damage and casualties, but plenty of alarm to anyone unlucky enough to be nearby when a rocket landed. Disgruntled former mujahideen factions, Taleban, no-one was quite sure who was setting them off. But they were not going to keep Haji awake.   How could it be otherwise for someone who used to see rockets landing by the hundred, day after day, when he was working as a BBC driver during the bloody factional fighting that raged over Kabul in the early 1990s. Often he used his car as an ambulance to ferry away the dead and injured.   These days, many outsiders often think it is the Taleban who were responsible for most of this country's troubles, forgetting the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal.   For people in Kabul at least, the worst memories come from that time, when mujahideen factions took control of the city, then proceeded to tear the city apart in internecine warfare. Perhaps 50,000 people died. It was the Taleban who brought it to an end.   And one reason many Afghans worry about these forthcoming parliamentary elections is that a significant number of those running were commanders and senior figures in those factions, some accused of direct involvement in atrocities.   Human rights groups and many Afghans say they should be standing in the dock, not in a new parliament. It is a highly sensitive issue.   Government officials privately express anger and frustration at such calls, asking how they can possibly meet such demands without sparking renewed turmoil.   The chance to do so, they argue, was missed in 2001 after the overthrow of the Taleban when the US allowed them to return to their old fiefdoms.   As for the accused mujahideen commanders themselves, they accuse their accusers of lack of gratitude for the sacrifices they made to eject the Soviets. But the issue will not go away, especially if many of these people do succeed in winning seats.   Many Afghans believe, only when there is an accounting for the recent past including alleged crimes committed by the communist and Taleban regimes, as well as by mujahideen groups, can the country truly move on.   As the correspondent here now, it can be difficult to appreciate this, especially with the focus these days on the Taleban-led insurgency in the south and east.   For two years, the experiences of my Afghan colleagues put things very sharply into perspective.   Haji has been with the BBC here since 1992, Sultan the housekeeper since 1995. And their reaction, or lack of it, to the occasional rocket, or bomb attacks we get now in Kabul, serious though they are, provides a kind of reality check on where things are now, despite the continuing violence.   Of my eight Afghan colleagues in the BBC house and office, only two did not lose relatives in the fighting of the past quarter century. One saw his mother and sister die in front of him after his home was rocketed. Sultan's 11-year-old son was killed by flying shrapnel.   Waseh, one of the BBC drivers, lost his brother and four other family members when the plane they were in was shot down. When the Taleban came to Kabul, they kidnapped the cousin of our other driver, Waleh. He thinks he was sent to the front, but never heard from him again. They also closed down our office here for almost a year, kicking out one of my predecessors, Kate Clark. But throughout, Sultan stayed to look after it until it was re-opened in late 2001.   Two of the BBC's staff have been killed. One murdered during the civil war, just after conducting an interview, it is believed by a mujahideen group. Another in a plane crash. The list goes on.   If you wonder why, it is at least partly because this is possibly the longest-running BBC bureau in a conflict zone. What that also means is that they are uniquely tuned to danger. All those who have worked here, have stories of being saved by their quick thinking and resolve.   Outside Afghanistan it is the correspondent, of course, who gets the credit. Rarely do people realise how important are local staff on the ground, especially when you are covering a story about a country in conflict or one trying to leave it behind. But in Afghanistan, my Afghan colleagues are the real BBC.
	View more stories