observers
observers by Devine, James 19 March 2002 02:08 UTC Charles: Please note that that great bastion of freedom, for whom the U.S. fought operation desert fox, I mean storm, doesn't have elections at all, but that war was about freedom, not oil. The U.S. has troops in Saudi Arabia protecting that regime. Despite the following article, I think it's time to start building up a movement to demand international observers for the 2004 electionin the US. Jim Devine --- Who observes the observers? The west's condemnation of Zimbabwe's election process is a breathtaking case of double standards
observers
Despite the following article, I think it's time to start building up a movement to demand international observers for the 2004 electionin the US. Jim Devine --- Who observes the observers? The west's condemnation of Zimbabwe's election process is a breathtaking case of double standards John Laughland Monday March 18, 2002 The Guardian [UK] The chasm that opened up between the various teams of observers at the Zimbabwean elections shows the urgency of reformulating one of the oldest questions of political philosophy: who observes the observers? For over the last decade, election observing has become little more than a tool for powerful states to interfere in the internal affairs of weak ones. Monitors delegitimise elections which elect a candidate the west does not like, while turning a blind eye to the deficiencies of polls that produce the desired outcome. The hypocrisy is breathtaking - and not least because we in Britain do not allow observers at our own elections. For instance, British TV viewers may have been surprised to see Nigeria's Abdulsalam Abubakar reading out the Commonwealth's condemnation of the democratic process in Zimbabwe. But Nigerians will have been even more surprised. General Abubakar was military dictator of Nigeria from 1998-99. Now facing accusations of stealing more than $2bn from Nigeria's foreign reserves, Abubakar shares responsibility, as a member of Nigeria's top brass, for the cancellation by the military of the elections there in 1993. The man who won those elections died in prison while Abubakar was president. Less well known is the record of Kare Vollan, the head of the Norwegian observers, who denounced the Zimbabwean poll as unfair because of pre-election violence. This same Kare Vollan found that the Ukrainian parliamentary elections in 1998 were managed with professionalism while his team did not call into question the results - despite what he described as the violence, intimidation and harassment during the run-up to the election. Maybe it was because Ukraine was then the west's favourite former Soviet state that the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for which Vollan works, was happy, unlike in Zimbabwe, to trust the Ukrainian authorities to investigate these allegations. Another charge levelled at Zimbabwe is government control of the media. But this did not bother the OSCE at the Montenegrin parliamentary elections in 1998. There, the local Mr Big, Milo Djukanovic, has received tens of millions of dollars in western aid - not bad for a country with half the population of Birmingham. Apart from using the money for his gigantic police force of 30,000, and for ensuring to tal state control of the media, Djukanovic habitually ensures that he is the only candidate with any election posters. For the west, though, he was a useful thorn in the side of Slobodan Milosevic. But even this cannot compare with the stifling of democracy in Russia with which the west wholeheartedly cooperated throughout the 1990s and in 2000. Having welcomed the shelling of the Russian parliament to put down recalcitrant backbenchers in 1993 the west and the OSCE turned a blind eye to the massive fraud in the subsequent constitutional referendum, which reduced the power of the Russian parliament to that of a library reading room. One observer, the Tory minister Kenneth Baker, declared that poll a resounding success - even before it had closed. It later turned out that millions of votes had been added to the turnout to render the vote valid. All through the 1990s, western observers turned a blind eye to the government's grip on the broadcast media. At the 1995 elections, the OSCE and Council of Europe even managed to ignore the fact that 17 people were killed in campaigning. And at Putin's election in 2000, the west ignored reports that millions of votes had been added to achieve the desired result. In Slovakia in 1998, the west - via the OSCE - was determined to unseat the incumbent prime minister, Vladimir Meciar, even though (or maybe because) he is the most popular politician in the country. The main charge against him was bias in the state TV. When I asked the OSCE chief (Vollan again) why no one mentioned the greater bias in favour of the opposition of a far more popular foreign-funded private TV station, he promised scientific proof. When it came, in the form of a statistical survey by an Italian media-monitoring organisation, the figures actually showed the state channel to be a model of neutrality and the private channel to be grossly partisan. But facts would not move Vollan. He just said icily: You have the figures. Maybe your interpretation is different. The Zimbabweans were vil ified for the queues at polling stations in Harare. But at the Italian parliamentary elections last May, the socialist government reduced the number of polling stations by 30%. The chaos was so severe that the last Italian to cast his vote did so at 5am. So why were Francesco
Re: observers
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it's time to start building up a movement to demand international observers for the 2004 electionin the US. Hear hear! It would be a fantastic way to do south-north solidarity, esp. in Florida. In June 2000 I was an observer (for the Southern African Development Community) in the Zimbabwe parliamentary elections. The experience leads me to endorse the basics of bourgeois democracy... Here's something a friend and I did on ZNet last Friday: Interpreting Zimbabwe's election by Patrick Bond and Raj Patel By a vote of 1.69 million for Robert Mugabe to 1.28 million for Morgan Tsvangirai, the people of Zimbabwe re-elected the Zimbabwe African National Union (Zanu) president last weekend. The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), founded in September 1999, lost by more than in the last national election, in June 2000 when a small majority of parliamentary seats were taken by the ruling Zanu. We want to make seven points about the election and its various interpretations, meanings and implications. But to set the stage, here are the words of a young organic radical activist, Hopewell Gumbo, formerly the assistant to opposition leader Gibson Sibanda, subsequently a noted socialist activist and student anti-privatisation leader: What went wrong? There has been massive violence prior to the elections AND AS A RESULT THE ELECTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FREE AND FAIR. Mugabe survived on an anti-imperialist rhetoric and the land crisis not withstanding the violence campaign... Mugabe's rhetoric separated the urban poor from the rural poor. This is one important reality that must be interrogated. The answer to the MDC loss lies in the explanation of that massive discrepancy. But Mugabe was not genuine in his rhetoric. He announced a retreat from the IMF while he went on to privatise education and other services but manages to get the rural vote on a land ticket that results in violent farm invasions and occupations followed by a fast track resettlement program. 1) The election Mugabe stole this one. The Zimbabwe Election Support Network--mainly progressive human rights monitors--listed the following obvious violations: * disenfranchising voters through the voter registration process; * registration of voters beyond 3 March 2002; * correcting the voters' roll; * control of voter education through the Electoral Supervisory Commission; * drawing election supervisors and monitors from the Ministries of Defence, Home Affairs and Education; * disallowing postal voting [i.e. disallowing around a million votes from Zimbabweans abroad, which would have mainly gone to the MDC]; * constituency-based voting [i.e., instead of allowing anyone to vote for president no matter where they happen to be, within Zimbabwe]; * simultaneous holding of municipal and Presidential elections; * restrictions concerning the accompanying of ballot boxes; * printing of extra ballot papers; * very restrictive and oppressive Public Order and Security Act; * unequal access to the state controlled media, in particular the broadcast media, with a bias towards the ruling party; * restrictions concerning both local and international observers; * confiscation and destruction of identity cards by youths of the ruling party [i.e., thus preventing people from voting because an ID is required at the ballot box]; * establishment of illegal road blocks by youths of the ruling party; * political violence, including torture and murders, largely perpetrated by ruling party supporters against members and supporters of the opposition; * selective enforcement of the law by law enforcement agents. Then on the days of the election, March 9 and 10, urban Zimbabweans were confronted by drastic cutbacks in polling stations, requiring many hours of queuing in the hot sun. Rural voters witnessed a systematic refusal by government to allow monitors near the booths, with opposition party electoral agents unable to reach nearly half the stations, in part because of pro-Zanu thuggery. Across Zimbabwe, the government refused to abide by an urgent court order to extend voting for another day, opened only the polling booths in greater Harare (and five hours late at that), and then chased those still in long queues away at the end of the day. 2) Free and fair? Through such means, we believe, easily more than 410,000 votes were stolen. Most international election monitors--with the notable exception of ruling-party ministers from neighbouring countries, the Organisation of African Unity, and 50 official observers from South Africa--recognised this, declaring the poll unfree and unfair. But the reports from countries of the North played into Zanu's hands. Mugabe has been quick to point to imperialist hypocrisy, the stolen election in the US, and the lack of genuine choice in most rich countries. In contrast, the state-owned media welcomed the Southern African Development Community's
Africa offers to send observers to US
Agence France Presse November 10, 2000 Africa Offers To Send 'Observers' To Help U.S. End Poll Confusion PARIS - African nations suggested Friday sending 'observers' to the United States to help overcome presidential poll confusion as the world's press argued over whether it was witnessing electoral chaos or simply democracy in action. "International observers should be put in place" because "the United States must join the established democracies," said South Africa's daily Star. A top aide to Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe endorsed the idea: "perhaps now we have reached a time when they can learn a lot from us. Maybe Africans and others should send observers to help Americans deal with their democracy." Others fantasized about observers dressed in Hawaiian shirts and Bermuda shorts, alongside UN Blue Helmets, investigating Al Gore's campaign claim there were "serious and substantial irregularities" in the ballot. "It is a shameful reflection on our continent that, in the US's hour of need, we were not there beside our American brothers and sisters to help and advise where we could," said an editorial in South Africa's weekly Mail. As the presidential vote cliff-hanger threatened to drag on into next week, there was widespread surprise this could happen to the world's most famous democracy. "An American legend collapses -- suspicions of fraud in US vote," ran the headline in Turkey's mass-circulation Hurriyet daily. "Even in the United States there is electoral fraud," the Bulgarian financial daily Curentul wrote. Congo's independent La Reference Plus said Thursday the US vote provided "strong arguments for bad leaders and dictators in Africa." "If this happens in the United States, how do you want everything to be clean and transparent in the poor African continent," added the daily. Portugal's Diario de Noticias also echoed the view that democracy was being undermined: "In the end, this (US vote) is bad news for democracy in America. And in consequence, is bad news for democracy." But the French press dismissed that notion, saying the true winner in the US presidential elections was, in fact, none other than democracy. "The current crisis will be overcome," wrote the conservative daily Le Figaro, dismissing claims the chaos will damage the US. "In spite of waiting two more days and playing with the nerves of onlookers, it's only the vote count -- precisely because every vote counts - - which determines the outcome of the vote. That is democracy." Democracy is imperfect but "it's worked for two hundred years. And not that badly," it said. Britain's press, however, began dividing along party lines, debating the rights and wrongs of attempts of Democrat Al Gore camp to overturn the result in Florida, which his Republican rival George W. Bush won by a whisker, according to the initial count. "Desperate Al Gore began fighting dirty last night in his bid to snatch the US presidency," wrote Britain's best selling tabloid, The Sun. The right-leaning Daily Telegraph echoed this view, saying Gore's team had "opted to challenge the results rather than concede defeat graciously." The Guardian, however, came out in support of the vice president for the sake of US democracy. "It said there had to be challenges to the alleged "possible willful fraud and/or gross incompetence" and called for a re-run of the vote in areas where there had been significant irregularities.
[PEN-L:4216] Rept. of HR Observers in Chiapas (fwd)
/* Written 9:32 PM Feb 16, 1995 by moonlight in igc:reg.mexico */ /* -- "Eng.Version: Human Rights Viol./Iss" -- */ The following are excerpts of reports posted to reg.mexico that are related to human rights issues and violations and which have been translated into English. Hope that they are of help. Cindy Arnold, Volunteer, National Commission for Democracy in Mexico /* Written 8:49 PM Feb 14, 1995 by laneta:cimac in igc:reg.mexico */ /* -- "AMADO AVENDA%O" -- */ REBEL TRANSITIONAL REBEL IN THE STATE OF CHIAPAS. GOVERNMENT COUNCIL. San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, February 14, 1995. February 14 INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN VOLUNTEERS IN MORELIA RETURN FROM THE CONFLICT ZONE. Five Britains and two Mexicans who had been trapped in the conflict zone in Chiapas, were able to get to San Cristobal de las Casas today. On Monday February 6th, William Flinn and Emily Ryan, international volunteers who work in appropriate technology project, travelled to Morelia, in the municipality of Altamirano, in order to teach a course on the construction of latrines. They were accompanied by their daughters Rose and Ana and by Cecily King, a young relative of Ms. Ryan, as well as by Michael McCaughan, a Irish journalist. When they got to Morelia and the news about the federal troops had reached the area, the majority of the population decided to seek refuge in the mountains, fearing that there would be violence. The visitors, along with about 7 Mexicans who also were carrying out educational programs in the community, left with the local population. A Caravan of the Medical Commission with CONPAZ, was able to get to Morelia on Saturday, February 11th, where they talked with members of the 15 families who had stayed in the community. Along with collecting information about the situation, they sent a message to the group that had left, hoping that the delegation that travelled today to Morelia would find the volunteers and at least give them the news. Finally the British family and two of the Mexicans, Pilar Contla Reyes and Aida Gonzalez Venegas, were able to get to Altamirano, where they were transported to Cuxulha, a village located on the road to San Cristobal de las Casas by officials with the National Institute for Migration and other people, apparently with the Federal Attorney General's office. The Irish reporter, Michael McCaughan, and five of the Mexican volunteers who worked in the community have still not returned. Those who returned reported that the others had decided to stay with the community members, and that they were in good health. Topic 594[1;37HCONPAZ[2;1Hlaneta:cimac[2;35Hreg.mexico[2;5 9H 8:51 PM Feb 14, 1995 CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTSD Mexico, D. F., febrero 14 de 1995.-- The International Commission of Observation, comprised of Pastors for Peace from the United States, a Mexican delegation, and a Catalan delegation of ONGs, during their third day of activities, arrived at the Ocosingo checkpoint where they were prevented from passing into the village of San Miguel. Being denied passage representatives of the group went to the military offices in Ocosingo where they were informed that "journalists, tourists, foreigners and delegations like you" were not allowed to enter. Neither the presence of federal deputies, nor arguments about the Bill of Rights and the need to respect the right to freely move within the country's boundaries (established in articles 1 and 30 of the Constitution), could convince them to change their minds. They even said that they would denounce (Major David Patron Lozano). Diverse media representatives, Mexican citizens and foreigners who were trying to learn bout the conditions of the people were all in the same situation. Given these acts, our concern about the severity of the human rights violations that were being hidden from us grew. Adding to this was the news appearing in local and national daily newspapers which affirmed that there had been attacks on the villages. It made it absolutely imperative that groups of observors from the civic society and the media get entry, without restrictions. The International Commission of Observation, in view of the extreme urgency, considered that it was their obligation to insist upon being allowed to enter the conflict zone. Today, February 14th, we will try to break the barricade with legal actions, peaceful but firm, in order to restore respect for individual freedoms and the right of all of society to know exactly what is going on. Topic 597[1;30HINFORMACION CHIAPAS[2;1Hlaneta:cimac[2;35Hreg.mexico[2;59H 8:54 PM Feb 14, 1995 ETICIA CALZADA G`MEZ FEDERAL DEPUTY 71ST LEGISLATURE San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, February 14 de 1995 To: Agent of the Federal Public Ministry (Ministerio Publico Federal)
