Why It Matters

North Korea's Nuclear Agenda

2009-04-15T21:52:22Z

ByStephen Noerper, EastWest Institute

North Korea’s decision to kick out United Nations’ weapons inspectors dramatically ups the ante in its challenge to President Barack Obama and the international community. In response to the U.N. Security Council condemnation of North Korea’s missile launch on April 5, Pyongyang is moving fast to implement a clear-cut agenda. Among its key points:

Test the resolve of a young Democratic president with his first real crisis and push the United States to accept bilateral negotiations as a means of seeking a solution to this issue. North Korea sees the popular U.S. leader—fresh off the G-20 and NATO summits—as someone who may be willing to be far more accommodating than his predecessor, especially now that his administration has already signaled new openings to Iran and Cuba. It desperately wants diplomatic normalization with the United States and the trade and aid that would accompany such a breakthrough. It wants Washington to pick up where the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, left off: having sent then-Secretary Albright to Pyongyang, there were whispers of a possible U.S. presidential visit. Pyongyang then had leveraged the capture of a U.S. helicopter pilot to secure Washington’s attention, and it now holds two young American journalists who crossed into North Korean territory as bargaining chips.

Test the resolve of the international community, especially of the other six-party talk members. North Korea’s first response to the U.N. announcement was to announce its withdrawal from the multilateral dialogue. In doing so, Pyongyang hopes to drive a wedge between its more powerful dialogue partners. Moscow and Beijing—which pushed the U.N. Security Council away from sanctions or a stronger resolution—now bear the burden of bringing North Korea back to the negotiating table. This will take some doing, with likely guarantees of heightened assistance from the two. Pyongyang also hopes to exploit the low popularity ratings of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, further weakening their standing by demonstrating its disdain for their denunciations of the rocket launch.

Quell any whispers among its population or outside observers about the possible shakiness of Kim Jong Il’s regime. Shortly before the latest display of defiance, Kim Jong Il was shown on television receiving parliamentary approval for his renewed tenure as head of the National Defense Commission, the “highest guiding organ” of the military, according to North Korea’s 1998 constitution. This was meant to prove that he is still very much in command, despite persistent rumors about his deteriorating health. But Kim looked visibly weakened by his August stroke, and there are growingexpectations of the announcement of his successor soon. The most likely prospect: his third son Kim Jong Un, extending the family dynasty to the next generation, under the regency of Kim Jong Il’s brother-in-law.

Look impressive to international arms buyers. Despite the general failure of the early April launch—the final two stages of the missile falling into the Pacific—North Korea still managed to surprise many outsiders by sending its rocket 2,000 miles. It may want to test again soon to make further refinements. Given its general poverty and scarcity of natural resources, with the exception of bauxite and a few other low-priced commodities, North Korea may be upping reliance on weapons exports to bring in much-needed cash. A growing challenge, however, lies in South Korea’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a U.S.-led 90-nation effort to interdict banned weaponry. This could trigger new confrontations. <>In the coming days and months, it’s more than likely that North Korea will continue to push Washington and the international community to the brink of crisis—just as it did in 1993, when it withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). When it comes to international crises, the challenge posed by Somali pirates is likely to appear relatively simple compared to what the North Koreans are up to. The most difficult challenge facing the Obama administration will be to coordinate its response with Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo and Seoul, its partners in this enterprise who tend to pull in opposite directions.

Noerper is a Senior Fellow, Asia, at the EastWest Institute.

Europe and Belarus: A Spring Thaw

2009-03-13T20:04:23Z

By Anna Nemtsova

Are the wings of change blowing in Belarus, Europe’s last dictatorship? On EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana's recent visit with Belarus President Alexandr Lukashenka, Solana called Belarus "a European country" while Lukashenka spoke of a “thaw in our relations” with the EU.

There are tentative signs of a Minsk Spring – a gradual slackening of Lukashanka’s tight grip. Two of 15 newspapers banned from distribution in 2006, Narodnaya Volia and Nasha Niva, have now been officially allowed. After pressure from the EU, authorities have released the political prisoners Syarhey Parsyukevich, Andrei Kim and Alyaksandr Kazulin. One of the major opposition movements, For Freedom, has been allowed to register; and representatives of civil society and opposition parties were invited for a meeting with Lukashenka (though not all accepted).

Why the thaw? Alexander Milinkevich, leader of the now-official For Freedom movement, says that Lukashanka needs good relations with EU in order to save Belarus’ limping economy. "We are concerned about a total economic collapse and without EU help to reform, our state might disappear,” says Lukashenka. “It’s a matter of survival.”

At their meeting with Solana, Milinkevich and Kozulin talked about continuing political persecutions and a new crop of political prisoners such as the recently arrested businessmen Mikalay Autukhovich, Yury Lyavonau and Uladzimir Asipenka, as well as the “Young Front” activist Artsyom Dubski. They also told Solana about the violent disbanding of the oppositional rally on February 14, and on the Day of Belarusian Solidarity on February 16th. During those rallies dozens of peaceful protesters were beaten up. “Authoritarian regime does not know how to rule without violence. They have been building this power for 15 years,” says Milinkevich. “It is too scary for them to pass some of their power to civil society. We only hope that the debt of 15 billion dollars and the threat of full economy collapse will push authorities to keep their promises to EU.”

At the Minsk Holocaust Museum director Yulia Lishuk says that “political thaw” began for her when president Lukashenka visited the Yama memorial in the former Minsk Ghetto last fall, for the first time in last 15 years. Until last year, Lukashenka maintained an official silence about the Holocaust in Belarus. “We still do not have a single word about Byelorussian partisan resistance or Holocaust in official school text books. But at least the president finally admitted the Holocaust did take place, this is a sign we might have our history rehabilitation coming soon.” Ales Antsipenka, the director of Belarusian Collegium, an unregistered Belarusian-language ‘university’ which teaches students in offices and private apartment in Minsk, hopes that the thaw might allow its students to have a chance to study in Belarusian language, currently banned in mainstream universities in favor of Russian. “Higher education needs liberalization, this country is in deep need of at least one free thought university that would be teaching students in their mother tongue,” says Antsipenka.

Not everybody believes that the thaw is anything but cosmetic. Valery Bulhakau, editor-in-chief Arche, a Minsk-based magazine, says he has “no big illusions” for any “so-called political spring.” Arche is a thick Belarusian language intellectual magazine publishing extracts from foreign and domestic novels, scientific articles and political analyses. Earlier this month week a court branded his magazine ‘extremist’ and ruled to confiscate all copies. The decision was made at an hour-long closed hearing. “The Belarusian KGB has been given a new instrument - a law against extremism that they use to suppress any independent thought,” says Bulhakau.“KGB is still censoring free speech,” says Alexander Starkevich, deputy chairman of the Belarusian Association of Journalists functions. “For 15 years authorities persuaded the same repressive policy for media and the latest news we have do not give us any hope that this policy is going to change.”

Earlier this month Belarus’s foreign ministry cancelled accreditation of a correspondent for the Polish newspaper Gazety Wyborczej for ‘”criticizing the head of state.” More, authorities refused to register Bel Sat, Belarus’ only independent TV channel.Lukashenka may be starting a thaw, but there’s a lot of ground to cover before his regime starts to look anything like a democracy.

The Arab World Gives Obama Poor Grades

2009-01-23T20:29:22Z

By Seth Colter Walls

Back during campaign season, more than a few liberal talking heads predicted that Barack Obama’s international heritage could change America’s image abroad, were he to become president. This week’s insta-reaction from the Arab press suggests that the honeymoon might already be over where it is needed most urgently: in the Arab Middle East.

President Obama did what he could on his first day in office to try and shore up those conciliatory bona fides by placing a call to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abaas. But one look at the Arab press on Thursday morning revealed how thoroughly the recent Israel-Gaza conflict may have scuttled any potential ameliorating effect of an Obama presidency on anti-U.S. sentiment.

For example, the lead editorial in Thursday’s edition of Saudi Arabia’s pro-government Al-Watan daily was headlined “Obama’s intention to reconcile with the Islamic world is at stake.”

“Many observers maintain some hope of seeing the new master of the White House keeping his promises, even though we are aware of the pressures exerted by the Zionist conservative and left wing to uphold chaos and instability in the Middle East and around the world,” the paper wrote in an unsigned editorial. If that sounds a touch strident for an editorial greeting a new American president on his second full day in office, the next sentence doesn't let up: “The world will be unable to cooperate with Washington if it upholds the policy of the strong lord raising his club against all those who disagree with him or do not serve his interests.”

Keep in mind this is a Saudi daily, not a Syrian or Iranian one. In the regional proxy war between Iran and the U.S. for Arab hearts and minds, Saudi Arabia is doing whatever it can to shore up the Western-supported Fatah party led by Abbas in the West Bank, as he competes against the more militant strain of Palestinian politics represented by the Iran-backed Hamas party that rules Gaza. At this week’s Arab League summit, it was also Saudi Arabia that objected to a stronger denouncement of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while also staking out the relatively lonely position that its 2002-era peace plan—which calls for full recognition of Israel by Arab countries—is still on the table. (Though not for long, King Abdullah was forced to admit on Monday.)

That pessimism regarding Obama’s ability to bridge the Arab-Israeli divide was echoed in London’s Palestinian-owned Al-Quds al-Arabi on Thursday. In an opinion piece, the paper’s chief editor wrote that while Obama’s stated intention of building better relations with the Muslim world was a positive sign, such an outcome could only be secured by “lifting American military and diplomatic protection from the Israeli massacres and imposing Israeli respect of international pacts and UN resolutions.”

Indeed, if there’s one thing that Arabs and Israelis might be able to agree on today, it’s that skepticism is the proper attitude in response to any notion that an Obama presidency will perforce induce any positive developments in the Middle East. “I can tell you, anecdotally, from talking to regular people and working closely with the political leaders, there is a good deal of skepticism,” saidDahlia Scheindlin, a pollster and political strategist who is currently consulting for the small, left-wing Meretz party.“Regular people are worried he’ll look weak before the dreaded enemy of the Islamic world. Commentators wonder why he didn’t mention either Israel or Iran in his [recent] speeches. ... While people are generally pleased by Obama for America’s sake, the mood here is so dour regarding chances for peace, so cynical regarding our own politicians and so certain that there will be a resurgence of violence here sooner or later, that they can’t exactly remember to be excited about Obama for Israel’s sake. If you ask a regular Israeli whether Obama can change anything, he’s likely to say ‘we hope so,’ and roll his eyes wistfully,” she added. “They’ll be watching closely, but phone a call to Abbas doesn’t mean Abbas will magically regain the credibility among Palestinians to lead the Palestinian people to a peace accord. And Israelis are pragmatists—bordering on pessimists.” (Find out how the West Bank thinks of Obama in Newsweek Katie Paul's interview with Fatah advisor Diana Buttu.)

Still, pragmatism aside, a Kuwaiti editorial page noted on Thursday that there’s no specific cost associated with being optimistic, even as hopes for regional peace appear greatly diminished. “We do not have high hopes of Obama or his administration, especially when it comes to stopping the aggression of the Zionist entity on Palestine,” wrote a columnist in Thursday’s edition of the independent newspaper Al-Rai al-Aam, in an article headlined “We won’t lose anything if we feel optimistic.”

Left unanswered, however, is the implicit question regarding what, precisely, there is to be gained from unearned optimism. Any chance President Obama has for an Arab street honeymoon may depend on his ability to convince all parties involved to hope just a little bit longer as he settles into the job.

One Point of Light in Bush's Environmental Legacy

2009-01-20T13:56:41Z

By Anders Rönmark

Few Europeans shed tears for George W. Bush when he left office Tuesday. His handling of the Iraq War and the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto environmental treaty were two of the biggest black marks against him. Yet in Sweden, the end of the Bush era marks a bittersweet moment: the last day in office for Michael Wood, the most famous and perhaps most influential U.S. ambassador to Sweden in history. Since Bush appointed his long-time friend to the office in 2006, Wood, a media executive, has been feted by government officials, business leaders and the Swedish media for his groundbreaking work in alternative energy.

Unusually, for an ambassador, Wood has tried to promote Swedish business interests in the United States, rather than just U.S. interests in Sweden. Wood started out by visiting every county of Sweden, meeting with scientists and entrepreneurs and put together a list of the 23 most promising Swedish companies, such as Comfort Window System (which makes energy-efficient window fittings) and Sekab (a producer of cellulosic ethanol), and began promoting them to U.S. investors, both public and private. Wood's List, as it has become known, now numbers 52 companies, and federal agencies and departments in the United States, including the Pentagon, are now investing in and cooperating with Swedish companies. For instance, Swedish Biofuels has received $5 million dollars from the U.S Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop jet fuels containing biological components. Wood's program has also attracted the interest of several U.S. states. In 2007 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm visited Sweden, on Wood's invitation, and her economic development team has made four trips to the country. Result: Swedish Biogas has opened a plant in Flint, Mich., to create biogas from the city's sewage plant, to power Flint's buses and produce fertilizers; Swedish company Chemrec is now working with a paper mill in Escanaba, Mich., on a technology called black liquor gasification that recycle pulp waste into fuel. All told, Wood's program has resulted in business activity worth approximately $150 to $200 million dollars, he says. "But the potential of the companies on just this one list is huge," he says. "We're talking billions of dollars."

Wood's interest in the alternative energy industry came shortly after his appointment, when he realized that an ambassador to a small country like Sweden was most likely to be successful if he focused on what he calls "one big thing." Nick Burns, the U.S. undersecretary of state, "liked the idea of me working to make Sweden a member of NATO," says Wood. Condoleezza Rice "thought that promoting democracy in the former Soviet states should be my top priority." But Bush, the erstwhile oilman, liked a third option: "He told me 'I bet the Swedes are ahead of us when it comes to alternative energy. Go there and find out what they're doing.'" Many were skeptical. Bush had hardly demonstrated much interest in the industry, and many believed the failure to ratify Kyoto was emblematic of the administration's beliefs about the environment. But Wood's program has been so successful that it has inspired other U.S. embassies, particularly in Scandinavia, to work harder on promoting alternative energy solutions--a small bright spot in a presidential legacy most of the people living there would just as soon forget.

Crimes in the Time of Cholera

2009-01-13T22:19:40Z

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe may be the only person left who denies that his country is spiraling out of control, but that hasn’t made it any easier to stop the mayhem. Tuesday, the U.N. reported that more than 2,000 people have perished in the cholera epidemic sweeping the country since August. Some 40,000 are infected, and the number of cases continues to rise exponentially. Worst of all, the complete collapse of the country’s basic infrastructure—water, sanitation, health care—has given rise to other diseases, including a particularly terrifying drug-resistant form of tuberculosis, which could easily turn an epidemic into a pandemic. Through it all, Mugabe has squandered aid money, chased out humanitarian groups, and suppressed information about the crisis.

That’s why U.S.-based group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) upped the ante Tuesday, accusing Mugabe and his government of ‘crimes against humanity’ after collecting damning evidence on a fact-finding mission in December. They want the U.N. Security Council to see the health crisis as a threat to international peace and security, then swoop in and take over the health care system (with or without Mugabe’s blessing), and then refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation. Fortunately for them, they have folks with serious street credit behind them—including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.N. Chief Prosecutor Richard Goldstone, and former Irish President and OHCHR High Commissioner Mary Robinson.

The argument boils down to this: systematically denying people access to basic health care is not terribly different than holding guns to their heads. If so,they say, why not call upon the same international laws that are normally applied in conflict settings? The United Nations is then obliged to respond comparably in both scenarios—which means mobilizing an intervention akin to those dispatched to the war zones of Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Darfur. If the argument works, it would expand the paradigm for invoking international human rights law. Why? See Exhibit A: the definition of ‘crimes against humanity’ in the Rome Treaty, which established the ICC back in 1998. The key clauses are highlighted here:

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means anyof the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious,gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

What they would need to do is show that the actions—or lack thereof—that precipitated the health crises constitute an attack against the civilian population in and around Zimbabwe. In the chambers of the United Nations, that could be a tough sell. The only other time the Security Council has approached a health crisis as a threat to international security was back in 2000, when it issued a relatively mild statement of concern about the global AIDS epidemic. But signing off on a document filled with words like ‘requests,’‘encourages,’ and ‘interested Member States’ is a far cry from giving the United Nations the green light to take over a recalcitrant sovereign country’s health care system and put its leaders on trial.

Politically speaking, this is already an uphill battle. Naturally, Zimbabwe’s government is less than pleased, dismissing the group in characteristic anti-imperialist terms as a‘stupid, Western created organization.’ And the chances for success in leveling ICC charges against Mugabe and his thugs have more to do with politics in New York than in Harare. Even there, the PHR is up against the same familiar United Nations stalemate. An indignant China has long covered Mugabe’s back, despite years of damning evidence against him. Plus, the Security Council now has to contend with Uganda, which just took its place as a rotating member and pledged to back only the Southern African Development Community’s ~~impotent~~ ongoing negotiations.

But before you write off the PHR plan as hopeless idealism, consider this: though novel, their interpretation of international law is pure strategy. "The idea of ‘health’ is less politically charged," said Mary Robinson at a press gathering on Tuesday. "There are a lot of crises right now. The health prism is the way to get it into the Security Council and to get them to act on it." She has a point. No one has been able to take Mugabe down over shoddy elections, tortured journalists, or land seizures, even though those are also violations of international law, but framing his crimes in terms of health could potentially shame the Security Council’s stragglers into supporting the measures. After all, it’s tough for political figures to justify blocking medical care to innocents.

What do you international law gurus out there think? Without getting tangled in a debate about the merits and demerits of the "responsibility to protect," chew on this in the comments: a) does the argument hold water, and b) will the strategy work?

Israel Hits at Gaza

2008-12-28T01:01:18Z

By Joanna Chen

Gaza--Early Saturday morning Israeli Air Force planes sped to Gaza, unleashing a massive military operation designed to quash Hamas security facilities and put an end to the renewed barrage of rocket attacks that have hit towns in southern Israel bordering the Gaza Strip for the past week. Throughout the day, Israel carried out up to fifty air strikes on the Hamas-controlled area, killing more than two hundred Palestinians and injuring an estimated five hundred more. In response, tens of rockets were launched into Israeli territory, sending thousands of panicked Israeli civilians living within a twenty mile radius of Gaza to the safety of bomb shelters.

It had been only a question of time before the launching of Operation Cast Lead. Israel’s security cabinet had signed off on the attacks earlier in the week, amid growing opposition to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's apparent policy of restraint. At a press conference late on Saturday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for patience from Israeli citizens and also sent a message to the Palestinian people. "You are not our enemies", he said, insisting that Israel would make efforts to facilitate humanitarian aid to the 1.4 million citizens living in the besieged Gaza Strip.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were quick to condemn Israel's action, calling for an immediate ceasefire, as did Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit. The White House, however, stressed only that Israel should "avoid civilian casualties" and urged Hamas to give up on terrorist activities.

After a day of heavy losses for the Palestinians and one Israeli fatality, stunned civilians on both sides are wondering what's next. Barak said that "there is a time for calm and a time for fighting, and this is the time for fighting." A senior military source told NEWSWEEK that "Israel will continue to target Hamas infrastructure relentlessly" until attacks on Israel cease, however long it take. As hundreds of Israeli ground troops began to gather on the southern border with Gaza late into the night, the worst, it seems, is yet to come.

Thailand's King May Play Politics (No Offense)

2008-12-17T14:37:34Z

Bangkok -- If you happened to have been in Thailand this week and wanted to read the December 6-10 issue of The Economist, you could have searched the country without finding a copy. That’s because it contained an article and editorial that were critical of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Rather than risk insulting the king and offending his subjects, Asia Books, which imports the British weekly, chose not to distribute that particular edition.

The pre-emptive move was a sign of respect for the king but also an act of self-preservation. Few people or organizations in Thailand will risk doing anything that might be construed as an insult to the monarch. Thailand’s lese- majeste law may be the most draconian in the world, and it is strongly enforced: Offenders face up to 15 years in jail. Foreigners have been jailed for months and then expelled from the country. The riposte from friendly Thais to a farang contemplating a violation of the law is, “I hope you don’t plan to ever return to Thailand.”

The Economist, writing about Thailand’s current political imbroglio, alleges that the king, who turned 81 earlier this month, plays a role in politics. Officially, the sovereign, as head of state in a constitutional monarchy, is above politics. That alleged involvement, the magazine argues, is not helpful--especially in this time of political instability. Ever since the military ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup in September 2006, the country has staggered from one government to the next. Just this week Parliament selected the fourth prime minister since the coup. Few people are willing to bet that the new premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, of the Democrat Party, will last much longer that his immediate predecessor, Somchai Wongsarat, who hung on for 77 days.

Members of the royal family are said to be dismayed about the magazine’s stories, which get into controversial areas last visited in “The King Never Smiles,” a 2006 unauthorized biography by freelance writer Paul M. Handley. The book, banned in Thailand before it was even published, makes similar allegations about the monarchy. “The concern is the myth of a conspiracy between the king and the military,” says an individual with links to the Palace who spoke only on condition of anonymity and because he believes the articles are unfair. People in the king's inner circle “are genuinely distressed, because this fosters the ideas of conspiracy theorists.”

The Economist, the source pointed out, was not banned by the government. There was no need to do so because distributor acted voluntarily to withhold the offending edition. In the age of the Internet, banning publications anywhere is a tricky–and often futile–proposition, apart from in countries like China, Burma and North Korea, which tightly control acces to the Web. “Banning a magazine doesn’t make much sense any more, because it gets through – and they know that,” the source said, referring to the Palace. The Economist argues that the lese-majeste law should be revisited. For now, no such plans are on the drawing board.

Sarko and Merkel Discover That They Need Each Other

2008-12-12T21:21:22Z

By Clare Premo

While the German press frequently criticizes French president Nicolas Sarkozy as “Little Napoleon” and mocks the arrogance of the “Great Nation,” these days it is changing its aim to attack German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Germany’s reaction to the financial crisis has been to sit tight and wait it out, while France has been eager to involve the state through stimulus packages and EU action. Merkel, formerly admired for her determination and steadfastness, is now facing criticism for her immobility in the face of one of Germany’s worst recessions, reports Jean-Gabriel Fredet in Le Nouvel Observateur.

In contrast, Sarkozy’s activist response to the crisis is garnering support throughout Europe. Despite their conflicting approaches, it seems that France and Germany are finally putting aside their differences to work together. “The sudden financial crisis in Germany—a country that thought its economy was a safe distance from the sub-prime crisis—on top of the start of a recession for Europe’s number one economy, showed the fragility of an export-oriented model," one French diplomat points out. "This changed the perspective in the country.” Fredet says that German public opinion disapproves of Merkel’s refusal to create a massive European response to the crisis.

Strangely, the pressure to take action has improved relations between Germany and France. After a long period of stiff gestures and policy differences, the two heads of state have come to realize that they need each other. Despite polar political styles—Sarkozy is “an exuberant bling-bling president” while Merkel is an austere leader from the former East Germany—the pair is aware that if they don’t work together, then they will fail together.

As the two major advocates for a semi-socialist economy, they have every reason to stop bickering and join hands. In Berlin, both German and French partners are envisioning ways to restart the stagnant economy, either by using consumption vouchers for low-wage workers or by borrowing 100 billion euros to stimulate demand. In a crisis that has exposed the interconnectedness of the world economy, a greater emphasis on cooperation and understanding can only help.

Can the World Spend Itself Out of a Depression?

2008-12-12T01:41:03Z

By Stefan Theil

As governments throw around hundreds of billions of dollars, pounds and yuans to rescue the global economy—dwarfed by China’s $586 billion spending plan and Obama’s expected $700 billion plan—the critics of deficit spending have kept mostly to the shadows recently. Today, however, they took center stage—call it the Great Pushback. It wasn’t just deficit hawks in the U.S. Senate, who voted down the $15 billion bailout for Detroit automakers. In Europe, a battle is raging over whether spending in an appropriate response to the economic crisis.

The dispute centers on comments made by Germany’s finance minister, who ridiculed British plans to spend $30 billion to stimulate its economy as “crass Keynesianism.” The barb could just as well have been directed at similar plans in the United States, China and at the whole notion of government spending to stimulate the economy. Germany, which is known for fiscal rectitude and a savings rate that puts Americans to shame, leads a small group of European countries, including Poland, that are balking at coughing up the vast sums Europe’s leaders believe is needed.

The Germans insist they don't underestimate the depth of the crisis, but disagree about the risks of massively hiking government debt for what they see as ineffective and wasteful programs. German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, in an interview with Newsweek, said it was "breathtaking" to watch the speed at which supply-siders and fiscal conservatives were willing to "toss around billions." The centerpiece of the British plan, a 13-month temporary cut in the national sales tax from 17.5 to 15 percent, would have no effect other than saddle future generations of Brits with enormous deficits, Steinbrück warned.

Steinbrück's comments raised the hackles of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He lashed back at the Germans, calling them out of step with the rest of the world for their pestering reminders about the dangers of easy money and deficits. (For the record: Despite the rhetoric, the Germans have their own $41 billion spending plan in addition to a $670 billion bank bailout fund, but oppose having to put up money for a bigger, coordinated European effort for now. Their budget is balanced, Germans have had no housing or credit bubble, no wealth effect as few Germans invest in equities, and jobs are only now starting to get hit because of falling exports.)

Steinbrück may have been criticizing Britain, but his complaints are aimed at all the big spenders for feeding illusions about what he derides as "The Great Rescue Plan." His boss, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, last week also insisted Germany would refuse "to participate in this senseless race for billions" and that she was "deeply concerned" that the policy of cheap money and massive deficit spending in the U.S. and elsewhere risked repeating the very mistakes that precipitated the crisis. (See Newsweek's story about Germany's Mrs. No.) It’s strange that America's remaining fiscal conservatives now find themselves joined by a German Social Democrat like Steinbrück, who said a few months ago that Karl Marx wasn't so far off when he described the failings of financial capitalism. Is Steinbrück a voice of reason, or are he and other fiscal conservatives just fiddling as the world burns? With the crisis like a fog before us, the jury is still out.

A Cameo for Comrade Niemeyer

2008-12-09T19:10:55Z

Oscar Niemeyer needs few introductions. For the uninitiated, suffice it to say that Niemeyer is best known as the architect who for decades has jewelled the Brazilian skyline (and a few others as well) with soaring, swooping sculptures of reinforced concrete, which also happen to serve as buildings.

So perhaps it is only fitting that Niemeyer, who recently turned 101, is the theme of the latest collection by world famous jeweler H. Stern. Only thing is, Niemeyer is also an unreconstructed communist, who never misses a chance to pillory plutocrats and capitalist fat cats, whose fairest necks Stern's creations have exquisitely adorned.

Marxism isn't what it used to be, of course. And if there's one thing Niemeyer hates more than capitalism, it's the right angle. So as long as there are swerves, loops, bends and curls to create, comrade Niemeyer is at home. Which is apparently exactly what H. Stern had in mind when it signed on Brazil's master builder for the collection that debuts December 15.

With 160 stores in 12 countries, not to mention the fleet of floating shops on ocean liners, H. Stern is one of the major names in the luxury trade. Founded by German emigré Hans Stern, who died last year at age 85, the Rio de Janeiro based business is known for elevating tourmalines, opals, topaz and other onetime "semi precious" colored gemstones from the bauble business to high fashion.

The company is now in the hands of the second generation of the Stern family. It is also one of the leading names in the vanishing elite of family owned jewelry empires--reckoned to rank among the top five brands worldwide--and the only major jeweler committed to working all aspects of the trade, from the mine shaft to the madam: buying stones, cutting and designing jewels, and retailing. In recent years, the company has invested in niche collections, inspired by the work of top Brazilian sculptors, artists and fashionistas, such as Diane von Furstenberg.

The latest collection takes its cues from Niemeyer's curvaceous and always playful lines, albeit scaled down from the architect's patented epic oeuvre to the jeweler's petite. Highlights includes a bracelet that emulates the Edifício Copan, a serpentine office tower gracing the choc-a-block skyline of São Paulo:

And a pair of ear rings that echo the mountainlike facade of the Pampulha, a church and community center encrusted in the hills of Belo Horizonte:

Who says you can't go well-dressed to the revolution?

Human Rights in France: A Gray Area

2008-12-04T21:07:32Z

By Clare Premo

On the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is concern in France that it is not up to snuff, write Florence Aubenas and Patrick Fiole in this week’s Le Nouvel Observateur. On the one hand, seventy-one percent of the French believe that they live in a country that respects human rights, according to a poll, which was conducted by the MV2 Council. On the other hand, one in three French people says that human rights are not actually respected in many countries that, like France, supposedly have the best practices. France finds itself in a gray zone between image and reality. Like the United States, it’s a country that wants to be a beacon to the rest of the world, but often ends up as a different sort of light—that of an interrogation lamp.

The struggle with human rights has a long history in France. Although the Declaration was proclaimed in 1948 in the aftermath of World War II, Charles de Gaulle refused to ratify it. Since France had created the original Declaration of the Rights of Man back in 1789, he considered it unnecessary to formally approve the document. “These things, they’re good for dictatorships and such. In France, an international control would be a regression,” he said. More likely, it was a fear of repercussions for torture violations in the Algerian War that prevented him from signing on. It wasn’t until 1974 that the treaty was finally ratified by France, and not until 1981 that cases could be brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

These days, Strasbourg is held in very high esteem in France. Seventy-five percent of the French think that the European Court of Human Rights protects their rights better than their own courts and parliament. It's a good thing, too, since France is the fourth biggest human rights violator in Europe, according to Aubenas and Fiole. Generally, the decisions handed down cite “racism that permeates society and her institutions” as the primary factor behind human rights abuses. But in addition to that, one can cite incidents of torture, immigration rights, police impunity, and the sorry state of prisons.

Strasbourg is revered because of its clear principles and their fair, consistent application. In the French court system, that sadly is not the case. This is just one example of how France does not live up to the protected rights in the Declaration. For instance, thirty-six percent of citizens believe that France does not respect the right to work, which was included in the 1948 declaration. And the French prison system is a catastrophe: 147 prisons out of 190 don’t meet national standards. Often two inmates have to share a space meant for one. A U.N. worker says that interns are required to look at the French prison files to understand one of the West’s great tragedies.

Despite such a gloomy outlook, France is not even close to being among the worst human rights offenders. Only eight percent of the French say that their right to equality before the law has been questioned, and a mere four percent respond that their freedom of thought or religion has been jeopardized. Still, for a country that created the Declarations of the Rights of Man 220 years ago, there’s been plenty of time for practice. One can only hope that this 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration will be a reminder of the importance of human rights not only in the third world, but in our own countries as well.

Bangkok's Bizarre Power Struggle

2008-11-27T02:00:58Z

By Jamie Seaton and George Wehrfritz

Many Thais believe that a 100-year-old bronze likeness of King Rama V located in downtown Bangkok emits powerful magic. That is why, fully a century after it was cast in Paris, the likeness has become the object of struggle between top government leaders and a band of rightists seeking to oust them. A few weeks ago, anti-government agitator Sondhi Limthongkul, whose People’s Alliance for Democracy has occupied key official buildings for four months in an effort to topple a government he considers illegitimate, accused his opponents of employing wizardry to channel the statue’s protective forces their way. And to reverse that alleged sorcery, he deployed his own mystics to encircle the statue with used sanitary napkins (collected from the PAD’s rank-and-file) to form a shield of menstrual blood.

It’s no secret that Thailand’s democracy is embattled. But what’s less well known is the extent to which its rival camps have fallen back on astrology and mysticism as they seek to best their political foes. After deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra returned from exile temporarily this year, for example, he toured 99 Buddhist temples in what was interpreted as an effort to garner merit for an anticipated political comeback. A month later, unidentified vandals smashed numerous statues at Phanom Rung, one of the shrines he visited, purportedly to nullify Thaksin’s powers. Sondhi frequently denounces one of Thaksin’s allies as a “Khmer wizard” and was caught on video recently clad in priestly white robes as he sprinkled holy water at a government complex occupied by PAD demonstrators and called on Thais to resist “evil magic.” Bangkok-based political scientist Chris Baker says supernaturalism ebbs and flows in Thailand, but “at times of crisis these things bubble to the surface.”

They did so dramatically this week when the PAD, mounting what it called its “final offensive” to oust a democratically elected government led by Thaksin’s brother-in-law from power, seized Bangkok’s international airport in an effort to thwart Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat’s return from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Peru. Thousands of club-wielding thugs stormed the terminal and blocked traffic on the main airport expressway, stranding thousands of tourists, businessmen and triggering flight cancellations across Asia. “We sympathize with the passengers but this is a necessary move to save the nation,” PAD leader Sondhi said.

The PAD hopes its violent street actions will muster enough power to oust political opponents it can’t beat at the ballot box. Comprised mainly of conservative militarists, Bangkok’s old elite and royalists who see Thailand’s democracy as a threat to its monarchy, the anti-government coalition lost the last election but now seeks to reverse that result by claiming that the victorious People Power Party stole the contest – a claim for which there is scant supporting evidence. What really irks them is that the PPP is unabashedly pro-Thaksin and draws on his immense popularity in rural Thailand to dominate national polls. Their fear is that the party – should it ever fully consolidate power – would quickly return Thaksin to office despite his recent conviction on corruption charges stemming from his 2000-2006 rule.

The PAD’s methods are extreme. They’ve turned occupied government buildings into tent camps guarded by golf club-wielding thugs. They’ve closed several airports – Bangkok International is merely the latest – and urged state-owned airlines, power and transport companies to stage general strikes. Sondhi, a media tycoon-turned political raconteur, claims his movement is solely aimed at defending Thailand’s monarchy against a secret anti-royalist plot by Thaksin and his allies (who deny the claims and profess loyalty to the throne). The PAD advocates a limited form of democracy that, in essence, would disenfranchise rural voters who Sondhi has claimed “lack intelligence and wisdom.” His supporters believe their campaign has a supernatural subtext. Sondhi “uses [mystical] ceremonies to protect people,” says one female PAD supporter who is college-educated and works in an architectural firm in Bangkok. “I believe the spirits can help us sixty percent of the way, but that we must do the rest ourselves.”

Foreign observers agree that Thailand’s political landscape is unstable. As one Western diplomat in Bangkok puts it: “The PAD obviously has effective control of the airport and this is an issue of concern. But is this a general breakdown of law and order? Not yet.” On Wednesday Thailand’s army commander said Prime Minister Somchai should step down and call new elections. The prime minister – who returned from the APEC confab via a military airport late on Wednesday – quickly refused. Robert Broadfoot, managing director of the political risk consultancy PERC, warns that today’s crisis has the potential to “upset the [political] balance in the country,” and that the damage to Thailand’s democracy could take “years to repair.”

Few dispute the claim that Thailand is moving in reverse. Its economy, which grew robustly during Thaksin’s rule, thanks to rural reforms including village-level business loans and free medical care, is back in the dumps. Its multi-billion-dollar tourism industry has been dealt a staggering blow just as it enters the all-important winter holiday season. And the return of supernaturalism in politics, one could argue, marks a sardonic retreat from modernity. Thais revere King Rama V as a great modernizer who abolished slavery, forged diplomatic ties with Western powers and prevented the kingdom’s colonization during his 42 years on the throne. Yet with little apparent irony, today’s leaders seek to channel the powers of a legendary monarch who embraced new ideas using sorcery, holy water and menstrual blood.

France's Socialists: The Mothball Party

2008-11-26T20:26:54Z

If the first few minutes of Martine Aubry’s three-year term as leader of the French Socialist Party are any indication, it's going to be a tough time.

Last night in Paris, Aubry was granted victory by 102 ballots, or 0.07 percent of the more than 134,700 votes cast. In a vast room above the art deco amphitheater where the party’s national council okayed her slim win, Aubry, seated, spoke to the press. She made all the predictable noises. She reached out to her defeated opponent, saying the party had to get back to work. She even took a few jabs at President Nicolas Sarkozy’s policies. But she hardly electrified her audience. Here and there among the jaded reporters were empty pink chairs.

Then, moments after Aubry had gone, losing candidate Ségolène Royal made her appearance, and suddenly there was media mayhem. Television crews, surprised by her audacious arrival, scrambled for their positions, screamed instructions as they ran. A scrum of cameramen, competing to capture Royal’s entrance up close and ignoring warnings barked by colleagues, backed into a row of tripods that fell with a clatter.

Royal gave her statement standing up, a phalanx of allies behind her, as photographers teetered on the pink chairs. She had just begun to speak -- “We have led a beautiful battle to transform to Socialist Party. And that battle continues” -- when a photographer lost his footing, knocking over a drinking glass that hit the floor with a loud crash. “There's the proof!” laughed Royal, without missing a beat.

Yes, Aubry's going to have her work cut out for her. For the last 18 months, since Sarkozy beat Royal in the presidential eleciton, he has utterly dominated French politics. Having obliterated the far right last year, he's now moved in on the center left. At a time of financial crisis, he’s shifted his discourse toward what might easily have been Socialist Party policies. He declared the end of laissez-fairism in September and he’s going to launch a major economic stimulus package during Aubry’s first full week in power.

Meanwhile Aubry's got to start her party slogging toward the June 2009 European elections, when second-string parties like the Greens already look like they'll be chipping away at Socialist constituencies. And in the 2010 regional elections, the party has everything to lose, since it nearly swept the field in 2004. “Martine Aubry has almost no margin for error," says political analyst Dominique Reynié, who heads the Foundation for Political Innovation in Paris, adding "she’ll be endlessly reminded that she has a job that she maybe shouldn’t have."

Last night, Ségolène Royal released a video for her supporters in which she reluctantly acquiesced (albeit with a bit of schadenfreude) to the results. She noted she'd gotten half the vote, then said, “Half? What am I saying? Surely a little bit more, because we weren’t allowed a new vote. That’s how it is.” C’est comme ça. More importantly, though, she sounded like she was hitting the campaign trail. Again. “We’re going to continue, because 2012 is soon, 2012 is tomorrow,” she said, promising initiatives like cheaper party memberships in districts she won. “I’m going to commit myself all the way. Because I have some time on my hands, with the way things turned out,” she laughed.

Aubry, for her part, has to worry not only about her avowed rival, Royal, but about her own ostensible allies. The motley coalition of old-guard heavyweights that brought her the party leadership had more distaste for Royal than political affinities with her. Keeping Royal out of office also keeps their presidential hopes alive. Now that they’ve (barely) slayed that dragon, finding common cause could be tough.

Outside the party, the Socialists’ enduring divisions create opportunities for reshaping France’s political landscape.

Centrist leader François Bayrou finished third to Royal and Sarkozy in the 2007 presidential race, but a split Socialist Party may widen the avenue for him to march up the middle. Whether or not to ally with Bayrou for the 2012 race became a major fault-line during the Socialist leadership battle (Royal is for, Aubry against), and if exasperated center-leftist Socialists choose him directly, it may be Bayrou who's troubling Sarkozy’s bid for a second term, not the Socialists.

Olivier Besancenot - mailman by day, charismatic young far-left leader by night - has been putting persistent pressure on the Socialists’ left flank. Now the increasingly popular communist revolutionary is using his momentum to mount a new anti-capitalist party (for now called, catchily, the New Anti-Capitalist Party). There, too, disappointed left-of-the-left Socialists could go postal and return the Socialists to sender.

But the big winner is Sarkozy. He's been spared any convincing opposition to his presidency thus far, and the new Socialist order – a divided party with its own well-oiled, internal opposition -- poses little threat in the immediate future. “The Socialist Party was supposed to come out of a complicated period with this convention and this election, to find its place again in the national opposition. On the contrary, they’re headed deeper into difficulty,” says Reynié. “In the months and years to come, they could perpetuate this scene of a party more opposed to itself than to Nicolas Sarkozy.” And in any case, Sarkozy has already dealt a deathblow to the widely discredited 35-hour workweek – Aubry’s best-known oeuvre.

In the street outside the amphitheatre last night, a handful of Ségolène Royal supporters from the suburbs north of Paris braved bitter cold with protest slogans hand-printed out on copy-machine paper. The veteran group of card-carrying lefties clearly had encyclopaedic knowledge of more glorious battles. They ticked off ancient history to support Royal’s stances. One cited an alliance with the center in the 1930s. “But Mitterrand, too! In ’71," chimed in another, looking for all the world as if she'd been there. Yet even these greying comrades wanted the old guard out, and with Aubry in, they felt frustrated. “The headquarters," said one, "smells like mothballs.”

How (Not) to Deal with the Somali Pirates

2008-11-26T15:30:28Z

By Barrett Sheridan

Last week, the world cheered a little when an Indian warship said it had encountered a Somali pirate “mother ship” in the Gulf of Aden and, after being fired upon, blew it to smithereens. International shippers needed a reason to celebrate. Earlier that week, Somali pirates had captured their biggest prize yet, a Saudi supertanker carrying $100 million of crude and, with nearly a hundred attempted hijackings so far this year, were making waters around the Horn of Africa about as welcoming as a bed of nails.

Well, now they can put away the champagne glasses. CNN is reporting that the sunken “mother ship” was actually a Thai fishing trawler and that, while pirates were in the process of commandeering it, the vessel still had 14 innocent fishermen onboard when the Indian Navy struck. One of them, a Cambodian, spent six days adrift before being rescued by a passing ship. (One other is confirmed dead; the rest are missing.) The sailor is now recovering in a Yemeni hospital, where he had the chance to inform the Indian Navy of its mistake.

The event underscores the difficulty of tracking pirates in waters where they easily blend in with fishing trawlers or other private watercraft. “The bulk of Somali coastal dwellers are still fishermen,” says Peter Lehr, a lecturer in terrorism studies at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. “They are now caught in the fray and being attacked by western warships. How can you divide a real fisherman and a pirate from one another? They use the same vessels.”

That means recent military operations in the region—the European Union and NATO now have forces there—might not be a very adequate defense against the pirates. So what line of defense is left? The ships themselves. Armed guards aren’t an option, because they’re too expensive for ship owners, and firefights are risky onboard ships carrying two million barrels of flammable crude oil. But there are alternatives. Hanging barbed wire around a ship’s perimeter is a simple way to dissuade would-be boarders. Electrified fences also work, but they’re out of the question on ships carrying volatile cargoes. The Long-Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, has become popular after it effectively repelled an attack on a cruise ship in 2005; it blasts a deafening wall of sound at targets up to 300 meters away. Fire hoses also do the trick at shorter ranges. Even simply gunning the engines and picking up speed can deter pirates, who look for easy prey.

It’s worth trying anything to avoid being taken hostage. Although the Somali pirates, which are currently holding 300 hostages, treat their captives fairly well—they are, after all, worth a lot of money to them—negotiations can last weeks or months. The MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying 33 Soviet-made tanks, was captured in late September and is still being held in the port of Eyl, in the Puntland region of Somalia. “These guys are very patient people,” says Stephen Askins, a maritime lawyer at London firm Ince & Co. “One guy may be having a bad day and he’ll say, ‘I want $5 million,’ and the next guy might say, ‘Well, I’m a bit more reasonable than that.’ It’s not like buying a car. It’s a very long, drawn out process.”

Ségolène Royal Wins… Especially If She Loses.

2008-11-25T19:30:57Z

photo: AFP

The French Socialist Party's search for a leader, already a long, long drama, has recently turned into a farce. For 18 months, ever since right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president, the Socialists have been so busy turning on each other that "Sarko," as he's called, has been able to act as if there's no opposition at all. And a vote by party members that was supposed to put an end to the backbiting last week only opened up a whole new round of bloodletting. The doggedly determined Martine Aubry, mother of the country's problematic 35-hour work week, declared victory Saturday after 134,000 ballots were counted. But her margin was a razor-thin 42 votes. So former presidential candidate Ségolène Royal is lobbying for a new round amid allegations of fraud, counter-charges of defamation and threatened court action. A party congress will pronounce on the results tonight, after two days of candidates’ representatives trading examples and counterexamples of accounting irregularities before a hastily assembled commission. And Royal might actually squeak ahead by a ballot or two. But, here's the thing: the biggest win for Ségolène Royal would be a loss.

Royal has never really been embraced by her party. At 55, she may have garnered the Socialist nomination for the 2007 presidential run, and borne four children to the outgoing Socialist Party leader, François Hollande. She may have been a second-string cabinet minister in Socialist governments through the 1990s and an advisor to France’s only Socialist president, François Mitterrand, through the 1980s. But none of that has been enough to make her an acceptable apparatchik in the eyes of her peers. Au contraire! She is derided – despised is not too strong a word – as an outsider. But she has learned to make that her greatest strength.

Considered at best a secondary figure in the party until 2006, Royal's bid for the presidential nomination seemed to come out of nowhere when she ran against two of the party's heavyweights. Former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius and former Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn (now head of the International Monetary Fund) openly mocked Royal’s chances -- then lost to her by humiliating margins. She went on to lead a campaign mostly outside the party’s ambit. It was headquartered, literally, outside the walls of the party's main building, drawing its strength from a massive internet-based campaign for direct “participative” democracy, which endeared her to the little people and but only stoked the ire of party veterans. Even party leader Hollande, Royal's consort, kept his distance from her, while their son Thomas campaigned with maman. (It was later revealed the couple had split secretly, and acrimoniously.) So the moment Royal lost to Sarkozy, by a 47-53 margin on May 6, 2007, the knives came out. Socialist heavyweights blamed Royal en masse. But as recent weeks have shown, much of the base stuck with her.

Royal surprised everyone on November 6 when her motion for the new Socialist Party platform secured the most votes from the party faithful. It won 29 percent support, with Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoë's proposal second and Martine Aubry third. Party custom has it that the sponsors of the losing motions look for compromises to gather behind the winning motion, but Royal couldn’t find that consensus. At the disastrous party convention that followed, the aspiring leaders whose motions she beat couldn’t get together enough to join forces, but were decided not to let her take the party in the leadership vote that followed.

Royal promised “a big popular party.” She promised to break open the Socialists' clunky political apparatus, involve the base in key decision-making, proposing a sort of “Socialist Facebook” and referenda on new ideas. One of those, her belief that the Socialist Party should keep open the option of allying with both leftists and centrists to beat Sarkozy in 2012, was particularly controversial. Faced with Sarkozy's proven ability to co-opt the right, the middle and even some stars of the moderate left, like French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, the party hacks seem determined to cling to margins.

Royal, meanwhile, has adopted a fairly funky new image. She’s dropped the chic, white-jacket-and-skirt look that became her trademark during the presidential campaign and now favors colouful Indian-style tunics over jeans. At a September political rally she mixed politics with musical acts. Critics disparaged the show as “too American” and her speech as “too religious,” “too mystical,” when she chanted “Fra-ter-ni-té” over and over to 4,000 supporters. “When I talk about fraternity, some snicker, but when Barack Obama based his campaign on fraternity everybody was blissful with admiration,” she responded on French radio last week. “Well, people will get used to it. They’ll get used to my political identity. They’ll get used to me remaining myself to better change the Socialist Party.”

The winner – for now – meanwhile -- sort of is Martine Aubry, 58, who's quite popular in lefty apparatchik circles. The daughter of former European Commissioner Jacques Delors, she has headed more prestigious government ministries than Royal and has drawn support from politically disparate Socialist Party heavyweights like Fabius and allies of Strauss-Kahn, known as “les éléphants." Aubry warned members that Royal would turn the Socialist Party into a “party of fans” rather than one of activists. And she has ruled out, four years in advance, allying with the center in 2012, saying she would only entertain alliances with staunch leftists like the Communist Party. After the preliminary rounds last week, Aubry was supposed to collect everybody else's votes and beat Royal handily. But she didn’t.

For now, it would seem, the disparate front of party traditionalists overtly opposed to Royal could manage no more than 50.02 percent of the vote. Indeed, while leaked numbers vary, Royal’s second-in-command this morning alleged that the margin had narrowed… to only four votes. Tonight, the party’s national council will rule on the results. The council is in its majority hostile to Royal, who only has 29 percent of the members (in line with the percentage of votes she picked up November 6, with her winning party line). She has called for a new vote, while her camp has threatened demonstrations and even legal action if its electoral complaints aren’t heard. All of that risks prolonging the party’s agony while sounding whiny to public opinion.

But if Royal loses tonight, and calls off her dogs, she may well wind up ahead in the long term.

“Ségolène Royal doesn’t come out of this fight weakened, far from it,” says Zaki Laïdi of the Centre for European Studies in Paris. He argues that the close scores show, first and foremost, the failure of the party heavyweights’ strategy of Royal “containment.” “Very honestly, I never believed as much in Ségolène Royal’s political chances as I do today, because she’s shown a capacity to fight and to overcome obstacles. It shows that they’re having more and more trouble containing her. Every time you think she’s dead, she charges back.”

“If there is one lesson here, I think it’s that the rise in strength and the control of Ségolène Royal now is paradoxically inexorable,” concludes Laïdi.

“In any case, she wins,’ concurs Gérard Grunberg, of Paris’s Institute of Political Studies. “First, the rest are divided: all those against her are divided. Next, they will be on the defensive all the time, because they defend the old ideas. And third, I think she is very, very intelligent at appearing as the victim. She’ll develop the argument ‘The Socialists wanted change. Change was prevented.’ So I wouldn’t be surprised if she goes up in the polls more than Martine Aubry.” And while Royal is free to make her case, Aubry, of course, would be stuck putting the pieces back together at party headquarters. Royal would be able to claim as much favor with the party faithful as Aubry, but operate as she has in the past, as the outsider from the inside. She will have one foot in the party with her representation on the national council and one foot out. The leader’s term is only three years, meaning the job will be up for grabs again in plenty of time for the 2012 presidential campaign.

So as the Socialist Party’s “parliament” gets set to meet tonight to parse an impossibly close ballot and take the next step, the political advice to Royal seems clear: Protest, lady, but not too much. Not enough to get stuck winning.

(Photo by AFP/Miguel Medina)