This sounds like an interesting project: three bright young people (admittedly, two of them are friends of mine, so this is a bit of an advert ) are mounting a website dedicated to global election analysis. Here’s an extract from their mission statement:

NeoElect idea was born when we realized that over 120 elections occur around the world every year, which means that, statistically, at least one individual becomes a newly-elected leader (”neoelect”) every third day. Approximately 27 minutes later we had a plan which has gradually become a blueprint for an ambitious media project that will inform, involve and inspire individuals to cover, discuss and analyze elections in an innovative manner.

Obviously, the project is still in the making, but it definitely has loads of potential for all those interested in democratic development. Good work guys, keep it up!

• The NeoElect project home page.

Last week, I went to a talk by the Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the UK. It was entertaining and interesting.

In particular, I discovered a new fact about myself. I must be colourblind. There was a lot of talk about how the Chávez government was a government of the people, of the indigenous masses, one that had finished with the rule of the criollo élites educated at foreign universities, etc. Yet the man standing before me looked rather white, and had been educated in Caracas (so far, so good), Boston, and Oxford. I think I suffer from a condition that prevents me from seeing how this is a departure from ‘the way things were before’. Who can help?

Disclaimer: I’m not saying the man is incapable of doing his job properly. What I am saying is that there is change, and then there’s “change”.

In the wake of Berlusconi’s election victory in Italy, the BBC’s Europe editor Mark Mardell brings us a brilliant blog entry on what could become an interesting constellation at the EU: Sarkozy and Berlusconi.

My favourite quote:

Diplomats in European capitals are scratching their heads, trying to work out how these two little men with big personalities change the dynamics in Europe.

Read on for more pearls of wisdom!

Update: Lluis Bassets, El País’s external affairs editor, also comments on this interesting new constellation(in Spanish). But he adds another factor to the equation: Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has proposed an Organisation of Latin American States on his visit to Mexico, El País reports.

The idea is old, very old. Ever since their independence, Latin American states have tried to associate themselves into integration projects of all varieties. The result of it is a veritable spaghetti bowl of partially overlapping regional and sub-regional agreements, none of which seem to work properly: the weakened Andean Community, a MERCOSUR ridden with internal splits, the idea to merge the former two into a Union of South American Nations, Chávez’s Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), CARICOM etc. - you name it. A lot of the time, these integration initiative never seem to get much further than signing a treaty declaring their existence.

The problem seems to be that these great plans are generally not very well thought out and too ambitious. Frequently inspired by the example of the EU, what is forgotten is that Europe is unique and it is not easy to recreate its success. What is ignored is that in Europe, integration initially served as an economic solution to a political problem: that of preventing future war and preventing German nationalism to rise again. In Latin America, regional integration is now being heralded as a political solution to economic problems. Latin America is not like Europe.

The levels of inequality among the Latin American nations are larger than those of Europe were at the time of founding of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), first forerunner of what is today the European Union. It is incredibly difficult to bring together states as different as Ecuador and Mexico under one institutional “umbrella”.

Additionally, Europe had a very different structure than Latin America, particularly in terms of trade. While European countries have traditionally traded mainly amongst each other, Latin American states’ most important trade partners tend to lie outside Latin America itself. Mexico and many other Latin American countries trade mainly with the US, MERCOSUR with the EU, and Asia is becoming more and more important. While it could be argued that integration would facilitate intra-regional trade, the current lack of benefits is a huge impediment to establishing it in the first place.

Why, then, establish another regional integration project? A good question. The sensible thing to do would be to disentangle the current mess. Either focus on those organisations that already exist, or do away with them all and start from a clean slate. The latter is going to be extremely difficult: international organisations are sticky - once established, they are difficult to get rid of, and as long as they persist even on paper, there are going to be revival projects. Focusing on existing organisations might be easier in principle, but the abovementioned factors make it obvious that this is hardly going to be a walk in the park in practice. At least at the moment, the prospects for Latin American integration, no matter under which scenario, look slim. But then again, is regional integration really the answer to Latin America’s problems to begin with?

No, I haven’t given up writing this blog. I’m just really busy right now, writing papers, doing funding applications, and all other sorts of stuff. I’ll be back in due course. Anyway, here are some things that I would comment on if I had more time and energy:

• The recent NATO summit and its implications (especially for the EU). Joschka Fischer comments on it in Die Zeit Online (in German) and The Economist also takes stock.
• Super Sarko strikes again: This time, he is sending a humanitarian mission to Colombia to free FARC hostage Íngrid Betancourt. El País comments on the popularity contest emerging between Sarkozy and Chávez over who gets to negotiate and - potentially - take credit for her liberation.

Enjoy!

Or: High Politics according to Hugo, Rafa and Álvaro

Now that the diplomatic crisis in the Andes is over, it’s time for some analysis: what did it all mean? Well, many things. Let’s start from the beginning.

• Why did Ecuador get ticked off? - Last weekend, Colombian military forces entered Ecuadorian territory in order to kill a prominent member of the Colombian guerrilla organisation FARC, Raúl Reyes, in the border region. This was an intrusion of Ecuadorian sovereign territory. The worst thing was, they didn’t tell the Ecuadorian government about it before they went in, which would have been the nice thing to do. Understandably, Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa was unimpressed. No-one likes foreign military just randomly wandering into their country to shoot some people (even if they are criminals and citizens of the other country).
• So why didn’t Álvaro Uribe tell the Ecuadorians they were popping over for a visit? - According to himself, to make sure the operation would succeed. There is also a long-standing history of mistrust between the two neighbours regarding the goings-on with the FARC in the northern Ecuadorian region.
• Why did Hugo Chávez get involved? - Several reasons:
  1. He sees himself as an important regional actor.
  2. He’s (political/ideological) friends with Rafael Correa. Both are leftwing leaders, and Chávez sort of views Ecuador as a younger brother and companion in the Bolivarian Revolution whom he had to protect against ‘aggressive Colombia’.
  3. Chávez and Uribe haven’t been on the best of terms since Uribe decided to withdraw permission from Chávez to negotiate with the FARC over the release of hostages such as Íngrid Betancourt. See also this post. At the moment, Chávez seems to welcome any opportunity to confront Colombia, whose president Uribe he also sees as a puppet of his longest-standing enemy, the United States.
• How dangerous was it really? - Now that it’s over, it is always easy to say that it wasn’t that dangerous to begin with. But thinking about it, it probably really wasn’t. Would Colombia, who already has enough on their hands with internal problems, really enter a military conflict over this? Probably not. Would Ecuador really confront the much larger and militarily well-equipped (thanks to the US) Colombia over the shooting of some guy? Unlikely. Would Venezuela really let itself be drawn into this whole thing? If they had become involved on the Ecuadorian side, there would have been good reason for the US to stand behind their closest (and only) ally in the Andean region. The whole thing would probably have been blown completely out of proportion. Would Venezuela really want that? Also unlikely.
• So what was it all about? - Ecuador had to let Colombia know that the next time they were planning to visit, they should phone ahead for permission. Colombia had to play innocent and justify its actions. Venezuela, with its pretense to regional leadership, had to step in, preferably on the side of its ally Ecuador. Besides, the opportunity to bond with another country against Colombia is a welcome one to Chávez at the moment.

With hindsight: Much sabre-rattling, little actual danger. Still, it’s quite nice that it’s over and everyone can go back to minding their own business. And it certainly did not do the already fragmented region any good. As Simon Romero puts it in an excellent New York Times article, everybody lost something in this stand-off: Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, and the FARC. And the Andean regional project is left that little bit hollower.

ETA assassinates a former city councillor

With two days to go before the Spanish general elections on Sunday, ETA obviously figured things were going in too smooth and democratic a fashion. Earlier today, the separatist and, let’s face it, terrorist, organisation assasinated a former Socialist councillor of the Mondragón city council. The man was shot in front of his wife and his young daughter while leaving his house.

What are they thinking? That they are doing justice? That just before the election, things need stirring up a little, that they had to disseminate further disunity among the Basque and Spanish society? That shooting representatives of the democratic system two days before an election would frighten the Basque population into not voting? Batasuna, the illegalised nationalist party, is asking its supporters to abstain from Sunday’s election. Is this the warning “if you go anyway, and even worse, if you dare exercise your right to active political participation, this is what will happen to you”?

If so, they’re not doing themselves any favours. I sincerely hope that the only thing they’re going to achieve is that more democratically-minded citizens will go and exercise their right to vote on Sunday and show support for precisely those institutions ETA is trying so hard to undermine.

Unfortunately, they are already succeeding in something else, surely a rather unwelcome side-effect for a ‘nationalist’ organisation: That those parts of the Basque population who are in support of peace, freedom of expression, and democracy are feeling ashamed of being Basque. José aka Mi mesa cojea has written a passionate statement that sends shivers down your spine (in Spanish). Let me translate and cite just the beginning:

I am ashamed that a gang of fascists assassinates a citizen in front of his daughter and claim they are doing it in my name. In the name of my country. For the freedom of my people.

Those who think like him on such a day shouldn’t be ashamed. They should be proud. Proud of being Basque democrats who value their freedom of expression, and who do it peacefully, by ticking a box on a ballot form, not by killing and curtailing the freedom of others.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy has ceded ground on his Mediterranean Union initiative, El País reports. After a meeting with German chancellor Angela Merkel, he has agreed to inscribe it within the EU framework of the Barcelona Process.

In a very Sarkozy fashion, the Mediterranean Union was intended as a French initiative outside the EU framework - an idea that not many countries liked, including Germany, who would have stayed outside the Mediterranean Union since it’s not a Mediterranean country.

As of yet, we can only speculate what drove Super Sarko to suddenly give in. Maybe he just realised that without the support from other EU members, there’s little he can do - but then again, this sounds very unlike the larger-than-life image Sarkozy is trying to create of himself. Realising there’s something he can’t do would be a bit like forgoing his own raison d’être. I suspect there might be ulterior motives - or a little trade-off with Germany on some sort of something. Time will tell.

Tourism in the Basque Country is on the rise - no wonder, it’s just a gorgeous part of the world. The blogosphere isn’t lagging behind - Weblogs SL has just inaugurated a blog on tourism in the Basque Country - mainly centered on Bilbao at the moment, but it includes some great sights such as the beautiful San Juan de Gaztelugatxe.

The articles are written by young locals such as Sergio from Tallerd3 and Sergio aka Tall & Cute, so you can be sure to get the latest trends. Well worth a visit before venturing out there - enjoy!

The US have already done it. Russia refuses to do it. So does Serbia. And in the middle, as so often, a headless EU that can’t agree on what to do, so in the first instance the member states are not doing anything but negotiate amongst themselves. We’re talking, of course, about the recognition of Kosovo’s independence.

(Source: Wikipedia)

The Balkans must really be giving the EU a huge headache and most of the time Brussels probably wishes they just weren’t there. Because time and time again, they challenge the EU’s ability to formulate its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The CFSP is hardly what one would call an efficient rapid-response mechanism, as it is carried out not by communitarian decree (like economic and trade matters, the Common Agricultural Policy, etc.), but by negotiations among all the member states. Given that there are usually diverging opinions on foreign policy matters, it is easy to imagine that arriving at some sort of agreement will take its time. As we have seen in earlier Balkans crises, the two Gulf Wars, and on many other occasions, the intergovernmental, unanimity-based character of the CFSP does not lend itself to quick and concerted responses to anything that requires them.

Now, Kosovo and yesterday’s declaration of independence represent a particularly tricky problem for the EU, because according to the plans the international community has for this newborn entity… erm, state, the EU is to play a rather large part in safeguarding its nation building process. The new constitution the Kosovars are expected to pass over the next few weeks - no Albanian version exists as of yet, the original is in English - stipulates that power does not emanate from the people, but from an International Civilian Office (ICO) deployed by the EU. This ICO will also take on the task of ‘interpreting’ the “constitution” (an activity usually carried out by a body like a constitutional court). EULEX, the EU’s police and justice mission in Kosovo, has also secured many competencies for itself in its quest to assist Kosovo’s own nascent police and justice system.

I think we can spot the irony: the international organisation that cannot make up its mind about whether to recognise Kosovo as an independent state is supposedly responsible for making sure that this independence comes about in a halfway ordered fashion and without sparking another armed conflict in the Balkans.

This situation represents a huge test for the CFSP, and so far, things don’t look too good. Spain’s foreign minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos has already declared that Spain will not recognise yesterday’s declaration because it “does not respect international law”. France, on the other hand, has declared Kosovo’s independence a “great success for the Kosovars” and “a great success for Europe”. Germany, for the moment, has decided it is going to sit on the fence and not make any official statement of recognition, although foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has already termed eventual recognition “inevitable”.

Those EU members critical of Kosovo’s independence have good reasons for doing so: their own respective minorities. Most of all, the Spanish central government is worried that the Basque (and/or Catalan) situation might explode. Slovakia, Greece and Cyprus are other names that spring to mind when it comes to states less keen on recognising the new state.

But Kosovo is going to need all the help it can get if it is ever going to reach anything remotely like national sovereignty - which, for the moment, seems a rather distant prospect. Not least because it already has its very own in-built “Cyprus question”: the Serbian ethnic minority in the North, for whom a solution needs to be found. It is difficult to see Kosovo becoming the tolerant, multi-ethnic state prime minister Hashim Thaçi would so much like it to be. We’ll see if the EU manages to get its act together and find a common position on the Kosovo question. For now, however, it looks just like Kosovo might become yet another trophy on the wall of those who collect CFSP failures