Observers try to prevent repeat of Florida controversy Dan Glaister in Los Angeles Friday September 24, 2004 The Guardian A team of international monitors is spending this week in five key states across the US observing preparations for the November vote. The team of 20 intends to focus on three issues that have arisen in the wake of the controversial Florida vote in the 2000 election: concerns that some eligible voters are excluded from registering or voting, doubts over the security of voting electronically and worries about campaign financing. The observers, from Europe, Latin America, Australia, India and the Phillipines, will publish a report at the end of their stay identifying their concerns. A second, smaller team will return at the end of October to monitor the vote. This week, monitors are in Florida, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona and Ohio, having spent the first five days of their stay meeting election officials in Washington DC. "Perhaps the most important thing is that, for the first time, the election process in the US has been questioned, not just after the Florida fiasco," said one observer, Oscar Gonzalez, a former diplomat and ex-president of Mexico's Human Rights Academy. "It is the beginning of a wave of reform." Mr Gonzalez, with observers from Ghana, Australia and Chile, are spending this week in Arizona, investigating campaign finance reform, the political rights of the largest Native American tribe, the Navajo, and meeting Mormon and student groups as well as election officials. Georgia has been chosen because it is one of only two states where all voting will be electronic. There are concerns about whether the machines can withstand fraud and the lack of a paper audit. Missouri experienced problems in 2000 that were similar to those in Florida, where former prisoners and African Americans were excluded from voting lists. Ohio has been chosen because it is one of the closest swing states in the election. The team has been assembled by Global Exchange, a non-governmental organisation which has observed elections in 10 countries. Ted Lewis, director of the fair elections project, said in a statement: "The presence of independent non-governmental observers can help boost public confidence in electoral processes. Our friends from around the world can help us enliven discussions about what it takes to keep a democracy vital and they are coming here to help us at a time when mistrust and polarisation are eroding our national dialogue." Link
State of uncertainty Polls showing a close race in the solidly Democratic New Jersey illustrate the trouble John Kerry is in, says Philip James Friday September 24, 2004 Friends who live on the other side of the Hudson River called me in a panic yesterday. With the election less than six weeks away, they suddenly realised that they, and their friends, were going to have to put their hands in their pocket to help get the vote out for John Kerry. New Jersey - a state that Al Gore won by 16 points in 2000, and which has voted solidly Democratic in the last three election cycles - is now a toss-up. Recent polls have shown that the double digit lead Kerry held there in August has evaporated to within the margin of error. This week, one poll even had George Bush and Kerry running neck and neck. What has happened in New Jersey underlines the inadequacy of nationwide polling. The two most recent, carried out by NBC/Wall Street Journal and the Pew Research Centre, show no discernible daylight between the presidential candidates. It is only when you examine the picture state by state that you get a clearer view of the trouble Kerry is in. New Jersey is the most glaring example of a trend that has laid waste to his safe electoral map, increasing the list of states in which he has a real fight on his hands. Apart from New Jersey, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota are all states that voted for Gore last time and were leaning towards Kerry in the early summer. Now they are too close to call. Conversely, Bush-supporting states such as North Carolina and Virginia, which were up for grabs two months ago, are now out of contention for the Democrats. The Kerry camp this week pulled advertising from Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona and Missouri - all states in which they had some momentum after the Democratic convention, but all of which are now drifting irretrievably back to Bush. Advertiser links Get a $100 Credit When You Invest Invest online. Harrisdirect offers you the resources to be a... harrisdirect.com Offshore Investing Child's Play Learn offshore investing basics and more with my book... childsplayinvesting.com Get Ken Fisher's Stock Market Outlook Fisher Investments CEO Ken Fisher is a widely respected... fisherinvestments.com According to the Rasmussen report - a tracking survey of state by state polls - Kerry's one time projected lead in electoral college votes has now vanished. In July, he was ahead by 254 to 197. Now Bush is in front by 213 to 204. A recent Zogby poll has Kerry still in front, but with a much reduced advantage. While the national popular vote may remain close through to election day, the only tally that matters is the electoral college count. As troubling as Kerry's standing in state-wide polling may be, what lies behind the figures is equally disturbing: a fall in his support among women voters. They have been a bulwark of the Democratic base since Bill Clinton first opened up the so-called gender gap against George Bush Snr in 1992. Al Gore beat Bush Jnr among women voters by 54% percent to 43% but, according to the latest studies, the gender gap between Bush and Kerry has shrunk to just four points. The term "security mom" has replaced "soccer mom" in the political lexicon of this election. The issues that women voters care about (reproductive rights, education), while still important, have taken a back seat to the basic issue of security - and survey after survey ranks Bush far ahead of Kerry on that score. Kerry's multiple positions on Iraq have created the impression that he is wishy-washy on the issue of defence. Voters - men and women alike - are acting out a truism coined by Bill Clinton: "Americans would rather be strong and wrong than weak and right." Kerry needs to see this both as an indictment and an opportunity. He has failed to convince the US public that he represents a clear third way - strong and right. He still has a chance to do so. The increasingly yawning gap between the gruesome reality of what is happening in Iraq and the fantasy world depicted by Bush gives him that opportunity. US casualties in Iraq are escalating: 42 in June, 54 in July, 66 in August, and another 60 so far this month. However, media coverage of Iraq over the same period has not helped Kerry. Despite the growing body count, front page stories in the New York Times and Washington Post have fallen by one third between May and September. So Kerry will have to help himself. Sharp, concise messaging, centred around how a reckless, distracting war has made the US less safe, is what is needed to move forward. For a senator who has never met a dependant clause he didn't like, that may be a tall order. His speech in New York on the eve of Bush's UN address was a start, but he still wandered off into too many rhetorical flourishes that led nowhere. The latest figures from New Jersey should scare the Kerry camp back into focus - and the alternative is a truly terrifying prospect. The last Republican presidential candidate to win the Garden State was Bush Sr when, in 1988, he came from behind to win a 40-state landslide. · Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist link
Bush fails to raise Jewish support Polls show president's support for Israel will not win votes from the traditionally Democratic mainstream who recoil from his religious zeal Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Thursday September 23, 2004 The Guardian George Bush has failed to win over any of the traditional Jewish backing for the Democrats, despite the unwavering White House support for Israel and a vigorous campaign by the Republican party. In a poll released yesterday by the American Jewish Committee, Jewish voters preferred John Kerry to Mr Bush by a margin of nearly three to one: 69% to 24%. It is an improvement on Mr Bush's 19% Jewish support in 2000 but well short of the Republicans' hope of 30%. Although Jews form only 2% of the US population, they vote in great numbers, and are prominent in this year's battleground states - Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - where their support could be pivotal. In Florida they make up 3.9% of the population, more than the margin of victory in the 2000 election. Mr Bush appeals to a section of the Orthodox community because of his support for the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and his open religiosity, but most Jews are not changing sides. David Harris, director of the American Jewish Committee, said: "Most American Jews tend towards the liberal side of the political equation, and therefore instinctively lean towards the Democratic candidate, and this year may be no exception, despite a president with a strong track record on US-Israeli relations, and who is waging a war on radical Islamic terrorism." This is the second poll to confound Republican hopes: in a survey by the Democratic pollsters Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner for the National Jewish Democratic Council, Mr Kerry had 75% support and Mr Bush 22%. Anna Greenberg said the findings showed that Jews were moved far more by domestic concerns than US policy towards Israel, and that Jewish voters did not necessarily agree with Mr Bush's wholehearted support of Israel. "What is clear from this survey is that Jewish voters don't necessarily believe that Bush is better on Israel than Kerry," she added. The AJC poll showed an uneasiness with the administration's leadership of the "war on terror", and in Iraq, areas in which it expected to pick up Jewish support. Fifty-two per cent of respondents disapproved of Mr Bush's stewardship of his "war on terror" and 66% were unhappy with it: levels of discontent far higher than in the general population, and 57% thought the threat of a terror attack on America had increased because of the war with Iraq. There was also dissatisfaction with Mr Bush's unilateralist approach to world affairs: another area of strong contrast with Mr Kerry, who has said consistently in campaign speeches that America needs to work with the UN and other institutions. Sixty-four per cent said America should not act alone on the international stage. Bill Clinton won 80% of the Jewish vote in 1992, and Al Gore 79% in 2000. Only Ronald Reagan managed to break through, winning 40% in 1980, but pollsters say that had more to do with many Jewish voters' dread of Jimmy Carter than an affinity with the Republican party. Nevertheless, the Republican campaign organisers have made a concerted effort to break through this year, as part of a long-term strategy to woo minority voters away from the Democrats. In particular they hoped to win Orthodox voters - devoting special sessions at the party convention to religious Jewish delegates - and Jews from the former Soviet Union. The Bush administration has been the most unabashedly supportive of Israel, culminating in Mr Sharon's visit to Washington last April, when Mr Bush broke with 30 years of diplomatic tradition by endorsing his Gaza withdrawal plan. But although Jews may appreciate Mr Bush's support for Israel, they balk at the open religiosity of his administration, and his party's moral crusading on issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. "The conservative social agenda gives Jewish voters serious pause," the Republican pollster Frank Luntz admitted. "They have to decide what is more important to them: their support of his position on Israel or their opposition to his social agenda." Open religiosity does not scare away the entire community. Among the 10% who define themselves as Orthodox, there is relative comfort with the idea of asking faith-based bodies to provide services to the young and elderly, according to Abba Cohen, Washington director of the Agudath Israel, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews. "I think there is a real affinity for Bush ... in the Orthodox community," he said, but added: "Generally, no one expects the Jewish community's voting patterns to change dramatically." Link
Who's hot - and who's not? What is most likely to swing the US presidential election one way or the other? Bush and Kerry reckon it's sex appeal. Gary Younge on two misguided campaigns to woo the single American woman When President George Bush landed on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln last May in full battle regalia, under the banner Mission Accomplished, the election looked like a done deal and commentators moved on to the aesthetics. This display of hypermasculinity in the midst of wartime, some concluded, would have a particular appeal for women voters. Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan said that she half expected Bush to "tear open his shirt and reveal the big S on his chest". One Wall Street Journal columnist pronounced him "a hottie". Rightwing talkshow host G Gordon Liddy proclaimed that the president "has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America". Paradoxically, it seems that the women he appealed to most are those who are already hitched. The women most likely to be on the lookout for a "hottie", namely single women, are increasingly devoted to his Democratic rival John Kerry. With six weeks to go before the presidential election, one of the best ways to find out how a woman is likely to vote is to check her ring finger. A recent poll shows Bush ahead of Kerry among married women by 13%, while Kerry has a 25% lead among unmarried women. Indeed, the difference in voting intentions between single and married women - 38% - is far greater than that between men and women, which stands at 5%. What has been described as the "marriage gap" could prove crucial, particularly for the Democrats. Women settle on their presidential choice later than men, and so comprise most of the small number of coveted undecided voters that remain. In a race this close, the party that can identify the women who are most likely to identify with the party could make the difference between victory and defeat - so much so that pundits have invented a new political construct just for the occasion. After "angry white men" (1994), "soccer moms" (1996), the post 9/11 "security moms" (2002), and the drag-racing-fanatic "NASCAR dads" (2003), there is now the "Sex and the City voter". The term may jar, but the phenomenon could provide a jolt. Single women represent at least 24% of the voting-age population and a massive 46% of voting-age women. But if the Democrats are going to win, say the pollsters, they are going to have to woo single women relentlessly. To that end, they launched a programme called Take Five last month, which encourages the faithful to convince five single women who don't usually vote to go to the polls. The marriage gap is not new. But each election year it has grown increasingly huge, more than doubling over the past 20 years. Views differ on why this should be. Some of it can be explained by other demographic factors that are related to, but not defined by, either marital status or gender. According to the census, more than half of unmarried women earn less than $30,000 (£16,800) a year, while more than half of married women have annual household incomes of more than $50,000 (£28,000). And the wealthier you are, the greater the likelihood that you will vote Republican. Personal factors also play a role. Married women often vote the way their husband does. "I registered Republican when I got married," Ginny Savopoulos told USA Today. "But after I was divorced I was thinking more about, what's out there for me as a single woman?" After struggling to find work as a paralegal, she was laid off two years ago and remains disenchanted with the war in Iraq. Still registered as a Republican, she plans to vote Democrat. The experience of having children further deepens the divide. Married women with children are even more heavily Republican than those without, while childless single women are even more sympathetic to the Democrats than unmarried mothers. Of the 10 states with the highest birthrates, all but one voted for Bush in 2000. "Conservative, religious-minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal and secular counterparts," wrote Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, in a recent article for the Washington Post. "If Metros don't start having more children, America's future is Retro." But policy issues related to the current political climate also play a role. Married women place a higher priority on the war on terror and are more likely to value Bush's leadership, while single women are more concerned with such issues as health insurance and policing. "It's not that single women aren't worried about security," says Kellyanne Conway, president of WomenTrend, a woman-centred polling organisation. "But they are more likely to be concerned with job security and whether it's safe to get home than the war on terror. "They're not so interested in small government because to them, the government is a partner and a safety net. For those women without husbands, Uncle Sam and Big Brother are the greatest protectors." The Republicans have adapted their message accordingly. As supporters in Madison Square Garden waved signs declaring "W is for Women", Laura Bush's prime-time convention speech was aimed squarely at parents: "I want to talk about the issue that I believe is most important for my own daughters, for all of our families, and for our future," she said. "George's work to protect our country and defeat terror so that all children can grow up in a more peaceful world." But the Republican approach also repels many singles. "Republicans have this programme of trickle-down dignity," says Bella DePaulo, who studies singles' behaviour at the University of California at Santa Barbara and is currently writing a book called Singled Out. "They portray a woman's life as in a family with mum, dad and the kids and have shut the door on anyone who doesn't fit into that." Claudia Bernett, a single, 32-year-old digital designer in New York, plans to vote against Bush. "I'm not a great fan of Kerry but the Democrats at least say their intentions are to generally take care of people, while the Republicans are so brutal. Abortion is crucially important, but there are other agendas that even exceed that one - we seem to be at a very dangerous moment in time." Such views should present an opportunity and a challenge to the Democrats. The main reason the gender gap opened up in the first place, in the 80s, was not because they were doing so well among women but because they were losing so much support among white men, just over a third of whom backed Al Gore at the last election. For while single women are currently much more likely to vote Democrat, they are much less likely to vote at all. In 2000, Gore won the single women's vote by 31%, while Bush had just a 1% lead over married women. The trouble is, that while 62% of married women voted, only 43% of singles did. "If unmarried women in Florida had turned out in the same percentage as married women, Al Gore would have won the state easily," Democrat pollster Celinda Lake said earlier this year. Indeed, if they had turned out at just the statewide average, then Gore would have won by a relatively comfortable 63,000. So why didn't they? Because nobody asks, says DePaulo. "Just listen to the rhetoric of the politicians," she says. "It's so much family values - it's as though single people don't exist." But the Democrats have been slow to grasp the existence, let alone the potential, of this enormous untapped resource. During the Democratic convention Kerry did not emphasise issues such as the economy or health care, which would have appealed to undecided women voters, but instead tried to outmacho Bush with his war record. Since this backfired he has returned to the kind of domestic issues that could well galvanise single women into making up their minds - not between Kerry and Bush, but between Kerry and not bothering. Whether he succeeds or not will largely depend on whether he has anything more to offer them than the chance to put two more men in the White House. "The trouble with going after single women, those fans of progressive change, is that one has to offer them something progressive," wrote Katha Pollitt, a columnist for the leftwing magazine the Nation. "It will be interesting to see if the Democratic campaign to sign up these voters involves offering them things they want." Link
Iraqi Judge Dismisses Case Against Chalabi Friday September 24, 2004 8:16 PM By OMAR SINAN Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An Iraqi judge has dismissed counterfeiting charges against a senior political figure once considered a front-runner to become Iraq's leader, authorities said Friday. The charges against Ahmad Chalabi, a wealthy Iraqi exile and one-time Pentagon favorite, were dismissed ``for lack of evidence,'' said Zuhair al-Maliky, Iraq's chief investigative judge. Al-Maliky told The Associated Press that the charges could be re-filed, however, should more evidence be uncovered. The decision to drop the case was made during a court session Thursday. Chalabi has denied any wrongdoing. ``I am sure they are not going to find any evidence against Chalabi, because there was no evidence from the beginning,'' said Haiydar al-Mousawi, a Chalabi aide. Al-Maliky first issued a warrant against Chalabi in early August, accusing the former exile of a complex counterfeiting scheme involving old Iraqi dinars removed from circulation at the beginning of the year. The case against him stems from counterfeit Iraqi cash found in Chalabi's home during a raid by U.S. and Iraqi forces back in May. Iraqi authorities declined to act on the warrant after it was issued. Chalabi was a longtime favorite of conservatives in the Bush administration. After the war, he was a member of Iraq's Governing Council. The Council was later dissolved, giving way to the Iraq's interim government. Chalabi, who heads the Iraqi National Congress, a party that primarily gathers Iraqi exiles, was one of the most vocal proponents of the use of military force to depose former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Since then, he has fallen out with his one-time backers and was left out of Iraq's interim government. link
Bush, Kerry Economic Budgets Exceed $1T Friday September 24, 2004 8:31 PM AP Photo PX101 By ALAN FRAM Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry have starkly different economic priorities with a common thread: price tags exceeding $1 trillion that could pump already huge deficits skyward over the next decade. Headlining Bush's budget goals for a second term is making permanent the tax cuts he has pushed through Congress, at a 10-year cost the administration sets at nearly $1 trillion. Leading Kerry's agenda are his 10-year, $653 billion health care plan and a $207 billion education package. Both candidates supported the five- and six-year extensions of $133 billion in middle-income tax cuts that Congress passed Thursday. Kerry wouldn't have included the $13 billion in renewed business tax breaks that Congress attached to it but would have added bigger government child-support checks to working low-income families who do not pay income taxes. Though he has offered no details, Bush also would let workers divert part of their Social Security taxes to new personal savings accounts - which some analysts estimate could cost $2 trillion over the period. Kerry would raise the money for his priorities by repealing tax cuts on upper-income people, increasing government efficiency and prodding companies to improve workers' health coverage. Some analysts say he has underpriced his health plan and proposed some savings that are wishful thinking. ``They are presenting very, very different agendas. But they arrive at roughly the same place relative to the deficit,'' said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates balanced budgets. Bixby estimates both men's initiatives would increase the government's red ink by at least $1.2 trillion through 2014. Bush and Kerry each assert they would cut the annual deficit in half within five years. Kerry favors budget restrictions that go further than Bush, like requiring savings to pay for tax cuts, and has said he would trim his priorities if deficits worsen. That won praise from the investment bank Goldman, Sachs & Co., which wrote in a newsletter this month, ``On the budget, Senator Kerry is more credible'' than Bush. Even so, each candidate's deficit-reduction plan has been overshadowed by promises to cut taxes or boost spending. ``Voters like tax cuts, spending increases and deficit reduction. All three are incompatible, but vague promises make it look achievable,'' said Brian Riedl, budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. ``Neither party has offered a detailed or realistic plan.'' Kerry finds money for his proposals by starting with the assumption that the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers will remain in effect permanently. They are scheduled to expire by 2010, though many lawmakers and analysts believe they will be renewed. Kerry's assumption lets him claim $860 billion in 10-year savings by repealing the tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 annually. It also lets him claim no cost for another of his top initiatives: Extending the tax reductions for those making less than $200,000. Leonard Burman of the liberal-leaning Tax Policy Center estimates that, measured against the assumption that all of those tax cuts will expire, the two Kerry proposals would cost $361 billion over 10 years. Kerry's health care package is the keystone of his economic plan, an amalgam of tax breaks and spending aimed at cutting insurance premiums and covering more of the uninsured. Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, estimates its true 10-year cost at $1.5 trillion, which the Kerry campaign denies. Bush would steer the budget on a different course. At his party's national convention this month, he proposed doubling job-training funds and expanding health care tax breaks, a package his campaign prices at $74 billion over 10 years. He also touted his desire to let workers use some of their Social Security taxes to create personal savings accounts, without offering specifics. Peter Orszag, an economist at the liberal Brookings Institution, said he believes such a plan could cost about $2 trillion over 10 years, including adjustments for inflation. He based that on one option studied by the commission Bush appointed in 2001 to study the program's long-term solvency problems. Tim Adams, the Bush campaign's policy director, said a more reasonable estimate was less than $1 trillion, based on another option the commission examined. He defended Bush's refusal to offer details. ``In an election year, putting a specific plan out becomes nothing more than a target for partisans to go after,'' Adams said. To push deficits downward, Bush relies on economic growth he says will result from tax cuts, and on unspecified cuts in future spending. But his budget makes no reference to future U.S. spending in Iraq, the costs of keeping the alternative minimum tax from hitting middle-income families, or details of which domestic programs he would restrain. ^--- On the Net: Bush campaign: http://www.georgewbush.com Kerry campaign: http://www.johnkerry.com link
Hostage drama casts shadow over Blair No 10 PM's wife says hearts go out to Bigleys Michael White, political editor Friday September 24, 2004 The Guardian Tony Blair spent yesterday in the tranquil Buckinghamshire countryside, working on next week's Labour party conference speech in between making and taking a succession of telephone calls from within Britain and abroad. For Mr Blair the daily grind of routine business must go on, even though the shadow of such a cruelly personalised drama as Ken Bigley's casts a shadow over every working moment - as its orchestrators mean it to. "It's a grim time, you wish you could do more to help," said one official involved in the hourly meetings that characterise crisis management. But rural Chequers is never immune from the wider global crisis nowadays. The prime minister's country residence was surrounded, as usual, by state-of-the-art security, its lawns patrolled by police officers with machine guns. Yesterday afternoon, for the second time this week, Mr Blair spoke to Mr Bigley's family, his son Craig and brother Philip, and, this time, to the Liverpool engineer's 86-year-old mother, Lil, at the family home in Bedford Road, Walton. Downing Street officials are said to have been impressed by the family's strength and realism about the horror to which they have been randomly subjected by one of the most brutal terrorist splinter groups in Iraq. "They are realistic about what can and cannot be done," said one. Number 10 has repeatedly made it clear that there can be no negotiation with the hostage-takers, only behind-the-scenes efforts to establish whether the kidnappers have rational demands and pursue all avenues that may yield a reprieve. But, in marked contrast to the frantic activity in France when two Le Figaro journalists - still not released - were seized, Mr Blair is deliberately making no public comment. His wife, Cherie, told reporters at a scheduled appearance on behalf of Age Concern, that "our hearts go out" to the Bigley family and that the country's thoughts were with them. Yesterday was her 50th birthday. Most of Mr Blair's advisers - including Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, David Hill, his communications chief, Sally Morgan, his Labour party fixer and Tom Kelly, his official spokesman - remained at the hub of events in Downing Street. He is kept in touch by telephone and conference call. Did Mr Blair see the video released by Mr Bigley's captors in which he directly appealed to Mr Blair - "Please show some compassion" - as the deadline for his murder loomed? Officials do not say. He probably saw it like everyone else on the TV news. He was certainly sent a transcript along with the flood of need-to-know data sent from No 10. It was left to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, to make the government's official public utterances. Speaking from Britain's UN office in New York, where he was addressing the general assembly before flying home last night, he praised the Bigley family's courage as they endure their "absolutely grotesque" vigil - and "preparing for the worst". Downing Street was quietly relieved when Michael Howard, the Tory leader, backed Mr Blair's stance on Radio 4's Today. At a reception for the Labour veteran Lord Radice's new volume of diaries, former cabinet heavies such as Lord Healey (against the Iraq war) and Lord George Robertson (as Nato's last secretary general, pro-war) agreed too. "There's bugger all they can do," Lord Healey told the Guardian. The former defence secretary, Lord Robertson, said: "The only way to stop hostage-taking is to make sure they get nothing out of it, that they get no traction. "When the IRA, the Red Brigades and the Baader Meinhoff gang realised that, they stopped." It was Mr Straw who set up a consular counter-terrorism response centre at the Foreign Office, manned round the clock to service the frequent crises. A parallel team deals with the families involved to ensure that they always know the voice on the phone. They - and the 24/7 news channels which themselves raise the stakes in such a time of crisis - are No 10's chief source of instant news. Ministers know they must do what they can, show all possible concern, but also strike a balance between activism and giving hostage-takers the publicity (or concessions) they crave. That will only encourage more of the same. But, like Mr Blair, Mr Straw cannot drop everything and work on a crisis in which his practical options are few. On Wednesday, as the possible release of women prisoners in Baghdad raised hopes, he phoned both Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, and Iraq's prime minister, Ayad Allawi, both in New York, to ensure that the judicial review was fortuitously timely but independent and would neither be delayed nor expedited. At 5pm New York time - 10pm in London - he spoke to the Bigley family by mobile phone from his suite in the Millennium Plaza hotel opposite the UN in mid-town Manhattan while juggling meet ings with Russian, South African, Argentinian and Iranian ministers. When it was decided he must say something - "We cannot be seen to be callous," said one Whitehall official - Mr Straw left a French-led environment meeting to give brief interviews to the BBC and Sky TV. Routinely 100 interview re quests a day are rejected by the FO. But this was different. The foreign secretary had already received a transcript of Ken Bigley's "harrowing" video before it was broadcast. Last night, as he flew home, he was as uncertain as Mr Blair and everyone else what dawn would bring. link
and finally........ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 'Night letters' from the Taliban threaten Afghan democracy As the nation's first election since the American invasion approaches, the former rulers are using intimidation and murder to destroy the 'infidel'vote. Declan Walsh reports from Uruzgan Declan Walsh in Uruzgan, Afghanistan Sunday September 19, 2004 The Observer The photocopied notices appeared on the blue mosque door in Uruzgan, a small town below a line of jagged mountains, early on Friday morning. Pinned up by an unknown hand under cover of darkness, their local name - 'night letters' - has an almost romantic ring. Their message does not. 'A holy war has been declared against the infidel,' announced the first letter, attached to the door with black tape. Christians, led by the US, were invading, said the second. Any Afghan working with them would be 'severely punished', warned the third. At the bottom of each was a common signature: 'The Taliban'. Three weeks before Afghanistan's presidential election, the black-turbaned Taliban are intensifying efforts to scupper the vote. Hunted by 18,000 US-led soldiers and scattered throughout the southern provinces, the insurgents have turned to a dual tactic of assassination and intimidation. More than 30 election workers have been killed across the country. Two weeks ago a car bomb exploded in Kabul, killing three American security guards and at least nine other people. Then this week the US-backed interim president, Hamid Karzai - favourite to win the 9 October poll - became the target. Last Thursday, a rocket narrowly missed Karzai's helicopter as it landed in the south-east town of Gardez. The tightly protected Karzai was forced to abandon the rally, his first of the campaign. A day later police arrested three Taliban suspects and found explosives and detonators. A Taliban spokesman later said it intended to attack each of the 18 candidates for the presidency. But in rural areas like Uruzgan - the rugged, southern province where its fugitive leader, Mullah Omar, once lived - the Taliban are determined to discourage voters from even venturing into the polling booths. As well as attacking the US - a remote explosion in the province wounded three soldiers on Friday - the Taliban are employing 'night letters' as a primary weapon in the campaign of intimidation. Election officials, teachers and ordinary voters are receiving the threatening notes every day, said Atiqulla, the provincial electoral co-ordinator. 'They are told that if they co-operate with the elections, they will be killed. It's the Taliban's new way of preaching to them,' he said, speaking at his office in the heavily fortified UN compound in the regional capital, Tarin Kowt. His election team in Uruzgan is virtually under siege. The central government has no control over the lawless province, where power sways between US troops, local militia, and small bands of roaming Taliban fighters. Although the Americans provided security for voter registration, the election teams have been left on their own for the current civic education drive - considered crucial in a country that has never experienced a full democratic vote before. On the streets of Tarin Kowt it is impossible to detect that a major election is looming, even though more than 200,000 people have reg istered to vote across the province. There are no election posters, and not one of the 18 candidates has dared to visit. In fact, few voters even know the candidates' names, admitted Atiqulla. 'We have no newspapers, no local radio, so we depend on our teams of civic educators. And they are scared.' Since May, five of Atiqulla's staff have been killed and two injured. One was slashed across the chest; another held off a Taliban attack on his house for 90 minutes. The local US military commander, LtCol Terry Sellers, said: 'There's a wrong perception that this is the wild, wild West because Mullah Omar comes from here,' he said. 'There will be an increase in attacks before the election but we will be able to deal with it.' Nevertheless, the furtive Taliban's ability to project fear across the province remains undiminished. At the mosque in Uruzgan, where the night letters were pinned to the front door on Friday morning, the local Mullah said it was the first time such notices had appeared at his mosque. 'I don't know who did it. All I know is that they are not locals.' Another man, Abdullah Khan, said the pamphlets must have come from outside because there was no photocopier in Uruzgan. Moments later a US soldier ripped the letters down, and the Mullah quietly slipped away. The question now is whether the Taliban's intimidation tactics will slow or stop voting in rural areas like Uruzgan. Certainly, there seems to be a quiet determination to pursue democracy. More than 10.5 million of Afghanistan's 27 million people have registered to vote, a far higher figure than had been anticipated. link
I posted all of this news information with a view of the direct and indirect implications they have to our lives while looking at the big picture. So divulge, breakdown and examins as you see fit.
Interesting mix of stories, Fegwu. It's a little disconcerting that so many of these election-related stories are only found in the foreign press. I think the more eyes monitoring the election process, the better. Democracy is just too damn important to leave to government.
