British Apology Or Cop-out?

Does Britain’s apology over American “extraordinary rendition” flights through its territory imply London’s deepening shift from Washington’s approach to the war on terror?
Tony Blair’s departure as prime minister was precipitated by perceptions that he had become the Bush administration’s appendage. For Britons – and the rest of the world –Gordon Brown’s elevation to the premiership was expected to bring definite signs of a policy departure.
The latest shift – if that is what it is – is hardly credible. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s assertion that London did not really know what Washington was really up to is incredulous.
For Washington, the rendition operation was so crucial to the war on terror that it considered justified to fly detainees to places where American law would not apply, specifically vis-à-vis torture. There was an obvious imperative of secrecy on the part of an administration that perfected it to an art.
Yet it is preposterous to suggest that Washington did not seek London’s permission before embarking on such a sweeping move. From the outset, statements from Blair claiming “no evidence that rendition flights had stopped on UK territory” were considered misleading. He paid the price.
London seems intent on holding the Bush administration responsible for “lying.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown cannot expect to be left off the hook. He was a key member of the Blair cabinet. If he and/or other ministers counseled Blair against toeing Washington’s line so diligently, then he would do well to explain that in public.
If, on the other hand, he did not really know what was going on, then that would raise questions about his competence.

Putin Ratchets Up Cold War Rhetoric

Days after claiming that a new phase of the arms race was unfolding, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that his country may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbor joins the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and accepts the deployment of the US missile defense shield.
What was striking was that Putin made the comments in Moscow alongside Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko after talks to patch up bilateral differences.
Putin has regularly condemned American plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in its missile defense shield. Still, his latest threat marks a dangerous escalation. He simply shrugged off Yushchenko’s pleas that Ukraine’s move was not aimed against Russia.
Speaking at a news conference at the Kremlin, Putin said he had advised Ukraine not to join NATO. However, he admitted that he would be unable to interfere in any such move.
Putin has come a long way since his famous bonhomie with George W. Bush. A man whom the newly elected American president said he could do business with in all sincerity has ostensibly been embittered by Washington.
Essentially, Washington wants to build the shield to destroy incoming ballistic missiles potentially coming from North Korea and Iran. When Bush pulled his country out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the former Soviet Union to facilitate the construction of the shield, Putin went along.
The missile shield project has evolved over the years. Current plans envisage some interceptor missiles based in Poland and an associated radar built in the Czech Republic, both former Soviet satellite countries. Ukraine’s moves toward NATO have ostensibly raised Moscow’s sensitivities.
The sight of Putin and Yushchenko together was, at one level, quite remarkable. Moscow had campaigned heavily against Yushchenko during the presidential elections over three years ago. Putin’s overt support for Viktor Yanukovych did much to fuel the Orange Revolution of winter 2004-2005. Once the euphoria over the triumph of people power subsided, Moscow’s candidate Yanukovych trudged back to power.
Still, several sensitive issues continue to dog the bilateral partnership between Russia and its second largest partner in what used to be the Soviet Union. Yushchenko hopes to resolve outstanding issues with Russia with through dialogue, openness and trust. The two leaders had been meeting in urgent talks over one such issue, a gas dispute. In fact, they announced a deal to avoid disrupting supplies.
The missile threat has revived fears of another escalation in international tensions. In a televised speech to the Russian State Council last week, Putin said other countries were spending far more than Russia on new weapons. The content and tone was eerily reminiscent of the Cold War. Putin’s assertion that Russia would respond to the challenges by developing high-tech weaponry has only deepened growing anxieties. Russia and China, for their part, have proposed a new treaty to ban the use of weapons in space and the use or threat of force against satellites or other craft.
Putin has accepted an invitation to attend the forthcoming NATO summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, in April. That is strange considering that Putin will cease to be president then. Elections to choose his successor are scheduled for next month. Does this amount to an acceptance by the Atlantic alliance that Putin will continue to call the shots?

Tanzania’s Tough War On Graft

Is Tanzania stepping up its fight against corruption? Or is President Jakaya Kikwete losing control over the ruling party?
Prime Minister Edward Lowassa and two members of his cabinet resigned last week after parliament issued a report criticizing their role in the “Richmond affair.” This is the second high-profile anti-corruption scandal to hit the country in two months.
Amid a drought-induced severe decline in hydroelectric power generation in 2006, the government awarded US-based Richmond Development Company a contract to supply 100 megawatts of emergency power.
The $172 million deal sparked a controversy, with concerns swirling around alleged violations of official tendering procedures and the failure to insist on a performance bond.
A parliamentary committee was set up in November 2007 to investigate the contract. It, too, criticized the arrangement. The panel said Richmond, which failed to deliver the 100 MW of power, lacked experience, expertise, and was financially incapacitated.
The committee criticized the role of senior government officials, including Prime Minister Lowassa. He denies wrongdoing, claiming the committee has misled parliament.
The parliamentary report and resignations comes at a time when President Kikwete is attempting to burnish his government’s reputation on the anti-corruption front. Donors, who fund up to 40 percent of Tanzania’s budget, have become more critical over the misuse of aid in the past year.
Pressing for political accountability, they are paying close attention to the Richmond case. Moreover, Tanzania is one of the main recipients of rising aid flows to Africa.
In December, the president dismissed the central bank governor, Daudi Ballali, after an investigation uncovered fraud in the repayment of external debts.
The latest resignations will bolster Kikwete’s argument that he is committed to tackling graft. But at what price? The loss of the three ministers – known as close associates of the president – could represent a waning of Kikwete’s position in the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party.
A recent contest for positions in the CCM secretariat exposed deep fissures in the ruling party. Some of President Kikwete’s important allies lost their positions.
A scheduled cabinet reshuffle can be expected to provide further evidence of the balance of power within the CCM – as well as the fate of the anti-corruption campaign.