Iraqi campaign workers hang election posters of Adnan Pachachi, a leading Iraqi politician and one-time foreign minister, in Baghdad, Jan. 24. (Reuters Photo)

Sunday 30 January will be the day when myth and reality come together with--I fear--an all too literal bang. The magic date upon which Iraq is supposed to transform itself into a democracy will no doubt be greeted as another milestone in America's adventure and, I suspect, another "great day for Iraq" by Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. He, of course, doesn't have to be blown up in the polling stations or torn to pieces by suicide bombers on the way home. The "martyrs of democracy", as I am sure the dead will be feted, will be those Iraqis who have decided to go along with an election so physically dangerous that the international observers will be "observing" the poll from Amman.
The real trouble with this election, however, is not so much the violence that will take place before, during and, rest assured, after 30 January. The greatest threat to "democracy" is that with four provinces containing around half the population of Iraq in a state of insurgency and many of its towns under rebel control, this election is going to widen the differences between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in a way that not even Saddam Hussein was able to achieve.
If the Sunnis don't vote--save for those living in America, Syria and other exotic locations--then the Shia community, perhaps 60 per cent of the population, will take an overwhelming number of seats in the "Transitional National Assembly".
In other words, the Shias, who are not fighting the U.S. occupation of Iraq, will be voting under American auspices while the Sunnis, who are fighting, will refuse to participate in what the insurgents have already labeled a "quisling" election. The four million Kurds will vote. But however many seats they gain, they are not going to abandon their quasi-independence after the election. Thus the dangers of civil war--so trumpeted by the Americans and British--may be increased rather than suppressed by this much-touted experiment in democracy. In fact, Iraq is a tribal--not a religious--society and the real war, which some in the West might like to be replaced by the civil variety, will continue to be between Sunni insurgents and the United States military.
Of course, with all those observers sipping their gin and tonics in Amman, there's no way of ensuring that the voting figures for these elections cannot be massaged. That the electoral group headed by the current "interim" Prime Minister, ex-CIA agent Iyad Allawi, should have been caught handing out $100 bills in plain envelopes to Iraqi journalists last week did not suggest that the poll will be free of corruption. The Americans and British will make great play, of course, of the thousands of Iraqis who vote abroad as well as the turn-out in Shia cities and in the Kurdish north. We'll be told repeatedly that the Iraqi people have expressed their democratic wishes, that freedom really has arrived in Iraq, that the bombers could not defeat the march of democracy, etc.
Without the Sunni vote the parliament will be as unrepresentative of the nation as those glorious elections of old. And there is other cause for worry. While the insurgency has continued, the number of suicide bombings over the past few days has noticeably dropped. I wonder why. Have the volunteers dried up? Or are the suicide squads being saved up and collected in preparation for the big day?
ZMAG.ORG

Hugo Chavez

Colombia and Venezuela--the two most strategically important countries in Latin America--are locked in a row that is on the verge of either subsiding or escalating. The dispute over a guerrilla operative surreptitiously apprehended in Venezuela and brought across the border to Colombia highlights a long-standing problem between the two countries. The crisis has implications for the United States, which depends heavily on Venezuela's oil exports, but is a close ally of Colombia, particularly under President Alvaro Uribe.
Both administrations agree that Rodrigo Granda, a member of one of Colombia's most powerful and murderous terrorist groups, known as the FARC, was apprehended in Caracas, whisked across the border and delivered to Colombian authorities in an operation not sanctioned by Venezuelan officials. Colombia initially said Mr. Granda was arrested on Colombian soil, but later acknowledged that it had paid Venezuelan authorities a reward for helping to bring him to Colombia.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez responded indignantly: claiming Colombia had violated its sovereignty (which of course it did) and that Washington was really behind the whole operation; recalling his ambassador in Bogota; demanding an apology from Mr. Uribe and suspending a gas-pipeline project between the two countries.
Mr. Uribe has responded to Mr. Chavez's accusations by claiming he will deliver to his government the names and addresses of guerrilla members living openly and comfortably in Venezuela. Colombia has long had concerns about the FARC finding refuge in Venezuela. According to a report in the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo, Colombia has already sent a list of seven guerrillas and their location to Venezuelan authorities.
The diplomatic fallout and some of the details surrounding the incident are worrisome. Venezuela and Colombia, despite the deep ideological differences between their leaders, had made considerable headway in bilateral relations, most notably with the $200 million gas-pipeline project. Also, given the close U.S.-Colombian ties, any blow to Venezuelan-Colombian relations could affect the already shaky Venezuelan-American relationship. That would be a most unwelcome development, since Venezuela is already reportedly considering exporting oil to China via a pipeline through Panama--at a time when Latin America's production of energy resources is on the wane.
The Granda crisis could be more readily resolved if the Venezuelan and Colombian presidents used, as an editorial in the publication El Tiempo recommends, "more diplomacy and less microphone" geared toward impressing domestic constituencies with bravado. Colombia clearly has some red lines that cannot be crossed in the name of diplomacy, though. Venezuela must take quick and verifiable action against FARC and other guerrilla members, and the region's most influential leaders, such as Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, should push Mr. Chavez in that direction. These leaders have to begin cooperating effectively in security and border policing. The current Venezuelan-Colombian chill benefits no one, except perhaps the FARC.
WASHINGTONTIMES.
COM

There are serious concerns in Israel that the new Likud-Labour coalition government may not survive intense pressure from the extreme right within Likud, Ariel Sharon's own party.
On Monday, 13 Likud lawmakers in the Knesset voted against the new coalition government, forcing the Israeli prime minister to rely on the centre-left Yahad and the Arab parties to bail him out from certain government collapse.
According to Ami Isseroff, an Israeli commentator, the split in Likud places the Sharon-Peres government in real jeopardy and might very well spell its end.
"Sharon's coalition is hanging together by less than a thread. Even if he succeeds in getting Shas to join the government, he still won't have a majority for peace, because Shas is not very flexible about peace," he said.
Isseroff predicted that the hard right would still win--even gain political muscle--in case early general elections were to be organised now.
Some Israeli officials have sought to play down the government's predicament, arguing that not all the 13 Likud rebel lawmakers are against the "disengagement from Gaza".
However, according to Yossi Verter, a Haaretz correspondent, the Likud rift is too obvious to gloss over:
"One thing is very clear: The internal revolt against Sharon has crossed the point of no return. It is no longer opposition to the disengagement; it is a direct challenge to Sharon's leadership."
Verter's analysis cannot be dismissed as unduly pessimistic, for the Likud rebels--at least in theory--could bring down the government if they chose to.
This is also the view of Communication Minister Dalia Yitzhak--a senior Labour member.
The Likud rebels are led by Uzi Landau, a known hardliner who is fiercely opposed for ideological reasons to the notion of withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
Landau repeatedly accused Sharon of working against the "will of the people" and betraying the "spirit and soul of the Likud".
Others are opposing the Likud-Labour government on barely concealed racist grounds.
One of the rebels was quoted on Monday as saying that "this government is legal but illegitimate" because it depends for its survival on non-Jews, a reference to Arab Knesset lawmakers.
The remarks were made shortly after the government, comprised of the Likud, Labour and the ultra-religious Ashkenazi party United Torah Judaism, was approved by a vote of 58-56, with six abstentions.
Notwithstanding the Likud rebels' pressure, the real test facing the Sharon government will be the approval by the Knesset of the of the 2005 budget, which according to the law must be approved no later than 31 March, or else new elections will be called automatically.
"I think this is going to be Sharon's litmus test. If he gets a majority of lawmakers in the Knesset to support the budget then, then the implementation of the disengagement plan will be easier," Ira Sharkansky, a professor of political science at Hebrew University.
He stressed the condition of Sharon's government is already precarious.
"I think Sharon is facing a very difficult situation. We really don't know how he will overcome these problems. An early election might very well be the only alternative left," he said.
ELECTRONICINTIFADA.
NET

Australians last Sunday remembered victims of the tsunami in a national day of mourning "in their own chosen ways", as Prime Minister John Howard suggested.
Howard read the lesson at Sunday service in church before going to a temple to reflect in Hindu observances. He had joined Muslims in prayer the previous Friday.
As the emergency relief phase recedes and the rebuilding gathers pace, the focus extends to deeper contemplation. As one letter to the editor put it, "in many ways, we're all rebuilding".
The letter suggests more than the rebuilding of homes, townships and broken economies. It questions the very basis of Australian society, drawing attention to global disadvantage and other moral issues.
"The trouble is, we of the West consume more than our share of the world's resources," the correspondent writes.
In the weeks since the outpouring of public generosity and government commitment to tsunami aid, public empathy has extended to scrutiny of regular giving and overseas development assistance, crisis in other regions, and broader issues. Spending on defence--and attitudes to war--have come under question. So too the incarceration of asylum seekers, unfair trade practices disadvantaging poor countries, greed in Australia's sharing of oil revenue with East Timor and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Much as the impact of the tsunami was cataclysmic, and deserving of support, the sentiment questions philanthropy that is crisis-based. Over the week, aid agencies reminded Australians to remember Sudan.
At issue is global disparity between rich and poor, which the UN more than 30 years ago sought to bring into better balance by setting a target for rich countries to give 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product to the poor. Yet globally, net per capita aid to the world's poorest countries has dropped by close to half in the past decade. In 2002, net official development assistance (ODA) for Australia at 0.26 per cent of gross national income was a marginal improvement on the 0.25 per cent of the previous year--less than half the level that it was in the 1970s.
In the words of a spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Australia's development aid is "generous and well targeted". Professor Andrew Macintyre, director of the Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University, accepts that on a global scale, Australia is a modest player. It needs to be more targeted.
Canberra is mindful of public scepticism about leakage of taxpayer funds through corruption in recipient countries, and dissipation of funds through the bureaucracies of multilateral agencies.
Oxfam Community Aid Abroad, nevertheless, has long held concerns about Australia's aid performance, which executive director Andrew Hewett laments is at near-record low levels, in "sad contrast" to the record growth in public giving. Hewett accepts that the onus is on agencies such as his to mobilise the public voice in representations to the Government.
Social commentator Waleed Aly puts the disparity between Government and public-giving down to the "politicisation of compassion".
"We responded to the tsunami victims because we saw their suffering," the Melbourne lawyer Waleed wrote in The Age. "When we ignore the suffering of others, it is because we are led to seeing the circumstances surrounding their pain in political, rather than human, terms," he wrote, using as illustration the Government's response to asylum seekers.
NST.COM.MY

If gender skirmishes continue at their current rate, my partner glumly observed, men will fade into extinction and women will manage fine without them.
What with test-tube babies, cloning, a falling birth-rate, have-it-all career women prevailing like never before, it seems as if good, old-fashioned, instinct-driven sexual selection--falling in love across a crowded room, fools give you reasons, wise men never try, all that--was totally passe. But a study from four British universities suggests it is alive and well, and busy shaping the next generation.
In spite of emancipation, the feminist movement, gender equality, staunch efforts to avoid gender-stereotyping, men still prefer to marry women who are not too brainy. In the study a high IQ hampered a woman's chance of getting married, with a 40 per cent drop in marital prospects for every 16-point rise. The opposite was true for their male classmates, whose equivalent chance of being married rose by 35 per cent for a 16-point rise in IQ.
On the question of attracting a mate, women think men are so lucky. They retain their sexiness well into middle or even late life, because they do not rely simply on film-star good looks and a muscular physique. Health and fitness are vital, but by far the most irresistible trait is power. For the modern man, there are myriad ways this can be displayed: conspicuous wealth, a flashy car, a yacht, extravagant dressing, champagne, cigars, caviar; gambling extravagantly and flamboyantly; ostentatious risk-taking; a high-powered job such as a politician's; preferably being famous, one's face flashed up frequently on TV screens.
The variations are many, depending on culture, class and education, but this is the human equivalent of the peacock's tail. You do not need to be handsome and brawny if you are a Yasser Arafat, a Bernie Ecclestone, a Stephen Hawking. I have no doubt that this feature was at work when I chose my now ex-husband, Robin Cook, as well-known for his gnome-like countenance as his wicked wit and sparkling conversation.
But unfortunately for us women, it is uni-directional, for if we get too bright it can be a turn-off. Our signals are the age-old ones of health, symmetry, beauty and most especially youth--the not-so-hidden agenda being, of course, fertility.
I am not making judgments here; but women have to accept that coming in to our own and achieving the full potential of our (seemingly superior) capacity to use education will undoubtedly make us more inaccessible as partners.
If we want a partner, we can also use our brains creatively. We don't have to let on how clever we are: our species has supreme skills at dissembling. Many women in the Victorian era, when they were definitely second-class citizens, learned how to manipulate their husbands, to get their own way by making themselves indispensable and powerful. Many a famous man has had a silent female prompt at his elbow, and women have been happy to shine in reflected glory. This, as much as innate male behaviour, explains the glass ceiling.
Because a big-brained species has infants born too soon and therefore unusually helpless, a woman needs to keep her man around her as long as possible to help nurture the children. To this end she must be exceptionally creative and inventive; the so-called Scheherezade effect. I suspect such requirements have made most women brainier than anyone can measure, and programmed to keep it a secret. IQ tests are after all a male invention of dubious validity.
Margaret Cook
OBSERVER.CO.UK