Despite the opposition's previous request for the postponement of the consultations to June, in order to allow the implementation of the agreements reached in the course of the Pretoria negotiations, promised by the Community for the Development of Southern Africa (SADC), ZANU-PF induced the contextual presidential and legislative elections to March 29th. The response of the MDC at Tsvangirai was immediate, promptly organising a protest, putting to the test and above all bringing to the attention of the international community, one of the main results of the mediation, which would allow, with recent amendments to the security law, the free organisation of political plenums and public meetings, save for the veto on Magistrates.

The umpteenth arrest of leaders from the Movement for democratic change, immediately released, the Government's ban on the protests of January 23rd and the disbanding of police forces, show, according to the opposition, not only a lack of concrete involvement by President Mugabe to ensure the carrying out of free and democratic elections, but also the clear failure of South African mediation led by Thabo Mbeki. The MDC now threatens to intensify its protests throughout the country, ignoring the revision of the electorate lists, major political openings (primarily, a new Constitution) and the creation of an independent electoral commission.

In a country characterized by deep political, economic and social crises, the unilateral imposition of the date for the elections may lead to new clashes and tensions, both on a national level, between the opposition and the governing party, but also between members of the more moderate ZANU-PF and on a regional level, with the SADC nullifying its own mediation efforts. Therefore, the opposition's abstention in the presidential elections on March 29th seems likely, as has been announced by various members, making regional or international intervention, in favour of better relations and negotiations, seem ever more necessary.

Massimo Corsini

Congress approved a package of economic proposals and incentives presented by President Bush to re-launch US economic performance. The plan sets out refunds and fiscal relief in order to give new impulse to the economy and, thanks to new investments by businesses and major spending on the part of consumers, it will be capable, according to the current US Administration, of leading to the creation of new work positions in a short period of time.

President Bush's initiative was then applied to decisions made by Congress in terms of the extension of funds by a total of $28bn to American families, numbering almost 35 million, who hadn't been included in the original plan drawn up by the White House. Both Bush and Democratic and Republican representatives in Congress are said to be sure about the reduction of taxes and the plan for reimbursements, voted for in recent weeks. These should result in the re-launching of an economy plagued by the collapse of the housing market, credit crises and a growth in the price of petroleum. In a declaration released following Congress' vote in favour, George W. Bush attempted to explain that the plan launched, by virtue of being robust and efficient, will be temporary because the US economy is maintained on solid grounds. The White House's decision to present a plan to aid the economy was reached following the cut in interest rates willed for by the Federal Reserve Bank (-0.75%), which has decided to increase fed funds up to 3.50%. Since winter 2001 such a drastic decision hasn't been made by the Federal Reserve and the possibility of a recession in the US economy seems to be ever more likely, above all if the plan of fiscal incentives willed forward by Bush doesn't lead to the results hoped for, and rapidly.

According to many analysts, the crisis in the American economy could reveal itself to be much further reaching than has been predicted and many see the current US difficulty as being similar to the crisis in Japan in 1989, which also started with the housing market.Differently from the Japanese Government, the Bush Administration has decided to intervene by lowering the taxes to 1%: the use of this means of fiscal policy could result in a winning solution, capable of containing the crises and putting the American economy back into motion in a brief period of time.

Simone Comi

Thailand's Parliament today (28 January) elected Samak Sundaravej as Prime Minister, signing the return of a democratic regime after the bloodless coup'd'etat in September 2006. Seventy-two year old Samak, leader of the PPP and at the head of a coalition of six parties, obtained the support of 310 of 480 members of parliament (233 of whom are from the same PPP). However, according to a survey by the Bangkok Assumption University, only 44.3% of Thailand's population are satisfied with Samak, a popularity which may be still lower in the capital, where he served as Governor for four years (2000-2003). Several shadows from the past obscure Samak's image as a democratic leader. The new Prime Minister was in fact elected Home Office Minister in 1976 by the Government of Tanin Kraivixien (nominated by the military following the coup of October 6th, 1976 and substituted by General Kriangsak Chomanan, nominated by the same military) and he maintained this charge up until 1979, the year in which he established the Prachakorn Thai Party which lead to his nomination as Governor of Bangkok. However, Samak's first difficulties as Prime Minister derived from fighting with the military responsible for the last coup'd'etat and led to the exile of the leader of dissolved Thai Rak Thai, Thaksin Shinawatra. Samak promised to fight for the return in patria of the ex Prime Minister, something which wasn't well received by the Crown.

Desk Asia

With the disappearance of ideological armament and the diminishing of any direct military threat, Vladimir Putin's new Russia seems to be decided on drawing a new factor of political dependence fully from geo-political forces. This is once again shown by the agreements which Gazprom stipulated over the course of last week in Serbia and Bulgaria, two fundamental factors for the realization of Putin's new dream: the doubling in size and development of South Stream, the petroleum-gas pipeline, linking Russia to Italy and Greece, running under the Black Sea and via the Balkans. To Sofia and Belgrade, the summits of the Russian super-company have indicated two large agreements which set out the course of the new gas pipeline across the territories of two Balkan countries, which will obviously bring advantages in terms of reduced costs and procurement security.

In exchange, the Russian strategy, to ask for control over internal distribution networks, in order to complete the entire extraction-distribution cycle to clients, has been agreed to. In the case of Serbia, where the presence of Russian businesses is noteworthy (thanks to the support provided to Belgrade against independence for Kosovo), Gazprom, via its control over Gazprom Neft, has acquired 51% of NIS, the national monopoly on petroleum. In Bulgaria, attempts have revealed themselves to be more complex: Russia had to answer to the “uncomfortable” requests of the Bulgarians, who initially asked to take a 51% share over control of the “Bulgarian” portion of South Stream: in the final agreement, Russia agreed to grant it 50%, setting a precedent which will allow other transit countries to ask for shares equal to this.

Moscow's display certainly worries Europe, essentially for two reasons: firstly, consenting to the construction of South Stream, automatically, Bulgaria shows itself to be less prepared to consent to the realization of Nabucco, the Euro-American pipeline project, rivalling the Russian alternative. Secondly, Russia's influence in the Balkans is reinforced, particularly over Serbia, pushing it to reacquire the Mediterranean projection which it lost after the fall of the USSR. Therefore, Moscow moves towards Old Europe, which is particularly alarmed by a seemingly unstoppable partner. That which causes alarm is the USA's silence, which after a period of contention over anti-ballistic shielding, seems to be absorbed by the elections and Iraqi events.

Alberto Strazzer

On Wednesday morning, several Hamas militants managed to demolish part of a wall which divides the Southern border with Egypt, at Rafah, positioning several explosives and then knocking it down in several places with a Caterpillar. According to estimates from the United Nations, at least 350,000 Palestinians crossed the border in search of medicine, food and primary resources. The Egyptian soldiers who control the area allowed entry to the population of the Strip. A week ago, Israel declared the total isolation of Gaza, closing all means of entrance and cutting fuel, provoking a situation of additional emergency.

The implications of this action could be prolonged into the medium to long term, in so much as the population in the poached Egyptian territory isn't likely to cross the border of the Strip again. Jerusalem is concerned about infiltration by soldiers from Hamas and the Islamic Jihad into areas outside the poached territory. These infiltrations could condition a reorganization of the Palestinian movements which control the Strip. It is likely that a flow of arms has found its way and continues to find its way into Gaza, so that militants are able to look for support in Egypt to re-organize itself, since the moment in which the movement appeared to be very damaged by Israeli restrictions. The same Egyptian Muslim Brothers showed their solidarity to Hamas and the population of Gaza Strip. At the polical level, Jerusalem harshly criticised Mubarak's permissive conduct, pushed by more than humanitarian considerations (also fearing the violent reaction of the Egyptian brotherhood) which makes political calculations. However, in the long term, Cairo seems to be too tied by the economic and military help of the USA to allow it to fall out of favour with Israel and the West.

The forceful action of militants may also lead to a strategy aimed at dispersing the efforts of the Israeli Army, in a seemingly crucial moment in which the Minister of Defence, Barak would be thinking about deeply infiltrating the Strip (with the approval of Washington), with the objective of re-delivering it to the Forces of Fatah, the only Palestinian reality with which Jerusalem has manifested its willingness for dialogue. However, the moment doesn't seem favourable for such action, in the sense that Fatah couldn't make available enough means or men to take control of the Strip in terms of security.

Stefano Torelli


Translation by Megan Ball