With election contests heating up in the troubled southern region of the Philippines, Mindanao, a mass-grave has been unearthed that is said to contain the bodies of at least 46 people kidnapped and murdered yesterday in connection with the local campaign. At least 20 are reported to be journalists who were traveling with one of the candidates when his convoy was attacked and everyone in it kidnapped, and now, according to reports emerging from the region, summarily executed and thrown into a shallow mass grave.

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

Many Filipinos are pointing to the massacre of 46 unarmed people in the southern Philippines province of Maguindanao Monday as evidence of the deadly influence of a dynastic clan that has been nurtured by the central government for almost 20 years. Nothing is yet proven, but survivors of the attack, national politicians, and police officials all say the likely perpetrators were loyalists of Andal Ampatuan, a former provincial governor who has used his private army to control politics in the province for a decade. Mr. Ampatuan was term-limited out of the governorship this year. In his three election campaigns, no local politician dared to run against him.

There are allegations the attack was orchestrated either by or on behalf of Andal Ampatuan, Jr., who had been expected by his family to run unopposed, to hold onto his family’s grip on provincial power. The discovery of the grave has raised concerns that corruption is so rampant and the levers of power so heavily under the control of a mafia-like dynastic system, that the entire structure of local power may be a criminal enterprise.

There are fears now that before the elections in may, such severe violence could precipitate a campaign of retribution and intimidation, which could flare into outright sectarian conflict. The horror of the killings is made perhaps still more worrying by the reports that it may have involved complicity from corrupt police officials. According to Bloomberg News:

The Philippine National Police detained a provincial chief and three officers on suspicion they may have been involved in the abduction and killing of dozens of supporters of a politician and the reporters covering him.

The Maguindanao province police chief, Abusana Maguid, and the officers were relieved of their duties pending an investigation, National Police spokesman Leonardo Espina said in a mobile phone text message late yesterday. Maguid may bear “command responsibility” for his officers’ actions, Espina said. The officers were seen by witnesses at the location of the Nov. 23 violence on Mindanao island, he said.

That level of corruption, with police acting as conduits for the brutal violence of rogue politicians against unarmed civilians, is another sign there may be serious risk of an escalation in tensions across the region. The semi-autonomous region of Mindanao is already the scene of a bloody sectarian conflict, pitting multiple Islamist militia groups against the Manila government, and the region is constantly threatened by the possibility of further splintering among radical and establishment factions.

With four police officials suspended and under investigation for involvement in the killings, the central government has declared emergency rule in two provinces in Mindanao, in order to ensure the safety of the civilian population and elected officials or their rivals, while the process of investigation is underway. It is as yet unclear whether any members of the Ampatuan family will face formal criminal charges in connection with the murders.

The new multi-reassorted strain of flu, Influenza A H1N1, also called “swine flu”, has been officially declared a global pandemic, with over 28,000 confirmed cases of infection across 74 nations. The classification is a geographical judgment, referring to the flu strain’s spread on multiple continents, but does not related to severity. Officials said the pandemic appears to be of moderate severity. 

140 people have been confirmed to have died worldwide, as a result of infection with the H1N1 virus, despite the 28,000 infections. The virus has continued to spread in the United States, Europe and Australia, making it an infection with persistent contagion on three continents. Africa, Asia and South America, also have confirmed cases, meaning the virus has now reached the human population in every region of the world. 

The US is the single country most affected by the virus, with 13,217 confirmed cases of infection. Canada has 2,978 and Mexico 5,717, clearly making North America the epicenter of the global pandemic. But Chile, Australia and the European Union also have over 1,000 cases each, demonstrating the virus’ global spread. 

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Phase 6 Epidemic Alert level, classed as pandemic underway, is the highest alert level and means “A global flu pandemic has begun, including community-level outbreaks in at least two world regions”, according to the AP. The declaration is aimed at coordinating international efforts at treatment and prevention to limit the further spread of the virus and guard against the outbreak of a 2nd strain of H1N1. 

According to Bloomberg News: 

Officials in Australia, Chile, Japan, Mexico, the U.K. and the U.S. were asked for information on cases and measures taken to mitigate the disease, known as H1N1, before the WHO moves to the top of its six-stage pandemic warning scale, Chile’s Health Minister Alvaro Erazo said in a statement yesterday.

Hong Kong has suspended classes at all schools for 14 days, beginning tomorrow, in order to prevent the further spread of H1N1 infection among students. Hong Kong’s aggressive prevention efforts stem from the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic, the last officially declared flu pandemic, which killed over 1 million people worldwide over two years. Hong Kong has not been significantly impacted so far by the A/H1N1 outbreak. 

The worst flu pandemic on record is the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak, which killed an unknown number of people between 20 million and 50 million, around the world, over 2 to 3 years. The 1957 Asian flu was first isolated in China, and killed over 2 million people in 2 waves of infection, the first heavily affecting children, the second the elderly. 

The number of cases in Chile has quadrupled since the government began including cases reported from private health clinics in its official national reports. It is the one country outside North America with the most infections. 

Scotland, though, has recently discovered its rate of hospitalization from the virus was on par with the US rate. The new figures prompted health officials to urge doctors to diagnose infection, to avoid lag-time for results from remote testing. The Guardian reports:

The Scottish health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, said public health tactics had changed after it emerged the virus was spreading uncontrolled.

Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament this morning that hospitalisation rates were similar to those in the US. She indicated that attempts to contain the virus had failed and the strategy would be to limit its spread. Doctors in the most-affected areas – Glasgow, Dunoon and Paisley –would be allowed to make a swine flu diagnosis in their surgeries rather than wait for specialist or laboratory tests.

The UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon has said the world “must be watchful” and that the alert is of vital importance to public health, but not grave cause for concern. The fatality of the virus has been less than expected, but officials want to be on guard to ensure that future outbreaks are not more aggressive or widespread than the pandemic seen to date.

Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma’s leading opposition figure and pro-democracy activist, has been removed from her home less than one month before her house arrest was due to be lifted. She was detained by the military junta on charges of violating the terms of her house arrest by meeting with an American citizen in her home.

Suu Kyi lives in a heavily guarded compound, is allowed no phone service and only two women as her officially permitted “companions”. The military junta requires all citizens to inform local authorities of any overnight guests who are not family, and bars them from hosting any foreign nationals in their homes overnight.

Suu Kyi has spent 13 of the last 19 years in detention, including the last six under house arrest, without charges or a hearing of any kind, for her pro-democracy activities. A mysterious website said to be “close to the country’s military-ruled government and hostile to Suu Kyi’s democracy movement”, by the AP, has reported information about the American accused of swimming 1.25 miles to Suu Kyi’s enclosed lakeside compound, including what he is alleged to have had on him when detained.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

There are suspicions the entire episode has been formulated by the ruling military junta in order to accuse Suu Kyi of new charges that could see her detained during upcoming elections observers say will be a “sham” organized to reinforce the junta’s grip on power. State-run newspapers and media have been reporting on the case, but the government has issued no official statement.

The Washington Post reports:

Dozens of opponents of the government have been rounded up in recent months, and many have been given long sentences. Critics contend that the authorities are trying to remove from circulation anyone who could become a focal point of opposition.

The National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi’s party, recently issued a statement saying it would consider participating in the election, but only if Suu Kyi was freed, the constitution was amended and the elections were free and fair. The party won a landslide victory in 1990 that the military refused to recognize, and Suu Kyi has been under detention for 13 of the 19 years since then.

Suu Kyi has had no contact with her regular doctor or with her own aides or supporters, and the US government has so far been barred from legally required consular access to the detained American, John Yettaw. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday: “I am deeply troubled by the Burmese government’s decision to charge Aung San Suu Kyi for a baseless crime”.

A spokesperson for Sec. Clinton said Burmese officials had allowed a consular official to attend a hearing for Mr. Yettaw, who apparently swam to Suu Kyi’s home in a “show of solidarity”. It is not clear whether he knew of the ban on overnight stays or whether Suu Kyi was aware of his plan to visit her. Kyi Win, the lead attorney for Aung San Suu Kyi, said Yettaw “is a fool” and that he was asked to leave by her companions, to avoid causing her legal trouble.

The BBC is reporting that Yettaw’s reasons for swimming to Suu Kyi’s home “are a mystery”:

According to Ms Suu Kyi’s lawyer, Kyi Win, he tried to visit the same way last year, but was sent away. This time he apparently pleaded exhaustion after his swim, and was allowed to stay for two nights.

Critics of the government have noted that the authorities in Rangoon, with one of the most draconian security states in the world, constantly watching Suu Kyi’s home, could easily have prevented Yettaw from getting anywhere near the home. That Yettaw reached her property is considered to be a sign the junta is seeking any means possible to keep her in detention indefinitely.

It has been reported that the military junta also seeks to force Suu Kyi to give up the right to her property and possibly to hold her in state custody indefinitely. She is also reported to be in ill-health and suffering from low blood sugar. Her doctors have not been allowed access and opposition members and foreign leaders have called on the junta to release her and ensure her physical wellbeing.

Former vice president Dick Cheney has repeatedly used mass media to accuse Pres. Obama of jeopardizing America’s security or even inviting a major terrorist attack by acting to bar US personnel from using torture in terrorism investigations or interrogations. He has repeated those claims in response to Obama’s releasing memos that show how the Bush administration crafted a legal “justification” for using techniques banned by law. 

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Ed Schultz lambasted Cheney on his MSNBC show, accusing him of using his voice and the American mass media to “make them think (the enemy) that we’re gonna get hit, because we’re weak” and then use that incident for partisan political gain. Schultz also reminded viewers that 9/11 happened “on his watch”, that Cheney was privy to the security briefings in the summer of 2001 that warned an attack like 9/11 was coming, and likely soon. 

“The counter-terrorism intelligence people in our government were trying to work with you and you ignored them”, Schultz noted, and it was that inaction on working to prevent an attack that gave the plotters the time to orchestrate and carry out their strike without any obstruction from the Bush administration. 

Schultz warned that Cheney’s distortion of history and attack on a president who is cleaning up the mess “they left him” could encourage a strike. Saying “this guy is nothing but a trash-talking coward from the sideline”, he speculated that Cheney’s vitriolic remarks are rooted in a “hatred of America” and that the former VP is unwilling to leave the political scene, despite the potential for being the cause of a potential future strike against the country.

This op-ed comment on ‘The Ed Show’ is the latest in a series of high-profile reports and analyses, including some by former CIA operatives, claiming that the Cheney methodology of using force to extract information or to coerce results actually poses a serious threat to US security. The climate is balmy with talk of torture and prosecution of officials such as Cheney himself, but he, and John Yoo, and others, continue to openly admit to their positions and defend their actions.

The question to be asked, and being asked daily by a newly liberated media corps is: does the American system of justice require prosecutions, and if so, do the American people want them? The Obama administration would rather focus on governing than on persecuting those already out of power, but many in Washington want to see someone punished for crimes against the Constitution.

Cuban pres. Raúl Castro has said he is willing to engage the US in talks on any subject, including human rights and democratization, so long as there are no preconditions. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton today said that 50 years of US policy toward Cuba have “failed” to bring about the changes sought, and hinted the Obama administration would be looking to a new era of engagement and negotiation.

Pres. Obama has already moved to relax travel restrictions on Cuban Americans seeking to visit family still in Cuba and to allow them more flexibility in sending remittances in US dollars to relatives on the island. The Bush administration had intensified restrictions, shifting the once-per-year travel allowance to once every three years and barring remittances of most kinds.

A delegation from the US Congressional Black Caucus met with Raúl Castro earlier this month and returned from Havana saying the atmosphere was favorable to productive negotiations and the lifting of the blanket travel ban for all Americans. Three members of the delegation also met privately with Fidel Castro, and revealed that he seemed lucid and in relatively good health.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Current US-Cuba policy is rooted in two issues that no longer pose a serious risk to US national security: the first was the global atmosphere of the Cold War and the corresponding competition with Communism for economic and political dominance; the second was the regime of Fidel Castro, which aside from being Communist, had sought to aim nuclear-armed missiles at the US mainland.

Taking these two major national security issues together with the US-owned properties seized by the regime and the passion of the very vocal Cuban refugee community in the US, turning back the clock on Cuba policy has been nearly impossible for most US administrations. But Barack Obama has come to office in a unique time, with the Cuban presidency having passed from Fidel to his brother Raúl, seen as less ideological and more pragmatic.

The US administration clearly is focused on the possibility of active democratization of the Cuban system. The new Castro government is clearly taking care to warn it is not planning to transition to a non-Communist system in the near term, but the announcement of a willingness to discuss all issues may indicate the possibility of some progress toward a system with more legitimate due process and more transparent electoral procedures.

Raúl Castro, brother and replacement of Fidel Castro, who headed Cuba’s revolutionary government for nearly 50 years, has replaced two top officials who were long-time aides to his brother and potential successors. The move is being called a clear indication that Raúl Castro is now the true leader of the Cuban state, not just a place-holder for his ailing brother.

Felipe Pérez Roque, Cuba’s foreign minister, has been replaced. There is speculation Raúl Castro now aims to restructure the Cuban government in anticipation of a possible warming of relations with the US, under the leadership of Pres. Barack Obama. Such progress would likely require visible reforms that distance Cuba’s current regime from the policies of the Fidel Castro era.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that:

Carlos Lage also lost his post as chief cabinet minister, though he retains his role as vice president of the Council of State. He will be replaced with a military official who has long worked alongside Raúl Castro.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

There is also speculation that Castro’s move could be an indication he is taking action to change the way Cuba’s economy works. Streamlining bureaucracy and replacing inefficient distribution systems that carry produce and supplies hundreds of miles out of their way has been a state priority of his new government.

Raúl likely needs loyal aides of his own, to hold back staunch resistance from his brother’s protegés while he enacts much needed reforms. In all 10 ministers were removed from their positions, and 4 ministries were merged, in what appears to be a consolidation of authority and an attempt to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic inefficiencies.

The reforms could indicate a willingness on the part of the new Cuban administration to confront the failings of the regime and institute important economic reforms aimed at providing more practical solutions for the Cuban people. This could mean a dilution of power for the Communist party, but perhaps also some hope of a viable process of political reform.

Last night, Pres. Barack Obama made his first address on the state of the nation to a joint session of Congress, though not officially classed as a ‘State of the Union’ address. Obama sought to reassure the public that economic recovery was in its beginning stages and the future was full of hope and possibility, proclaiming: “We will rebuild, we will recover and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

That line prompted another round of raucous applause and set the mood for what was already an evening of highly positive energy. There had been a warm, bipartisan reception for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is battling cancer, but was in attendance, as for the first lady and Obama’s cabinet.

Obama himself shared joyous greetings with many members of Congress and actually received extraordinarily warm embraces from Republican senators Richard Shelby and Orrin Hatch. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., welcomed Obama with warm congratulations on this latest historic milestone.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Obama called the chamber to order by nearly launching right into his address, then directed the ceremony to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in turn introduced Obama with the words “The President of the United States”, a phrase which again spurred intense applause.

Obama had total command of the event, the context and the full range of issues he was trying to lay out in digestible detail for the American people. He said off the bat he was there “to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here”. This was one of several phrases throughout that clearly illustrated how the president was using the address to set the terms of debate and corral Congress within the vocabulary of his governing strategy.

He called on Congress and the American people by extension to join with him in seeking sound, intelligent long-term solutions to the immediate economic crisis, saying it’s time “to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face and take responsibility for our future once more”.

Recognizing that placing blame is not itself a solution, Obama nevertheless explained his position that “It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment” that we can craft the best solutions and correct past mistakes. The president did not say “Bush” or “Paulson”, but he did reference past incompetence and regulatory neglect and promised he would provide transparency and accountability.

Obama said it was time to take stock, noting that we’ve known for decades that our future economic survival depends on finding new sources of energy, but we have systematically avoided making improvements to our energy infrastructure or funding the serious expansion of alternative energy sources.

Perhaps Obama’s most direct swipe at past policy was the remark that national irresponsibility was so pervasive and mainstream that “A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future”. He added the admonition that:

Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Obama’s sober confrontation of such bare facts was the foundation for an address that centered on how to approach the desperation of crisis with an affirmative attitude informed by thought-through, intellectually honest policies aimed at long-term stability.

A live focus-group poll of Obama and McCain voters in Pennsylvania, as displayed by MSNBC, showed extremely positive voter reaction from both sides, throughout. Only at one point, when Obama spoke of providing funding to help people with healthcare costs now in time of crisis did the McCain voters’ mood curve decline to just more positive than neutral. At nearly all other times, the two curves were overlapping and near the higher end of the approval graph. Not once did the average audience reaction for Mccain voters or Obama voters sink into negative territory.

Obama noted the immense responsibility that comes with a recovery plan that involves so much expenditure, and Obama promised unprecedented transparency and a firm focus on three key areas. But first, he said it would be necessary to make sure banks restore more normal levels of lending to consumers and businesses.

First order of priority would be to get money to entrepreneurs, small businesses, and consumers, who drive the growth of the US economy. Then it would be necessary to make sure that “responsible” homeowners are the focus of efforts to incentivize or even require the refinancing of mortgage loans, with the aim of keeping Americans in their homes. He promised “the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2000 per year on their mortgage”.

But third, and perhaps most important, and as yet undefined, is Obama’s promise to:

act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.

That accountability may scare some people on Wall Street, which Obama acknowledged, but he laid out his position that it is necessary above all else to face the facts of the crisis, including the irresponsbility or incompetence of people who have been entrusted with billions of dollars of investors’, consumers’, ane even taxpayers’ money.

The president also promised to focus on three major areas that will underpin future economic dynamism and resilience: Energy, Education and Healthcare. He renewed his pledge to devote $15 billion per year to expanding renewable energy resources and updating energy distribution infrastructure to help spur this growth. He pledged to double the nation’s renewable energy output within 3 years.

Cuando accedió al poder, el presidente boliviano, Evo Morales, consiguió una meta antes inalcanzable, convirtiéndose en el primer indígena elegido presidente de un país en las Américas. Morales prometió cambios radicales a las leyes bolivianas, para refortalecer su planeada revolución socialista-laborista y para dar mas derechos a las poblaciones indígenas, sobretodo los Aymara, etnicidad que incluye al presidente entre los suyos.

Chocó pronto con una resistencia fuerte de una población mestiza o no aymara que sospechaba de sus intenciones o de su presidencia como una que serviría a toda la población. Y chocó también inmediatamente con empresas multinacionales, como la empresa petrolera Repsol, con sede español, amenazando con expropiar operaciones de penetración profunda o de minería para el estado.

Al final, Morales se vio forzado a negociar con las empresas extranjeras y moderar su discurso, pero su proyecto socialista-laborista y pro-indígena no perdió energía. Morales prometió modificar la constitución para dar más derechos a las poblaciones indígenas, que durante siglos han estado al margen de la política boliviana, y buscan más integración o auto-determinación.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Respaldado por un fuerte aliado regional, en el presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez, que busca una revolución “bolivariana” socialista en toda latino-américa y que enfrentó al Presidente Bush en varios asuntos de política internacional, Morales ha seguido con sus esfuerzos por corregir graves injusticias históricas contra la población indígena, no siempre sin controversia.

La oposición ha advertido una y otra vez durante años que sospechan de Evo Morales y que su proyecto político es un peligro para el país, pero su mandato ha sido largo comparado con sus antecesores, en un país cuyo ejecutivo máximo muchas veces tiene que equilibrar intereses imposiblemente enfrentados.

Ahora, Morales ha inaugurado la era de la nueva constitución, proclamando el inicio de un socialismo comunitario en Bolivia y celebrando la inversión de un sistema político heredado de la época del imperio español. Según AFP:

The sweeping constitutional changes allow 36 indigenous communities and groups to win the right to territory, language and their own “community” justice, and enacts agrarian reform measures by limiting the size of landholdings.

36 comunidades indígenas ahora tendrán derecho a su territorio, su idioma, y una justicia “comunitaria”, y la nueva constitución elabora reformas agrarias que reducen la extensión máxima permisible de terrenos controladors por terratenientes singulares. También cambia el límite de mandato del presidente, permitiendo que Morales pueda buscar un segundo mandato de 5 años.

En un referendo nacional el 25 de enero, el 61% de los votantes aprobaron los cambios a la constitución, dando el respaldo más importante hasta la fecha al proyecto político del Pres. Morales. Él mismo ha dicho que el éxito del referendo y la nueva constitución en conjunto logran su meta de refundar el país de Bolivia sobre nuevos principios.