Zakaria closed his program by saying that if anyone ever doubted the need to prevent failed states, or deal with them, this should wake them up.

A far longer post has yet to be written on the long litany of international policy failures that has allowed Somalia to remain without an effective government for almost two decades.  But the most recent one is the Bush adminstration’s support of the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, in support of the provisional government, to topple the government of the Islamic Courts Union, which had finally restored some order to the capital, Mogadishu, to the relief of its citizens.  In a beautiful irony, a group of Somali Islamists are now declaring that the hijacking of a ship belonging to a Muslim nation goes too far, and that they will punish those responsible.

In a revealing report by Al Jazeera English’s Jane Dutton, it seems that Ravalomanana is treating the country as a wholly-owned subsidiary to his wide business interests (which include much of the media), with citizens pushed off land to make room for his ventures, commercial rivals arrested, and opposition cowed by his dominance. In a megalomaniacal twist, he apparently wants to move the capital some 500km to the east, as he has a poor relationship with the current mayor.

A look at Freedom House’s Freedom in the World Survey gives Madagascar a “Partly Free” rating with a downward trend arrow due to a 2007 referendum which increased the president’s powers and “the consolidation of an economic oligarchy linked to” Ravalomanana.

Senator Clinton was among the most vocal and coherent on Darfur during the long campaign, as well as in the US Senate. In fact, I remember distinctly being more impressed with her answers to a debate question on the subject that with Senator Obama’s early in the race, last year. She has an A+ rating from DarfurScores.org, as does President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who of the three has been most passionate, articulate, and aggressive in pressing for intervention in Darfur. There is therefore ample reason to believe that US Darfur policy will finally emerge from the rut that it has been in for some years.

“We had to cancel our visit because the government made it very clear that it will not co-operate,” Mr Annan told a press conference in Johannesburg.

Today, the Zimbabwean government essentially called a liar:

“The government of Zimbabwe has not barred Mr Annan and his team from coming to Zimbabwe,” said foreign ministry spokesman Simbarashe Mumbengegwi.He said Mr Annan had “misrepresented” Harare’s position.

“The postponement was necessary because Mr Annan had made no prior consultations with the government of Zimbabwe regarding both the timing and programme of his proposed visit, as is the normal practice.”

Instead, the three, part of a group of elder statesmen and –women assembled by Mandela called “the Elders” conducted meetings in South Africa on Zimbabwe, including with MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and leaders of neighboring Botswana, which has been a leading critic within the SADC of Mugabe’s authoritarian rule.In a belated but still welcome shift, South Africa has stated it will withhold agricultural aid to Zimbabwe until a representative government is formed. A cholera outbreak has killed perhaps hundreds, and the health care system has all but collapsed.

The US ambassador to Zimbabwe has said that 294 people have died from the cholera outbreak.Ambassador James McGee also said that President Robert Mugabe’s grip on power “may be actually stronger than it was this time last year.

“Mugabe continues to hang on to power through the political patronage system,” he said.

South Africa’s cabinet noted in a statement that it would assist Zimbabweans in fighting the epidemic.  A demonstration by health sector workers was covered last week by Al Jazeera English’s correspondent in Harare, Haru Mutasa, who noted that the doctors and nurses were outraged at their piddling wages – one US cent per month.  The situation is grim throughout the health sector, as the BBC also reports:

At the country’s major referral hospital, Parirenyatwa, there are no more surgical operations.”The two theatres have been closed, even the one for caesarean operations,” he says.

“Everyone is being referred to private clinics, and if you don’t have money, you die.” …

“Cholera is treatable, just fluids and tetracycline [an anti-biotic] is enough, but if you get people dying of this diarrhoea - that explains the state of the health crisis,” Dr Nyamutora says.

The shift in South African policy is helpful; the fact Mbeki is still in a position to do damage by mediating is certainly not. The esteem in which he is held by the ruling ZANU-PF , which refuses to allow the MDC to have control of the Interior Ministry after what appears to be a stillborn power-sharing deal, does nothing to reassure:

Christopher Mutsvangwa, a spokesperson for Zimbabwe’s governing Zanu-PF, told Al Jazeera on Sunday that The Elders made no effort to speak to the Zimbabwean government in time to “make an arrangement” for the proposed visit.”I don’t know under what international convention they govern themselves. One needs to understand who they are and what they stand for and what they are up to,” he said.

“Zimbabwe’s political problems are now being dealt with under SADC [Southern African Development Community] with President [Thabo] Mbeki as the mediator. And he has ample authority to deal with them.

It of course, is far from clear that South Africa will make a substantive change of course in regional and foreign policy under President Kgalema Molanthe. Its dealings with Zimbabwe are of a piece with its wider foreign policy. In an excellent overview on South Africa’s disappointing foreign policy under Mbeki, The Economist ran an article titled “The see-no-evil foreign policy,” in its November 15th issue. After a lot of hope around President Nelson Mandela, South Africa under Mbeki racked up a depressing record:

In the UN Security Council, South Africa has voted against imposing sanctions not only on Zimbabwe but also on Myanmar’s military junta (after last year’s crackdown on peaceful protesters) and Iran (for violating nuclear safeguards). It is now leading efforts to suspend the International Criminal Court’s prosecution of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president, for alleged genocide in Darfur.Its record in the UN Human Rights Council is no better. It has voted to stop monitoring human rights in Uzbekistan, despite widespread torture there, and in Iran, where executions, including those of juvenile offenders, have soared. “Never in my wildest dreams did I believe South Africa would play such a negative role,” says Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch, an international monitoring group.

Among the umpteen things the new Obama administration, and likely Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will have to tackle in the relationships with the rest of the world is pressing South Africa to live up to former President Mandela’s pledge: “human rights will be the light that guides our foreign affairs.”

Bosnia’s political system may be democratic on the surface, but it functions like a cartel. No party is happy with the current order: all have maximalist projects they wish to pursue, given the opportunity, yet all recognize the threat to their political and economic perquisites if they allow establishment of a system that encourages competition for political middle ground rather than ethnic fiefdoms. Indeed, there are ample indications that a country-wide will exists to create a political centre capable of tackling universally recognized social and economic problems, and in so doing, making Bosnia ready for EU membership. Yet the Dayton system generates leaders who are unwilling to address Bosnians’ most pressing concerns. 

In cases such as this, where war crimes accusations are leveled against the side that was eventually most wronged in the conflict (in this case by Russia’s savaging of Georgia), it can be tempting for international diplomats to attempt a whitewash.  It is refreshing then to see UK Foreign Minister David Miliband’s reaction to the BBC allegations:

Mr Miliband - normally a strong supporter of Georgia - told the BBC: “I think the Georgian action was reckless, I think the Russian response was disproportionate and wrong.

“And that is the series of events that have landed us where we are.

“On my visit to Tbilisi of course I raised at the highest level in Georgia, the questions that have been asked and raised about war crimes and other military actions by the Georgian authorities.

“We have acted in this without fear, without favour.”

Blind support for Saakashvili in Washington may have encouraged him to blunder into a war he could not win.  It will be interesting to see whether the British reaction to indications of Georgian war crimes has any echo in Washington.

BBC reporting from South Ossetia also strongly indicated that ethnic Georgian villages were targeted by Ossetian and Russian forces.  President Saakashvili says he is open to any kind of investigation.  With all of Russia’s bluster about “genocide” in South Ossetia (which seems an immense stretch, even if war crimes were committed), the International Criminal Court should be encouraged to launch a full investigation.  Who would dare oppose it?  Georgia is a signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC prosecutor has said that the situation is “under analysis”, and both the Georgian and Russian governments have sent information to The Hague.  But why not raise the stakes and have the Security Council formally refer the Georgia conflict to the ICC?  It may not be legally necessary, but it would be useful to put Russia on the spot to formally sign on to an independent investigation through the Security Council.  Such an investigation may well find that Georgia did commit war crimes, but is likely to find at least as much evidence of Russian culpability. 

The sixth-largest bank, Prominvestbank, was nationalized to be saved from bankruptcy. The bank system has also come under threat, after in October the panicking population took deposits worth 20 billion hryvnas (around 3.5 billion dollars) out of banks.

Furthermore, the demand on steel making up a lion’s share of Ukraine’s export has recently drastically fallen worldwide. Therefore, steel and metal industries face large job cuts which might seriously aggravate the economic situation in the industrial backbone of Ukraine – the East. An expert of the International Center of Strategic Studies based in Ukraine Ildar Gazizulin claims that due to the financial crisis, unemployment in Ukraine may raise up to 8%. Employees in metallurgy, construction and banks will be most affected.

The IMF is ready to provide a huge loan package of USD 16.5 billion to ease the effects of the global financial crisis. However, the condition is that Ukraine’s parliament approves a package of  measures aimed at tackling the crisis. Yet the politicians don’t show a willingness to compromise – representatives of the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko are blockading parliamentary proceedings again, protesting against the bill to finance early parliamentary elections. Competing packages of financial measures have been drawn up and it is not clear which of them is to be passed.

Meanwhile trust in all current leaders of Ukraine has drastically fallen. According to the latest sociological polling, the rating of the President Viktor Yuschenko has plunged down to a stunningly small figure – 4.1 %! But the ratings of his main potential rivals at the presidential elections next year have also slumped – Viktor Yanukovych is supported by 18.8 %, Yulia Tymoshenko – by 16.7 %. It is important that almost one third of voters is disappointed in all current leaders  - 20.9% admitted they would not go to presidential poll if it took place now, and 16.2% are undefined. It is clear that the demand for a new political elite is higher than ever. It might happen that the economic recession and quickly deteriorating living standards of Ukrainians will sweep off all major politicians of today – both the leaders of the Orange Revolution and their rivals. And who’s to come next?

The biggest winner in the Serbian part of the country (Republika Srpska) was the Independent Union of Social Democrats (SNSD) of Bosnian Serb Prime Minister Milorad Dodik, which reportedly elected mayors in at least 32 municipalities. The nationalist Serb Democratic Party (SDS), founded by indicted genocide suspect Radovan Karadzic, was the second strongest party in the Serb republic.

In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, comprising Muslim Bosniaks and Catholic Croats, the Muslim nationalist Party of Democratic Action (SDA) obtained the highest score, winning in at least 28 municipalities. The nationalist Croat Democratic Union (HDZ) obtained high scores in mainly Croat municipalities, winning 15 mayoral posts. The multi-ethnic Social Democratic Party (SDP) won 9 mayoral posts in several cities, including two Sarajevo municipalities.

Overall, turnout was estimated at 55%. However, voters in bigger cities reportedly shunned the poll as citizens rejected predominantly nationalist rhetoric. They would have liked to see the political rhetoric addressing other issues beyond nationalist, but vainly. Namely, the turnout in Sarajevo was less than 40 percent, with a similar trend in the towns of Tuzla, Zenica and Banja Luka.  But in rural areas, voters turned out in big numbers and helped the nationalists to gain ground.

Generally, more than 29,000 candidates from 72 political parties and dozens of coalitions and independent lists competed for 140 mayors in 78 municipalities in the Muslim-Croat federation and 62 in the Serb Republic.

 The results of local elections look disappointing for all who would like to see Bosnia’s ethnic groups cooperating with each other on many social issues. Yet, in the political environment where nationalist rhetoric secures electoral gains politicians do not bother to address issues of unemployment and rampant corruption – why should they care? The third sector, although active, primarily engages with small issues and does not yet provide a united platform to demand the accountability of politicians and, as an option, to press for a new unifying political project to emerge. Those challenges remain and should be addressed before the general elections in 2010.

Accusing Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Yuschenko said that “I am convinced, deeply convinced that the democratic coalition was ruined by one thing alone - human ambition. The ambition of one person. Thirst for power, different values, personal interests taking precedence over national interests.”  He also talked of “external threats”. The Tymoshenko Bloc, President Yuschenko said, had become “the hostage of its own leaders who would sacrifice everything - language, security, European prospects”.

On one hand, Yuschenko’s move should be hailed since the parliament showed itself as extremely ineffective institution, remembered by constant political rows, blocking, and delays in adopting crucially important laws. But, on the other hand, the clear winner of the forthcoming elections will be the opposition Party of Regions, since the forces close to Yuschenko and Tymoshenko pledged to create an effective democratic coalition, but failed. By watching their constant internal strife the Party of Regions only gained political dividends, while the “orange” parties’ ratings plummeted. Soaring inflation and unclear stand on Russian-Georgian war will probably lead to the serious political losses of the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) in the Western Ukraine. The pro-presidential Our Ukraine-People’s Self-Defense bloc also dissapointed voters with internal splittures - some of its deputies started to shift towards the BYuT, others joined a new Yediniy Tsentr party loyal to the Party of Regions.

The snap election is also likely to bring forward new political projects. One of them probably would come from the former speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk, another is likely to emerge around the former Defense Minister, and now ardent critic of both Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, Anatoliy Gritsenko. Radical nationalist party Svoboda led by Oleh Tiagnibok, which constantly failed in recent elections, also has a chance to overcome a 3% barrier. But there is no doubt that the ruling role in the new parliament will be played by the Party of Regions, which will probably make a configuration either with communist or/and other smaller political projects.

Alas, it was much easier to achieve a democratic breakthrough than to consolidate democracy in this large, sharply divided along social, cultural, language lines eastern European country. First, most of the so-called new political leaders have a clearly old pattern of thinking - i.e. how to win next election rather than have a long-term development program for a state, reforms in economics, public policy system, anticorruption struggle, to mention only a few. It’s not surprising because most of the present political leaders made their careers during the Kuchma’s regime, including Tymoshenko, Yuschenko and Litvin. It is extremely hard for new politicians to enter the political scene, since election lists are formed by party leadership, and it is rumored that places in the upper part of lists cost several million dollars. The situation is aggravated through the fact Ukrainian authorities failed to conduct at least a moral, much less a judicial reckoning for the crimes of Kuchma’s regime, and many people meddled in election fraud in 2004, such as Viktor Yanukovych, Sergiy Kivalov, Andriy Kluyev, are among the Party of Regions leaders. Second, populism and void promises were typical for recent electoral campaigns and they will remain unpunished, since accountability mechanisms in the system of closed party lists are absent.

Last but not least, new elections will negatively affect Ukraine’s prospects of getting MAP at the next NATO summit, and also complicate the country’s European perspective. It’s not a good timing for instability in the conditions of the world economic crisis either.