My good friend Joel Rubin has just returned from a security conference in Israel and senses despair among large parts of the population:

My Tel Aviv cousins…pay more than half their income to national taxes, with a significant portion dedicated to supporting these settlers. They are infuriated by the reality that they are subsidizing the lifestyle of a group of people that has no interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution, relegating Israelis to unending conflict.

Worse, while the people of Tel Aviv know that the settlers are holding the country’s politics hostage, they have no idea how to change this.

Joel ought to read a great book by Gary Cox, Making Votes Count. Why? Because the majority of Israeli Jews support a two-state solution. As in the US, the reason the right in Israel, especially the settlers on the West Bank, are able to dominate Israeli politics is because, unlike the left, they are vocal and organized. Joel’s cousins in Tel Aviv will never be able to get the policies they want until they organize for them. The take away point from making votes count is that organization is often more important for winning elections than public support. This may be self-evident, but moaning about politics to friends and family doesn’t change a thing.

Oxfam released a bracing report on Sudan’s decent into violence:

2009 was an extremely violent year for southerners: more than 2,500 people were killed and 350,000 fled their homes. This is a higher toll than currently reported in Darfur…

The violence stems from multiple and sometimes overlapping sources. Tensions between northern and southern Sudan, including over CPA implementation, have resulted in clashes within joint north–south military units. Competition over natural resources combined with widespread ownership of small arms is fuelling violence between southern Sudan’s many tribes.

The Sudanese Government and representatives of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement say the report exaggerates the tensions in southern Sudan. Recent events suggest otherwise. While the cause of recent spike in violence is not entirely clear, according to the BBC,

Southern politicians accuse President Omar al-Bashir’s allies of arming rival groups in the south to stoke up trouble.

They say Mr Bashir wants to destabilise the region to sabotage a national election planned for April, and a referendum on southern independence the following year.

I think it would be a good idea to confirm whether this is true before the election.

Pessimistic prognosis on Sudan:

President Omar al Bashir’s government has failed to pass key democratic reforms promised by the Agreement, and without these reforms, there is no way the results of the elections will be accepted and offer a milestone for the peace process.

On the contrary, fraudulent elections engineered to strengthen Bashir’s National Congress Party (NCP), close the doors to political negotiations in Darfur and undermine the southern-based Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) both in the South and in national institutions.

A sham poll would most likely lead to a new escalation of violence in Darfur and compromise the holding of the referendum. And if the referendum does not go ahead on schedule, the South will probably declare unilateral independence, plunging. Sudan back into civil war.

Election observers from the Carter Center are concerned.  I guess they should be concerned, but it seems to me that they are neglecting the nature of the problem.  The BBC has a story today about how the country is going off the rails, focusing on one town in the south, Malakal.  The story quotes Dr. Gabriel Gatwech, one of the town’s residents.  According to Gatwech, “Northern and Southern Sudanese cannot live peacefully together. There is a total lack of trust.”  This seems to me to get closer to the problem and holding elections under these conditions is a terrible idea.  Upton Sinclair once said “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”  If your job is to run elections in Sudan, I suspect it’s difficult to understand how bad of an idea it is to hold them under these conditions.

The International Crisis Group has just released a frightening report on Sudan

Sudan is sliding towards violent breakup…Both parties want elections for the wrong reasons. The National Congress Party (NCP) wants votes in April 2010 that would allow it to regain the political legitimacy it needs both to protect President Bashir against the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant and to be in a stronger position to declare a state of emergency if needed, including in the event of a new war. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) is concerned that derailed elections might jeopardize its overriding goal of holding the referendum [on independence for southern Sudan] on schedule. It threatens to declare unilateral independence if pushed to accept a referendum postponement…

It is essential to move rapidly on a number of fronts, including to negotiate a Darfur peace agreement that allows all Darfuris to vote in national elections; to implement legal reforms necessary for a free and fair national election process; and to agree on the commissions for the South’s self-determination referendum…Time is also required to negotiate a framework for the negotiations over how two highly interdependent states will relate to each other…These processes require strong, united international facilitation, as well as support from other major political forces in Sudan…

If implementation again lags badly, it will be necessary to concentrate on achieving the minimum essential to prevent return to deadly chaos: namely ensuring that the South’s referendum is held on schedule, with a day-after arrangement is in place.

It is quite ridiculous to believe that international negotiators can solve all of these issues in four months.  Thus, we need “to concentrate on achieving the minimum essential to prevent return to deadly chaos.” I had a long talk with someone who works on Sudan, and asked whether the US government was rethinking its strategy and calling to postpone the election.  The answer, sadly but predictably, was no.  I guess we have learned nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq, so let me make this clear: holding an election when we think it will cause a civil war is not a good idea.

Not good.  Not good at all.

Yesterday President Laurent Gbagbo of Côte d’Ivoire and representatives of opposition factions signed an agreement to hold presidential elections in late February or early March next year. My initial reaction was skeptical. Gbagbo’s term ended in 2005, and a hot and cold civil war from 2002 on has complicated the holding of elections, although the past few years have been relatively peaceful. Presidential polls have been agreed upon several times before, for October 2005, October 2006, July 2007, October 2007, January 2008, June 2008, November 2008, December 2009, and now “finally” February/ March 2010. With this track record, the likelihood that there will actually be an election in March is pretty slim. Read the rest of this entry…

The people of Honduras have voted for their government to get on about its business, and I hope this encourages the states of the OAS to do the same. If the citizenry of Honduras thinks the exercise was legitimate enough to participate in – and they did, with an estimated 60 to 70% turnout – then it will be difficult for Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, and other OAS members to explain why they are not honoring it. The best thing for everyone to do is accept this election – including Zelaya. Once he accepts that he has not won and will not win, he should put the interests of his country ahead of his own and withdraw his protest for the election.

There were certainly protests by expatriates supporting Zelaya and a small boycott at home, but they did not disrupt the process. Furthermore, Zelaya’s term is over, and these elections have been scheduled for some time. As long as observers certify that the election was free and fair, which they are likely to do even though the OAS refused to send a delegation, there is no reason for Honduras to continue to be such a prominent international issue. If this was a “constitutional” coup and the interim government was legitimate, than they have fulfilled their duties. If it was illegitimate, Honduras has gotten rid of it through the most democratic means possible, an election. While there are certainly some issues for Honduras to deal with to straighten out these legal issues, they do not require such intense diplomatic efforts by neighbors.

It is understandable for South American states to be touchy over the issue of military coups, since they have been so unlucky with them in the past. They are afraid Honduras will set a bad example. Yet the Honduran case was clearly not a power grab by the military. The military immediately stepped aside for the civilian government, which held elections as scheduled and has now turned power over to its opposition, which won the vote fair and square. The OAS can feel justified in having condemned what it saw as a coup, but now it needs to let Honduras move on.