Lithuania wants to e-vote like E-stonia

Lithuania aims to follow fellow Baltic state Estonia and use the Internet for voting in elections, the government said on this month. 

Estonia in March became the first country in the world to allow voting via the Internet in a national parliamentary election. Other countries are studying the idea. Lithuania said it hoped to launch its system in time for elections in 2008.

"I hope that in this area we will catch up with Estonia, and by doing this we will surpass most European Union states," Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas told a news conference.

The government said it approved a program to pave the way for Internet voting at a cost of about 580,000 euros. In Estonia, 3 percent of the 940,000 eligible voters used e-voting

If Bush reads the New York Times should leave Irak

The Road Home

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise. (...)

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future. (...)

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq’s conflict far beyond Iraq’s borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

•

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading

.

The New York Times has said enough is enough about Irak in a full page editorial article which is a piece of good journalism and an example of patriotism.

What she will do now?

Latvia’s longest serving president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, left office last month with an emotional goodbye speech to the people. She became President of Latvia in 1999. Although not a candidate in the first ballot, she was drafted by the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) and was elected to the office of President of Latvia. She was sworn in on 8 July. Her election coincided with the offer of European Union (EU) membership to Latvia at the EU Summit at Helsinki 1999.

Latvia’s president is elected for four years and the duties include foreign affairs and defense. The president also can propose legislation and can return measures approved by the Saeima for reconsideration.

Born in Riga in 1937, she was forced to live in exile most of her life, like so many other members of the Latvian elite. After growing up in refugee camps in Germany, she went to a French school in the French protectorate of Marocco, and then studied in Canada, where she became a professor of psychology in 1965.

Her views are said to be quite conservative though she has no political affiliation. She is also a strong supporter of the U.S. policy in Iraq and on various occasions she has asked that Russia admit to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States. Her relationship with the russian-speaking comunity was, however, difficult. When she took over as a presidente promised to learn Russian language, but she never did, as she explained to me in our second, and last, interview at her residence in Jurmala in July 2006.

Cosmopolis keeps record of her views of russian problem.

For centuries, Latvians were under German, Swedish, Russian and later Soviet domination. This has created today's strong nationalism among Latvians which even led to some problems with the European Court of Justice. I pointed out to the president that 15 to 17% of the people living in Latvia do not have the Latvian nationality, even though most of them were borne here. Most of them are Russians who moved here after the Second World War, during the Soviet occupation and colonisation.

Vike-Freiberga responded that Latvia's nationality laws are not very different from the ones in Germany, where Turkish immigrants - sometimes even third-generation residents - do not automatically receive the German nationality. She is right, but I had no time to point out that Germany applies ius sanguinis instead of ius solis, contributing to its serious immigration and minority integration problem; therefore, can rarely be cited as an example to follow.

However, the president came up with some substantial arguments in favor of her position. She pointed out to the fact that, at the moment Latvia regained its independence after decades of Soviet military occupation and that it took Latvians five years more to get the Red Army to leave. In that situation, the president explained, giving the occupiers automatic citizenship would have meant sanctifying the occupation and accepting its legitimacy.

She always felt that history was not being re-written by acknowledging that the Soviets had occupied the three Baltic nations and that, for Latvia, the end of World War II meant the occupation by one foreign totalitarian regime being replaced by the occupation by another foreign totalitarian regime.

Vike-Freiberga was certainly a thorn in the side of the political elite. She dominated the Latvian political stage from 1999 to 2007, and achieved unheard-of levels of popular support from a jaded public that is typically suspicious of the political class. Indeed, her success was largely based on her status as an outsider – a retired psychology professor from the French-speaking University of Montreal in Canada, she had been resident in Latvia for less than a year when elected president. As Daunis Auers, teacher at the department of political science at the University of Latvia writes for Transitions Online: "She devoted most of her presidency to foreign affairs, believing that Latvia’s future security would be guaranteed by rapid accession to the European Union and NATO",

In Latvia, if nowhere else, she was seen as a major international player. This also meant that she rose above the grubby infighting of the Latvian political scene. As a result, she was an inspirational figure, representing the Latvia that many wanted to see – sophisticated, intellectual, and punching above its weight – rather than the Latvia that actually existed.

What she will do now?