PDA

View Full Version : OSCE decided to NOT monitor of RF election



Guest
07-02-2008, 15:56
As Russia refused to treat them with favor and asked them to follow the same rules than for other observers, OSCE decided to not monitor the next presidential election.

Not important at all anyway, it will just give some more reasons for some western countries to criticize the result. Probably their reports are already written :)

Carbo
07-02-2008, 16:06
As Russia refused to treat them with favor and asked them to follow the same rules than for other observers, OSCE decided to not monitor the next presidential election.

Not important at all anyway, it will just give some more reasons for some western countries to criticize the result. Probably their reports are already written :)
Its a good decision by the OSCE. they weren't allowed to properly monitor the elections and would have simply served as window dressing. Fair enough.

Guest
07-02-2008, 16:19
Even if we don't agree on the "why", we at least agree that it is a good decision, great :)

Carbo
07-02-2008, 16:29
Even if we don't agree on the "why", we at least agree that it is a good decision, great :)
Well, I think we can probably agree on the "why" as well. The reason they didn't is because Russia refused to give them what the OSCD believed was sufficient time and numbers to monitor the election properly. Their can be no dispute about that.

You think the Russian proposal was fair enough, the OSCD felt that there was no way they could possibly monitor the election properly under those circumstances.

I think the decision to pull out was the right one.

Guest
07-02-2008, 16:45
Yes, good decision, but tell me sincerely: Don't we already know the report that will be writen about this presidential election, by "observers"?

Carbo
07-02-2008, 17:15
Yes, good decision, but tell me sincerely: Don't we already know the report that will be writen about this presidential election, by "observers"?
Unless some major changes take place in Russia, yes.

Guest
07-02-2008, 17:18
Unless some major changes take place in Russia, yes.


So, no need to send observers, if the reports' content is already decided :) Anyway it isn't a secret that since the beginning, OSCE knew they will not send observers, so they can play the victims.

As for "major changes", well, Russian people will decide, as they decided to give the power to Putin twice. I trust Russian people ability to decide what is good for them and their country.

I also perfectly understand that it hurts western countries who would like their "political order" and "democracy" apply everywhere. Sorry for this, but Russians have other conceptions of democracy and order.

Carbo
07-02-2008, 17:45
So, no need to send observers, if the reports' content is already decided :) Anyway it isn't a secret that since the beginning, OSCE knew they will not send observers, so they can play the victims.

As for "major changes", well, Russian people will decide, as they decided to give the power to Putin twice. I trust Russian people ability to decide what is good for them and their country.

I also perfectly understand that it hurts western countries who would like their "political order" and "democracy" apply everywhere. Sorry for this, but Russians have other conceptions of democracy and order.
There's a difference between pre writing a report and having a fair idea of what it's likely to contain. You see, the latter is based on a fair approximation of the truth. But, following Russian politics, we know what the situation is here, so we know what their report is likely to contain.

I really don't know what Putin is afraid of. Economicly he's done a pretty decent job, his foreign policy has been marsterful compared to Britain's and America's. Why doesn't he just "let the people dele decide"? I know for a fact they'd vote him in.

Guest
07-02-2008, 18:10
There's a difference between pre writing a report and having a fair idea of what it's likely to contain. You see, the latter is based on a fair approximation of the truth. But, following Russian politics, we know what the situation is here, so we know what their report is likely to contain.

I really don't know what Putin is afraid of. Economicly he's done a pretty decent job, his foreign policy has been marsterful compared to Britain's and America's. Why doesn't he just "let the people dele decide"? I know for a fact they'd vote him in.


Sorry??? Putin doesn't "let the people decide"??? Can you explain?

ezik
07-02-2008, 18:35
I saw MPs of my country reporting back about the parliament elections. They were like happy tourists reporting from an exotic place: "yeah, everything is great".

If OSCE was serious about elections, they would try all they can to witness it. But they don't. This means that they regard monitoring elections as something facultative, with no strings attached. If they would be serious about this, they'd move heaven and earth to monitor this. Instead, they just act a bit insulted for not having complied to visa applications rules.

I've got a cheaper and more practical idea: OSCE should just contact foreigners who live here to monitor stuff. We see the billboards, follow the politics and are in the middle of the society, instead of in an ivory tower.

Guest
07-02-2008, 18:42
OSCE is a political organisation that obeys to the general political views of western countries. As the global view is that "Elections in Russia are not fair", OSCE does what is requested not bring this conclusion.

In the current case they decided to not come and monitor, so they can already see "Elections are not fair because we couldn't go and monitor them".

Asking foreigners would not be seen as representative for foreign countries, they would say "foreigners say things are OK because they are afraid to be expelled", for example.

Carbo
07-02-2008, 20:12
Sorry??? Putin doesn't "let the people decide"??? Can you explain?
Well there's more to democracy than just a ballot.

Let's get something straight, though, Putin has the overwealming support of the Russian electorate. That's why the British press gets things wrong sometimes.

But do opposition parties really get a fair crack of the whip? Its all academic now, because Putin has been a bit of a superstar, and Medvedev was a very smart choice of successor. Everybody will support him.

Wodin
07-02-2008, 20:43
Is there any question at all about whether the elections will be fair? Just how much airtime is being given to the (real) oppostion? How many opposition activists have been detained or otherwise harrased?

Having said that, I'm rather keen for continuity (simply because it's good for my business), so I suppose the harder they make it for change to be possible, the happier I am.

Guest
07-02-2008, 20:49
Happy that stability is good for YOUR business, but I am even more happy that stability that brought Putin and that should bring his successor, will be good for Russia and Russians.

Airtime, yes, I can agree with you. But which system is better? The US system where candidates BUY expensive TV spots? Not sure. Moreover when a candidate is the prime minister, hard to count his airtime, as he is supposed to be a public guy anyway for the work he is doing as the PM.



Is there any question at all about whether the elections will be fair? Just how much airtime is being given to the (real) oppostion? How many opposition activists have been detained or otherwise harrased?

Having said that, I'm rather keen for continuity (simply because it's good for my business), so I suppose the harder they make it for change to be possible, the happier I am.

Wodin
07-02-2008, 22:45
Happy that stability is good for YOUR business, but I am even more happy that stability that brought Putin and that should bring his successor, will be good for Russia and Russians.

Airtime, yes, I can agree with you. But which system is better? The US system where candidates BUY expensive TV spots? Not sure. Moreover when a candidate is the prime minister, hard to count his airtime, as he is supposed to be a public guy anyway for the work he is doing as the PM.

The answer should be obvious...the better system is the one that allows everybody to get their message across. The US system does that, the European system does that, the Russian system does not. Hence, elections here cannot be fair, even if everybody were to be allowed to cast their ballot without any interference whatsoever (lets wait and see how many will be intimidated, shot, locked up etc in the provinces)

Guest
07-02-2008, 22:55
"Intimidation" is a subjective notion. In US/Europe, citizens are intimidated by the gov that says "If you don't vote for us, you will have less security", for example. In France a candidate said "If you vote for my opponent, cities will burn again" (she was not elected and cities didn't burn more than the usual).

So, can you explain, concretely, how "the Russian system does not allow" [everybody to get their message across]?

The point that a lot of foreigners do not understand and that MOST OF Russians support the current gov/president. So their message perfectly goes across, the result of election perfectly match the opinion of people.

Moreover, you say "the European system does that". WHICH European system? The Italian, French, British systems, are all different. And some others probably too.





The answer should be obvious...the better system is the one that allows everybody to get their message across. The US system does that, the European system does that, the Russian system does not. Hence, elections here cannot be fair, even if everybody were to be allowed to cast their ballot without any interference whatsoever (lets wait and see how many will be intimidated, shot, locked up etc in the provinces)

Wodin
08-02-2008, 00:12
"Intimidation" is a subjective notion. In US/Europe, citizens are intimidated by the gov that says "If you don't vote for us, you will have less security", for example. In France a candidate said "If you vote for my opponent, cities will burn again" (she was not elected and cities didn't burn more than the usual).

I'd rather be intimidated in that way than by some bullet head (in or out of uniform), beating me up or dragging me off to a mental asylum


So, can you explain, concretely, how "the Russian system does not allow" [everybody to get their message across]?

Easy. The government did away with all independent media. Therefore anti-governement views are not aired or given prominence.


The point that a lot of foreigners do not understand and that MOST OF Russians support the current gov/president. So their message perfectly goes across, the result of election perfectly match the opinion of people.

And the point you don't understand is that the only message that gets across is the government's. Small wonder that the results of the election perfectly match. There again, I suppose that you'd say that the government's is the only message that should get across and the strange utterings of the opposition should be supressed in order not to make the public unhappy. Well, I suppose that is the Russian way..since time immemorial...first as serfs, then as communist zombies and now as the happy children of the President.


Moreover, you say "the European system does that". WHICH European system? The Italian, French, British systems, are all different. And some others probably too.

Allow me to educate you, oh Guest who does not understand real democracy coz it's not the Russians' cup of tea. All European systems (the countries that you mention) are the same. At election time the media are required by the electoral commission to give equal media exposure to all views, parties and politicians and if they don't the aggrevied politicians can (and do) make complaints that lead to a correction.

Guest
08-02-2008, 00:27
> I'd rather be intimidated in that way than by some bullet head (in or out of uniform), beating me up or dragging me off to a mental asylum

Ah yes, RF citizens who do not vote for THE GOV are beaten and sent to asylum. You are losing your small nerves and saying more BS than your average :)


> And the point you don't understand is that the only message that gets across is the government's. Small wonder that the results of the election perfectly match. There again, I suppose that you'd say that the government's is the only message that should get across and the strange utterings of the opposition should be supressed in order not to make the public unhappy. Well, I suppose that is the Russian way..since time immemorial...first as serfs, then as communist zombies and now as the happy children of the President.

The point you don't understand is that we see the RESULT of the actions of the political team that manages the country and vote according to THIS. You can philosophy whatever you want, people are happy to live much better now than yesterday, and that Russia is more powerful than yesterday. That is why they vote and continue to vote for these who brought this current situation. Hard to understand for you, I see.



> Allow me to educate you, oh Guest who does not understand real democracy coz it's not the Russians' cup of tea.


I wrote YOUR "REAL DEMOCRACY". You continue to lie to defend your opinion, it is fine!

> All European systems (the countries that you mention) are the same. At election time the media are required by the electoral commission to give equal media exposure to all views, parties and politicians and if they don't the aggrevied politicians can (and do) make complaints that lead to a correction.

It is good, anyway the differences between the Labour and the Conservative political acts are the same than between nothing and nothing. Their only problem is who will win to get the money and power. So people have the choice, indeed.

Anyway it is your problem, as the situation in Russia is our. I am happy that so nice brits are interested by our poor fascist system for which 80% of Russians agree. OSCE was maybe less stupid than you, they finally understood it and decided to give up. But PLEASE continue to teach Russians what could be "your real democracy" :)

Carbo
08-02-2008, 07:16
Airtime, yes, I can agree with you. But which system is better? The US system where candidates BUY expensive TV spots?
Did you notice that McCain, who had virtually no money, and whose campaign was virtually bankrupt in the summer, is on the vergeof winning the
Republican nomination?

Carbo
08-02-2008, 07:27
Anyway it is your problem, as the situation in Russia is our. I am happy that so nice brits are interested by our poor fascist system for which 80% of Russians agree. OSCE was maybe less stupid than you, they finally understood it and decided to give up. But PLEASE continue to teach Russians what could be "your real democracy" :)
That's sad statement. But its sad because I struggle to disagree.

You know, I do think we have better systems -- not perfect, but then no political system is perfect. Its hard to prove now, because Putin has wiped the floor with out politicians, bringing what Russians want: growth and stability. One day, there won't be somebody as skilled as ol' Vlad, and that's when the problems may occur.

It just goes to show how much moral capital we've lost through the ham-fisted neo-con policies of Cheney, Bush, and his lap-dog Blair. We now come across as arrogant meddlers instead of successfuldemocracies who can help instill the rights we enjoy to the rest of the world.

Guest
08-02-2008, 09:20
Did you notice that McCain, who had virtually no money, and whose campaign was virtually bankrupt in the summer, is on the vergeof winning the
Republican nomination?

And he will probably win the White House too. Just because he has good ideas and a good background.

Guest
08-02-2008, 09:22
> We now come across as arrogant meddlers instead of successfuldemocracies who can help instill the rights we enjoy to the rest of the world.

I think this summarizes well, and some people defend here their positions with the same arrogance and superiority complex that makes the result the opposite of what it could be.

Carbo
08-02-2008, 09:57
And he will probably win the White House too. Just because he has good ideas and a good background.

But doesn't what you said above rather contradict what you said in a previous post that implied that the richest candidates win?

Guest
08-02-2008, 10:46
I was waiting this :)

They are all rich anyway, even the poorest US candidate is richer than the richest Russian candidate! Well it is not so bad as it can make avoid corruption temptations...

Carbo
08-02-2008, 11:00
I was waiting this :)

They are all rich anyway, even the poorest US candidate is richer than the richest Russian candidate! Well it is not so bad as it can make avoid corruption temptations...
Eeerrrmmm... are you sure? Not if rumors regarding the ownership of Surgneftegaz and Gunvor are true. And certainly not in terms of the money they have access to. The American candidates aren't necessarily mega-rich in their own rights, and even if they are, the majority of their money comes from donations rather than their own pockets, poor Mitt Romeny aside, of course.

Guest
08-02-2008, 11:14
Eeerrrmmm... are you sure? Not if rumors regarding the ownership of Surgneftegaz and Gunvor are true. And certainly not in terms of the money they have access to. The American candidates aren't necessarily mega-rich in their own rights, and even if they are, the majority of their money comes from donations rather than their own pockets, poor Mitt Romeny aside, of course.

Well, as far as I know, Clinton family didn't need donations to be "rich", Bush too, etc. Note that I do not criticize the fact to be rich, I just notice that most if the canddates, passed or today's, ARE "rich".

In RF, even if Jirinovski has some assets, he and Ziuganov etc cannot be considered as "rich".

have to go now, see you later!
\

Carbo
08-02-2008, 11:52
Well, as far as I know, Clinton family didn't need donations to be "rich", Bush too, etc. Note that I do not criticize the fact to be rich, I just notice that most if the canddates, passed or today's, ARE "rich".

In RF, even if Jirinovski has some assets, he and Ziuganov etc cannot be considered as "rich".

have to go now, see you later!
\
No, no, you're missing the point. They don't receive donations to get rich, they're independently wealthy. They receive donations for their political campaign, which is quite seperate from personal wealth.

Guest
08-02-2008, 12:19
No, no, you're missing the point. They don't receive donations to get rich, they're independently wealthy. They receive donations for their political campaign, which is quite seperate from personal wealth.


YES we told the same thing, but being rich BEFORE receiving donations allow to build a solid campaign using media. I am sure that PERSONAL fortune is sometimes used to pay the campaign, what is normal though: People who trust in their opinions and chance should pay from their pocket sometimes :)

ezik
08-02-2008, 21:09
I still have to see the first poor man with a good agenda making it into politics.

Carbo
09-02-2008, 10:56
YES we told the same thing, but being rich BEFORE receiving donations allow to build a solid campaign using media. I am sure that PERSONAL fortune is sometimes used to pay the campaign, what is normal though: People who trust in their opinions and chance should pay from their pocket sometimes :)
I love how quickly you can change your position, contradict what you originally said and stillclaim you're right.

Guest
09-02-2008, 11:31
I love how quickly you can change your position, contradict what you originally said and stillclaim you're right.


You should learn to write and, more important, try to understand what is written, before replying :)

Carbo
09-02-2008, 11:56
You should learn to write and, more important, try to understand what is written, before replying :)

Isn't it you who is always crying foul about personal insults?

I don't need to significantly improve my comprehension skills to realize that you have a singular ability to write bold, ill thought out, myopic diatribes, and then when questioned or challenged to justify your points, alter your position completely and still maintain the sanctimonious arrogance that pervades much of your writing on this forum.

In recent days you and I have debated on many points, which I'd ordinarily enjoy, but every time I challenge you to logically justify your points, you change them, but still claim your origional position was correct.

But hey, don't let little things like facts or logic get in the way of your pious political beliefs.

Guest
09-02-2008, 12:21
English phlegm is a legend, so?

Funny to see that every time I chat with a brit - and only brits - it turns so: Nothing to reply, so you say I changed my mind, don't know what I say, am stupid, etc etc. Oh and about arrogance, re-read you...You should be a good teacher :D

Seems that not everybody can be a gentleman, especially some of the Gracious Majesty Citizens posting here :7525:

Have a good week-end :)

Carbo
09-02-2008, 12:47
English phlegm is a legend, so?

Funny to see that every time I chat with a brit - and only brits - it turns so: Nothing to reply, so you say I changed my mind, don't know what I say, am stupid, etc etc. Oh and about arrogance, re-read you...You should be a good teacher :D

Seems that not everybody can be a gentleman, especially some of the Gracious Majesty Citizens posting here :7525:

Have a good week-end :)
Through my stinking hangover, I'm struggling to understand what the hell that meant.

You're almost reduced to tears when people throw the odd insult your way in response to your unbreakable self certainty of the absolute truth of your views. But then when I challenge you in a reasonable way over the logic of your posts, you alter them to suit the argument, not realizing that you are contradicting your original position by doing it; and when I make this point, you start throwing exactly the same insults you cry about when they come your way.

It happened on a thread regarding visas where you regurgitated your Hare Krishna mantra of "all Russia wants is the same rules that are applied by the EU countries". That's a fair point, and one I couldn't argue against if it was in fact the case. But when I pointed out that Russia has medical tests, a far more opaque and byzantine application system, and that it communicates with applicants and expats far less effectively than do EU countries ( meaning that there can never be true quid-pro-quo without addressing these points), you changed your point to "Russia just wants the same PLUS..."

Do you not see how that comes across? You're actually a proponent of the same attitude as that which you claim to stand against: namely that one side wants to keep its cake and eat it.

Then, regarding the US election, you claimed that US presidential candidates 'buy' media slots (and, by implication, votes) because of their personal wealth. I point out that while many of these candidates are personally wealthy, they pay for all their campaign with public donations, you change your tune again, without realizing that it completely changes your argument. Of course, it's a far smaller point than the visa one, but its indicative of what you're all about.

When I point this out, you resort to petty insults -- the very action you’re always complaining about.

And, yes, I will have a nice weekend… right after I find somebody with a saline solution to intravenously rehydrate my poor hungover body.

Guest
09-02-2008, 13:06
Some people hardly understand even very simple things:

My position about visa doesn't suit your view? No matter, sorry. Oh and a technical point: Russia does like the other countries PLUS tests MINUS interview. Happy?

Anyway if you aren't about current RF policy about visa, well, you already know what to do when it will be the time for you to renew.


About the US elections, I told thet the candidates buy TV spots, NOT that they buy the VOTES! If in your narrow mind it is the same, well, it is your problem. I also wrote that all candidates are "rich" EVEN (or BEFORE) without the subventions they get from the citizens. Understood?

Of course as your interpretation makes all mixed, I can understand that you are completely lost!

And really about "petty insults", I have to admit that after arguing with some of the brits that are here, I take their defaults too.

Now, I am happy to know that you'll have your intravenously injections, maybe you should put something else than a saline solution, to bring your ideas in order :)

Bon apetit!

Carbo
09-02-2008, 13:12
Some people hardly understand even very simple things:

My position about visa doesn't suit your view? No matter, sorry. If you don't aprove the current RF policy about visa, well, you already know what to do when it will be the time for you to renew.

About the US elections, I told thet the candidates buy TV spots, NOT that they buy the VOTES! If in your narrow mind it is the same, well, it is your problem. I also wrote that all candidates are "rich" EVEN (or BEFORE) without the subventions they get from the citizens. Understood?

Of course as your interpretation makes all mixed, I can understand that you are completely lost!

And really about "petty insults", I have to admit that after arguing with some of the brits that are here, I take their defaults too.

Now, I am happy to know that you'll have your intravenously injections, maybe you should put something else than a saline solution, to bring your ideas in order :)

Bon apetit!
OK, do you want me to make a list of quotes that prove my point?

As I've said time and time again, I don't mind the Russian visa law so much. I do mind you trying to say that the EU should change its laws to match Russian ones without any changes on the Russian side to match EU standards.

"About the US elections, I told thet the candidates buy TV spots, NOT that they buy the VOTES! If in your narrow mind it is the same, well, it is your problem. I also wrote that all candidates are "rich" EVEN (or BEFORE) without the subventions they get from the citizens. Understood?"

What the hell's your point?

Guest
09-02-2008, 13:21
As I've said time and time again, I don't mind the Russian visa law so much. I do mind you trying to say that the EU should change its laws to match Russian ones without any changes on the Russian side to match EU standards.


LOL you completely mad or what? I never said EU should change their rules, why would I care about their rules??? Blin what did you put in your intravenous injections??? Do you know that some substances are strictly forbidden in Russia (as in Europe I suppose...)?




"About the US elections, I told thet the candidates buy TV spots, NOT that they buy the VOTES! If in your narrow mind it is the same, well, it is your problem. I also wrote that all candidates are "rich" EVEN (or BEFORE) without the subventions they get from the citizens. Understood?"

What the hell's your point?


Ah ah! So now you don't know what we were speaking about... Your injections look very interesting...

Ok, I let you continue alone, have to do! You should sleep a little, you will see, you'll feel better after :D

Carbo
09-02-2008, 20:09
LOL you completely mad or what? I never said EU should change their rules, why would I care about their rules??? Blin what did you put in your intravenous injections??? Do you know that some substances are strictly forbidden in Russia (as in Europe I suppose...)?





Ah ah! So now you don't know what we were speaking about... Your injections look very interesting...

Ok, I let you continue alone, have to do! You should sleep a little, you will see, you'll feel better after :D
You justified Russia's calls for changes for changes to EU visa laws or changes to Russia visa lawsby saying that "all Russia wants is the same rules... yada, yada, yada." This is patently wrong, they want everything their way. But this thread isn't about visas, so I don't want to get distracted along those lines.

Regarding the US point, I seem to remember that it all started when you said you didn't know what was best, the Russian system where only one party was given a media platform, or the US system where candidates had to be rich to buy media slots. I pointed out that US candidates get their money from donations, and so you changed your tune again, this time to a view crystallized in your post above.

Nevermind, you don't get that constantly modifying and changing and altering your posts, message, wording and opinion, actually goes someway to contradicting your original point, as we saw in the visa thread when you posted at first as if you were typing from an ivory tower, only then to change your point, and completely destry to unshakable moral high ground you claimed in your first posts on the matter.

TGP
11-02-2008, 22:46
As Russia refused to treat them with favor and asked them to follow the same rules than for other observers, OSCE decided to not monitor the next presidential election.

Not important at all anyway, it will just give some more reasons for some western countries to criticize the result. Probably their reports are already written :)


It's not what they have/do/will write about Russia or any other country. It's that their reports never ever change anything.

Guest
11-02-2008, 23:25
It's not what they have/do/will write about Russia or any other country. It's that their reports never ever change anything.


Should their reports change anything in Russia?

TGP
11-02-2008, 23:29
I mean I don't see any use in their presence, here or anywhere.

Guest
11-02-2008, 23:33
They like to imagine that they are useful. Apart their "moral satisfaction" to help "3rd world countries" (!) they like the style of life they have during their missions. They generally live in expensive and comfortable places (Mariott in Moscow for example), don't eat in Macdo or Mu-mu, and I remember having seen a report that some of these guys during the last presidential elections if I am right, were happy clients of some famous strip club!

So I do understand that this job is interesting! For them.

Rustralian
11-02-2008, 23:59
They like to imagine that they are useful. Apart their "moral satisfaction" to help "3rd world countries" (!) they like the style of life they have during their missions. They generally live in expensive and comfortable places (Mariott in Moscow for example), don't eat in Macdo or Mu-mu, and I remember having seen a report that some of these guys during the last presidential elections if I am right, were happy clients of some famous strip club!

So I do understand that this job is interesting! For them.


Sounds good, do they get paid as well ... we should all sign up!

:drink::drink::drink:
:10518: