Global News Blog

Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon in May 2013. (Soe Zeya/Reuters)

Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi speaks out

By Simon Roughneen, Correspondent / 05.31.13

In an unexpected turnaround Aung San Suu Kyi openly criticized aspects of the government’s policies this week, resulting in a bit of head scratching among Myanmar-watchers.

On Monday Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi said that the government’s much-lauded reforms were moving too slowly. “The last three years saw no tangible changes, especially in [the area of] the rule of law and the peace process.”

Human rights groups say that at least 100 political prisoners remain in jail and that several draconian laws dating from Myanmar's military rule remain unchanged.

To be fair, Myanmar has done some remodeling: There were free and fair by-elections in April 2012, many political prisoners were set free and the media is much more free than before. The parliament – though mostly made up of army-linked men who took their seats in a rigged 2010 election – has passed laws that would have been unthinkable a few years ago, allowing trade unions, for example. (Read the Monitor's coverage on Myanmar's about-face)

Is The Lady, as she's known to Burmese, now playing hardball politics, adopting a more confrontational party-political approach ahead of the next elections in 2015, and perhaps putting an end to the “grand bargain” between Aung San Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein which has so far helped oil reform in Myanmar?

The answer is not clear.

For one, Aung San Suu Kyi’s timing seemed curious. Even if her message was welcomed by human rights groups who say that Myanmar's reforms have stalled in recent months it came on the heels of the visit by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who pledged a half billion dollars in loans and wrote off almost $2 billion debt, and Mr. Thein Sein’s high profile visit to Washington earlier this month, the latter a reward by the US for Thein Sein's reforms. Aung San Suu Kyi's backing for Thein Sein has been integral to his being accepted as a reformer by the West, which long took its lines on Myanmar policy from the 1991 Nobel peace laureate

What of the reforms? Some, such as land reform, seemed rushed and turned out flawed – maybe the work of inexperienced parliamentarians. Others, such as the proposed press regime, have old junta-era restrictions stitched back in and have, as a result, stalled. Still others are in progress, such as a proposed minimum wage law, and are emerging through an attritional, horse-trading parliamentary process. 

Some suggest the only fast-track to reform is for the president to issue decrees – which would mean bypassing the legislature and smack of the bad old days of junta rule.

Aung San Suu Kyi has mostly shied from giving detail about what aspects of Myanmar's reforms – or lack thereof – irk her, aside from references to a vague catch-all “rule of law” mantra.

But she's been looking for the country's contentious constitution to be revised given that if it stays as it is, reform will only ever go so far and the military will have a continued (even decisive) say in Myanmar's politics. She's been vocal about that though, all along, even while smiling and posing alongside the regime of her former jailers.

It's highly likely she wants to have a chance to run in Myanmar's scheduled 2015 election, and needs the constitution changed in order to do so - not to mention to allow her party to govern without excessive military meddling. It may well be that she's making a political move now, ahead of the elections, to try put distance between herself and government reformists, such as Thein Sein, as there's a growing perception that she has been somewhat co-opted by the ruling party.

And that leads to the second somewhat surprising aspect of her remarks earlier this week. Aung San Suu Kyi has drawn fire from human rights groups in recent months for her reticence about speaking out against violence against some of Burma's estimated 5 million Muslims. Cynics chalk this up to her need to win the majority Buddhist Burman vote in 2015. But Aung San Suu Kyi broke her silence on Myanmar's ethnic violence on Monday.

She condemned a ruling by the regional administration in Myanmar's Rakhine state, a region bordering Bangladesh, to limit the Muslim Rohingya group to two children per family. "That kind of discrimination is illegal. It's not in accordance with human rights.” 

It seems all this raises more questions than answers. Will she now speak up about ongoing violence against Muslims in Myanmar after renewed attacks this week? And, more important, will Myanmar's reformist government act to rein in what seems to be a growing anti-Muslim, Buddhist-supremacist campaign known as “969”?

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia (l.) is presented with a World Statesman Award by Appeal of Conscience Foundation President Rabbi Arthur Schneier, Thursday, in New York. (Jason DeCrow/AP)

Is Indonesia still a model of religious tolerance?

By Sara Schonhardt, Correspondent / 05.31.13

Despite a rise in religiously-motivated violence at home, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono addressed a wealthy crowd at New York’s Pierre hotel on Thursday night and accepted an award from an interfaith group for his work promoting religious freedom and human rights.

The award came from the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, an interfaith group founded by Rabbi Arthur Schneier that aims to “promote peace, tolerance, and ethnic conflict resolution.” Past recipients include British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who handed the award to Yudhoyono on Thursday.

But human rights groups say the award sends the wrong message: That all is well in Indonesia, a majority-Muslim democracy long viewed as a model of religious tolerance that has faltered of late.

In recent years Islamic hardliners belonging to Indonesia’s Sunni majority have attacked Christians, Shiites, and the Ahmadiyah, a Muslim sect persecuted globally for beliefs that diverge from the mainstream.

More than 430 churches have been attacked since 2004, and at least 30 Ahmadiyah mosques have been shuttered since 2008. The Jakarta-based Setara Institute, which monitors religious freedom in Indonesia, reported 264 cases of attacks on religious minorities in 2012, up from 216 in 2010. 

Human rights groups say the authorities have stood idle when such violence occurs, sometimes even offering tacit or open support of laws that curb the freedom to worship.

In 2006 the government passed a ministerial decree that has prevented Christian groups from opening churches. An anti-Ahmadiyah decree passed in 2008 prohibits the Ahmadiyah from propagating their faith on pain of a five-year prison term. Local governments have interpreted the decree as a ban on the Ahmadiyah’s activities.

And while Indonesia’s constitution enshrines the right to freedom of religion, the government only legally recognizes six faiths – Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation has not addressed the protests, but at the dinner on Thursday Schneier acknowledged that Yudhoyono’s work was “not complete.” The president, too, acknowledged that Indonesia still has problems with intolerance, but said his country served as a strong voice for moderation.

“Indonesia is an example to the world that democracy, Islam, and modernity can live in positive symbiosis,” Yudhoyono said, according to a tweet from Indonesian Ambassador to the US, Dino Patti Djalal. 

That may be one reason global leaders continue to hail Indonesia.

“It is important for Indonesians to be successful because the world is watching,” Suzan Johnson Cook, the State Department’s Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, told the English-language Jakarta Globe last week.

Her comments came just as the US State Department released its annual report on religious freedom, which expresses concern about rising religious intolerance in Indonesia. 

Yudhoyono’s critics admit that Indonesia has come a long way in the 15 years since autocrat Suharto gave up power. Since becoming president in 2004 Yudhoyono has overseen the signing of a peace agreement that ended a 30-year separatist battle in Aceh and the country has achieved record economic growth and political stability.

But the president has also laid down the “legal infrastructure” that allows groups to discriminate against minorities, and much of that discrimination and violence has gone unpunished, said Andreas Harsono, an Indonesian researcher for Human Rights Watch, which released a report in February that blamed the Indonesian government for failing to protect the country’s religious minorities from growing religious intolerance and violence.

Mr. Harsono says the award itself is not what’s important, so much as the sentiment. 

“It might create the impression that everything is okay in Indonesia, and that will be used by the ministry of religion and militant organizations to justify violence against minorities.”

Other prominent religious leaders say the award presents an opportunity for minority groups to shine a light on the violence and remind the central government that it has an important role to play in protecting religious minorities.

Like the Shiites, the Ahmadiyah have seen their communities attacked and some members bludgeoned to death. One congregation in West Java has refused to leave its mosque since April, when the governor there ordered the police to seal it.

“Name a place in Indonesia where the Ahmadiyah don’t have problems,” says Firdaus Mubarik, an Ahmadiyah spokesman. “As long as we have we have these discriminatory regulations in place, life will be difficult for us.”

Larry King appears at the Milken Institute Global Conference last month in Beverly Hills, California. Russia Today announced that it will begin airing Mr. King's online shows in June and will also produce a new show, 'Politics with Larry King,' for its American affiliate. (Fred Prouser/Reuters)

Meet Russian television's newest personality: Larry King (+video)

By Fred Weir, Correspondent / 05.29.13

Television legend Larry King has a new political talk show, and a new boss.

The Kremlin-funded English-language network RT, formerly known as Russia Today, announced today that it has agreed to air Mr. King's four-times-weekly online public affairs program "Larry King Now," starting in June. The station will also stage a "mold-breaking" new show, "Politics with Larry King," all to be shown on its US affiliate, RT-America.

According to the RT statement, King will mainly focus on US politics, and King will interview leading political personalities, ranging from officials to critics of American foreign and domestic policies.

"Whether a president or an activist or a rock star was sitting across from him, Larry King never shied away from asking the tough questions, which makes him a terrific fit for our network," RT’s Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan is quoted as saying.

King, who has spent 56 years in broadcast journalism and conducted over 50,000 interviews, is the biggest name yet to join the extremely well-funded RT network, which claims to reach over 630 million viewers worldwide through its various English, Spanish, and Arabic language channels.

"I have always been passionate about government and issues that impact the public, and I’m thrilled at the opportunity to talk politics with some of the most influential people in Washington and around the country," the RT statement quoted King as saying.

Ms. Simonyan refused Wednesday to discuss with journalists the terms of King's RT contract, saying that it's standard practice not to reveal financial details without the agreement of both parties.

Last year the network signed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to do a series of political talk shows with major world newsmakers, which included interviews with Hezbollah leader Sayyid Nasrallah, US radical thinker Noam Chomsky, and Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa.

Since it was founded by the Kremlin in 2005, RT has expanded far beyond its original mandate to correct "misconceptions" about Russia around the world and moved to more aggressive "alternative" coverage of politics in the US, Britain, and other Western countries, where it has gained a wide following. The station claims to have 2 million viewers in Britain, and to have become one of the most widely watched foreign stations in several parts of the US, where it is carried by cable networks.

The network's changing focus, from explaining Russia to the world to mainly hosting critical content about the US and other Western countries, is the subject of a recent in-depth profile of RT by British journalist Oliver Bullough. "Deep into his 14th year in power, [President Vladimir Putin] appears to have given up on improving Russia. Instead, he funds RT to persuade everyone else that their own countries are no better," Mr. Bullough concludes.

There is little transparency about the financing of RT, which comes mainly through the Russian federal budget. But some Russian media have reported that RT's annual funding comes to around $300 million, and that last year Mr. Putin personally ordered his government not to slash financing for the station.

King left CNN in 2010 after 25 years of hosting his signature talk show, "Larry King Live." He's since broadcast about 150 episodes of his online program, produced by Ora.TV, which will now be taken up and broadcast 4 times weekly by RT. It's not clear how the all-new RT program "Politics with Larry King" will differ, but most experts believe it will be well-funded and calculated to showcase RT's growing clout on the global media landscape.

"Russia Today [RT] is making a concerted effort to raise its profile, and it's going about it in a pretty smart way," says Nikolai Svanidze, a famous Russian TV anchorman, journalist and historian.

"Larry King may not be a spring chicken, but he's still a famous name who will add luster to RT's content and attract viewers in the West. Of course, we all know that RT has the money to do this," he adds.

Police officers stand near the cordoned off spot where a French soldier was stabbed in the neck in the busy commercial district of La Defense, outside Paris, Saturday. Authorities are investigating any possible links with the recent slaying of a British soldier. (Remy de la Mauviniere/AP)

Was the stabbing of a soldier in France a copycat attack? (+video)

By Sara Miller Llana, Staff writer / 05.29.13

In the aftermath of attack, governments always brace for potential “copycat” plots. Nearly a decade and a half after the mass shooting at Columbine High School, authorities continue to foil plans that emulate the deadly events of that day.

Now France is wondering if it has its own copycat in its midst.

Over the weekend, an on-duty soldier was stabbed in Paris, and officials said Wednesday morning that a young male suspect has been detained about 30 miles from the capital.

The case is being handled by anti-terrorist investigators. It comes just days after the gruesome, fatal stabbing in London of an off-duty soldier by two suspects who claimed to have carried out the act as revenge against western military involvement in Muslim countries. 

The Monitor asked then how widespread the sentiment is among European Muslims that military intervention is an attack on Islam itself. 

It is unclear if the suspect in Paris shared the same views as those in London, who are Britons of Nigerian descent. France has been on high alert against revenge attacks since its intervention in Mali in January to root out radical Muslim rebels.

The assailant, in his young 20s, was captured on camera uttering a prayer before stabbing in the neck the soldier on group patrol in a busy transport hub of Paris Saturday. Authorities said he was a convert to Islam, and had a record for theft and possession of firearms.

At a Wednesday press conference, prosecutor François Molins said: "The nature of the incident, the fact it took place three days after London, and the prayer just before the act lead us to believe he acted on the basis of religious ideology and that his desire was to attack a representative of the state."

Copycats are just one concern of authorities after a violent attack. So too is the rage such events generate. Since last week, mosques have been attacked and anti-Muslim protests have formed throughout the UK. 

If the attack in France turns out to be a clear case of terrorism too, the country will have to brace for the backlash.

[Editor's note: The original subhead mischaracterized whether the French soldier was on duty when he was stabbed.]

The Chinese words "Ding Jinhao visited here" is seen on bas-relief in the 3,500-year-old Luxor temple in Luxor, Egypt, May 6. A Chinese teenager who defaced the ancient temple in Egypt with graffiti has come under fire at home where his vandalism prompted public fretting about how to cultivate a good image overseas as more newly affluent Chinese travel abroad. (AP)

Move over 'ugly American,' China's tourists are in town

By Peter Ford, Staff Writer / 05.29.13

The Chinese government is getting worried that as its newly rich citizen-tourists fan out across the world, their behavior is giving their country a bad name.

The latest incident of Philistinism, in which a Chinese teenager scratched his name in a 3,500 year old bas relief in a temple in Luxor, in Egypt, has also triggered a tsunami of embarrassed anger among China’s Internet community.

Earlier this month, deputy Premier Wang Yang was merciless during a televised meeting called to discuss a proposed tourism law. Too many Chinese tourists “talk loudly in public, cross the road when they shouldn’t, spit, and carve characters on tourist attractions,” he complained. “This has damaged China’s image and had a dreadful impact.”

Fifteen-year-old Ding Jinhao has not helped. He is the young hooligan who scratched graffiti into a Luxor temple wall – graffiti photographed by another Chinese tourist who then posted the desecration on Sina Weibo, a Twitter-like social media platform, last week.

More than a quarter of a million people have commented on the post, mostly to express their shame. His parents have publicly apologized.

Jinhao is hardly the first visitor to have defaced Egyptian monuments. Tourists have been carving their names into the pyramids outside Cairo for millennia. (My favorite: a wistful inscription in Latin left by a lonely Roman atop Cheops’ pyramid. “I saw the pyramids without you, and wept.”)

But young Jinhao’s indiscretion, which the Egyptian authorities say they have now repaired, is only the most recent in a litany of reports from abroad about the ways in which Chinese tourists have managed to offend the locals.

If it’s not Hong Kongers sniffing at a mainland mother encouraging her young son to urinate into a bottle in the middle of a restaurant, it’s Balinese complaining about brash Chinese tourists making too much noise, or Thai Buddhists offended by immodestly dressed Chinese female visitors to temples.

The Chinese Tourism Agency has taken note of these reports. Last month the government department issued a set of “civilized behavior guidelines” for tourists going abroad, urging them to “be attentive to etiquette, maintain dignity … protect the environment…queue in an orderly fashion and eat quietly” among other recommendations.

On the same day, though, the agency issued a similar, but even more draconian, charter intended to govern the behavior of visitors to domestic tourist attractions, warning them not to sneeze in other people’s faces, nor to chase and hit animals, nor to spend too long in public lavatories.

 In the end, lamented deputy Premier Wang, the problem comes down to what he called “the poor quality and breeding” of many Chinese, whether they are at home or abroad. It looks like the “ugly American” that some Europeans and Latin Americans love to hate is about to get a run for his money. 

Disney’s Merida of ‘Brave’ will get to keep her tomboyish looks and manners. (Disney/Pixar/AP)

Good Reads: From a Disney makeover, to unethical work conditions, to refusing US aid

By Cricket Fuller, Staff writer / 05.28.13

Disney makeover

Armed with wit, self-confidence, and a bow and arrow, Merida is a damsel who rescues herself from her own distress. Parents and educators have lauded the fiery red-haired heroine of the Disney/Pixar animated film “Brave” as an atypical Disney princess. 

“We wanted our daughters to grow up and be like Merida: brave, strong, resourceful, imperfect but loving,” Karen Dill notes in a blog at PsychologyToday.com. 

But Disney’s “makeover” of Merida into a sexualized Barbie-esque figure for merchandising purposes has turned fans’ praise to outrage. The organization A Mighty Girl launched a Keep Merida Brave campaign and viral Change.org petition in protest. Ms. Dill cites studies that show that sexualizing women in the media leads to low self-esteem in girls, and men “exposed to sexualized, objectified images of women ... become more tolerant of real-life sexual harassment.” It seems fans’ message may have gotten through. Media outlets reported that Disney quietly pulled the redesigned image of Merida from its website.

Me-centered generation

Joel Stein takes a critical look at the Millennial Generation – those born between 1980 and 2000 – in Time magazine. “The Me Me Me Generation” headline implies that Millennial self-centeredness trumps even that of baby boomers. They were raised with greater resources than any preceding generation, are more tech savvy, and were nurtured by helicopter parents who, along with educators, told them they were special. And for better or worse – they are. 

While Mr. Stein initially dwells on the studies that show Millennials have a sense of entitlement and are lazy, narcissistic, and dependent on their parents, he ultimately acknowledges a more nuanced, redeeming picture. Millennials may not tend toward traditional civic engagement, but they do care about justice. They are more tolerant than any other generation. And while they don’t gravitate toward organized religion, most believe in God and value spirituality. They aren’t rule breakers, but they are changing workplace culture – for the better. And in spite of the insecurity of their era, Millennials are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future.

Shopping as a moral dilemma

In the wake of the Bangladesh garment-factory collapse in April, Jerry Davis explores in YaleGlobal online the accountability of global supply chains. Technology enabled the now-common outsourcing model that keeps parent companies at a distance from production. But technology may also hold the solution to ending unethical working conditions and production methods.

“If consumer sentiment comes to favor ethically-produced goods,” Mr. Davis writes, “then brands will compete on provenance, not just style and quality.” User-friendly technologies now allow consumers to check the ethical or sustainability ratings of various products. Davis says there is “a surprising precedent in the financial markets for reversing the race to the bottom,” even in what used to be the Wild West of emerging market investments. The biggest obstacle to changes in retail supply chains is a lack of consumer awareness. 

USAID losing ground

Sarah Trister writes at Freedom House’s blog about what she considers a “dangerous pattern” developing in foreign assistance. Bolivia is the latest in a string of countries (including Russia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates) to expel, target, or curtail activities by the US Agency for International Development.

Ms. Trister worries that an emerging pattern of “countries shutting down U.S. assistance programs with little resistance and few consequences” sets a problematic precedent. She argues that US accommodation of authoritarian demands to minimize democracy and human rights concerns has “not been successful for U.S. policy.”

Trister says the “United States must make clear that democracy and human rights funding goes hand in hand with other forms of assistance” – meaning that no aid should be given to a foreign government while it remains “hostile to U.S. democracy assistance and support for universal values.”

And now the long version of the story

As news pages (and reader attention spans) shrink and online coverage tends toward quick bites and breaking updates, many news organizations have cut back on long-form journalism. But, as Susan Johnston writes at the eByline blog, “stories running thousands of words are finding a home online thanks in part to platforms like Longreads and Narratively.”

Ms. Johnston interviews journalist Noah Rosenberg, who helped start Narratively, “an online storytelling platform focusing on New York City’s untold stories.” Time magazine recently named the site on its 50 Best Websites 2013 list, and several top-tier news organizations regularly feature or syndicate Narratively content.

Mr. Rosenberg says the key to the site’s success has been its commitment to telling “beautiful untold stories”; use of multimedia projects; focus on one theme or story a day (an attractive model for advertisers); and the fact that as a small, agile organization, Narratively is “really tuned in strongly to what our readers want” and can adjust and respond accordingly.

People look at the Eiffel Tower, lit in the blue and yellow colors of the European Union flag in Paris in this July 2008 file photo. With much of Europe mired in recession and high unemployment the European Union almost bans olive oil bottles from its restaurants. (Mal Langsdon/Reuters/File)

Frustration and mirth as the EU almost bans olive oil bottles from its restaurants

By Sara Miller Llana, Staff writer / 05.24.13

“Olive oil bottles – they are removing them from the tables at restaurants!”

The statement, from my Spanish husband, was not one of fact but of disbelief and disdain. “They” referred to the European Union.

I was busy typing away on another story and only half paying attention, but my first thought was that this was some kind of austerity measure by restaurateurs. Then I recalled a plan in Mexico – to take salt shakers off of tables to counter diabetes – and I thought it could be a health-driven measure (though yes, I know olive oil is one of the good fats).

But then he explained and got my full attention: “It’s to reduce fraud.” The EU was mandating that the restaurants of its 27 member countries use sealable olive oil jars to prevent refilling with subpar product, replacing the glass bottles ubiquitous in Spain or the dipping bowls of Italy.

My husband has many friends who are starting to lose their jobs and a few have already run out of unemployment benefits. His nieces and nephews are just starting college and looking at a job market with 50 percent youth unemployment. “Aren’t there big enough problems to deal with?” he asked, exasperated.

The EU apparently agrees with him, or buckled under the pressure of others who were similarly dismayed by the plan. On Thursday, the press corps in Brussels reported that the European Commission scrapped the measure, which was supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Some memorable quotes emerged from the brouhaha. One of my favorites: the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung called it "weirdest decision since the legendary curvy cucumber regulation," a reference to EU rules, no longer in existence, controlling the shape of fruits and vegetables that could be sold in supermarkets.

According to the New York Times, Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands called it “too bizarre for words.”

And Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain got yet another chance to chastise the EU's heavy-handedness, calling the rules “exactly the sort of area that the European Union needs to get right out of, in my view.”

The move, the EU was at pains to point out, was to protect consumers, both in terms of hygiene and ensuring that consumers get what they pay for. And representatives from 15 of 27 countries supported the measure, including major olive producers like Italy and Spain.

Instead, they were mocked across Twitter.  “EU once more shows its razor-sharp focus on the big picture with, er, uh, ban on olive oil jug,” read one feed. “EU protects citizens from dangers of unregulated olive oil bottles,” read another.

In a very interesting blog at Open Europe you’ll learn everything about ancient practices to reduce fraud in the olive oil industry. You’ll also read that – despite all the mockery – there might be a positive story here.

“The Commission's climb down shows that a rethink of silly ideas and proposals in Brussels is possible,” the writer says. “The Commission could've stuck to its guns and ignored the complaints - after all, there were some actors in favor of this (farming lobby, some member states etc.) - but reason was allowed to prevail.”

Read entire post | Comments

Actor Gerard Depardieu participates in a news conference in Grozny May 21, 2013. According to local media, Depardieu is visiting the Chechen capital for the filming of his new movie, "Turquoise." (Rasul Yarichev/REUTERS)

Gerard Depardieu goes to Chechnya to film next movie

By Fred Weir, Correspondent / 05.23.13

Russians often grit their teeth at the way their country is portrayed in Hollywood films: a grim, wintry post-Soviet wasteland peopled with mafia thugs, drunks, and Kremlin megalomaniacs.

That may be set to change, thanks in part to a global movie star, "the Russian actor of French origin" Gerard Depardieu, who was granted Russian citizenship by President Vladimir Putin last January after he ditched his native France in a huff over high taxes.

Mr. Depardieu, who has become a vocal booster of his new homeland, is currently making a movie in Moscow and its repeatedly war-ravaged southern republic of Chechnya. It's a fairly standard blood-and-guts thriller called "Biryuza" (Turqoise) – a tale of tragedy, betrayal, lots and lots of mayhem and, finally, sweet bloody revenge.

But Depardieu and the film's producers are making it clear that this movie's backdrop will be graphically different from the sad, impoverished land so often depicted by Hollywood. It will be set amid the glittering skyscrapers and swank nightclubs of Putin-era Moscow and the risen-from-the-ashes boulevards and modern apartment blocks of postwar Chechnya. And it will feature many noble Russian – and Chechen – characters, as well as the usual gangsters.

With his co-star, British actress Liz Hurley, and director Philippe Martinez in tow, Depardieu faced journalists at a press conference in the Chechen capital, Grozny, on Wednesday to explain why he chose Chechnya to make a violent vengeance-themed movie.

"I followed everything that happened here and saw a city totally rebuilt and very sympathetic people," he said. "I saw more love and friendship than hate here."

But, perhaps also in the Putin-era spirit, anyone with questions about human rights abuses or the arbitrary one-man rule of Depardieu's "very close friend," pro-Moscow Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, was made to feel extremely unwelcome.

Asked by a journalist whether there were any parallels to be found in the fictional Depardieu's character's murderous revenge streak that culminates in Chechnya, and the real-life assassinations of Mr. Kadyrov's political foes that have been documented by human rights monitors, the film's director Mr. Martinez exploded in fury, according to the Independent.

"I have to tell you I’m a bit ashamed that you are asking that question," he is quoted as saying. "Gerard Depardieu and Elizabeth Hurley are making a movie in Chechnya! And you’re asking questions of a political nature! I don’t even want to answer."

Kadyrov, an avid user of social media, posted photos of himself, Depardieu and Hurley touring Grozny together, and posing with Kadyrov's monster truck, on Wednesday.

He also separately greeted American action film star Steven Seagal, whose movies he praised as illustrating Chechen-like traits. "Nobility. Willpower. Honor. Qualities characteristic of Chechens. So we can say [Seagal] is almost a Chechen!," Kadyrov noted on Instagram.

Mr. Seagal is another star whose high-profile shoulder-rubbing with Putin and now Kadyrov may be helping to shift Russia's image into more positive territory.

A plot summary for Depardieu's upcoming film, posted on director Martinez's website, says "Turquoise is a film of revenge and redemption set against a backdrop of a gorgeous, modern day Russian Federation ... Told in a powerful, visually stunning cinematic style, Turquoise highlights Moscow’s thriving art scene, seductive nightlife, and stunning architecture while Chechnya’s beautiful natural landscape and extraordinary redevelopment is seen through [the Depardieu character's] eyes."

But some experts say the new-look Russia – and Chechnya – featured in films like this may be even more misleading than the old stereotypes were.

"Chechnya is a territory that exists completely outside of the political norms and legal requirements of the Russian Federation," says Stanislav Belkovsky, president of the independent Institute of National Strategy in Moscow.

"Putin basically handed the republic over to Kadyrov in order to pacify it. The appearance of stability and calm in Chechnya are the main things he wants right now. Chechnya today is basically a despotic little statelet that has nothing in common with Russia, except that its 'miraculous' revival – all that new construction – has been financed entirely by the Russian state budget," he says.

The fact that movie stars can hold press conferences in Grozny's new five-star hotel and make films under the watchful eyes of Kadyrov's security doesn't mean the republic is safe, says Alexander Cherkasov, a Caucasus expert with Memorial, Russia's largest grassroots human rights organization.

"Kadyrov was handed total power to defeat the rebels, but the rebels are still there, and the main result [of his rule] has been massive human rights violations. To suggest that this territory might be safe for, say, tourism, is very premature."

Winner of the 2013 Eurovision Song Contest Emmelie de Forest of Denmark who won with her song 'Only Teardrops,' holds the winners trophy as she poses for photographers following the final of the Eurovision Song Contest at the Malmo Arena in Malmo, Sweden, last Saturday. The Kremlin today said that they found a case of alleged voting fraud in Eurovision song contest. (Alastair Grant/AP)

Kremlin 'outraged' by electoral fraud... in Eurovision song contest

By Fred Weir, Correspondent / 05.22.13

Russian authorities have finally found a case of alleged voting fraud that they can get really incensed about.

No, it's not the 2011 Duma elections, which experts from across Russia's political spectrum now agree were probably falsified on a huge scale. That has never been the subject of official outrage, or even investigation.

This is something far more important: the continental song competition, Eurovision.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told journalists yesterday that he was "outraged" to learn that the voting system in neighboring Azerbaijan had eliminated the votes cast for Russian Eurovision contestant Dina Garipova in that country. Voters registering their preferences by cellphone had given a second-place finish to Ms. Garipova – which should have given her 10 points in the overall contest – but they had somehow disappeared in the reporting process.

"We can’t be happy with the fact that 10 points were stolen from our participant, primarily in terms of how this event is organized," Mr. Lavrov said during a previously scheduled joint press conference in Baku with Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov. 

"We have agreed with Elmar Mammadyarov that we will discuss joint measures to ensure that this outrageous action will not go unanswered," Lavrov added.

The head of Azerbaijan's broadcasting company, Jamil Guliyev, quickly acknowledged that some sort of mistake had occurred.

"We sincerely hope that this case, which was probably initiated by some groups, would not cast a shadow on brotherly relations of Azeri and Russian people," he told journalists.

Contestant: Why the fuss?

The mammothly popular annual singing contest, held last Saturday in Malmo, Sweden, featured contestants from 39 countries from the Atlantic to the shores of the Caspian Sea. An estimated 125 million TV viewers, each cheering for their country's contestants as avidly as any football team, tuned in to the Eurovision finals, plus countless more around the world via Internet streaming.

Competition for the honor of hosting Eurovision is almost as serious as for the Olympics, and Russia went wild when Moscow won the right to stage the event back in 2009.

The winner of each year's multinational contest is determined by a complicated system – which is supposed to be foolproof – in which each country votes for all entries except their own.

Votes cast by TV viewers in each country by cellphone (or through social media such as Facebook) makes up half the decision, while a national panel of judges makes the other half. At the end of the process, each country submits a ranking for all contestants – except its own – by giving 12 points to the winner, 10 points to the runner-up, and so on. The results, totaled for all of Europe, determine the overall winner.

This year Denmark's Emmelie de Forest won by a landslide, with 281 points, followed by Azerbaijan's Farid Mammadov with 234 points (full table here). Russia's Garipova came fifth with 174 points.

The missing 10 points from Azerbaijan didn't affect Garipova's standing, and she graciously told the Russian media today that it would be better to drop the rising demand for an international investigation into the alleged vote-rigging scandal.

"To be honest, I don’t know why an investigation is needed," Garipova said. "I am satisfied with the result of the contest."

Inferiority complex

Eurovision's organizers said in a statement that they will take swift action to preserve the event's apolitical nature and prevent any future abuses. But the scandal is far from dying down in Russia. 

Some Russian conservatives claim it's just another example of Western "double standards," in which those who never miss an opportunity to lecture Russia about human rights and democracy turn out to be dirty themselves.

Former Kremlin adviser Sergei Markov told the Ekho Moskvi radio station today that the Eurovision result was "direct forgery and fraud."

Perhaps tongue-in-cheek, Mr. Markov went on: "In general it's better when we non-Europeans are accusing them of falsifying elections than when they are accusing us…. And here [with Eurovision] we have such a fraud, and the whole world has seen it with their own eyes."

Viktor Shenderovich, once a top political satirist who was exiled from the mainstream media after Vladimir Putin came to power, says the Russian response, and particularly Lavrov's official outrage over a singing contest, is an unseemly display that reveals a persecution complex at the heart of Kremlin behavior.

"This comes from the inferiority complex than haunts our state, which is really funny when you recall that we're a country the size of a continent that has a vast nuclear arsenal," Mr. Shenderovich says.

"When a mature adult from the Foreign Ministry starts taking such things seriously, well, it can only mean that we have lost any sense of self-irony. On the surface it looks silly, but when you examine the roots of this affair you can't help feeling sad…. Whenever Russia feels it's been shortchanged in anything, be it a song contest or a sporting event, our people immediately begin claiming that there's a plot against us. But, as the old Russian saying goes, 'a bad dancer's boots are always too tight,'" he adds.