Adam Goodman of The Being Had Times re-posted a BelTA article about the U.S. delegation's visit on his blog and here is a quote from it:

[…] During the meeting members of the US delegation addressed the President of Belarus with a request to use powers of the head of state to free US citizen Emanuel Zeltser, who had been serving his sentence in Belarus for committing a criminal offence.

Alexander Lukashenko emphasised that the US citizen had violated Belarusian laws. “He was arrested in our country and sentenced in accordance with Belarusian laws. Even US Charge d’Affaires a.i. in Belarus Jonathan Moore does not deny it. I have never thought that this man could become an issue in relations between our countries. Yes, according to Belarusian laws, according to the Constitution I can grant a pardon to Emanuel Zeltser. You have asked this of me, right? If it is very important for America and our relations and contributes to normalising our relations, I will sign the pardon today,” said the head of state. […]

On Wednesday, at 5:30 a.m., Zeltser flew back to the United States.

Belarusian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (LJ user radio_svaboda) invited bloggers to ask Zeltser some questions via the by_politics LJ community [BEL]. Only a few bloggers have responded so far, and LJ user lipkovich was the first one to [RUS]. Below are three of the six questions that he asked:

1. Is it true that you were arrested right after the negotiations at the Presidential Administration?

[…]

3. Would you seek material compensation from our country?

[…]

6. As far as we know, you were released following a pardon decree. Does it mean that all charges against you have been removed? If yes, do you plan to continue working on inheritance cases in Belarus?

So far, Zeltser has not replied to LJ user lipkovich and a few other Belarusian bloggers who are attempting to interact with him via an LJ community focused on Belarusian politics.

Moroccan author Laila Lalami blogged her frustration with the article, saying:

Her contention that protesters outside Parliament were “politely” waving signs is bizarre. If she had spent any kind of time, day after day, watching what happened to them, she wouldn’t be praising their politeness or the police’s restraint. The elections themselves are really nothing to write home about: turn-out was low and the results were, as usual, entirely unsurprising. If this is what she qualifies as “transformation from authoritarianism to democracy” then Lord help us all.

On the Morocco Board forums, where Applebaum's original article was posted, many readers took issue with the article. One reader, Adiloss, seemingly agrees with Lalami:

It seems the journalist tourist is misled by some appearances. It's true that demonstrators in front of the parliament are often not disturbed by the police. They have been there even for months for some of them, but nobody cares.
The journalist didn't happen to pass by in one of those hot violent days were police officers can break the head of anyone they can lay hands on, even non demonstrator passers can be subject to violence and degrading verbal insults by police forces.

Lalami also commented on Applebaum's contentious statement that in Morocco, “though there is clearly a fashion for long, flowing head scarves and blue jeans, many women would not look out of place in New York or Paris,” stating:

It almost never fails. When a Western reporter goes to Morocco to write about the process of democratization, the resulting article will inevitably mention sartorial choices and give them positive or negative values. Jeans = good. Jellabas = bad. At Slate, Anne Applebaum visits Morocco and finds that many women “would not look out of place in New York or Paris.”

Another statement by Applebaum with which readers took issue was: “One thinks wistfully of the shah of Iran and of what might have been.” One Morocco Board reader, who calls himself Moroccan Patriot, decried the statement, saying:

Nothing this woman wrote is accurate. She might as well be a reporter for FOX news.

Morocco has serious issues that do not need 100 years to solve. They need those who are currently in charge to simply decide that they want to ENFORCE the current laws on the books.

There is NO accountability and NO uniform enforcement of the laws currently on the books. This is not an accident, this is by design. While certain degrees of this exist in all societies, it is seldom as blatent and in your face as it is in Morocco.

When you say things like, “think whistfully of the shah of Iran and what might have been”, you become very clear about your stated goal, the demonizing of Iran.

Of course, there were also those for whom at least pieces of the article rang true. Maghreb Blog commented:

A flattering portrait of Morocco in today's Washington Post. Anne Applebaum sets the kingdom as a model for “slow but profound transformation from traditional monarchy to constitutional monarchy, acquiring along the way real political parties, a relatively free press, new political leaders — the mayor of Marrakesh is a 33-year-old woman — and a set of family laws that strive to be compatible both with sharia and international conventions on human rights.” As I opined elsewhere, it would be a stretch claiming that Morocco is a constitutional monarchy, as the monarch still holds vast executive, legislative and discretionary powers.

Mazagan, yet another Morocco Board commenter, on a piece I wrote in response to Applebaum's piece (”Poor Alternatives“), compares the two viewpoints and finds both lacking:

In one, Morocco is the picture perfect Oriental student in line with the West marching orders and the FMI directions, in the other it is simply the lackey of the Imperialism and the oppressor of peoples’ freedom.

Moroccos’ [sic] reality does not fit perfectly in either prism. The electoral process has suffered a major setback, being recuperated by the oligarchy. Still within the country, there is still very healthy civic and political debate taking place.

Only time will tell, as Morocco's new political officers settle into their positions and its bloggers continue to analyze their governance.

Amit Varma of India Uncut says:

July 2, 2009—mark this day. It’s a big day in the history of independent India because today the Delhi High Court effectively decriminalized homosexuality. As of today, it is no longer illegal to be gay in India. I’ve often written about how India gained its independence in 1947, but Indians weren’t free in some many different ways. Well, notch one up for individual freedom. […] This doesn’t mean, of course, that we have suddenly become an enlightened society. There will still be much homophobia, stereotypes of gay people will abound in popular culture[..]. But at least it isn’t illegal any more. How big is that?

The Rational Fool quotes from the ruling:

It's a victory for secular democracy in India. In a landmark judgement, the Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah of the Delhi High Court, along with Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, ruled in favor of the petitioner, Naz Foundation, and held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in its current form was violative of the of the constitutional provisions of Article 21, Article 14, and Article 15, “insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private”. The ruling brings cheers not only to the LGBT community, but also to anyone who believes that liberty and equality before law cannot be held hostage to irrational beliefs and values in perpetuity.

Suriya Subramanian leaves a comment at Blogbharti to say:

I’d like to draw attention to the part of the ruling, which I think is the most important, but no one is talking about. The court did not just decriminalize homosexuality, but they went way ahead and offered people protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Harini Calamur at POV says:

About time. The State has no business to peek into our bedroom. This is not just about decriminalizing homosexuality – it is about ensuring everyone’s right to privacy.

Blogger ??! writing at This is a Title asks:

You hear that? That's the sound a stupid law makes when it's finally overturned. […] Poor cops though, one less easy money-making scheme taken away from them.

And ??! reminds us that not all the responses to the ruling have been positive, suggesting readers look at the Rediff commentboard. Here is an example of the opinions stated there, by Puneet Gera:

First time in life, I despite being Indian, accept Pakistan is a better country than India, at least gay sex is not legalised there. They have maintained their cultural values. I salute you Pakistan for your good values.

Szerelem is thrilled:

My friend informs me, via her lawyer brother, that while the judgement was passed by the Delhi High Court it is applicable all over the country, till overturned by specific states. This (a) makes the verdict even more awesome and (b) makes me wonder if/ when/ where it will be overturned, though hopefully not at all, because the judgement was way too long coming. Also, &#@$ you to the mullahs, right wing hindutva types and general assholes who seem to populate discussion forums in this country and are decrying this.

However, Dilnavaz Bamboat at Ultra Violet believes there is plenty more to be fought for:

While the decriminalization of consensual gay sex is indeed a victory for those rooting for orientation-equality, constricted notions of propriety continue to be imposed on basic choices deemed even remotely threatening to social fabric. A case in point being denim. I kid you not. Jeans, according to the Uttar Pradesh Principals Association, may well be the root of degenerate teen behavior. Scrap the blue stuff and voila! We’ll have model citizens.
The two may be seemingly unrelated but they point to a constant struggle to assert our right to self-expression and fundamental choices. And remind us that it’s far from over. Self-determination, for the most part, is still sitting pretty in the latter half of a dictionary.

On June 19, about a hundred of Iranian students studying in Hungary held a silent commemoration at Heroes’ Square in Budapest, the Hungarian capital. The rally had been organised via Facebook. The second demonstration, by Hungarian supporters, took place in front of the Iranian Embassy in Budapest on June 21: it was called the Green Flashmob.

The third rally “for democracy and human rights” in Iran was held on June 26, also in front of the Iranian Embassy. On the community blog site Lehet Más a Világ! (”The World Can Be Different!”), Redjade shared information and photos about the June 21 protest and wrote this about the June 26 one:

[…] It was a big contrast from the previous protest last Sunday where there was no police presence, at all. Not only was there a fence this time (borrowed from the Parliament?) but dozens of police including four police vans and six cars. But the entire event was a friendly and calm situation, however. But I wonder if the lower turn out by Iranian students may have been the result of the intimidating police presence. […]

The Hungarian media reported on the meeting between state secretary of foreign affairs Gábor Iklódy and the Iranian ambassador Ali Reza Irvas, after which the Hungarian official declared that the Iranian protestors had the right to protest peacefully and that Hungary was concerned about the restraints placed on the media in Iran.

Also on June 21, a different type of rally took place in Budapest: members and supporters of the Two-Tailed Dog Party (HUN) held a so-called General Demonstration against things that don’t make any sense. The Two-Tailed Dog Party is a fake political party known for its extremely humorous criticism of political issues in Hungary. Some 200-300 people gathered in front of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office: according to the blog (HUN) of the demonstration, the reason was that the existence of this office didn’t make any sense.

On the art blog Képgyár (”Image Factory”), journalist András Földes reported (HUN) on the Two-Tailed Dog Party's demonstration:

[…] ‘What do we want? Nothing! When? Never!' Protesters in front of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH) are shouting their demands for long minutes but they can’t gain a hearing. Nobody comes out from the office to receive the petition and to start dialogue.

Though there are enough demands. ‘Let tomorrow be yesterday!' ‘Dissmiss us!' ‘Main stage!' ‘Let's bring everyone who is under the radical sign to a square!' […]

Some of the users of Képgyár (HUN) mentioned in the comments section that one of the protesters with the ‘Dissmiss us!' slogan was actually sending a hidden political message about frequent demonstrations against the present Hungarian government that have been taking place since 2006. Others noted that this kind of rallying for nothing already had a cultural background in Europe and represented an anarchist or radical liberal view, which contradicts the main goal: rallying for nothing.