MALI: ALGERIA’S AGREEMENT PAVES THE WAY FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION

The last few months have seen numerous developments take place in the West African country of Mali. So numerous have these changes been that news outlets have struggled to keep apace with the rapidly transcending circumstances. This week, Algeria, said to be the only obstacle to an ECOWAS-led military intervention in Mali, approved an intervention, the consequences of which have the potential to spill into its territory.


ECOWAS’s (The Economic Community of West African States) aim, by way of the intended action is to wrestle back control from al Qaeda-backed militants of the northern part of the country which for several months, has been outside the control of the country’s government. Some reports now claim that Tuareg rebels, working in tandem with al Qaeda-supported Islamist militants now control two thirds of the country since army generals instigated a coup in March of this year.


Algeria’s agreement hasn’t been achieved without the usual diplomatic arm twisting. In this case, its colonial father France has been at the forefront of efforts to acquire Algeria’s approval prior to the intended intervention. It would now appear that France has been able to assuage the fears of Algeria, a country with growing influence in the region, of fears that the conflict would spill into its territory and further fears over the likely duration of the conflict. This latest development follows the recent U.N. Security Council resolution whose central proposal was its urging of African states and the United Nations for the production of an intervention plan in Mali.


In the same week the African Union (AU) lifted its suspension of Mali which was imposed on the country following the aforementioned coup d’etat which unseated President Amadou Toumani Toure earlier on in the year. The country’s Foreign Minister Tieman Coulibaly attributed the lifting of the sanctions to Mali’s “respect of signed agreements and the creation of a government of national union conforming to the demands of the international community.” One of the conditions for the intervention is rumoured to be that elections would have to be held within 12 months after the return to ‘constitutional order’.


It is worthwhile noting that international consensus has been achieved with regard to how the Malian situation should be addressed. Germany, by way of its Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle averred in the past week that the European Union must assist with the African-led Mali mission. France’s position is visibly clear having seized the reins in the drafting of an intervention centred U.N. resolution and selling the idea of intervention to a very reluctant Algeria.


The U.S., via its Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, highlighted the gains made by al Qaeda which has successfully exploited the power vacuum in the region and the need for the international community to work hand in hand in order to deal with the threats. Panetta stated: “We need to work with the nations in the region. They all agree that we are facing the same threat there from AQIM (said to be al Qaeda’s branch in North Africa). He continued: “Our goal right now is to try to do everything we can to bring those countries together in a common effort to go after AQIM.”


Even if the AU can produce the detailed plan for intervention requested by the U.N. Security Council within six weeks of October 12, uncertainty still pervades as to whether military action will commence in the immediate aftermath or after a further, and as yet unknown, time limit has elapsed. If last week’s statements by the Chairwoman of the AU, Nkosazana Dlamina-Zuma, are to be believed then the former might well be the case. To this end, Dlamina-Zuma stated, in the course of interviews with global news outlets: “We are working to finalise the joint planning for the early deployment of an African-led international military force to help Mali recover the occupied territories in the North.” At the same time she revealed that the AU was set to “leave the door of dialogue open to those Malian rebel groups willing to negotiate.”


Realists will acknowledge that the chances of resolution of the conflict at this late stage by way of dialogue are slim at best and negligible at worst. The AU and UN must pay heed to the fact that the slightest signs of failure of this most surreptitious of plans will inevitably lead to scribes reaching for their pens in order to draw parallels between the present scenario and Afghanistan.

WEST AFRICA: U.N. APPROVES MASS VACCINATION IN BID TO BEAT SEASONAL MENINGITIS IN WEST AFRICA

The U.N. has stepped up the fight against seasonal Meningitis in West Africa with the news that 50 million people in the region are set to be immunized within the next three months. The campaign is expected to reach inhabitants of the West African countries of Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan.


The campaign is being led by the Geneva-based GAVI Alliance, a public-private partnership which is backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the pharmaceutical industry amongst others. According to the GAVI Alliance, the region is said to have been targeted as a result of its vulnerability to ‘seasonal severe outbreaks of meningitis’ which places up to 430 million people at risk of the disease.


The Meningitis bacteria is transmitted between people through droplets of respiratory or throat secretions and affects the lining surrounding the brain and spinal cord. The disease can be spread by way of person-to-person contact such as through sharing, eating or drinking utensils, kissing, sneezing and coughing. The disease can lead to brain damage, hearing loss, learning disability which occurs in 10 to 20 per cent of survivors and in extreme cases, death.


“Meningitis takes a terrible toll on the people living in vulnerable parts of Africa every year. It is a painful disease which can kill quickly and often leaves victims with disabilities that will blight their lives,” said Seth Berkley, CEO of the GAVI Alliance. Dr. Berkley added: “Nobody really understands exactly why just in that region. But every five to seven years there would be an epidemic. There would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of cases. And it would completely drive the economies to a halt.”


Reports of the renewed campaign against the disease comes on the heels of last year’s development of a new vaccine MenAfriVac, the revolutionary meningococcal A conjugate vaccine developed through the Meningitis Vaccine Project (MVP) which aims to eliminate group A meningitis epidemics which has plagued the sub-Saharan African region for more than a century. MVP aims to eliminate meningitis as a public health concern through the development, testing, introduction, and widespread use of conjugate meningococcal vaccines. The Meningitis Vaccine Project is a partnership between the WHO, the global non-profit organisation PATH and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


News of the immunization campaign is certainly welcome not least because of the myriad effects including economic and social which the outbreak of the disease – outbreaks are said to occur every 7-14 years – brings along with it. It is widely known that people tend to avoid large or social gatherings when these outbreaks occur with associated consequences being that children often miss school and adults avoid the workplace. Following news that the West African country of Burkina Faso has reported no new cases of Meningitis since the introduction of the MenAfriVac vaccine, hopes abound that Meningitis will be eradicated by the turn of the present decade.

NIGERIA: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED BY BOTH SIDES, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH CLAIM

Reports by one of the leading global human rights organisations, Human Rights Watch, that at least 2,800 people have been killed since the onset of the Boko Haram-led insurrection in the West African country of Nigeria are evidence of the scale of the humanitarian tragedy currently pervading Northern Nigeria.


In its Report, the organisation stated that both the Nigerian security authorities and the militant group were complicit in the commission of crimes against humanity. According to Human Rights Watch some of the attacks carried out since the commencement of the conflict bore the characteristics of “deliberate acts leading to population ‘cleansing’ based on religion or ethnicity”. In case the participants in the conflict need to be reminded, offenders charged with crimes against humanity can be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.


The Report attributes the killings of Muslim clerics critical of the group’s activities and innocent Christians to Boko Haram and at the same time blames the Nigerian authorities for “physical abuse, secret detentions, extortion, burning of houses, stealing money during raids, and extrajudicial killings of suspects”. Although the leadership of Boko Haram is yet to respond to the conclusions of the report, the government, via its spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Sagir Musa, denied that it had been involved in the ‘culture of impunity for violence’ which the report imputes to it. Lieutenant Colonel Musa averred: “There is no established or recorded case of extrajudicial killing, torture, arson or arbitrary arrest by the JTF (Nigeria’s joint military and police taskforce) in Borno state”.


Followers of global affairs and passive observers alike will note that the Islamist sect has waged a three-year long campaign against the government with the aim of establishing an Islamic state and in effect seceding from the country. Boko Haram are also rumoured to be backed by Somalia’s Al-Shabaab militia and Al-Qaeda who have of recent successfully made inroads – see Mali and Mauritania – into the Western region of Africa. Boko Haram’s notoriety and initial successes were of such significance that a United States Congressional Panel was established to address the threat posed by the group.


The government’s initial lackadaisical and disjointed attempts at dealing with the menace have now been replaced with a joint army and military crackdown commensurate with its opponent’s might. It has successfully conducted raids on areas within the northern part of the country, the region predominantly populated by Nigeria’s Muslims and which is effectively the group’s stomping ground. The group’s bases have been routed, its fighters arrested and some of its figureheads killed following the reinvigoration of the government’s campaign against the militancy. The killing of the group’s spokesman Abu Qaqa by the authorities in a gun battle last month against the authorities was just the news which the country’s beleaguered leader needed to placate critics who have lambasted the lack of urgency he has shown in his handling of the situation.


The Nigerian government at least acknowledges that military engagement on its own will not be sufficient to usher in the peace and tranquillity which previously reigned in the now tumultuous region of Northern Nigeria. To this end it has attempted to engage Boko Haram by way of negotiations in order to achieve an impasse in the dispute. However, Boko Haram’s continued demands for the full implementation of Sharia law in the whole of Northern Nigeria has put paid to hopes that a non-military solution to the troubles can be achieved in the circumstances. Aside highlighting the human tragedy pervading in the warring region at present, the Report does well to remind the protagonists in the conflict of the accountability which awaits them at the International Criminal Court after the war has been won and lost.

IRAN: HOW TO SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN

This week's article is written by a guest weblogger, Uche Ndaji. Miss Ndaji is a Law graduate with a keen interest in international law and global affairs. She is also an aspiring novelist, poet and writer of the short story form.


The 67th United Nations General Assembly meeting once more highlighted the intensifying political tension between Iran and Israel which has been fuelled by Iran’s burgeoning nuclear ambitions.


IAEA Report

Iran’s latest refusal to consent to an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) not only heightened suspicions about the country’s true motives for pursuing the nuclear programme but has also become the proverbial ‘red rag’ to Israel’s ‘bull’. Notably, the IAEA’s September 13th resolution which raised concerns about the ferocious pace at which the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant had advanced and in turn the threat which it posed to international peace and stability bolsters Israel’s claims regarding Iran’s intended purpose for embarking on the project.


Tough Questions

Some might question the widespread objection to Iran’s enrichment programme since nuclear warheads have so far not been produced nor can observers assert with confidence that they will be constructed in the near future. How seriously should President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s posturing be taken? Why is the West quick to dismiss the Iranian government’s assertion that its nuclear programmes are intended for peaceful purposes while Security Council members keep nuclear stockpiles in readiness for potential use? What will unilateral strikes by Israel on Iran’s plant do to diffuse or escalate the instability in the Middle East?

The unanswered questions lead one to doubt that a resolution to the region’s peace and security problems will be arrived at in the immediate future. At the same time however, they are legitimate queries which demand valid answers.


The Case for and Against ‘Pre-Emptive Strike’

According to the New York Times, “international nuclear inspectors confirmed that Iran had installed three-quarters of the centrifuges it needs to complete a deep-underground site for the production of nuclear fuel.” Assuming there is an inkling of truth to the allegation, certain concerns arise bearing in mind recent history of the intelligence errors which resulted in the ghastly mission that was the last Iraq war.

Like Saddam Hussein, President Ahmadinejad’s petulance can be dismissed as a façade, a sorry attempt at attracting international attention to his many baseless causes for instance: “wiping Israel off the map” whilst declaring that “the regime is on its way to annihilation.” Ahmadinejad’s venomous language continued to flow at the General Assembly where he reiterated that “Israel has no roots in the Middle East.”

Yet how can the UN separate suspicions of the Iranian government’s nuclear ambitions from Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric? One can certainly draw parallels with Saddam Hussein who misguidedly engaged in similar ‘war games’ with the international community about his alleged possession of chemical weapons. With the benefit of hindsight which of course is the best sight, Hussein’s antics appeared to have been a defence mechanism, or better yet, merely a ruse to fend off intimidation from neighbouring states.


Iraq Parallels

Evidence provided by the Iraq Survey Group in 2004 concluded that Saddam Hussein’s government possessed no chemical weapons thus validating the illegitimacy of the conflict. Yet, there is a telling distinction between both circumstances; Iran is actively expanding its nuclear program whereas Saddam Hussein remained pigheaded and somewhat unpredictable with regard to ownership of biological and chemical weapons leading to a sweeping assumption that his government embarked on the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Lessons should have been learned from the Iraq crisis for the reason that, without comprehensive evidence and concrete substantiation of the existence of nuclear weapons, pre-emptive strikes must be avoided at all costs.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that nuclear programs can in fact be used for ‘peaceful purposes’ as claimed by the Iranian government. For example, Japan uses its nuclear plants to generate electricity although its dependence on nuclear power remains somewhat controversial following the meltdown of the Fukushima Daichii Nuclear Power Plant after a devastating earthquake and the subsequent tsunami which ravaged much of the country in March 2011.

Unlike Japan, some of the doubts facing Iran’s nuclear programs are exacerbated by its hateful denouncement of Israel, questioning Israel’s existence and its promise to eliminate Israel. When nuclear development is added to the framework, doubts set in consequently discrediting the ‘peaceful’ nature of such programmes.


The Potential for War

Finding a solution appears more difficult than the crisis itself. Prior to the General Assembly meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu restated the importance of setting a ‘red line’ on Iran’s nuclear expansion. Mr. Netanyahu backed up this statement in flamboyant fashion at the meeting with a visual chart, highlighting the 90% point at which military strikes would be appropriate to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment.

Talks of a unilateral strike on Iran by the Israeli government have circulated for months, although the United States opts for a diplomatic solution through economic sanctions and has so far avoided all suggestions of military action. The eagerness for conflict seems to have diminished from the Obama government’s discourse and the Iranian government keeps a close eye on this. Some state that the US government has suffered enough financial strain as a result of the Iraq war which Iran is all too aware of and has sought to capitalize upon.


The Effect of Sanctions

However, claims last week that EU and US sanctions have sent the Iranian economy into free fall gathered pace with The Guardian reporting an overwhelming 15% depreciation of the rial. The diminishing accessibility of foreign currency and inflationary food prices resulted in the Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz’s proclamation that the Iranian economy is “on the verge of collapse” as reported by Reuters.

Evidently, sanctions are somewhat effective though it needs reminding that Iran’s foreign currency reserves can still be used to galvanise its economy which would ultimately render the sanctions useless. What appears interesting is how far the sanctions can go to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. Will further sanctions be invoked to stop Iran from accessing its foreign currency reserves? Would global financial isolation convince the government to curtail its nuclear activity?

Regrettably, sanctions affect ordinary citizens who are innocent bystanders and who are also in the thrall of this regime. The hardship caused by the sanctions could have the counter-productive effect of pushing the country’s citizens into extremism, thereby intensifying the level of distrust, which is already at an all time high, between the West and the Muslim world. As we have learnt from our planet’s complex politics, sanctions do not always affect the politicos or theocrats as they can easily serve as a recruitment drive for the respective government’s anti-western campaigns.


So Where Do We Go From Here, What Happens Next?

It is unlikely that the Israeli government will follow through with threats of a unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities without the participation of its great ally, the United States. Needless to say the unilateral pre-emptive strike would be an unfortunate decision considering the fragile political state of the Middle East, what with Syria, Yemen and Lebanon being in the grip of unrelenting internal turmoil.

One can take comfort in the knowledge that the UN and IAEA appear to be more in control of this situation than it was in its handling of the Iraq affair if evidence is to be scrutinized. One hopes that the lessons learnt from the past will bolster academic arguments against the concept of ‘pre-emptive strike’ currently favoured by the U.S neo-cons and the Israeli government.