YEMEN: FATALITIES REPORTED IN STAND-OFF BETWEEN MILITANTS AND SOLDIERS

Yemeni authorities today reported that five soldiers and two al Qaeda-linked insurgents were killed in heavy fighting in the country. The insurgents, members of the militant group Ansar al-Sharia which translates as Partisans of Islamic, launched an attack against the government in 2011. The militants’ offensive achieved minimal success with the capture of two towns located in the southern part of the country.

 

Their march towards the proverbial Promised Land was however abruptly halted by reinvigorated and reenergised government forces, supported by the West, who have now reduced the sum total of the insurgent’s attacks to spasmodic or intermittent occurrences. This week’s offensive was an attempt to flush out the remnants of the militant group, and with the post-mortem of the short-lived battle due shortly, it remains to be seen whether the government’s pronouncements of victory stack up.

The Yemeni forces’ plight has not been helped by another conflict in the North-east of the country in which it is currently engaged, running concurrently with the troubles in the southern part of the country. The latest violence follows Monday’s suicide bombing attack which killed 11 Yemeni soldiers. The West and the U.S in particular has channelled considerable resources, financial and otherwise, in their attempts to forestall the march of the insurgents. The West fears that the insurgent’s success in Yemen will be used as a platform by the militants to launch attacks the world over hence its increased significance in the war against terror.

 

Often described as a failed state, and perhaps rightly so, the country’s instability has led to a power vacuum which in turn has been exploited by various al Qaeda splinter groups, all said to operate under the auspices of the Yemen-headquartered al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). With Yemen being of such strategic importance to both sides, meaning the West and Islamist militants, one therefore wonders whether Afghanistan’s tag as the ‘frontline of the war on terror’ is rather misguided.

AZERBAIJAN: ARAB SPRING’S TENTACLES EXTEND WESTWARDS

 

Many, for good reason, wondered whether the Arabian revolution would extend across jurisdictions, or would sadly be confined within the borders of the Arab world. Alas, the questions circumventing the minds of the inquisitive, but as yet unasked, have now been answered by the unfolding of recent events in the former Soviet republic.

The country’s sleepy town of Ismailli was the scene of unprecedented violence and rioting which resulted in the destruction of public amenities, buildings and infrastructure. As was the case in the Arab world, the disturbance appears to stem from discontent about the government whom locals have lost faith in. Many feel that the country’s wealth, owing to the abundance of natural gas resources, has failed to filter down to the man on the street, but rather, remains in the hands of a few – the few being people in government or with links to the establishment. Widening inequality, poverty, unemployment and the worsening economic situation, seemingly with no end in sight, hasn’t eased the current state of play. The protesters allegedly called for the resignation of the regional governor, Nizami Alekperov, seemingly attributing the problems to him, presumably as an emanation of the state. Reports emanating from the country indicate that water canons and tear gas were employed by the authorities in order to disperse the riotous crowd.

As has come to be expected from governments in a similar position to that being currently occupied by the Azeris, a senior official was dispatched to extinguish any media-generated speculation to the effect that the Arab Spring is set to claim its next victim. That unwanted task thus fell to Ali Akhmedov, deputy chairman of the Yeni Azerbaijan party which forms the present government. Akhmedov asserted: “I don’t believe that this situation can spread to the other regions as there is no basis for that.” He continued: “There are just some destructive forces inside the country who are interested in the destabilization of the situation, but they are weak.”

Regardless of the government’s attempts to sweep the disturbance under the carpet, the riots, in a country where protests are more or less uncommon, are of significance and probably the biggest threat to the Aliyev dynasty since its assumption of power in the days of the Soviet Union. By way of a fact dissemination exercise, the incumbent is Ilham Aliyev, the son of Heydar Aliyev, who ruled the country for 10 years before being succeeded by his son in 2003. The similarities with the Arab spring don’t end there with reports of further protests being planned by those in support of the Ismailli rioters’ cause with social networking sites such as Facebook, the scourge of totalitarian states and fallen Arab leaders, being used to mobilise protesters.

Unfortunately the Azeri government has in the past shown no hesitation to use force in order to quell public disturbances and one expects the present occasion to be no different, and with elections scheduled for later this year, one anticipates the government to strong arm its people, especially its opponents, into submission. Moreover, Azerbaijan plays a rather strategic and important role in the West’s war on terror and for that reason, the US and its consigliores lack the political will to support any attempts to depose those at the helm of what is essentially the Aliyev personal fiefdom. To be blunt, the Azeri government faces no real threat until the West secures an alternative, as a military base in respect of its Afghanistan operations, to that provided by Azerbaijan. Until then, the West’s attention will remain conveniently diverted away from Azerbaijan’s dictatorial, oppressive and totalitarian regime.

KASHMIR: INDIA AND PAKISTAN RENEW HISTORICAL HOSTILITIES

This week has seen the renewal of hostilities between two of the Asian subcontinent’s superpowers, India and Pakistan. Both have engaged in military conflicts on three occasions since 1947 when they became independent nations and the latest skirmish, once again over the disputed Kashmir region to which both parties lay claim, threatens the relative stability to which the inhabitants of both countries have recently become accustomed.

The latest threat to the fragile peace pervading the region was allegedly instigated several days ago by Indian troops who are said to have been responsible for the death of a Pakistani soldier in the disputed region. In line with the recent breach of peace, two Indian soldiers have today been reportedly killed and mutilated in what some have referred to as a reprisal attack following from the death of the Pakistani soldier earlier this week.

Both sides have moved quickly to diffuse the potentially combustible situation by urging for calm. Salman Khurshid, India’s foreign minister said: “We cannot and must not allow the escalation of any unwholesome event like this.” He continued: “We have to be careful that forces…attempting to derail all the good work that’s been done towards normalization should not be successful.” The unexpectedly restrained sentiment was seconded by the Pakistan foreign ministry whose statement read: “Pakistan is committed to a constructive, sustained and result-oriented process of engagement with India.”

Despite the public show of unity being presented by both sides, all eyes continue to be trained towards the direction of Kashmir not least because the ‘tinderbox’ nature of the past and recent history of the region is such that an explosion is only but a matchstick away. Both countries’ possession of nuclear weapons complicates matters further as full scale conflict risks not only engulfing the whole region but the globe as a whole. While both sides have largely respected the militarized Line of Control (LoC) which has until recently been effective as a means of deflating the crisis, it is becoming apparent that a new solution, most preferably of the permanent variety, will need to be devised in due course. Perhaps with UN involvement, a line of patrol could be established with UN helmeted troops manning the same. This proposal, along with the prevailing status quo, i.e. the LoC situation, are merely but temporary solutions and undoubtedly, a long-term solution is required sooner rather than later although the present writer is admittedly at a loss as to what this measure or measures should entail.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: REBELS CLOSING IN ON POWER

Happy New Year to all the readers of the weblog. It was a really successful 2012 and we hope 2013 continues in the same vein. Having taken a 3-week break at the end of 2012, 1worldinternational returns with a piece on the troubled Central African Republic whose future is precociously balanced on a precipice.

 

 

Just when one thought that the state of affairs in the West and Central parts of Africa couldn’t deteriorate any further, what with the turmoil in Mali, Nigeria and the Congo, the Central African Republic succumbed to the disease which its aforementioned neighbours have been diagnosed with.

Background

By way of a brief background to recent events, the Seleka rebel group launched its offensive against the government of President Francois Bozize who has been in power since 2003. His subsequent victories in two further elections held since then, namely in 2005 and 2011 have done nothing to boost his democratic credentials as these have unsurprisingly been mired in and discredited by claims of electoral malpractice. The rebels’ discontent lies in Bozize’s alleged mismanagement of the country’s affairs and reneging on promises made to former rebels to provide financial assistance and jobs for them. The Seleka alliance is said to be made up of a collection of several rebel groups who have seemingly heeded the message contained in the mantra: “together we stand, divided we fall”.

 

Attempts at Resolving the Conflict

Africa’s latest civil war has luckily failed to escape the attention of the international community - unlike that of the Congo and Sudan where there has been a significant lack of political will to bring the conflicts to an end - with the Africa and European Unions, France and the United States nudging the warring parties to settle their grievances through dialogue rather than bullets. A further round of talks is scheduled for 10^th January with Libreville, the capital city of Gabon, providing the venue for the latest attempt at a peaceful resolution.

Unfortunately not much hope is being held out for a resolution of the conflict next week not least because the rebels are only a few miles outside of the country’s capital city of Bangui and appear to have victory within striking distance. In addition, the rebels have claimed that Bozize is prone to renege on promises and as a result, there are no guarantees that he will honour his own side of any agreement, if any is arrived at, between both sides at next week’s talks. The rebels are also almost certainly expected to insist on the resignation of President Bozize as a pre-condition for engaging fervently in the talks and at the time of writing, Bozize’s camp has flat out ruled out the rebel’s demands. President Bozize, in an interview with the Reuters news agency, via his spokesman, Cyriac Gonda stated: “The question of President Bozize leaving…will be rejected systematically if it is proposed.”

 

Sound-off

The rebels’ successes have occurred in spite of the military assistance provided by some of the country’s neighbours such as Cameroon, Gabon and Chad. This week’s plea, presumably aimed at the rebels from Bozize, urged the rebels to allow him to complete his mandate which is set to terminate in three years time. Bozize also promised that he would not participate in the country’s next presidential elections scheduled for 2016.

The significance of next week’s talks cannot be overstated due to the involvement of the country’s aforementioned neighbours as one can easily foresee a Congo-like scenario where these neighbours in tandem launch an offensive against the victorious rebels thus plunging the region into further instability. President Idriss Deby and the Republic of Chad in particular, with the most to lose from the rebel’s victory owing to their long-term support for Bozize, will no doubt be at the forefront of any such moves to forcibly remove the rebels from their seat of power. Commonsense would suggest that the rebels should allow Bozize to finish his term but if Bozize’s previous form is taken into account, i.e. reneging on promises, one can understand why the rebels fail to believe that Bozize’s word is bond.