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.

IRAN: INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AND IRAN AGREE TALKS

News of Iran’s imminent return to the negotiating table has allayed concerns of further instability in the Middle East. The talks, which are being forced through by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are expected to take place on December 13 in the country’s capital, Tehran. The talks are being held side by side with separate discussions involving Germany, France, Britain, China, Russia and the United States, and are also aimed at defusing the rather complex Middle East powder keg.

The IAEA’s attempts to inject some calm to the tense proceedings have so far been met by strong Iranian resistance. Iran continues to assert that its nuclear intentions are pure and that its purpose for acquiring nuclear capability is non-military. Iran’s return to the negotiating table has surprisingly been met with anything but elation and optimism which most certainly owes to the fact that too many proclamations of a ‘new dawn’ have been sounded out in the past but without progress on the ground commensurate with previous shades of optimism. Dare I say that the present debacle is rather akin to the parable of ‘the boy who cried wolf’.

Matters are not made any easier by the country’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who appears to revel in the attention directed by the international media towards his region of the world, albeit for the wrong reasons. Needless to say his latest pronouncements that “the Iranian nation is not seeking an atomic bomb, nor do they need to build an atomic bond” was not only met with silence which it deserved but also derision. To many, Ahmadinejad will continue to fail in his attempts to pull the wool over the watching world’s eyes if he, on the one hand states that the country’s nuclear enrichment programme is geared towards peaceful aims, but at the same time, prevents the IAEA from visiting alleged nuclear enrichment sites and also, continues to threaten the state of Israel, for all their faults, with eternal damnation.

The restrained pronouncements in light of the latest developments by leading global figures perhaps tells its own story and buttresses the writer’s earlier assertions. Catherine Ashton, the Foreign Policy supremo of the European Union cautiously asserted that the talks “could be an initial step on the path to resolving outstanding issues.” The United States, via its State Department Spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, offered: “In the past Iran has been unwilling to do what it needs to do despite the best efforts of the IAEA. But we commend the IAEA for keeping at it and we call on Iran to do what it needs to do to meet the international community’s concerns.”

The announcement comes a week after the Pentagon reported that Iran had fired at an unarmed American drone thereby risking an international incident with the capacity to morph into a major conflict. Nonetheless and in spite of the air of pessimism which pervades, the agreement to return to the table is encouraging and signals a climb down from the ‘chest puffing’ which the conflict’s main protagonists – Iran, Israel and the United States – have so far been engaged. Liberals will argue that the sanctions regime has been effective at forcing Iran to utilise diplomatic channels to resolve the dispute while ‘hawkish Republicans’ and Benjamin Netanyahu’s – the Israeli President - supporters will state that Iran is utilising the talks as a smokescreen whilst it completes its nuclear programme. Although President Obama’s victory most certainly means that the United States will only engage militarily against Iran as a last resort, the writer however believes the threat of an Israeli pre-emptive strike still looms large and has not been allayed by Iran’s sudden and unexpected move.

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.

BAHRAIN: GOVERNMENT CONTINUES ASSAULT ON OPPOSITION ACTIVISTS

The writer refers to Bahrain as the gift that keeps on giving, the reason being that the Bahraini government keeps on providing enthusiasts of global politics and international law with something to write about. It has certainly been successful at grabbing our collective attentions although not for the reasons it would prefer to be famous for.

Last week, opposition activist Nabeel Rajab was sentenced to three years in jail for effectively having the audacity to lead ‘peaceful’ protests against the government. The country’s courts are expected to hear his appeal next week.

Although the decision to sentence Rajab came as no surprise to observers, the length of the sentence for the ‘crime’ was even by Bahraini standards unprecedented. The EU’s foreign affairs High Representative Catherine Ashton has led calls against the Bahrain government’s anti-democratic stance. Ashton highlighted that Rajab had done nothing wrong and added that his sentencing was linked to his calls for the government to respect its citizens’ fundamental freedoms.

Victoria Nuland, the U.S. State Department spokeswoman stated that the U.S. was deeply troubled by Rajab’s sentence. She continued; “We’ve made it clear that it is critical for all governments, including Bahrain, to respect freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.” The NGO Amnesty International has gone even further than both the EU and the U.S by stating that it was a “dark day for justice.” Amnesty International’s Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui averred that Rajab’s sentence eliminates the potential for change in the country. Sahraoui affirmed: “Like many others in Bahrain, Nabeel Rajab is a prisoner of conscience, jailed solely for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and assembly.”

The government’s publicity machine has since gone into overdrive in anticipation of the global opprobrium it expects to rain down upon it. The government insisted that it had evidence to hand which conclusively showed that Rajab had caused the deaths of innocent people by inciting “violence and escalation against law enforcement officers”. The country’s interior ministry also confirmed that about 700 security officers have been injured since clashes began last year. It has however failed to explain why others charged with the same offence appeared to have been given lighter sentences that that which befell Rajab.

For its part the Bahrain government has no incentive to restrain itself from maintaining the current status quo not least because its strategic location in the Middle East makes it a viable alternative as an oil transport route out of the Gulf region to the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran currently holds sway. The fact that the country also hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet further complicates matters thus rendering any idea of political will being mustered and mobilized by the U.S. redundant. The Bahrain government, like its Russian counterpart who drew the ire of the watching world with its absurd decision to jail members of the Russian female punk rock band, Pussy Riot last week, fails to appreciate the significance of the oft-repeated mantra spawn by the current writer. The said mantra being that the movement for change is akin to a hydra which will not cease to exist when one of its heads - the movements’ individual foot soldiers – are incarcerated or silenced.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: GOVERNMENT CRACKS DOWN ON PROTESTERS' LEGITIMATE DEMANDS

Amidst the mutterings that the Arab spring was about to claim its latest victim, the ruler of the country’s Sharjah emirate last week moved quickly to calm fears that the country’s forces was wantonly jailing persons responsible for organising the unprecedented recent episodes of protests against the state. Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qassimi inferred that the arrest of several individuals over the last couple of weeks was linked to its investigation of “crimes against the security of the state” and added that the state’s forces had a “duty” to protect the country against the individuals involved in the alleged plot.


Background

Over recent weeks several dissidents and protesters have been arrested in a synchronised crackdown against activists in the country. The activists arrested in the crackdown are allegedly linked to the al-Islah (Reform) Islamic group which calls for a stricter observance of Sharia’a law in what is already the most conservative part of the country. About 50 dissidents are reported to have been arrested since last year without recourse to an effective judicial system. Moving swiftly to set an example of the activists and to perhaps dissuade others from joining the perceived revolution the government has stripped some activists of their citizenship while others have been issued summary jail sentences.


Criticism

If the rapidly modernising country thought that stamping down swiftly on voices of protest may prevent attention being drawn to the revolutionaries’ causes they had better have a rethink. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have voiced concern over the treatment of activists. In its statement last week, Amnesty International urged the government to release details of the location of those it had arrested. Joe Stork, Human Rights Watch deputy Middle East director called on the United Kingdom and the US to rein in its ally. Stork stated: “After all their fine words over the past year about standing up for democracy and human rights in the Arab world, the U.S. and the UK have completely lost their voices when it comes to the UAE.”


Campaign of intimidation

The Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch statements follow recent criticisms of the government’s actions by related international organisations. Rupert Colville, the UN human rights spokesman asserted that the government’s actions were effectively a ruse to silence legitimate protests. Colville stated: “It appears that national security is increasingly being used as a pretext to clamp down on peaceful activism, to stifle calls for constitutional reform and on human rights issues such as statelessness.” The highly respected Geneva based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) whose mission statement includes the implementation of principles which advance human rights have added to the debate. Said Bernabia, the organisation’s Senior Legal Advisor for its Middle East and North Africa Programme stated that the government’s move was “part of a broad campaign of intimidation and harassment by UAE authorities that aims to silence any and all critical voices”. Bernabia called for the crackdown to cease immediately.


Oil wealth

The UAE is made up of seven emirates or states which united to form a federation in 1971. The country’s oil wealth has placed it amongst the world’s fastest growing economies and the standard of living of its people has risen significantly since its discovery of the oil resource. The country is as liberal as they come in comparison with its neighbours. Its allegiance with the major players on the international scene such as the US and UK is testament to its status as one of the leading figures in the Middle East. The country’s overly generous welfare system has enabled it to avoid the disturbances in the region which has led to the toppling of four governments during the Arab spring.


Sound-off

Nevertheless the government appears not to have learnt any lessons from recent events in the Middle East as rather than engaging the public and its opponents in debate about political reforms and civil rights, it has opted to demonise activists as ‘Islamists’ and jail those it deems as threats to its stability. It clearly has not learnt that its attitude may be counterproductive as it stands the risk of galvanising further protests against it as the recently deposed governments of Ben-Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt highlight. The government’s close ties with the US and U.K means that the West’s political will to cause change may not be forthcoming in the immediate future. The country’s rulers will do well to learn some lessons from the past, most notably from events which transpired in neighbouring Egypt whose deposed government’s close ties with the West counted for nothing when the waves of change could no longer be held back by revetments.

1WORLDINTERNATIONAL GLOBAL PERSONALITY OF THE WEEK

The apparent suicide of Ethiopian maid, Alem Dechasa-Desisa, in Lebanon highlights the dangers faced by expatriate domestic workers in the Middle East.

Thousands of African and South East Asian women leave their homelands with the promise of a better life to take up jobs as domestic workers or maids in the Middle East. These women aim to send the money earned back to relatives in their home countries. These domestic workers often suffer mental, sexual and physical abuse silently in the homes of their employers unaware of the laws in the countries in which they reside. The women are also often afraid to report to the authorities.

Alem Dechasa-Desisa hung herself after being humiliated by her employer who dragged her across the streets before forcefully shoving her into a car. The assault was filmed and has been broadcast on Lebanese TV. She was thereafter taken to hospital where she later hung herself. Reports of the mistreatment of women who leave their impoverished countries in search of opportunities which do not exist in the said countries can no longer be ignored. We hope that the unfortunate death of Alem Dechasa-Desisa forces the governments of the Middle East into taking steps to prevent the frankly deplorable treatment which domestic workers of maids are subjected to in these countries.

RECENT SPATE OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS THREATEN TO PUSH IRAQ OVER THE PRECIPICE

The recent spate of suicide bomb attacks in Iraq has not only stoked tensions in a country criss-crossed by several fault lines but also threatens the overall stability of the already fractured Middle East region. The latest attack occurred in the Southern city of Basra this weekend which killed scores and wounded many. Initial reports indicated that 15 people had lost their lives in the attack; however, the figure has now risen to about 53 at the time of writing while around 100 are said to have been injured.


Latest Attacks

The attacker was said to have been in possession of a fake police ID and was wearing an Iraqi police uniform. Initial reports allege that the perpetrator approached a police checkpoint and appeared to hand out “sweets” to Shia Muslims making their way to a Mosque to celebrate the Shi’ite holy festival of Arbain. The suicide bomber then blew himself up in a crowd comprising mostly of police officers and Shi’ite pilgrims upon being approached by a police officer. The latest attacks add to the worrying spate of terror being unleashed against Shia Muslims in the cities of Baghdad and Nasariya which left 72 dead last week.


Operation Iraqi Freedom

The recent attacks lay bare sectarian divisions which exist in the post-Saddam Iraq only months after President Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign pledge of withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq. President Obama’s decision has met fierce criticism in some quarters as many doubt that the Iraqi state security apparatus has the capacity to contain threats posed by militants to internal security. Unfortunately, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush administration-led military mission aimed at dislodging Saddam has thus far failed to yield the various promises made at its onset on 19th March 2003. In contrast the human and financial cost, as well as other as yet unquantifiable costs of the 9-year long operation appears to outweigh any benefits which even the most ardent protagonists of the Iraq war can claim the country has gained following the invasion. Harrowingly, the Lancet Journal reported in 2006 that a total of 654,965 people had lost their lives following the invasion. Figures from the US Department of Defence reveal that the U.S lost about 4,487 military personnel in Iraq since 2003. In addition, the financial costs of the war have been estimated by the US Congressional Research Service (CRS) as amounting to $801.9 billion. The “catastrophic success”, the belated term coined by George W. Bush in 2004 to describe the operation to overthrow Saddam appears now to be an overstatement when the financial and human costs of the incursion are taken into account.


Political Impasse

The country’s make-shift coalition has also been paralysed by political impasse. The stability of the power-sharing government has been threatened by allegations of favouritism, marginalisation and distrust. Tensions have been particularly fraught since an arrest warrant was issued against Iraq’s most senior Sunni Arab politician, Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi over claims that he funded attacks on the Iraqi government and security forces. The allegations are also said to have been substantiated by individuals employed as Mr Hashemi’s bodyguards at the time. Mr Hashemi remains a fugitive in the Iraq Kurdistan region of the country and remains under the protection of the Kurdish regional government who have refused to give him up despite calls from Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The dispute has led to the boycott of the assembly by the al-Iraqiyya group, who are the main Sunni bloc in parliament. The group claims that the arrest warrant is merely a witch-hunt by the Shia-dominated government against the Sunni Muslim minority.


The Future

It would not be erroneous to assert that these divisions were less apparent in the ‘old Iraq’ ruled by the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. Aside the tit for tat attack by Sunnis against Shi’ite Muslims and vice versa, calls for autonomy voiced by the Kurdish area of the country and attacks against minority Christians, many of whom have left the country as a result, the country’s stability is complicated by the politics of the volatile Middle East region it finds itself in. Turkey’s attempts at asserting influence over the region, the Sunni Muslim rebellion in neighbouring Syria, the Shia majority ruled Iran’s relationship with Iraq’s Shi’ite leaders and mistrust of Sunni ruled Saudi Arabia are only but a few curve balls which the government has had to confront.

The autocratic demeanour exhibited by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has played a central role in the impossible current state of affairs. The stability of the country depends on his ability to compromise with the different factions making up the power-sharing government. Any positive changes to the current state of impasse will depend on this ability; after all, this is supposed to be a ‘power-sharing’ government. Moreover, the country’s leaders need to set an example to its populace by airing out difficulties via the arena provided by the negotiating table rather than through the issuance of arrest warrants or threats issued through the media. Only then will the message seep through to the country’s people that communication rather than violence is the most effective means of settling disputes.

In addition, the country’s security apparatus needs to be significantly strengthened to protect its people from the havoc wreaked by suicide bombers. To this end, there needs to be a change of focus towards pre-emptive action by the Iraqi government and this can be achieved by enhancing its intelligence services. Perhaps, it could seek the assistance of the US in this regard although a request of this nature may compromise its relationship with Iran who are alleged to have twisted Iraq’s arms into ensuring the exit of US combat troops from the country. Importantly, it is vital for the country’s people to see tangible benefits of living in the post-Saddam Iraq. The post-Saddam Iraq is still as poor as the Saddam ruled Iraq, and to compound matters, is also less secure. The next few months are critical times for the country although its future unfortunately rests in the hands of its pugnacious leader, Nouri al-Maliki. 1worldinternational urges its readers to watch this space.

GLOBAL PERSONALITY OF THE WEEK

This week's global personality of the week is Nabeel Rajab, the President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. It was reported this week that Mr Rajab was allegedly beaten up by the government's security forces. 1worldinternational wishes Mr Rajab a swift recovery from his injuries and hopes his fight for democracy in the country does not falter in the face of intimidation.

KAZAKHSTAN ON THE EDGE FOLLOWING DEADLY CLASHES

Granted, the world’s 9th largest country did not make our ‘2012 countries to watch list'; however Kazakhstan would unfailingly make its way onto the reserve list if yours truly had compiled one.

On 16th December 2011 security forces in the western city of Zhanaozen are reported to have opened fire on an unarmed group of demonstrators consisting largely of striking oil workers. The violence left 16 dead and over 100 injured. In addition, buildings and public infrastructure were also said to have been destroyed during the disturbance. It is reported that the protests were led by oil workers in Zhanaozen who had been on strike since May 2011 demanding favourable pay and working conditions. The protests of 16th December coincided with the country’s 20th anniversary of its independence and have been described as the worst civil disturbance in its 20 odd years as an independent nation. The clashes have led observers to conclude that this may be the catalyst for further mass disturbances in the coming weeks, especially with parliamentary and local elections scheduled to take place later this month.

The indiscriminate shooting of unarmed protestors was initially denied by the security forces and instead blamed on criminal gangs and “hooligan elements” until footage of the shooting of the unarmed demonstrators appeared on the internet. As a result, the office of the Prosecutor-General last week opened a criminal inquiry into the use of weapons by police following the disturbance. Some police officers have also been charged for their part in the clashes and are said to face 10 years in prison if convicted for the crime of abuse of office. The official spokesman of the Kazakh Prosecutor-General’s office, Nurdaulet Suindikar, confirmed that criminal cases against officers were launched on charges of “abuse of authority and official powers involving the use of weapons or special equipment.” Government officials have also muted the possibility of inviting the United Nations to investigate the clashes.

The clashes have been seen by observers as a blow to the country’s image as Central Asia’s most stable nation. President Nursultan Nazarbayev and his associates have successfully sold this image of the country to the West in the last decade, whilst at the same time, concealing the darker elements of his regime. Luckily for him, the West has not sought to dig deeper into the glossy image of Kazakhstan which we are being sold. Mr Nazarbayev has ruled the country since its independence in 1991 and has presided over an autocratic regime accused of nepotism, corruption, human tights abuse and autocracy. Mr Nazarbayev is currently serving a 4th term as President having won elections in April 2011 which independent observers panned as fraudulent. The ruling party led by Mr Nazarbayev also holds all the seats in both houses of Parliament in the country.

The government’s spin machine has gone into overdrive in its attempts to play down the clashes as a one-off incident. Nevertheless, no amount of spin can gloss over the huge social inequalities in a country blessed with oil resources. The latest clashes have also led human rights groups to call into question the country’s questionable human rights credentials. Human Rights Watch has called on the government to investigate allegations of torture. The organisation has particularly highlighted the recent death of a political detainee from “injuries sustained in police custody”. The government’s crackdown on independent media, internet coverage, mobile phone coverage and social networking in the western region of the country during the clashes has also led to allegations of censorship being laid at the feet of the government. It is also reported that restrictions were also placed on the few journalists who were allowed access to the scene of the clashes.

As was the case in Yemen, a blind eye has conveniently been turned away from the concerns raised by human rights organisations because the country is of strategic importance to the West. The West has invested heavily in the country’s energy industry and Kazakhstan has assisted immensely in transporting NATO supplies to Afghanistan. Its cooperation with the West appears to be a form of payment in return for buying the silence of Western leaders who, by their actions or lack of, send the erroneous message to despots that the West will not take them to task on human rights standards so long as they happen to be of use to us.

2011 NEWS STORIES OF THE YEAR AND ONES TO WATCH IN 2012

Today, 1worldinternational compiles and publishes its list of the most newsworthy stories of 2011 and predictions of 2012’s expected headlines. In no particular order, the following countries provided 2011’s most newsworthy stories:

1. Tunisia – The country held its first elections following the end of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s twenty something year rule. Many forget that the wind of change generated by the Arab spring emanated from the self immolation of Tunisia’s Mohamed Bouazizi.

2. South Sudan – The country became the 193rd state party to the UN Charter following a referendum in which 99% voted in favour of secession from Sudan.

3. Egypt – 2011 saw the end of the reign of Hosni Mubarak’s authoritarian 30-year rule. Mr Mubarak is at present facing trial for charges of murder which carries the death penalty if found guilty.

4. Libya – The UN Security Council Resolution 1973 brought Muammar Gaddafi’s 42 year rule to an end. Unfortunately Colonel Gaddafi did not live long enough to face the law before the Courts as he met his death in what can best be described as mysterious circumstances.

5. Cote d’Ivoire – Troops loyal to the incumbent President Alassane Ouattara overpowered rival forces led by Laurent Gbagbo following a disputed election reportedly won by the former. Mr Gbagbo will face the International Criminal Court (ICC) next year.

6. Serbia – Europe’s most wanted man and Bosnian Serb, Ratko Mladic, was finally captured after years of being on the run. The phrase ‘justice delayed is not justice denied’ could not be more apt on this occasion.

7. Afghanistan – The al-Qaeda figurehead, Osama bin Laden was shot dead by American troops in Pakistan. The al-Qaeda leader was said to have been a resident of Pakistan for a while. The violence still continues thus disproving the belief that the most effective way of killing a snake is by chopping its head off.

8. Palestine – With Mahmoud Abbas at the helm furthering its cause, Palestine was granted full membership of UNESCO although his quest for independence at the UN Security Council was unsuccessful. Mr Abbas is likely to say that the UNESCO endorsement is a step further towards its goal of full recognition as a nation.

9. Yemen – Like his Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian counterparts, the Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 33-year reign came to an end in 2012. Under an agreement drafted by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Mr Saleh will formally step down from power in February/March of 2012.

10. Saudi Arabia – The unthinkable happened when King Abdullah decreed that women would for the first time have the right to vote and run in local elections from 2015.


ONES TO WATCH IN 2012

1. Afghanistan – Following President Barack Obama’s declaration, it is expected that the 33,000 US troops in Afghanistan will leave the country by mid -2012. With the level of violence being experienced by the country from insurgents at this time, President Obama may need to re-evaluate this move.

2. South Sudan – Latest clashes between the world’s newest country and its neighbour, Sudan, has the potential to escalate into a full blown conflict. Watch this space as they say.

3. Russia – Prime Minister Putin and yours truly never thought the day would come when protesters would defy threats of intimidation and the authorities to voice their displeasure over alleged rigged elections in the country. It remains to be seen whether the protests will lead to a rerun of the disputed elections or even, be the precursor to the end of Mr Putin’s presidential bid.

4. Iran – The country’s burgeoning nuclear ambitions have been frowned upon by the likes of Britain, USA and Israel. The proclamations of the Ayatollah and President Ahmedinejad have certainly not helped matters. With recent murmurings of Israeli and US joint military action, one fears we have not heard the last of this one.

5. North Korea – Kim Jong Un was named Supreme Commander following the death of his father Kim Jong Il earlier this month. Observers hope that a new course of action will be taken by the new leader in terms of its relationship with the international community. Kim Jong Un’s recent warning to South Korea and its allies that there will be no change in policy perhaps extinguishes the aforementioned hope.

6. Congo – Joseph Kabila’s disputed election victory in December 2011 led to violence, looting and destruction in this already conflict-ridden country. One of his opponents during the elections, Etienne Tshisekedi rejected the election results and proceeded to swear himself in as President. At present, there is no indication of any dialogue taking place between the parties; therefore one can only predict a continuation of the topsy turvy state of affairs which the country is now used to.

7. Iraq – 39,000 US troops were withdrawn this year after a 9-year campaign in the country which saw the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. There are real fears of sectarian violence and political impasse following the withdrawal.

8. The Middle East – Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. Needless to say, there will be numerous newsworthy articles emanating from this region of the world as has always been the case.

9. China – Like Russia, few would have thought that protesters would be able to summon up courage to voice their distaste for the country’s ruling party and the endemic corruption prevalent in the nation. Will the Arab Spring spread to the Far East? One doubts it though one would have had to be a prophet to predict the downfalls of Gaddafi, Mubarak, Ben Ali and Saleh in 2011.

10. Yemen – Mr Saleh’s agreed handover date of February/March 2012 steadily approaches although this has not provided much delight to Yemenis as Mr Saleh has in the past reneged on promises made to leave power. The world watches with bated breath.

RENEWED CLASHES IN YEMEN LEAD TO FEARS OF FURTHER MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY

The recent renewal of hostilities between forces loyal to the President of Yemen, Mr Ali Abdullah Saleh and demonstrators protesting against the government have led to fears of further instability in this already fragile region of the world. The clashes on 24th and 25th December led to the deaths of 9 people and saw dozens injured by government security forces who opened fire on demonstrators in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. The government attacks were said to have been led by military units overseen by the nephew and son of Mr Saleh. The recent deaths add to the unofficial figures of hundreds and thousands of people who have been killed and injured respectively in clashes in the major cities of Sanaa, Taiz and Aden since protests began in January 2011.


History

The first rays of the Arab spring hit Yemen on 27th January 2011 when protesters took to the streets and other cities in the Southern cities of the country demanding an end to President Saleh’s 33 year reign. The interceding months have seen a state of emergency been imposed in the country and the defection of senior army officials. In April, President Saleh was injured in an attack on his presidential compound forcing him to leave the country temporarily to seek treatment in Saudi Arabia.


The Deal

Following Mr Saleh’s return to the country on 23rd September 2011, the 6 Arab countries which make up the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) and the UN brokered a deal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia which amongst others entailed that Mr Saleh was to relinquish power 3 months after agreeing the deal. The agreement was signed on 23rd November 2011.


Terms of the Deal

• Vice-President, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi will form a power-sharing government within 14 days of signature of the deal.
• The opposition coalition will nominate a Prime Minister.
• The Vice-President will negotiate the demilitarisation of the city of Sanaa.
• President Saleh will relinquish full control in early February 2012, 90 days after signing the deal.
• The Vice-President will be elected President and oversee constitutional and parliamentary reforms.
• President Saleh and his allies will have immunity from prosecution.


Latest Clashes

The deal was expected to usher in a period of stability following the year-long episode of skirmishes and violence which has seen hundreds killed. The latest clashes appear to have resulted from fears that President Saleh will renege on the agreement to step down from power as was the case in June 2011. The protesters have also demanded that the acting leader and the country’s former Vice-President, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who is seen as the puppet of the outgoing leader, should resign. The protesters have also voiced concerns about the fact that the agreement, the terms of which have been covered above, entitles Mr Saleh to immunity from prosecution. The protesters have called for the immunity to be revoked.


Saleh’s vows to leave

In the aftermath of the latest clashes, Mr Saleh has been forced to publicly deny any intentions of reneging on the deal. Mr Saleh stated: “I will go to the USA not for treatment, because I’m fine, but to get away from attention, cameras, and allow the unity government to prepare properly for elections”. He added: “I’ll be there for several days, but I’ll return because I won’t leave my people and comrades who have been steadfast for 11 months,” he said. “I’ll withdraw from political work and go into the street as part of the opposition.” Mr Saleh also urged the country’s neighbours to assist Yemenis in establishing law and order in the country. Mr Saleh continued: “An unstable Yemen means an unstable region. So protect the security, unity and stability of Yemen. Neighbour states, its security is yours.”


Fears of civil strife

The latest skirmishes are the last thing the Arab world’s poorest nation needs at this time, not least because it is bedevilled with other problems relating to poverty, high unemployment rates, soaring food prices, oil and water scarcity issues. Added to these is sectarian violence between fighters within the Shia and Sunni communities and attacks against the government by fighters linked to al-Qaeda. Issues are also complicated by a rebellion by militants from the southern part of the country seeking the reestablishment of their own nation which existed pre-unification in 1990.


Sound-off

Yemen is of strategic importance for several reasons, namely its geographical proximity to the gulf’s major oil fields and major shipping lanes in the Arabian and Red seas. It has also been instrumental in providing a base in the west’s fight against al-Qaeda. Recent clashes will not only affect these but will also lead to a flood of refugees and further instability in a region still recovering from the aftershocks caused by the Arab world’s recent awakening. Mr Saleh’s planned February/March 2012 exit is to be watched closely. Needless to say, the seed of political impasse planted by Mr Saleh and his affiliates will swiftly germinate into civil war if he fails to follow through on his promise to leave as agreed.

SYRIA: THE UNSOLVED PROBLEM

On Saturday, November 5, the Reuters News Agency reported that clashes between Syrian government forces and protesters had resulted in the deaths of at least 5 civilians and injuries to dozens in the city of Homs. The continuing episodes of violence perpetrated by the Syrian government is starkly at odds with its promise to end attacks on protesters dissatisfied with President Bashar al-Assad’s administration over his failure to implement reforms in the country. The deaths on Saturday bring the total number of civilians killed since Tuesday to at least 82.

Followers of the Syrian uprising will recall that earlier in the week, President al-Assad’s government endorsed the five-point plan devised by the 22-nation Arab League which was aimed at bringing about a cessation of hostilities in the country. The peace plan in Cairo resulted in the following agreements being reached:-

• That there shall be an end to violence and killings
• That the Syrian government shall grant access to Arab and international media to monitor the situation.
• That the government shall release prisoners recently detained
• That the Damascus government shall remove all military equipment from Syrian cities
• That the government and opposition shall engage in dialogue within 2 weeks.

The Secretary-General of the Arab league, Nabil Elaraby fears that the violence which has resulted in the aftermath of the Arab League devised plan “would lead to catastrophic results for the situation in Syria and the region as a whole.” He added: “the Syrian government needs to take immediate steps to protect civilians.” Although the government has not released a press statement in defence of these latest actions, it is however inevitable that it will claim that its actions are aimed at Islamic militants and organised fighters as it has done in the past to justify its abhorrent use of force against civilians. The government’s attempts to crush protests around the country have led to the deaths of an estimated 3,000 people according to the United Nations.

Observers recall the sense of optimism which greeted President al-Assad’s assumption of leadership of the country and the ruling Baath party in 2000 following the iron-fisted 30-year rule of his father, Hafez al-Assad who spared no rod in quashing dissent. President al-Assad’s first deeds in power included sanctioning the release of political prisoners and easing media restrictions. However the air of change expected to have been ushered in by Assad junior never materialised, hence the 7-month long protests.

Following the failure of the Arab plan less than a week after its birth, stakeholders in the Middle East and the international community will surely be wracking their brains over the Syrian problem. There is certainly no appetite for NATO or international military action in the aftermath of the Libyan bombing raids undertaken by NATO. China and Russia, the latter with its significant business interests in Syria, namely arms sales, are likely to veto any moves for intervention in Syria as was the case early last month when they rejected a UN Security Council Resolution condemning the violence in Syria. To date, the US has taken a back seat in attempts to curb the violence with the sum total of its engagement being President Obama’s plea for President al-Assad to “step aside”. Any success in ensuring a stop to the violence in Syria will certainly require greater US and UN involvement.

It was hoped that the continued violence would result in the defection of Syrian Generals close to the president; however this has failed to happen, as such alternatives need to be considered. Therefore the UN approval of an observer mission and human rights monitors to operate in Syria in order to monitor and assess first-hand the claims and allegations of violence and human rights abuse by the Damascus government may yet be a proposal palatable to China and Russia who fear another Libya. To this end, the US and the other members of the Council must defuse the fears of the Russiana and Chinese by stressing that the observer mission is no prelude to the military action they fear may result if they agree to sanction a resolution regarding the Syrian problem.

In addition, the recently established Syrian National Council, a conglomerate of seven opposition groups akin to the Libyan National Transitional Council, was formed to create a singular voice for opponents of the Syrian government. Its Charter advocates press freedom, greater democracy, and political pluralism amongst others. The group led by Burham Ghalian, should be provided additional support and stronger backing, financial and otherwise by the international community. This backing will enable opponents to finance broadcasts, produce publications, and utilise social media in rallying opponents of the government. The backing will no doubt prop up and encourage the opposition in the face of attacks by the government.

Perhaps more effectively, sanctions and trade embargoes imposed by the UN, the EU, or Syria’s trade partners should be considered as they may be the most successful tool in bringing the government to its knees. The European Union ban on imports which commences in November will affect oil and gas export revenue, products which are said to account for a significant part of the Syrian government’s revenue. The ban is expected to deepen the Syrian economic crises which began following the government’s attempts to forcefully quell peaceful protests. Failing these, it is inevitable that the violence brought upon the Syrian people by its leaders will continue until the day the Chinese and Russians decide to put the interests of ordinary Syrians above that of its business interests.