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.

CONGO: ON THE BRINK

It perhaps came as no surprise to global affairs observers when the Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic of Congo on Friday, 16th December 2011, confirmed the victory of the incumbent President Joseph Kabila following recent elections in the country.


Democratic Elections

The election of 28th November 2011 was the country’s second democratic elections in forty years. The first democratic election was held in 2006 and ushered in the presidency of Joseph Kabila. On that occasion, Joseph Kabila won a run-off poll having amassed 58% of the votes. However Mr. Kabila has been in charge since 2001 following the assassination of his Father, Laurent Kabila in the same year.


Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court President Jerome Kitoko rejected a challenge by the opposition to annul the election results and declared Mr Kabila winner with 48.95% of the votes. Mr Kabila’s main challengers Etienne Tshisekedi and Vital Kamerhe polled 32% and 7% respectively. Following the elections, Mr Tshisekedi voiced strongly his disapproval with what he thought was a flawed election process and has since proceeded to declare himself president. Mr Kamerhe on the other hand has indicated that he would mount a challenge against the results by way of court action.


Flawed Elections

International observers who followed the elections with eagle eyes trained on the electoral process have also loudly voiced their disapprovals with the election results. Following the publication of the results, the US State Department stated that the elections were “seriously flawed”. The US Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Congo, James Entwistle proferred: “The US believes that the management and technical execution of these elections were seriously flawed”. The European Union (EU) also buttressed this assertion in adding that the election process was “chaotic”. The group of 26 teams of observers dispatched by the non-profit US based Carter Centre to monitor the elections also concluded that the results “lack credibility”.


Support for Kabila

Mr Kabila will however take heart from the fact that the African Union (AU), led by one of Africa’s numerous dictators, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of the Equatorial Guinea, concluded that the polls were “successful”. Leaders from Africa's Great Lakes region have also voiced support for President Joseph Kabila following the disputed poll results and urged Mr Kabila’s opponents to accept the result. Leaders from Burundi, Central African Republic, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia attended the meeting. In its statement to the press following the end of the two-day International Conference on the Great Lakes Region summit in Kampala, Uganda, the group congratulated the president of DRC on his re-election and urged “those not satisfied with the election results to accept them and work towards building the country".


Post-Election Violence

Prior to the elections, it was feared that civil unrest would result following its conclusion due to simmering tensions in the country. As expected, post election violence has unfortunately marred the ‘victory’ of Joseph Kabila. It has been reported that civilians have been killed in the aftermath, neighbourhoods set on fire, roads and public infrastructure have been destroyed, looting and a total breakdown of law and order is also widespread. Europe has also not emerged unscathed from the recent events in central Africa. It was reported last week that police in London were called upon to quell riots in the city sparked by protesters challenging the results of the elections. Scotland Yard reported that a total of 139 arrests were made in connection with offences including criminal violence, violent disorder and affray.


On the Brink of Civil War

Recent events are a setback to a nation which has been trapped in the vortex of conflict for decades which has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 4 million people. The end of the civil war in 2003 was expected to usher in a period of stability unknown to a large number of the population. Africa’s second largest country and the world’s twelfth largest country seems on the brink of a return to civil unrest and further bloodshed. It goes without saying that the country has been failed by its previous leaders. One wishes that its current leaders can steer the country towards a different path, but recent events seem to indicate that its previous and current leaders are cut from the same cloth. 1worldinternational certainly hopes that Laurent Kabila, Mr Kabila’s inner circle and the opposition leaders can prove us wrong.

BOKO HARAM: THE NEW AL-QAEDA?

The recent report presented to the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security by the Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence titled “Boko Haram: Emerging Threat to the US Homeland” highlights the increasing danger to national and international security which the Nigerian terror group now poses. The report chaired by Patrick Meehan, Chairman of the US Congressional Committee, declared that Boko Haram has “quickly evolved and poses an emerging threat to US interests and the US homeland”.

Alarmingly, the report acknowledged the potential link between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda which has previously been suspected by observers. It stated: “Boko Haram has the intent and may be developing capability to co-ordinate on a rhetorical and operational level” with al-Qaeda which is active in Africa, including in Algeria, Mali, Niger and Somalia. One notes that al-Shabab, the militant group with very close links to al-Qaeda has been engaged in a long-running conflict with the Somali government.


Who are Boko Haram?

Boko Haram is an Islamic organisation which was formed in 2002 with the aim of establishing an Islamic state in Northern Nigeria as it considers the present government unislamic and one which is run by unbelievers. The group is headquartered in the North-Eastern Nigerian city of Maiduguri and its official name of Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, translates as “people committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”

The group has been responsible for attacks on government buildings, churches, public infrastructure and police buildings which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people in the country although the death toll may surpass that presented in official figures. The profile of the group was previously restricted to the country’s populace; however that changed on 26th August 2011 when it orchestrated a bold suicide-bomb attack on the UN Headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s capital city, killing about 24 people. The group was also blamed for an attack in the Nigerian North-Eastern town of Damaturu which resulted in the deaths of dozens of people.


The Report’s Aims

It has been stated by those involved in producing the report that the US would take positive action in addressing the threat posed by Boko Haram so as to avoid a repeat of its intelligence services initial underestimation of militant groups such as al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network which is based in Pakistan. The report’s authors highlight the need for swift action in dealing with Boko Haram in stating: “If the US acts quickly on the military, intelligence and diplomatic fronts, it can ensure the relative protection of US interests while assisting the Nigerian government in containing Boko Haram.” The Nigerian government’s security forces have so far been unable to contain the threat posed by Boko Haram despite the deployment of a substantial number of military personnel to the Northern region of the country. Observers of recent events will not fail to have noticed recent comments made by President Goodluck Jonathan that the government intends to commence negotiations with the group.


Opposition to the Change in Government’s Tactics

This latest move, namely engaging in dialogue with the group, has however been met with the discerning cries of critics, not least that of the influential Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). In the keynote speech delivered by its President, Chief J.B. Daudu, at an event held last week – Human Rights National Security: The Challenges of Terrorism and Response of Law Enforcement Agencies in Nigeria – the NBA highlighted that any meetings between the government and Boko Haram may have the unwanted effect of sending a message to like-minded groups that the government only listens in the face of intimidation and terror. The NBA National President stressed: “The danger is not in the fact that negotiation on its own is not good but that (i) you are dealing with bounty-hunters and other opportunists and (ii) such meetings may send the signal to like-minded people prone to engage in similar acts that the government only listens when you intimidate and resort to terror.”


Recommendations of the Report

Despite the valid criticism, one can understand the change in tactic of the government. Certainly the deployment of military forces has not borne fruit and one can argue that the government is only taking a leaf out of the US and NATO book as both have proceeded to engage the Taliban in dialogue after 10 or so fruitless years of military warfare. It remains to be seen whether dialogue will prevent the further escalation of hostilities in a country of 150 million where poverty, corruption and insecurity are rife. The US and the Nigerian government will also do well to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Central to these were closer liaison between US Intelligence agencies and Nigerian security services, and increased US support for programmes which enhance the ability of Nigerian forces to target and counter Boko Haram attacks. Whatever one’s views on probable solutions to this issue, global security analysts will however welcome the fact that lessons have been learnt from the failure of the international community to tackle al-Qaeda in its infancy before it morphed into a full grown adult capable of carrying out attacks on the scale of 9/11.

PART 2:- HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: AN EVALUATION OF THE CASE FOR THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

1worldinternational presents the concluding part of its analysis on humanitarian intervention. The examination has sought to investigate the legality of the concept of 'humanitarian intervention' and whether it is recognised by the UN Charter. We also sought to ascertain whether such action can only be sanctioned by the UN and also to examine the legality of military action triggered by one or more states acting in tandem where mass crimes are being perpetrated by a third state. One wishes that there was enough time to explore this topic in more depth; however, we hope to cover this matter extensively in the future therefore please watch this space.
.................................................................................................................................
ii. Humanitarian intervention brought about by disruption to democracy

It may also be argued that disruption to democracy which results in a humanitarian crisis could possibly constitute a 'threat to peace and security'. The Security Council passed two resolutions - 217(1965) and 221(1966) - by which an internal situation which was established by the white, racist, minority regime was declared as the existence of a 'threat to peace'. This evidence could be said to imply that the Security Council outlaws illegitimate and anti-democratic governments and their existence constitutes a 'threat to the peace'. Resolution 940(1994) authorising Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti legitimised the use of force in support of democracy. The Council recognised the potential of a humanitarian crisis following the overthrow of the democratic government led by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide which resulted in the exodus of Haitians seeking refuge in neighbouring member states and the recognition by the UN of the existence of a potential 'threat to peace and security in the region'.

The Council consequently passed a resolution authorising a multinational force to use "all necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti of the military leadership…the prompt return of the legitimately elected President and the restoration of the legitimate authorities of the Government". Certainly, ‘the climate of fear of persecution, economic dislocation and humanitarian crisis’ recognised by resolution 841(1993) in terms of the Haiti situation is comparable to the present situation in Syria, and potentially constitutes a threat to international peace and security in the region were it to continue.


THE ABSENCE OF A CONSENSUS ON THE CONCEPT OF ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’

The various attempts to justify a right to humanitarian intervention based on customary international law provides an uncertain basis for claims and is at present still subject to general consensus. The International Court of Justice’s position in the Nicaragua case explicitly indicated no such support for a customary international law right of humanitarian intervention. Responding to the United States’ claim, it stated: “While the United States might form its own appraisal of the situation as to the respect for human rights in Nicaragua, the use of force could not be an appropriate method to monitor or ensure such respect…the court concludes that the argument derived from the preservation of human rights in Nicaragua cannot afford legal justification for the conduct of the United States".

The Court in the Nicaragua case also outlined the criteria for the formation of new rules of customary international law asserting, “either the states taking such action or other states in a position to react to it must have behaved so that their conduct is evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a new rule of law requiring it". The Court therefore found that this line of reasoning, that is one in which most countries believed in the existence of a right to intervene where mass crimes are being perpetrated, was not only redundant, but also could not justify the intervention of the US in the internal affairs of another country. In this context, the assertion of the illegality of NATO’s actions in the Security Council by various countries, the reservations made again regarding the illegality of NATO’s action at the thirteenth meeting of the Human Rights Commission and the condemnation of all military actions outside the UN Charter framework without authorisation by the Security Council expressed in the final document issued at the 8th Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement clearly do not support the use of force beyond Charter purposes.

It is also argued that the scope of a customary international right of humanitarian intervention opens doors to ‘self-serving formulations’ that may assert that illegal acts are consistent with the rule of law as states may intervene on the pretext of such principle. It is therefore unsurprising that a majority of interventions based on humanitarian grounds such as the United State’s incursions in Grenada and Panama have been disclaimed by the international community. Significantly, the International Court of Justice was also unwilling to recognise the possibility that every state has a responsibility (termed erga omnes obligations) to resort to countermeasures involving the use of force if another state is engaging in grave breaches of fundamental obligations. In this regard the Court stated: "the acts of which Nicaragua was accused could not justify countermeasures taken by a third state, the United States, and particularly could not justify intervention involving the use of force". This authoritative assertion seems to categorically preclude the existence of a right to ‘humanitarian intervention’, which permits a state or group of states intervening where mass crimes exist without UN authorisation.


CONCLUDING REMARKS

To conclude, the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in view of the Kosovo intervention surmised: "there are times when use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace...under the Charter, the security council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, therefore the council should be involved in any decision to resort to the use of force". The nature of the Security Council's power under Chapter VII will be invoked if regimes are deemed a threat to peace. It is unlikely here that disruption to democracy will constitute sufficient grounds for intervention in for example, Burma as it lacks the 'humanitarian' element present in Haiti and Sierra Leone. However, the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Sudan provides a probable ground for intervention, buttressed by the existence of internal conflicts in both countries. Attempts have also been made to construe the protection of human rights as compatible with a customary international law right of humanitarian intervention. The acceptance of such a right would legitimise recourse to the use of force by a state or group of states on the basis of humanitarian intervention when necessity prevails.

However, firm evidence of global opinion is still yet to emerge. Further, it is of note that none of the existing international courts decisions have explicitly legitimised such interventions. Most notably, General Assembly resolutions and declarations as to intervention on humanitarian grounds and importantly the reluctance of NATO members to give detailed arguments pertaining the lawfulness of the intervention is perhaps evidence of widespread opposition to the rule. Also, while contemporary international law suggests that some breaches of international law could entail enforcement by states as whole, international legal instruments such as the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility and the UN commissioned Responsibility to Protect report which seems to accommodate the prospect of collective security action albeit expressly excluding countermeasures. Therefore while the UN’s staggered response to repressive regimes where necessity is required such as in Rwanda and latterly in Bahrain and Syria where grave violation of human rights persist has been subject to criticism, Security Council action still seems to constitute the sole legal basis for the removal of such regimes.

PART 1:- HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: AN EVALUATION OF THE CASE FOR THE FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

While the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ was not explicitly recognised and addressed by the United Nations Charter, some have argued that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security, to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide, breaches of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric.

This article therefore intends to examine in some detail whether contemporary international law imposes a duty on states to intervene in a third state such as Syria where mass crimes including crimes against humanity or war crimes et al are being perpetrated, although within the confines of the United Nations legal regime. The article will address this matter over two parts with the concluding part published next week.

..................................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION

The UN General Assembly on the legality of intervention once recognised that: "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of any other states...all forms of interference or threats against the personality of the state or against its political, economic or cultural elements are in violation of international law”. It is said that signatories to the UN Charter have delegated their right to unilateral enforcement to the UN, save on the grounds of self-defence where states are allowed to respond to the attack in the circumstances. The Security Council is thus endowed with the responsibility of undertaking executive action in order to prevent, punish a threat to or breach of the peace or act of aggression. The difficulty in ascertaining when an armed conflict constitutes or potentially constitutes a 'threat to peace and security' within the meaning of the Charter is readily apparent in many episodes that have confronted the international community since the adoption of the Charter. In the context of humanitarian intervention, the United States relied on this argument on numerous occasions over the years, most notably in Grenada and Panama. Although some identify a gradual evolution of customary international law permitting intervention by states in the event of humanitarian catastrophe, the Charter's text will undoubtedly be compromised in that event. Against this background, while the removal of, for example, the Syrian regime might be noble and ethical its legality will however be uncertain.


THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON THE USE OF FORCE

Article 51 of the UN Charter which confers on individual states an 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence' and Security Council authorised enforcement actions under Chapter VII constitute the only exceptions to Article 2(4) which prohibits 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations'. The Security Council is accorded primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and pursuant to Article 34 may investigate any dispute which might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. Under Chapter VII, the Council may take any action including the use of armed force 'as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security'. A determination of a threat to peace or breach of the peace made by the Security Council in response to the situations in for example, Syria or Sudan, will serve as a legitimate trigger for Chapter VII enforcement action circumventing the domestic jurisdiction clause of Article 2(7). Nevertheless, a more fundamental difficulty however will be establishing the existence of elements such as humanitarian crises or a disruption to democracy in Syria which have served as a precursor to intervention in the past, most notably in Somalia and Haiti.


THE CONCEPT OF ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’

i. Humanitarian intervention brought about by human rights abuses

It is increasingly being accepted that the concept of international peace and security appears to have acquired meaning beyond traditional collective security (envisaged as collective response to armed attack), to one in which ethnic cleansing, genocide and other gross violations of human rights, as well as grave breaches of humanitarian law, including those encompassed within a state's own borders are considered parts of the security fabric. Humanitarian intervention was recognised in the Council's resolution which expressed demand for urgent response by the international community, determining that the magnitude of the humanitarian crises in Rwanda constituted a threat to international peace and security in the region. The Council authorised 'operations aimed at protecting displaced persons, refugees and civilians at risk, using 'all necessary means to achieve these humanitarian objectives'. Humanitarianism was reiterated in the text of Security Council resolution 688(1991) which expressed grave concern over 'the repression of Iraqi citizens leading to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross border incursions, which threaten international peace in the region', demanding Iraq to end the repression immediately. If the line of authority espoused in Iraq and Rwanda is to be followed, the displacement of a large amount of the population, who have fled Syria following the political crisis in the country, certainly presents an international crisis and consequently constitutes a 'breach of peace' which falls within the ambit of Article 39, thus requiring enforcement.


TO BE CONTINUED

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ASKS IRAN TO CLARIFY ITS NUCLEAR INTENTION

Perhaps the most predictable conclusion to a report was reached by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog in their summation that Iran had carried out tests “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”.

As a result, the IAEA passed a resolution stating its “deep and increasing concern” about Iran’s nuclear intentions. The resolution also requests Iran to proffer explanations which excludes the possibility of any intention to use its nuclear programme for military purposes. The IAEA however stopped short of referring the matter to the UN Security Council (UNSC).

The compromise resolution was agreed by countries including the US, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany. The resolution is seen by some observers as evidence that the nations significantly involved in the decision-making process of global affairs and matters have the capacity to reach a consensus against the background of the prevarication which have they have previously displayed where situations have called for co-operation by the ‘big 6’.

Cynics will however argue that this effectively ‘watered down’ resolution will do nothing to prevent Iran from continuing its uranium-enrichment programme. The possibility of the imposition of sanctions muted by some permanent members of the UNSC was scuppered by the reticence of Russian and China in voting in favour of the same. The Iranian government however continues to deny that its uranium nuclear-enrichment programme is “specific to nuclear weapons”. Iran’s envoy to the IAEA stated in the aftermath of the publication of the report that its conclusion was politically motivated and that its enrichment programme is geared towards the development of fuel for use in nuclear power stations.

Nevertheless the prospect of a pre-emptive strike by Israel looms large on the horizon. Word emanating from senior members of the Israeli government namely, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister, Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres indicates as such. Even if Iran is to be believed that its nuclear enrichment programme is not “relevant to the development of a nuclear device”, recent comments by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khameinei, pledging to “end the Jewish state” certainly do not help matters. As a postscript, 1worldinternational notes that Pakistan attained nuclear capacity in the not too distant past although its conflict with India has not escalated as some assumed.

However, in the present matter, one dreads the repercussions associated with Iran’s intention to attain nuclear capacity as it is inevitable that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states will seek nuclear weaponry arguing that the threat of Iran necessitates such a measure. In view of the latest developments, 1worldinternational will urge its readers to watch this space.

UN ACCUSES SUDAN OF ASSAULT ON SOUTH SUDAN REFUGEES

At least a dozen people of South Sudanese origin were reported dead on 11th November 2011 following the latest wave of onslaught from Sudan government forces. This latest attack follows the spate of bombings carried out by Sudan armed forces near the border separating both countries a few days earlier on 8th November 2011.

Hilde Johnson, head of UNMISS (United Nations Mission in South Sudan) confirmed that 2 bombs landed inside the Yida refugee camp and 3 outside of it. The refugee camp which suffered the attacks shelters 20,000 people in the country’s Unity State and comprises largely of individuals fleeing violence in the Sudanese states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

These recent skirmishes have led to fears that Africa’s longest running civil war which ended following a 2005 peace deal may be reignited. It was hoped that the independence of South Sudan, gained after many years of conflict, on 9th July 2011, would usher in a period of long sought-after stability which the region has been stranger to for generations. However, disputes over the sharing of oil revenue, the oil-rich Abyei border region and ideological differences have made the prospect of peace somewhat distant.

The UN Under Secretary-General for peacekeeping operations, Herre Ladsous briefed the UN Security Council at the end of the past week about the latest attacks, specifically highlighting the role of the Sudanese armed forces in the violence. These sentiments were echoed by the UN Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, who has labelled the bombing of civilians an ‘international crime’ and called for an investigation into the bombing of the Yida refugee camp. The US has also voiced concerns over the safety of civilians and as a consequence has called for the cessation of hostilities in the region. “This bombing of civilians and humanitarian workers is an outrageous act, and those responsible must be held accountable for their actions”, said Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary in a statement to the press. He continued: “The US demands the government of Sudan to halt aerial bombardments immediately”.

The latest conflict has led to the withdrawal of the British aid agency, Oxfam from the upper Nile area of South Sudan. This move is a significant blow to the refugees in the area as Oxfam is the only provider of clean water for people displaced by violence. However, the Sudanese government’s representative to the UN, Daffa-Alla Elhag Ali Osman has denied any responsibility on the part of his government for the bombings and added that its actions are aimed at rebels operating in the region. In a statement, Mr Osman stressed that the government fully respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of South Sudan.

News of the latest attacks on civilians is no doubt troubling. Reputed press agencies, the Guardian and Voice of America recently reported findings by a US Satellite monitoring group which revealed that Sudan’s military was upgrading air bases near the border with South Sudan in order to enhance its air assault capacity. Observers worry that this is indicative of a clear intention by the government to launch a full scale aerial assault on its neighbours. President Omar al-Bashir’s government, which has been charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) over attacks on civilians in the Darfur region of the country, is spreading itself thin in terms of its military resources, not least because of its continued operation in the Darfur region of the country, which is in addition to the operations in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions of the country which are allegedly aimed at engaging armed rebels based in those regions.

The protection of civilians and refugees is paramount and one hopes that the UN carries out immediately the investigation called for by Navi Pillay, the organisation’s human rights chief. An opportunity was lost by the UN and the international community to check the obduracy of the Sudanese government during the course of the Darfur conflict. Lives depend upon positive action being taken by the UN in response to these latest series of incidents. The lives of these refugees are the UN’s business.