Links:
Environmental Developments
Asia (including the Middle East) & the Pacific
The UN & other International Developments
WORLD DEVELOPMENTS
Steve Sachs
Environmental Developments
Climate Frontlines informed, February 13, 2009 (peoples@climatefrontlines.org,: http://www.climatefrontlines.org/en-GB/node/169), the United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries Programme (UN-REDD) reports that Climate change is continuing to accelerate, with deforestation accounting for almost 20% of greenhouse gas emissions (according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)). REDD seeks to reduce this figure by giving forests a monetary value based on their capacity to store carbon and thus reduce greenhouse gases. REDD may eventually lead to developed countries paying developing ones to reduce emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation. According to a UNEP press release: “The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favor of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”. While there is general agreement that deforestation must be reduced, the recent UN Framework Convention on Climate Change discussions in Poznan, Poland, highlighted numerous serious concerns with the program including that it very well might not be not strict enough to be effective and that it could, and in many instances likely would, function to the detriment of forest-dependent communities, many of which are indigenous. “For some observers REDD offers a better alternative than current forest use and management: ‘Unless a mechanism is put into place that makes forests worth more alive than dead, deforestation will continue until the world’s tropical forests are completely destroyed. (…) In the absence of large-scale incentives for conservation, an enormous number of the world’s species of plants and animals and the resource base of millions of indigenous peoples and forest communities will ultimately go up in smoke.’ REDD could provide political and financial support to indigenous peoples if governments decide that local forestry practices contribute to storing carbon: “If instituted in a manner consistent with indigenous interests, reduced deforestation could help to protect the biodiversity of plants and animals, help to secure indigenous lands and livelihoods, and provide for the ongoing culture and community of indigenous and forest-dwelling peoples“. But indigenous peoples and other observers have also expressed concern about possible negative impacts. If forests are given monetary value under REDD schemes, many fear that – where land tenure rights are unclear and decision-making remains top-down – new conflicts could arise among indigenous and local communities and between them and the state. REDD mechanisms might exclude local populations from implementation and benefit-sharing processes, and possibly even expel them from their own territories: ‘The increased monetary value placed on standing forest resources and new forest growth, opens the door for corruption in countries where this is already rife in the forest sector. Centralized planning (…) where the national government creates plans, receives payments and disburses the new funds only adds to the marginalization of forest people.’ These concerns are reinforced by the difficulties experienced by indigenous peoples in accessing international climate change debates, even though many REDD projects will take place within indigenous territories. In the Poznan negotiations, ‘indigenous peoples were shocked to see the final version of the draft conclusions on ‘REDD’. This Document removed any references to the rights of indigenous peoples and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.’ Indigenous peoples and civil society representatives responded by declaring: ‘This is totally unacceptable (…) as the forests which are being targeted for REDD are those which indigenous peoples have sustained and protected for thousands of years.’”
With the U.S. government, under President Obama’s leadership, now taking a strong position on the world developing a new and stronger treaty on climate change, the possibility of that occurring has increased significantly (Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Obama Backing Increases Hopes for Climate Pact,” The New York Times, March 11, 2009). The U.S. and China are beginning to develop collaboration on fighting climate change, especially given the negative impacts already felt in several areas of China. In the face of the economic crisis, public opinion in the U.S. now gives a lower priority to environmental (including climate change) issues, but by associating green development with economic recovery, the Obma administration is enhancing green energy and other environmentally friendly development.
The Environmental Defense Fund reported in February, that in the last several years a number of U.S. Cities have been increasing their public transportation. With the economic crisis, however, several cities have been cutting public transportation budgets. For details go to: http://blogs.edf.org/climateatlas/2009/02/02/when-it-comes-to-public-transit-put-your-money-where-. Michael Cooper, “Transit Use hit Five-Decade High in 2008 as Gas Prices Rose,” The New York times, March 9, 2009, reports that with the rise of gas prices in 2008, public transit use also rose to its highest rates since the 1950s. Michael Cooper, “Faster Trains, Maybe, but Still Behind Others in the World,” The New York Times, February 20, 2009, informs that high speed rail, with trains reaching speeds close to 100 miles an hour, is developing in several areas of the U.S.: In California from San Diego to Los Angeles, then both via the Sacramento Valley and along the coast to San Francisco and Sacramento; From Eugene Oregon through Seattle to Vancouver, BC; In Texas: branching from Dallas/Fort Worth, to San Antonio, to Tulsa, OK, and to Little Rock, AR; Along the Gulf Coast from Houston to Mobile, while branching at New Orleans through Atlanta to connect to the Atlantic coast route from Jacksonville, FL to Portland, ME, with branches to Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Montréal; and in the Midwest from a Chicago Hub to St. Paul, Kansas City (via St. Louis), Louisville, Cleveland, and Detroit. Meanwhile, China is moving to become the leading world producer of electric and hybrid cars over three years, developing battery recharging stations around the country, and providing incentives to shift to fully and partially electric automobiles. China hopes to export not only the cleaner cars, but its battery charging stations, which places a further pressure on the U.S. auto industry (Keith Bradshaw, “China Vies To Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars,” The New York Times, April 2, 2009)
The world economic decline is having other impacts. With automobile usage down – first from high gas prices, now because of the recession – ethanol sales and prices have declined, pinching farmers who are asking for an increase in the amount of ethanol in gasoline, particularly in the U.S. Environmentalists oppose that because ethanol takes much more energy than gasoline to produce. The first globalized natural gas glut is driving prices down, and pinching the natural gas industry just as new plants to liquefy and more easily ship natural gas internationally are coming on line.
Climate change continues to produce serious (as well as some beneficial) results. The southern Australian state of Victoria, in early February, was experiencing the worst forest fires in the nation’s history, with estimates, on February 10, that the death toll could exceed 200 (Meraiah Foley, “Australia Fire Toll Could Exceed 200,” The New York Times, February 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/asia/11australia.html?ref=world). After those fires were finally extinguished, serious new blazes broke out in the same region in late February. The worst drought to hit China in half a century has been drying up the country’s wheat producing belt in the north of the nation, that grows 60% of its crops, and is home to more than 40% of its people. The draught has seriously increased the impact of dangerous overuse of water in the dry region, causing surface water sources to shrink severely, and sometimes dry up, and many wells to go dry. From October until early February, when some light snow and rain showers occurred, much of the region had received no precipitation. In the U.S. farmers in Texas and California have been similarly plagued. As of February, three fourths of Texas was being hit by the worst drought in almost a century, with no significant rainfall since August. Winter wheat crops have failed, as of mid-February the soil was too dry for seeds to germinate, so farmers may not be able to plant, and without being able to grow hay, ranchers have had to purchase feed for their cattle. In late February, with the Sacramento Valley of California – the principle grower of vegetables in he U.S., as well as fruit and other produce, already suffering from draught, state and federal authorities announced they would have to reduce water for agriculture. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey, published in Science, in January, found that heat and drought in the U.S. West has more doubled the rate of deaths of trees of all sizes and species over the past few decades to the point that trees are dying faster than new ones can grow. The tree deaths could cascade to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In West Africa, unprecedented swarms of caterpillars have been destroying forests and fields (Lydia Polgreen, Swarm of Caterpillars Infests West Africa, Menacing Crops, The New York Times, February 2, 2009). Meanwhile, the more extreme weather of climate change continues to make some areas wetter and others drier, with the Red River in North Dakota reaching its highest recorded level at the end of March, with great efforts taken to limit flooding in Fargo, but the possibility of more precipitation increasing the flood threat.
Alexei Barionuevo, “Farmers Find New Reason to Seethe in Argentina,” The New York Times, February 27, 2009, reports that Argentine farmers are suffering the worst drought in more than half a century, contributing to food shortages. Argentine farmers reacted angrily to reports that the country’s president was contemplating nationalizing domestic and foreign grain trading.
The increase in acidity in the ocean, from increasing CO2 in the air, is making it more difficult for small marine organisms, such as plankton – that are at the base of the food chain and turn huge amounts of carbon dioxide into oxygen and carbon, to produce shells. It is unclear what the long run effect will be (“Rising Ocean Acidity May Lead to Thinner Plankton Shells,” The New York Times, March 10. 2009). Population growth and development in some areas has been found o be a major cause of the decline of coral, which has a cascading degrading environmental impact. The rate of decline of coral has been found to vary according to the socio-economic status of nearby communities. (“Modest Development Is Tied to Reef Damage”, The New York Times, March 3, 2009). Henry Fountain, Observatory: Land Use and Density Affect Fires in Indonesia,” The New York Times, March 3, 2009, reports that a study indicates while drought and temperature effect the seriousness of fires in Indonesia, land use and population density effect the extent of fire, which is a major problem in Indonesia, including producing serious smog. The switch from small to large scale agriculture and the rise of population have increased the amount of fire.
Leslie Kaufmanm “Mr. Whipple Left It Out: Soft Is Rough on Forests,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/science/earth/26charmin.html?ref=us, states that in the U.S., “The national obsession with soft [toilet] paper has driven the growth of brands like Cottonelle Ultra, Quilted Northern Ultra and Charmin Ultra – which in 2008 alone increased its sales by 40 percent in some markets, according to Information Resources, Inc., a marketing research firm. But fluffiness comes at a price: millions of trees harvested in North America and in Latin American countries, including some percentage of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada. Although toilet tissue can be made at similar cost from recycled material, it is the fiber taken from standing trees that help give it that plush feel, and most large manufacturers rely on them.” Environmental groups have become concerned with the negative impact of soft toilet paper production, with Greenpeace issuing a national guide for American consumers, in February, rating toilet tissue brands on their environmental soundness, and encouraging use of recycled toilet tissue. Currently in the U.S. less than 2% of toilet paper sales are of 100% recycled paper. In Latin America and Europe about 20% of toilet paper sales are with recycled paper (but not necessarily 100% recycled).
With much of Latin America short of energy, the Brazilian state controlled oil company, Petrobras, announced in January, that it was increasing its development spending over the next five years by 55% over its previous plan, to more than $174 billion, mostly for offshore oil and gas production (Andrew Downie, “Brazil Expands Investment in Oil Drilling,” The New York Times, January 25, 3009). In North America and Europe, the rise in oil prices to high levels last year catalyzed some major operations to utilize used cooking oil to run diesel powered vehicles. The fall in oil prices ended many of those large projects, but smaller operations have been launched to replace some of that reduced production (Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Enlisting Fish and Chips to Fight Climate Change,” The New York Times, February 22, 2009).
California Edison, the state’s largest utility, has signed agreements to purchase electricity from seven mirror array solar power stations to be built in the Mojave Desert (Andrew Revkin, “California Utility Looks to Mojave Desert Project for Solar Power,” The New York Times, February 12, 2009). Stefan Milkowski, “Turbines on the Tundra: Alaska Is Frontier For Green Power,” informs that in the face of high oil costs, Alaska’s rural villages and other locations are becoming a proving ground for new solar and wind electric generation techniques.
Following a campaign promise, President Obama has proposed cutting most of the budget for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Project, at the very, least delaying developing a place to deposit waste from nuclear power generation, that continues to pile up, and is a serious environmental hazard, that terrorists could target causing a major disaster. Without such a depository, building new nuclear power plants would be much more dangerous, and many say would make them impractical. (See, Mathew l. Wald, “Future Dim for Nuclear Waste Repository,” The New York Times, March 16, 2009). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued regulations requiring that new atomic reactors at power plants must be constructed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner (“New Reactors Must Handle Plane Strike,” The New York Times, February 18, 2009). The government of Sweden, in February, joined a growing number of European nations moving toward expanding their nuclear power industry in the face of global warming (“Sweden May Revive Nuclear Power Industry,” The New York Times, February 9, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/europe/06sweden.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Sweden%20May%20Revive%20Nuclear%20Power%20Industry&st=cse).
The economic stimulus bill passed the U.S. Congress, with several provisions for green development, is now having some impact on developments to counter climate change. This includes a number of local projects, including expanding electrification on the Navjajo reservation using solar and wind power as well as expanding fossil fuel sources of power. The stimulus bill also is funding “clean coal” projects undertaking research and development of methods for capturing and storing carbon in producing energy from coal. Currently, there is no “clean coal” (only more or less dirty), but researchers are seeking ways to change that, which if successful, will likely take many years to bring on line. Meanwhile, billions of dollars in alternative energy loan guarantees, authorized by Congress in 2005, began to be provided by the U.S. Department of Energy this winter, beginning with a low interest loan to Solyndra Inc. to expand its production of photovoltaic cells. Gainesville, Fl, in March, became the first U.S. municipality to use a European method for encouraging solar power development, by introducing higher payments to home owners and business for installing solar energy. Such subsidies in Germany and other European countries have greatly increased the application of solar power. Moves to lower the use of plastic bags at retail stores by imposing bans and fees have been facing higher resistance in the U.S. (William Yardley, “Many Plans to Curtail Use of Plastic Bags, but Not Much Action,” The New York Times, February 24, 2009).
With the change of administrations and approach to environmental policy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing regulations of emissions of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses. Meanwhile, this winter, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the air quality standards set during the Bush Administration for pollution, such as soot and other particulates and potentially carcinogenic matter, were below that required by law, and ordered EPA to to reconsider those standards, which the agency is now more favorable to tightening. The Obama administration is moving to develop new, stricter, regulation of coal ash ponds by the end of 2009, aimed at preventing the serious spills into ground water that have occurred not only recently, but in past years. The United States and Canada, seeking to limit emissions from ships off their coasts, in late March, asked the International Martine Organization to designate their coastal regions as places where oceangoing vessels would be subject to strict regulation of sulfur, particulate matter, and other pollutants that are detrimental to human health (Cornelia Dean, “U.S. Seeks Reduction in Emissions From Ships in Costal Areas,” The New York Times, March 31, 2009).
In April, the Obama administration called for increased protection of the world’s polar regions, including mandatory limits on Antarctic tourism and stepped up research on the Arctic and Antarctic. Also in April, a major ice bridge suddenly collapsed, possibly making the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica unstable, potentially leading to its breakup.
NASA attempted to launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, in March, to track carbon dioxides on earth, including seeking to find out of what happens to about 50% of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere, but does not stay there. This includes tracing where it is absorbed by oceans, and elsewhere, and broken down into carbon and oxygen by plant life, and perhaps goes elsewhere. However, the satellite failed to achieve orbit.
Bangladesh is attempting to direct the flow of silt coming down from the mountains in its rivers to raise a section of land as a buffer against rising oceans (Somini Sengupta, “In Silt, Bangladesh Sees Potential Shield Against Sea Level Rise,” The New York Times, March 19, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/world/asia/20bangla.html?ref=world). Chile, faced with serious illness in the wild salmon population, resulting from improper practices in fish farming in the country, is taking steps to regulate the fish farming industry that is threatening its $2 billion a year wild salmon industry.
A group of scientists has complained to EPA that biotechnology companies are preventing university scientists, and all independent researchers, from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s development of genetically modified crops (Andrew Pollack, “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research,” The New York Times, February 20, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Crop%20Scientist).
World Overview
The International Crisis Group (ICG), “CrisisWatch,” N°68, April 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw68.pdf, finds “nine conflict situations around the world deteriorated and two improved in March 2009. In Sudan, fears of a rapid deterioration of humanitarian conditions and security in Darfur mounted after Khartoum expelled 13 international aid organisations, following the International Criminal Court pre-trial chamber’s 4 March decision to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir for atrocity crimes. The UN estimates that up to 1.5 million are at risk of losing food, water and shelter, while tensions in the capital continue to rise as the government moves to brutally repress signs of pro-ICC support. The situation continued to deteriorate in Sri Lanka, where intense fighting between government forces and the Tamil Tigers left hundreds dead and many more wounded. Some 150,000 civilians remain trapped in the violence, many in declared “safe zones” where shelling by government forces has continued. In North Korea, the government’s early-month announcement of its intention to launch a communications satellite in early April prompted outcry from regional states and the U.S. over the country’s nuclear ambitions, at the same time underscoring the urgent need for a calm, coordinated effort to bring Pyongyang back to the Six-Party Talks. Guinea-Bissau entered a period of considerable political uncertainty after the early month assassination of the army chief and several senior officers, followed hours later by an attack on the presidential compound killing longstanding President Vieira. In Madagascar, former Antananarivo mayor Andry Rajoelina was installed as the country’s new president in defiance of the constitution after dissident troops overran the presidential palace, bringing thousands to the streets in protest. The situation also deteriorated in Kenya, which saw the murder of two prominent rights activists and growing strains within the fragile coalition government, as well as in the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone and Northern Ireland.
On the positive side, “Hopes for stability in Burundi were raised as the former rebel group FNL began a long-awaited demobilisation process and, after some controversy, President Nkurunziza announced a new electoral commission welcomed by both government and opposition. The situation also improved in Guadeloupe, where a deal between union leaders and the government ended the general strike that saw demonstrations turn violent in February.”
Unchanged were Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Cameroon, Chad, Chechnya, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Georgia, Guinea, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, and Yemen.
Looking back to previous periods, the International Crisis Group (ICG), CrisisWatch No. 67, March 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw67.pdf, found, “Four actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and two improved in February.” In Bangladesh, disgruntled members of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) paramilitary border force staged a mutiny in their Dhaka barracks, taking some 130 senior military officers hostage and killing over 70. The spread of mutinies to other BDR barracks threatened to spark violence across the country amid fears of retaliation by the military, including a takeover. But steps taken by the government appear to have reduced the threat of any coup. Conditions in Sri Lanka continued to deteriorate for 200,000 civilians caught between the government’s military offensive against the Tamil Tigers and Tiger attempts to prevent people from fleeing areas under their control. Levels of food, water and medical care are dangerously low. Tensions between North and South Korea also increased, putting Seoul’s armed forces on high alert after Pyongyang‚s decision to void political and military agreements with the South. In Guadeloupe, strikes led to violent clashes between demonstrators and security forces before a partial agreement was reached between unions and the government at the end of the month. Hopes for progress in Zimbabwe were raised as President Mugabe and opposition leader Tsvangirai finally agreed on the formation of a power-sharing government, with Tsvangirai as prime minister. However, serious concerns remain about its successful implementation and political repression continues. In Mali, Tuareg rebels from the Democratic Alliance for Change faction agreed to lay down their arms under an Algerian-brokered peace deal, as government operations against another Tuareg rebel faction continued. CrisisWatch highlights Bangladesh as a significant conflict risk alert for March, as tensions within and surrounding the military continue to simmer. In Sudan, the International Criminal Court decision, due in early March, on whether to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir presents both an opportunity to move towards resolving the conflict in Darfur and a potential trigger for increased violence [which has been occurring in March].” Unchanged were Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus , Bolivia, Bosnia, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya, Colombia, Côte d‚Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, and Yemen.”
CrisisWatch N°66, February 1, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/crisiswatch/cw_2009/cw66.pdf, reported “Four actual or potential conflict situations around the world deteriorated and three improved in January 2009.” “Hundreds of civilians were killed and more wounded in Sri Lanka, as government forces there made continued decisive gains against the LTTE rebels in the north of the island. An estimated 250,000 civilians remain trapped alongside LTTE fighters near the northern town of Mullaittivu. Israel intensified its military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip with devastating consequences for the civilian population; a fragile ceasefire was declared by both sides on 18 January.” In Madagascar, up to 100 were killed in 2 days of violent anti-government protests on the streets of Antananarivo that came after weeks of tension between the leader of the opposition and President Ravolamanana. The situation also deteriorated in Mali, where clashes between the government and Tuareg rebels escalated, dealing a serious blow to an April 2008 ceasefire. The situation improved in Zimbabwe, where after four months of political deadlock that followed a stalled power-sharing agreement, the opposition MDC agreed to form a government of national unity with President Mugabe‚s ZANU-PF. The deal raised hopes that the country might be able to address a disastrous humanitarian situation and undertake pressing social and economic reforms. The situation also improved in Bangladesh, where a newly elected government was sworn in on 6 January, bringing an end to two years of a military-backed caretaker government, although local council elections this month were marred by irregularities and some violence. For February, CrisisWatch highlights potential for both escalation and resolution of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan. In DRC, a joint operation with Rwanda to root out Rwandan Hutu FDLR rebels brought the promise of new regional cooperation in the east but raised fears of further civilian deaths. Crisis Group also viewed this as an improved situation in January. In Sudan, an imminent decision by the ICC pre-trial chamber on whether to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir fuels increasing speculation over the response of different political forces, amidst ongoing intensification of violence in Darfur and threats of possible Darfur rebel attacks against cities and oil installations.” Also deteriorated was the Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories. Unchanged were Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya (Russia), Colombia, Côte d‚Ivoire, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Mauritania, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen
Neil MacFarquhar, “Memo From the United Nations: In Peacekeeping, a Muddling of the Mission,” The New York Times, February 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/11peacekeeping.html?ref=world, comments. “More than a decade after United Nations peacekeepers failed to prevent massacres in Rwanda and Srebrenica, Bosnia, what many consider the organization’s flagship mission appears to be slouching toward crisis once again, diplomats and other experts say. The most immediate cause, they say, is a sharp rise in the number of peacekeeping commitments worldwide and a type of “mission creep” that has added myriad nation-building duties to the traditional task of trying to keep enemies apart. The new demands come at a time when member states with advanced armies in particular have become more resistant to committing additional troops or even necessary equipment like helicopters. Those challenges have only added to a deeper and longstanding problem: the continued lack of clarity about how the United Nations should intervene when its members lack either the military force or the political will – or both – to halt carnage.” “Among the most noticeable failures in recent months: the inability of troops in Congo and the Darfur region of Sudan to stop the violence that is killing civilians, the difficulty in finding enough troops for either of those missions, and the unwillingness of any nation to lead a possible mission in Somalia. In Congo in December, a contingent of 100 peacekeepers that was less than a mile away did not intervene in a rebel massacre that human rights investigators said killed 150 people; the peacekeepers reported that they were short of equipment and manpower and lacked the intelligence capacity to figure out what was happening in the nearby town. In some conflict zones, peacekeepers do not have the technology to fulfill even one of their most basic tasks: tracking the movements of the armed groups they are trying to keep separate. The problems prompted several leaders of the United Nations’ peacekeeping efforts to embark on a new round of studies about how to ensure peacekeepers can fulfill their missions, the efforts being extended over several months to try to avoid suggestions for quick fixes that get shelved. But some experts say the most important fix is perhaps the hardest. The Security Council, they say, needs to avoid sending missions to countries where there is not yet a real peace to keep.” “After sending five successive missions to Haiti, where the violence erupted again after they left, for example, the United Nations decided that peacekeepers should do more to ensure that countries were economically stable when they departed. And after the massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia, the United Nations added the protection of civilians as a priority for each mission. But many feel that peacekeeping has become a panacea, with the deployment of United Nations forces considered proof that the Security Council is paying attention to a crisis, whether the troops are effective or not. The Council has a tendency to just keep extending missions once approved. As a result, the number of personnel on peacekeeping missions has grown to 113,000 soldiers, police officers and civilians assigned to 18 missions, from 40,000 in 2000.” “The peacekeeping budget has ballooned to $8 billion.” “At least three different efforts have started recently within the United Nations system to find ways to streamline and improve peacekeeping, including one by the Council itself. Experts inside and outside the United Nations say two changes are essential. The forces need to train specifically for every aspect of their expanded mandates – how to intervene to stop a rape epidemic in the Congo, for example. But the most critical change, the experts say, would be for the United Nations to resist sending forces into active battle zones, including those where they could find themselves pitted against a national government.” “Maj. Gen. B. T. Obasa, the military attaché at the United Nations Mission of Nigeria, which deploys some 4,000 soldiers in Darfur, expressed frustration that the countries contributing troops are not consulted more. ‘”We were supposed to go to Sudan to keep the peace, not for peace enforcement, which we find ourselves doing now,’ he said. ‘If the U.N. goes into any country, they should know and be certain what we are going to do there, what the requirements are and how long we will stay.’” While some writers say that Peace Keeping troops should not go into active war zones, this writer believes that if the situation is serious enough, as in Darfur, sending troops is necessary, but there must be enough troops, with enough equipment and other support, and clear knowledge of, and proper preparation for, the mission.
Robin Wright, Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East, published in February, finds many changes in progress in the Middle East (also reported by other sources) including a fading if al-Queda type extremism, because it has done nothing to deal with problems of poverty and unemployment, and a rise of a populism moving to modernize Islam in the course of dealing with economic and social problems. While usually avoiding the term “democracy,” which has been given a bad name by U.S., and particularly Bush, policies, the growing movement is generally participatory. In addition, Wright, notes that in a number of places (e.g. in Iran) a women’s movement is growing within the framework of Islam. As many women receive more education, there has been a slowly developing push for women’s rights on the basis of overcoming what is seen as a patriarchical interpretation of Islam.
The world wide economic crisis is causing unrest and instability in many places. In February, it lead to the fall of Latvia’s government. Some of the worst hit economies are among some of Eastern Europe’s developing nations. Demonstrations, including rioting, as occurred at the offices of the Royal Bank of Scotland, at the end of March are also occurring. Violence has also broken out related to economic issues, as for example, in Greece, where it is continuing at a lower level than at the beginning of the year, but, in late March, encompassed some fire bombings of banks and businesses. In April, at the G20 summit, the 20 leading economically developed countries pledged to give $1.1 trillion to the International Monetary Fund, which would primarily help the weaker economies of Eastern Europe, that have been especially hard hit by the world economic downturn (Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, “World Leaders Pledge $1.1 Trillion to Tackle Crisis,” The New York Times, April 3, 2009).
Iraq and Iran
Some hope for improvement in relations between the United States and Iran has occurred with President Obama stating his willingness to undertake direct discussions with Iran, on the basis of respect, and the President of Iran replying that that would be a good thing. However, Iran‘s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated that for improvement to occur the U.S. would have to change its policies, so it remains to be seen how much, and how quickly, a real change in relation, and resolution of issues will occur. If relations between Washington and Tehran do improve, depending on what that involves, it could complicate U.S. relations with Israel, according to David E. Sanger, “Overture Might Complicate Relations With Israel,” The New York times, February 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/us/politics/11web-sanger-in-was-14-48.html?ref=world. On March 25, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament spoke quite critically of the Video taped message President Obama had sent to the Iranian government the previous week (Rod Norland, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Disparages Obama’s Video Overture,” The New York Times, March 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html?ref=world).
The question of Iran developing nuclear weapons (while claiming only to be developing nuclear electric power) remains a major world concern. In late February, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that they had recently found that Iran had produced a third more enriched uranium than they had estimated, reaching the point that with further enrichment they might have enough to make one atomic bomb. The agency was criticized by some international nuclear experts for making only one inspection a year in Iran (William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, Iran Has a Third More Enriched Uranium Than Thought, Inspectors Say,” The New York Times, February 20, 2009). In early April, the President of Iran endorsed in principle a proposal, initiated by the United States, to set up a global nuclear fuel depository for uranium enrichment, under strict international control. The President of Kazakhstan said his nation welcomed having the depository on its soil.
Peter Baker, “With Pledges to Troops and Iraqis, Obama Details Pullout,” The New York Times, February 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html?ref=world, stated that President Obama has announced that he would withdraw all combat forces from Iraq by August 2010 and all remaining troops by December 2011. Under the plan the 142,000 troops in Iraq would be reduced by the summer of next year to 35,000 to 50,000 to train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel. Those “transitional forces” are scheduled leave by 2011 in accordance with the strategic agreement negotiated with the government of Iraq by President Bush. The security situation had remained improved, over the last few months, until recently. The level of violence had fallen from earlier periods, though the situation in Iraq was, and remains, potentially volatile. As the end of March, in several cities there was an increase in, often quite deadly, attacks by militant groups (Rod Nordland, “With Local Control, New Troubles in Iraq,” The New York Times, March 16, 2009).
The provincial elections in Iraq, in February, proceeded quite well, with little violence. But the results, in some areas, instead of easing tensions, have increased them. On January 27, ICG, “Iraq’s Provincial Elections: The Stakes, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5883&l=1, stated, “Elections on Saturday have a potential to make still fragile Iraq more stable by reversing severe imbalances in provincial governance created four years ago, which generated deep grievances and widespread violence.” That appears to have occurred to some extent, and in some locations, while in others tensions that were expressed quietly in electoral activity, have reemerged with losers unsatisfied with the outcome. Over all, the last two elections have had at least one important result. Religious parties have generally lost position, and secularism – that was strong in Iraqi politics and public affairs before the U.S. intervened, has reemerged.
Campbell Robinson and James Glanz, “Falling Revenues Threaten Rebuilding in Iraq,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, The New York times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/middleeast/26reconstruct.html, reports, “In few nations around the globe are the consequences of the financial crisis as potentially sobering as they are in Iraq. Both oil revenues and American financial support have plummeted just as the country has the chance to take advantage of its increasing stability to improve basic services and upgrade its ruined infrastructure.” In the face of the financial crisis, the government has been putting off projects while trying to find funds to pay for the salaries and equipment of its new security forces, and large raises given to government employees. Meanwhile, Iraqi citizens are demanding increased services. The economic crisis could undermine the country’s increased stability. A potentially serious problem, is that at the end of March, members of Sunni Awakening Councils were complaining that the government had given only 5,000 promised jobs to their 94,000 members. The Councils represent more than 90% of Sunni militias, including a high percentage of former insurgents, who agreed to stop fighting the U.S. military for cash, and whose control was turned over by the U.S. to the Iraqi government. Failure by the government to provide them income and jobs, and make them feel included by the regime as equal citizens, would likely provoke increased violence and instability (Rod Nordland and Alissa J. Rubin, “Sunnis in Councils Say Iraq Failed to Keep Its Promise of Jobs,” The New York Times, March 24, 2009).
Asia (including the Middle East) & the Pacific Developments
With the Afghan situation at its most deteriorated point (by December the Taliban were active in three fourths of the country – and the UN reported that Afghan civilian deaths were 40% higher in 2008 than 2007 – Dexter Filkins, “Civilians’ Deaths in Afghanistan Soared in 2008, a U.N. Survey Says,” The New York Times, February 18, 2009), the Obama Administration has ordered an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, mostly from Iraq, as it completes a review of Afghan policy and shifts its strategy toward some kind of counterinsurgency effort, based at least partially on lessons learned in Iraq, and on economic development. The main change was to narrow the U.S. purpose in Iraq (and related areas of Pakistan) from nation building, as such, to denying al Qeada a place of operations (raising the question, dealt with in part by ICG, just below, if some nation building is a requirement for denying al Queda a place of operations). The details, including how much economic development, and how development and military operations will proceed, is not yet clear. A key element is for U.S and NATO to place less emphasis on relations with the government of President Hamid Karzai, seen as ineffective and corrupt, and working more directly with tribal leaders. On March 26, President Obama released the review of Afghan policy. Peter Baker and Thomas Shanker, “Obama Sets New Afghan Strategy,” The New York Times, March 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/washington/27prexy.html?_r=1&ref=world, reported that under the new approach, President Obama plans to send an additional 4,000 troops, beyond the 17,000 already ordered to Afghanistan, to increase training of Afghan police (who jave beeen greatly reduced in effectiveness by corruption). Increasing Afghan capability to provide security is a key element of the plan. Military commanders had requested 30,000 more troops, but the White House decided not to send more combat troops, at least at this stage. Troop levels, and other specifics will be reevaluated next year, and on a continuing basis. The U.S. government is developing specific benchmarks for the Afghan and Pakistani governments, that will require the two nations to collaborate and transform their societies. The guidelines will be much more specific than previously, putting clear controls on how funds, equipment and supplies can be used. In the past, the Afghan government in particular used military aid sent to combat Islamic militants for other purposes, including defense on its border with India. The Obama approach adapts the U.S. strategy used in Iraq the last two years to facilitate the to get the home governments to take more responsibility for quelling the insurgency and building viable political institutions, with support from the governments in the region. There will be a new focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan as regional issues, bringing to the table India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Central Asian states, in addition to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama will attempt to get Pakistan to move from concentrating its military resources against India, to battling insurgents in the tribal areas. “The key elements of Mr. Obama’s plan, with its more robust combat force, its emphasis on training, and its far-reaching goals, foreshadow an ambitious but risky and costly attempt to unify and stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr. Obama is unveiling his approach at a time when the conflict is worsening, the lives of the people are not visibly improving, and the intervention by American-led foreign powers is increasingly resented.” Most commentators believe achieving the goals of the plan will be quite challenging. The mission is being framed as a counter terrorism centered on denying safe havens to Al Queada, with three emphases: building up Afghan security forces, supporting the weak central government in Kabul and securing the population. There will be an attempt to separate hard core militants from more moderate Taliban who mainly want more money or better lives, with whom reconciliation will be attempted. The President told congressional leaders that a budget increase of $50 billion would be needed to for military operations and development. The administration’s director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, stated that the U.S. needed to develop much better intelligence about the situation in Afghanistan, saying, “We know a heck of a lot more about Iraq on a granular level than we know about Afghanistan.” He estimated that perhaps 75% of the Taliban rank and file could be separated from their leadership, who are mostly in sanctuaries in the tribal area of Pakistan, across the border.
In January, Administration officials had said that Obama intended to require more of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and was leaning toward more emphasis on waging war than development (Helene Cooper and Thom Shankar, “Aides Say Obama’s Afghan Aims Elevate War,” The New York Times, January 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28policy.html). President Karzai was seen by the administration of more of an impediment than an aid to U.S. efforts in his country because of accelerating corruption in his government contributing to a lucrative drug trade and the resurgence of the Taliban. The Obama administration then planned to work predominantly with local leaders, while having European allies take on the main work of economic and institutional development to European allies. The question is what the over all developmental work will be, and how that will integrate with the military and other elements of U.S. work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the United States should focus on limited goals. “My own personal view is that our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and our allies, and whatever else we need to do flows from that objective.” But some commentators see development as the key to long term military success (see Articles, below: Stephen Sachs, A Community Development – Community Policing approach to Afghanistan).
ICG, “Afghanistan: New U.S. Administration, New Directions, March 13, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6007&l=1, finds, “Jihadi extremism in Afghanistan cannot be defeated unless the Obama administration adopts new political, economic and military policies that empower Afghan civilian institutions.” Crisis Group President Gareth Evans states, “The Afghanistan crisis is the outcome of decades of internal conflict. No short-term solution will resolve the crisis overnight. Time and patience are needed to build the infrastructure and institutions to stabilize the Afghan state and root out or neutralize jihadi influence.” Crisis Group Senior Analyst, Joanna Nathan says, “The Taliban today is not a standing army but rather a disparate network of groups. It does not have significant public support among a population tired of war, and the vast majority of people remain far more fearful of what would happen if foreign troops were to leave rather than stay.” “Because the Bush administration’s ‘war on terror’ put short-term efforts to the fore, after seven years, Afghanistan lacks robust representative Afghan institutions. This is partly a result of the U.S. administration leaving the agenda too much in the hands of the U.S. military. Civilian institutions must now reassert their authority in Washington. The new administration should learn from past mistakes and above all focus U.S. efforts on enabling the Afghan government to expand its reach and legitimacy through the provision of security, rule of law and public services to its citizens. What is needed in Afghanistan itself is the creation of a resilient state, which will only emerge if moderate forces and democratic norms are strengthened. It requires robust institutions that can uphold, and are accountable to, the rule of law. Only when citizens perceive the state as legitimate and capable of delivering security, good governance and rule of law, will Afghans be able to resist jihadi pressures and overtures. ‘The Obama administration must also send clear signals to the Pakistani military that there will be a very high price to pay for tacit or explicit support for jihadis, local or regional,’ says Samina Ahmed, Crisis Group’s South Asia Project Director. ‘This is the minimum necessary to dissuade Pakistani spoilers from trying to destabilize the Afghan enterprise’.”
Gary Langer, “Frustration With War, Problems in Daily Life Send Afghans’ Support for U.S. Efforts Tumbling,” Feb. 9, 2009, including a link to a PDF file of the complete survey: questions, results and analysis, http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686, passes on the results of an ABC News/BBC/ARD National Survey of Afghanistan, showing a precipitous drop in Afghani confidence in the efforts of the U.S., NATO and the Karzai government. The number of Afghans who say their country is headed in the right direction has dropped from 77% in 2005 to 40% at the beginning of 2009. Over the same period, the number of Afghans expressing a favorable opinion of the United States fell from 83% to 47%. For the first time slightly more Afghans see the United States unfavorably than favorably. The percent of people saying the United States has performed well in Afghanistan has fallen from 68% percent in 2005 to 32% early this year. Ratings of NATO/ISAF forces have also dropped, with 67% saying, in 2006, that most people in their area support Western forces, compared to 37% recently. Over the same period, those who say attacks on U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces can be justified rose from 13% 50 25%. At the beginning of this year, From 2005 – 2009, Afghans with a positive view of their security has fallen from 72% to 55%. Only 18% favored an increase in U.S./NATO troops, while 44% wanted a reduction. About 20% believe President Obama will improve the situation, and about the same number believe he will make the situation worse.
Stephen Erlanger and Helene Cooper, “Europeans Offer Few New Troops for Afghanistan,” The New York Times, April 5, 2009, sets out that at the April NATO summit, European leaders were not favorable to increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and were more focused on finding an exit strategy. A small number of additional military personnel were offered, but only as a temporary measure. Meanwhile, there is a sizable active opposition in Europe to military operations in Afghanistan, and protestors struggled with police and set fire to a hotel and a border station in Strasburg France, on April 4, near where the NATO meeting was taking place.
Khushal Arsala and Stephen Zunes, “The U.S. and Afghan Tragedy,” Foreign Policy in Focus, February 18, 2009, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5878, looks at the key role the United States played in the development of the Taliban the encouragement of Islamist extremism in Afghanistan. It notes the need for the U.S. to change policy, noting that if the U.S. again, merely abandons its efforts their, as it did after the Russians pulled out, it will again only create new difficulties.
Thom Shanker, “U.S. Plans Afghan Effort to Thwart Road Bombs,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26military.html?ref=world, informs that because road side bombings have been an increasing problem, the Pentagon is planning to include in the Afghanistan build up deployment of large numbers of heavily armored vehicles, jamming technology, and experimental ground-penetrating radar, and spy planes, to defend troops from roadside bombs. In 2008, road side explosives killed more than 175 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, more than double such casualties in 2007.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai decreed, in late February, that presidential elections be brought forward to April or May, only a few weeks after they were scheduled for August. The move appeared to be an attempt to avoid constitutional challenges to his legitimacy (Carlotta Gall, “Afghan President Moves Up August Elections,” The New York Times, February 28, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?_r=1&hp). That challenge was voiced any way, with some critics saying that Karzai must step down because according to the constitution his term would end before the new elections would be held. Karzai answered (and the country’s highest court confirmed) that the constitution called for elections for the next presidential term before that old one ended, and since, for security reasons, elections had been delayed, the presidents term was required to be extended. While Karzai has lost popularity, many commentators believe he will be reelected as they do not see any opposing leader able to gain sufficient support to defeat him.
Eric Schmitt, “U.S. Military Faulted on Weapons Tracking,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/asia/12arms.html?ref=world, informs, “The American military has not properly tracked tens of thousands of weapons the Pentagon bought and shipped to Afghan security forces, leaving the arms at risk of being stolen or sold to militants, according to a federal report that is to be presented at a House panel hearing on Thursday. American military officials failed to keep complete records on about 87,000 rifles, pistols, mortars and other weapons – about one-third of all light arms the United States sent to Afghan soldiers and police officers from December 2004 to June 2008, auditors from the Government Accountability Office found. Further, American military trainers kept no reliable records on 135,000 more weapons donated by 21 countries, including Hungary, Egypt, Slovenia and Romania.”
Meanwhile, Carlotta Gall “Pakistan and Afghan Taliban Close Ranks,” The New York Times, March 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/world/asia/27taliban.html?_r=1&ref=washington, report that under the leadership of Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, numerous Taliban leaders have united to focus on Afghanistan, mounting a new offensive there, even as the U.S. prepares to enlarge its forces in the country. Several younger Taliban commanders are reported preparing new campaigns of suicide attacks and roadside bombings. The emphasis on Afghanistan will likely take some pressure off the Pakistani army, fighting the Taliban in several areas of the Pakistani tribal lands bordering Afghanistan. The Pakistani army has had mixed results in those efforts, including from time to time reaching truces with the Taliban in some places where the Army has not been making much headway.
In some places in Pakistan, the Taliban have been quite successful, including largely blocking the Khyber pass, the main supply route for U.S. and other NATO forces in Afghanistan. With the U.S. also about to lose its supply base in Kyrgyzstan, it has sought other supply options, including more direct flights into Afghanistan. It has arranged supply routes from an airfield in Tajikistan, and Russia has given permission for supplies to go to NATO through its territory. It is suspected that the Russians induced Kyrgyzstan to end U.S. use of facilities on its soil to gain more leverage with the U.S. and NATO nations. Meanwhile, the Pakistani military has not been unified in opposing the Taliban. There are ongoing reports that Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, or at least powerful elements within it, continue to offer money, supplies and guidance to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan to keep a friendly government there once American forces leave (Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmit, “Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say,” The New York Times, March 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/asia/26tribal.html?_r=1&ref=world,), even as they did before 9/11 to have influence in the North and weaken or derail possible opposition from the north. Violence in Pakistan has not been limited to clashes between the military and militants, but has been launched by the Taliban and al Qaeda against civilians as well, as exemplified by the bombing of a Mosque during Friday prayers, on March 27, at Bagiari, near Peshawar in the Khyber Pass area, that killed 35 to 70 people, and wounded many others, at first report (Ismail Hhan and Alan Cowell, “,Bomber Strikes in Pakistani Mosque, Killing Dozens During Prayers” The New York Times, March 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/asia/28pstan.html?ref=world). Moreover, attacks by militants continue not to be limited to tribal areas, as exemplified by an attack in March, on police cadets in a village in Punjab (“Rampage Shows Reach of Militants in Pakistan,” The New York Times, March 3, 2009),and the April 4 bombing, killing eight paramilitary security guards, in an upscale neighborhood in the capital of Islamabad (Salman Masood and Pir Zubair Shah, “Suicide Bombe Kills 8 Security Officers in Pakistan Capital on a Day of Violence,” The New York Times, April 5, 2009).
The uniting of Taliban fighters (some of whom sometimes fought among themselves) to move in Afghanistan has raised concern in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. NATO officials warn that this will cause the conflict to worsen in Afghanistan this year. In Pakistan, officials fear that even though there will be less Taliban military pressure there, it will draw more U.S. attacks in Pakistan, particularly by drone aircraft. The CIA says that such strikes have been very effective and are an essential tool in fighting al Queda and their Taliban allies (Mark Massetti and Helene Cooper, “C.I.A. Pakistan Campaign Is Working, Director Says,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26intel.html?ref=world; and Eric Schmitt and Jane Perlez, “Pakistan Says Attacks Worsen Quaeda Threat,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009). But officials in Pakistan and Afghanistan point out that these attacks kill and injure many civilians, and create anger against the U.S. and their allies – including the governments of the nations where the attacks take place, if they collaborate with the U.S. and NATO. Thus many in the Pakistani and Afghan governments see such attacks as long run security threats, regardless of short term benefits.
David Sanger and Eric Schmitt, “U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike Into Pakistan,” The New York Times, March 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18terror.html?ref=world., reprot that, “President Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the American covert war in Pakistan far beyond the unruly tribal areas to strike at a different center of Taliban power in Baluchistan, where top Taliban leaders are orchestrating attacks into southern Afghanistan.”
A major complicating factor in the Pakistan situation has been the volatile conflict occurring in its politics. The primary government party, and its leadership, have been engaged in a struggle with the leading opposition party, that has had a strong focus on whether the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be restored to his post, The Chief Justice was removed from his post by the previous military regime, for his unprecedented public objection to violations of the constitution by the military leadership. The current government refused to restore the Chief Justice, now a popular hero, to his former post and this became a rallying point for the opposition, that undertook huge demonstrations, in the face of a government imposed ban and a spate of arrests. This caused the government to back down, turning the next scheduled demonstration into a celebration as the political dynamic changed. It is unclear just how this will develop in the longer term, but the political tensions remain, causing uncertainty, weakening the government, and, making it easier for factions in the army, and particularly the intelligence to operate counter to government policy, as has been indicated above. It also makes it more difficult for foreign actors, including the U.S., to negotiate and carry out clear policies, though the fractured Pakistani politics also offers opening for outsiders to achieve policy goals that the government might not prefer to support or allow. For more on this, among other articles, see from The New York Times, Jane Perlez, “Pakistan’s Political Rift May Pose Test for Obama,” February 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/world/asia/28pstan.html?ref=world; “Pakistan Court Bars President’s Rival From Office,” February 26, 2009; Jane Perlez, “U.S. Weighs Sharif as Partner in Pakistan,” March 24, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/world/asia/25sharif.html, Jane Perlez, “Opposition Puts Pakistani Leader on the Defensive,” March 16; and Jane Perlez, “Hundreds Jailed As Pakistan Bans Planned Protest,” March 12, 2009.
Jane Perlez, “Pakistan’s ticking Clock: Time is Short as U.S. Pushes Reluctant Ally,” The New York Times, April 6, 2009, perceives that President Obama has received mixed reactions among a variety of civilian and military Pakistani leaders to his ambitious plan to transform Pakistan, assisted by U.S. financial and other aid. Many in the Army still see India as their biggest problem, and are resistant to changing focus to the insurgency in the north, a plan some officers support. Obama would facilitate Pakistan strengthening civil society and civil institutions, including encouraging political parties to broaden their functioning away from feudal loyalties.
The Obama administration moved quickly to reengage in the Middle East, appointing, George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the region. After his Senate career ended in 1995, Mitchell was chosen by former President Bill Clinton to be U.S. special envoy for Northern Ireland and was instrumental in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that eventually brought the sectarian conflict to an end. As a result of the Gaza war, Israel has become much more diplomatically isolated internationally (Ethan Bronner, “After Gaza, Israel Grapples With Crisis of Isolation,” The New York Times, March 18, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/world/middleeast/19israel.html?em).
The forming, in mid-March, of a narrow right wing government in Israel, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu of the conservative Likud Party, with hawkish Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the nationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party, as foreign minister (Isabel Kershner, “Forming Coalition, Netanyahu Agrees to Make Nationalist Leader Foreign Minister,” The New York Times,: March 16, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/world/middleeast/17mideast.html?_r=1&ref=world), but broadened somewhat with the inclusion of a divided Labor Party, seems to most observers to make movement toward peace with the Palestinians unlikely for the foreseeable future. At least one commentator believes that the situation may turn out to be more hopeful. Benjamin Tua, “Gaza: The Way Forward,” Foreign Policy In focus, March 11, 2009, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5949, “A right-of-center government headed by Netanyahu might be best positioned to make the difficult compromises and decisions regarding first the reality of Hamas as a force in Palestinian political life and then on the settlements and Jerusalem. These actions might well lead his country to a truly historic move towards peace with its neighbors. In this, Netanyahu would be following on the example set by the Likud’s Menachem Begin with respect to Egypt.” Netanyahu claims that the will work for peace, but the centrist Kadima party, that held the post of foreign minister in the previous administration, declined Mr. Netanyahu’s offers to join his government because he refused to commit to negotiating the creation of a Palestinian state (Isabel Kershner and Alan Cowell,” Netanyahu Promises Peace Effort,” The New York Times, March 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html?_r=1&hp). At the end of March, Netanyahu stated that he would work for peace but not a two state solution (that is, he is not in favor of a Palestinian state). In his speech on becoming foreign minister, long time hawk Avigdor Lieberman, who earlier voiced that all Arabs who are Israeli citizens should sign a loyalty oath to Israel, stated “Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” and then went on to assert that concessions do not bring peace, but quite the reverse, and that the world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six-day war (See, Uri Avnery, “Who’s The Boss,” April 4, 2009, http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html).
In January, the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the Israeli Central Elections Committee banning, during the Gaza fighting, the two leading Arab Parties from participating in the February 10 elections, allegedly for supporting terrorism and refusing to recognize that right of Israel top exist.
Neil Mac Farquhar, “U.N. Chief Says Israel Is Blocking Most Gaza Aid,” The New York Times, February 10, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/middleeast/11nations.html?ref=world, informs, “The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, repeated Tuesday [February 10] his demand that Israel allow significantly more humanitarian aid into the beleaguered Gaza Strip, and he announced that he would send a team to investigate the bombings of United Nations facilities there. The human rights organization Amnesty International issued a statement criticizing Mr. Ban for being too timid on the extent of the inquiry.”
In late February, The Obama administration announced it would provide some $900 million to help rebuild Gaza, with the money to be passed through nongovernmental organizations, and not the Hamas government of Gaza (Helene Cooper, “U.S. to Give $900 Million in Gaza Aid, Officials Say,” The New York Times, February 24, 2009, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/helene_cooper/index.html?inline=nyt-per). In early February, The UN Relief and Works Agency complained that Hamas had seized large quantities of its relief supplies in Gaza, likely to undertake its own distribution (possibly with political favoritism, and taking credit for supplying the aid).
Yossi Melman, “Analysis/Israel was wrong to think time was on its side in Shalit talks,” Haaretz, March 17, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1071698.html, states, “Time and again Israel has found itself ensnared by its own trap. From the first prisoner-exchange deal signed with the Palestinian organizations, over forty years ago, Israel has been held hostage by the theory that “time is on its side.’” Melman states that in a long series of negotiations Israel has thrown away the chance to achieve a prisoner exchange, and a move toward peace, by taking too hard a line, and that was again the case in March with the Israeli government refusing to exchange 415 Palestinians it holds to get back the one soldier Hamas has long held in Gaza. “Israeli logic is dictated by the fear that the public will not accept a bad deal and is driven by the (erroneous) theory that a harder line at the talks’ outset will enable the price of the deal to be lowered at their conclusion. The bitterest fruit borne by this theory was the negotiations to secure Ron Arad’s release. The Israeli government (the Shamir-Peres-Rabin national unity coalition) thought that by driving a hard bargain it would reach a better deal with the the Amal militant organization, which held the navigator. The end of that story is well known and tragic.”
Leading human rights figures including Archbishop Desmund Tutu and Richard Goldstone, the prosecutor in two criminal courts on war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rawadna, in a letter endorsed by Amnesty International, have called for the United Nations to launch a war crimes inquiry into the conduct of both Israel and Hamas in the recent fighting in Gaza (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=32503). Revelations from Israeli soldiers published in the nation’s press support the claims that the IDF committed numerous human rights violations in the Gaza war (Ethan Bronner, “Further Accounts of Gaza Killings Released,” and “Soldiers Accounts of Gaza Killings are Raising a Furor in Israel,” The New York Times, March 20, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/world/middleeast/21gaza.html?_r=1&ref=world).
Amos Harel reported, in February, in – Haaretz – “Israel Defense Forces investigations into last month’s offensive in the Gaza Strip indicate the army could face significant difficulties justifying the scale of destruction of civilian homes during the fighting” (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064161.html). The death toll among Palestinians in the Gaza war was reported as approaching 1400 (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=32003).
Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah, in February, under Egyptian auspices, began their first talks seeking reconciliation, since Hamas took over Gaza in June 2007 (Tagheed El-Khodray and Isabel Kershner, “Palestinian Rivals Talk Peace in Egypt,” The New York Times, February 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html), As of early April, no major breakthrough had been achieved.
While Palestinian political parties remain split on many issues, including how to approach Israel, a recent poll again shows an overwhelming percentage of Palestinian young people prefer a nonviolent to a violent approach. A survey by UNDP, the UN’s global development network, and made available by Independent Media Review Analysis, 1 April 1, 2009, http://www.imra.org.il, finds 69% of Palestinian youth oppose violence to resolve the conflict with Israel, as not being useful, while only 8% believe it is an important tool. The poll showed that more than 80% of young Palestinians over the age of 17 in the West Bank and Gaza were depressed by their condition – with the number significantly large in Gaza than the West Bank, while 47% percent identified themselves as Muslim, 28% as Palestinians, 14% percent as humans, and 10 percent as Arabs. The survey stated, “Youth are exceptionally vulnerable to conflict, and unemployment rates for youth range from 35% in the West Bank to 51% in Gaza.”
Ethan Bronner, “U.S.-Backed Camp for Palestinian Forces Seen as Progress in State-Building,” The New York Times, February 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/middleeast/27palestinians.html?ref=world, reports that a U.S, supported training camp for Palestinian security forces in the West Bank is one of the few examples of sigfnificant movement in state building for the Palestinians. “For much of the past year, the Palestinian security forces have trained and increased their role as if all remained on track. Some 1,600 have been through American-financed courses in Jordan. In coordination with Israeli defense officials, Palestinian troops and police officers have taken over much of the patrolling in the West Bank cities of Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem and parts of Hebron. Last month, as Israel carried out a war in Hamas -ruled Gaza, some in the Muslim world called on the West Bank to stage a violent uprising in protest. But while there were demonstrations, no such uprising occurred, partly because the Palestinian Authority troops maintained tight order. All the while, these state-of-the-art facilities were being built, employing hundreds of Palestinian workers. The Presidential Guard College here has been functioning for several weeks, while the National Security Force Operations Camp elsewhere in Jericho will open at the end of next month. Along with police training facilities here supported by the European Union, they represent a new phase in the security plan: sophisticated training under Palestinian command has begun in Palestinian territory.”
A Spanish judge instituted a judicial inquiry, in January, against seven Israeli political and military leaders on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity, in the 2002 incident of the Israeli airforce dropping a one ton bomb on the home of Hamas leader Salah Shehade, that, in addition to the intended victim, killed 14 people, most of them children (http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/weekly_ad/1233350425/). The UN Human rights Council, in early April, selected respected South African judge, Richard J. Goldstone, who is Jewish, to lead an investigation of charges of human rights violations committed by Israeli security forces in the recent conflict in the Gaza Strip.
The war in Gaza has increased efforts, particularly in the UK and the U.S., to develop boycotts against Israeli Palestinian policy. “Hampshire College becomes first college in U.S. to divest from Israeli Occupation!” Posted by OPGAI, February 12, 2009 reports that Hampshire College in Amherst, MA, became the first college or university in the U.S. to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine, on February 7.
In one of the many, often unreported, exchanges and acts of mutual support among Israelis and Palestinians, in March, A group of young Palestinian musicians from the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank performed at a Tel Aviv club for elderly Holocaust survivors (Isabel Kershner, “Palestinians Serenade Survivors in Israel.” The New York Times, March 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/middleeast/26jenin.html?ref=world).
ICG, “Engaging Syria? U.S. Constraints and Opportunities,” February 11, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=5903, states, “Constrained by the legacy of a troubled relationship, the Obama administration’s first steps will be crucial if the new Syria policy it is preparing is to restore mutual trust without compromising core principles.” “For the U.S., improved ties present clear benefits: Damascus holds important cards in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine, is Iran’s most important Arab ally and has substantial influence over Hamas and Hizbollah. There is potential common ground, from resuming Israeli-Syrian negotiations, to consolidating progress in Iraq to blunting the rise of jihadi militancy and sectarianism. But the U.S.-Syrian relationship will develop against the backdrop of a range of sanctions and UN resolutions, a bipartisan consensus in Washington concerning Lebanese sovereignty and unprecedented estrangement. All this dictates the need for a prudent, progressive approach that first rebuilds ties and restores confidence. To build a more fruitful relationship, the Obama administration should consider three steps: articulate early on clear guiding principles, including renewed peace negotiations, support for withdrawal from the Golan, acknowledgment of positive Syrian gestures and no compromise on the international tribunal for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri or Lebanon‚s sovereignty; establish a full field presence, including nominating an ambassador, setting up a channel between Presidents Obama and Assad, most likely via the U.S. Middle East Special Envoy George Mitchell and dispatching a senior military officer to discuss Iraqi security issues; and rethink sanctions on the basis of clear policy objectives, beginning with streamlining licensing procedures and loosening restrictions on humanitarian or public safety grounds.” In March, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the United States was ready to begin talks with Syria, which were initiated with the Secretary’s visit to Damascus along with another top U.S. official, in early March.
In March, some deadly clashes took place in among Palestinians in the Refugee camps in Lebanon. ICG, “Nurturing Instability: Lebanon’s Palestinian Refugee Camps,” February 19, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=5928, cautions, “Filled with hundreds of thousands of marginalised and heavily armed Palestinians deprived of basic political rights, Lebanon‚s refugee camps are a time bomb that needs urgent attention.” “Unlike in other host countries, the refugee question is at the heart of Lebanese politics, a source of passionate debate and trigger of violence. It also is a breeding ground for jihadi militants and a tool manipulated by outside actors. The precarious situation results from years of neglect and mismanagement reflecting Lebanon’s security-first policy that discriminates against Palestinian refugees. ‘Over the years, virtually nothing has been done to genuinely address the problem,’ says Sahar Atrache, Crisis Group’s Lebanon Analyst. ‘The effort to hold refugees at bay and prevent their social or economic absorption has dangerous implications.’ The problem is compounded by regional and domestic faultlines between Lebanese parties; Palestinians and Israel; Palestinian parties; and Arab states. It also is entwined with sectarian divisions. Palestinians are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims; as the hope of significant return to Israel diminishes, fear has revived of their naturalisation in Lebanon, which would affect the delicate confessional balance. Action is needed by all parties, focused on three critical steps: Clarifying the Refugees‚ Status and Improving Camp Conditions. Lebanon should grant refugees fundamental rights, except for the right to acquire citizenship or to vote. Reviewing the Approach to Camp Security. Palestinian factions should ensure camp stability, ban public display of weapons and respect Lebanon‚s sovereignty; Lebanon should define a local security forces code of conduct and punish offenders. Palestinians and Lebanese should regulate arms in the camps, while the Lebanese and Syrian presidents begin negotiations to dismantle Palestinian military bases outside the camps. Enhancing Lebanese-Palestinian and Inter-Palestinian Cooperation. Coordination between the state and Palestinian factions must be strengthened; Palestinian institutional mechanisms are needed to protect Lebanon from the Fatah/Hamas rivalry’s fallout.” Crisis Group‚s Middle East Program Director, Robert Malley, warns, “The camps are a tinder box blend of socio-economic deprivation, political marginalization, mistrust of the state, ineffective security, radicalization, weapons and divided leadership. The Gaza conflict did not spark a conflagration. But the next match, domestic or regional, is likely to be struck soon.”
Lebanon opened an embassy in Damascus, in March, as part of the process of normalizing relations between the two neighbors, which is only now occurring some 60 years after Lebanon gained independence from Syria.
Michael Slackman, “Sectarian Tension Takes Volatile Form in Bahrain,” The New York Times, March 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/world/middleeast/28bahrain.html?ref=world, reports that the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain has suffered serious tensions between the Shiite Majority and the Sunni dominated government, with protests and riots by Shiites complaining of discrimination by Sunnis who control the government, in which Shiites have no leading positions, or in the army or police, or in nation’s social elite. The 40 member Parliament is controlled by Sunnni and Shiite political parties that have been heatedly fighting the issues separating their communities. Indeed, across the Middle East, there is a need for Sunni-Shi’ia reconciliation, especially with the emergence of Iran, a Shiite majority state, in a region where most nation’s have Sunni leadership.
China announced, February 11, that judicial authorities in Tibet had imposed prison terms for 21 additional people convicted of participating in the deadly riots last March. China has been progressively limiting access to the internet within its borders since the end of the Olympics. (See Andrew Jacobs, “More Punishments Announced for Tibet Rioters, The New York Times, February 11, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/asia/12tibet.html?ref=world).
With the 50th anniversary of a failed uprising against the Chinese invasion of Tibet this late winter and spring, a year after a Chinese crack down over renewed unrest, China has been again facing unrest with repression, sparking more resistance. For example, among many acts of resistance, many of them simple and silent, including turning the usually joyous Losar holiday into a dirge, honoring Tibetans who died in last year’s conflict and longing for the return of the exiled Dalai Lama, a police station in Tibet was bombed, and there was a riot at another. Many Monks and other Tibetans suspected of supporting resistance have again been detained or arrested. Some discussion of this is in Edward Wong, “Tibetans Greet New Year in Opposition,” The New York Times: February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/asia/26tibet.html?ref=worl; David Barboza, “Police Station Bombed in Tibetan Area of China,” The New York Times, March 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18tibet.html?ref=world, and David Barboza, “Tibet Protesters Are Held in China After Riot,” The New York Times, March 22, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/world/asia/23tibet.html?_r=1&em,
As part of President Obama’s renewal of engaging diplomacy, the United States has expanded its discussions with China, focusing more on issues of common ground, including beginning to discuss ways to meet global warming and related climate change, with less emphasis on divisive issues such as Chinese violations of human rights. In February, this encompassed a revival of Sino-American high level talks on military issues that had been suspended last year. U.S. Under Secretary of Defense David Sidney said that the talks were founded in a U.S. conviction that China’s rise as a military power was not a threat to American interests, and could be a stabilizing force in an uncertain world. He said that the talks were quite productive, in part, because of both sides had realized that regular cooperation was essential to addressing common problems in places such as Central Asia (Michael Wines, “U.S. and China Revive Military Talks,” The New York Times, February 28, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/world/asia/01china.html?ref=world).
The political division in Thailand, that recently brought down the previous government, remains in motion, with demonstrations continuing against the current government.
The war has progressed in Sri Lanka with government forces capturing almost all of the territory of the Tamil Tigers in heavy fighting. But the loss of their territory is not ending the insurgents fighting, using Guerilla methods. On March 18, The military was pressing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) attempting to take the last 28 square km (11 sq miles) of the separatist groups territory. The war has gone on for 25 years (“Sri Lanka War Rages, More Than 640 Make Boat Escape,” The New York Times, March 18, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/03/18/world/international-us-srilanka-war.html). Lakhdar Brahimi, “Sri Lanka: ‘A Slaughter Waiting to Happen’,” International Herald Tribune, March 20, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6013&l=1, warns, “The already severe humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka is on the brink of catastrophe. It will take the quick arrival of humanitarian relief and high-level international political muscle to bring the nightmarish situation to an end and prevent a slaughter.” It is estimated that 150,000 civilians are caught in the midst of the fighting, unable to escape or obtain food, water or medical assistance, as many become casualties. The UN estimates that from January to date 2,300 civilians have been killed and 6,500 wounded. Independent observers say that government military forces attack the rebel area indiscriminately. Brahimi comments, “Totally overwhelmed by government forces, the LTTE has lost. Holding civilian hostages and showing complete disregard for the Tamil population that it claims to want to liberate will not resurrect its ability to fight this war. Nor will the annihilation of thousands of civilians secure the government’s long-cherished victory over terrorism. On the contrary, the indiscriminate killing of its own citizens will make it harder for Colombo to seal its military victory with post-conflict reconciliation and development of the Tamil-majority north. Opinion among the millions of Tamils around the world, especially those in southern India, is being dangerously radicalized by images and stories of intense civilian suffering. The international community should not let the already desperate situation end up an all-out humanitarian catastrophe. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should insist on immediate access for U.N. staff to no-fire zones in order to assess the needs of the population. He should appoint a special representative to work with the government of Sri Lanka and all the relevant parties to guarantee the rights and protection of the endangered civilians. On the political side, other international leaders – in particular, President Barack Obama, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other leaders from Asia, the nonaligned movement and the Commonwealth – must urgently use their leverage to convince the Sri Lankan government to stop its offensive. They should help shift the government from a strategy of total annihilation to one of containment by addressing government fears that LTTE leaders will use a pause in the fighting to flee and regroup. In addition to assisting the U.N. in the evacuation of civilians, all these friends of Sri Lanka should commit themselves to supervise the surrender of the LTTE, with guarantees of the physical security of those who surrender, backed up by the presence of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees wherever the military receives civilians or surrendered fighters. The United States and India could also offer to increase naval surveillance in order to prevent remaining Tiger fighters from escaping by sea.”
North Korea, in mid-March, rejected future U.S. food assistance and expelled five groups distributing American aid in the country (North Korea Refuses U.S. Food Aid,” The New York Times, March 18, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html). North Korea continues to alternate hostile statements, and some actions, such as testing a long range missile, with more collaborative words and actions, as six power talks remain stalled, as of Mid-April. On March 24, North Korea stated that if the U.S. moved for the UN to invoke sanctions for launching a satellite, scheduled for early April – that the U.S., Japan and South Korea consider to be a missile test, that would be the end of the six power talks (Choe Sang=Hun, “N. Korea Warns Over Stalled Talks,” The New York Times, March 24, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/world/asia/25korea.html?ref=world). Center for Defense Information (CDI), Senior Analyst Victoria Samson in the March 18, 2009 issue of the Rome News-Tribune, “The Folly of Overreaction to North Korea,” asserts, “The recent speculation and hasty conclusions drawn from North Korea’s preparation for another ballistic missile launch are lacking in analysis of the fact that the DPRK already possesses other missiles in its arsenal capable of reaching South Korea and Japan, The article is available from CDI at: Senior Analyst Victoria Samson in the March 18, 2009 issue of the Rome News-Tribune. On April 5, North Korea went ahead with the missile launch, but the satellite failed to gain orbit. President Obama called for new UN sanctions on North Korea, about which China and Russia expressed hesitance (see the articles under, “Obama Cites North Korea in Pursuing Nuclear Cuts,” The New York Times, April 6, 2009).
Boarder Guards in Bangladesh mutinied over low pay and complaints of poor treatment by the regular army, in late February, leaving more than 40 dead, leaving an uncertain situation in a nation with many problems. However the situation has since calmed.
In the Kashmir area of India, violence has increased after a lull. In late March, at least 19 people were killed in several days fighting between Indian troops and Islamic militants.
Clashes between government forces and insurgents have been continuing in the Southern Philippines. For example, in mid-March fighting was in progress on the island province of Sulu between government forces and members of the group Abu Sayyaf, killing at least 3 soldiers and wounding 19 or more people, as the troops attempted to rescue three Red Cross workers who were kidnapped in January by Abu Sayyaf (Carlos H. Conde, “Soldiers in Philippines Clash With Abductors,” The New York Times, March 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18phils.html?ref=world).
International Crisis group is concerned that the Philippine government needs to change approach. “The Philippines: Running in Place in Mindanao,” February 16, 2009, saying, “The Philippines government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) should focus on reaching a ceasefire in central Mindanao, especially as a broader settlement of the conflict seems out of reach during the remaining tenure of the Arroyo administration.” “In August 2008, the Supreme Court stopped the two sides from signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Ancestral Domain, setting out the territory to be included in an autonomous Moro homeland, the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). It later ruled the agreement unconstitutional. In anger, three MILF commanders launched attacks, killing several dozen civilians. The government dissolved its negotiating team, disavowed the agreement, and mounted ‘punitive operations’ against the three commanders. hose operations are continuing and have led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands in central Mindanao. The government says they will end only when the MILF turns over the commanders, which it is not prepared to do. But it might be possible to find a way out that would involve acknowledging the commanders‚ responsibility for attacks and restricting their movements without formally arresting them. It will be much harder to move forward on the substantive issues that killed the MOA. Any agreement that gives the Moros the degree of autonomy they want will require a politically difficult constitutional change, and opposition to the BJE’s proposed territory on the part of key constituents – politically influential leaders, Christian and indigenous non-Muslim communities – remains implacable. Consultations and dialogues to solicit feedback from these groups have been planned, but they will be useful only if they translate into concrete policy recommendations.” John Virgoe, Crisis Grou’‚s South East Asia Project Director believes, “Peace is not around the corner in Mindanao. But getting a ceasefire in central Mindanao would be an important achievement in humanitarian terms alone.”
ICG, “Timor-Leste: No Time for Complacency, February 9, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5900&l=1, warns, “A year after Timor-Leste‚s president José Ramos-Horta was shot, security is markedly improved but at the cost of an army that is unreformed and increasingly unaccountable.” “‘There are worrying signs of disdain for the justice system and civilian control over the army,’ says John Virgoe, Crisis Group’s South East Asia Project Director. ‘The police and army depend too heavily on a few individuals and on personal relationships that have been able to hold the security forces together.” In the last year, the government has compensated former soldiers and made a good start “on sorting out life for the 30,000 internally displaced persons. But the government’s tactics have often amounted to little more than buying off the complainants. The ready granting of money, rice or other economic inducements to various pressure groups – not just the petitioners and the IDPs, but also veterans, civil servants and others – creates social jealousy, risks distorting the economy and may foster an entitlement culture. The underlying drivers of conflict – most especially in the security sector – remain. The government has bought time to pursue permanent solutions, but a lasting return to health will require the government to seriously tackle the causes of conflict, including fundamental reforms in the security sector, and to promote rather than undermine the rule of law. Presidential interventions in cases involving political violence have undercut an already-weak justice system. Timor-Leste has seen too much impunity, and too many people have evaded responsibility for their actions.”
Indonesia has had a history of harsh military administration and insurgencies in numerous places in its far flung island territories. Perhaps the least noticed of the Indonesian independence struggles has been in West Papua. Rachel Harvey, Papua’s struggle for independence reported on the BBC’s Newsnight programme, March 13, 2009 (posted on Kimpa Vita Press, March 15, http://kimpavitapress.org/2009/03/15/papuas-struggle-for-independence/), that though a vote was taken for West Papua to be part of Indonesia in 1969, it was by a very limited number of people and was very controversial. A small, low level, but for many in West Papua symbolically significant, independence struggle has been ongoing for many years. A major issue is the erosion of traditional Papuan cultures. The native population are of Melanesian, rather than Asian descent, as is the core of the Indonesian regime. Indonesians have been moving into West Papua and now comprise almost half the population. Meanwhile, “Over the years there have been serious abuses committed by the Indonesian security forces. Accusations of torture and rape persist. But under the democratically elected government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the military and police are being reformed.” Indonesian troops and police are presenting large numbers, as West Papaua is home to the environmentally controversial largest copper and gold mine in the world, as well as natural gas drilling, palm oil production and extensive lumbering that put extraction enterprises in direct conflict with Indigenous peoples.
ICG, “Indonesia: Deep Distrust in Aceh as Elections Approach,” March 23, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6014&l=1, is very concerned that, “Tensions in Aceh are high leading up to the 9 April elections and are likely to continue thereafter unless the underlying cause – growing distrust between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian military (TNI) – is addressed.” “Hostility between the TNI and the GAM is at its highest point since the peace deal in 2005, although there is little danger that the low-level pre-election violence will escalate. ‘Many in the TNI are convinced that GAM is still committed to independence, and that a big victory for Partai Aceh, GAM’s political party, could threaten the unity of the republic’, says Sidney Jones, Crisis Group’s Senior Adviser to the Asia Program. ‘Many in GAM see the military as determined to stop Partai Aceh at all costs and believe that pre-election attacks on its members or offices are linked to the TNI.’ The TNI’s fears are misplaced, despite the campaign rhetoric of some Partai Aceh members. The GAM leadership has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to the 2005 Helsinki agreement, and most ex-combatants, far from wanting to resume the conflict, are more interested in getting what they see as their fare share of post-conflict benefits – in some cases, through extortion. GAM fears may also be misplaced, but until the attacks – including four murders in February and March of men associated with Partai Aceh or GAM’s former armed wing – are solved, suspicions of TNI involvement will persist. One key to reducing tension lies in better law enforcement, but Aceh police have a poor record of identifying perpetrators of serious crimes. The appointment of a respected new provincial police commander in late February should help. GAM and the TNI each believe the other has reneged on commitments made in Helsinki or afterwards, but existing channels for dialogue have been weakened by the non-participation of key parties. Civil society has a huge role to play in getting the peace process back on track, by demanding accountability from GAM and the TNI, getting citizens to demand more from elected officials, and refusing intimidation from any party.”
ICG, “Tajikistan: On the Road to Failure,” February 12, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5907&l=1, finds, “Far from being a bulwark against the spread of violence from Afghanistan, Tajikistan is looking increasingly like its southern neighbour – a weak state that is suffering from a failure of leadership… without sweeping reforms to address food security, energy infrastructure and corruption, President Rakhmon‚s regime is in danger of collapse.” The government leadership fears reform will destroy its grip on power, while the world economic crisis is hitting the country especially hard, as until the downturn half of the nation’s workforce has been employed abroad, sending home large amounts of foreign currency. With greatly falling employmnt, those funds have been increasingly drying up. Growing unemployment and a falling quality of life, including crumbling of neglected infrastructure, and the likelihood that most of the country will go through the second consecutive winter without electricity, are creating a politial as well as social and econmic crisis. “The international community’s ability to effect change, however, is limited by its lack of unity and an absence of interest or even awareness of Tajikistan‚s problems in international capitals. Yet unity in their approach to this small country could produce big dividends and avoid even bigger problems. Despite the fragility of both regime and its infrastructure, the new U.S. administration clearly views Tajikistan as possible major participant in its plans to create a new supply line for coalition troops in Afghanistan. But Western security priorities in the region will not be reliably served by an incompetent, venal state near collapse.”
Azerbaijan voted, in mid-March, to approve a constitutional amendment removing term limits on the presidency. Opposition groups boycottd the election, holding that th provision would allow President Ilham Aliev, whose family had dominated the countries politics for 40 years, to become president for life.
Back to Top
European Developments
Steven Erlanger and Stephen Castle, “Dire Economy Threatens Idea of One Europe,” The New York Times, February 12, reports that, “the world economic crisis has unleashed forces threatening to split Europe into rival camps,” with the poorer and better off nations divided on what to do about the economic decline. As reported above, numerous countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, have experienced unrest as conditions have worsened. This includes Ukraine, whose government was threatening to collapse in early March. The increased funding for the International Monetary fund, primarily to assist less well off European nations, may ease some national situations and divisions in Europe.
Clifford J. Levy, “Medvedev to Bolster Military in Russia,” The New York Times, March 17, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/europe/18medvedev.html?ref=world, reports that Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev announced that Russia would begin a “large-scale rearming” in 2011 in response to what he called continuing threats to the country’s security, most particularly being encroached upon by NATO. Russia has raised spending for its military over the last several years, whose capacity dropped substantially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. No budget figures were given by the president for the increase in armed forces spending. Medvedev will have his first meeting with U.S. President Obama in April. Both Presidents have stated that they look forward to the meeting as a chance to begin relaxing tensions. On March 19, three former U.S. Secretaries of State and a former Secretary of Defense began meeting with top Russian official to try to move forward on restarting arms reduction negotiations (Andrew E. Kramer, “Veterans of U.S. Diplomacy Try to Revive Nuclear Arms Talks With Russia,” The New York Times, March 20, http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html). Those discussions on arms control were moving forward as of the beginning of April.
Gareth Evans, President, and Alain Délétroz Vice President (Europe) of the International Crisis Group, “NATO and Russia: In Need of a Bold Step”, April 2, 2009 (This article was first published, April 2, in Reuters: The Great Debate under the title “NATO and Russia,” http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/04/02/nato-and-russia/), states. “The biggest unresolved challenge facing the NATO countries‚ leaders when they meet on the Rhine this week is how to manage the organization’s relationship with Russia. Nobody wants to relive the Cold War, but habits of mind from that era persist on both sides, continuing to influence behavior and inhibiting the clean break from the past that would be in everyone‚s interest. Russia‚s invasion of Georgian territory last year seemed to confirm every latent NATO fear about the aggressive resurgence of the beast-from-the-east which the organization was formed sixty years ago to counter. And it is hard to argue that Moscow’s response to the situation in South Ossetia was not an indefensible overreaction, whatever judgment one makes about President Saakashvili’s contribution to the course of events. But what was missing from nearly all the Western reaction was any thoughtful reflection on what its own leaders‚ contribution might have been, over the years since the USSR collapsed, to Russia‚s newly assertive posture. It is not fully appreciated, even now, in most NATO capitals how strongly Moscow feels that the organization’s expansion, deep into the former socialist camp and the former USSR itself, was a brutally insensitive and confrontational response to the quick and generous Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Germany and Central Europe. The West rightly argues that all new NATO members have joined freely, and certainly not under pressure from the U.S. or EU member states. But the vast majority of Russians see NATO as an offensive military alliance, bombing Belgrade in 1999 without UN Security Council approval and now trying to surround Russia in spite of promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand eastwards. NATO has become an easy target for nationalists in Russia who want to buoy anti-Western sentiment and convince the population that they are facing a significant threat from outside – basically the same as that during the Cold War. It is unquestionably the case that in the present environment any new enlargement towards Russian borders, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, will be universally perceived in Russia as an unfriendly act that will demand retaliation. How can these tensions be defused in a way that will be constructive and forward-looking, but also acknowledge the political reality that neither NATO nor Russia will be very keen to fundamentally change its narrative of what has occurred so far? The best starting point, in our view, would be to acknowledge that the problem with NATO‚s expansion was not so much that it extended to Russia‘s borders, but that it stopped there. The most helpful single step, accordingly, that NATO leaders could take at this Summit would be to make a very clear statement that NATO is an alliance of the free open for membership by all countries on the European continent, including Russia itself, and encouraging Moscow to seek membership at a time of its own choosing. Making such an explicit public statement would have at least three positive consequences. It would place the ball in the Russian leadership‚s court, forcing it to consider the offer seriously and articulate a response. It would ease tensions surrounding Ukraine and Georgia: possible NATO enlargement here could no longer be seen as inherently unfriendly act towards Russia if the door is open for Russia itself to join the alliance. And it would paint into a corner the most nationalist politicians in Russia who use NATO so flagrantly to undermine any serious move toward real democratization at home. Crisis Group has recently tested this approach in private conversations with a number of senior officials in Moscow. Their reaction has been surprisingly uniform, and fascinating: Medvedev and Putin would think very seriously about it, and the military would probably be in favor. For the military, joining NATO would mean enhancing standards and being in the same game as the world’s most modern armies. For the Kremlin leadership, NATO’s transition to a visible new collective security‚ role, finally abandoning its Cold War collective defense‚ remit, might be a way of giving real content to President Medvedev’s call nine months ago for a new security architecture in Europe, as to which Moscow has not yet proposed any specific blueprint. What Medvedev has done is launch a very bold reform of the Armed Forces that, if carried out as presented, would mean that the Russian army will cease to be an broad defensive block facing the West, and instead become a modernized, quickly deployable outfit, capable of acting in regional or global hot spots, very much like its Western counterparts. There is a potentially significant message here which NATO should not ignore. If Barack Obama in Strasbourg this Friday were to state publicly that NATO at 60 is also there to welcome Russia should it decide to join, subject to satisfying the same conditions as every other new member, he would press a major ‘reset’ button indeed in US-Russian relations. The risk for the alliance in such a statement is negligible. Russia could say ‘no thank you’, but will have difficulty thereafter in claiming that NATO enlargement is targeted against Russia. Or it could respond positively, in which case it will have to start working hard on, among other things, creating the necessary democratic controls on its armed forces and its intelligence services – something that many Russians and people in the West have long been waiting for. A chaotic world demands bold leaders capable of taking bold historical steps. Two decades ago, Ronald Reagan made a vibrant call in Berlin to Mikhail Gorbachev to put his words into deeds by tearing down the Berlin wall, and he answered by doing exactly that. Opening the door for NATO membership now to Medvedev’s Russia is another step that would have profoundly positive implications for the future stability of Europe and the wider world.”
The Presidential election in Macedonia, in late March, was peaceful and found to be democratically proper by European monitors, as Gjorgje Ivanov, of the ruling Conservative Party, and Ljubomit Frckoski of the Social Democrats, took enough votes to meet in a run off election, April 5. Last year’s parliamentary election suffered from gun fights and fraud. (“Macedonia: Presidential Election Passes a Test,” The New York Times, March 24, 2009).
Tensions (reported in the last issue of NCJ) remain in Bosnia where a movement continues among Serbs to separate from the rest of the country (“Bosnia Unraveling,” The New York Times, February 23, 2009; and Dan Bilefsky, “Tensions Rise in Fragile Bosnia as Serbs Threaten to Seek Independence,” The New York Times, February 27, 2009).
The United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in the Hague, in February, convicted, and handed down long prison sentences, to five of six former high ranking members of the Milosevic government accused of serious human rights violations in Kosovo.
Moldavia, the poorest nation in Europe, has been experiencing demonstrations and riots by young people unhappy with the government. For example, in early April, a crowd of young people ransacked government offices and struggled with police in the capital, accusing the leading Communist Party of Election fraud in doing better than expected in winning the parliamentary election. Initial findings by European poll watchers were that the election was fair, despite a number of irregularities (Ellen Barry, “Protesters in Moldava Send a Call to Arms on Twitter,” The New York Times, April 8, 2009).
In Northern Ireland, the separate murders of two British Soldiers and a Northern Ireland policeman, allegedly by an IRA dissident group, seemingly to restart sectarian struggles, were met by strong condemnation by both Catholic and Protestant members of the government, with broad public support for the peaceful integration of society now in progress. Authorities have made several arrests in the murder cases, The British government, under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in late February, rejected a proposal by a government proposal consultative group that all families bereaved in 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland, about 3700 people, should receive a “recognition payment” from the government of £12,000. The proposal was controversial because of a recommendation that families of those killed while committing acts of violence, including individuals who died in bomb blasts they set themselves, should get the same payments as other families. The government indicated that it might approve a modified compensation program (John F. Burns, “Britain: Ulster Payment Plan Rejected,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/europe/26briefs-ULSTERPAYMEN_BRF.html?ref=world).
The Basque Nationalist Party, which governed Basque province of Spain for many years, and which favored Basque independence, failed to win enough seats to remain in power in the provincial election, at the end of February. In January, the Basque separatist group ETA, which continues to commit acts of violence, was threatening to undertake new attacks on a high speed rail link in the Basque country, and said it would continue to attack Media groups. ETA claimed responsibility for killing a journalist in December.
The high level Spanish court of Judge Baltasar Garson, who ordered the arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, has taken initial steps toward beginning an investigation of six former Bush Administration officials as to whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic basis for the use of torture of U.S. prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, including several Spanish citizens, which gives the court jurisdiction under Spanish law. The six include: former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, former Justice Department lawyer; John C. Yoo, who wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions; William J. Haynes II, Mr. Yoo’s former boss at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; Jay S. Bybee, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; David S. Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and Douglas J. Feith, former under secretary of defense for policy. (Marlise Simons, “Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials,” The New York Times,: March 28, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?em).
Back to Top
African Developments
Daniel Volman and William Minter, “Making Peace or Fueling War in Africa,” Foreign Policy In Focus, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=j4OWvw3m%2FrqdVbjnRdn6h%2FdelAJwQox%2F, looks at AFRICOM, the Pentagon’s new Africa Command, U.S. military involvement in Somalia, counterterrorism in the Sahel, and energy policy in Nigeria and concludes that U.S. policy toward Africa over the last eight years has been deeply flawed. They assert that for the most part, the Obama administration is continuing these policies, pointing out, “Nevertheless, there are also signals that U.S. officials, including some in the military and intelligence community, do recognize the need to give greater emphasis to diplomacy and development. The initial U.S. welcome to the election of moderate Islamist Sheikh Sharif Ahmed as president of Somalia is potentially an indicator of a new approach to that complex crisis.”
Marlise Simons and Neil MacFarquhar, “Court Approves Warrant for Sudan’s President Bashir,”: February 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/africa/12hague.html?ref=world, tells us, “Judges at the International Criminal Court have decided to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, brushing aside diplomatic requests to allow more time for peace negotiations in the conflict-riddled Darfur region of his country, according to court lawyers and diplomats. It is the first time the court has sought the detention of a sitting head of state, and it could further complicate the tense, international debate over how to solve the crisis in Darfur.” In Mid March, The government of Sudan expelled 13 international aid organizations from Darfur, and that all othe international assistance groups must leave within a year, in reaction to the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of President al-Bashir, putting the lives of millions in danger. In what is currently the world’s largest humanitarian operation, these organizations represent over half of the total capacity to provide basic services for the people of Darfur. The impact of this decision was felt within days, as food and medicine became unavailable, infectious disease spread, and large numbers of people were forced to relocate in search of nutrition, health and sanitation services. Humanitarian organizations called for rapid action to meet the gravely deepened crisis. In mid-March, following criticism that he was not strong enough on Darfur, U.S. President Obama began to speak more forcefully, while appointing Major General J. Scott Gration as a special envoy on Darfur (Peter Baker, “Adding Pressure to Sudan, Obama Will Tap Retired General as Special Envoy,” The New York Times, March 18, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html). Leaders of Arab states at the late March Arab Summit united in opposing the International Criminal Court’s indictment of fellow head of state, President al-Bashir. In early March, the UN Security Council deadlocked on taking any action on Suddan in the face of its President’s indictment and subsequent expulsion of aid groups. In the south of Sudan fighting over cattle between tribal groups, well armed with weapons left over from the civil war, left many dead in the oil rich region, in March, jeopardizing the peace treaty that ended the civil conflict.
With the situation reaching relative peacefulness in Chad, European peacekeepers transferred their mission in Chad to the UN, in March, with the primary goal of providing security for more than 2.5 million refugees from Darfur.
Fighting continues in fractured Somalia, with casualties including the deaths of African Union Peace Keepers from Burundi, in February.
Algeria continues to suffer violence, as exemplified by a series of attacks, in February. by al Quaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, that killed 7 soldiers and one suspected militant.
A power struggle continues in Zimbabwe. Cella W. Dugger and Alan Cowell, “Mugabe Foe Sworn In as Zimbabwe Prime Minister,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/africa/12zimbabwe.html?_r=1&hp, reports that a power sharing arrangement of sorts was initially realized, “After months of violence, negotiation, pressure and reluctant compromise, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was sworn in on Wednesday as the prime minister of a Zimbabwean government in which his nemesis, President Robert G. Mugabe, still dominates the repressive state security forces.” “News reports said one of the guests at the ceremony on Wednesday was Thabo Mbeki, the former South African president, who mediated the September accord.” “Mr. Tsvangirai announced he would name Tendai Biti, his party’s secretary general, to serve as finance minister.” “In a sign of Zimbabwe’s unresolved political tensions – and of the authoritarian reflexes of Mr. Mugabe’s government – riot police Tuesday [February 10] broke up a peaceful demonstration of some 600 members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise, assaulting some of them and arresting eight women and two lawyers.” “Even as the power-sharing talks were taking place, Mr. Mugabe’s government abducted dozens more opposition supporters, many of whom said they had been tortured.” As of late March, the struggle between Mugabe and the Prime Minister’s party and allies continues in the government and in actions across the country.” The continuing struggle is shown in more recent articles including Cella W. Dugger, “Zimbabwe’s Rival Leaders Deploy Their Chess Pieces, With Political Power the Prize,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/africa/26zimbabwe.html?ref=world,
With Rwanda, formerly an enemy, joining in the Congo government in military cooperation against the main rebel group in the Congo, a situation of growing violence in the Congo, suddenly became, at least temporarily, much more peaceful with the combined armies defeating the main rebel force and capturing its leader. However, ICG, “Conflict Risk Alert: DR Congo,” January 27, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1174&l=1 , points out that the deal between the two governments “risks a new escalation of combat in the eastern Congo and an even greater humanitarian crisis without assurances that it will solve the region’s political and security problems. Kigali and Kinshasa should immediately suspend their joint military operations until they define clearer military and political objectives for their new cooperation, work with the UN peacekeeping mission (MONUC) and humanitarian agencies to minimize the risk to civilians of any combat and develop a comprehensive strategy to foster disarmament of the Rwandan Hutu insurgents (FDLR). Normalzation of relations between Rwanda and Congo is essential if the eastern Congo and the Great Lakes region as a whole are to be stabilised. The agreement under which Rwanda accepted to withdraw its support from the CNDP insurgency of renegade general Laurent Nkunda, and simultaneously press it to accept integration into the national army, while Kinshasa agreed to a major military strike on its territory by the Rwandan army against the successors of the 1994 genocidaires is an attempt to address a problem that has poisoned bilateral relations for fifteen years. It has already produced one immediate and welcome result: Nkunda‚s replacement and subsequent arrest on 22 January. But the deal in its current form carries as many dangers as opportunities. The deployment of up to 7,000 Rwandan troops in eastern Congo will not achieve its goals within two weeks, as claimed by the Congolese information minister. The FDLR has some 6,500 tough fighters spread over a territory four to five times the size of Rwanda itself. Rwandan and Congolese troops will have to track their enemy deep into North Kivu, far from their own bases, and rely on civilians for their daily supplies. The Rwandans will be viewed as an occupying force by communities that suffered atrocities in two regional wars in 1996-97 and 1998-2001. Clear benchmarks have to be established for withdrawal of the Rwandan troops, as well as precise objectives to determine when the operation has succeeded or failed and needs to be stopped. Like the joint military strike against the Lord‚s Resistance Army that Uganda, Congo and the South Sudan army launched in December, the operation is likely to achieve few concrete results other than to cause damage to civilians, in this case notably to Congolese Hutus, and to provoke the intended target into a new spasm of attacks on innocent communities. At the same time other armed groups and communities who resent Tutsi military domination may oppose the Rwandans and even collaborate with the FDLR. If there are ambushes by local armed groups and subsequent reprisals, already extremely tense inter-communal relations will worsen. Further, the proposed formal integration of Tutsi insurgents into the Congolese national army (FARDC) is problematic. Bosco Ntaganda, who announced on 16 January that he and almost all top commanders of the CNDP insurgency were joining with FARDC to fight the FDLR, has a horrendous record of causing severe suffering to civilians during his operations. The International Criminal Court has indicted him for war crimes committed in the Ituri district. The combatants he has brought to Kinshasa’s side are stronger than FARDC in North Kivu, suggesting he will have substantial say in the operation. There are no reliable guarantees that Ntaganda and his men will accept integration into FARDC after the anti-FDLR operation has ended. The joint military operations that are in an early stage against the Rwandan Hutu rebels are at best only two elements of what needs to be a much more comprehensive strategy for peace-building in North Kivu. Also required are improved political and economic governance in the province, guarantees for the return and resettlement of displaced persons, and genuine steps toward reconciliation between communities. A comprehensive peace-building strategy should include: In addition to military pressure on the hardcore FDLR armed leadership that refuses voluntary disarmament and increased outreach to the FDLR rank and file – most of whom had nothing to do with the Rwandan genocide – including incentives and offers of relocation for those who accept voluntary disarmament, the international community should initiate legal action against FDLR political leaders living in Europe and North America. Humanitarian organizations and MONUC should prepare contingency plans to protect civilian populations from violations of international humanitarian law, including FARDC/Rwandan army attacks and FDLR reprisals. Kinshasa should negotiate with the CNDP an integration plan that would also apply to other North Kivu Congolese armed groups, drawing on significant international support, including mentoring, training and financing; in view of the mass crimes and widespread sexual violence committed by the CNDP and FARDC in the province, a vetting mechanism should exclude significant human rights abusers from the national army and begin to address issues of accountability. The mediation led by UN Special Envoy Olusegun Obasanjo and African Union Special Envoy Mkapa should simultaneously craft a political process dealing with the other aspects of the North Kivu crisis, including inter-communal reconciliation; inclusive access to administrative positions in the province; return, with guaranteed security of tenure, of displaced persons and refugees from all communities; and conditions for the restoration of transparent and accountable state authority, including over mineral exploitation.” Rwanda and Congo moved toward reconciliation, in February, reopening embassies in each other’s capitals. The countries have been seeking to normalize relations, ruptured in 1996 when Rwanda invaded Congo in search of Hutus responsible for the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Healing and Rebuilding Our Community Workshops, sponsored by the African Great Lakes Initiative of the Friends Peace Teams has been developing forgiveness and reconciliation among survivors of the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi (David Zarmbka, “The Challenges of Reconciliation,” Peace Works, Bo. 35, no, 390, November, 2008.
Kenya’s troubles, set in serious motion a year ago over a stolen election, have continued less obviously in the months since a coalition unity government was established. Ethnic fighting sparked by the national political battle has continued to some extent, while starvation has emerged because farmers who fled their land in many areas have not returned, Meanwhile, confidence in the government has fallen, and, in February, U.N officials demanded the country’s attorney general and police chief resign, after it became known that police death squads had murdered more than 500 people. There have also been a great many scandals involving top officials concerning major improprieties concerning terrorism, food, weapons and fuel (Jeffrey Gettleman, “Starvation And Strife Menace Kenya,” The New York Times, March 1, 2009)
ICG, “Guinea-Bissau: Building a Real Stability Pact,” January 29, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5888&l=1, warns, “Despite Guinea-Bissau’s widely praised elections in 2008, allegations of attempted assassination and coup d’état heighten the need to guarantee stability and institutional reforms.” “The West African country‚s new prime minister, Carlos Gomes Junior, has an opportunity to carry out the administrative and political measures needed to strengthen the state, stabilize the economy and fight drug trafficking. But he will need to base his approach on political dialogue with President Nino Vieira, the army and rivals within his own party.” ICG West Africa Project Director Richard Moncrieff says. “Guinea-Bissau’s institutions remain structurally feeble Without a real commitment on the part of the ruling elite to end the intrigues and violence that are so damaging to the country‚s prospects, it will remain unstable and unable to cope with rampant corruption or change its status as a key drugs transiting country.” “The permanent threat of military intervention in politics adds to the risks of government paralysis. An alleged coup d’état in July 2008 and an alleged attempt to kill President Vieira one week after the elections illustrate the country‚s fragility. The elections resulted in a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly for the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) and its leader, Gomes Junior. Nevertheless, there are serious fissures within the party; Vieira and Gomes Junior are bitter foes, and shifts in alliances within PAIGC could bring down the prime minister before the presidential elections scheduled for 2010. Prime Minister Gomes Junior should initiate talks with the president and the ruling party, with a view to producing a program to which all stakeholders commit. A similar dialogue needs to be opened with the military leadership on speeding up security sector reform. Regional partners and donor countries should press all political actors to take part in the above dialogues and support their conclusions. Donors should release money promised for security sector reform as soon as possible and set up an effective mechanism to coordinate their efforts in that area. The UN Peace Building Commission (PBC) should help keep promised donor aid (both financial and technical) flowing, in particular for security sector and administrative reforms and the fight against drug trafficking.”
Madagascar’s President, Marc Ravalomanana, resigned, March 24, and turned the government over to the military, who in turn passed the presidency of the island nation to Andry Rajoelina, former Mayor of Madaga, the nation’s capital, after a two month crisis during which Rajoelina ran a parallel government. The Madagascar Supreme Court subsequently approved th change of government. There is concern in the international community about the removal of an elected president. (See, Barry Bearak, “Madagascar’s President Quits After Weeks of Chaos,” The New York Times, March 18, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/world/africa/19madagascar.html?ref=world, and “Army – Backed Leader Cements Grip In Madagascar,” The New York Times, March 18, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/03/18/world/international-us-madagascar-crisis.html).
NATO warships are rejoining a growing international force on anti piracy patrols along the Horn of Africa (“NATO Resuming Anti-Piracy Mission,” The New York Times, March 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/26/world/AP-EU-NATO-Piracy.html?ref=world), as private security firms offer their services to shipping passing through the worlds most heavily pirated area along the Somalia cost.
Eric Schmidt, “Study Says Pentagon’s Africa Command Needs to Refine Mission,” The New York Times, March 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/washington/26command.html?ref=world, informs that a GAO report finds that, “The Pentagon’s new Africa Command is still recovering from early missteps in explaining its missions and purpose, miscues that government investigators say have left lingering fears at the State Department, in Congress and on the continent that the Defense Department is militarizing the nation’s foreign policy in Africa. Investigators also reported problems with the command’s goal of filling its ranks with many more diplomats and civilians from the Treasury, Commerce and other federal departments than traditional military commands.” The possible militarization of U.S. African policy is a concern both to African governments and U.S. policy makers. The GAO report acknowledged the Pentagons taking some steps to move away from such an outcome.
Back to Top
Latin American Developments
Eisabeth Malkin, “Nafta’s Promise, Unfilled: After 15 Years, the Pact has Mixed Results, The New York Times, March 24, 2009, finds that while Mexico’s exports have increased by five times, to $292 billion in 2008, under NAFTA, Mexico continues to export people, in part because multinationals took advantage of free trade to import parts from abroad to uses in assembly in Mexico, while many Mexican farmers became under priced in the absence of import duties or import quotas. Many Mexican farmers have given up agriculture and gone to the U.S. In addition, the low wages paid in Mexican factories only provide limited purchasing power, so that the net gain for the Mexican economy has been small, and free trade has not been a good mechanism of economic development, even where it has been successful. With the international, and particularly U.S., economic crisis, free trade has made Mexico more vulnerable to the economic drop off, leading to increasing unemployment and a weaker Peso. Some of the limited gains of Nafta, expanding GNP about 3% a year until recently, are blamed by some economists on Mexican leaders failure to enact needed reforms. Beyond what Malkin discusses, there are numerous other problems resulting from NAFTA, including increased pollution along the Mexican-U.S. border as plants moving to Mexico from the U.S. have been under much lower environmental standards.
Laura Carlsen, “NAFTA’s Dangerous Security Agenda,” Americas UPDATER, January 28, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5813, argues, “When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated in the early 90s, few people considered its security implications. It wasn’t until after the Bush administration came into power, and the attacks of 9/11 led to the Bush National Security Doctrine, that security issues took center stage in regional integration. The Bush counter-terrorism model demanded that Canada and Mexico assume both the model and the administration’s military priorities. The NAFTA security expansion of 2005, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership, was adopted and developed without public or congressional consent. It is time for it to be terminated. A review by Congress can determine which working groups should continue under the framework of NAFTA and how their composition can be changed to reflect the real and diverse interests of society.”
Vince McElhiny, “Global Crisis is Good News for IFIs in Latin America,” Americas UPDATER, January 28, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5817, reports, “The World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank have announced dramatic increases in lending to Latin America in the wake of the global credit squeeze triggered by the U.S. financial collapse. Crowded to the margin in recent years by demands for financial independence backed by high commodity prices and steadily growing reserves, the World Bank, IDB, and IMF are happily back in business. The U.S. financial crisis has exposed the profound negligence in accountability of many of the same financial actors (Northern intermediary banks, insurance companies, credit ratings agencies) on whom the international project finance system depends. As taxpayers begin to question the credibility of the gatekeepers of the U.S. financial system that blatantly accumulated private fortunes but now require public funds to socialize the costs, can the IFIs remain immune from their role in enabling the crisis by failing to act earlier?”
Laura Carlsen, “Drug War Doublespeak,” Foreign Policy In Focus, March 10, 2009, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5944, seeks to penetrate the misleading U.S. and Mexican government and media reports on the drug war in Mexico to illuminate what is actually taking place. She finds that the government of Felipe Calderón is simultaneously steering the country toward collapse and yet managing somehow to effectively prosecute the drug war, saying “Drug-war doublespeak pervades and defines the U.S.-Mexico relationship today. The discourse aims not to win the war on drugs but to assure funding and public support for the military model of combating illegal drug trafficking, despite the losses and overwhelming evidence that current strategies are not working.”
The drug war in Mexico took over 6000 lives in 2008, double, the 2007 figure, and has been spilling over the border into the U.S., increasing the drug related violence already existing in the U.S. As a result, the Obama administration has doubled the number of federal security agents around the border (Ginger Thompson, “U.S. Taking Steps to Control Violence on the Mexican Border,” The New York Times, March 24, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/politics/25border.html?hpw), while beginning to take steps top reduce the flow of money and the huge number of assault weapons that Mexican drug dealers acquire from the U.S., the source of the vast majority of such guns that the Mexican drug dealers use [This estimate has recently been lowered to about 20% of arms used by Mexican drug cartels.] (James C. McKinley, Jr., “U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels,” The New York Times, February 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html?ref=us),
Kent Paterson, “The Crisis Slams Mexico,” America’s Updater, February 5, 2009 finds that the world economic crisis has begun to have a significant impact on Mexico, “sparking protests from the Mexican social sector. Whether Mexico’s political system can contain current outbreaks of popular protest with more crumbs will depend on how deep the economic crisis reaches, as well as factors such as the unpredictable dynamics of violence and retaliation, repression, and more violence unleashed by the narco war. The ability of popular movements to transcend immediate economic demands, forge a common agenda, and place the issue of Mexico’s economic model squarely at the center of political debate is paramount for taking the country on a different path from the one that is leading toward greater economic and social decomposition. And, as many Mexicans are acutely aware, the character of the new Obama administration will greatly influence, for better or worse, outcomes in their own country.” The full article is at: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5894. On March 24, U.S. Secretary of State visited Mexico, admitting that the U.S. played a large role in the Mrxican drug war difficulties, because of both the supply of guns coming across the border and the huge drug use financing the Mexican drug cartels. It is likely that there will be an increase of U.S. financial, and possibly military equipment aid, from the U.S. to the Mexican government in its drug war (Mark Landler, “Clinton Admits U.S. Demand Feeds Mexico’s Drug Trade,” The New York Times, March 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/americas/26mexico.html?ref=world).
In El Salvadore, in March, Mauricio Funes, candidate of the leftist party, and former insurgent group, FMLN, became the first leftist candidate to win the presidency. He stated open winning the election that he intends to govern as a moderate progressive in the spirit of national unity.
ICG, “Haiti 2009: Stability at Risk,” March 3, 2009,” http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5952&l=1, warns, “To keep Haiti on course and avoid further unrest, its government needs to build a broad national consensus, reaching out to parliament and civil society.” “A series of crises in 2008 have pushed more Haitians into poverty and increased the potential for serious trouble this year. ‘The socio-economic situation is worse than at the time of the April 2008 riots and the fall of the Alexis government,’ says Bernice Robertson, Crisis Group’s Senior Haiti Analyst. ‘President René Préval and Prime Minister Michèle Pierre-Louis need to secure the support of donors and parliament to swiftly implement a wide-ranging stabilization strategy or risk renewed political instability and violence.’ There is an urgent need for broad political consensus and improved relations between the executive and legislative branches of government as well as a government-donor-civil society partnership to kick start a community-oriented process that will not only reconstruct Haiti but also transform it into a safer and more stable nation. The immediate focus should include: identifying government-led, community-approved, high-impact and high-visibility projects to tackle key challenges such as job-creation and food shortages; boosting security sector reform by speedily completing actions planned and begun in 2008 to control porous borders and corrupt and inefficient ports; working closer with parliament and improving transparency in handling emergency funds and carrying out reconstruction; and strengthening democratic institutions and stabilization efforts by holding inclusive elections in 2009 observed by nationals and internationals.” Crisis Group’s Latin American Program Director, Markus Schultze-Kraft, states, “The April 2009 donors conference is important since it will largely determine whether the government can meet the expectations of the country’s poor and avoid further unrest. Senate elections in April and the constitutional reform debate shortly after will set the political tone for reconstruction and development efforts during the remainder of the year.”
Following up on a campaign promise, On April 4, President Obama relaxed restrictions on family members of Cubans in the U.S. traveling to, and sending remittances to family members, in Cuba (Eric Schmitt and Damien Cave, “Obma to Loosen Restrictions on Policy With Cuba, The New York Times, April 5, 2009).
The governor of Nariño Province, Columbia, on February 10, accused FARC rebels of killing at least 17 indigenous peasants, members of the Awa tribe, they accused of collaborating with the army. Governor Antonio Navarro stated that a witness reported the murders took place February 4 (“Colombia: Rebels Accused of Killing 17 Peasants,” The New York Times, February 11, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/americas/11briefs-REBELSACCUSE_BRF.html?ref=world). ICG, “Ending Colombia‚s FARC Conflict: Dealing the Right Card,” March 26, 2009, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6016&l=1, proposes, “The Uribe government needs to complement its military approach to defeating the FARC with a political negotiation strategy if it is to end Colombia‚s half-century long armed conflict.”"The rebel group has suffered severe setbacks, but under its new leader, Alfonso Cano, is not close to military defeat. Since President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, it has seen its capability weakened by an aggressive government offensive, but it retains remarkable adaptive capacity.” Mauricio Angel Morales, Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst in Colombia, states, “‘President Uribe‚s strategy aims at ending the conflict through military victory without political negotiations. However, evidence suggests that the insurgents are not close to defeat in the short- or even medium-term and that the best option for the government is to complement continued military pressure with a comprehensive strategy aimed at establishing peace negotiations.’ n the past seven years, the FARC has seen many of its top commanders captured, killed in combat or even murdered by their own men. Thousands of fighters have deserted, bringing the guerrillas‚ troop strength down by almost half, to perhaps 10,000 today. In response, the FARC has decentralised tactical command-and-control and is prioritizing ambushes on government forces as well as indiscriminate use of unconventional weapons such as landmines. It also seeks to retain control of routes and strategic areas in the Andes mountain ranges and along the Pacific coast and the borders with Ecuador, Panama and Venezuela. It continues to rely heavily on drug trafficking to finance the war, and some fronts have established alliances with paramilitary successor groups and organized crime. To end Colombia‚s protracted conflict, the government should sustain military pressure on the FARC and other illegal armed groups but also design a strategy for peace talks with the still-functioning rebel leadership. Otherwise, FARC splinter groups could end up joining the ranks of Latin America‘s criminal underworld. Likewise, it should keep open all options for freeing the remaining hostages in FARC captivity, including exchanging FARC prisoners it holds for them, and seek the help of outside actors such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Brazil and possibly Chile.”
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez won a referendum, in mid-February removing term limits on the Presidency and allowing him to run again in 2013 for a third six-year term. Later that month he ordered the army to take control of all rice processing facilities in the country, which could include factories owned by U.S. food firm Cargill and Venezuela’s main food company Polar. The President accuses rice companies of overcharging, producing rice at higher prices than those set by the government. Venezuela raises sufficient rice for domestic consumption and exports a small Quantity. The seizure took place on the 20th anniversary of deadly riots in Venezuela over high prices (“Chavez Orders Army to Seize Venezuela Rice Mills,” The New York Times, February 28, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/02/28/world/international-us-venezuela-chavez-rice.html). In early March, Chavez ordered the Venezuelan navy to take over the nations seaports that have major petroleum facilities, as part of the governments efforts to assert greater control over infrastructure that had come under domination of political opponents in municipal elections in 2008 (Simon Romaro, Chavez Tells His Navy to Takeover Key Seports,” The New York Times, March 6, 2009.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Hamoud Ahmadinejad shook hands at the inauguration of a joint development bank to finance economic development projects in both nations, in Tehran, in early April,
Bolivia again expelled a U.S. diplomat, in March, complaining that Francisco Martinez had conspired with opposition groups. In February Ecuador expelled two U.S. diplomats, on separate occasions, in both cases for allegedly trying to manipulate appointments in local police departments. In all of these cases the U.S. state department denied any inpropriaty by its personnel.
The cocaine trade is contributing to reigniting the war in Peru between the government and the Shining Path Gurillas that supposedly ended in 2000. In mountain rainforest villages in the south of the country villagers complain of being caught in between the two sides, being accused and attacked by both sides for supposedly helping the other. The battle to control the country’s largest cocoa producing area is concentrated in the jungle of Vizcatán, a 250-square-mile region in the Apurímac and Ene River Valley. While local cocoa farmers say they are only producing the leaves for traditional use, there are indications that 90% of the crop production goes into producing cocaine for trafficking, which has become the primary focus of the Shining Path, which previously only engaged in limited trafficking to support its military-political activity. So far the conflict is at a far lower scale than the deadly war of the 1980s and ’90s. A security analyst in Lima, Peru’s capital, Jaime Antezana, estimates that the Shining Path employs about 500 laborers in the cocaine trade, in addition to about 350 armed combatants. The military began its campaign against the renwed gurilla group last August. The insugeants are reported to have killed at least 26 people in 2008, including 22 soldiers and police officers. Human rights groups are demanding inquiries into claims that Peruvian soldiers killed at least five innocent civilians, and may be responsible for the disappearance of two children in Río Seco and the displacement of dozens of families in a number of villages (“Cocaine Trade Helps Rebels Reignite War in Peru,” The New York Times,, March 17, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/americas/18peru.html?ref=world).
Raúl Zibechi, “Is Brazil Creating Its Own ‘Backyard’?” Americas UPDATER, Vol. 7, No. 3, February 11, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5836, notes, “In past months a number of conflicts have occurred between the emerging global power of Brazil and its smaller neighbors, in particular Ecuador and Paraguay. This has led Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s government to defend Brazil’s multinationals and to mobilize troops to protect the nation’s interests. This approach is basically an affirmation of the emerging power Brazil that its borders extend to wherever its national interests are. Perhaps due to this, many South Americans worry that Brazil is creating its own ‘backyard.’”
Gretchen Gordon, “Migration and Mechanization in Brazil’s Biofuel Cane Fields,” Americas Program, February 9, 2009, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5851, informs that the huge sugar cane biofuel business in Brazil, which has long drawn migrants from all over the country for abusive jobs approaching slave labor, in the face of international scrutiny of its labor practices is rapidly mechanizing, creating a new round of unemployment and increased poverty that can only be solved with appropriate development of the countries low income areas.
The UN & other International Developments
China and a group of developing nations has been working to downgrade the U.S. role in setting world economic policy at the International Monetary Fund and other institutions. China and Russia are proposing that the U.S. dollar no longer be used as the world currency of international exchange. If the dollar, weakened by huge government budget deficits created under the Bush administration, and a continuing unfavorable balance of trade, stops being the primary currency of international exchange, it would almost surely create serious inflation in the United States.
Neil MacFarquhar, “Stimulus Sought for Poorest Countries,” The New York Times, March 25, 20o9, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/26briefs-G20.html?ref=world, reports that UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon wrote the leaders attending the Group of 20 economic meeting in London, at the beginning of April, requesting that the worlds leading economic establish a $1 trillion global stimulus package to help the particularly hard hit economies of the poorest countries over the next two years. Meeting host, British Prime minister Gordon Brown, stated that he recognized that it was “urgent” for the Group of 20 to take action to help the world’s poor, but thought it was premature to consider a particular amount of aid, prior to the conference.
Reversing Bush Administration policy, the United States is now seeking election to the U.N. Human Rights Council, seeing membership as the most effective vehicle for changing the council’s practice of ignoring poor human rights records of member states (Neil MacFarquhar, “In Reversal, U.S. Seeks Election to U.N. Human Rights Council,” The New York Times, April 1, 2009).
The United States & Canadan Developments
President Obama, on April 5, called for the United States and its allieys to move to a new nuclear strategy, deemphasizing having and developing atomic weapons, and focusing on preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. He stated that the U.S. would take leadership in vastly reducing its atomic arsenal to develop a stronger program of international cooperation against nuclear proliferation in the face of growing threats of terrorists obtaining nuclear materials and weapons, which he believes is now the primary nuclear weapons threat to the world. He pointed to North Korea as a major problem in this regard. President Obama did say, however, that he would continue anti-missile development, tied to Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition (Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger, He Sees Greater Risk as Terrorist Groups Seek Weapons,” The New York Times, April 6, 2009).
^^^^^^^^^^^
