worldpolicy.org

A breakthrough agreement between Britain and Northern Ireland will see the province take control of its own justice system. After months of deadlocked negotiations, Prime Ministers Gordon Brown of Britain and Brian Cowen of Ireland announced the plan at a joint press conference Friday alongside the leaders of the Protestant Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the Catholic republican group, Sinn Fein, who share power in Northern Ireland’s Stormont Assembly. The “Agreement at Hillsborough Castle” calls for policing and justice in Northern Island to shift from Parliament to the Assembly by April 12, the same day by which the political rivals of Ireland’s power-sharing government are expected to choose a justice minister. The agreement combines Sinn Fein’s demands for Irish control over the department with the DUP’s calls for increased oversight of often violent loyalist parades. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded the hard-won agreement, saying: “This has not been an easy road. There were plenty of bumps along the way. I have been in regular contact with the parties since my trip to Belfast in October, and I know that at times the path forward was far from clear.” Clinton also took the opportunity to invite DUP head Peter Robinson and Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness to Washington to discuss American investment in Northern Island. While more politically stable, the country is battling an economic downturn, with over 8000 manufacturing jobs lost in the last year, some due to American companies pulling out of the region.

Toyota President Akio Toyoda has announced he will set up a new quality control committee after the recall of more than eight million cars worldwide due to floor mat and gas pedal problems. In a press conference in Nagoya, Japan, on Friday, Toyoda said the company will address reported braking problems with the much lauded, planet-saving Prius hybrid car (there have been 200 reports of brake problems with the 2010 Toyota Prius in the United States)—but stopped short of announcing the recall of some 270,000 cars, which some analysts were expecting. Toyoda, who had been conspicuously silent to date, made the appearance to allay worries, and said, “I’d like to offer a heartfelt apology for causing so much trouble to so many of our customers.” The announcement came after Toyota Motor Corp. reported a net income of $1.68 billion for the last three months of 2009, up from a loss of about $1.82 billion one year earlier.

At least 32 people are dead after the third attack in a week struck pilgrims at a major religious ceremony south of Baghdad. In Friday’s twin car bombing, a suicide attacker exploded a car bomb moments after another car bomb detonated near a crowded highway just east one of three main entrances to Kerbala, a city 50 miles south of Baghdad where Shiite pilgrims have been celebrating the holy day of Arbaeen. The attack came shortly after noon and the area was also struck by two mortar rounds following the first explosions; more than 70 people were wounded and the death toll is expected to rise. It follows similar attacks on the festival on Wednesday, when a motorcycle bomb exploded near the site of Friday’s detonation, killing dozens, and Monday, when a suicide bomber killed at least 54 pilgrims north of Baghdad. Advisor to the Iraqi Council of Ministers Saad al-Muttalabi has blamed Al Qaeda and former Baathists. Al Jazeera reports that around 30,000 troops and police have been deployed to protect Shiite pilgrims from further attacks, but the large numbers of worshipers and difficulty securing the roads and city have made Kerbala a prime target for suspected Sunni militants.

Posted in THE INDEX | 4458Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/02/05/the-index-%e2%80%94-february-5-2010/THE+INDEX+%E2%80%94+February+5%2C+20102010-02-05+18%3A29%3A17Joel+Meares

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for a roadside bomb attack Wednesday morning that left three American soldiers and three Pakistani schoolgirls dead, while wounding at least 45 others. The attack occurred during the opening ceremony of a girls’ school in the Lower Dir district of Pakistan’s federally administered tribal areas. According to a statement released by the American embassy in Islamabad, “The Americans were U.S. military personnel in Pakistan to conduct training at the invitation of the Pakistan Frontier Corps. They were in Lower Dir to attend the inauguration ceremony of a school for girls that had recently been renovated with U.S. humanitarian assistance.” A Taliban spokesman said that the bombing was a response to recent American drone attacks in the region, one of which is thought to have killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. “It’s revenge for the bomb blasts carried out by Blackwater in Pakistan,” the spokesman said, referring to the American private military contractor that now goes by the name Xe Services—a corporate re-branding necessitated in the wake of a September 2007 firefight by employees in Iraq that left at least a dozen civilians dead. Xe was a subcontractor to the CIA for loading bombs on drones, but that contract was canceled in December. (Xe, however, still provides “security and support” services.) The company has become a notorious symbol of U.S. involvement in the country, stoking suspicion and anti-American sentiment among many prominent Pakistanis. In the aftermath of the December 30 suicide attack that killed 8 CIA operatives in Afghanistan, the United States has increased its drone activity in Pakistan’s federally administered tribal areas, a region from which many U.S. intelligence officials believe Afghan insurgents draw their support.

Following last week’s presidential elections, Sri Lanka’s election commissioner attempted to quell growing allegations of voter fraud and disenfranchisement by affirming his certainty that there was no vote rigging. However, the commissioner expressed his dissatisfaction with the tenor of the campaign in the run-up to the vote. “I am not satisfied with what has happened in the campaign period,” the commissioner told reporters on Wednesday. “But I stand by the voting process and the results.” The commissioner’s assessment jives with the opinion of a team of election observers from the Commonwealth Secretariat, who deemed the election itself to have “proceeded reasonably well in most areas,” but complained about a “compromised pre-election environment” in which state organs incited violence and disregarded legal provisions. The election results were skewed heavily in favor of Sri Lanka’s incumbent, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who took 58 percent of the vote; his main challenger, retired army chief Sarath Fonseka, polled 40 percent. Previously, Fonseka and Rajapaksa had been allies, but tensions strained during the campaign and a reconciliation now seems unlikely. On Monday, President Rajapaksa sought to purge the country’s military of several senior officers, saying they were a “direct threat to national security” after last week’s elections. Fonseka and others allege that Rajapaksa’s move was a retaliatory measure to punish those factions within the country’s military that had supported Fonseka’s presidential bid.

An appeals chamber at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands issued a decision on Wednesday ordering the court’s pretrial judges to reconsider their rejection of the genocide charges against Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. The Appeals Chamber revised an earlier ruling by ICC pretrial judges who, in March 2009, issued an arrest warrant for Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, but rejected charges of genocide. Today, appeals judges asserted that the court’s Pre-Trial I Chamber used an “erroneous standard of proof” in rejecting the genocide charges, and directed the court “to decide anew, on the basis of the correct standard of proof, whether a warrant of arrest in respect of the crime of genocide should be issued.” The ICC, which was established in 2002, made headlines last year when it sought to apprehend Bashir, a sitting head of state, for violence committed by the Sudanese government against three ethnic groups in western Sudan. Regarding the question of genocide, the legal standard in question concerns the issue of “genocidal intent,” which, in order to secure a conviction, ICC prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The ICC’s Appeals Chamber argued that, for the purposes of issuing an arrest warrant, pre-trial judges should have applied a weaker standard of proof. Among experts and concerned analysts of Darfur, however, there remains significant controversy as to whether the initial warrant was a positive step in alleviating the ongoing crisis. The reconsideration as to whether Bashir should stand trial on genocide charges should only reignite the debate.

Posted in THE INDEX | 4450Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/02/03/the-index-%e2%80%94-february-3-2010/THE+INDEX+%E2%80%94+February+3%2C+20102010-02-03+19%3A53%3A10alleneli

WARSAW—The Polish Ministry of Defense has decided to allow American forces to place a Patriot missile battery in Morag, barely 75 miles from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad that borders Poland. For months, unofficial reports had claimed that missiles would be stationed in Wesola, some 150 miles southwest of Warsaw, further from Russian territory.

The Defense Ministry alleges that the decision has nothing to do with Russia. They say that the military base in Morag is simply better prepared to host an American installation than any other base within reasonable distance of the Polish capital. Though a host of commentators are up in arms about the decision—seeing in it signs of a new Polish aggressiveness—these worries are misplaced.

Whether one battery of Patriots would add anything to the Polish air-defense system is questionable, but if so, the proposed location is probably the best place for these defensive weapons.

Yet, to be fair, it is difficult not to see the strategic importance of—and dangers inherent in—this decision. Russia has short-range missiles called Toczka in Kaliningrad, which can be armed with nuclear warheads. The Kremlin has also warned Warsaw that should it accept a U.S. missile defense system, it will be forced to move batteries of more dangerous Iskander missiles to the enclave.

As is to be expected, Moscow has reacted aggressively to any idea of new, advanced military installations being placed in Poland. The Kremlin’s initial reaction to the new location was a prompt (though unofficial) report, suggesting that it would move to strengthen its Baltic Fleet, which consists of some 100 ships. During the Cold War, this fleet was an advanced fist of Soviet power directed toward the West. Clearly, though, decisions of this caliber are not made easily or quickly. So is this just reflexive rhetoric from Moscow, or the beginnings of a new arms race?

Even before the proposed battery of Patriot missiles in Morag (only long-outdated Polish anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems are now deployed there), Russia has held fast to its theoretical “right” to attack, all but unopposed, this NATO member state. It’s as if the Cold War were still in effect. Maintaining this status quo is part posturing, part antiquated sense of security for the Kremlin—Poland continues to embody a buffer zone between the Russian bear and the well-equipped NATO main forces in Western Europe.

But nervous legislators in Warsaw should not allow Russian warnings to prevent the installation of new Patriot batteries. This eventuality would not produce a more harmonious relationship and in no sense enhances Poles’ sense of security.

From the very beginning of the negotiations concerning the placement of the U.S. missile defense system in Poland, our authorities set conditions about strengthening Poland’s air-defense network. Indeed, Polish negotiators received guarantees that one battery of Patriots would be placed in Poland even if the broader project was not developed.

Sure enough, President Barack Obama decided to scrap plans for the permanent missile defense base in Poland. (His administration still plans to develop a mobile-launch system, similar to one currently deployed on ships.)

The current Polish administration is not trying to poke the Russian bear—it is merely trying to find a balance between the strategic interests of the United States, which is trying to mend fences with Kremlin, and the need to care for the interests and security of Poland.

For those who say that this is a provocative move towards Russia: I say, show me how.

Wojciech Lorenz, a former editor with the BBC World Service, is a journalist with the Policy daily Rzeczpospolita.

For a more detailed study of the deployment of Western missile defenses in Poland, see Wojciech Lorenz’s article “Poland: Straddling the Nuclear Frontier” in the fall 2009 issue of World Policy Journal.

Posted in Conflict, Military, NATO, Negotiation, Nuclear Weapons, Poland, Russia, Security, U.S. Foreign Policy, Weapons | 4384Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/02/03/wojciech-lorenz-patriots-come-to-morag/Wojciech+Lorenz%3A+Patriots+Come+to+Morag2010-02-03+11%3A00%3A41emarzulli

Zimbabwe has divided the world again, but this time it’s not due to land reform. The controversy concerns the country’s new-found wealth in diamonds, an industry in which it was not even a player a decade ago.

The scene of the latest conflict over Zimbabwe occurred in Swakopmund, Namibia, where the watchdog Kimberley Process (KP)—a group formed in 2003 to eliminate “conflict or blood diamonds”—gathered in early November to discuss its recommendation that Zimbabwe be suspended from the group. During its review mission in early July, the group found “credible indications of significant non-compliance” with Kimberley’s minimum standards, including human rights violations by Zimbabwe’s military, and diamond smuggling and corruption in the Marange diamond fields in eastern Zimbabwe.

The regulatory body’s plenary session proved rather divisive; while Israel and Canada pushed for the suspension of Zimbabwe, other members, like host Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Russia, and the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo opposed suspension and instead called for technical assistance. Russia went the furthest in its defense of Zimbabwe, reportedly insisting that the country was entirely free of conflict diamonds, a sentiment voiced months earlier by Namibia.

As it turned out, the effort to suspend Zimbabwe from Kimberley failed. Zimbabwe proposed, and was eventually allowed, an eight-month plan of action that includes a phased withdrawal of military personnel from the Marange diamond fields, as well as the establishment of a monitor mutually agreed upon by Zimbabwe and the KP to examine and certify diamonds from Marange as Kimberley-compliant. Given the recommendations of the review mission and the seriousness of the problem at hand, the November deal gave Zimbabwe no more than a slap on the wrist, betraying a much deeper problem with the entire Kimberley scheme than just the obstructionist behavior of some member countries in the group.

The bottom line is that the recent standoff and failure over Zimbabwe was a disaster waiting to happen. Continue reading »

Posted in Africa, Conflict, Diamonds, Zimbabwe, human rights | 3928Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/carl-unegbu-the-house-of-kimberly-%e2%80%94-standoff-and-failure-at-a-watchdog/Carl+Unegbu%3A+The+House+of+Kimberly+%E2%80%94+Standoff+and+Failure+at+a+Watchdog2010-02-02+11%3A00%3A55marykate

Last week, the United States welcomed the re-election of Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who won the nationwide presidential election by an 18 percent margin over opposition leader General Sarath Fonseka.

In a statement issued after the final results were announced, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs P. J. Crowley commended the country for “the first nationwide election held in decades.” Despite cautious praise of the electoral process, what remains to be seen in this deeply divided nation is whether the second term policies of this administration will be truly “free and fair.”

Under the rule of President Rajapaksa (and his three brothers), the ruling party has been credited with ending the 30-year civil war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In the process of this brutal military campaign, it also earned widespread condemnation for its disregard for human rights norms, rampant corruption, and excessive militarization. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Rajapaksa regime will interpret the election results as a renewed mandate to reinforce its policies of the past.

Even more unfortunate, however, is the reality that Sri Lanka’s presidential system (which both candidates claimed they would abolish) provides virtually no checks and balances on the all but unrestricted power of the executive branch. Capitalizing on this power, the president has already declared that he will dissolve Parliament in an effort to secure a ruling coalition to reinforce his decisions.

While Rajapaksa’s leadership will now last for six more years, it is likely that severe internal and external challenges facing the regime will emerge in the very near future. Continue reading »

Posted in Citizenship, Conflict, Democracy, Diplomacy, Discrimination, Elections, Ethnic Minorities, Justice, Peace, Sri Lanka | 4430Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/02/01/nimmi-gowrinathan-one-nation-under-rajapaksa-sri-lanka%e2%80%99s-presidential-election/Nimmi+Gowrinathan%3A+One+Nation%2C+Under+Rajapaksa%3F+Sri+Lanka%E2%80%99s+Presidential+Election2010-02-01+18%3A27%3A26Ben+Pauker

At least 15 people are dead and many more injured after Somali insurgents attacked government forces and peacekeepers in Mogadishu on Friday. Al-Shabaab (“the youth”), the African Islamist group with ties to Al Qaeda, attacked seven locations in the capital city, targeting government forces attempting to retake the capital and the UN-backed African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM). The attacks began at 2am local time and involved heavy artillery and automatic weapons. At “Kilometer Four,” an oft-targeted junction linking the Mogadishu port and airport, AMISOM troops used tanks to fend off Al-Shabaab. A spokesman for what many consider Al-Qaeda’s African proxy says two of its militants were among the dead; witnesses say it was the worst fighting they have seen for months and casualties are expected to rise. The attack comes shortly before the one-year anniversary of President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed’s government, which has struggled to maintain control over the country since the overthrow of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. Recent reports say Al-Shabaab, which is also allied to Somali pirate groups, has been recruiting directly from U.K. campuses including the London School of Economics, Imperial College, and King’s College London. The group is said to control much of southern Somalia, including Mogadishu, where it imposes its own brand of Sharia law.

Despite his acquittal, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is not yet in the clear—the Paris prosecutor is seeking a new trial, appealing the dismissal of charges that de Villepin was part of a conspiracy to smear political rival, President Nicolas Sarkozy. The prosecutor, Jean-Claude Marin, told Europe 1 Radio on Friday that he would be filing an appeal against the decision to acquit de Villepin of all wrongdoing in what has become known as the “Clearstream scandal.” Under French law, the appeal will mean a full retrial in about a year’s time. The scandal stems from an anonymous set of forged listings sent to an investigative judge in 2004 falsely showing President Sarkozy had received kickbacks—to accounts at the Luxembourg-based bank Clearstream—for the sale of six French frigates to Taiwan in 1991. De Villepin was cleared of wrongdoing in the forgery on Thursday and has accused Sarkozy of using the trial to tar a political rival. Regarding Marin’s intention to appeal the verdict, de Villepin said Friday the retrial shows Sarkozy will not bury the feud. The Times reports de Villepin saying, “The decision is a political decision and what it shows is that Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, prefers to continue in his relentlessness and hatred instead of assuming the responsibilities of his office.”

Peru says the remaining travelers trapped near the Machu Picchu ruins will be evacuated today following last weekend’s mudslides, the nation’s worst in almost 20 years. Al Jazeera reports that over 3000 travelers to the mountainous region were trapped by the heaviest rains in 15 years, which killed up to 10 people, swept homes away, and destroyed an important railroad, the only land route into and out of the area. Trapped for five days, tourists and locals say they slept outdoors and ate from communal pots; they accused local hotels and restaurants of hiking up their prices. Tourism Minister Martin Perez said clear skies helped a fleet of helicopters—including six from the U.S.—evacuate 1,402 people on Thursday. Only 800 travelers remain in the area. The evacuations, which began Monday, took the oldest and youngest first.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended his decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003, claiming Friday that the threat of weapons of mass destruction was impossible to ignore. Blair, the sixty-ninth witness in the U.K.’s Chilton Inquiry—the third and widest-reaching investigation the nation has made into the Iraq war—told the five-member panel and others gathered at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center: “I would not have done Iraq if I had not thought it was right. Full stop. It is a decision I would take again.” The former PM said the Sept. 11 attacks had made real the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but claimed he told George W. Bush that Britain wanted all diplomatic options exhausted before any invasion was undertaken. Outside the hearing, hundreds of protesters gathered, chanting “Blair Lied, thousands died!” and wearing “Jail Tony” t-shirts. Many called on Blair to be arrested for war crimes. Britain withdrew its military from Iraq in 2009.

Posted in THE INDEX | 4418Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/the-index-%e2%80%94-january-29-2010/THE+INDEX+%E2%80%94+January+29%2C+20102010-01-29+20%3A13%3A17Joel+Meares

It was quite clear by the time President Obama got to the end of his State of the Union speech last night that it was very much—the state of America, not the state of the world. Barely 10 minutes—roughly 900 of 7,500 words—were devoted in his hour-long address to global issues, a passing nod, an odd rhetorical flourish, a vague threat to America’s enemies—North Korea and Iran, al-Qaeda and the Taliban (not even by name, in the latter’s case). Controlling global warming? Good. Withdrawal from Iraq? Leaving behind a democratic government? Well, we shall see in the wake of the coming elections.

Among the few accomplishments he cited? Thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan and a big multilateral conference opening in London today to prop up the government of President Hamid Karzai. But within hours, this latter president undercut Obama’s whole message, suggesting it would be five to ten years before his nation could stand on its own against its many enemies, foreign and domestic. No route home soon for those 30,000 additional men and women apparently.

So what was on the agenda of the American president, and what was not?

Certainly not the Middle East. Despite his stem-winding speech in Cairo nearly a year ago, and the appointment of a master envoy, George Mitchell, Israelis and Palestinians are as far apart as ever. “If we had anticipated some of [the] political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high,” Obama admitted to Time’s Joe Klein last week.

A quick laughline over global warming. (“I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change….”) But no mention of the buzz-saw he walked into in Copenhagen which all but collapsed, leaving environmentalists puzzled at best, bitter at least.

Global trade? A pledge to double U.S. exports in the next five years—and move toward some Doha accord. Hardly a message many of America’s trading partners would like to hear. And especially those who were somehow left out of the message entirely:

“And that’s why we’ll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.”  What happened to China? India? Brazil? Clearly straw men, purely passing cautionary tales: “China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting.” Look out America, the world is out there breathing down our backs, waiting to steal our first-place position:

“These nations aren’t playing for second place. They’re putting more emphasis on math and science. They’re rebuilding their infrastructure. They’re making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)”

Nuclear disarmament? “The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.” When? No deadline. When they’re finished.

And Iran?  “As Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)” Which consequences, when and who will accompany us? Empty rhetoric does not go a very long way in Tehran or Qom.

And before his peroration reaffirming America’s “ideals and values,” there was a final summary of his global agenda:

“That’s the leadership that we are providing—engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We’re working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. [The only suggestion in the speech that our economic melt-down, which we helped touch off, is a global problem needing global solutions.] We’re working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We’re helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease—a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad. As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores.”

Last week, I was asked on the PBS broadcast WorldFocus to sum up the president’s first year in international relations. He has, I replied, substantially improved our global image. We are, in many parts of the world, no longer a pariah nation. But concrete results, real accomplishments, changing the course of history or even peoples’ lives? Not much yet. As the anchor Martin Savidge observed, great progress in the most deeply divided regions, particularly the Middle East, is only rarely achieved without the undivided focus and attention of the president of the United States—a president who is now more than ever distracted by a packed domestic agenda.

Where the president has weighed in, it is only in the form of a quick fly-through in Copenhagen, a one-off speech in Cairo, a brief stopover in the chairman’s chair at a UN disarmament session. Then he’s gone. Whoosh. Another item on his daily agenda ticked off and then on to his next stop.

The world, led by Americans who are globally engaged, is still waiting for results, and focus. He has the innate talent, the prayers of the world, all the good will imaginable. Now, in his second year, the debut, as he so quite rightly observed, of a bright new decade, it is time to buckle down and deliver on at least a few of his brightest promises.

David A. Andelman is the editor of World Policy Journal and The World Policy Blog. A veteran domestic and foreign correspondent and editor of The New York Times, CBS News, and most recently Forbes.com, he is the author of A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today.

Posted in Barack Obama, China, Climate change, Conflict, Democracy, Development, Economy, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, U.S. Foreign Policy, United States | 4401Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/01/28/david-a-andelman-state-of-the-nation-but-what-about-the-world/David+A.+Andelman%3A+State+of+the+Nation%2C+But+What+About+the+World%3F2010-01-28+15%3A41%3A42emarzulli

International talks are being held in London to discuss how to handle Yemen’s growing instability and long-term problems that foster Islamic extremism. Twenty-one world leaders, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and representatives from the EU, UN, World Bank, and IMF are attending, hosted by Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, with the goal of preventing Yemen from becoming a failed state. The meeting marks the one-month anniversary of the failed Christmas Day airplane bomb, which drew the world’s attention to Yemen’s Al Qaeda problem. Yemen’s domestic issues, as reported by the New York Times, are severe: 42 percent of the Yemeni population lives on less than $2 a day, the official illiteracy rate is 45 percent, less than half of those between the ages of 15 and 24 are employed—and outside of major cities, water, electricity, and health services are scarce. Aid cannot be easily provided in Yemen, where a corrupt and unproductive government bureaucracy and the remoteness of populations hamper the delivery of assistance. Compounding the problem, there is sporadic war in the north spurred by rebel Shiites and a growing secessionist movement developing in the south. Undeterred, Yemen’s government has promised “urgent political and economic reform to help fight Al Qaeda.” Britain’s Foreign Office minister, Ivan Lewis, likewise expressed a note of optimism: “We want to see Yemen’s neighbors make a more significant contribution and we want the international community to come together and recognize that supporting the government of Yemen is crucial to the stability of the world.”

To read more about the growing secessionist movement in Southern Yemen, see World Policy Journal’s online feature, the Big Question: “How Big is the Threat of Yemen’s Southern Secessionist Movement?”

The fraught relationship between North and South Korea escalated today for the second time in three months when the two nations exchanged artillery fire along their disputed sea border. Reportedly, North Korea fired dozens of shells into the water near the sea border (known as the Northern Limit Line, an UN-established boundary accepted by the South but contested by the North) as part of an annual military drill. The South Korean military responded with 100 warning shots from anti-aircraft guns. Hours later, the North Korean navy fired another round of shots towards the Northern Limit Line; Pyongyang warned in advance of the second barrage. Analysts believe the fire exchange is another act of provocation but will not escalate any further. Today’s clash came amidst signals from Pyongyang about its desire to return to the Six-Party Talks between the Koreas, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States that aim to stand down its nuclear weapons program.

Sri Lankans went to the polls this Tuesday in the country’s first presidential election since the close of its bloody civil war in May 2009. While the country’s incumbent president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was declared winner of the contest with a 17-point lead over his main contender, reports of voting irregularities—including assaults at polling stations—marred Rajapaksa’s victory. (As of yet, the names and party affiliations of the alleged culprits have not been made public.) Rajapaksa’s main presidential challenger, former army commander Gen. Sarath Fonseka, responded to allegations of voting irregularities by saying: “We ask him [Sri Lanka’s election commissioner] to declare null and void the results. We have asked him not to release the results as we are going to go to the courts. Our strength is people and their franchise has been disregarded.” Until recently, Rajapaksa and Fonseka were political allies, having both worked together in the fight against Sri Lanka’s northern insurgent group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. However, the political alliance between the two men fell apart over the course of the past several months, as the presidential campaign became particularly intense. In the hours after the election, government troops surrounded a hotel in which Fonseka’s campaign had gathered, with the intent of arresting several military officials who had assisted the former general with his campaign. Fonseka has alleged that Rajapaksa was using government troops to intimidate his supporters, but a spokesman for the incumbent claimed that Fonseka’s large gathering of military figures and attachés posed a coup threat. Regarding the demographic complexities of the vote, preliminary election polling predicted Fonseka had secured a majority of the Tamil ballots, though both Rajapaksa and Fonseka have been accused of war crimes for their involvement in putting down the long-standing Tamil insurgency in the north.

Honduras installed a new president today, formally ending the interim presidency of Roberto Micheletti, who held office since the June 2009 military coup that overthrew Manuel Zelaya. Honduras’s new president, Porfirio Lobo, a member of the center-right leaning National Party, has promised to pursue national reconciliation in the aftermath of Zelaya’s ouster. The first step in this plan, according to Lobo, will be to formally escort the left-leaning Zelaya out of the country. Zelaya—who has been holed up in the Brazilian embassy in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa over the past five months—has apparently agreed to the request and will travel to the Dominican Republic as a political refugee. Currently, there is an outstanding warrant for Zelaya’s arrest, although President Lobo has signaled an interest in granting amnesty to the former leader. In a recent statement, Zelaya said: “I have an invitation…to go to the Dominican Republic and I will accept…obviously with the approval of the new government.” Lobo, for his part, is eager to have Zelaya removed from his virtual prison within the Brazilian embassy: “Can you imagine starting a government with a president imprisoned in an embassy? It wouldn’t be fair.”

For more details on the politics and controversy surrounding the Honduran Coup of 2009, see World Policy Journal’s online feature, The Big Question: “Will the Honduran coup have broader implications for democracy in Central America?”

Posted in THE INDEX | 4389Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/01/27/the-index-%e2%80%94-january-27-2010/THE+INDEX+%E2%80%94+January+27%2C+20102010-01-27+19%3A52%3A03emarzulli

Ali Hassan al-Majid, also known as Chemical Ali, was executed by hanging in Iraq this morning. Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein and notorious enforcer in his regime, had been sentenced to death four times for multiple, separate crimes against humanity. His first sentence came down in June 2007 for participation in a February-August 1988 military campaign against ethnic Kurds. He was sentenced to death again in December 2008 for his role in crushing the Shia revolt at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. His third death sentence was handed down in March 2009, for the ethnic cleansing of Shia Muslims in Sadr City, a district of Baghdad. Finally, this January, Majid was sentenced to death for ordering the infamous gas attack against Halabja, a Kurdish town, in 1988. In what was termed an act of genocide, an estimated 5,000 people died in Halabja as Iraqi jets sprayed a mixture of lethal chemicals on the town for five hours. (This attack earned Majid his nickname, Chemical Ali.) Majid was sentenced to death by the Iraqi High Tribunal, a committee set up to try former members of Hussein’s Ba’athist regime and which sentenced Saddam to execution in 2006.

All 90 passengers on board an Ethiopian Airlines plane are believed to be dead after crashing into the Mediterranean. The Boeing 737-800 was headed to Addis Ababa and disappeared off radar within five minutes after taking off at 2:37 Monday morning during a thunderstorm. A Lebanese minister reported that “bad weather was apparently the cause of the crash” and Defense Minister Elias Murr said that the government had “ruled out foul play so far.” Witnesses on the coast reported seeing a “ball of fire” in the sky. Lebanese army officials noted that the plane broke up in the air before plummeting into the sea, though these initial conclusions have not been confirmed. Rescue efforts are underway with helicopters and naval ships searching the crash site; the UN peacekeeping operation in Lebanon sent three ships and two helicopters. So far, 24 bodies have been recovered in the sea and debris has begun washing up on shore. Lebanese prime minister Saad Hairi has declared a day of mourning, closing schools and government offices.

An announcement this week from Myanmar’s ruling military junta brought good news to the country’s famed democracy advocate, Aung San Suu Kyi. Suu Kyi, who has been subjected to house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years, is slated to be released from detention this November, according to a statement by Myanmar’s home minister, Maj. Gen. Muang Oo. In addition to Suu Kyi, another Burmese democracy advocate, former general Thura Tin Oo [no relation], will also be released from detention. The decision to release both Suu Kyi and Tin Oo comes amid assurances on the part of the country’s ruling junta that this year’s upcoming elections—the country’s first in 20 years—will be open and transparent. “We are not a power crazy government,” Maung Oo reportedly said during his announcement of Suu Kyi’s release. “The election will be held in 2010 without fail. I promise the election will be free and fair. There will be no cheating.” While Burmese officials have not yet declared a specific date on which the country’s elections will occur, a representative of Suu Kyi’s political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), insisted that “the most important thing is they [both Suu Kyi and Tin Oo] must be freed in good time so that they can work for national reconciliation.” Suu Kyi’s NLD party won an overwhelming victory in 1990, during Myanmar’s last democratic elections. However, the country’s military regime, which has controlled Myanmar since 1962, failed to allow the party to take office. In the intervening years, Suu Kyi became a symbol of democratic resistance throughout Myanmar and the world. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts.

The government of Rwanda just released a detailed report concluding its investigation of the assassination of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana. According to the official report, Habyarimana’s assassination, which occurred on April 6, 1994, was undertaken by Hutu extremists who went on to commit a 100-day genocide that lead to the demise of 800,000 ethnic Tutsis, along with an indeterminate number of moderate Hutus. This report comes in the aftermath of a long-running political storm that pitted Rwanda’s current Tutsi-led government in Kigali against a wide array of actors, many of whom insinuated that the current Rwandan government, lead by Paul Kagame, was itself responsible for the assassination of Habyarimana. (Kagame’s former militia, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, was credited with halting the 1994 genocide, which exploded in the aftermath of a four-year civil war between Kagame’s forces and Habyarimana’s anti-Tutsi regime.) The French government, which was a prominent supporter of the authoritarian Habyarimana regime, has long alleged that Kagame’s forces were themselves responsible for shooting down the president’s plane, which also killed several French nationals who were on-board. In 2006, a French judge in Paris issued arrest warrants for nine Rwandan government officials in conjunction with Habyarimana’s assassination. Officials in Kigali responded by freezing diplomatic ties with France. However, in the intervening years, as the French judge’s allegations slowly fizzled, ties between the two nations have warmed. A few weeks ago, in early January, Rwandan foreign minister Louise Mushikiwabo held a meeting with her French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, in Kigali. “We have a common history,” she said. “We have had difficulties. We are ready to discuss them and move on. We are beginning a new phase in our shared history.” For his part, Kouchner noted, “What happened in Rwanda concerns every inhabitant of this land. France is with you and I say this in the name of France of the past days, present and future.” Members of the Rwandan government and other observers hope that the publication of this report will signal a turning point between the two countries in the months to come.

Posted in THE INDEX | 4372Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/01/25/the-index-%e2%80%94-january-25-2010/THE+INDEX+%E2%80%94+January+25%2C+20102010-01-25+20%3A21%3A35emarzulli

THE BIG QUESTION is a new multimedia project on the World Policy Blog. Every month, our editorial team will investigate a pressing global question, provide context and analysis, and feature answers from internationally renowned experts. Today, THE BIG QUESTION looks at the aftermath of the recent military coup in Honduras, and what it portends for politics in both Honduras and Central America more generally.

Click on the first slide below to scroll through the presentation.

Formatted and written by our editorial assistants: Elizabeth Allen, Max Currier, Emily Marzulli, and Josh Sanburn.

Editor’s Note:

In the week following the publication of this piece, we witnessed a lively debate unfold in the comments section of the blog concerning the precise nature of the constitutional referendum that Manuel Zelaya sought to put before the Honduran people. As Rosemary A. Joyce points out, correctly, the referendum itself made no mention of altering Honduras’s constitution with regard to presidential term limits. Kevin Casas-Zamora, meanwhile, concurred, but noted that with regard to the interpretation of Zelaya’s intent, observers should distinguish between the letter of the referendum and its spirit. For those readers interested in pursuing these debates further, see our reading suggestions below.

Further Reading:

Cassel, Doug. “Honduras: Coup d’Etat in Constitutional Clothing?” American Society of International Law, July 29, 2009.

Rosemary A. Joyce and Russell Sheptak. “Honduras Coup 2009.”

Thale, Geoff. “Behind the Honduran Coup,” Foreign Policy in Focus, July 1, 2009.

Vickers, George, “The Sham Elections in Honduras,” Foreign Policy, November 25, 2009.

“Honduras elects Porfirio Lobo as new president,” The Guardian, November 30, 2009.

“Q&A: Crisis in Honduras,” BBC News, November 30, 2009.

“The Careful U.S. Diplomacy on Honduras,” Council on Foreign Relations, July 9, 2009.

“Honduras Crisis: The Truth Told by the Honduran People to the World.”

“U.S. has bungled Honduran crisis,” Los Angeles Times editorial, December 1, 2009.

“Constitutional Crisis in Honduras: An Expert Q&A by Dr. Jennifer McCoy, Director, Americas Program,” The Carter Center, July 13, 2009.

Posted in THE BIG QUESTION | 4239Commentshttp://worldpolicy.org/wordpress/2010/01/22/the-big-question-%e2%80%94-january-22-2009/THE+BIG+QUESTION+%E2%80%94+January+22%2C+20092010-01-22+05%3A04%3A46alleneli