Sunday, September 18, 2011

Justified?

By Walid M. Sadi
Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev
Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Photograph: Dmitry Astakhov/AP
 It is no coincidence that Russia has been behind the curve on Libya and Syria, and before that on Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.
Russia is traditionally conservative in its foreign policy, particularly when it comes to its strategic allies in various regions of the world.
The policy on domestic and external fronts tends to be slow and restrained. In this sense, Russia has not changed over the years despite repeated changes of regime in the country.
There is consistency in the Russian mode of seeing things, despite the periodic changes of political and economic order in the country; the Russian strategic interests remain almost constant and static. So is its view of the world, and of its foes and friends. Historically, Russia went through repeated upheavals which, one would have though, would bring fresh perspectives on regional and international issues.
When it comes to the human rights dimension in any given conflict, Moscow tends to grant the issue secondary importance. That is why Moscow refrains from calling for more effective measures against those who commit grave human rights violations in different parts of the world, including Libya and Syria.
In other words, Moscow does not like to rock the boat and prefers slow, transitional measures to deal with crises.
Russia has repeatedly declared that it stands behind reforms in flashpoints in the Middle East, and not regime change.
This comes as a surprise, given the bloody history of ancient and modern Russia.
On July 16, 1918, the Bolsheviks killed in cold blood the last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, his wife, Alexandra, their four daughters, Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia and their only son, Alexei. The communists wanted to change the ruling regime in the country rather than reform it.
The same thing happened when former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev’s communist political and economic order was violently overthrown in 1991, rather than reformed. Gorbachev wanted to reform the Soviet Union rather than destroy it by slowly introducing glasnost into the ruling system, with a view to making it more viable.
The former Russian leader’s efforts came too late and were not enough, thus triggering a revolt and a successful coup against the ruling regime.
Perhaps Russia’s experiences with revolutions were unhappy and that is why it shuns any call for such action to change established orders.
And that is why Moscow fears regime change in the Middle East, looking at it as destablising, despite the fact that itself went through regime changes throughout its history.
This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 18/09/2011

UAE: Campaigns Without A Beat

The next time round the United Arab Emirates government needs to encourage the Federal National Council (FNC) candidates to engage more voters
By Abdul Hamid Ahmad
With less than a week to go for the Federal National Council (FNC) polls, we can say that we have not heard the loud beat of drums on the streets heralding the elections.
Out of the 124 candidates in Dubai, only about 20 have been active, but within limits, engaging the voters through different channels. They have advertised in newspapers, canvassed through social media and also made direct contacts, but the rest have stayed silent. This makes me wonder why then did they nominate themselves in the first place if they were not willing to work to gain votes.
One can infer that some just want to run for elections for the sake of it and not for a real cause. They do not have the motivation and the drive to reach out to the people. Until today, we have not seen a single candidate willing to withdraw and leave the fray to the real horses running the race.
However, what we have seen of the campaigners is that the majority have been hasty and unprofessional. Many have been confused and only a handful have been focused on their mission.
In fact, some candidates have gone very far with their promises to a point they have turned the campaign into a farce. One candidate, for example, has endorsed education, Emiratisation, health and women's and children's issues. The list goes on and on till he ends his manifesto with "etc, etc". This is a clear example of an unprofessional campaign and a candidate who does not know his target.
We have seen some of the candidates at work because they have advertised in newspapers and networked through social media, but we are in the dark as far as the others are concerned because they have not been visible. Were they sleeping? It might be that some of these candidates think calls to their close family members and friends will guarantee a win. Good for them.
I must stress that we must not blame these candidates, both the active and the passive, because designing, launching and managing campaigns is a new exercise. Add to that they have not received any assistance from the authorities to help them run more effective campaigns. I have also heard of some campaigners complaining of too many restrictions imposed on them, which has limited their manoeuvres to campaigning through newspapers, social networks and text messages only.
Expensive process
The candidates also have not received mass help from the media, mainly television, and have been saddled with just restrictions to fight their own way. And on top of all this, most of the campaigners are not rich and depend on salaries and pensions. They discovered that there were no discounts to encourage them to beat the drum louder. Advertisements in newspapers, billboards on streets and on the radio were very expensive, especially in Dubai. Hence, we saw the streets of Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah and Fujairah adorned with pictures, flags and billboards of candidates, but there was nothing in Dubai because they could not afford the expense.
The next time round we need to encourage these people to engage more voters. We should have drawn up a plan to pave the path for them by taking certain measures. For example, government-owned television and radio should have opened their doors to them to be guests to present their manifestos and debate on issues related to the FNC. Newspapers could have given 50 per cent discount on advertisements.
Municipalities could have earmarked certain locations on crowded streets for candidates to stick their posters. But none of this happened. Everything was left to public relations companies to bargain and make money from these poor campaigners. I hope that the National Election Committee will learn from this and draw up a better plan to help candidates run successful campaigns by encouraging them, especially since donations for campaigns is not a part of the culture in the UAE.
In conclusion, I must salute all the candidates for their initiative, courage, enthusiasm and determination to be a part of this movement regardless of what they have promised or what their manifestos say and regardless of whether they win or not. I salute them because they have played a great part in encouraging people to vote, which is the main goal of a successful election.
By the end of the day next Saturday, we will know the winners. And that will indicate whether they won because they spent money and time on campaigning, put in personal efforts to reach out to people or they won not because of the modern methods of campaigning but by direct contacts with voters.
And the real winner, after all, if the turnout is big, will be the elections, which will indicate that people in the UAE are interested in going all the way to develop this experience with more participation in future. It will show how keen they are in this journey towards democracy. Let Saturday, September 24, come.
-This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 18/09/2011
-Abdul Hamid Ahmad is the editor-in-chief of the Gulf News

UAE: From Quotas To The Ballot Box, Women Rise In The FNC

What we've learned from the experience of women in United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the last Federal National Council (FNC) – and some suggestions for how women should operate on the next Council.
By Diana Hamade

In 2006, one woman was elected to the United Arab Emirates (UAE)'s Federal National Council (FNC) and eight others were appointed. Even before then, women had served as ministers and ambassadors of the UAE. And yet the entry of women into the UAE's political arena has had its difficulties, just as in other Arab states.
A common mindset in this country remains fixed on certain unchanging notions of a "woman's place". Many of the existing political institutions reflect a male-dominated, male-orientated culture. The media seems to play a role in promoting female politicians, but some see that as a problem.
The FNC is not like a parliament where issues that affect the lives of ordinary people are debated and laws are passed; the FNC's role at present is only advisory. Still, the effect of women on the full spectrum of political debate and development in the UAE must not be underestimated.
Some female members of the last FNC describe their term as a great experience.
But others say they wish they could have done more. These women say they found that some male ministers and FNC members made an infuriating and intimidating distinction between "soft" issues and "hard politics". The first category covered policies such as welfare, children and maternity; the second included defence, budgets and foreign policy.
The distinction, the women said, was aimed at limiting their involvement in political debate.
The female members were appointed to a committee or two where these soft issues were debated and examined. But these issues were scarcely deemed worthy of mention in established political spaces, which may have explained why the media portrayed the female members as being of little use and having negligible effect.
Nonetheless, these women agree that dealing with soft issues educated them, training them to take part in public discussions from which they previously shied away.
It is not clear where the public stands on this development. Do female Emiratis want female FNC members to be involved only in "women's issues"? Or would involvement in hard politics imply lack of interest in women's rights? Perhaps with time these and other questions will be answered.
The integration of women into political life began with quotas, seats reserved for females to enhance women's legislative and political representation.
Quotas came with the baggage of controversy, however. Among the arguments against quotas is that when seats are reserved for women, men have no chance at them.
Another argument is that quotas may lead to the election of women who are not adequately qualified.
In truth quotas worked against the UAE's women, since those who took office this way were looked down upon by male colleagues, and treated as tokens by the media.
Those who favour quotas insist that women are often discriminated against and are rarely voted for, so that positive discrimination is not a luxury but a necessity. This month's elections will test that argument.
In any case, reserved seats are meant to be temporary, until women no longer need them. But with most of the male candidates publicly supporting and promoting women's issues and rights, and as electoral systems generally do not lead to high numbers of women in legislatures around the world, elections for women without quotas will by very challenging.
The 2011 FNC election has more than 80 female candidates. Unfortunately, few or none of their platforms include any plans to comprehensively master the areas in which FNC activities may be concentrated. Nor have these candidates disclosed any plans to remodel the behaviours which made the performance of women on the last FNC the subject of public disapproval.
Women on the new FNC must study the nature of the institution and the procedures that take place within it, so they can make it more woman-friendly. The cultural acceptance of women as legislators must bring procedural changes to accommodate both sexes.
Women must also master parliamentary language and attitudes, both within the FNC and outside of it. Once women can operate like their male counterparts, they will have more influence on political discourse, and this will eventually change public attitudes.
Finally, female FNC members must also work on influencing the council's output by including women's perspectives, concerns, and suggestions in proposing policies.
Training and orientation exercises explaining FNC conduct - how to ask for the floor, for example - are needed. Also useful would be training in public speaking and effective communication; in relating to and lobbying male colleagues; in networking with women's organisations and in understanding and handling media. Learning about all these areas would be important first steps which every FNC woman must begin as soon as she is elected.
All of this said, the actual effect which women FNC members can have will depend on the political context in which the FNC will function, the number of women who are elected, and of course the individuals who are elected.
-This commentary was published in The National on 18/09/2011
-Diana Hamade is an Emirati lawyer and legal consultant. She is the founder of International Advocate Legal Services in Dubai

Turkey Tough Talk Boosts Mideast Stature

By Elena Becatoros
image                                Recep Tyyip Erdogan (left) in Libya
Treated to a hero's welcome in Egypt last week and flexing his military muscle in the eastern Mediterranean, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is basking in growing popularity in an Arab world being transformed by revolution and war. After years of being cold-shouldered by the club of European countries it has sought to join, Ankara has been strengthening its role as regional leader while also unleashing invective against Israel - a move which has rapidly bolstered its standing in the Muslim world. "Turkey is gaining a surge of popularity in Arab countries by confronting Israel," said Fadi Hakura, a Turkey specialist at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. "But whether this is temporary or longer-lasting remains to be seen.
Basking in the applause of Arab leaders is not cost free. Turkey and Israel have seen their lucrative commercial and military alliance, one of the closest in the region, collapse in the wake of last year's deadly raid by Israeli commandos on a flotilla attempting to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine Turkish activists were killed. Since then, Ankara has appeared increasingly hard-line, saying the raid - for which Israel has expressed regret but not apologized - could have been a "cause for war." Erdogan said Monday his country had shown "patience" in refraining from taking any action over the incident.
The raid, which Erdogan described as a "bloody massacre," ignited unprecedented anger in Turkey and drove the Jewish state's relations with its most important Muslim ally to their lowest point in six decades. Ankara suspended military ties with Israel this month, expelled top Israeli diplomats and pledged to campaign in support of the Palestinians' statehood bid at the United Nations next week.
Alarmingly, Erdogan also threatened to send warships to patrol the eastern Mediterranean to deter potential aggression against any Gaza-bound aid ships in the future. The announcement stoked concerns over a possible naval confrontation, forcing the US State Department to bluntly tell Israel and Turkey, both US allies, to "cool it". The Turkish premier's rhetoric has remained defiant. "Israel cannot do as it pleases in the Mediterranean," he said during a visit to Tunisia Thursday.
Erdogan's popularity in the Arab world skyrocketed when he stormed off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2009 after publicly berating Israel's President Shimon Peres over the 2008-2009 Gaza war. The 57-year-old Erdogan, whose Islamic-rooted party has been in power since 2003 and still enjoys strong support, embarked on a tour of Arab nations this week, visiting Egypt on Monday and Tuesday before heading to Tunisia on Wednesday and the Libyan capital of Tripoli on Thursday.
Just a week before Palestinians are to formally bid for UN recognition as an independent state, Erdogan said he wanted to cross the Egypt-Gaza border to visit Palestinians there - although he eventually dropped that plan, without giving a reason for the change. "I know that my brothers in Gaza are waiting for me. I too long for Gaza," Erdogan told Al-Jazeera. "Sooner or later, if God allows it, I will go to Gaza.
Perhaps more alarming is the rapidly escalating tension in the eastern Mediterranean over plans by Turkey's longtime rival, Cyprus, to begin exploratory drilling for oil and gas beneath the seabed near Israel in October. With borders in the region still not universally recognized, and the expected deployment of Turkey's warship to the region over the Gaza dispute, the potential for problems has alarmed many.
The potential risks of a naval confrontation between Turkey and Cyprus are higher than those with Israel," said Hakura, the Chatham House analyst. Split since 1974 between an internationally recognized Greek Cypriot south and a breakaway Turkish Cypriot north, Cyprus has been one of the main sticking points in Turkey's bid to join the EU. Turkey does not recognize the island as a sovereign state and strongly objects to the Greek Cypriot search for mineral deposits.
Some argue the saber-rattling over oil exploration could diminish Erdogan's standing on the world stage. After the flotilla incident, Erdogan was seen as "a sophisticated chess player" who was improving Turkey's position abroad as well as his own standing at home, said Meir Javedanfar, an Israel-based Middle East analyst. "But this changed after his intervention and threats with regards to the question of the recent gas finds," said Javedanfar. "He is now being viewed as a populist politician who needs confrontation to push his agenda.
Despite the fears sparked by Ankara's muscle-flexing and threats of warships, the actual risk of a naval confrontation with Israel is quite low. Neither Turkey nor Israel are interested in such a dramatic escalation of tensions, which would have profound consequences for regional security and the Middle East peace process. Moreover, Turkey on Wednesday announced that an early warning radar will be stationed in Turkey's southeast as part of NATO's missile defense system capable of countering ballistic missile threats from neighboring Iran, which sees Israel as an archenemy.
But Turkey standing up to Israel may be the harbinger of a new era in the Middle East that could eventually force Israel to review its actions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government faces isolation and mounting tensions with countries like Egypt, Turkey and even the United States. "We are in a quiet new territory ... I do think that there is a strong sense in Israel of one has to be more careful with developments," said Daniel Levy, a Middle East analyst at the Washington-based New America Foundation.
After initiating this confrontation with the killing of the nine Turkish activists and refusing to apologize over their deaths, Israel does not want to escalate tensions further with Turkey," Levy said. "Turkey's stature in the region was already high and it has more confidence now when it comes to whether to accept Israel's behavior.
A further escalation of military tension with Turkey could lead to an unwanted threat dimension for Israel. Levy said even though Israel's military has "fantastic hardware," its forces have enough on their hands already. "Israel does not want to be put to this test," he said. Ankara's rift with Israel comes as Turkey's yearslong bid to join the European Union has all but faltered.
Turkey, however, rejects claims that it is shifting away from the West. A lynchpin of NATO's southern flank during the Cold War, Ankara is in fact assuming a key role in the US missile defense shield. In September, Pentagon spokesman Col Dave Lapan said the US hopes to have the radar deployed there by the end of the year. Ankara's close military ties with Israel date from more than a decade ago, when the military wanted access to high-tech Israeli arms in its battle against Kurdish separatist guerrillas along Turkey's mountainous southeastern border with Iraq.
Israel provided Turkey with drones which the country uses to gather intelligence on Kurdish rebels, and has also modernized Turkish tanks and warplanes, while Israeli pilots used Turkey's airspace to train. Earlier this week, Turkey confirmed talks with the US for possible deployment of Predator drones on its soil after the US leaves Iraq. The US currently shares drone surveillance data with Ankara to aid its fight against Kurdish rebels who have bases in Iraq. – AP
This analysis was published in The Kuwait Times on 18/09/2011

Yes To Palestine

The U.S. should not veto or vote against efforts to have the U.N. recognize a Palestinian state
By Reza Aslan
A masked Palestinian man waves his national flag during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Bilin Sept. 9. On the same day,  U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the Palestinian people are "long overdue" in their quest for an independent state. (Oliver Weiken / EPA)
A masked Palestinian man waves his national flag during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Bilin Sept. 9. On the same day, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the Palestinian people are "long overdue" in their quest for an independent state. (Oliver Weiken / EPA)

Later this month, the Palestinian Authority intends to go before the United Nations to request recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Although there is strong backing for the bid, the United States, in the name of supporting Israel, has stated its willingness to use its Security Council veto power to keep the Palestinians from joining the U.N. as a full voting member. The U.S. has also refused to join in a more symbolic General Assembly vote that could change the Palestinians' status from a "nonvoting observer entity" to a "nonvoting observer state."
Here are five reasons why the U.S. should support the Palestinian bid and not exercise its veto at the U.N.
Negotiations have failed.
Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.
But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant. What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.
The current Likud-led Israeli government is unlikely to ever agree to a sovereign Palestinian state.
A decade ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, vying for Likud Party leadership, made his position clear in a speech to the group's central committee: "My friends," he said in 2002, " we must present the situation in the clearest possible way: We won't lend a hand to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.... We must vote as one in favor of the draft resolution against a Palestinian state."
It is true that seven years later, under intense pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu, as Israeli prime minister, grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in principle. But the unprecedented conditions he called for — that it have no military, no control over its borders, no capital in East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees and that it recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" — seemed deliberately designed to negate the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty.
Even if Netanyahu were to begin pushing for a Palestinian state, it is highly unlikely that his ultra-right-wing coalition would allow him to succeed. Indeed, immediately after Netanyahu's 2009 speech, powerful members of his party demanded that he retract his statement entertaining the possibility of a Palestinian state. As one of Likud's most influential Knesset members, Danny Danon, vowed: "I will attempt to cause this sentence, which was said under American pressure, never to come into being."
President Obama has utterly failed to advance the Middle East peace process.
Obama came into office vowing a more active and evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Yet beyond a few lofty speeches about Palestinian suffering, he has offered no substantive policy shifts or specific proposals for moving negotiations forward. Obama's attempt to temporarily stop Israel from building settlements in the occupied territories backfired when he caved in to Israeli intransigence. The administration then had the nerve to veto a nonbinding U.N. resolution condemning the very settlements Obama himself had condemned. The president's barely newsworthy suggestion that negotiations for a two-state solution be based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (which, as the basis for the Oslo accords, has been the principle advanced, if not publicly announced, by every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter) was ridiculed by the Israeli prime minister, and in the Capitol building, no less. The president's kowtowing to Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing has made the U.S. look weak on the global stage. If for no other reason than to prove to the world that the U.S. is not Israel's lap dog, the president should refrain from vetoing a Palestinian state.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not political suicide to defy the will of Israel.
There is no doubt that American public opinion remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But polls show that the majority of Americans believe the U.S. should not favor one side over the other in the conflict. Among thoughtful leaders in the media, military and foreign affairs, there has been a consensus that our policy toward Israel is severely damaging America's interests and image around the world. According to a 2008 J Street poll, 78% of American Jews said they supported a two-state solution and 81% wanted the U.S. to pressure both sides to end the conflict.
Of course, the Republicans will try to paint Obama and the Democrats as "anti-Israel" if the president fails to veto the U.N. vote. But this has been a consistent strategy on the part of the GOP for years, and it has always failed. In any case, the same J Street poll found that only 8% of Jews cite Israel as an issue in deciding whom to vote for for president.
Palestinians are doing almost exactly what Israelis did 60 years ago.
Israel maintains that the Palestinians cannot declare statehood and seal it through the U.N. Yet the Palestinians are merely following the trail blazed by Israel six decades ago. In 1948, after the U.N. voted for the partition of Palestine, debate among the world powers about how to divide the land dragged on and violence between Jews and Arabs grew worse. The Jewish Agency simply preempted negotiations and unilaterally declared the state of Israel; the United States immediately recognized it, and the U.N. accepted Israeli sovereignty the following year.
The Palestinian Authority has come to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently came to in 1948: Negotiations will not lead to an independent state; the only way forward is unilateral action. By rejecting that strategy outright, Israel is not only being hypocritical; it is invalidating its own existence as a state.
There is one more reason to support the Palestinians' bid at the United Nations. It is the moral thing to do. During his first presidential campaign, Obama said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Now, he has the opportunity to live up to his own beliefs and promises, and to provide the Palestinian people with the same sense of dignity that Harry Truman gave Israel 60 years ago.
-This Op-Ed was published in The Los Angeles Times on 15/09/2011
-Reza Aslan is the founder of AslanMedia.com and the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam."

What The Tuareg Do After the Fall Of Qaddafi Will Determine The Security Future Of The Sahel

By Andrew McGregor

                             Tuareg rebel chief Agali Alambo
At least 1,500 Tuareg fighters joined Muammar Qaddafi’s loyalist forces (though some sources cite much larger figures) in the failed defense of his Libyan regime. Many were ex-rebels residing in Libya, while others were recruited from across the Sahel with promises of large bonuses and even Libyan citizenship. Many of the Tuareg fighters are now returning to Mali, Niger and elsewhere in the Sahel, but for some the war may not yet be over; there are reports of up to 500 Tuareg fighters having joined loyalist forces holding the coastal town of Sirte, Qaddafi’s birthplace and a loyalist stronghold (AFP, September 3; September 5).
The Regional Dimension of the Libyan Regime’s Collapse
Media in the Malian capital have warned that the “defeated mercenaries” are back from Libya with heavy weapons and lots of money to prepare a new Tuareg rebellion, labeling themselves “combatants for the liberation of Azawad” (Le Pretoire [Bamako], May 9). Mali has not yet recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the new Libyan government; Mali’s reticence in recognizing the rebels as the new government in Libya may have something to do with the large investments made in Mali by the Qaddafi regime (L’Independant [Bamako], September 6). The Libyan leader has significant support in Mali and other parts of West Africa and a number of pro-Qaddafi demonstrations have been witnessed in Mali since the revolution began in February.
The new president of Niger, Mahamadou Issoufou, has warned of Libya turning into another Somalia, spreading instability throughout the region:
The Libyan crisis amplifies the threats confronting countries in the region. We were already exposed to the fundamentalist threat, to the menace of criminal organizations, drug traffickers, arms traffickers... Today, all these problems have increased. All the more so because weapon depots have been looted in Libya and such weapons have been disseminated throughout the region. Yes, I am very worried: we fear that there may be a breakdown of the Libyan state, as was the case in Somalia, eventually bringing to power religious extremists (Jeune Afrique, July 30).
Algeria has its own concerns, fearing that instability in the Sahara/Sahel will provoke further undesirable  French military deployments or interventions in the region.
Convoys Out of Libya
Tuareg troops escaping from Libya have been observed using 4X4 vehicles to cross into Niger (El Khabar [Algiers], August 29). On September 5, it was reported that “an exceptionally large and rare convoy” of over 200 military vehicles belonging to the southern garrisons of the Libyan Army entered the city of Agadez, the capital of the old Tuareg-controlled Agadez sultanate that controlled trade routes in the region for centuries (Le Monde, September 6; AFP, September 6). A number of people reported seeing Tuareg rebel Rhissa Ag Boula in the convoy (Le Monde, September 6). Ag Boula was last reported to have been under arrest in Niamey after re-entering Niger in April 2010 (see Terrorism Monitor Brief, April 17, 2010). Ag Boula mistakenly believed he was covered by a government amnesty against a death sentence passed in absentia for his alleged role in the assassination of a politician.
According to NATO spokesman Colonel Roland Lavoie, the convoy was not tracked by the concentrated array of surveillance assets deployed over Libya: "To be clear, our mission is to protect the civilian population in Libya, not to track and target thousands of fleeing former regime leaders, mercenaries, military commanders and internally displaced people" (AFP, September 6). In a campaign that has seen NATO target civilian television workers as a “threat to civilian lives,” it is difficult to believe that a heavily-armed convoy of 200 vehicles containing Qaddafi loyalists was of no interest to NATO’s operational command. There has been widespread speculation that the convoy contained some part of Libya’s gold reserves, which were moved to the southern Sabha Oasis when the fighting began.
Nigerien foreign minister Mohamed Bazoum initially denied the arrival of a 200 vehicle convoy in his country, but admitted that Abdullah Mansur Daw, Libya’s intelligence chief in charge of Tuareg issues, arrived in Niger on September 4 with nine vehicles (Le Monde [Paris], September 8;  AFP, September 5). Daw was accompanied by Agali Alambo, a Tuareg rebel leader who has lived in Libya since 2009 and was cited as a major recruiter of hundreds of former Tuareg rebels in Niger. Alambo later described escaping south through the Murzuq triangle “and then straight down to Agadez” after his party learned the Algerian border was closed and the route into Chad was blocked by Tubu fighters who had joined the TNC (Reuters, September 11). Daw and Alambo reached Niamey on September 5 with an escort of Nigerien military vehicles. Libya’s TNC has promised it will request the extradition of leading Qaddafi loyalists from Niger (AFP, September 10).
General Ali Kana, a Tuareg officer commanding government troops in southern Libya, was reported to have crossed into Niger on September 9 with a force of heavily armed troops (Tripoli Post, September 9). A former spokesman for the Tuareg rebel group Mouvement des nigériens pour la justice (MNJ) said that Kana was considering defecting after having angered Libyan Tuareg by leading an attack on a Tuareg town in Libya in which several Tuareg were killed, and by recruiting Tuareg mercenaries from Mali and Niger but failing to pay them the huge sums of cash he was given by Qaddafi for the purpose (AP, September 9). Ali Kana was reported to be with Libyan Air Force chief Al-Rifi Ali al-Sharif and Mahammed Abidalkarem, military commander in the southern garrison of Murzuq (AFP, September 10).
Some Tuareg returning from the Libyan battlefields expressed disenchantment with their time in Libya, complaining they were not allowed to fight in units composed solely of Tuareg (AFP, April 21). Others have complained they were never paid; one fighter said he was part of a group of 229 Tuareg recruited by Agali Alambo with a promise of a 5,000 Euro advance, but had never seen a penny (AFP, September 3). Others did receive smaller payments and the offer of Libyan citizenship. One Tuareg fighter described being assigned to a Tuareg brigade that was later attached to Khamis al-Qaddafi’s 32nd Mechanized Brigade for battles in Misrata and elsewhere (The Atlantic, August 31).
Some Tuareg leaders in Niger and Mali are urging Tuareg regulars of the Libyan Army to rally to the rebel cause and remain in Libya rather than return to Niger and Mali with their arms but little chance of employment. The tribal leaders have set up a contact group with the TNC to allow Tuareg regulars to join the rebels without threat of reprisal in an attempt to ward off a civil war in Libya (Reuters, September 4, Radio France Internationale, August 23). “Niger and Mali are very fragile states -- they could not take such an influx...” said Mohamed Anacko, the head of the Agadez regional council and a contact group member (Reuters, September 4). At the moment, however, crossing the lines to a disparate and undisciplined rebel army remains a dangerous proposition for Tuareg regulars closely identified with the regime.
The Tuareg may not be the only insurgents forced out of Libya; there are reports from Chadian officials that over 100 heavily armed vehicles belonging to Dr. Khalil Ibrahim’s Darfur-based Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) had crossed the Libyan border. Ibrahim had taken refuge in Libya after losing his bases in Chad to a Chadian-Sudanese peace agreement. JEM denied knowledge of the movement and also denied receiving weapons from Libya (AFP, September 9).
The Libyan Tuareg
Besides the West African Tuareg who rallied to Qaddafi, Libya is home to a Tuareg community of roughly 100,000 people, though the regime has never recognized them as such, claiming they are only an isolated branch of the Arab race. Though some Libyan Tuareg have opposed Qaddafi, many others have found employment in the Libyan regular army, together with volunteers from Mali and Niger. As a result, many Libyans tend to identify all Tuareg as regime supporters. Near the desert town of Ghadames local Tuareg were threatened by rebels seeking to expel them from the city before Algeria opened a nearby border post and began allowing the Tuareg to cross into safety on August 30 (Ennahar [Algiers], September 1; El Khabar [Algiers], September 5). Five hundred Algerian Tuareg were reported to have crossed into Algeria while the border remained open (Le Monde, September 8). Some of the refugees promised to settle their families in Algeria before crossing back into Ghadames with arms to confront the rebels (The Observer, September 2).
The Death of Ibrahim Ag Bahanga
The most prominent of the Tuareg rebel leaders, Ibrahim Ag Bahanga, was reported to have died in a vehicle accident in Tin-Essalak on August 26 after having spent most of the last two years as an exile in Libya (Tout sur l’Algérie [Algiers], August 29). [1] It was widely believed in Mali that Ag Bahanga was preparing a new rebellion with weapons obtained from Libyan armories (Nouvelle Liberation [Bamako], August 17; Ennahar [Algiers] August 27).
He was reportedly buried within hours, preventing any examination of the cause of death despite some reports his body showed signs of having been shot repeatedly.  Some claim that Ag Bahanga was actually killed by other Tuareg in a dispute over weapons, though others in Mali have suggested the Tuareg rebel leader was killed by a landmine or even a missile after his Thuraya cell phone was detected by French intelligence services, though it seems unlikely the veteran rebel would make such a mistake (L’Indépendant [Bamako], August 30; Le Pretoire [Bamako], September 6; Info Matin [Bamako], August 29). Despite Ag Bahanga’s resolute opposition to the Malian regime, President Ahmadou Toumani Touré was reported to have sent a delegation to Kidal province to offer official condolences on the rebel’s death (Le Republicain [Bamako], August 29). Ag Bahanga was a noted opponent of the political and military domination of Mali by the Bambara, one of the largest Mandé ethnic groups in West Africa (Jeune Afrique, September 8).
The veteran Tuareg rebel had many enemies, including the Algerians, who were incensed by his refusal to adhere to the 2006 Malian peace agreement mediated by Algiers. His rebellion only came to an end when former Tuareg rebels and Bérabiche Arabs joined a Malian government offensive that swept Ag Bahanga and many of his followers from northern Mali in 2009 (see Terrorism Focus, February 25, 2009).
Ag Bahanga returned to Libya, where he became an active recruiter of Tuareg fighters from across the Sahel when the Libyan revolution broke out in February (L’Essor [Bamako], August 29).  One returning fighter described seeing Ag Bahanga fighting with loyalist forces at Misrata: “He was with many former rebels from Mali. They were fighting hard for Qaddafi” (The Atlantic, August 31).
If the many reports of Ag Bahanga shipping large quantities of heavy and light weapons and large numbers of 4X4 trucks back to Mali are true, Ag Bahanga was about to become an extremely powerful man in the Sahel. His death will satisfy many, but there are still concerns about the dispersal of his arms, which would certainly be of interest to buyers from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which has developed contacts with some young Tuareg by employing them as drivers and guides in unfamiliar territory.
In an interview conducted only days before his death, Ag Bahanga expressed discontent with his one-time patron, offering what might be a bit of revisionist history: “The Tuareg have always wanted Qaddafi to leave Libya, because he always tried to exploit them without any compensation… The disappearance of al-Qaddafi is good news for all the Tuareg in the region…We never had the same goals, but rather the opposite. He has always tried to use the Tuareg for his own ends and to the detriment of the community. His departure from Libya opens the way for a better future and helps to advance our political demands…  Al-Qaddafi blocked all solutions to the Tuareg issue… Now he's gone, we can move forward in our struggle” (El Watan [Algiers], August 29). Ag Bahanga, who at one point had unsuccessfully offered to turn his rebel movement into a transnational security force capable of expelling al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) from the Sahel/Sahara region, also came out against AQIM’s Salafi-Jihadists: “Our imams advocate and educate our youth and families against the religion of intolerance preached by the Salafists, which is in total contradiction with our religious practice. In fact, on an ideological level, the Salafis have no control over the Tuareg. We defend ourselves with our meager resources, and we envision a day soon be able to bring Bamako to account” (El Watan, August 29).
Conclusion
Hundreds of thousands of workers have returned to Niger and Mali, which are unable to provide employment to the returnees. There are also 74,000 workers returning to Chad. Moreover, the loss of remittances from their work in Libya will devastate many already marginal communities reliant on such transfers. Many of the returnees suffered rough treatment at the hands of rebels who consider all black Africans and Tuareg to be mourtazak (mercenaries). Motivation, money, arms and a lack of viable alternatives form a dangerous recipe for years of instability in the Sahel/Sahara region, particularly if it is fueled by a political cause such as the restoration of the Qaddafi regime or the establishment of an independent Tuareg homeland.
Ana Ag Ateyoub has been mentioned as the most likely rebel leader to succeed Ag Bahanga. Ag Ateyoub has a reputation for being a great strategist but is considered more radical than Ag Bahanga (L’Essor [Bamako], August 29; August 30). Ag Bahanga’s group remains a regional security wild card. If their late leader was actually intending to launch a new rebellion in Mali with high-powered arms obtained in Libya, will the group follow through with these plans?
Former security officials of the Qaddafi regime recently told a pan-Arab daily that Libyan intelligence has conducted extensive surveys of the more inaccessible parts of the country and areas of Niger and Chad while building ties to the local populations in these places (Al-Sharq al-Awsat, September 8). According to a TNC report based on a communication from the former Libyan intelligence director Musa Kusa, Qaddafi is now moving between al-Jufrah district in the center of the country, home to a strategically located military base and airstrip at Hun, and the remote Tagharin oasis near the Algerian border, where he is guarded by Tuareg tribesmen (al-Sharq al-Awsat, September 5).
Much of southern Libya and its vital oil and water resources remains outside rebel hands and might remain that way for some time if the Tuareg oppose the new rebel regime in Tripoli. It is possible that Qaddafi may threaten the new government from the vast spaces of southern Libya if he can gain the cooperation of the Tuareg. Despite signs of disenchantment with Qaddafi among the Tuareg tribesmen, there is still the lure presented by the vast sums of cash and gold loyalist forces appear to have moved south on behalf of Qaddafi, who has always understood the need to keep a few billion in cash under the mattress, just in case.
Tuareg rebel leader Agali Alambo believes Qaddafi could lead a prolonged counter-insurgency from the deserts of southern Libya: “I know the Guide well, and what people don’t realize is that he could last in the desert for years. He didn’t need to create a hiding place. He likes the simple life, under a tent, sitting on the sand, drinking camel’s milk. His advantage is that this was already his preferred lifestyle… He is guarded by a special mobile unit made up of members of his family. Those are the only people he trusts” (Fox News, September 13).
Though small in numbers, Tuareg mastery of the terrain of the Sahara/Sahel region, ability to survive in forbidding conditions and skills on the battlefield make them a formidable part of any security equation in the region. Historically, the Tuareg have been divided into a number of confederations and have rarely achieved a consensus on anything, including support for the Libyan regime or the ambitions of those seeking to establish a Tuareg homeland. However, the collapse of the Saharan tourist industry due to the depredations of AQIM and a worsening drought in the Sahel that is threatening the pastoral lifestyle of the Tuareg will only enhance the appeal of a well-rewarded life under arms. The direction of Tuareg military commanders and their followers, whether in support of the Qaddafi regime in Libya or in renewed rebellion in Mali and Niger, will play an essential role in determining the security future of the region, as well as the ability of foreign commercial interests to extract the region’s lucrative oil and uranium resources.
Notes & References
-This report was published in the Terrorism Monitor, Volume: 9, Issue: 3, on 16/09/2011
-Andrew McGregor is Director of Aberfoyle International Security, a Toronto-based agency specializing in security issues related to the Islamic world.
1. For a profile of Ibrahim Ag Bahanga, see Andrew McGregor, “Ibrahim Ag Bahanga: Tuareg Rebel Turns Counterterrorist?” April 2, 2010. See also Terrorism Monitor Briefs, November 4, 2010

Iraq: One Step Forward Two Steps Back

By Diana Mukkaled
He was organizing and arranging the protest, but the demonstration turned into his own funeral.
Many people have failed to take notice of the news that Iraqi journalist, playwright and political activist Hadi al-Mahdi was assassinated by two bullets fired from a weapon equipped with a silence only a few hours before he was scheduled to take part in a protest that he had enthusiastically called for and organized.
In the privacy of his own home, al-Mahdi was killed by two shots to the head fired by an unknown assailant.
This is the type of cold-blooded murder that prevailed across Iraq just two years ago, threatening public activists as well as scientific and cultural figures more than anyone else.
But why does it target such figures in particular? Why was al-Mahdi assassinated?
Al-Mahdi was one of the most active organizers of mass demonstrations in Iraq; these demonstrations protested government influence, corruption, and the sway of religious parties. According to al-Mahdi's Facebook page, not to mention statements made by his friends and associates, he had received several death threats only hours before his assassination. Al-Mahdi had also previously been imprisoned, where he was beaten and tortured by the Iraqi authorities. This was after he had been arrested a few weeks ago whilst taking part in a demonstration; he was reportedly warned against taking part in more protests.
It is the new authority in Iraq that suppressed these protesters, killing some of them, and arresting al-Mahdi. This new authority also criticized al-Mahdi for the candour of his radio show. Iraq's constitution recognizes freedom of expression and its new leaders haven’t stopped making speeches denouncing the despotic and tyrannical past of Baathist Iraq. However what is ironic and ridiculous is that it is these same politicians who are repeating this same form of despotism and tyranny!
We are alarmed by the signs that we are seeing which indicate that Iraq is moving against the current of the Arab Spring. In fact, Iraq today is moving towards consolidating a Baathist mentality, which the Iraqis paid a heavy price to remove. Meanwhile, the people in Iraq’s neighbouring countries are sacrificing their lives to topple autocracy; something that is deeply instilled within the Arab mentality.
In Iraq, the authorities continue to suppress protesters even after they have observed what has happened and is happening to regimes elsewhere that tried to silence their people, only to have the people rise up against them, whether this is in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya Yemen or Syria. Despite this clear warning, the authorities in Iraq persist in locking up journalists and activists, killing public figures and suppressing protests. All this is happening whilst Iraq has still failed to deal with Al Qaeda, which continues to carry out car bomb attacks across the country.
What is even more horrific is that Baghdad has decided to side with the Syrian regime that continues to supress peaceful protesters and those seeking legitimate rights and freedoms in a violent and bloody manner. This alliance, even though it has been employed in the context of Iran's support for Syria, is no less dangerous for Iraq. The fact that the Iraqi authorities have supported the suppression and the killing of protesters in Syria is nothing but a prelude to what Baghdad may do in the future. Indeed, the Iraqi authorities have already crossed the line with regards to the manner that they are dealing with Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi authorities have decided to put in place an autocratic Arab regime, the like of which they suffered from in the past, rather than join the league of newly liberated Arab nations.
The suppression of protesters, the arrest and torture of journalists and activists in addition to other practices being committed by the Iraqi authorities today suggest that this country, which years ago was reaping a bitter harvest as a result of the Arab disregard for the plight of its citizens, is today establishing itself in a new position.
There is no evidence to confirm that those who assassinated al-Mahdi work for the government. However, everything indicates that such a possibility must not be completely ruled out.
-This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat in 17/09/2011
-Diana Mukkaled is a prominent and well respected TV journalist in the Arab world, thanks to her phenomenal show "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" (By The Naked Eye), a series of documentaries around controversial areas and topics which airs on Lebanon's leading local and sattelite channel "Future Television"