Dr. Denise Youngblood-Coleman

The Political Intelligence Briefing is a report on significant political developments across the international spectrum. The Political Intelligence Briefing is written by CountryWatch's editor on a weekly basis and it is intended to inform CountryWatch users of important political events evolving in the world.

July 2010 Intelligence Briefing:

The "Featured Country" is  Kosovo with reference to Serbia and Montenegro.  The section titled  "In Focus," deals with  the United States.  "Foreign Policy Spotlight" deals with Libya, United Kingdom, United States, North Korea ,  South Korea, and Russia.  The section titled, "International Hot Stories," includes coverage of: Uganda, Somalia, The Gambia, Iran,  Iraq, Afghanistan,  Pakistan, Cambodia, France, Russia,  Mexico, Argentina and Colombia.  "Government and Politics" covers Canada and Kyrgyzstan. The "Elections Update" features: Australia, Japan, Dominica, Suriname, Poland, Guinea, Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire.  See "Election Central" for more extensive election coverage around the world.


***

Featured Country

Europe: Kosovo
See also Europe: Serbia; Montenegro

International Court of Justice's rules in favor of the world's newest independent nation state

Summary:

The former Serbian province of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared its independence in 2008, has since been seeking international recognition of its sovereign status.  While such recognition as come from the likes of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, its independent status has been strongly resisted by Serbia -- the remaining successor state of the former Yugoslavia.  In July 2010, however, Kosovo's thrust for sovereignty was strengthened within the international community by  the International Court of Justice's ruling in favor of the world's newest independent nation state.

Background --

Officially, the Serbian province of Kosovo -- inhabited by a predominantly ethnic Albanian population -- had been governed by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) since 1999, under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244.  That scenario had been intact until the 2008 declaration of independence.

Kosovo's Declaration of Independence --

At the start of that year [2008],  Kosovo's head of government,  Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, announced that a declaration of independence was forthcoming   The notion of Kosovo's independence had been somewhat supported by the western countries of the European Union (EU), while Russia had expressed the view that Kosovo should ideally be granted independence with the support of Serbia. But the very idea of independence for Kosovo was soundly  rejected by Serbia, which did not want to see its territorial integrity disintegrate further after Montenegro's secession.

The controversial nature of Kosovo's independence led the EU to call on Kosovo's leaders to exercise patience in their independence drive.  The EU wanted the leadership of Kosovo to wait until the presidential election in Serbia was finished (the second round would take place in February 2008), and until a civilian force could assume the mission in Kosovo  from the United Nations.

Nevertheless, one month later on Feb. 17, 2008, with all 10 Serbian parliamentarians boycotting the historic session, Kosovo's parliament  unanimously endorsed a declaration of independence from Serbia.   The declaration, which was read by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, asserted  Kosovo to  be a democratic country, and that the country would be founded in accordance with the United Nations plan.  That plan would not allow Kosovo to join another country, would ensure an international monitoring presence, limit armed forces, and protect Serb minority rights.  To that latter point, the prime minister noted there would be full respect and  rights of all ethnic communities.  In heralding  the independence of Kosovo,  Prime Minister Hashim Thaci also said, "We have waited for this day for a very long time... from today, we are proud, independent and free."

Tens of thousands of jubilant Kosovars celebrated the declaration of independence in the streets of Kosovo's capital of Pristina. Fireworks and gunfire were heard across the city.  Ethnic Albanians across the world were also reported to be celebrating the developments in Kosovo.

However, in Belgrade, Serbians took to the streets to protest Kosovo's independence move.  Gangs were blamed for attacks on the United States embassy, the office of the European Union presidency (located inside the Slovenian embassy), other diplomatic interests (i.e. embassies of United Kingdom, Turkey, Croatia and Belgium) and symbolic multinational interests, such as a McDonald's restaurant.  There were also reports of attacks on United Nations police. As well, in the mainly Serbian town on Mitrovica, located within Kosovo, there were reports of hand grenades being thrown into two buildings with international interests -- a United Nations court house and the European Union mission office.

That being said, Kosovo was reported to be free of violence a week after declaring independence.  The state of calm was attributable to the deployment of local police, United Nations forces and NATO troops on the ground in Kosovo.

International Recognition --

The developments occurred after Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica delivered an emotional speech condemning Kosovo's secession and blamed the West for forcing Serbs to relinquish their identity.  For his part, recently re-elected Serbian President Tadic also reacted negatively to the news.  The Serbian government suggested it would try to block Kosovo from receiving international recognition, as well as membership in international institutions such as the United Nations.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Security Council was set to convene an emergency session on Kosovo.  The meeting was called by Russia, which has been an ally of Serbia, in some measure as a result of the two countries' shared Slavic roots.    It was not known if Russia intended to recognize an independent Kosovo. It had generally maintained the view that to do so would result in unwanted consequences in the Georgian breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, not to mention Chechnya within its own domain.  Meanwhile,  Europe remained divided on the issue. European countries such as Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia had said that they would not recognize Kosovo, while Spain, which has contended with its own Basque separatist movement, also indicated reluctance.  Nevertheless, recognition of Kosovo's independent status by the United States and a number of European countries, including the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany, commenced on Feb. 18, 2008.

As Kosovo gained international recognition of its independent status from world powers including the United States, the United Kingdom and France, Serbia contemplated how to deal with this fracture to its  identity, legacy and territorial integrity.

In the period of late 2008 to early 2009, several developments occurred, which effectively reified Kosovo's status as a sovereign state, en route to being recognized by the broader international community. In October 2008, the United  Nations General Assembly voted to refer Kosovo's declaration of independence to the International Court of Justice. In December 2008, security, judicial and customs functions transitioned from United Nations administration to that of the European Union.  In January 2009, a multi-ethnic security force was established under the aegis of NATO control.  The Kosovo Security Force replaced the previous security force that had been composed of veterans of independence campaign against Serbia.

Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia --

Kosovo was at the center of a regional imbroglio in early 2010. On Jan. 15, 2010, it was reported that Serbia had recalled its ambassador to Montenegro.  At issue was Montenegro's decision to establish diplomatic ties with Kosovo.  To that end, official diplomatic relations commenced with an exchange of letters between the foreign ministers of Montenegro and Kosovo.  The move exacerbated strained relations between the two countries - both successor states of the former Yugoslavia.  Indeed, when Montenegro recognized Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in October 2008, Serbia expelled its ambassador and a new envoy did not return to Belgrade until 2009.  Now, Serbia's wounds of territorial and cultural identity have been re-opened with the news of burgeoning diplomatic relations between the two countries - Montenegro and Kosovo - that Belgrade never wished to see leave the fold.  For its part, Serbia was hoping that Montenegro would hold off on the establishment of diplomatic ties with Kosovo until the International Court of Justice at The Hague could rule on the unilateral declaration of sovereignty.

International Court approves Kosovo's  independence  --

On July 22, 2010,  the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled in favor of Kosovo's  unilateral independence from Serbia in February 2008, affirming the legality of  the declaration of sovereignty. The non-binding opinion noted that Kosovo's independence declaration in 2008 did not violate general international law.  The decision was broadcast live on national television stations of Kosovo.  The country's President Fatmir Sejdiu  held a news conference in Kosovo's capital city of Pristina after the ruling and effusively asserted: "This is a blessed day for Kosovo and its citizens."  Jubilance aside, local and international security forces were increased in the Serb-dominated areas of northern Kosovo as a security precaution.

The ruling was the result of a case brought before the International Court of Justice in the aftermath of Serbia launching a complaint with the United Nations on Kosovo's independence declaration.  As indicated above, Serbia has steadfastly maintained the view that such a declaration should be treated as invalid and illegal, and has demanded that Kosovo return to the Serbian fold.  In response to the ruling issued from The Hague,  Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said  that his country would "never, under any circumstances" recognize a self-proclaimed, independent Kosovo.  Jeremic also lamented the fact that the difficult days were ahead for his country.  He also reiterated the belief that it was of vital importance to keep the entire territory of the "province"  of Kosovo peaceful and stable.   Jeremic's use of the word "province" to describe Kosovo was the latest manifestation of Serbia's intransigent refusal to acknowledge Kosovo's desire for self-determination.

Further developments related to international recognition --

For its part,  amidst these developments, the United States reaffirmed its recognition of Kosovo's independent status.  Ahead of the decision,  Kosovo Prime Minister Hasim Thaci met  with United States Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Obama  administration  to discuss the impending ruling.  The White House issued a statement regarding that meeting, which read as follows: "The vice president reaffirmed the United States' full support for an independent, democratic, whole and multi-ethnic Kosovo whose future lies firmly within European and Euro-Atlantic institutions."  The White House statement continued, "The vice president also reiterated the United States' firm support for Kosovo's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Taking a very different approach, Russia was quick to reiterate its existing stance on Kosovo.  The Russia Foreign Ministry issued a statement that read,  "Our position of not recognizing Kosovo's independence remains invariable. We believe that the Kosovo problem can only be solved through continued talks between the involved parties based on the United Nations Security Council resolution."   It went on to read,  "We are ready to further actively facilitate this."

Nonetheless, the ruling by the United Nations' highest court would  only bolster Kosovo's thrust for international recognition, despite objections from Serbia.   With more than 65 countries already recognizing Kosovo's sovereignty as of mid-2010, more were likely to follow in the aftermath of the decision made at The Hague.   Indeed, Pristina was now in position for membership within the United Nations.

The ruling could, potentially, have ramifications across the globe.  Of significance was the statement by Court President Hisashi Owada, who noted that  international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence."  Clearly, any number of independence movements and breakaway republics would now seize upon that reference point to defend their independence aspirations.

Concluding note --

Meanwhile, the United Nations chief, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, called on the central parties to avoid taking any  provocative steps in the aftermath of the ruling from the International Court of Justice  at The Hague.  A statement from his office read as follows: "The Secretary-General urges all sides to avoid any steps that could be seen as provocative and derail the dialogue."  The statement also noted that the secretary-general "strongly encourages the parties to engage in a constructive dialogue."  Finally, the statement included a notification that Secretary-General Ban would forward the advisory opinion to the General Assembly, which had requested the Court's advice, and which would play a key role in determining next steps in dealing with the matter of Kosovo's status.
 

***

In Focus

Americas: United States

Wall Street Reform: Landmark financial regulatory reform passes House and Senate marking another policy victory for the Democrats and Obama

Background --

On Dec. 11, 2009, the United States House of Representatives passed sweeping financial regulatory reform within its chamber. The legislation, which passed by a vote of 223-202, was intended to address the structural failures in the financial system that led to the 2008 financial crisis. The bill, which was supported by the Democratic-dominated Congress and opposed by every Republican, effectively permits the government to deal with companies that could negatively impact the economy, and also established a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would be charged with overseeing consumer banking transactions. The latter provision was strongly opposed by large banks and the United States Chamber of Commerce, which said that the new agency would hurt financial institutions, while the Federal Reserve argued that the new agency would take away consumer protection powers from the central bank. Nevertheless, the Obama administration welcomed the development, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asserting, "House passage of this bill moves us an important step closer to meeting the president's objectives for reform." He continued, "Comprehensive reform must establish clear rules of the road with strong enforcement for our nation's financial institutions and markets; end loopholes that allowed big Wall Street firms to escape supervision; make it clear that no firm is 'too big to fail'; and provide strong consumer and investor protections for American families."

Passage of the bill in the lower house of Congress paved the way for action to move onto the Senate in 2010. The proposed Senate version contained differences with the House version, principally due to the fact that it contained far more stringent banking regulations.

In late January 2010, with strong Wall Street Reform legislation at stake, United States President Barack Obama outlined plans to restrict and regulate the activities of large banking institutions, with an eye on limiting risky trading, and on assuaging an enraged public who have watched banking institutions pay out large bonuses even as taxpayer money was used to find bail-outs aimed at keeping the financial system afloat.

President Obama's proposals aimed for a return to the principles underlying the Glass-Steagall Act. That law, which existed from the 1930s in the aftermath of the Great Depression, divided commercial banking from investment banking, but was abolished in 1999. Accordingly, President Obama's plans could lead to the fragmentation of large banks, essentially ensuring that they may have to be broken up, and warning that the concept of "too big to fail" -- a tenet that guided the government's response to the financial crisis of 2008 -- was now over. President Obama struck a populist tone saying, "Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by banks that are too big to fail." He continued, "While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse." The proposals outlined by the president also included a ban on retail banks using their own money in investments (i.e. proprietary trading). Instead, banks could only invest customers' funds.

President Obama named his banking proposals aimed at limiting bank risk "the Volcker rule" after Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve central bank, one of his economic advisors and a strong advocate of such action. Banking industry lobbyists have argued that Obama's adoption of the Volcker rule and increased regulation constituted a return to the past. Indeed, the Financial Services Roundtable called instead for some modernization of the regulatory framework. But the president appeared intent on preserving his populist voice. He said, "If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."

Months later, the United States Senate on May 20, 2010, passed the most sweeping financial regulatory reform in 80 years. The legislation passed through the upper chamber of congress by 59 votes to 39 and instituted ways to monitor financial risk.

One main component of the bill was the provision for the establishment of a new watchdog agency. As well, it would institute tougher hurdles for establishing credit worthiness by prospective mortgage seekers. The bill includes provisions for reform of complicated derivatives, however, it was not known if that item would withstand the reconciliation process with the House version of the bill, which was itself passed in late 2009. Another key element was the legislation's thrust to regulate large banks more stringently. To that end, while the bill would facilitate the liquidation of large firms shown to be failing, critics have claimed that the bill does not definitively solve the problem of companies deemed "too big to fail." It should be noted that while some believe that the legislation does not go nearly far enough to address the excesses and culture of Wall Street, which led to the financial crisis of 2008, executives at financial firms have deemed the emerging business climate as constraining.

The Senate version of the legislation was to be merged with the version passed in the House of Representatives before it could be signed by the president and signed into law. As indicated above, in fact, the Senate version of the bill contained stricter provisions than the House version. These differences notwithstanding, President Barack Obama hailed the development and asserted that never again would the American people pay "for Wall Street's mistakes." The president also took the opportunity to take aim at Wall Street, noting that its lobbyists had failed to kill the bill. He said, "Today, I think it is fair to say these efforts have failed."

Latest Developments --

In the early hours of June 25, 2010, the members of the House-Senate committee approved a reform package aimed at restricting trading by banks for their own benefit and mandating that banks and parent companies segment derivatives activities into separately capitalized subsidiaries. A final version of what has come to be called the "Volcker Rule," after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker was approved in final revision, despite strong opposition by banks and financial institutions on Wall Street. Also opposing the Volcker Rule were many Republicans, who have viewed it as an obstacle to reaping profits. There was some accommodation for banks, providing for them to pursue some limited investing and trading activity. Included in the new reform package were limits on banks’ investments in hedge funds or private equity funds.

Key provisions include --

•Volcker Rule
•Derivatives Exchanges and Clearing
•Derivatives Spin-Off
•Consumer Protection Agency
•Resolution Fund

At the close of June 2010, the United States  House of Representatives approved the landmark  bill, intended to radically reform the United States financial system.  Lauding the development, Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader said, "Never again should Wall Street greed bring such suffering to our country."  However, those words were contingent upon the reconciled legislation finding passage in the other legislative chamber.  To that end, the bill faced a tougher time in the Senate, where a vote was not expected to take place for two weeks and where there was no guarantee of its successful passage.  Ahead of that vote, President Obama said of the  legislation:  "It will make our financial system more transparent, so that complex transactions that escaped scrutiny in the past will now be done in the light of day."

By the first part of July 2010, the United States Senate had, indeed, approved the regulatory reform bill intended to overhaul the country's financial system by a vote of 60 to 39.  Accordingly, the legislation was now set to reach the president's desk for signature. Federal  Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke lauded its passage, saying : "The financial reform legislation approved by the Congress today represents a welcome and far-reaching step toward preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis."   United States Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner characterized the legislation as "the most sweeping set of financial reforms since those that followed the Great Depression."

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law in Washington, D.C.   President Obama described the provisions of the new legislation as commonsense reforms that would positively affect the daily lives of citizens, from signing contracts to  understanding fees and risks.  He characterized the reform package as "the strongest consumer protections in history."  His statement, "Because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes,"  was met with a loud burst of applause from those witnessing the signing ceremony.  But Republicans continued to tail against the bill, characterizing it  as a burden on small businesses and banks, and an impediment to  job growth.

Politics of Wall Street Reform --

The Obama administration was touting this policy success as a political boon for fellow Democrats.  In fact, the White House was sanguine on the prospects of the Democrats in forthcoming  elections  as it pointed to the passage of financial regulatory reform saying, "This will be a vote that Democrats will talk about through November."  It was yet to be seen whether or not this policy success would actually translate into victory at the polls in mid-term elections set for later in 2010.  While the majority of Americans did, indeed, support stronger regulations for the banking industry, a smaller number of people were aware of the very existence of the legislation itself, in contrast to the more controversial health care reform bill.  Indeed, polling numbers showed little effect in favor of the Democrats, as a result of the passage of this legislation, in advance of the mid-term elections.

Regardless of the varying views on its merits, with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act now signed into law, President Obama would be positioned to make the claim of accomplishment on another landmark piece of legislation. Indeed, coming so soon after the passage of landmark health care reform, the Obama administration could look back on its two years in office with the knowledge that it was achieving significant results on its domestic policy agenda.

 
Americas: United States

Confirmation process for President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for Supreme Court

On May 9, 2010, news reports emerged that United States President Barack Obama would name Solicitor General Elena Kagan as his choice to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens for the Supreme Court. The news that Kagan -- long believed to be one of the frontrunners for the nomination -- had been selected, came about a month after Justice Steven announced his retirement.

Kagan -- a 50-year old lawyer from New York -- earned degrees from esteemed universities including Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Law School. She was the first woman to hold the position of Dean of the Harvard Law School and most recently served as President Obama's solicitor general. If confirmed, Kagan would be the first justice in almost 40 years without prior judicial experience. She would also be only the fourth woman to ever sit on the country's highest court. Her confirmation would also give President Obama the distinction of being the only president to effect the presence of two women on the highest court of the United States. His previous nomination to the court was Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

For his part, the president noted he was searching for a candidate who would rule in the mold of retiring Stevens -- a stance interpreted by analysts that he sought to preserve the liberal-conservative balance of the court. The president also indicated that his preference would be a candidate from outside the so-called "judicial monastery," with "real world" experience, who would advocate on behalf of the people. With no judicial experience, although certainly with much experience in the realm of jurisprudence, Kagan appeared to have fit those stated requirements.

It was believed that lack of bench experience could leave her vulnerable to criticism about her credentials during Senate confirmation hearings. Indeed, some opponents had already leveled claims that the nomination of Kagan was similar to former President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. In that case, Miers was criticized for a lack of qualifications, and no demonstrable commitment to a particular judicial philosophy. On the other hand, the lack of a lengthy judicial record could actually work in her favor by foreclosing criticism from opponents, effectively paving the way for an easier confirmation process. As well, the credentials question could be answered by delving into her academic writings, which were generally regarded as dense and technical, thusly illustrative of her particular acumen.

Kagan would also likely be helped by a prevailing reputation as one willing to engage with conservatives, as well as her support for executive power. However, these features were just as likely to leave liberals suspicious of her ideological underpinnings. That being said, Kagan's background as a clerk for liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall, and her work as White House lawyer and domestic policy aide under President Bill Clinton, would likely quell fears from the activist base of the Democratic Party. So too would her support for barring military recruiters from a university campus on the basis that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military violated the anti-discrimination policy of that university. Of course, that very position was expected to fuel opposition from the political right.

In considering the nomination of Kagan, some analysts surmised that President Obama was not seeking to make a political statement by selecting a standpoint liberal to the bench. Instead, as has been the hallmark stance of the Obama administration, the president was making a pragmatic choice. He was seeking a candidate who could potentially persuade the sometime-swing vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, thus influencing the rightward bent of the court under the aegis of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Of particular significance was the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United, which reversed restrictions on corporate spending in elections on the basis of free speech. The president was a vociferous critic of this 5-4 ruling, with Kennedy joining the majority. But this very case also placed Kagan herself at the core as a central player. In her capacity as solicitor general, Kagan unsuccessfully argued the government's case before the very bench of the Supreme Court where she was now hoping to sit. In that case, she parried directly with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, even earning rebuke for her particular style. In this regard, the selection of Kagan may provide some suggestion that beneath the pragmatic penchant of the president resided some small element of ideological inclination.

On May 10, 2010, President Obama formally announced Kagan as his nominee to replace Justice Stevens at the Supreme Court, saying: "I have selected a nominee who embodies an excellence in independence, integrity and passion for the law -- our solicitor general and my friend, Elena Kagan."

Again drawing upon his desire to place an advocate of the people on the country's highest court, President Obama emphasized Kagan's background as solicitor general, saying that it represented "the American people's interest in the Supreme Court." He also sought to tamp down criticism about her credentials noting, "Elena is widely regarded as one of nation's foremost legal minds ... with a firm grasp of the nexus between our three branches" of government. President Obama also noted that Kagan had a reputation of being open to a "broad array of viewpoints," having a consensus-oriented temperament, and gaining admiration "across the ideological spectrum."

For her part, Kagan said she was honored by the nomination. Kagan noted that she held a "longstanding appreciation of the Supreme Court's role" in the lives of Americans, which had only grown "deeper and richer" during her service as solicitor general.

Senate confirmation hearings began on June 28, 2010, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In her opening remarks in front of the committee, Kagan promised "to consider every case impartially modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law" and said that she would judge each case with "even-handedness." The hearings were not expected to be an easy process, based on some of the remarks made by Republican senators. At issue for some Republicans were her lack of bench experience (as discussed above), as well as her views on the presence of the military recruiters at university campuses -- an issue that emerged when she served at Harvard Law School. The ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, went so far as to refer to Kagan as "a dangerous nominee."
 
As the proceedings continued, Kagan was challenged by Republicans on controversial issues from gays in the military to abortion and gun rights. Republicans also cast her past experience as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall in negative light, suggesting that it could portend "activist" inclinations.  The disparagement of Justice Marshall -- whose name is inextricable linked to the landmark case of Brown versus the Board of Education -- was viewed as a politically perplexing move by judicial watchers.  For her part, Kagan made clear her intent to be an independent and impartial judge.

Ultimately, Kagan appeared to emerge from the confirmation process unscathed, with Senate Judicial Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy saying, "Solicitor General Kagan will be confirmed." Even Republican Senator John Cornyn appeared to agree that was the likely outcome.  Asked if Kagan would be the successor to retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, Cornyn replied, "I assume she will be."

On July 20, 2010, the  Senate Judiciary Committee  voted 13-6 to endorse Supreme Court nominee Kagan’s confirmation, effectively sending her on to  face a vote before the full Senate. The vote broke along mainly on partisan lines with all 12 Democrats on the committee voting for Kagan, and six of the seven Republicans voting against her. The lone Republican voting against Kagan in committee was  Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who had voted in favor of the president's previous Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.

Speaking of his decision to endorse Kagan at the committee level, Senator Graham said that although he would not have selected a justice who had a political ideology similar to that of  Kagan, he believed that President Obama had a mandate from the voters to choose his desired nominee. “I’m going to vote for her because I believe this last election had consequences,” he said.

Assuming Kagan is confirmed in a vote by the whole Senate before the August 2010 recess, she would join the court at the commencement of its new term in October 2010.  As noted above, she would become only the fourth woman to sit on the bench of the United States highest court.
 

Americas: United States

Hopes rise that new cap can contain British Petroleum oil spill in Gulf of Mexico  despite seepage

Summary:

An April 2010 explosion aboard Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, which was leased by British Petroleum, led to a massive oil leak from the blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico.  It was the worst environmental calamity to befall the United States, with the ecological and economic ramifications forecast to be monumental.60; While attempts at containment and plugging the leak have been ongoing since that time, in July 2010, early indications were that a new cap had been successfully fitted over the blown-out well, ceasing the flow of oil for the first time since the time of the explosion.   However weather concerns and seepage were emerging as points of concern. A permanent solution in the form of two relief wells was still in the offing. 

In Detail:

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 platform workers. The Deepwater Horizon drilling platform was leased by British Petroleum (BP) from its owner, Transocean Limited.  A leak in a deepwater oil well belonging to BP at the bottom of the Gulf continued to gush unabated, despite several attempts to end the disaster.

Several initial attempts to cap the massive oil leak, such as a containment dome, followed by a smaller containment mechanism, called the "top hat," failed to bring an end to the spill. Another mechanism was known as the "top kill" and sought to inject cement into the blown out well 5,000 feet underwater, ultimately sealing it off permanently. The "junk shot," was intended to augment the "top kill" approach and involved shooting small rubber balls, golf balls, and rubber scraps into the well to plug a crippled five-story piece of equipment, known as the blowout preventer; in this case, the intent was to prevent the mud from escaping.

Meanwhile, government estimates indicated that the oil spill promised to be more catastrophic than the 1989 Exxon Valdez off Alaska several years prior. Two scientific surveys estimated that the blown oil well was gushing between 500,000 and a million gallons of oil per day, which meant that at least 20 million gallons of oil have been spilled since the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010. By way of comparison, nearly 11 million gallons of oil were spilled in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. The deleterious effects to the eco-system of the Gulf, including coastal wetlands, as well as the challenges to the fishing and tourism industries in the Gulf, promised to transform an industry crisis into parallel environmental and economic disasters. Indeed, the general consensus was that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was very likely the worst ecological calamity to befall the United States.

Jeremy Symons, vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, excoriated BP for allowing such a catastrophe to unfold. He said, "Now we know the true scale of the monster we are fighting in the Gulf." He continued, "BP has unleashed an unstoppable force of appalling proportions."

BP has been the main target of the public's condemnation for allowing the leak to take place, with reports emerging that the oil giant ignored warnings of system failures in the interests of production, ultimately contributing to the oil well blow out and concomitant spill. For its part, BP has maintained that it would take on the responsibility of cleaning up the oil spill, but it stopped short of addressing legal liabilities.

As well, harsh criticisms have been levied against the Mineral Management Services for providing the permit for deep water drilling in the first place. These criticisms were heightened due to findings of the agency's lax oversight, manifest by a propensity for "rubber-stamping" whatever the oil industry desired, as well as scandalous revelations about agency staff receiving elaborate gifts from oil and gas companies, as well as agency staff using official computers to view pornography.

Not surprisingly, there was speculation about measures against BP, such as debarement or removing liability limits. Additionally, MMA's essential structure would be changed to prevent future coziness with the oil industry.

While President Obama and his administration have also come under fire for their perceived timid response to the crisis, in fact, the United States government does not possess submersibles that can function at that depth, essentially leaving the clean-up responsibilities in the hands of the oil industry. Working within his purview, President Obama announced major new restrictions on drilling projects on the eve of another visit to the Gulf of Mexico. These moves included extending a moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects and the cancellation of proposed lease sales in the waters off Alaska, Virginia and the Gulf Coast. As well, he took responsibility for the crisis brewing in the Gulf saying, "My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill."

By the close of May 2010, it was apparent that the "top kill" approach to plugging the leak in the Gulf of Mexico had ended in failure. While BP said it would try yet another tactic intended to resolve the problem, BP Chief Operations Officer Doug Suttles acknowledged that the new approach might only halt the oil spill, rather than plugging it completely. This new strategy would ideally stem the flow of the oil with the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP). The LMRP would entail the use of underwater robots to cut through the damaged pipe, and then make a connection with another pipe, ultimately aimed at capturing the leaking oil. The LMRP plan would require several days of preparation before the commencement of the actual cutting and connection process, meaning that any possible result would not be immediate. It should also be noted that BP COO Suttles also said there was no guarantee of success since this type of operation had never been carried out at the depth of 5,000 feet.

This less than sanguine analysis of the road ahead was reflected in the dour warning by White House Energy Adviser Carol Browner, who cautioned that the United States should be "prepared for the worst scenario," which was that the oil spill might not actually be stopped for two months. That is to say, with or without the aforementioned LMRP process, which was intended to stem the flow of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, a permanent solution would require even more time -- until August 2010, in fact. That dateline was derived from the belief that it would take a few months to drill a relief well to permanently end the spill.

During a second trip to the Gulf Coast, President Obama on May 28, 2010, promised to triple the number of federal workers trying to contain and clean up the oil spill. But with the news of the failure of "top kill" approach, the president conveyed his anger and outrage at the catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. He declared, "It is as enraging as it is heartbreaking, and we will not relent until this leak is contained, until the waters and shores are cleaned up, and until the people unjustly victimized by this man-made disaster are made whole."

On June 1, 2010, the Obama administration indicated it was opening a criminal probe into the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While Attorney General Eric Holder refrained from specifying any companies or individuals that might potentially be targeted in such an investigation, he said: "We will closely examine the actions of those involved in the spill. If we find evidence of illegal behavior, we will be extremely forceful in our response."

On June 4, 2010, President Obama made another trip to Louisiana to garner an "on the scene" perspective of the evolving crisis. There, he was scheduled to meet with retired Coast Guard Admiral Allen, who was leading the federal government's response team,  and several members of local communities who had been affected by the spill. In an interview with CNN, President Obama made clear that the company at the heart of the disaster, BP, had "felt his anger." He also said that he was "furious at this entire situation." The president reiterated his pledge to stand by the citizens of Louisiana and to ensure that they were "made whole." He also promised that BP would bear the financial costs of the damages at stake. It was subsequently announced that the president had, for the second time, postponed a trip to Australia and Indonesia; in this case, the White House determined that President Obama's focus should be on the oil spill in the Gulf. To that end, the effects of the disaster were expected to spread well beyond Louisiana's coastline with tar globules starting to wash ashore as far as Florida.

Meanwhile, attention was still focused on attempts to stem the flow of the oil. The new plan involved placing a containment cap over the ruptured oil well, followed by the funneling of the oil to the surface. United States Coast Guard Chief Admiral Thad Allen said that roughly 1,000 barrels a day were being captured. While the process was showing some degree of progress, the fact of the matter was that the amount of the oil being captured was a mere fraction of the 19,000 barrels a day believed to be leaking.

In a conference call to investors, BP chief executive officer Tony Hayward said it could take two days before his company could confirm whether or not the process had succeeded. Haywood also expressed "heartbreak" over the loss of life, the effect on the livelihoods of the people of Gulf, as well as the environmental impact in the region. Haywood asserted that BP would seek to restore the public's trust although he acknowledged that the actual cause of the disaster was unknown. To that latter issue, he suggested that there had been an "unprecedented number of failures" and "a lot remains unknown."

By June 6, 2010, the containment cap mechanism appeared to have been optimized since now 10,000 barrels of oil were being funneled a day. The increased momentum meant that now about half of the total amount of oil at stake was being captured. While this was welcome news, as before, there were prevailing anxieties about the oil that was still gushing forth into the Gulf. Admiral Allen gave voice to the displeasure of the federal government declaring that despite the progress being made, there was no reason to celebrate "as long as there's oil in the water." In an interview with CNN, Admiral Allen noted that the oil spill was "an insidious enemy that's attacking our shores."

In response, BP chief executive officer Tony Hayward, explained that his company intended to utilize further mechanisms to increase the containment and capture process. He said, "We have a further containment system to implement in the course of this coming week, which will be in place by next weekend so when those two are in place, we would very much hope to be containing the vast majority of the oil." Haywood also emphatically stated that BP was committed to resolving the oil spill disaster and restoring the affected environment. He said, "We're going to clean up the oil, we're going to remediate any environmental damage and we are going to return the Gulf coast to the position it was in prior to this event. That's an absolute commitment, we will be there long after the media has gone, making good on our promises."

Around  June 11, 2010, reports were emerging that the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico was even more than originally estimated. The new figures suggested that almost double the amount previously thought was gushing from the well, and therefore, likely to have more devastating and far-reaching effects for the marine eco-system of the region. Paul Montagna, a marine biologist at Texas A&M University explained the consequences as follows: "Doubling the amount of oil does not have a linear effect, it doesn't double the consequences, it may instead have quadruple the consequences."

By mid-June 2010, in a national address, President Obama placed pressure on BP to ensure that it could compensate those affected by the oil spill . In response, BP agreed to place $20 billion in escrow for oil spill claims. The fund would be independently controlled and used to compensate people and businesses negatively affected by the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While this development was hailed by many as a step in the right direction, during congressional hearings, Republican Congressman Joe Barton characterized President Obama's demand for the $20 billion claims fund as a "shakedown" and apologized to BP CEO Hayward for its creation.

In those very congressional hearings, BP CEO Hayward was excoriated for "stonewalling" legislators, who were trying to discern the details of the corporation's decision-making process, which led to such catastrophic consequences. Hayward claimed that he was unable to offer relevant details due to Congress' own ongoing investigation into the matter.

Nevertheless, several legislators referenced BP's poor record of safety, and suggested that the company had taken safety shortcuts in the interests of saving money. To this end, Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman said, "BP appears to have made multiple decisions for economic reasons that increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure." For his part, Hayward responded by saying, said: "There is nothing I have seen in the evidence so far that suggests that anyone put cost ahead of safety, if there are then we will take action." He also insisted that he was not personally involved in the decisions that led to the explosion on Deepwater Horizon.

Hayward aside, BP's cause would not be helped by revelations from workers on the rig that the company did not deal with malfunctioning of the blowout preventer -- the very piece of equipment intended to avert disasters of the sort occurring in the Gulf -- despite both BP and Transocean knowing of functionality problems in advance.

By June 21, 2010, a lawsuit had been filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services against the government, calling for the ban on drilling at great depths to be lifted. Following the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and the ensuing massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Obama administration instituted a six-month moratorium on new deep water drilling projects, with the Interior Department halting the approval on the issuance of new permits for deepwater drilling, and the suspension of drilling at 33 existing exploratory wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, Louisiana, argued that the federal government imposed the moratorium without any proof that the operations posed a threat, and that the action could have a deleterious economic effect on the state. But the Interior Department noted that more time was needed to examine the risks of drilling to extreme depths, in order to identify ways to improve safety. The Interior Department also made the claim that the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and the resulting Gulf of Mexico oil spill illustrated the inherent risk drilling to such depths in the ocean. The district court judge ruled on June 22, 2010, to lift the moratorium and subsequently rejected the White House's move for a stay of the ruling. The White House stated it would immediately appeal the ruling, and further judgments were expected at the federal appeals court level.

In other developments, construction on the relief wells, intended to permanently stem the flow of the oil, was ongoing. Also ongoing was the oil spill itself, although the containment cap was reportedly decreasing the amount flowing into the Gulf. That flow increased temporarily in the third week of June 2010 when a mishap involving a robot bumping equipment forced the removal of the cap for a limited period.

By the first week of July 2010, there were reports that the oil leak could potentially be fully contained, pending the successful fitting of a new cap over the blown-out well.  The new cap decreased the amount of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, but it had not completely prevented some oil from escaping. The new cap would ideally fit precisely over the cut in the well pipe, ensuring proper containment.  In order to accomplish this end, remote-controlled submarines  were being used to exchange the existing cap with the new and tighter cap.  The process was aided by good weather and calm seas.  However, for a short time, while the new and tighter cap was being installed, there would be a limited period of about 48 hours in which the oil would freely gush forth into the already-affected waters.  Nevertheless, news of the new cap's installation process marked the most positive development since the disaster unfolded more than two months prior.

BP conveyed cautious optimism over the new containment process, taking particular care to only say that progress was being made, and that an evaluation would come by mid-July 2010.  Indeed, the effectiveness of the procedure was yet to be determined.  As well, retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who was overseeing the oil spill response on behalf of the federal government, was quick to note that containment of the oil spill was not synonymous with bringing the spill to a complete halt.  He said, "I use the word contained. Stop is when we put the plug in down below."

By mid-July 2010, BP said the containment cap had been successfully fitted over the blow-out well and that the flow of oil in the Gulf of Mexico -- for the time being -- had been staunched.  It was the first time the oil had ceased flowing into the Gulf since the April 2010 explosion on Deepwater Horizon.  BP  said integrity testing would ensue for approximately 48 hours.  At issue was the pressure level since low or falling pressure levels would indicate that oil might be escaping further down the well, while higher pressure levels could pave the way for the well to remain shut.

Pressure tests were delayed at first, but by July 16, 2010, the readings were rendering less than ideal findings.  In a conference call with the media,  retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said the testing showed that pressure levels were insufficiently high, thus indicating either a risk of other undiscovered  leaks in the well, or,  that oil had been depleted from the reservoir following three months of constant gushing into the Gulf.   He  noted that further testing would follow before a fresh assessment would be made as to  next course of action.  Indeed,  the assessment would guide the government's decision to either keep the well shut, or, re-open the well and use shipping vessels to pipe oil to the surface.

During a night-time news conference on July 16, 2010, BP executive Kent Wells said  that despite the perplexing low pressure readings, there was no indication of oil seeping from the well.  He said, "No news is good news, I guess that's how I'd say it."  His statement was based on the results of a seismic probe of the surrounding sea floor, which showed no evidence of a leak underground.  As before, continued testing and fresh assessment were anticipated before a decision could be made about the course of action to be taken, as noted above.   The scenario was complicated by revelations about hydrocarbon seepage in the seabed a short distance from the well head.  There were reports of BP not being willing to comply with the government's demand for further testing.

By the third week of July 2010, efforts were underway to dispel fears that the aforementioned seepage indicated that the capped oil well was structurally compromised from the pressure.   Should the capped well in fact have ruptured under the pressure, the containment cap would likely have to be removed, due to the risk of further damage. However, experts were suggesting that the detected seepage was seepage was sourced in an older well that was no longer in production. For his part,  Retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen  noted that while several leaks were found around the well machinery, they were small in size.   Therefore, he  allowed BP to have a succession of 24-hour extensions to keep the cap in place, but demanded that the process be vigilantly monitored.
 
The success of the containment cap aside, there was still a need for a permanent solution.  To that end,  two relief wells were being drilled below the floor of the sea, for the purpose of intercepting the blown-out well and sealing it permanently with cement and mud.  This process had been forecast to be completed in mid-August 2010, but now news was emerging that construction on the relief wells was proceeding ahead of schedule.   While that revelation was broadly welcomed, the massive restoration effort to the seas and coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico would continue for a long time into the future, with the ecological and economic ramifications forecast to be monumental.  That scenario was not helped by the impending arrival of a tropical storm in the region, which effectively halted work going on in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, even with the fallout of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico casting BP in negative light, the energy giant was dealing with political damage.  A congressional committee was looking into whether or not BP should be banned from  offshore drilling for seven years.  BP was not alone in the domain of scandal.  At a hearing in  New Orleans, one of Deepwater Horizon's drilling supervisors told Coast Guard investigators that the rig's crew neither ceased drilling, nor notified regulators upon the discovery of the hydraulic leak in blowout preventer ahead of the explosion.  Exacerbating the situation was a subsequent revelation before a panel of federal government investigators that the emergency alarm on the Deepwater Horizon was not fully activated the day the oil rig exploded.  Transocean, which leased the rig to BP, reacted by asserting that the inactive alarm did not constitute a safety oversight.  But a confidential audit, the contents of which were reviewed by the New York Times, indicated a long list of repairs, some of them deemed "high priority," that Transocean had left unattended by the day of the rig explosion.

***

Foreign Policy Spotlight

Europe: United Kingdom; Africa: Libya
See also America: United States

BP-Libya ties spurs scrutiny due to release of Lockerbie bomber

In 2010, global attention was focused on energy giant, British Petroleum (BP), as a result of the   massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which had occurred as a result of explosion an oil rig leased by BP.  This disaster intersected with global politics as BP was subject to increased scrutiny, ultimately resting on the question of whether that company played a role in the early release of a Libyan terrorist.  At issue was the 2009 decision by a Scottish court to free  Abdel Baset al-Megrahi -- the man responsible for the bombing of the Pan American Flight 103  that exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, leaving 270 people dead.

Even as BP was dealing with negative publicity over the disaster unfolding in the Gulf, the release of Lockerbie bomber, al-Megrahi, spurred  debate as to whether BP lobbied for his release in exchange for lucrative oil deals in Libya.  In fact, BP acknowledged that it had conveyed concern over the slow action being taken to transfer Megrahi out of British jurisdiction and home to Libya. The company stopped short of admitting that it played a part in the release of the terrorist.  As well, British Prime Minister David Cameron, in the United States for meetings with President Barack Obama, dismissed a request for a new investigation into the matter.  As well, Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, insisted before the House of Commons that the decision to release the Libyan terrorist was made "in good faith." Still, with this scandal brewing, pressure was building on both sides of the Atlantic  -- in the United States for a investigation into the allegations against BP related to the bomber's release, and in the United Kingdom  for a full and independent inquiry into the bombing itself and the decision to grant a terrorist freedom on  compassionate grounds.

Asia: North Korea and South Korea
See also Americas: United States

Tension rise on Korean peninsular as U.S. announced new sanctions against North Korea and conducts military drills with South Korea

In the third week of July 2010, the United States (U.S.) announced that it was imposing new sanctions against North Korea. The announcement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came in the aftermath of her visit to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that separates North Korea from South Korea.  Secretary of State Clinton explained that the sanctions would target North Korea's sale and purchase of arms, and were aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation and discouraging provocative actions by North Korea.

South Korea  accused North Korea of provocative action over the sinking of its Cheonan warship months earlier, which an international  investigation ultimately blamed on North Korea despite Pyongyang's denial of culpability.  As one the most sanctioned countries in the world, these new sanctions were likely intended to intensify the pressure on North Korea  in response to  the Cheonan incident.  In fact, as indicated by Secretary of State Clinton, they were aimed at compelling Pyongyang to take responsibility for the sinking of the warship that left 47 dead.  For its part, North Korea warned that fresh sanctions would be interpreted as an act of war.

Tensions on the peninsula were unlikely to decrease since the U.S. and South Korea conducted joint naval exercises, which North Korea characterized as "dangerous sabre-rattling." But defense officials of United States and South Korea  said that the military drills were intended to deliver a clear message to North Korea that its "aggressive" behavior should cease.  Indeed, the North Korean official news agency reported the following statement from the government in Pyongyang: "The army and people of the DPRK will legitimately counter with their powerful nuclear deterrence the largest-ever nuclear war exercises to be staged by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces."

Europe/Asia: Russia
Americas: United States

Spy swap evokes echoes of the Cold War even as U.S. and Russia emphasize stronger ties

On June 28, 2010, ten individuals using aliases were arrested in the United States for allegedly spying for the Russian government. According to the Justice Department of the United States, the ten individuals were charged with conspiracy to act as unlawful agents of a foreign government. Eight of the ten suspects were reported to have had "long-term, deep-cover assignments" in the United States. As well, nine of the ten suspects were charged with conspiracy to launder money. Five of the suspects appeared in a New York federal court where they were ordered to remain in jail pending hearings set for the end of July 2010. Other suspects soon faced court in Virginia. The arrests came after an investigation that went on for several years and, if convicted, the suspects could face five years in prison.

Authorities said they were in pursuit of an eleventh suspect.  That eleventh suspect was soon arrested in Cyprus and released on bail; he was subsequently reported to be missing after failing to present for a scheduled "check in" meeting with the Cypriot police.  An arrest warrant was issued for that individual as a result but reports soon emerged that he may have fled that country. The Cypriot authorities were now under fire for mishandling the situation; members of the opposition party in that Mediterranean country railed against the fact that an alleged spy was allowed bail rather than being subject to a detention order.

Meanwhile, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a trip to Eastern Europe, made clear that the U.S. was committed to positive ties with Russia, the emerging spy scandal notwithstanding.  Secretary Clinton said, "We're committed to building a new and positive relation with Russia." She continued, "We're looking toward the future."  For its part, Russia has also indicated that the scenario would not affect closer bilateral relations with the United States.

By the first week of July 2010, plans were in the works for a Cold War era "spy swap" in which ten Russian agents would be deported  in exchange for the return of United States agents being held in Russia.  Those agents sought by the United States included a Russian nuclear scientist, a former Russian military intelligence agent and a former KBG agent who were jailed for spying on behalf of the United States.  There was also a former military intelligence agent jailed for spying for the United Kingdom.

The exchange ensued in Austria with the ten Russian agents boarding a flight to Moscow, and the four agents released by the Kremlin  boarding an American aircraft close to the main passenger terminals at the airport in Vienna. The entire exchange took a total of 90 minutes.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the two countries involved cast the spy swap in positive terms.  Russia said that the ten persons in United States custody facing charges there had been freed "for humanitarian considerations."  Russia also lauded the move as being illustrative of "the general improvement of Russia-United States relations."  Meanwhile, the United States was dismissing claims that only four agents were released in exchange for the ten Russians.  United States authorities made clear that the four in question were "high value" and garnered far more usable information in comparison to the ten Russians.  Moreover, the White House in the United States was playing up the fact that knowledge of the spy ring and plans for the spy swap had been in the works for several months before the Russians were ever arrested.

 
***
 

International Hot Stories

Africa: Uganda; Somalia
See also Americas: United States

Somali al-Shabab being behind deadly bombings in Ugandan capital of Kampala; U.S. offers Uganda assistance

On July 11, 2010, scores of people died in double explosions in the Ugandan capital of Kampala. Local Ugandans as well as foreigners were among the victims. Ugandan police said the bombs exploded  at a rugby club and at a restaurant as football fans watched the final match of the World Cup. In an interview with Agence France Press, Inspector General of Police Kal Kayihura said, "These bombs were definitely targeting World Cup crowds."

While there was no conclusive information about those behind the attacks, Police Chief Kaihura expressed the view that Somalia's extremist Islamic militia — al-Shabab, which has been linked with al-Qaida -- may have been to blame.  Indeed, the feared Somali militants certainly made threats against Kampala, perhaps because of the fact that Ugandan troops were deployed in Mogadishu.  Only days earlier,  al-Shabab commander, Sheik Muktar Robow, demanded that militants attack venues in Uganda and Burundi since both countries have contributed troops to the African Union force in Mogadishu.  Meanwhile, another al-Shabab commander, Sheik Yusuf Sheik Issa, refused to confirm or deny his group's role in the Kampala twin bombings but expressed happiness that they occurred at all.  During an interview with the Associated Press, he said, "Uganda is one of our enemies. Whatever makes them cry, makes us happy. May Allah's anger be upon those who are against us."

With all available indications suggesting that Somali-based al-Shabab was responsible for the attacks,  the group itself removed  doubt by claiming responsibility for what appeared to be its first terror attack outside Somalia's borders.  For its part, the Obama administration in the United States pledged help to track down those responsible.  At the same time, the United States Department of States made it clear that it was focused on al-Shabab as a threatening entity with global jihadist aspirations.  As well, it pointed to Executive Order 13536, signed by United States President Barack Obama, which was intended to block the finances of militant extremist Islamists in Somalia deemed to be a threat to the peace process in that country.

 
Africa: The Gambia

Coup plotters sentenced to death in The Gambia

In March 2010, a cadre of  military officials and businessmen were charged with attempting to overthrow Gambian President Yahya Jammeh. A statement released by the country's Justice Ministry statement noted that the individuals in question had "conspired to stage a coup d'etat and overthrow the president."  Newspapers in The Gambia reported that those charged were accused of accruing weapons and rounding up mercenaries, presumably as part of the coup plot. These developments came after a number of senior officials in The Gambia were rounded up and placed in jail for several months without charges.  It should be noted that President Jammeh came to power via a bloodless coup in 1994.

By July 2010, a Gambian court  found the individuals guilty of plotting the aforementioned attempted coup d'etat and were then sentenced to death.  Among those convicted and sentenced was the former head of the military. Speaking from the country's capital city of Banjul, Judge Emmanuel Amadi delineated the laundry list of convictions that included treason, conspiracy to murder, and participating in a lengthy plot to overthrow the government.  For their parts, the defendants in question had pleaded not guilty and through their lawyer, said that they intended to appeal the conviction and sentence.

Middle East: Iran

Twin bomb attacks in Iran leave lengthy casualty list; Iran blames U.S.

On July 16, 2010, around 30 people were killed and at least 100 others were injured as a result of twin suicide bomb attacks at the Jamia Grand Mosque in  the city of Zahedan, located in the Sistan-Baluchestan province of Iran. The attack occurred as  worshippers marked the anniversary of the birth of Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Among the dead were members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.  While there was no immediate claim of responsibility, the location of the attacks in remote and restive Sistan-Baluchestan -- the site of a Sunni Jundallah insurgency - caused suspicion to be cast on this particular movement.  Indeed, Iranian media soon reported that Jundullah was, in fact, claiming responsibility for the bombings, which it said had been carried out the attacks in retaliation for the hanging of its leader a month earlier.

Meanwhile, Iranian authorities posited the theory that at least one of the suicide bombers was dressed in women's clothing.  The clerical leadership of Iran also cast blame on the United States, which they said was sympathetic to  Jundallah and anxious to cause instability within its borders.  Despite this  accusation by Iran, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attacks and urged that the perpetrators be apprehended and brought to justice.

Middle East: Iraq

Suicide bomber kills five at checkpoint in Baghdad; 60 Sh'a pilgrim killed in capital

On July 9, 2010, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-laden car at a military checkpoint  in Baghdad leaving  at least five people dead, including three soldiers.  The attack took place in western Baghdad's mainly Sunni Ghazaliya district, which was once regarded as a  stronghold for militants.

The bombing comes after a succession of attacks on Shi'a pilgrims in Baghdad left approximately 60 people dead.  In the most deadly case, a suicide bomber targeted Shi'a pilgrims in a Sunni district called Adhamiya yielding a death toll of 35.  Elsewhere in the capital city, bomb attacks left  two dozen people dead.   Despite the clear danger, Shi'a pilgrims appeared undeterred and continued to gather at  the shrine of Imam Musa Kadhim, a Shi'ite saint believed to have been assassinated while in captivity in 799.

While there has, indeed, been a dramatic  decrease in the level of violence plaguing Iraq, attacks continue to occur with disturbing regularity, and there have been fears that incidences of violence were creeping up in numbers. By way of illustration, the United Nations released a report on July 8, 2010 noting that in 2009,  4,068 civilians were killed and 15,935 injured in violence in Iraq, demonstrating a decline in violence,  according to the country's  Ministry of Human Rights.  However, since the latter part of 2009, the trend has been going in a somewhat negative direction.   The United Nations report stated: "This represents an overall decrease in comparison to 2008. However, the second half of 2009 saw a large increase in the number of injured civilians when compared to the first half."

Middle East: Iraq

Suicide bomber kills more than 40 in southwest Baghdad

On July 18, 2010, a suicide bomber  killed more than 40 people and injured another 40 in  the Radwaniya neighborhood to the southwest of the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad. The target of the attacks appeared to be members of the Sunni Awakening Councils or Sahwa, which turned against al-Qaida and allied themselves with the government in recent years. In fact, the reduction in the overall level of violence in Iraq has been attributed to the cooperation of  the Awakening Councils or  Sahwa.  But clearly, this alliance with government forces has also brought with it a high risk of revenge-oriented attacks from al-Qaida in Iraq, the type of which have been on the rise in 2010.  Indeed, in this case, the suicide bomber detonated the explosives strapped to his vest just as the council members were lining up at the main gate of a military base, waiting to receive their salaries. Among the dead were council members, soldiers and accountants.  Elsewhere in Iraq, a separate suicide attack left three people dead at a meeting of Sunni leaders.

Asia: Afghanistan

Taliban attack NATO forces across Afghanistan; civilians protest violence in Mazar-i-Sharif

On July 1, 2010, Taliban militants launched an attack on a NATO military base at an airfield just outside Jalalabad.  The attack, which ensued close to the border with Pakistan, involved a car bomb and the firing of rocked-propelled grenades. The attack appeared to involve careful planning and coordination on the part of the Taliban militants, thus evoking fears about their growing level of sophistication nine years into the war.  However,  the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) pointed to that fact that only Taliban died, thus demonstrating success in repelling the attack.

On  July 2, 2010, four suicide bombers stormed a building being used by  Development Alternatives -- an international firm providing social and economic development assistance in developing countries.  This attack occurred  in the northern Afghanistan town of Kunduz.  While two of the suicide bombers detonated the explosives strapped to their bodies causing an explosion outside the compound, the other suicide bombers entered the  building used by Development Alternatives.  At least one Afghan policeman  died as a result, while a second policeman was wounded along with three guards protecting the compound.

Several days later by the second week of July, five United States troops died in  separate incidents of violence in Afghanistan.  NATO said that three soldiers had died in eastern Afghanistan and two died as a result of roadside bombings in the southern part of the country. In the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, extremist Islamic militants killed one person using a bomb strapped to a motorcycle.

Meanwhile, Afghan civilians took to the streets in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif to protest the escalating rate of civilian deaths.  Their efforts were not directed at the Taliban but at United States forces, and were motivated by the accidental deaths of civilians by United States troops on July 7, 2010.   General David Petraeus, the new United States commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said he would continue the existing policy of reducing civilian casualties in the war effort.

Asia: Afghanistan
See also Americas: United States

Wikileaks website reveals core concerns about war in Afghanistan

The Iceland-based website, known as Wikileaks, released six-years worth of classified United States documents, numbering around 90,000, dealing with the war in Afghanistan.  Several news organizations were given access to the documents prior to actual publication, although United States authorities have argued that the dissemination of classified information was a threat to national security, an act of gross irresponsibility, and quite possibly, imbued with illegality.  For its part, Wikileaks has defended the release of the documents, noting that it presents an unvarnished view of the war in Afghanistan since 2004.

Regardless of these competing views, the contents of the controversial documents have spurred debate about the United States' role in the war in Afghanistan, as well as the conduct of the war itself.  To these ends, two Wikileaks revelations could raise questions about the Obama administration's broader "Afghan-Pak" strategy, which considers not only "ground zero" of the war effort -- Afghanistan -- but also Pakistan next door.  While the strategy appropriately focuses  on the region instead of one country, taking into consideration  shared extremist Islamic influences, shared Pashtun culture, and a landscape on the borderland that is a stronghold for Taliban and al-Qaida,  two Wikileaks revelations strong doubts on the effectiveness of the strategy.

Firstly, according to the document review by the New York Times, even as Pakistan receives funds from the United States to help combat Islamic extremists militants and the threat of terrorism, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was said to be helping the Taliban, even collaborating with them on terror attacks and assassination plots. 

Secondly, the tactic of using drone attacks in the tribal border regions has been lauded by the Obama administration as a means of crushing the enemy and eliminating high value Taliban and al-Qaida targets.  However, according the review by Der Spiegel,  38 Predator and Reaper drones crashed while on combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, requiring  "elaborate -- and dangerous -- salvage operations."  On the ground, "in country," there are additional worries about the political costs of the civilian casualties caused by drone attacks.

The civilian costs provides a transition to discuss a third issue revealed by Wikileaks.  According to the review by  Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic, there were "at least 144 separate incidents" of civilian casualties that led to "cover-ups."  Ambinder particularly took note of the unsuccessful attempt to kill  Abu Layth Ali Libi, which resulted in the deaths of several civilians and that resulted in a "cover-up" by  Afghan officials.

Finally, another key -- and bizarre -- revelation was that Osama Bin Laden -- the lynch pin of the extremist Islamic terror network, al-Qaida, has taken up the practice of gifting insurgents with wives.  According to the associated report by  The Guradian, an insurgent known to be an expert in radio-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs) was presented with an Arab wife by Bin Laden as an expression of thanks for his efforts in plotting terror attacks.

Asia: Pakistan

Bomb blasts by suicide attacks at Sufi shrine in Pakistani city of Lahore

Close to 40 people died in a series of explosions at the Data Darbar Sufi shrine in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore on July 2, 2010. Another 175 other people were injured as a result of the blasts, which appeared to have targeted  the shrine at a time when thousands of visitors and devotees were present at the site.  Indeed, Pakistani authorities said the attacker used bombs packed with ball-bearings -- typically, a tactic used to maximize the carnage. Ironically, the attacks occurred just as Pakistani security officials were making claims about having disrupted the Islamist militant networks in that country.

Asia: Pakistan

Over 100 dead after double suicide bombings in a Pakistani tribal village

On July 9, 2010, more than 100  people died  and at least 120 others were injured as a result of a double suicide bombing in a Pakistani tribal village on the border with Afghanistan.   The attack took place  in Yakaghund village in the Mohmand tribal region, which has been known to be a stronghold of the Taliban and al-Qaida. The suicide bombers detonated the explosives  close to the gate of the local administrator's office. The commercial area in the region was hardest hit, decimating stores and vehicles, ultimately burying people in the rubble. The  Taliban was quick to claim responsibility with a  spokesperson for the militant Islamic extremist movement saying that the target of the attack was a meeting of local officials and anti-Taliban elders from the Anbar Utmankhel tribe.

Pakistani authorities in the region argued that the attack was illustrative of the Taliban's "increasing desperation" since their terrain was being increasingly restricted by security forces. However, this was the first notable attack against a civilian target in Mohmand, with the only previous suicide bombing occurring in early 2009.  For the most part, attacks by extremist militants in Mohmand have involved ambushes and improvised explosive devices to target military and anti-Taliban tribal members. Thus, this attack suggested either a change in strategy for the Taliban there, or, a retaliatory move for a recent aerial bombardment of suspected militant hideouts in the area.

Asia: Pakistan

Militants attack convoy in northwestern Pakistan

On July 17, 2010, armed Islamic extremist militants ambushed a convoy of civilian vehicles traveling to Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan, leaving several people dead and even more wounded.  The attack took place in the  village of Char Khel in the tribal Kurram region, which was known to be a stronghold of Islamic extremist militants and the site of a host of attacks and kidnappings in recent years.  While the Pakistani military has targeted the tribal regions of northwestern Pakistan in ongoing offensive operations, success has been a debatable matter.  Analysts have noted that even as the Pakistani military has carried out  operations against the Pakistani Taliban in some  parts of the region, militants simply transfer elsewhere with extremist activity continuing in new locations.

Asia: Cambodia

Cambodian "Killing Fields"  chief jailer sentenced to 35 years in prison

In July 2010, attention was on the United Nations-backed war crimes and genocide tribunals in Cambodia about three decades after the  totalitarian Khmer Rouge brutalized the people of Cambodia in an effort to create a vast agrarian collective.   Kang Keng Ieu --  also known as "Duch" --  was convicted of crimes against humanity, murder, and torture for his activities at the  infamous Tuol Sleng  prison camp in Cambodia for "enemies of the state" where tens of thousands of people died.  He was given a sentence of 35 years in prison -- less than the 40 years demanded by the prosecution.  He was also  granted  a pre-trial detention credit of five years, as well as an  11-year credit for the  for the time he already served behind bars; consequently, he would only have to serve 19 years in prison.  The perceived leniency was perhaps attributable to the following: (1) he was one of few Khmer Rouge officials who had been subject to detention; (2) he was outside the Khmer Rouge inner circle (3) he showed some remorse for his crimes; and (4) he cooperated with the  war crimes and genocide tribunals, aimed at seeking justice for all those who suffered under the brutal Khmer Rouge.

Largely organized by the United Nations, these trials were intended to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of 1.7 million Cambodians -- a quarter of the country's entire population -- during the brutal totalitarian rule of the Khmer Rouge regime between 1975 and 1979.  During that period, the Khmer Rouge specifically targeted the intelligentsia, while the rest of the population was subject to starvation, medical neglect, forced to work as slaves on agrarian collectives, ultimately often dying via execution.  Khmer Rouge leader, Pol Pot, died in 1998 without every really having to account for his crimes.  Although  a former regime leader, Ta Mok, and a chief jailer,   Kang Keng Ieu (discussed here), were detained for several years, several other members of the regime continued to live freely and with impunity in Cambodia.  Only in recent times have  Pol Pot's "Brother Number Two" Nuon Chea, former head of state Khieu Samphan, and former Foreign Minister Ieng Sary been taken into custody.  Now as of 2010, only  Kang Keng Ieu or  "Duch" -- had actually faced justice by being tried and convicted by the international tribunal.

Europe: France

French parliament passes bill to ban Islamic veils

On July 13, 2010, France's lower house of parliament passed legislation banning  the  Islamic "niqab" or face veil.  The vote was not a close one; instead, there were 336 votes in its favor and only one against it, with the main opposition party, the Socialists, abstaining from the vote,   The bill was therefore advanced to the Senate where it was expected to pass easily as well in a vote expected to take place in September 2010.  The main hurdle would be at the constitutional level where it would undergo scrutiny via the French constitutional watchdog group.

While the move has been criticized by Muslim groups and human rights advocacy entities, the measure was popular among French voters.  In France, which is home to Europe's largest Muslim population (five million), there has been increased anxiety about the erosion of the country's secular legacy, which is regarded as the central value of modern French society.  Accordingly, the government has been keen to emphasize the need for integration of immigrant minorities.  As well, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, other backers of the bill, and feminist groups have pointed to the fact that face-covering veils are emblematic of the oppression of women.  Indeed, feminist theorists have argued that the niqab (face veil) and burqa (body covering) are entry points to attacks by extremists on women's rights and secularism.

Europe/Asia: Russia

Suicide bombing in Chechnya reminds Russia of ongoing instability in the region

On July 2, 2010, a suicide bombing ensued in  Grozny, the capital of Russia's restive Chechnya region.  Three police officers and two civilians were injured as a result.  The attack took place close to Grozny's theatre where a musical performance was set to take place.   While the Russian military has not been involved in an offensive against militant extremist separatists in recent times, with Russian authorities declaring success in the breakaway republic, clashes and incidences  of violence have nonetheless flared occasionally.  In addition to Chechnya, neighboring regions of Ingushetia and Dagestan have also seen similar clashes and incidences of violence as in Chechnya.

Americas: Mexico

"Colombianization" of Mexican drug war with car bombing in Juarez

On July 16, 2010, a car bombing ensued in Ciudad Juarez in northern Mexico. The area, located just across the border from the Texas city of El Paso on the United States side of the border, has long been regarded as a hotspot with rival drug gangs seeking supremacy over the drug smuggling routes. The authorities in Mexico said that suspected drug cartel members  were likely behind the attack, which they suggested was detonated  using a mobile phone.  The Mexican authorities placed the blame on La Linea drug gang, whom they said was retaliating for the arrest of its leader, Jesus Acosta Guerrero.

The car bomb was believed to be the first attack of this type since  President Felipe Calderon came to power in 2006 on a platform of battling  the dangerous drug cartels plaguing the country.  Accordingly, the use of terrorism tactics fueled anxieties that Mexico was following the negative path of Colombia, which for several years has similarly battled narcotics-linked violence.

Indeed, in the first part of 2010 alone, more than 7,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico, while  approximately 25,000 people  died in drug-related violence for the previous  three and a half years, according to Mexico's Office of the Attorney General.  For his part, President Calderon interpreted the rising rate of bloodshed in the most favorable manner by saying it showed that the drug cartels were under pressure from his government's crackdown. To that end, he drew attention to the fact that in the same three and a half year period, thousands of troops had been deployed at key locations across the country, 75,000 weapons had been decommissioned, and 78,000 people had been detained on narcotics-associated operations.

Americas: Mexico

Gun attack at party in northern Mexican city of Torreon

In the early hours of July 18, 2010, a gun attack at a party in the  northern Mexican city of Torreon, across the border from Texas, left 17 people dead and 10 injured. The gunmen stormed the walled garden of the party venue - a popular recreation center -- and opened fire on the revelers.  Reports suggested that the attack was carried out by narcotics hit men, and that the gunmen were heard yelling "kill them all" just before the shooting commenced. Officials  said that more than 200 bullet casings fired from automatic weapons were found at the scene. It was the latest manifestation of drug gang-related violence that has been plaguing Mexico and raising questions about the Mexican government's ability to adequately deal with rampaging drug gangs who have turned portions of the country into lawless enclaves.

Americas: Argentina

Former Argentine dictator on trial for "Dirty War" human rights abuses

On July 2, 2010, former Argentine dictator Jorge Rafael Videla was on trial for a number of human rights charges allegedly committed during the notorious "Dirty War" of the 1970s.  Videla has held the dubious distinction of being one of the orchestrators of that dark chapter of Argentina's history.
 In fact, in 1985, Videla was found guilty and jailed on a lifetime sentence for torture, murder and other crimes during a landmark trial of the leaders of the military junta. However, he was pardoned just three years later by the leader at the time, President Carlos Menem.  In response to accusations that his regime was responsible for the thousands of people who "disappeared" during rule by the military junta, Videla infamously said: "The disappeared do not exist."

Now on the stand at the close of the first week of July 2010, Videla defended his regime, took responsibility for being the orchestrator of the "Dirty War," and being behind the disappearance of the thousands of persons.  Indeed, Videla said the actions were part of an "internal war against subversive forces."

Videla was among more than a score of political figures facing murder charges in a specific case involving the deaths of 31 political prisoners just after the military dictatorship took power in Argentina in 1976.  Videla was no longer protected by presidential pardon following a decision by the Supreme Court in 2007 to strike down that provision.  Indeed, the ruling cleared the way for other cases to be brought against him. In addition to this particular case, two further trials were scheduled for later in 2010; one case involved the dozens of babies who were born  in captivity to prisoners and later killed.  He also face charges in various European countries -- Spain, Italy, France and Germany -- for the murder of their citizens in Argentina.  Videla was already serving a life sentence for the restored conviction noted above.  Thus, guilty findings in these cases would not materially alter his fate; instead, the purpose was for justice to be served in the interests of the victims and their families.

It should be noted that in April 2010, 82-year old Reynaldo Bignone, a former Argentine military ruler, was sentenced to 25 years for human rights abuses committed almost close to three decades earlier. Along with Bignone, six other officials of the same time period also were subject to jail time.  Now Videla was facing a similar fate, as discussed above. These trials have been made possible as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in 2005 to overturn the amnesty laws, which protected "Dirty War" players from prosecution.

Editor's Note:

Known as the "Dirty War," this tragic period of Argentine history was marked by the kidnapping, torture and executions of tens of thousands of Argentines, as well as the military junta's takeover of unions and censorship of the media.  Indeed, the late 1970s to the early 1980s was a period during which approximately 30,000 people died or "disappeared" at the hands of the right-wing military dictatorship for alleged associations with the political left of the country.  The return to civilian rule after this dark chapter in Argentina's story came along with amnesty and pardons, which meant that those responsible for the rampant anti-leftist violence escaped prosecution.  However, in recent times, those amnesties and pardons were ruled to be unconstitutional.

Americas: Colombia

Bodyguards for FARC leader die in army assault; six soldiers die in clashes with rebels

On July 11, 2010, Colombian army commandos launched a surprise raid on a rebel base of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).  According to reports from the ground,  12 bodyguards of FARC rebel leader Guillermo Saenz died in the assault in the Tolima mountains in the central region of the country. Colombian authorities said that  the operation  dealt a deadly blow to the FARC rebel movement.  For his part, outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe congratulated the commandos for their efforts.  He also confirmed reports that Magaly Grannobles -- a female confidante to a FARC leader, Saenz -- was among those killed saying, "I can confirm that one of the guerrillas killed in the operation was a woman named Magaly. She was responsible for the deaths of at least 70 soldiers and police officers." However, in news less positive for the Colombian authorities, six soldiers died during clashes with FARC rebels on the same day in the northeastern part of the country.

Editor's Note on FARC --

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is the oldest, largest and most organized insurgent group in Colombia. It has widespread operations throughout Colombia and occasionally on the borders of neighboring countries such as Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil. A leftist military organization seeking political power and economic reform, FARC receives support from all segments of the population, but mostly at the rural level. FARC relies primarily on kidnapping high-profile people for ransom money and overseeing drug operations as a means of income. FARC is only one of a number of left-wing rebels and right-wing paramilitaries, which have been in conflict with the Colombian authorities for decades. The July 2, 2008, rescue of  former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three United States defense contractors meant that FARC had lost its most high-profile hostages and indicated possible fractures in its operations, perhaps partially due to the deaths of key leaders of the rebel group.  The October 2008 escape of a former congressman only served to reinforce this perception. Nevertheless, to date, hundreds of people remain in captivity at the hands of  FARC.

***

Government and Politics

Americas: Canada

New Governor General approved in Canada

In the first week of July 2010, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper named David L. Johnston as the new Governor General of Canada. The decision came after an intensive national consultative process by an expert advisory committee.  On July 8, 2010, Prime Minister Harper announced that,  on his recommendation, Queen Elizabeth II approved the appointment and Johnston would become the new head of state  of Canada.  Prime Minister Harper characterized the appointee saying, "David Johnston represents the best of Canada. He represents hard work, dedication, public service and humility. I am confident he will continue to embody these traits in his new role as the Crown's representative in Canada." Describing Johnston's credentials, Prime Minister Harper described the noted lawyer and academic as follows: "He has extensive legal expertise, a comprehensive understanding of government and a deep appreciation of the duties and tasks now before him."  Indeed, Johnston served as president and vice chancellor of the University of Waterloo, and previously served as president and vice chancellor of McGill University. As well, he held teaching positions at several renowned Canadian universities, including the University of Toronto, Queen's University and the University of Western Ontario. Johnston was set to succeed outgoing Governor General Michaelle Jean as representative of Queen Elizabeth II on Oct. 1, 2010.

Asia: Kyrgyzstan

With new constitution ratified, Otunbayev is new Kyrgyz president

In the aftermath of the ousting of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from office in April 2010 and the formation of an interim government, led by the former opposition, attention was on the plan for a constitutional referendum aimed at ratifying changes to the country's political system. Ratification of a new constitution would also act as a means of augmenting the legitimacy of the interim government that took power after Bakiyev left the political scene.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the interim government of Kyrgyzstan  was adamant about adhering to its imposed schedule for a national referendum on constitutional reform on June 27, 2010. The Kyrgyz authorities were somewhat supported by the United States and Russia in this regard when United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, held a telephone meeting to discuss the Kyrgyz situation. While the two diplomats expressed strong concerns over the crisis gripping Kyrgyzstan, they also appeared to sanction the referendum even in midst of the crisis gripping the country. A statement released by the United States Department of State read as follows: "The ministers agreed that the issue of the upcoming referendum is the sovereign decision of Kyrgyzstan to make and agreed to encourage the authorities of Kyrgyzstan to conduct it according to international standards with the monitoring support of OSCE and others."

On voting day -- June 27, 2010 -- the country's Central Election Commission said that early results indicated that the vast majority of the ballots cast was in favor of the new constitution with less than ten percent voting against it. Turnout was reported to be between 55 and 65 percent.

President Roza Otunbayeva was quick to claim success saying at a news conference, "We have passed the new constitution for our republic." She claimed that the referendum result essentially legitimized her government, saying, "It will not be an interim but a legal and legitimate government. We are leaving the word interim behind." In fact, the constitutional referendum has paved the way for fresh parliamentary elections in September or October 2010, and afforded greater political power to the legislative branch of government.  Note that Otunbayeva was sworn in as president on July 3, 2010, given that official referendum results were now available showing over 90 percent of Kyrgyz voters cast ballots in favor of the new constitution.  She was expected to serve until a presidential election could be held in 2011.

***

Elections Update

Pacific: Australia

Australian PM Gillard calls elections and announces preference deal with Greens

In late June 2010, a leadership vote within Australia's ruling Labor Party led to the indirect ousting of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as the head of government. Typically, the leader of the party in power is the prime minister; thus, with Rudd out as the party leader, he was also out as prime minister. Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard was chosen as the new party chief and soon thereafter, she was sworn into power as Australia's first female prime minister.

For his part, Rudd decided against participating in the leadership ballot, knowing that his defeat would be imminent. Indeed, Rudd has suffered from a precipitous decline in approval rating in 2010, largely in line with the decrease in support for the Labor Party. Rudd had been regarded as one of Australia's most popular leaders, making his shift in political fortune all the more shocking. At issue have been a number of controversies surrounding a carbon trading scheme and a mining tax. These two controversies ultimately lead to sliding support for Rudd's government. In fact,  Rudd was branded as lacking political courage after he decided to shelve an emissions trading scheme -- the centerpiece of his environmental strategy. Then, he alienated the country's resource sector when he proposed a "super tax" on the profits of the mining sector.

In a tearful exit speech, Rudd said, "I have given it my absolute all and in that spirit I am proud of the achievements we have delivered to make this country fairer." To that end, Rudd emphasized his role in the economic stewardship of the country saying, "I'm proud of the fact that we kept Australia out of the global financial crisis." He continued, "I'm proud of the fact that had we not done so, we would had half a million Australians out there out of work."

Newly-inaugurated Prime Minister Gillard paid tribute to the predecessor saying that Rudd had guided the country through the global financial crisis. Perhaps intending to show her willingness to earn legitimacy and authority as the head of government, Gillard took the unusual stance of refusing to move in to the official residence of the prime minister until she was elected to office in her own right.   Meanwhile, Gillard indicated cognizance of the political realities facing her party saying that she believed "a good government was losing its way." She also promised to rehabilitate the Labor Party's standing ahead of a general election expected to take place in October 2010. To this end, Gillard said, "I believe too I have a responsibility to make sure at the next election that Labor is there at its strongest." But Tony Abbott, opposition Liberal Party leader, dismissed the notion that new leadership at the helm of the Labor Party would improve prospects at the polls.

Upon taking power, Gillard, who was trained as an industrial lawyer, concentrated the very issues that led to Rudd's political demise -- the controversial mining tax and the carbon trading scheme aimed at fighting climate change.  On the first issue, she saw some success, having successfully forged an agreement with  miners on a less onerous tax.  Her plans to deal with global warming were yet to be seen and would likely face strong opposition from the conservative opposition, which has vociferously opposed the very idea of a carbon emissions trading scheme/

On July 16, 2010, only weeks after succeeding Rudd, all indications pointed to an election in Australia being called by Prime Minister Gillard.  Reports on the ground in Australia suggested that Prime Minister Gillard would visit with Governor General Quentin Bryce in Canberra to call for the dissolution of parliament, setting the stage for elections.  While speculation abounded about particular dates, Prime Minister Gillard refused to comment on the matter saying only,  "I am not engaging in election speculation.  But whenever the election is called it will be a very clear choice about whether Australia moves forward or back."  Soon thereafter, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that elections would be held on Aug. 21, 2010.  The head of government also warned that it would be a close election.

The main battle would be between Prime Minister Gillard's center-left Labor Party and Tony Abbott's conservative Liberal Party. While the Labor Party's popularity had slipped under Rudd, it experienced a rebound since Gillard took power.  A week before the election date was announced, a Nielsen and Galaxy opinion poll gave Labor a narrow 52-48 percent lead over the opposition Liberal-National coalition.  Marginal seats in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria were expected to play a key role in determining election victory.

Meanwhile, it was conceivable that the Labor Party would be helped by the Australian Greens who directed its supporters to back the other left leaning party in the lower house of parliament.  In return, the Labor Party instructed its supporters to back the Greens in the Senate level elections. The deal was aimed at shoring up support for the Labor Party, since it would have to hold on to a number of marginal seats in the lower house, which determines control of government.  But the Greens would also gain an electoral benefit , since  they could well be positioned to hold the balance of power in the upper chamber from 2011.  In this way, the preference deal could be interpreted as an agreement with potential --albeit not guaranteed -- benefits for both parties.

A Newspoll on July 19, 2010 found that if the preference deal was factored into the equation, the Labor Party was polling at 55 percent in compared to the conservative Liberal Party-led coalition with 45 percent.  As well, Gillard was identified as the preferred prime minister over Abbott by a wide margin -- 57 percent to 27 percent -- according to the same poll. Meanwhile, the Greens would very likely become the most important player in the Senate, should this polling data translate into actual votes on election day.

The Greens noted that their main reason for entering the electoral alliance with Labor was due to that party's acceptance that climate change has been a real and dangerous threat, as compared with the conservatives' denials of the pressing existential threat of global warming. On this particular issue, which has factored so highly on the Australian political landscape in recent times,  Prime Minister Gillard promised to unveil a strong climate change policy ahead of the elections.  Another key election issue has surrounded the former  Howard government "Work Choices" or deregulation program.  Conservatives have  said that the deregulation program improved employment levels, however, unions argued that it deleteriously affected workers.  Clearly, conservative versus progressive approaches to employment policies would also continue to dominate the election scene.

Editor's Note:

As a constitutional monarchy, Australia's system of government requires the head of government (the prime minister)  to ask the head of state (the governor general, Queen Elizabeth II's official representative) to call an election at least 33 days before voters go to the polls.  At stake were the seats in the lower House of Representatives and half of the  seats of the Senate.  The party winning the parliamentary elections would be positioned to form a government, with the leader of that party becoming the prime minister, as noted above.

Asia: Japan

Prime Minister Kan's DPJ loses control of upper house following parliamentary election in Japan

On July 11, 2010, Japanese voters went to the polls to vote in parliamentary elections. At stake were half the seats in the 242-member upper house of parliament, known as the Sangi-in or House of Councilors.

The outcome of the elections would not impact the ruling  Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)'s grip on power, since the prime minister is chosen by the lower house where the DPJ held an overwhelming majority of seats.  Nevertheless, the elections constituted something of a referendum on the DPJ, which  won a landslide election victory  in 2009, ending half a century of conservative rule in Japan, but which has since suffered declining support. The slide in approval was attributable to a failure to make good on a promise to  move an American  Marine base off Okinawa, as well as voters' frustration with ongoing scandals despite the change in government. With an eye on recapturing public approval and validation at the polls, Prime Minister  Yukio Hatoyama  resigned from power in June 2010, and was succeeded by Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who -- at the time -- promised to rehabilitate the stature of the DPJ and guide the party through these elections.

But Prime Minister Kan has had to contend with a Japanese economy in a precarious position, on the brink of a debt crisis. In fact, Japan's debt was twice the size of its gross domestic product, making it one of the industrialized world's most disturbing "debt-to-GDP"  ratios. Upon coming to power, Prime Minister Kan warned  that the country's  fiscal policies could not endure by  relying on the issuance of government bonds.  As expected, Prime Minister Kan  advocated increases to consumption tax among other austerity measures needed to rein in spiraling debt.  What might be effective in terms of responsible governance may not always translate into success in the political  sphere.  Indeed, despite their perceived necessity, taxes and austerity measures rarely are welcomed by a country's citizenry.  Thus, there were questions about the political acuity of emphasizing these policy agenda items ahead of the elections, even though Prime Minister Kan reduced the fiscal rhetoric in the days ahead of the elections.

On July 11, 2010, it was apparent that Prime Minister Kan's objectives of rehabilitating the stature of the DPJ and guiding the party through the elections were not achieved.  Polling data prior to election day indicated that the DPJ would win only 50 seats -- five less than needed to maintain the status quo.  With the votes counted, it was clear that the DPJ underperformed even the pollsters' expectations by winning between 44 and 48 seats. Including the uncontested seats, the DPJ would now have control of a  total of approximately 106 to 110 seats in the upper house -- clearly short of the 122 needed to command a majority.  The  opposition Liberal Democratic Party won 51 seats and, in conjunction with allied smaller parties, was able to win control over the upper chamber.

Taking responsibility for his party's poor performance at the polls, Prime Minister Kan said, "I sincerely and humbly accept this result."  But he also indicated he would not relent in pressing for reform and austerity measures saying,  "I will continue to push for responsible government."

Americas: Dominica

Opposition party wins by-elections in Dominica

On July 9, 2010, voters in Dominica cast ballots  to fill two vacant seats in parliament less than seven months after Dominicans elected a new government.

At issue was the decision by Speaker of the Dominica parliament, Alix Boyd Knights, to declare the seats vacant after two members of the opposition United Workers Party (UWP) boycotted the parliament to register discontent over perceived irregularities in the December 2009 general elections, which were decisively won by the ruling Dominica Labour Party (DLP).  The issue evoked a political uproar with one of the two contested seat holders,  former  Prime Minister Edison James, condemning Speaker Boyd for overstepping her authority in declaring the seats at stake vacant.  He argued  that the High Court and not the Speaker had the capacity to make such a determinations.  But Attorney General Francine Baron-Royer  appeared to side with Speaker Boyd, and in so doing, paved the way for possible by-elections to ensue.

To that end, voters were now being charged with the task of again casting ballots in the two key constituencies with vacant seats.  Former Prime Minister James was again on the ballot along with fellow UWP candidate, Hector, despite characterizing the by-elections as an “unconstitutional process.”  With the votes counted, it was clear that both James and John were ratified by the voters, despite being forced to seek re-election.  Indeed , James won by an even greater margin than he had months earlier, as was the case for John.

Americas: Suriname

Former military dictator and convicted drug trafficker becomes new Surinamese president

Parliamentary elections were set to take place in Suriname on May 25, 2010. These would be the fifth elections in Suriname in the aftermath of the overthrow of the military regime that once ruled the South American country.

Parties and blocs contesting the election included the New Front (NF) coalition of incumbent President Ronald Venetiaan, A Combination party, led by former rebel leader, Ronnie Brunswijk, the People's Alliance, the Democracy and Development in Unity (DOE), and the Mega Combination coalition of led by former military strongman, Desi Bouterse's National Democratic Party (NDP), the left-wing Palu party, and the traditional Suri-Indo party (KTPI). That being said, the main contest for the unicameral 51-seat National Assembly could be lumped into two blocs -- the ruling New Front (NF) and the Mega Combinations (MC).

Days ahead of the elections, polls favored Bouterse's bloc. Indeed survey data indicated that MC would carry as much as 50 percent of the youth vote, with only about 18 percent of young voters favoring NF. Winston Jessurun of NF dismissed the youth trend, and said that he was confident that all voters would return the ruling coalition to power. He recalled the military regime of Bouterse that ruled Suriname in the 1980s saying, "These are the same people who had a reign of terror in the eighties. The people of the past want to become part of the future. It is quite legitimate to look back, because the players are the same during the period of repression and disastrous policies." Meanwhile, Vice President Ram Sardjoe -- the leader of the Progressive Reform Party (VHP), which is part of the NF, touted the coalition's record and promised a positive future saying, "The New Front has a foundation to build a house of macro-economic development and where people can relax and elevate."

On election day, with the votes counted, it was apparent that former military dictator and convicted drug trafficker, Desi Bouterse, would be returning to power as the elected president of Suriname. While his opposition Mega Combination failed to garner an outright majority in the 51-seat parliament, it nonetheless acquired the plurality of the votes with 23 seats. Clearly, his political comeback was a successful one, despite his dubious record, which also included standing trial for the assassination of 15 political rivals in 1982.

Meanwhile, the incumbent New Front (NF) coalition of President Ronald Venetiaan won 14 seats and would be operating in opposition. The A Combination party, led by former rebel leader, Ronnie Brunswijk, secured seven seats. Also securing seven seats was the People's Alliance. The Democracy and Development in Unity (DOE) party won one seat.

Presidents are elected in the United People's Assembly (VVV), which contains both parliament and regional councils. In that body, Bouterse's MC had control over 567 of the 919 seats and was, therefore, positioned to ensure that he would be selected as president. Indeed, by July 19, 2010, Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, defeating  Chandrikapersad Santokhi, the outgoing Justice and Police Minister, in an internal vote.

Bouterse was  not be warmly welcomed to the fold of former colonial master, the Netherlands. The government of that country has said at the time of the general elections  that while it respected Suriname's sovereignty, it would nonetheless not accept a President Bouterse within its own borders. Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Verhage said that Bouterse remained a fugitive from justice in the Netherlands since he was sentenced in absentia to 11 years in prison for cocaine trafficking. As well, Verhange pointed out that Bouterse was additionally accused of the 1982 murder of 15 persons, including journalists, lawyers, trade unionists, business people, and military.

At home in Suriname, the new President Bouterse seemed eager to gain the support of local but extending a message of national unity.  After securing the necessary parliamentary votes to secure the presidency, he said: “I reach out my hand to all other parties, all Surinamers. Let’s build up our country together." He continued, “This is a historical moment, because it’s been a long time since a president was chosen by a qualified majority in parliament. A president who comes from a modest Amerindian background."

This speech garnered no positive resonance from the family of people killed in 1982 when Bouterse ruled the country.  The family issued an open letter that read as follows: “Article 92 of the constitution says that a presidential candidate shall not have conducted any actions which are in violation of the constitution. Mr. Bouterse has at least three violations in his name: the 1980 coup d’état, the December murders and the slaughter of innocent people in the Maroon village Moiwana in 1986.”  Indeed, Bouterse was yet to face court to respond to  charges that he was responsible for the 1982 deaths.

Europe: Poland

Komorowski wins run-off election with late President Kaczynski's twin and becomes new Polish head of state

Following the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski and several other Polish leaders in a catastrophic airplane crash in Russia on April 10, 2010, he was buried in a crypt of the historic Wawel Cathedral in Krakow. Meanwhile, in accordance with constitutional provisions, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, Bronislaw Komorowski, was functioning as the country's acting president.

Soon, however, early elections would be held to fill the position of president, who is the head of state in a country where that role is separate from the prime minister's role as head of government. To that end, it was announced that the first round of the Polish presidential election would be set on June 20, 2010, with a second round, if necessary, to be held on July 4, 2010.

Parliamentary Speaker and acting President Bronislaw Komorowski of Civic Platform was favored to win the elections. Viewed as more pro-Europe and more conciliatory toward Russia than his predecessor, Komorowski has been regarded the internationalist choice of head of state with a centrist political orientation. His main opponent was Lech Kaczynski's twin brother, former Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski of the Law and Justice party, who has been viewed as an outspoken conservative hard-liner. Eight other individuals also contested the election. If no one garnered a majority with 50 percent of the vote share, then a run-off election would be held, as noted above, among the top two vote-getters.

On election day, with the votes counted, exit polls indicated that Komorowski would win the most votes -- 46 percent -- but just short of the 50 percent needed for an outright victory. He would contest the second round on July 4, 2010 against Kaczynski who garnered second place with 36 percent.

During the second round or run-off election on July 4, 2010, as expected, Bronislaw Komorowski, candidate of the Polish ruling party Civic Platform, claimed victory with 53.01 percent of the vote.  Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the twin brother of late President Lech Kaczynski and leader of the conservative Law and Justice Party, garnered the rest of the votes.

Political analysts attributed Komorowski's success at the polls to the positive image of the ruling Civic Platform of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who was also party leader.  Under Tusk's leadership, the Civic Platform has guided Poland through turbulent economic times.  Indeed,  Poland was the only European Union nation to see its economy grow since the global financial crisis of late 2008. As well, under Tusk's leadership, the Civic Platform improved bilateral ties with Germany and Russia, and demonstrated a more productive orientation within the European Union.  In the past, Poland under the conservative Law and Justice Party had taken a more hardline and nationalist approach to foreign affairs, which complicated relations with other countries in Europe.

But Komorowski was also the author of his own fate with political analysts pointing to his  electoral platform, which emphasized a  willingness to work with the cabinet.  This position was welcomed by the Polish people who were exhausted from the ongoing power struggles between the presidents and  prime ministers' governments through the years.  Komorowski's role as acting president after the death of Lech Kaczynski also helped cement the public's confidence in him.  He demonstrated a moderate  in the stewardship of national affairs, which was a sharp contrast to his  predecessor's more hardline positions.

Going forward, with Tusk as head of government, and Komorowski as head of state, it was expected that there would be some progress on a progress on a proposed plan to reform the country's political structure.  At issue has been Prime Minister Tusk's proposal to recraft  the constitution, weaken presidential powers, and accentuate the role of the cabinet.  It was believed that Tusk would find an ally in Komorowski to move forward with some of these changes.  As well,  on the international front, it was hoped that  Komorowski  could move Poland away from its "troublemaker" image.

Editor's Note:

Poland has both a president and a prime minister within its executive branch of government. The president is the head of state and is elected to power for a five-year term by popular vote. The president is limited to two terms in office. The president's power is limited in regards to the day to day operations of government; the president is nonetheless is central to foreign policy, and possesses the power of legislative veto. Of course, a two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament can overturn a presidential veto. The prime minister is the head of government. Typically, the leader of the party that controls parliament, the prime minister sets and administers the governing agenda of day to day affairs at the helm of a cabinet. That cabinet is proposed by the prime minister but must be formally appointed by the president, and approved by the parliament.

Africa: Guinea

Second round of Guinea presidential election to be postponed

On June 27, 2010, a presidential election was held in Guinea. Touted as the country's first democratic poll in the country's history, it came in the aftermath of a period of chaos that has plagued Guinea in recent times.

That chaos was sparked by the death of Guinea's long-serving Guinean leader, Lansana Conte in 2008. Soon thereafter, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara came to power in a bloodless coup d'etat. By 2009, a massacre of political protestors at the hands of the country's military thrust the country into heightened turmoil. By the end of the year, the attempted assassination of Camara did little to alleviate the state of chaos. Guinea has seen some degree of stabilization since power was left in the hands of General Sekouba Konate. Since the start of 2010, Konate has been regarded as the person best positioned to guide the country on the path of stabilization.

Indeed, Konate appeared to have made good on his promise to return the country to civilian rule, and to prohibit members of his ruling junta from contesting the election, which was taking place under the aegis of the roadmap for peace, known as the Ouagadougou Accords. Although the actual the presidential election was postponed until Jun 2010, it was now being held with 24 candidates on the ballot. The main issues at stake in the election were food security, access to potable water, basic infrastructure development, health, and education. The candidates deemed to have the best chance of capturing the presidency were two former prime ministers, Cellou Dalein Diallo and Sidya Toure, as well as well-known opposition leader, Alpha Conde.

The days leading up to the election included violent clashes reported between militants of the Union of Republican Forces (UFR) and the Union of the Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFGD). That being said, more than 500 international monitors were on hand to witness the election and the United Nations called for the actual conduct of the election to be peaceful and free from fraudulence. That being said, the National Council of Civil Society Organizations (CNOSC) in Guinea reported several cases of fraud and other irregularities in the capital, Conakry, and elsewhere the country. This claim of fraud appeared to be somewhat backed by monitors from the European Union who said there were "technical faults" marring the polls, but stopped short of saying whether or not the outcome of the election would be affected as a result.  Still, the charges fueled the anger of opposition parties seeking to win election at the helm of the country.

Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Committee (INEC) refrained from furnishing  preliminary results, saying  that it preferred to wait for full results before publication.  Days later, it was announced that  former prime minister Cellou Dalein Diallo won 39.72 percent of the ballots, followed by Alpha Conde, the opposition leader,  with 20.67 percent, and then  Sidya Toure, another former prime minister, with 15.6 percent.

With no one candidate expected to win an outright victory on June 27, 2010, a run-off election was expected to take place on July 18, 2010 between the two top vote getters -- Diallo and Conde.  But on July 9, 2010, it was announced that the second round of the election would be postponed, with no new date determined by the electoral commission.  Nevertheless, candidates were primed for the final vote with an alliance of 12 losing candidates from the first round banding together to close ranks around Conde and against Diallo.  Since they were from small political parties receiving only a small portion of the vote count in the first round, it was not known if they would have a decisive effect in Conde's favor in the second round.

Once the winner has been determined, it was hoped that the country would transition from rule by National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) military junta to the new democratically-elected president. Should the election and the transition ensue with limited challenges, it would be a remarkable achievement for a country beset by military regimes, coups, strongman leadership and autocratic rule throughout its post-colonial period.

Africa: Burundi

Tensions ahead of election in Burundi; President Pierre Nkurunziza  re-elected in uncontested vote

In April 2010, Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza affirmed he would seek re-election by contesting the presidential election in that country, scheduled for June 28, 2010. He was to be designated as the candidate of the ruling National Council for the Defense of Democracy/Defense Democratic Forces. Several other candidates were also slated to contest the country's first elections by universal direct suffrage. The 2005 election that brought Nkurunziza to power was an indirect poll taken within both parliamentary chambers, however, since that time, changes were made to the constitution.

The distinctive nature of the election was compromised when Burundi’s opposition parties decided to withdraw from the poll. They were protesting district-level elections that yielded victory for the ruling party in May 2010. The charged the country's electoral body with failing to prevent irregularities, arguing that it was unlikely to prevent further fraud at the presidential election level.

With political tensions on the rise, Africa Union Commission President Jean Ping called for a peaceful election, warning that political tensions and dissonance could return the country to a state of crisis. He also called on opposition parties to use peaceful means to register their grievances over the district level elections. To that end, he urged the opposition the Alliance of Democrats for Change "to focus exclusively on legal remedies" to resolve the disputes related to elections. Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged opposition parties to reconsider their decision to boycott the impending presidential election.

There were reports of arrests of opposition militants in the days leading up to the election. Then, election day itself -- June 28, 2010 -- was marked by violence in Burundi with gunmen opening fire at a polling station in the country' s western province of Bubanza, presumably in an attempt to disrupt the vote. There were no casualties reported as a result. Burundi's National Electoral Commission said that turnout was very low and that provisional results would not be available for at least two days. With opposition candidates withdrawing from the presidential contest, leaving ruling party candidate Pierre Nkurunziza as the only choice, it was not surprising that turnout was low; clearly, the outcome of the election was also not expected to be a surprise.  Indeed, two days after the election took place, the country's electoral commission  said that President Pierre Nkurunziza has won re-election victory. The electoral commission said that Nkurunziza was elected by 91.62 percent.

Parliamentary Elections despite opposition boycott

In the aftermath of the presidential election, the citizens of Burundi went to the polls to vote in parliamentary elections, despite the opposition boycott, on July 23, 2010.  Due to the limited competition ensconced in these elections, perhaps not surprisingly, voter turnout was low.  As with the presidential race, victory was regarded as a foregone conclusion for President Pierre Nkurunziza's ruling party.

Editor's Note:

From the time of independence, the political control of the country has been held by the minority Tutsi elite. In 1993, conflict erupted between the Tutsi-led army and rebel groups from the majority Hutu population. That war was sparked in 1993 when Burundi's first Hutu president and democratically-elected leader, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated. The bloody war left around 300,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands more displaced. A peace process has been underway for several years, culminating in elections intended to usher in a power-sharing government. In 2000, a peace agreement brought an interim government to power. A ceasefire agreement, ratification of a constitution, and elections followed in 2005. Continuing peace talks have led to some positive developments in the process of national reconciliation, however, instability and violence have prevailed to date, making clear the precarious position of the recently-elected government.

Africa: Cote d'Ivoire

Prime Minister Soro of Cote d'Ivoire says presidential election could be held in October

On July 14, 2010, Prime Minister Guillaume Soro of Cote d'Ivoire announced that the country's much-anticipated  presidential election could well be be held in October 2010. In an interview with the publication Notre Afrik, Prime Minister Guillaume Soro said,  "This election should be held latest by October."  Only days before, the country's  Independent Electoral Commission (CEI) received a new provisional electoral list, setting the stage for voters to go to the polls.  On the matter of the electoral commission, the prime minister said, "If we take into account the time it will take to verify and sort out all electoral disputes, say 21 days, we can confidently expect that the final list will be published within two months." He also added, "If everything goes according to plan, then we can say that organization of presidential elections will just be a matter of weeks."  The presidential election in Cote d'Ivoire has long been regarded as an integral part of the 2007 peace accord in a country wracked by political chaos and instability since 2002.
 
Editor's Note:

Cote d'Ivoire, also known as  Ivory Coast, was conflict-ridden terrain after rebels from the mainly northern part of the country seized control of that region in an attempted coup d'etat in 2002. At that time, the country devolved into a crisis in 2002 when the New Forces rebels took control of the northern part of the country.  Since then, the country has been divided between supporters of the president in the south and rebels in the north.  The plan to disarm the rebels in the north and the pro-Gbagbo militias in the south was largely unsuccessful.  Meanwhile, French and United Nations troops tasked with keeping the peace between the two sides complained they were not properly provided with resources to do their job effectively. Meanwhile, a transitional government was established to govern affairs; however, rebels eschewed Gbagbo's extended rule, while pro-Gbagbo supporters railed against its imminent end.  That said,  there were high hopes for a shift in the political landscape following the signing of the 2007 peace accord, which put into place a power-sharing government, as well as plans for disarmament and future elections. This accord was viewed as having a strong chance of success because of the direct involvement of President Gbagbo and former rebel leader, Guillaume Soro, who was now serving as prime minister.  The repeatedly delayed elections has been  a test of Cote d'Ivoire's emerging political stability.  As of mid-2010, elections were yet to take place, however, Prime Minister Soro was emphasizing a possible election date of October 2010.

Current and forthcoming elections include --

Dec. 13, 2009: Chile's presidential and parliamentary elections
Dec. 18, 2009: Elections in Dominica
Dec. 27, 2009: Uzbekistan general elections
Dec. 27, 2009: Croatian presidential election (first round)
Jan. 10, 2010: Croatian presidential election (second round)
Jan. 9, 2010: Parliamentary election in Taiwan
Jan. 17, 2010; Ukraine's presidential election (first round)
Jan.17, 2010: Chile's presidential election (second round)
Jan. 25, 2010: General elections in St. Kitts and Nevis
Jan.26, 2010: Sri Lanka's presidential election
Feb. 3, 2010: Greece's presidential election
Feb. 7, 2010: Costa Rica's parliamentary and presidential elections
Feb. 7, 2010: Ukraine's presidential election (second round)
Feb. 28, 2010: Tajikistan's parliamentary elections
March 4, 2010: Togo's new date for presidential election
March 7, 2010: Iraq's parliamentary elections
March 14, 2010: Colombia's parliamentary elections
April 8, 2010: Snap parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka
April 11-13, 2010: Sudan's presidential elections (also listed as possible date for parliamentary polls)
April 11, 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections (first round)
April 18, 2010: Northern Cyprus' presidential election
April 24, 2010: Nauru's parliamentary elections
April 25, 2010: Austria's presidential election
April 25, 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections (second round)
May 5, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Mauritius
May 6, 2010: Parliamentary elections in United Kingdom
May 10, 2010: Philippines' parliamentary and presidential elections
May 16, 2010: Dominican Republic's parliamentary elections
May 23, 2010: Ethiopia's parliamentary elections
May 24, 2010: Snap parliamentary elections in Trinidad and Tobago
May 25, 2010: Suriname's parliamentary elections
May 28, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Czech Republic (first round)
May 30, 2010: Colombia's presidential election
June 1, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Egypt (competing date; see Oct-Nov 2010)
June 9, 2010: Parliamentary elections in the Netherlands
June 12, 2010: Slovak Republic's parliamentary elections
June 13, 2010: Belgium's parliamentary elections
June 19, 2010: Nauru's elections
June 20, 2010: Poland's presidential election (first round)
June 20, 2010: Colombia's second round presidential election
June 27, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (tentative; first round)
June 28, 2010: Burundi's presidential election (first round)
June 29, 2010: Hungary's presidential election
June 2010: Czech Republic's parliamentary elections (second round)
June 2010: Qatar's parliamentary elections (tentative)
July 4, 2010: Poland's presidential election (second round)
July 9, 2010: By-elections in Dominica
July 18, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (tentative; second round; delayed)
July 23-28, 2010: Burundi's parliamentary elections
July 26, 2010: Burundi's presidential election (second round)
July 2010: Tuvalu's parliamentary elections
July 2010: Japan's parliamentary elections
July 2010: Suriname's presidential election
July-Aug. 2010: Elections in Solomon Islands
Before mid- 2010: Tentative timeframe for general elections in Myanmar/Burma
Mid-2010: Expected timeframe for elections in Moldova
Aug. 1, 2010: Sao Tome and Principe's parliamentary elections
Aug. 4, 2010: Solomon Islands' parliamentary elections
Aug. 9, 2010: Rwanda's presidential election
Aug. 21, 2010: Australia's parliamentary  elections (moved from Oct. 2010)
Sept. 18, 2010: Afghanistan's parliamentary elections (postponed from May)
Sept. 19, 2010: Sweden's parliamentary elections
Sept.26, 2010: Venezuela's parliamentary elections
Sept. 30, 2010: Madagascar's parliamentary elections
September/October  2010: Parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan
Oct. 2, 2010: Latvia's parliamentary elections
Oct. 3, 2010: Brazil's parliamentary elections and presidential election (first round)
Oct. 3, 2010: Bosnia-Herzegovina's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct.10, 2010: Kyrgyzstan's presidential and parliamentary elections (tentative)
Oct. 31, 2010: Tanzania's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct. 31, 2010: Brazil's presidential election (second round)
October 2010: Madagascar's presidential election
October 2010: Possible date for Cote d'Ivoire's elections
Nov. 2, 2010: United States' parliamentary elections
Nov. 7, 2010: Azerbaijan's parliamentary elections
Nov. 9, 2010: Jordan's parliamentary elections
Nov. 16, 2010: Possible date for Thailand's elections
Nov. 21, 2010: Burkina Faso's presidential election
Nov. 25, 2010: Tonga's parliamentary elections
Nov. 26, 2010: Madagascar's presidential election (postponed from May)
Nov. 28, 2010: Chad's presidential election (first round)
November 2010: Bahrain's parliamentary elections
November 2010: Egypt's parliamentary elections (competing date; see June 1, 2010)
Nov. or Dec. 2010: Haiti's presidential election
December 2010: St. Vincent and the Grenadines' parliamentary elections
December 2010: Nauru's presidential election
December 2010: Jordan's parliamentary elections
December 2010: Equatorial Guinea's presidential election
December 2010: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Niger
2010: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Cote d'Ivoire (highly tentative)

Note also -

- Second round of Afghan presidential election set for Nov. 7, 2009, was cancelled
- Presidential election in Niger set for Nov. 14 and Dec. 6, 2009, has been cancelled; highly tentative possibility of elections in Dec. 2010
- Presidential election originally set for September 2009 in Angola was postponed
- Haiti's Feb. 28. 2010, parliamentary elections did not go forward due to devastation of earthquake
- 2010 elections expected in Burma also known as Myanmar
- 2010 elections expected in Jordan
- May 2010 elections in Central African Republic postponed
- No date available for elections in Yemen
- Despite international pressure, no date available for anticipated elections in Fiji
- Parliamentary elections in Canada are possible due minority government

***

Editor's Note:

CountryWatch's coverage of global political events and developments is not an endorsement of any country's political priorities or any political interest group's agenda. CountryWatch takes a politics-neutral approach and encourages users to consider a variety of viewpoints and the complex range of parameters when studying either domestic politics or the international spectrum.

***

Reminder to Readers:

If you require further information about any of these featured items, please feel free to contact me. You can do so by clicking on the "Contact Us" menu option at the very top of this page, and selecting "Editorial" for your topic choice. Your comments will be automatically forwarded to me and I will do my best to reply in a timely fashion. Also, if you wish to receive this week's Political Intelligence Briefing via e-mail, again, send me an e-mail using the "Contact Us" menu option at the top of the page, and select the "Editorial" topic option. Finally, if you wish to publish or cite this section, either wholly or in part, please contact me by selecting the "Editorial" topic from the "Contact Us" menu option.

- Denise Youngblood Coleman Ph.D.
Houston, Texas

*** Last Updated July 26, 2010. ***