Renewed Violence in Northern Mali

Security sources disclosed Wednesday that an attack overnight in northern Mali by a pro-government armed group using suicide bombers, killed a dozen people. According to a military source, “GATIA fighters, accompanied by suicide bombers, attacked a rebel Tuareg and anti-government Arab position in the night from Tuesday to Wednesday near the town of Tabankort. There were a dozen deaths in total.” A security source from the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, MINUSMA, also confirmed the death toll, adding that two fighters blew themselves up while a third was killed before he was able to detonate his explosives. The overnight attack comes as renewed violence has once again affected the northern region of the country.

Over the past several days, tensions have been rising across the country as protesters have demanded that the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali withdraw. Tensions have risen in the wake of a UN military mission last week, which targeted rebels near Tabankort. Furthermore, the signing of an agreement over the weekend to create a “temporary security zone” in the Tabankort district of the region of Gao, has resulted in demonstrations, with protesters calling for the UN mission to leave.

On Tuesday, three people were killed in northern Mali after a second day of demonstrations against the UN military missions. On the ground sources have described how a large crowd of angry youths threw stones and attempted to storm the MINUSMA headquarters in Gao in protest at the UN taking control of a troubled area north of the city. An official in the ministry for security and civil protection confirmed the deaths, adding that the situation in the area remained “very tense.” According to Arnaud Akodjenou, deputy representative of the MINUSMA force, “our officers were besieged by protesters this morning, but I can tell you that no one from MINUSMA fired on the demonstrators. Absolutely no order was given to use weapons,” adding “we are in very close contact with the Malian authorities.” A youth leader in Gao however has rejected this statement, instead blaming UN troops for the deaths of the demonstrators. According to Ousmane Dicko, of the Youth Collective activist group, “MINUSMA shot at us. MINUSMA killed civilians. We demand the departure of MINUSMA from Mali.”

Demonstrators in Gao are protesting an agreement to create a “temporary security zone” in the Tabankort district of the region of Gao. The agreement, which was reached between MINUSMA and three rebel groups – the High Council for the Unity of Azawad, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and an anti-government wing of the Arab Movement of Azawad (MAA) – places the zone under the exclusive control of UN troops and guarantees “the free movement of people and goods.” The area is controlled by pro-government militias who have in recent weeks clashed with armed rebels, leading to the deaths of both civilians and fighters. According to a local government source, the creation of the zone “will force loyalist armed groups to disarm or abandon their posts.” Sources have reported that loyalist armed movements, including the Imghad and Allies Tuareg Self-Defence Group, as well as a pro-government wing of the MAA and various vigilante groups, “strongly encouraged” the demonstration.

The latest violence comes over a week after MINUSMA helicopters destroyed a rebel vehicle near Tabankort, north of Gao, in what MINUSMA officials have maintained was in “self-defence.” The attack on 20 January followed what MINUSMA described as “direct fire with heavy weapons” on its peacekeepers. Rebel groups however have indicated that the action, which killed seven militants and left twenty wounded, violated UN neutrality. The strikes sparked demonstrations hostile to MINUSMA in the northeastern rebel stronghold of Kidal.

Saudi Arabia– Who is King Salman?

On 23 January, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah passed away at the age of 90. His crown was immediately passed to his younger half-brother King Salman. He takes the royal reins at a time when Yemen is experiencing government upheaval, tensions with Iran are extremely high, the threat of ISIS is increasing and some OPEC allies are calling for a shift in policy. Here are some facts about the new leader.

King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, born 31 December 1935. He was named successor to the throne in 2012. Salman had been chairing cabinet meetings for months as King Abdullah grew more ill, and began representing the kingdom as he travelled for state visits in place of Abdullah. In 2011, he was appointed Saudi’s Minister of Defence. He favours a positive relationship with the West and is responsible for the nation’s joining of the US-led coalition to strike ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Prior to this role, Salman was the governor of Riyadh province for nearly 50 years, working to attract tourism, capital projects and foreign investment. Under his tenure, the province grew from 200,000 to seven million inhabitants. His tenure was noted for good governance and lack of corruption.  Salman holds stake in one of the country’s largest media groups, and reportedly maintains relationships with a number of prominent journalists in the country. Saudi Arabia scores 84 (100 being the worst) on a press freedom index.

Salman is known to have provided an estimated $25million a month to the Afghan mujahedeen during the peak of the anti-Soviet conflict, before American financial assistance arrived. He is also known to have helped raise money for Bosnian Muslim in the war with Serbia.

One of his first messages to the 28 million citizens of Saudi Arabia is that he will continue the policies of his older brother. However some believe that Salman is less likely to be focused on social reform. An intercepted 2007 ambassador cable published by Wikileaks states, “[Salman] pointed out that democracy should not be imposed. He said that the KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] is composed of tribes and regions and if democracy were imposed, each tribe and region would have its political party.”

At the age of 79, he is suffering health issues. It is known that the monarch has suffered a stroke which left limited movement in his left arm. There have been persistent speculation that Salman suffers from dementia and the Economist reports he’s believed to be suffering from Alzheimer’s. Saudi media, with its close ties to the monarchy, does not publish information about the ailments of leaders, but these have been strongly denied by the palace. The number of meetings on the King’s official schedule suggests these prognoses may be overstated. However some argue that his ambition to maintain stability for his country could be superseding his health concerns. His successor, who was appointed in 2013, is his half-brother, 69 year old Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, who was partially educated at the Royal Air Force College.

Salman’s most critical issue now is addressing the turmoil in Yemen, which borders the kingdom in the south. In addition to the threat of penetration by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Yemen’s Houthi movement has taken de facto control of the nation after the president and cabinet stepped down last week. The group signed an agreement on 27 January to form a coalition government, however the Shiite rebel fighters are heated rivals to Saudi Arabia’s Sunni government. Salman may seek to engage more proactively in Yemen in order to contain Iranian influence while encouraging an inclusive government.

In Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has pushed for better ties between the two countries. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has visited the kingdom for Abdullah’s funeral and the formal paying of respects. However, Tehran may view the new monarch as unwilling to engage in détente, particularly in light of the kingdom’s perception of Iranian support of the Houthis (which Tehran has denied) and their support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom the Saudis are opposed to. Bernard Haykel, professor of near east studies at Princeton, has said, “Salman is quite hawkish on Iran. He’s personally quite hawkish. The Iranians would have to do a lot for him to change his policy.”

Boko Haram Launches Attacks on Key City as it Approaches Maiduguri

Boko Haram militants launched an attack on a key city in northeastern Nigeria on Sunday, just hours ahead of a visit by the United States Secretary of State.

A curfew, which was imposed in the northeastern city of Maiduguri over the weekend “to enable security personnel to carry out their operations,” was lifted Monday as the state governor urged residents to stay and fight. Borno state’s capital was on lock-down since Sunday morning, when Boko Haram militants launched dawn raids on two neighbouring towns that were later repelled by the Nigerian military. Nigerian Army spokesman Colonel Sani Usman confirmed, “the curfew imposed on Maiduguri has been lifted as from 6:00 am (0500 GMT). People can go about their legitimate business.”

On Sunday, Nigeria’s military fought Boko Haram militants near the restive northeastern city of Maiduguri as US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived to discuss fears about election-related violence. Militants launched a raid at dawn, attacking the village of Jintilo, which is located on the outskirts of the Borno State capital. The attack prompted Nigerian soldiers to respond with heavy weaponry and airstrikes as Maiduguri was placed on lock-down. At the same time, militants attacked the town of Monguno, located about 65 kilometres (40 miles) from the fishing town of Baga. Boko Haram overran the town and captured a military barracks; a significant gain for them as according to a source, the fall of Monguno not only removes the last military base to Maiduguri, but “…also gives Boko Haram a free run into the key city.” The attack on Monguno and Jintilo was also likely driven by a need for food, fuel, medicine and other essentials and has allowed the militant group to restock their weaponry ahead of a possible regional counter-insurgency operation. It is believed that the militants may launch a fresh strike on Maiduguri from Monguno, which is located about 125 kilometres (80 miles) north of the state capital. The military high command in Abuja reported Monday that “scores” of Boko Haram fighters had been killed.

While in recent months, fears have been growing about a large-scale attack on Maiduguri, as the militant group has captured swathes of territory in Borno state, the renewed violence has further underscored the extent of the difficulties facing the African nation as it attempts to put a solution in place that will enable hundreds of thousands of people displaced by the on going violence to vote in next month’s presidential elections. The attacks also came a day after President Goodluck Jonathan visited Maiduguri, where he again vowed to end the militant group’s six-year insurgency.

Amnesty International reported late Sunday that civilians in the city and in the surrounding areas are now “at grave risk,” calling for their “immediate protection.”  Many civilians caught in Sunday’s violence are people who had previously been displaced to Monguno and Maiduguri after Boko Haram militants stormed Baga on 3 January.

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in the Nigerian financial capital Lagos on Sunday, and headed straight to hold separate meetings with President Jonathan and the main opposition’s presidential candidate, former military ruler Muhammadu Buhari. He is expected to address poll-related violence, which has marred past elections in Nigeria, as fears increase that violence could erupt again, given the closely fought race. During Nigeria’s last presidential elections in 2011, some 1,000 people died during protests held in central Nigeria. While both President Jonathan and Buhari recently signed a non-violence agreement, this has not stopped the sporadic outbreaks of violence that have erupted between supporters of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC). Despite the on going insurgency in the northeastern region of the country, the US has pressed for the elections to go ahead, with Washington expecting free, fair and peaceful elections. One US official has stated, “this election in Nigeria is being watched by the entire continent and in fact by the entire world.”

Kerry’s visit to Nigeria, the first by a US secretary of state since Hillary Clinton in 2012, was announced on Friday during a speech in which Kerry warned of the dangers posed by Islamist extremists worldwide. Kerry recently described the attack on Baga as a “crime against humanity” while the US has warned of the threat to Nigeria’s sovereignty posed by the militants. According to a senior official, Kerry will raise the issue of the insurgency with both of the candidates, adding “we have been working very, very closely with the government of Nigeria to address Boko Haram, and I can say very clearly that no country has done as much as we have to support Nigeria’s efforts….And we would hope that both candidates will be able to address the insecurity and address Nigeria’s response to Boko Haram.” US involvement in Nigeria has been filled with criticisms particularly with the Nigerian government’s slow response to the mass abduction of 276 girls from the town of Chibok in April 2014. While US drones were deployed to the area, and the Pentagon dispatching intelligence and surveillance specialist, the whereabouts of 219 teenagers remain unknown. Furthermore, both countries have accused one another of a lack of attempting to end the insurgency. Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield has accused Nigeria’s military of being in denial of the threat posed by Boko Haram, which over the past six moths has captured dozens of towns and cities in the northeastern region of Nigeria. Abuja recently ended a US training programme for soldiers fighting the militant group. Meanwhile Nigeria’s ambassador to Washington has accused the US of failing to provide the weaponry necessary to end the rebellion. Furthermore, despite massive defence spending, which accounts for some 20 percent of the federal budget last year, Nigerian troops have on several occasions reported lacking the right weapons and equipment to tackle the militants.

The domestic and geopolitical implications of the $50 billion interoceanic Nicaragua canal project

The interest for a short route from the Pacific to the Atlantic started with explorers of Central America during the 16^th century. For the last 10 years, the project of a canal through Nicaragua has been largely debated. Indeed, criticisms have been on the rise, as Panamanians cannot efficiently handle the service of the canal anymore. Aside form this, international trade is also on the rise and the waiting period for canal entry is growing. The Panama Canal has almost reached its limited capacity, sometimes backing up for several days or weeks, particularly during maintenance periods. Other problems also began to arise, as there were an increasing number of large tanker ships unable to pass through Panama’s narrow water. As a result of these problems, Nicaragua has been investigating plans for a competing canal.

The question on whether there is a necessity for an additional canal is extremely important to international trade. The outcome of such a project will have a global impact. The United States is the main user of the Panama Canal; Latin American countries also rely on it as well as Japan and other Asian countries. The cost and time of transportation has detrimental effects on prices throughout the planet. Over the years, Nicaragua has been seen as suitable for construction of an interoceanic canal. In order to make this project feasible, the government has joined forces with a Chinese national in order to construct a 278 kilometres interoceanic canal. Wang Jing, a 41-year-old Chinese businessman who owns telecommunications business Xinwei Telecom Enterprise Group, will fund the Nicaragua Canal. The total cost is estimated to be up to US $50 billion. Nicaraguan government says the project is crucial to lifting the nation out of dire poverty.

The alternative to the Panama Canal was officially set to break ground on 22 December 2014. Unlike the Panama Canal, the Nicaraguan Canal will be capable of handling the super-heavy class ships that are up to 400,000 tons compared to a maximum of 70,000 tons in Panama. It will be 278 km long and 30 meters deep. Thus, the routes between East Coast and West Coast ports are likely to be shortened by 525 miles, which would equal a day of sailing time. The project is expected to be operational and completed by 2019. The canal will also reduce the cost of transporting goods via sea transport between America, Europe and Asia by about 30%. Experts claim that it will be able to handle about 5,000 high tonnage vessels a year.

On an economic perspective, the financially strapped country of Nicaragua is hoping to fulfil their dream of a canal in order to bring prosperity. The outgoing leader of Nicaragua’s National Agrarian University, Fransico Telemaco Talavera said that: “The canal will bring prosperity to all in this poor nation creating 50,000 jobs during the five-year construction period and 200,000 more once the canal is up and running. It will turn Nicaragua – now the second-poorest nation in the hemisphere after Haiti, based on a U.S. estimate of its economic output – into the region’s powerhouse, with economic growth rates as high as 14% a year.” An international airport, a new port and a free trade zone are also part of the plans along with the canal itself.

There are also several political factors to be considered. It is currently said that the Nicaragua Canal would be a great political instrument to improve relations with the United States, and to settle other political issues in Central America. Inturn, it will engender important geopolitical consequences for China whose influence in the region will be increased.

Despite the government’s strong support for this project, its implementation is sparking major protests amongst local environmentalists and local populations. They claim that the canal will cause significant damage such as the pollution of Lake Nicaragua, which is the largest reservoir of fresh water in the region. Local residents have been protesting against this threat and also because around 30,000 farmers will be forced off their land due to the construction of the canal. Natural resources could be heavily harmed by this project as it will dredge millions tons of earth and the varieties of fauna and flora might be threatened too. Since the project was launched on 22 December 2014, dozens of Nicaraguan protesters have been arrested and injured as Nicaraguan police broke up road blocks set up by demonstrators against their possible eviction from their land. Although Wang Jin promised to pay “compensation according to market principles in a fair, open and transparent way”, the uncertainty amongst those affected is growing and many of them say they will not give up the fight. As strong demonstrations continued across the country, Indigenous communities in Nicaragua presented a request to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to stop the inter-oceanic canal project. The Rama y Kriol territorial government, which represents indigenous groups, asked the Commission to stop the project until a public consultation process is held.

The Nicaraguan government is selling the canal project as an economic miracle, which would permanently resolve the country’s poverty. However, in the perspective of the major protests, the government has great internal challenges to deal with. The outcome of this major project will depend on the government’s ability to run efficiently the construction and to calm down internal opposition. It is likely that protests will continue until a solution is found and concrete propositions are made to local residents.

Yemen: Houthi Rebels and Government Reach Tentative Deal

After days of fighting in Yemen, the government and Houthi rebels reached a tentative deal on Wednesday, ending a standoff that caused Aden air and sea ports to close, and oil production to halt. As of Thursday morning, all ports have reopened. Oil production will likely start after the return of the president’s abducted Chief of Staff, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak.

On 17 January, the Houthi rebels abducted Mubarak as he was enroute to present a draft of the nation’s new constitution. The Houthis had vocally argued that the commission drafting the constitution must ensure greater representation for marginalised groups in Yemen, particularly the Houthis. They said they had become aware of “irregularities” in both the text and how the government was planning to make it law. The new constitution could divide Yemen into a six-region federation. The Houthis oppose such a move and support the country becoming two federal regions.

Upon Mubarak’s abduction, leaders from Southern Yemen gave the Houthis 24 hours to release Mubarak, threatening to cut off oil supplies. They refused, and as a form of protest against the Houthis, oil production in Shabwa, Yemen’s most strategic oil province and home to Mubarak, was halted.  Shabwa’s governor, Ahmed Ali Bahaj, ordered all oil companies in the province to halt production before sunset, stopping three oil fields which produce about 50,000 barrels per day. The governor also ordered the closure of all government institutions in the province. In solidarity, Hadramout Tribal Federation sent a memo to the local oil production companies to stop operating in line with the escalating events in the country. Crude production from Yemen’s Masila oilfields in Hadramout province has also stopped. Yemen’s only gas terminal at Balhaf in Shabwa in the Gulf of Aden also halted operations after foreign experts were evacuated from the liquefied natural gas export facility late on Sunday. Total is the biggest investor in Yemen’s gas export industry through its 40% shareholding in Yemen LNG, where its partners are US-based Hunt Oil on 17%, state-run Yemen Gas Co on 17% and Korea Gas Corp (Kogas) on 6%.

Citing security concerns, the local security committee of the city of Aden ordered the airport, sea port and all land crossings closed.

During the clashes that followed Mubarak’s abduction, the Houthis also took control of Yemen’s state news and TV agencies. In a televised address on 20 January, Abdul Malik al-Houthi said that Hadi and those around him failed to implement political deals that could usher in a new era in Yemen. The Houthi leader said, “We … will not hesitate to impose any necessary measures to implement the peace and partnership agreement.” He added, “All the options are open and without exception and the ceiling is very, very high. And this is why, I here advise the president … Implement this deal. It is for your benefit and for the benefit of your people.”

The rebels also seized control of a military aviation college, and massive weapons depot belonging to the government brigade that provides presidential personal security. The depot contains 280 T-80 Russian-made tanks and other heavy artillery. Most of the security forces reportedly fled after a light clash with fighters.

Despite a tentative cease-fire that was put in place on 20 January, by the next day, the rebels stormed the presidential palace complex and shelled the private home of President Hadi. Early on 21 January, Houthi fighters replaced the guards at the president’s residence. “President Hadi is still in his home. There is no problem, he can leave,” said Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the Houthi politburo. Hadi was contacted by US officials and assured them he is “fine.” A Yemeni official said the President does not consider himself a captive, adding that the Houthis were assisting Hadi’s security detail in their protection mission because part of the detail had run away because of the fighting.

The Houthis agreed to release Mubarak and withdraw their militias from key government institutions if officials agree to a re-write part of the country’s constitution. Under the terms of the agreement, the government will accept changes in the draft of the new.                 Several of the constitutional changes sought by the Houthis would emphasize the characteristics of Yemen as a federal state and push for more inclusion of diverse groups. The Houthis have called for marginalized political groups to have the right to fair representation and partnerships in state institutions. If agreed, the rebels will withdraw their fighters from the capital, where they have held control of the city since September, and would cooperate with the government so that the President and state institutions can return to their duties. A Houthi official said the rebels will abide by the deal if the President follows a timeline specified in the negotiations.

A member of the Houthi political council said, “This deal draws the road map for the political process going forward with the participation of all factions in Yemen. In the past, timelines were not respected, who hope this time will be different.”

While the actions of the Houthis had the appearance of a coup, they stopped short of removing President Hadi. Yemen’s current leader is an ally to the West and to key Sunni majority nations. A government source said: “They know that if they bring about the downfall of the president, they won’t be able to rule the country, because Western and neighbouring countries will gang on up on them, as well as other provinces that are not under their control.”

At the time of this posting, air and sea ports have restored operations in Aden, butthere is no indication that oil has been restarted; it is unclear whether Mubarak has been returned to Sana’a.

The Houthis: Background Information

While the majority of Yemen is Sunni, the Houthis stem from a branch of Shia Islam known as Zaidism (Zaydism). Zaidis comprise approximately a third of Yemen’s population, and ruled north Yemen for nearly a millennia until 1962, when a coup d’état carried out by Abdullah as-Sallal, successfully dethroned Imam Muhammad al-Badr, who was the newly crowned king of Yemen. Sallal and declared Yemen a republic and became its first president.

North and South Yemen unified in 1990 under its first president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Fearing a threat to their religious and cultural traditions, a portion of the Zaidis formed a rebel group known as Ansar Allah (Partisans of God). The group were led by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, a former member of the Yemeni parliament for the Al-Haqq Islamic party between 1993 and 1997. The rebels sought to win greater autonomy for the Saada province. Houthi led the first uprising in June of 2004, but was found and killed by Yemeni security forces in September of that year.  After Hussein’s passing, his family took up the mantle, and the Houthis took on the name of their leader. The Houthis conducted five further rebellions until a ceasefire agreement was signed with the Yemeni government in 2010. During the 2011 Arab Spring, the Houthis joined the protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh. When Saleh stepped down in 2012, the Houthis quickly used the power vacuum to expand control over the Saadi province, and neighbouring Amran province.

According to the Houthis, the people of Yemen are dissatisfied with their transitional government, led by President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. They believe that it is dominated by members of the old regime and unlikely to result in positive changes for the poor nation. In August 2014, Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi demanded that President Hadi reverse a decision to remove subsidies that had hit the country’s poor and that he replace the “corrupt” government with one that better represented Yemen’s various factions. A growing number Houthi supporters, including both Shia and Sunnis, protested for weeks, holding sit-ins at government buildings and blocking main roads. On 2 September, Hadi agreed to dismiss his government and cut fuel prices by 30 percent. The Houthis found it insufficient.

A week later, security forces opened fire on Houthi supporters in Sanaa, killing several people. Clashes escalated in Sana’a and by mid-September, battles left more than 300 dead within a month. The rebels occupied government buildings and seized the headquarters of a military division loyal to Brig Gen Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, a Sunni Islamist who led the fight against the Houthis between 2004 and 2010. Amidst a rising death toll, a peace deal was reached with the Houthis on 20 September. The Houthis would withdraw from the capital if fuel subsidies were restored, a technocratic government was put in place, including an appointment of presidential advisers representing the Houthis and the secessionist Hiraak al-Janoubi (Southern Movement); and the implementation of policies agreed at the National Dialogue Conferences in February. The Houthis, however, refused an agreement to withdraw from Sana’a and northern cities and surrender their weapons to authorities within 45 days. As a result, the Houthis still control large parts of the capital, demanding oversight of ministries and calling for an end to what they call a corrupt political system. The Houthis have also expanded into central and western parts of Yemen, triggering clashes with extremist militant group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Critics say the Houthis are a proxy for Shia dominated Iran, which the rebels and Iran deny. Former president Saleh has been accused by the US of backing the Houthis’ takeover of Sanaa “to not only delegitimize the central government, but also create enough instability to stage a coup”. In November, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on him and two senior Houthi leaders. The UN said the leaders were threatening Yemen’s peace and stability and obstructing the political process.