World View 2008: A Look at Some Defining Geo-political Developments of the Year

The Kenyan Crisis
The East African nation of Kenya witnessed serious turmoil and violence starting with the declaration of victory of incumbent president Mwai Kibaki in the December 2007 elections. Kibaki’s prime opponent and rival Raila Odinga alleged that the elections were rigged, leading to large scale violence and arson. Kenya has always been divided on ethnic and tribal lines and popular perception is that the Kikuyu community (to which President Kibaki belongs) has traditionally monopolized major institutions of power. The allegations of electoral malpractice simply added fuel to the fire of discontent and anger brewing among the Luo tribe and incited its leader Odinga and his supporters to go on a rampage against the dominant community.

The charges against Kibaki may not have been entirely unfounded though. Several international observers noted that the elections were indeed marked by a lack of transparency and that the accuracy of the final results was definitely not beyond doubt. In fact, the chairman of the Election Commission even said that he was forced by Kibaki’s Party of National Unity (PNU) and a breakaway faction of Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) to announce results immediately despite Western ambassadors calling for a delay in results with proper counting and tallying of votes. In the violence that followed, human casualties reached immense proportions.

By the first week of February 2008, riots had claimed more than 1000 lives and more than 300000 people were forced to flee from their homes and seek shelter in neighbouring countries. It was only through the mediation of several international leaders and most prominently, of former UN secretary general Kofi Annan that the two warring leaders were brought to the discussion table. After several tortuous rounds of talk, on February 19, Kibaki agreed to power sharing in the government but this necessitated the enactment of certain changes in the existing constitution. On February 28, 2008, Kibaki and Odinga signed an agreement meant to end the crisis which was termed by Annan as the National Accord and Reconciliation Act. The two leaders agreed to form a coalition government in which Odinga was to be placed in the new position of Prime Minister. However, it was only as late as April, after several more rounds of talks, counter-talk and mediation that the leaders came to an agreement on the size and composition of the Cabinet. Odinga and his cabinet of 40 ministers and 50 assistant ministers were sworn in around mid-April. The PNU, however, was reported to have kept most of the important portfolios.

General elections in Pakistan
The news of Benazir Bhutto’s assasination on the 27th of December, 2007 was a great shock and blow to the nation of Pakistan, especially as it was gearing for the General Elections in 2008. The New York Times had stated that Bhutto had "become an appealing solution" to the United States. Nawaz Sharif wanted to boycott the election unless Bhutto's PPP contested the same. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the son of Benazir was named by the PPP as the new party leader and husband Asif Ali Zardari was named co-leader, as asked for in Benazir Bhutto's testament. The party also decided that it would contest the elections and stated that the elections should be held as planned.

The Election Commission however deferred the general elections to February 18, while they were originally slated for the 8th of January, until February 18th. However the main opposition parties – Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party and the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim league-N – wanted the elections to go ahead as scheduled. Pervez Musharraf, backed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Q was in favour of the postponement of elections.

The primary reason for the postponement was that there was widespread violence and disruption of poll preparations after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The electoral offices in the four provinces of Punjab, Balochistan, Sindh and North West Frontier Province were asked to submit reports by the election commission on the state of poll preparations as well as the law and order situation in the country. After getting feedback about the violence from governments and officials of the four provinces the commission decided on poll postponement.

There was a lot of violence during the weeks preceding the elections; politicians and political rallies across the board were targeted.  Several people attending a meeting of the Awami National party were injured by a suicide car bomb. Militants destroyed a polling location in Bajaur.

When the results of the elections were out the Pakistan Muslim League was clearly defeated along with its main leaders including 22 former federal ministers. Pakistan's two main opposition parties, the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League  won a majority of seats. It was surprising to note that the Pakistan Muslim League PML actually was second in the popular vote. Yosaf Raza Gillani was elected as the Prime Minister of Pakistan with the PPP and PML forming the new coalition government.

Stand-off between China and Tibet
It was meant to be a peaceful protest march in commemoration of the 1959 Lhasa uprising of Tibetans in demand for autonomy and freedom from Chinese rule, but the latter’s response to the rallies sparked off riots and racial violence in large parts of Tibet, causing far-reaching political upheaval and worsening already bitter Sino-Tibetan relations.

On the 49th anniversary of the failed Lhasa uprising (on March 10, 2008), exiled Tibetans in India began a march from Dharmsala to Lhasa, just as Beijing was about to commence celebrations for the 2008 Olympics. Even though the marchers were stopped by Indian authorities, hundreds of Tibetan monks and ordinary Tibetans in Lhasa participated in peaceful rallies and demonstrations against Chinese rule. This did not go down well with Chinese authorities who responded with a heavy-handed crackdown on the protestors, with several arrests and use of coercion. This in turn led to widespread unrest and rioting on the streets of Lhasa, eventually resulting in loss of lives and property. More than 2000 protestors were arrested by the Chinese People’s Armed Police. Monasteries were sealed off, intransigent rioters were fired at and foreign journalists asked to leave the regions.

From Dharmsala, the seat of Tibetan Government in Exile in Himachal Pradesh, the exiled leader Dalai Lama appealed to the Chinese government to “address the long simmering resentment of the Tibetan people.” Indeed, the discontent and resentment of the Tibetan people have deep-seated roots. In 1950, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army annexed Tibet and set out on a mission to alter the traditional relations and dynamics within Tibetan society. Although China claim to have invested significantly in the Tibetan economy, human rights groups have pointed to Beijing’s authoritarian rule and disregard for the social and ethnic rights of the people as possible causes for resentment among them. As the 2008 protests escalated, the political, economic and social grievances of the Tibetan people came to the fore yet again.

As in the past, China responded yet again by accusing the Dalai Lama and his protestors of inciting the violence. This, however, did not find a lot of takers in the international community, given the fact that the exiled leader has always insisted on peaceful means of protest and the fact that he has never demanded secession from China or creation of an independent Tibetan state. He has only been heard to insist on greater autonomy and religious freedom for Tibetans, and cessation of exploitation of the Tibetan people at the hands of the Han Chinese – an ethnic group from the Yellow River Basin. Beijing however continues to hold him the primary obstacle to the resolution of issues and says that his propositions and action do not live up to his words.

In May 2008, two representatives each from the PRC Government and on behalf of the Dalai Lama met for talks for the first time since the March unrest, and then again for a second round in July. Since then talks have been continual but according to most analysts, differences between the sides are too vast to be breached. According to reports in the BBC, PRC representative Zhu Weiqun has said that a memorandum presented by the Tibetans during the latest round of talks (October 2008) reveal their covert aspirations to independence. It also contains certain propositions such as withdrawal of Chinese troops from Tibetan regions, which are not fundamentally acceptable to the PRC. Chances of an amicable solution to issues, therefore, seem remote at this juncture.

The China-Tibet face-off cast its shadow over the Beijing Olympics as well, albeit for a brief period. With the international diplomatic fraternity concerned over China’s handling of the Tibetan crisis, a boycott of the Games by several groups of athletes seemed imminent. Sporadic demonstrations and protests marked the entire journey of the 85000-mile global route of the torch from Greece to Beijing, often threatening the conduct of the Games. In the end, however, the Olympics were held with full support and participation and concluded successfully, though there were occasional reports of peaceful protests during the August event in Beijing and Tibet.

Nepal’s journey from Monarchy to Democracy
It was a momentous event not just in Nepal’s history, but also in the annals of revolutionary communism when the Maoist party in Nepal emerged as the single largest segment of the 601-strong constituent assembly for which election was held on April 10, 2008.

The Maoist rebels were known to spearhead communist insurgency through a decade of civil war during which more than 13000 Nepalese were killed and many thousands went missing. In 2005, prominent leaders of the mainstream political parties participated in a meeting with the Maoists that was arranged with the consent of the Indian government in New Delhi. It resulted in the signing of a 12-point agreement between the seven leading political parties of Nepal and the Maoists. The agreement gave the Maoist political party – the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) – an opportunity to work under a plan to elect a constituent assembly that would decide the future political structure of the nation by drafting a new constitution.

The oppressive rule of King Gyanendra had already aroused the wrath and protests of the Nepalese people, who demanded adoption of a republican constitution to be written by a constituent assembly elected by the people. The ever-increasing resistance of the people forced the monarch to reinstate parliament. The parliament appointed Girija Prasad Koirala, the leader of the Nepali Congress, as Prime Minister, declared Nepal a secular state and deprived the king of real political power on April 24, 2006. The latter agreed to settle for a ceremonial position. In November 2006, the Koirala government and the Maoists led by their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as Prachanda, signed a historic Comprehensive Peace Accord that officially recognised Maoists as legitimate political players in Nepal. The accord also facilitated the Maoists to join the interim parliament and the government.

The coalition government declared in March 2007 that election to the constituent assembly would be held in June 2007. However, the Election Commission’s inability to make preparations for a fair nationwide election forced the government to reschedule it for November 22, 2007. In the interim period, political differences between the mainstream parties and the Maoists once again compelled the government to defer the election. The Maoists demanded that the election should be completely based on proportional representation system. They also insisted on declaring Nepal a Republic even before holding elections. Hectic negotiations followed and after months of discussion and wrangling, on December 23, 2007, all partners in the interim government agreed on a 23-point accord that ended the political impasse.

The accord stated that Nepal would be declared a Federal Republic in the very first meeting of the constituent assembly, election for which would be held in April 2008. Subsequently, the interim constitution was amended to increase the number of members of the constituent assembly to 601 out of which 240 would be elected directly on first-passed-the-post principle, 335 would be elected on national proportional representation system and the remaining 26 would be nominated by the cabinet.

Though Maoists could not secure a majority in the landmark election that was held as scheduled on April 10, they bagged 120 (directly elected) + 98 (proportional representation) seats. Thus their tally of seats in the constituent assembly i.e. 218 is more than double the number of seats (37+71=108) captured by their nearest rival, NC. The Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist won 33+68=101 seats. The election was acknowledged as absolutely free and fair by international observers representing the United Nations, the European Union and the Carter Center.

Sri Lanka – Critical Crisis
The ceaseless turmoil in the small island nation of Sri Lanka, which has been plagued by violence and acts of terrorism since its independence in 1948, has now become a world issue, as it threatens to imperil the peace of the entire region. In order to understand the unending civil strife within the nation and the war raging in the country at present, it is perhaps important to take a brief look at the origins of confrontation between the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE.

The British East India Company established its rule over Ceylon in 1796. The island was then declared a crown colony. During that time the British had brought a large number of Tamil labourers from India, which explains why there are so many Tamils in the Eastern and Northern regions of the country. Right from the beginning there were clashes and tension between the Sinhalese who formed a majority and were mainly Buddhist, and the Tamils who either belong to the Roman Catholic community or are Hindus. Speaking two different tongues - Sinhala and Tamil - both communities claim that they were original settlers of the nation. The Tamils complained that there were discriminated against when it came to being taken into the Civil Services or getting a seat in the University. The Sinhalese on the other hand alleged that the British had given preferential treatment to the Tamils and they were trying to bring about a balance for this.

The confrontation worsened when the first female Prime Minister Ms Sirimavo Bandaranayake declared the language policy in the form of the ‘Sinhala Only Act’. There were also other measures taken to uphold Buddhist and Sinhalese sentiments. The changing of the name Ceylon to Sri Lanka also caused insecurity among the Tamils. This was one of the chief factors that led Tamil leader Prabhakaran to form the Tamil New Tigers militia, which later became the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1976.

Throughout the 1980s, 1990s and during the early years of this decade, there were sporadic incidents of Tamil Tiger suicide attacks (which even led to the death of a President) on one hand and military skirmishes in the east and the north on the other hand. Thousands have perished in the conflict that does not seem to end. In February 2002, after about 20 years of warfare, the LTTE and the government formalized a cease-fire with the help of Norway negotiating the peace talks. After this the two sides held talks and at one stage the latter even gave up the idea of an independent Tamil state ‘Eelam’. It seemed that the two parties had come close to a lasting peace settlement.

However there was an upsurge of violence ever since President Mahinda Rajapaksa began his uncompromising election campaign in 2005. He had determined to review negotiations for peace and ruled out the possibility of any form of autonomy being conceded to Tamils. Relations were further stretched following a row over the distribution of $3-billion in tsunami aid amongst Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalese. In 2006 there was a marked intensification of violence between the LTTE and government forces and by the latter part of the year the Tamil Tiger rebels and government forces in the north-east were engaged in worst clashes since the 2002 ceasefire. The conflicts grew worse in 2007.

In January 2008, the government officially withdrew from the ceasefire, and began military offensive against the rebels. As expected, the year has seen several blasts and rebel attacks intended to spawn ethnic and communal violence across Sri Lanka. Most parts of the country are now under government control, because of the army advancing towards the north and seizing control over the eastern areas. Inspite of this, the rebels continue to fight using guerrilla warfare techniques like assassinations, aerial attacks and suicide bombings. Nevertheless the army is in a commanding position and confident that it will defeat the Tigers by the end of 2008 and bring the fighting to an end. The army claims that it is about to capture Kilinochchi, which is the administrative centre and the northern de facto capital of the Tamil Tigers. Reports received till the first week of December indicated that heavy fighting was on just outside the town of Kilinochchi and another north-east town supposedly used as a naval base for the LTTE.

The conflict has hampered the growth and development of the country and an estimated number of at least 70,000 people has been displaced and thousands killed. Independent unofficial estimates put the number of casualties at well over a hundred thousand. Humanitarian movements like the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have condemned the violence and bloodshed in this region and reported many instances of unfair persecution. In September the UN withdrew from areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers in the north and the East. Though one is still not sure about the final outcome of the conflict, the bitterness and bloodshed caused by it is one of the worst that human civilization has ever witnessed.

Rising Tensions between Iran and Israel
Iran and Israel have been embroiled in an escalating war of words in 2008, increasing speculation of military confrontation and helping to send global oil prices to record highs.

The tug-of-war started with Israel staging an air force exercise in the first week of June that sparked speculation about a possible assault on Iranian nuclear sites. Israel, believed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear-armed power. On its part Iran threatened to destroy Israel and 32 US military bases in the Middle East if it was attacked over its disputed nuclear program. Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter, has also, threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, conduit for about 40 percent of globally traded oil. Washington, on one hand said that it wants a diplomatic end to the entire controversy but on the other hand has hinted at military action if talks fail.

The stand adopted by US and Israel has exposed their double standards. Claims by Israel, itself a nuclear state, that it is feeling threatened by Iran seems like a dubious ploy to attract international sanctions against Iran. Interestingly Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refuses to officially confirm or deny having nuclear capacity, or to having developed nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program…something that is common knowledge for the rest of the world. Iran on the other hand is a member of the NPT and has described its nuclear program as peaceful and aimed at development and delivery of clean, affordable nuclear power to its people and neighbours. The US has been constantly urging Iran to abandon its nuclear program or face international sanctions.

Even though Iran and Israel have issued dire threats to each other over the year, experts believe that the ground reality is very different from what is projected. In the first week of June 2008 both countries choreographed certain events to demonstrate one’s power to the other. While Iran fired a volley of medium ranged missiles into the skies over the Gulf to demonstrate its capacity to hit targets in Israel, Israeli warplanes carried out large and fearsome exercises over the Mediterranean that looked like a practice run for a bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities.
 
On the other hand, military experts believe that Israel cannot carry out an attack on the Iran's nuclear facilities on its own. An Israeli strike would require the active co-operation of the US. Israeli warplanes would not only have to fly and be refueled in Iraqi airspace - controlled by the Americans - but the whole operation would require logistical support from US bases on the ground in Iraq. Support helicopters would need to be based in Iraq and rescue teams needed to evacuate any downed Israeli pilots would have to operate inside Iraq.

With the shift in US leadership and weeks before Barack Obama takes over on 20 January 2009, fresh speculations about Israeli plans and intentions are making the rounds. Recent reports in Israeli press serve as fresh reminder of the continuing risk of conflict with Iran. One such report talks about fresh round of tests conducted by Iran on the 12th of November of medium range ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets right across the region. Yet another report talks of Iran’s claim to having installed 5000 uranium enrichment centrifuges on 26 November. Much is being made of Iran's new missiles, both in Israel and the United States. Uzi Rubin - the founder of the Israel Missile Defense Association (IMDA) has been quoted in a leading US defence journal as saying that the new Iranian Sajeel/Ashura missile is far more advanced than any previous type. Most Iranian surface-to-surface missiles have been based on North Korean technology, especially the No Dong series of missiles, which themselves use technology based on the Soviet Scud missiles of the 1950s. Rubin, however, claims that the Sajeel/Ashura "is a brand-new missile, an original design more advanced than anything available to the North Koreans themselves.”

While the two countries issue threats and display their capabilities to each other, the international community encourages both countries to tread the path of mediation, diplomacy and negotiation. At present, the world can only wait and watch for the next chapter of the Middle East crisis to unfold.

(Compiled with inputs from Leena Abraham, Zaheer Ali, Shivani Chander)