In this edition (October 31, 2009):

The "Featured Country" focuses on Honduras.  The "Special Report" looks at the United States with reference to its policy on Afghanistan.  The "International Hot Stories" include coverage of: Afghanistan, Pakistan,  North Korea, China, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Czech Republic and the United States. Government and Politics looks at Germany, Greece, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Haiti and Fiji.  Finally, Afghanistan, Botswana, Niger, Tunisia, Uruguay and Mozambique are  considered in the "Elections Update."

Featured Country

Americas: Honduras

Summary:

Rivals in Honduras agreed to a plan brokered by the Organization of American States  that would bring an end to the political crisis in that country.  At issue was the reinstatement of ousted President Manuel Zelaya to power ahead of fresh presidential elections. Since the June 2009 coup that deposed Zelaya from office, Honduras has been regarded as something of a regional pariah with the countries of the Americas virtually united in its call for the restoration of democratic order.

Background:
 
On June 28, 2009, the military ousted President Manuel Zelaya -- the president of the Central American country of Honduras -- from office, forcing him into exile in Costa Rica.  President Zelaya was then taken from his home and flown to Costa Rica.

The de facto coup d'état occurred in reaction to the ongoing power struggle over the president's plans to change the constitution of the country. At issue was his plan to constitutionally extend his four-year non-renewable term in office. A referendum on the matter had been planned for June 28, 2009, but before it could be held, the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal. President Zelaya decided to go forward with a non-binding referendum to ascertain the popular will of the people.  But the situation took an acrimonious turn when President Zelaya refused a court ruling to re-instate the chief of the army, General Romeo Vasquez, who refused to comply with the president's order that he assist with the organization of the referendum. Ahead of the opening of the polls on voting day, the military had short-circuited the process in what amounted to an effective coup d'état.

The Supreme Court later defended the actions of the military, claiming it was defending democracy.  It was unlikely that the court and the military would be contradicted by the legislative branch of government since the referendum had been resisted by the Congress of Honduras, including members of the president's own party.  A resolution was read in the Congress, which accused Zelaya of "manifest irregular conduct" and representing a "danger" to state law, presumably in response to the president's decision to move forward with the referendum, despite the Supreme Court's ruling against it. The Congress then  voted to accept a letter of resignation, purported to be from President Zelaya, by a show of hands.  That letter, which the congressional secretary Jose Alfredo Saavedra claimed was written by the president, indicated that Zelaya was resigning because of "the polarized political situation" and "insuperable health problems." Whether or not the letter, which was dated days earlier, was actually genuine, was a matter of debate. Nevertheless, the legislative body then appointed congressional president, Roberto Micheletti, as the new president of Honduras.

Meanwhile, upon arriving at the airport in Costa Rica, deposed President Zelaya  said he was awakened by the sound of gunfire and that he had to dodge flying bullets between soldiers and his own security guards for about twenty minutes.  Zelaya said he was then kidnapped by soldiers and  forced to board an air force jet, which took him to Costa Rica.  Zelaya denied writing any letter of resignation, and made it clear that he would not recognize any interim government and was holding onto power until the end of his term in January 2010.   During a telephone interview on the Venezuela-based Telesur television network, Zelaya said, "There is no way to justify an interruption of democracy, a coup d'état." He continued, "This kidnapping is an extortion of the Honduran democratic system." Zelaya blamed the situation on the Honduran elite, whom he said opposed his plans to try to bring economic relief to the impoverished masses.  To that end, he said, " This was a plot by a very voracious elite, which wants to keep this country in an extreme level of poverty." 

In other developments, there were reports that Honduran military leaders and other key politicians had been in contact with the United States, seeking support for their plan to wrest power from Zelaya.  According to the Associated Press, the United States made clear it would not support any coup.  This scenario indirectly coincided with statements made by Zelaya himself ahead of the actual coup.  In an interview with Spain's El Pais newspaper that took place before his removal, Zelaya appeared to be aware of efforts by his opponents to oust him from power, but believed at the time that such efforts had been thwarted because the United States would not sanction such action. "Everything was in place for the coup and if the U.S. embassy had approved it, it would have happened. But they did not."  He continued, "I'm only still here in office thanks to the United States." But apparently, significant military and political players in Honduras decided to go forward with the coup days later, even though the United States refused to support any  moves aimed at deposing Zelaya from power.

Meanwhile, the international community responded to the news from Honduras with outrage. Mercosur -- the regional bloc made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay -- condemned the coup and said it would not recognize any Honduran authority besides Manuel Zelaya.  President Zelaya's ally in the region, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said the deposed Honduran leader had been the victim of an illegal coup d'état.  Chavez' outrage was echoed by the European Union, which decried the undemocratic transfer of power.  Spain also moved to recall its ambassador to Honduras.  Making clear the  United States' position,  United States President Barack Obama  characterized the removal of Zelaya from the presidency as "illegal." 

For its part, the United Nations General Assembly  approved a resolution demanding the reinstatement of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, while the World Bank said it would institute a "pause" in lending to Honduras.  In addition, the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a condemnation of the ousting of President Zelaya, characterizing it as "a coup."  The OAS also asserted it would not recognize the illegal authority of the new government and the body's Permanent Council called for the "immediate, safe and unconditional return" of Zelaya to his office as president.  Jose Miguel Insulza, the head of the OAS, decried the removal of Zelaya saying, "We thought we were in an era when military coups were no longer possible in this hemisphere."  Explaining the decision to take action against Honduras, he said, "We need to show clearly that military coups will not be accepted. "Soon thereafter, the OAS issued a three-day deadline to Honduras to restore exiled Zelaya to power.  Failure to comply resulted in the suspension of Honduras from the OAS and that country's new position as a regional pariah.

Mediation:

In mid-July 2009, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias acted as mediator in talks between ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and interim leader Roberto Micheletti, aimed at resolving the political crisis gripping Honduras.  Those initial talks ended without any breakthrough.  For his part, Zelaya demanded his immediate restoration as president of Honduras.  On the other side of the equation, Micheletti said that Zelaya should relinquish all claims to the presidency.  The only area where Zelaya and Micheletti could find concurrence was in regard to their respect for the Honduran constitution, however, their interpretation of the country's law was likely to be quite different.  President Arias, the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner who helped resolve the civil war plaguing Central America, said: "We have no illusions, this may take longer than what was imagined."

A week later, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias called on the two sides to participate in a new round of talks. That new round of negotiations ended indecisively, but did reveal the provisions of the reconciliation deal that Arias was trying to advance. Central to that proposal was a provision for "the legitimate restitution" of Zelaya as the head of a reconciliation government, which was described as "a post where he will remain until the end of the constitutional term for which he was elected."  The proposal made clear that this term would end on Jan. 27, 2010, and would be followed by the selection of a new president  "chosen freely and democratically by the people in elections supervised and recognized by the  international community," as described by Arias.  The Costa Rican mediator also proposed the creation of a unity government, which would be composed of representatives of all political parties. Finally, Arias proposed an amnesty for political crimes associated with the coup d'état of June 2009 that ousted Zelaya from office.

For his part, deposed President Zelaya said the negotiations being led by Arias constituted the only path to reach a reconciliation agreement. To that end, he was said to be seriously considering Arias' proposals.  While Zelaya and his cadre were reported to have agreed, in principle, to Arias' terms, there were remaining reservations about giving concessions to those who participated in the coup.  In addition, Zelaya warned that even if no deal was forged, he had every intention of returning home to Honduras. On the other side of the equation,  the interim government said that it would  arrest Zelaya if he set foot on Honduran terrain. As well, the interim government, led by  Micheletti, was reported to have rejected the proposal on the grounds that the notion of Zelaya's reinstatement was "impossible" and "not negotiable."

By the close of July 2009, negotiations in Costa Rica aimed at resolving the ongoing political crisis ended with no agreement between the two sides. Yet even as Micheletti rejected this proposal, he was nonetheless faced with increased pressure to hand power back to Zelaya, as a result of mounting threats by the United States to cut its aid to Honduras. Despite  this warning from the United States, Zelaya expressed frustration with the international community's failure to reinstate him to presidential power, even going so far as to criticize the United States for not doing enough.  For his part, Zelaya, who was now based in Nicaragua, made a symbolic gesture by taking a few steps across the border into Honduras. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded by describing  the move as "reckless."  She explained that Zelaya's symbolic  excursion into Honduran territory was "not conducive to the broader effort to restore constitutional order."

Meanwhile, post-coup Honduras was pressing forward with its plans to hold elections in November 2009.  Internationally, the election was being frowned upon since many countries now viewed post-coup Honduras as having abrogated constitutional strictures.  To that end, the OAS, which suspended Honduras in July 2009, made it clear that it would not recognize the results of the Nov. 29, 2009, vote for a new president. Individual countries also made it clear they would not recognize the election results.

Adding to Honduras' poor standing in the international community was the decision by the United States to cut all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in a clear bid to register discontent over the country's slippage into undemocratic governance. The move by the United States earned rare praise from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has typically been a harsh critic of American foreign policy.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the Honduran ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva said he had been ordered out of the United Nations  Human Rights Council. The situation emerged  after several other Latin American countries accused envoy J. Delmer Urbizo of representing an "illegal" regime.  It was a clear  reference to the fact that the current government of Honduras ousted the elected President Zelaya from office in a coup d'état. The incident cast a shadow on the  start of the three-week session of the multi-national Human Rights Council.  As Urbizo left  the hall, he shouted   "We will be back! Volveremos!"

Zelaya Returns:

Ousted President Manuel Zelaya returned unexpectedly to Honduras on Sept. 22, 2009.  He was reported to have sought refuge at the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.  The interim authorities appeared willing to stakeout even more  alienated terrain once Zelaya was at the Brazilian embassy.  According to reports from the ground in Tegucigalpa, the interim authorities, led by Roberto Micheletti, were demanding that Brazil "immediately take measures to ensure that  Zelaya stops using the protection offered by the diplomatic mission to instigate violence in Honduras."  The interim government also warned it would take unspecified "additional measures" if Zelaya's status remained undefined within 10 days. For its part, Brazil decided to reject the ultimatum by Honduras' interim authorities on the basis that its embassy was protected under international law. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva personally entered the fray when he asserted, "Brazil will not comply with an ultimatum from a government of coup mongers."

The situation took a disturbing turn when it was reported that hundreds of Honduran soldiers and riot police had surrounded the Brazilian embassy.  While Micheletti said he had no plans to storm the embassy and arrest Zelaya, there were intimations that the Brazilian diplomatic mission was, indeed, under siege.  Zelaya himself accused the interim authorities of pumping toxic gas into the building, however, Red Cross personnel on the ground could not confirm the allegation.  Still, the United Nations Security Council appeared to acknowledge the "siege" effect when it demanded that the interim authorities of Honduras "cease harassing" the Brazilian embassy.

Resolution:
 
In the second week of October 2009, diplomats from 10 countries from across the Western Hemisphere,  as well as Jose Insulza, chief of the Organization of American States (OAS), commenced fresh talks aimed at resolving the political crisis in Honduras.  The diplomats were hoping to broker direct talks between  deposed President Manuel Zelaya and interim leader Roberto Micheletti.

At issue has been ousted President Manuel Zelaya's demand that he be reinstated to power for the remaining three months of his term, juxtaposed with the insistence of the coup regime, led by Roberto Micheletti, that Zelaya should not be allowed  to do so.  Zelaya has said he would meet with Micheletti only if there was an agreement forged in advance that would allow him to return to power.  On the other side of the equation, Micheletti showed no sign of compromise as he insisted that Zelaya was a threat to the constitution.  That being said, there were some members of the coup regime in Honduras who were showing some indications that the ongoing crisis in Honduras might only be resolved, and international recognition would be possible, if only they did indeed reinstate Zelaya for the three remaining months of his term.

Part of the pressure on the coup regime was the fact that it had scheduled parliamentary and presidential elections for later in the year, in the face of international warnings that the election results would not be recognized. To that end, Insulza said, "Those who thought it was possible to depose a president and normalize life in the country before starting an election campaign should realize that this has not been possible."

On Oct. 15, 2009, there were reports that the two camps -- that of ousted Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya and that of interim leader Roberto Micheletti -- were  edging towards some sort of compromise.  While no specific details of the compromise deal were furnished, negotiators from the two sides respectively informed the media in Honduras that there was a plan in the works to restore Zelaya to the presidency ahead of fresh presidential elections set for Nov. 29, 2009.

Yet to be seen was whether or not the general framework for negotiations, known as the San Jose Accord, due to mediation by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias (as discussed above) was still viable. The accord, named for the capital of Costa Rica where compromise was first spurred, has the backing of the Organization of American States and the Obama administration in the United States.  Central to the accord  is the provision for Zelaya to head a national unity government until his end of his term in January 2010, followed by his exit from the political scene and amnesty from charges of abuse of power. The accord also offers Micheletti amnesty for orchestrating the de facto coup d'état against Zelaya.

By the  close of 2009, a resolution had been forged, based on the OAS-backed San Jose Accord, and was met with concurrence by both rivals, Zelaya and Micheletti.  The agreement would return Zelaya to power, create a power-sharing government, and require both camps to recognize the result the presidential election set for November, 2009.

Zelaya said that he would sign the accord, which would  bring an end to the political crisis. Of course, Zelaya's restitution to the presidency was contingent upon  a congressional vote in favor of this move, which itself would have to be authorized by the Supreme Court.  Nevertheless, Zelaya described the agreement as a "triumph for Honduran democracy," and expressed his optimism about returning to power. Interim leader, Roberto Micheletti, also indicated he intended to sign the agreement, saying, "I have authorized my negotiating team to sign a deal that marks the beginning of the end of the country's political situation."

Reports suggested that Micheletti was finally ready to acquiesce to the agreement after United States Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon warned that some sort of agreement was mandatory if Honduras wished international sanction of the impending election. Now with an apparently successful conclusion to the mediation process, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conveyed her congratulations to both sides on "reaching an historic agreement."

Editor's Note:

President Manual Zelaya of the left-leaning Liberal Party came to power in 2006.  His term in office was scheduled to end in 2010, barring a constitutional change that would allow him to extend his tenure.  Zelaya wanted that issue to be put to the voters in a referendum.  However, all quarters of the Honduran establishment -- the military, the Supreme Court, and even the Congress -- acted to ensure that such a move would not take place in a de facto coup d'état and the subsequent exile of Zelaya.  Diverse governments ranging from those in Washington D.C., to Caracas condemned the coup and called for Zelaya's  reinstatement.  Meanwhile, Honduras was suspended from the Organization of American States, and also subject to a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly demanding the reinstatement of Zelaya. Honduras additionally had to deal with a halt in funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Honduras also faced further international sanctions if the Micheletti interim government continued to defy the international community's demand for Zelaya to be reinstated, if only within the context of the San Jose Accord. To that end, concurrence was reached on the San Jose Accord at the close of October 2009.  Until the 2009 coup d'état, Honduras -- a poor country dependent in the export of coffee and bananas -- endured military coups two times before; in 1963 and 1972, the military  overthrew the elected presidents of Honduras.  Civilian governance was not restored following the 1972 coup d'état until 1981, largely as a result of pressure from the United States.  But this latest military coup d'état was the first undemocratic transfer of power in Honduras in almost three decades.  Indeed it is one of few undemocratic transfers of power in the Western Hemisphere in recent times.

International Hot Stories

Americas: United States
Asia: Afghanistan

United States (U.S.) Policy on Afghanistan

In October 2009, the commander of United States and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, officially submitted a set of possible  options to policymakers, aimed at curbing the advance of resurgent Taliban.  Among the proposals given to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James Stavridi, was an option to deploy between  30,000 to 40,000 additional combat troops and trainers to Afghanistan. This option was said to be strongly favored by McChrystal, although there were other options, such as a more modest increase of troop strength by 10,000, as well as another plan calling for a surge of  60,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan, and an option for maintaining current troop strength. While the actual content of the proposal has remained confidential, McChrystal has himself said that more troops were needed to help support the Afghan security forces who were preparing to take full control over the country's security in 2013.

General McChrystal's report  was being reviewed by President Barack Obama who had said earlier-- on Sept. 20, 2009, during an interview on CNN -- that he would assess the findings from his commander on the ground, before making a decision as to the possible deployment of troops to an increasingly unpopular conflict.  President Obama  noted,  "I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question."  He then continued, "But right now, the question is, the first question is, are we doing the right thing? Are we pursuing the right strategy?" The president acknowledged that the original mission to hunt those responsible for 9/11 could be subject to what is known as "mission creep."

Before considering McChrystal's request for more combat troops in Afghanistan, the White House in the United States said it wanted to undergo an overall strategic review of its policy in the Afghan-Pak region. At issue for the Obama administration was the question of whether to  remain on track with the existing mission, and perhaps with an extended nation-building imperative, aimed at securing the cooperation of the Afghan populace.  Alternatively, there was the question as to if the mission should be recalibrated, perhaps with reduced military operations, and a concentration purely on striking al-Qaida terrorists in the Afghan-Pak border area.

By the end of October 2009, media reports had emerged that the Obama administration would make its Afghanistan strategy known after that country held its second or run-off round of its contested presidential election. That second or run-off round was set for Nov. 7, 2009, amidst a rising clamor for the establishment of a credible government in Afghanistan. Indeed, the Obama administration noted there would be no action pending the establishment of a legitimate government in Afghanistan.  In an interview with CNN, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said it would be "reckless" to make such a decision without  thoroughly determining whether or not the government at the helm of Afghanistan held democratic authority. 

Attention was also focused at that time on suggestions that President Obama could well unveil a scaled-down Afghanistan strategy whereby some additional United States forces might be deployed to Afghanistan  in 2010, albeit in fewer numbers than called for by McChrystal, and with a more circumscribed role oriented toward protecting Afghan interests, although it would likely also adopt the Afghanistan commander's objective of launching an anti-Taliban counter-insurgency in the spring of 2010. 

For its part, the White House insisted that President Obama had not actually decided on the question of troop strength and was actually still considering the strategic approach.  To that end, there were reports that the president had requested status reports from across Afghanistan to assess specific conditions on the ground.  At home in the United States, there was a clear division among those -- disproportionately from the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party -- who wanted the president to quickly assent to McChrystal's wishes, and the liberal base of the Democratic Party, which has demanded that President Obama bring an end to the war in Afghanistan.

Opponents of the president from the Republican Party have also accused him of taking too long to make the crucial decision on the war strategy for Afghanistan.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney has gone so far as to characterize President Obama as "dithering" over this key decision to be made.  However, military experts have noted that any offensive operation would not begin until the spring of 2010. Other voices have said that when one considers the criticisms of the Bush administration's decision-making with regard to war, Cheney holds no credibility on the matter.  They pointed to the fact that the rationale behind the Iraq war was flawed, and Republicans now clamoring for intensified efforts in Afghanistan held no such priority while the Iraq war was in full swing.  Allies of President Obama have said he is functioning true to form, by acquiring as much information as possible and acting in a deliberative manner on the important issues of the day.


Americas: United States
Asia: Afghanistan

President Obama witnesses return of the bodies of soldiers who died at war

In late October 2009, President Obama flew to a military air base in Dover, Delaware, to witness the return of 18 Americans who had died in Afghanistan.  President Obama noted that the experience was a "a sobering reminder" of the human toll exacted by war.  His predecessor, George W. Bush, never met the return of American servicemen and servicewomen returning from war at Dover.  In fact, the Bush administration barred such events from being publicized.

Asia: Afghanistan

Taliban militants target United Nations staffers in attack

In late October 2009, Taliban militants in Afghanistan killed six United Nations foreign staff during an attack on an international guest-house in the capital city of Kabul.  The incident raised  questions about if there was adequate security in that country ahead of the second round of the presidential election, scheduled to take place on Nov. 7, 2009.  It was the second attack on the United Nations in 2009, and certainly, the more deadly of the two.  

Asia: Pakistan

More than 105 killed in attack in Peshawar; Clinton criticizes Pakistan for not doing enough to target al-Qaida

In late October 2009, a car bomb in the north-western Pakistani city of Peshawar left an extensive death toll of more than 105 people killed.  At least 200 people were also wounded in the attack.  Because the suicide attack affected a busy marketplace located in a congested square between Meena Bazaar and Koochi Bazaar, women and children were among the majority of the casualties. 

The attack occurred as the Pakistani military was carrying out a fresh offensive against Islamic extremist militants in the tribal regions of South Waziristan. It also coincided with a visit from United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The United States' top diplomat condemned the attack, characterizing it as "vicious and brutal," and saying that the United States was "standing with" Pakistan.  At the same time, she excoriated the Pakistani government for not doing enough to target al-Qaida militants functioning in Pakistani territory.

In a bizarre twist, the Taliban denied responsibility for the attack and, instead, tried to point toward culpability by the United States and Pakistani authorities.  In an interview with the BBC, Hakimullah Mehsud, the new head of the Pakistani Taliban, said that this attack was likely planned  by joint American and Pakistani intelligence agencies in order "to malign the name of the Taliban."  He insisted that his group had the ability to target high value official targets and had no reason to kill civilians.  To that end, Hakimullah Mehsud said,  "If we are able to attack sensitive installations... as well as the [army] General Headquarters, then why would we need to attack ordinary people?"

Asia: Pakistan

Pakistani military targets strategic locations and Uzbek stronghold during offensive

In the third week of October 2009, Pakistani military forces launched an offensive operation into Islamic militant strongholds of South Waziristan.  Pakistan's Taliban and al-Qaida enclaves have operated from the tribal areas in this region and, indeed, the military's offensive operation was launched partially in response to a spate of attacks by Taliban and al-Qaida extremists on targets across Pakistan.  Those attacks, which have left hundreds of people dead, have contributed to a devolving security situation in nuclear-armed Pakistan, which is currently led by a fragile Western-backed government.

A week later, Pakistani forces made gains in their offensive against the Taliban in the tribal area of South Waziristan along the Afghan-Pak border. Pakistani forces had seen success in their efforts to take control over the town of Kotkai, which was regarded as the symbolic heartland of the Taliban in Pakistan and the home of Pakistani Taliban leader Hakeemullah Mehsud.  Of course, on the other side of the equation, the Taliban claimed it was holding steady with control over Kotkai.

By the end of October 2009, Pakistani military officials said their efforts were centered around Jandola, but that they were moving onto the Sararogha plains as  troops advanced deeper into the militants' strongholds in South Waziristan.  Another significant target was a key stronghold of Uzbek fighters. Of key importance, as well, were the routes connecting South Waziristan and North Waziristan, which have been used by extremist Islamic militants as both access and escape points.

There has been some criticism of the military offensive, with some locals noting that even if the Pakistani troops appeared to gain ground on one day, the militants could simply lay low and resurge later.  Also of concern has been the fact that with pressure on the militant stronghold,  fighters could well splinter into smaller enclaves and, accordingly, abandon coordinated attacks in favor of guerilla tactics


Asia: Pakistan

Editor's Update (after publication date)--

Please note that at the start of November 2009, Pakistani forces carrying out an offensive in South Waziristan captured the Taliban stronghold of Kaniguram.  Meanwhile, Pakistan continued to be wracked by violence, as evidenced by a suicide bombing  in the town of Rawalpindi.  The blast,  which ensued outside a bank in the garrison town located close to Lahore,  killed at least 35 people.


Asia: North Korea; China

China invites North Korean leader for visit at a time when multilateral talks could be re-opened

At a time when North Korea indicated a willingness to return to the negotiating table for multilateral talks on its nuclear program, China extended an overture of goodwill.  Indeed, Chinese President Hu Jintao invited his  North Korean counterpart,  Kim Jong-il,  for a visit.  The invitation was offered when a North Korean official was in China for a meeting, intended to strengthen ties between the two countries and mark their six decade-long alliance.  It was believed that North Korea was in the mood to reach out to the wider international community and was looking to re-open dormant nuclear talks.

Middle East: Israel
Americas: United States

Editor's Update (after publication date)--

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the Middle East to pursue peace talks between Israel and Arab states over the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.   Arab leaders were reported to have been disappointed that the United States' top diplomat  did not pressure the Netanyahu government in Israel more over its settlement activity.  But Secretary of State Clinton explained the United States' position saying, "The Israelis have responded to the call of the U.S., the Palestinians and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a willingness to restrain settlement activity. This offer falls far short of what our preference would be but if it is acted upon it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth."   Secretary of  State Clinton also acknowledged that the Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas for taking  "positive steps"  to improve security in the West Bank.


Middle East: Iraq
Americas: United States

Just as the United States cancels deployment to Iraq, al-Qaida launches major attack on Baghdad

On Oct. 19, 2009, United States defense officials said that they would cancel the expected deployment of 3,500 soldiers to Iraq as a result of the improving security situation in that country. Those soldiers were set to deploy to Iraq at the start of 2010 but, based on the assessment by General Raymond Odierno, the Pentagon said that Iraqi security forces should be able to protect their citizens and institutions without the addition of the United States troops.

Ironically, this announcement came a week before suicide bombings in Baghdad left more than 150 people dead and another 500 people wounded. The attacks on Oct. 25, 2009, were carried out by suicide bombers who detonated a truck bomb at a busy intersection  and a car bomb in a parking area. The attacks appeared to be coordinated and targeted the Justice Ministry, the headquarters of the provincial government, as well as local government ministries.  It was the worst violence in a single day in the Iraqi capital city  since April 2007 when close to 200 people died in truck bombings in Baghdad.

For his part, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki placed the blame on the terror enclave al-Qaida, as well as loyalists of former president Saddam Hussein.  He said,  "These cowardly terrorist attacks must not affect the determination of the Iraqi people to continue their struggle against the remnants of the dismantled regime and al-Qaeda terrorists."

Iran's foreign ministry said the attacks "aim to wreck stability and the process of reinforcing democratic structures."  The attacks appeared to be part of the increased violence plaguing the country ahead of democratic elections set for early 2010.  Indeed, the bombs exploded just as senior politicians were meeting to try to resolve a standoff on laws related to those election.

The rising tide of violence was also linked with the anticipated withdrawal of United State combat troops from Iraq in 2010, with a full withdrawal in 2012.  In a statement, United States President Barack Obama  said: "I strongly condemn these outrageous attacks on the Iraqi people, and send my deepest condolences to those who have lost loved ones.  The American president expressed outrage over the attacks, saying, "These bombings serve no purpose other than the murder of innocent men, women and children, and they only reveal the hateful and destructive agenda of those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that they deserve."
 

Middle East: Iran

Iran allows inspection at Qom nuclear facility; indicates cooperation on uranium processing compromise

On Oct. 1, 2009, Iran said it would soon open its Qom plant for inspection in a move that averted an immediate global confrontation. In an interview with the BBC, the foreign policy head of the European bloc, Javier Solana, asserted: "Iran has told us that it is plans to co-operate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency on the new enrichment facility near Qom, and will invite experts from the agency to visit soon, we expect in the next couple of weeks."  In fact, the IAEA acknowledged that its inspectors would visit the nuclear site at Qom on Oct. 25, 2009. The head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, said, "I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and co-operation. I continue, of course, to call on Iran to be as transparent as possible."  Indeed, as scheduled, a team of IAEA inspectors carried out its inspection at the facility close to Qom. Details related to the visit were not disclosed. While this procedure signaled Iranian cooperation, a report by the Washington Post indicated that senior United States officials believed that the nuclear plant was emblematic of Iran's desire to weaponize.

Iran also agreed, in principle, to a plan to transport some of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for reprocessing outside Iran's borders. The plan would involve enrichment in Russia and  the fabrication of fuel assemblies in France. This LEU would be used in an IAEA-monitored research reactor producing medical isotopes, and would serve medical research purposes, while also reducing Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium.  The evident benefit would be that Iran's LEU could no longer be enriched to the point that it could facilitate weaponization. Stated another way, Iran's nuclear breakout capabilities would be curtailed. A follow-up meeting between officials from Iran, the United States, France and Russia was scheduled for Oct. 19, 2009, in Vienna to discuss the particulars of this plan for the Tehran Research.  By late October 2009, despite missing a deadline to respond to a compromise plan advanced by the United Nations, Iran's foreign ministry indicated a willingness to move forward with a plan to send its enriched uranium to Russia and France for reprocessing. The IAEA confirmed that Iran did eventually submit a reply, the details of which were reported to have included significant changes ensconced within the original deal.

These moves have been cast as part of the "freeze-freeze" package of incentives by the West, whereby a halt on Iran's centrifuges could well result in a withdrawal of sanctions.  Augmenting this proposal were President Obama's assurances that he would stand by a 2008 package of incentives that included security commitments to Iran.  It was yet to be seen if Iran would agree totally to the "freeze-freeze" proposal. Indeed,  Iran has not yet agreed to completely halt its nuclear enrichment activities, and this shift in direction by Iran toward cooperation remained in the genesis stages.

 
Africa: Somalia

UN envoy casts assassination attempts on Somali president by radical Islamists as anti-Islamic

On Oct. 22, 2009, more than 30 people died  and 70 were injured in Mogadishu during shelling between Islamic militants and troops from the African Union Mission.  Most of the casualties were noted at the Bakara market. Reports from the ground indicated that  the shelling began close to the international airport of Aden Adde -- an African Union troop base --  after joint government and African Union troops blocked a major highway in Mogadishu.  The move was made in order to protect Somali President Sharif Sheik Ahmed, who was headed to the airport to travel to Uganda to attend the African Summit.  The incident was later identified as an attempted assassination attempt on the president. Less than a week later, another attack on the president was attempted as he returned to Mogadishu.

The leading United Nations envoy for Somalia condemned those responsible for the assassination attempts on the life of President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.  United Nations Special Representative for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, excoriated extremist Islamists for  terrorizing the Somali people.  He condemned them for resorting to political assassinations and the killing of innocent civilians -- including women and children -- in a bid to gain power, and warned that such a path was anti-Islamic. 

 
Africa: Guinea

African Union enacts sanctions and ECOWAS institutes arms embargo on Guinea

In the third week of October 2009, United Nations Assistant Secretary General Haile Menkerios arrived in Guinea   to investigate the events that occurred on Sept. 28, 2009, when Guinean soldiers opened fire on the protesters and carried out other deliberate acts of brutal violence, such as beating and raping women in the crowd.  Around this time, the African Union's top security organ, the Peace and Security Council (PSC), decided to institute sanctions against Guinean junta leader, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara.  Other senior leaders of his regime would also be subject to such sanctions.  The PSC condemned the killings and other deliberate acts of violence on unarmed civilian protestors by the military, and it made clear that Camara and members of his regime should remove themselves from consideration in forthcoming elections.  Meanwhile, West African leaders were set to discuss the situation in Guinea during an emergency Summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Subsequently, ECOWAS accused Guinea's military ruler of "mass human rights violations" in regards to the brutal attack on protestors, and announced that it would institute an arms embargo on Guinea as a response.  By Oct. 19, 2009, the African Union said it was backing ECOWAS' arms embargo.

Africa: Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone's tribunal sentences three former rebels for war crimes

On Oct. 26, 2009, the United Nations-backed tribunal sentenced three former rebel leaders for a combined 117 years to  prison for war crimes in Sierra Leone.  Earlier in  2009, Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao -- the leaders of the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF)in Sierra Leone -- were convicted of war crimes by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.  In April 2009, they were also sentenced by the war crimes tribunal for  killings, rapes and mutilations committed over a ten year period.

Editor's Note:

The war in Sierra Leone lasted more than a decade and was marked by  the rebel Revolutionary United Front's (RUF's) campaign of brutality and bloodshed that left tens of thousands dead (between 50,000 and 120,000 according to most estimates), even more maimed, and more than 1.5 million people displaced. The conflict also gained world attention because of the RUF's practice of abducting youth to be child soldiers, its use of female sex slaves, its culpability in mass rape, murder and mutilation, as well as the clandestine sale of conflict or "blood" diamonds to fund the civil war.   International human rights organizations have noted that the atrocities committed by the rebel forces in Sierra Leone during the civil war were among the most vicious violations of human rights in the world. Former Liberian leader, Charles Taylor,  was accused of supporting the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels from across the border, thus advancing the rebels' efforts in Sierra Leone.  In June 2006, the United Nations agreed to transfer Taylor from prison in Sierra Leone to The Hague where he has faced trial for crimes against humanity.

Europe: Czech Republic

"Opt-out" measure paves way for Czech ratification of EU treaty

On Oct. 2, 2009, Irish voters voted for a second time on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, which was intended to restructure the European bloc's decision-making process.  In 2005, the European Union moved in the direction of official endorsement of the body's constitution.  Ratification votes against that draft document in various countries (France and Netherlands) placed it in doubt. The new Reform Treaty emerged in 2007,  which was later known as the Lisbon Treaty because it was signed in the Portuguese capital.   It was intended to be the new operational foundation of European Union.   The Lisbon Treaty's fate was placed in doubt in 2008 when Irish voters decisively rejected the accord.  It was hoped that the 2009 vote in Ireland would serve to revitalize the treaty. Such an end was in the offing when the vote counting was complete and it showed that Irish voters had overwhelmingly chosen to approve the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. More than 60 percent of Irish voters cast ballots to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

On Oct. 10, 2009, Poland's president completed his country's ratification of the European Union reform treaty. President Lech Kaczynski signed Poland's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty at a ceremony attended by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and other European Union officials.  At Poland’s presidential palace, Kaczynski said, "I'm deeply convinced that this next great experiment will be a success.”  He continued, "Within the framework of cooperation among sovereign states, we will achieve even better results — in the interest of individual states, in the interest of Europe as a whole and in the interest of the world.”  Poland's parliament approved the treaty in 2008, however, the ratification process was not complete without the president’s signature.

To come into force, the reform treaty must be ratified by all 27 European Union countries.  With Ireland and Poland now completing this process, only the Czech Republic was left to comply.  Both houses of the Czech parliament had approved ratification and awaited the signature of President Vaclav Klaus.  But the Czech president‘s signature was not something that would be easily garnered given Klaus‘ reputation as an European Union skeptic and strong opponent of the Lisbon Treaty.  Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country held the European Union’s rotating  presidency, called on Klaus to complete the ratification process so that the treaty could go into force on Jan. 1, 2010.  Reinfeldt said, "Europe eagerly awaits this to happen. We do not need more delays." 

But more delays were in the offing with the Czech president saying he would wait  for a ruling from the Czech  Constitutional Court on a challenge from 17 senators challenging certain portions of the treaty. In addition, the Czech president said that he wanted a new condition  to the Lisbon Treaty before signing it.  According to reports from the Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt , President Klaus requested a footnote linked to the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights.  Such a request amounted to something of a bombshell since no one was aware that the Czech leader would ask for such a measure to be taken.

In an interview with Reuters, Reinfeldt said of his discussion with Klaus, "I told him this is the wrong message at the wrong time for the EU. I told him clearly it is his ink on the paper that counts and I don't want this to delay the treaty going through as soon as possible.”

By the close of October 2009, European Union leaders agreed to grant the Czechs an "opt-out" provision from the European body's Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the type similar to those already granted to the United Kingdom and Poland. Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer said that Czech President Vaclav Klaus was satisfied with this measure, effectively paving the way for ratification. Nevertheless, the Czech Constitutional Court was yet to decide whether the treaty was harmonious with the Czech constitution.

Americas: United States
 
House and Senate move toward health care reform with presentation of conference legislation

On Oct. 26, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid presented the conference version of health care reform legislation.  He announced that the health care legislation headed to the Senate floor  would include an option for government-run health insurance.

In a bid to satisfy centrist Democrats and those from conservative states, this public option would contain an "opt out" provision, which had been crafted by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York.  To this end, Majority Leader Reid, said: "As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators Baucus and Dodd, that the best way forward is to include a public option with an "opt-out" provision for states." Accordingly, states would have one year to decide for themselves whether or not to "opt out" of the government-run health care program. Addressing his decision to include the controversial public health option, Majority Leader Reid explained that polling data showed widespread and increasing support for the government's role in providing affordable health care to citizens, as advocated by President Obama and most Democrats in Congress. He noted that while the inclusion of this provision was no "silver bullet" in the health care reform effort,  people nonetheless wanted the public option and it was key to providing competition.

Attention focused on the fact that while the bill included both the public option and co-operatives, the "trigger" option was conspicuously absent from the legislation. The "trigger" was  an idea championed by Senator Snowe and would allow the public option to be go into effect only if there was insufficient competition at the systemic level without it.  That was the only version of a public option that Senator Snowe favored, however, it was strongly resisted by several Democrats in both chambers who characterized it as ineffectual reform to the system.  The inclusion of the "opt-out" provision vis a vis the "trigger" indicated that the Democrats were willing to fight for strong health care reform even if it alienated the few moderate Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Reid noted he was sending the legislation to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring.  Ideally, he was hoping that the result would show that it was within the financial parameters set forth by the president to avoid adding to the deficit while saving the health care system money over the long haul.

Final health care reform legislation  was not expected to garner support from Republicans and could still run afoul  with centrist Democrats in the Senate.  Indeed, every Democratic vote in the Senate --including the two votes from the Independents that caucus with the Democrats -- would be needed to move the legislative process along by voting for cloture (closing off debate and moving toward the vote), even if they ultimately voted against the final bill.  To that end, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman was already signaling that he might not vote for cloture to advance the Senate bill, a move that could single-handedly derail health care reform.  In this way, the final health care debate was likely to set up a massive and high stakes ideological battle.

A week later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- a Democrat from California -- released a health care reform bill, which also included a government-run insurance plan and was touted to provide almost-universal coverage. 

The legislation combined three health care bills from various committees and was paid for partially via the imposition of a tax on the wealthiest Americans.  Democrats said that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that its version of health care reform  would cost $894 billion over 10 years, and therefore, be below President Barack Obama's target of $900 billion, while also reducing the deficit over that 10-year period.

Speaking during an unveiling ceremony that took place on the steps of the United States Capitol, Pelosi said, "The bill is fiscally sound, will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system."

The government-run public insurance option would entail reimbursement rates to be negotiated with both doctors and hospitals. This measure was regarded as a blow to House liberals who were looking for a more strengthened hand by the government in competing with private  insurers.  To that end, there were insufficient votes to gain support for a government-run plan using lower rates pegged to Medicare.

Note: After passage through the upper and lower chambers, both versions of legislation would  ultimately have to be reconciled.  

Government and Politics

Europe: Germany

Merkel re-elected as chancellor in internal parliamentary vote

On Oct. 28, 2009,  Germany's parliament re-elected Angela Merkel as German Chancellor at the helm of the ruling conservative coalition government for another four-year term.  The vote in the 622-member lower house of the German parliament, or Bundestag, gave   Merkel  323 votes. Following the vote, Merkel and her 16-member cabinet composed of Christian Democrats (CDU), Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) and pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) were sworn into office.  On policy, Merkel's government would offer tax cuts valued at 24 billion euros (36 billion U.S. dollars) -- an amount larger bigger than she had promised during the election campaign -- as a concession to her coalition partner, the FDP. Other policies of the new coalition government included increased education spending, health care funding reform, and reduced compulsory military service.  Chancellor Merkel also said that her priority would be to guide Germany through the global economic crisis.

Europe: Greece

Greek president accepts second term offered by newly-elected PM

Following the snap parliamentary elections held on Oct. 4, 2009, it was clear that Greece's Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) were victorious.  Outgoing Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis conceded defeat, resigned as leader of the  conservative New Democracy party,  and congratulated Socialist leader George Papandreou. In this way, the Socialists ended their five-year stay in opposition and prepared to take the reins of government once again. Days after the election, Socialist leader,  was sworn into office as Greece's new prime minister.  Weeks later, the incumbent Greek President Karolos Papoulias was asked by newly-elected  Prime Minister George Papandreou to serve a second term as Greece's head of state.  In response, Papoulias said, "I accept the nomination for my re-election to the Presidency of Greece."  With both the ruling PASOK party and the main opposition New Democracy party backing Papoulias' second term, the actual parliamentary vote in March 2010 was expected to formalize the second term in office.

 
Central Asia: Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyz government resigns over President Kurmanbek Bakiyev's government reform plan
 
On Oct. 20, 2009, the government of Kyrgyz Prime Minister Igor Chudinov resigned after President Kurmanbek  Bakiyev presented his government reform plan.  To that end, Bakiyev announced the restructuring  of the country's government, which he said would save the country money. The restructuring exercise forced  the resignation of the Chudinov government and President Bakiyev signed a decree on the resignation, essentially formalizing the move. Bakiyev's Ak Zhol party then nominated presidential chief of staff, Daniyar Usenov, to lead a new government. The restructuring program has been criticized by the opposition, who have charged that it would serve only to consolidate presidential power. 

Asia: Mongolia

Mongolian PM resigns citing health reasons

On Oct. 26, 2009, Mongolian Prime Minister Sanjaa Bayar  tendered his resignation.  In a letter sent to the country's parliament, called the Great Hural, he explained that he was taking this action for health reasons.  Reports have suggested that Bayar has battled liver problems and has, in the past, sought treatment in South Korea. His decision to resign from office came a week after he  was hospitalized in the Mongolian capital of Ulan Bator. Damdingiin Demberel, Speaker of the State Great Hural,  said that a meeting would be held to discuss whether or not to approve the prime minister's decision to resign from office. Two days later, the Mongolian parliament accepted Prime Minister Sanjaa Bayar's resignation during an irregular plenary meeting in which Bayar expressed his regret that he could not continue his duties as prime minister. The parliament then selected First Vice Prime Minister N. Altankhuyag for the task of temporarily carrying out the duties of prime minister until a new head of government could be appointed.  To that end, Sukhbaataryn Batbold, the country's current foreign minister, was soon chosen for the role of prime minister.
 

Americas: Haiti

PM  Pierre-Louis removed by Senate citing failure to improve the lives of citizens

In late October 2009, the Haitian Senate removed Prime Minister Michele Pierre-Louis from office, on the basis of the claim that since coming to office,  she had failed to improve the lives of citizens. For her part, Pierre-Louis dismissed claims that she was unable to effectively use the  oil discount agreement with Venezuela to improve the country's infrastructure.  With the United Nations peacekeeping mission calling for the swift naming of a replacement to outgoing Prime Minister Pierre-Louis, in order to avoid political and economic instability,  President Rene Preval then named Planning and Cooperation Minister Jean Max Bellervie as the new prime minister. Bellerive  would still have to be approved by both chambers of parliament -- the Senate and Chamber of Deputies.  In the past, this approval process has been fraught with problems. 

Pacific: Fiji

New  president confirmed in Fiji

Fiji's President Ratu Josefa Iloilo was set to retire from office at the end of July 2009.  The news of the president's retirement was announced by  Prime Minister Bainimarama at a press conference and came  after a visit with  Ratu Josefa Iloilo at the Government House.   Bainimarama paid tribute to  Iloilo's tenure as president and his decision to step down from office, characterizing the move as, "the symbolic passing of the torch from a statesman who has made a tremendous contribution to the nation and to the lives of all Fijians."

Bainimarama said  that Iloilo would be temporarily replaced by Vice President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, but a permanent choice for the new president would be made by Fiji's cabinet at some point in the future.   Iloilo was appointed in December 2000 by the Great Council of Chiefs to the presidency.  He served in the capacity of head of state since that time, with the exception of  a brief period from Dec. 5, 2006, to Jan. 4, 2007, when Bainimara held presidential powers.

In October 2009, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau -- Fiji's former military commander and parliamentary speaker -- was confirmed as the country's new president. Nailatikau was expected to be sworn into office in November 2009.

Elections Update

Asia: Afghanistan
See also Americas: United States

Opposition candidate withdraws from election; incumbent Karzai declared as winner of Afghan election

On Oct. 21, 2009, President Hamid Karzai begrudgingly indicated acceptance of a presidential runoff.  The decision to accept a second round on Nov. 7, 2009, came amidst a rising clamor to establish a credible government in Afghanistan and amidst claims that the first round was mire by fraud.

The Obama administration in the United States, which has been weighing whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, made clear that there would be no action pending the establishment of a legitimate government.  In an interview with CNN, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said it would be "reckless" to make such a decision without  thoroughly determining whether or not the government at the helm of Afghanistan was legitimate.  This view was interpreted as tacit sanction for a second round in the presidential race, with an eye on removing doubts about who was the true winner of the election.

Meanwhile, some controversy was brewing over the call for the firing of the head of Afghanistan's electoral body.  President Hamid Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, was demanding that Afghanistan's chief election official be sacked, ahead of the run-off vote set for Nov. 7, 2009.  Abdullah Abdullah  explained his demand saying, "One of the conditions for having fair voting in the second round is sacking Mr. Azizullah Ludin the chief of the so-called Independent Election Commission (IEC)." 

Then, by Oct. 30, 2009, Abdullah Abdullah indicated that he might withdraw from the run-off election. The move came in the wake of an apparent stalemate in the ongoing talks between the two candidates and their supporters. Apart from the demand that the head of the Karzai-appointed Independent Election Commission be fired, Abdullah Abdullah had also tried to force ministerial changes, and had argued for a power-sharing deal with Karzai instead of a second election round.  However, Karzai emphatically rejected these demands, saying that there would be an election first, and then perhaps, the establishment of a power-sharing agreement.A day later, Abdullah Abdullah made his threat  official and withdrew from the race, saying that an election would not be conducted in a free and fair manner.  The Independent Election Commission (IEC) responded by cancelling the Nov. 7, 2009, run-off election and declaring Karzai to be the winner by default.  IEC spokesman Azizullah Lodin  -- whom Abdullah Abdullah wanted sacked -- said: "We declare Hamid Karzai, which [sic] got the majority of votes in the first round and [since] he is the only candidate for the second round... be declared as elected president of Afghanistan."

These developments were expected to  complicate the decision to be made by United States President Barack Obama on a future Afghanistan policy, given the issue of legitimate and credible governance, discussed above. 

Africa: Botswana

Primer on Elections in Botswana --

General elections were set to be held in Botswana on Oct. 16,  2009.   At stake were the seats in Botswana's parliament; there are in total 61 parliamentary seats, of which 57 are elected using a single-member district constituencies, while the remaining four seats are determined by the  elected parliamentarians.

The main parties contesting the elections were as follows: the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), the Botswana National Front (BNF) and the Botswana Congress Party (BCP). A number of smaller parties were also expected to participate in the elections.

The BDP was expected to field a candidate in each of the 57 constituencies.  Given its record -- as the winner of every election in Botswana since independence -- the BDP was looking for its a 10th consecutive victory.  The BNF, which has had a presence in parliament, was hoping for improved representation. The BCP had allied itself with the Botswana Alliance Movement (BAM) in order to field candidates in 36 constituencies and shore up support for one another across the country.

Opinion polls are limited in Botswana.  One of the few available polls, taken by the University of Botswana and Afrobarometer,  showed that the BDP had a health advantage with 63 percent support, while the BNF was training with 13 percent, and the BCP was in third place with eight percent.  Other parties collectively appeared to be drawing 10 percent. That said, the BDP was not without its own challenges.  There have been internal power struggles, marked particularly by dissonance between  President Khama and Daniel Kwelagobe, the leader of the Barata-Phathi bloc faction within the BDP. This internal power struggle has given rise to questions about the stability of the party.

On election day, voter turnout among registered voters on polling day was just over 75 percent. With the votes counted on election, it was apparent that the limited opinion polls in Botswana were correct. President Ian Khama's Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), which has held onto power since independence from the United Kingdom in 1966, won 46 of 57 constituencies at stake, 78 percent of the vote share, and, therefore, a mandate for  another five years in power.

Editor's Note:

Located in southern African and inhabited by close to two million people, Botswana has gained a reputation as one of Africa's most stable countries.  With a record of relatively corruption-free governance, environmental conservation, and prudent economic management, Botswana has been viewed as Africa's best credit risk.  Diamond production and to a lesser extent, cattle ranching, tourism, and financial services, have been the primary drivers of Botswana's economy, which has seen one of the world's highest growth rates for decades.  Indeed, fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country .  That said, Botswana, like so many African countries, continues to suffer the plague of high HIV/AIDs infection rates.  Botswana has, however, implemented programs aimed at dealing with this scourge.

Africa: Niger

Note on Parliamentary Elections of Niger

Niger was scheduled to hold a parliamentary election  Oct. 20, 2009.  The election date was set in the aftermath of President Mamadou Tandja's decision to dissolve  the National Assembly in May 2009, followed by his June 2009 decision to assume sweeping emergency powers.   President Tandja took this measure in the aftermath of the Constitutional Court's ruling, which made it clear that he could not could not extend his time in office, and that a proposed referendum on the issue would be unlawful.   As well, the country's parliament noted that the removal of term limits would be illegal.  Consequently, President Tandja dissolved both bodies and decided to rule by decree.  In a televised address, the president said he was assuming these special powers "because the independence of the country is threatened."  President Tandja also argued that the will of the people -- presumably via referendum -- should be heard.

The actual will of the people, however, was not a singular  concept shared by all citizens of Niger.  While President Tandja's supporters have lauded him for administering economic growth in the country, thusly making him deserving of more time in power,  protestors -- particularly among the ranks of labor unions and trade unions -- have taken to the streets to register their opposition to the president's plans to remain in power.  Indeed, opposition leaders have urged civil disobedience and mass demonstrations. Meanwhile, some political parties in the country -- including the Democratic and Social Convention, which held ministerial portfolios -- resigned from government. As well, even the country's parliament distanced itself from the president and was rewarded by having its session dissolved. The international community, including international donors, have also decried President Tandja's move to assume broad executive powers.

Nevertheless, the referendum was set to move forward on Aug. 4, 2009, irrespective of the ruling by the Constitutional Court, the finding by parliament, or the rising tide of disapproval.  Indeed, the president asserted that the future of Niger should be decided between the citizens of Niger and him, and he dismissed critics at home in the parliament and the judiciary, as well as abroad.   Interior Minister Albade Abouba said, "The vote will indeed be held. All the votes scheduled for this year will go ahead."  In addition to referendum, early general elections were set for 2009 in Niger.

On Aug. 4, 2009, President Mamadou Tandja endeavored to extend his time in office by holding the aforementioned referendum, aimed at ending presidential term limits.  To the end, the president scored a political victory when the votes were counted.  Niger's electoral commission said that more than 92 percent of voters approved the proposed changes to the constitution, effectively ending presidential term limits and paving the way for Tandja to extend his time in office.   Essentially, Tandja would be able to stand for president indefinitely, and it would be three more years he would have to face new elections.  As well, the prime minister was now charged with coordinating the activities of government ministries and responsible to the president. Under this new system of government (the presidential system), the president has executive powers.

While the referendum result showed that the voters overwhelmingly sanctioned this move, the Party for Democracy and Socialism --an opposition party -- disputed the claims by the electoral commission that more than 60 percent of the electorate participated in the referendum; instead it said that less than five percent of voters took part in the poll.

Meanwhile, regardless of the referendum result, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has not looked kindly on the situation in Niger, and has warned of sanctions against the country if such radical constitutional changes were made. Indeed, ECOWAS soon decided to suspend Niger from its body.  Likewise, the European Union has said it would suspend aid to Niger in response to what it has characterized as "grave violations" of the rule of law and democratic values.

With election day approaching, the opposition had made it clear that it would be boycotting the vote.  But on the other side of the equation,  President Tandja urged voters to go to the polls and participate in a massive turnout. The election campaign was set to begin on Sept. 28, 2009, and continue until Oct. 18, 2009. Although approximately 20 parties were participating in the election, the opposition boycott meant that most of the parties and blocs contesting the election would be either supportive of President Tandja or allied with his party, the National Movement for the Development of   Society. Ultimately,  voter turnout was said to be low but Niger's ruling party won 70 of the 113 seats at stake.

North Africa/Mahgreb: Tunisia

Primer on Presidential and Parliamentary Elections of Tunisia

Note that Oct. 25, 2009, was the date set for Tunisia's new presidential and parliamentary elections.  Four candidates were expected to contest  the presidential election. Incumbent President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali  of the Constitutional Democratic Rally was hoping for yet another term in office.  He was eligible in the aftermath of an amendment to the constitution in 2004, which  permitted his candidacy.  The president campaigned on the basis of his economic stewardship, manifest in the country's large middle class, as well as his administration over the country's political reform and more moderate laws, as compared with other Muslim countries. The other candidates were Ahmed Ibrahim of Movement Ettajdid,  Mohamed Bouchiha  of Party of People's Unity, and  Ahmed Inoubli of Unionist Democratic Union.

At the parliamentary level, some of the main parties and party lists contesting the election included:  Constitutional Democratic Rally, Movement Ettajdid, Party of People's Unity and Unionist Democratic Union.  Candidates from the parties and party lists were reported to be in the full swing of the campaign in the months leading up to the election. According to Tunisia Online, they were visiting voters in the field, erecting posters and distributing their electoral manifestos.
 
Ahead of the elections, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali promised that the elections would be held in a transparent and democratic manner.  He also said that he expected to elections to be monitored by international independent observers.   Despite these assurances about the free and fair conduct of the elections, there have been some concerns about constraints on media freedom as well as limits on  freedoms of expression and assembly.  Such a climate was not helpful to opposition parties  and presidential candidates.

By Oct. 26, 2009, it was announced by the Interior Ministry that Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali had advanced a strong lead over the other candidates. Subsequently,  the Interior Ministry showed that Ben Ali won the election by garnering 89.62 percent of the vote, and thus, had secured a fifth term in office after two decades in power. Meanwhile,  Mohamed Bouchiha, General Secretary of People's Unity Party, Ahmed Inoubli, the candidate of Unionist Democratic Union, and Ahmed Brahim, the leader of the Ettajdid movement, secured five percent, 3.8 percent, and 1.57 percent respectively.

At the parliamentary level, the ruling Constitutional Democratic Rally won  161 seats of the 214 seats at stake. The remaining 53 seats were shared by six of the eight opposition parties.

 
Americas: Uruguay

Primer on General Elections in Uruguay

General elections to elect a president and members of parliament were set to take place in Uruguay on Oct. 25, 2009. Months earlier in late June 2009, primary elections took place to elect the main contenders for the presidential race.  The Frente Amplio (Broad Front) coalition, which includes Socialists, Communists and former Tupamaro guerrillas, was looking to repeat its success in the 2004 presidential election when  Tabaré Ramón Vazquez Rosas won victory.  In 2009, José Mujica was the primary winner and was therefore set to represent Broad Front in the presidential election.  Mujica would contest the election with the National Party's  Luis Alberto Lacalle, Colorado Party's Pedro Bordaberry, Independent Party's  Pablo  Mieres and  Popular Assembly's Raúl Rodríguez. Ahead of the presidential race, José Mujica and Luis Alberto Lacalle were  regarded as the favorites  with both pulling support from the left-wing and right-wing bases respectively, and fighting for  the centrist and moderate votes.

At the parliamentary level, Broad Front was, again, looking to repeat its success from 2004 with a victory in the legislative branch of government.  The National Party was looking to improve its performance from 2004 when it gained the second largest bloc of parliamentary seats. The Colorado Party was hoping to motivate voters so as to enjoy a better performance from 2004.  The Independence Party was expected to be a wild card, while the newly-established  far left Popular Assembly was not expected to garner significant support.

Former left-wing guerrilla, Senator Jose Mujica, had a clear lead of 47.5 percent, albeit not enough to claim a 50 percent majority needed to avoid a run-off vote.  Senator Mujica would, therefore, face a conservative rival -- former president Luis Alberto Lacalle -- in a second election round set for November 29, 2009.

At the parliamentary level, the governing left-wing coalition appeared to have won a parliamentary majority, and thus, another  power mandate.   Frente Amplio (Broad Front) coalition won 16 of the 30 senatorial races and 50 of the 99 seats in the lower house.

Africa: Mozambique

Note on presidential and parliamentary elections in Mozambique

Presidential and parliamentary elections in Mozambique took place on Oct. 28, 2009.  The main parties contesting the election were the ruling party, Frelimo, and  the main opposition party, Renamo.  One day after the elections, which reports indicated were marked by healthy voter turnout, preliminary results suggested that Mozambique's ruling Frelimo Party was likely to garner a landslide victory.  Incumbent president Armando Guebuz was expected to win re-election with around 70 percent of the vote. The main fight was for the second highest vote getter, who would occupy the role of opposition leader.  At the parliamentary level, Frelimo appeared to be in the lead in every district across the country and was expected to carry a similarly high voting advantage as in the presidential race.

Current and forthcoming elections of 2009 include -

Oct. 16, 2009: Botswana's parliamentary elections
Oct. 20, 2009: Niger's parliamentary elections
Oct. 25,  2009: Tunisia's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct. 25, 2009: Uruguay's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct. 28, 2009: Mozambique presidential and parliamentary elections
Nov. 22, 2009: Romania's presidential election (first round)
Nov. 27, 2009: Namibia's presidential and parliamentary elections
Nov. 29, 2009: Uruguay's presidential election (second round)
Nov. 29, 2009: Presidential election in Cote d'Ivoire
Nov. 29, 2009: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Honduras (may not be recognized by OAS; dependent on San Jose deal aimed at ending political crisis)
Dec. 6, 2009: Bolivia's presidential and parliamentary elections
Dec. 6, 2009: Romania's presidential election (second round)
Dec. 13, 2009: Chile's presidential and parliamentary elections
Dec. 27,  2009: Uzbekistan general elections
Dec. 27, 2009: Croatian presidential election (first round)
Jan. 10, 2010: Croatian presidential election (second round)
Jan. 16, 2010: Iraq's parliamentary elections
Jan. 17, 2010; Ukraine's presidential election (first round)
Jan. 31, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (first round)
Feb. 28, 2010: Croatia's presidential election
February 2010: Costa Rica's parliamentary and presidential elections
February 2010: Greece's presidential election
February 2010: Sudan's parliamentary and presidential elections
February 2010: Tajikistan's parliamentary elections
March 16, 2010: Guinea's parliamentary elections
March 2010: Colombia's parliamentary elections
March 2010: Greece's presidential election
April 2010: Austria's presidential election
April 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections
April 2010: Italy's parliamentary elections
April 2010: Solomon Islands parliamentary elections
May 2010: Colombia's presidential election
May 2010: Suriname's parliamentary elections
May 2010: Dominican Republic's parliamentary elections
May 2010: Philippines' parliamentary and presidential elections
May 2010: United Kingdom's parliamentary elections
June 2010: Parliamentary elections in Czech Republic
June 2010: Hungary's presidential election
June 2010: Slovakia's parliamentary elections

Note also --

-Presidential election originally set for September 2009 in Angola has been postponed
-Second round of Afghan presidential election set or Nov. 7, 2009 was cancelled
-Presidential election in Niger set for Nov. 14 and Dec. 6, 2009 has been cancelled
-Presidential election in Madagascar set for December 2009 has been postponed
-Limited information available about Saint Kitts and Nevis 2009 parliamentary elections
-Legislative elections set for 2009  in Comoros have been repeatedly postponed
-Presidential election set for 2010 in Comoros has been postponed
-Presidential election expected in Moldova although no date specified due to appointment of acting president
-Parliamentary elections in Canada are possible
-No dates available for pending presidential election in Chad
-No date available for elections in Yemen
-Despite international pressure, no date available for anticipated elections in Fiji

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