Has Spain switched gear on the Western Sahara conflict?

By Mustapha Ajbaili

Spain appeared to have switched gear on its long-time policy regarding the Western Sahara conflict when it called Tuesday for a U.N. committee to evaluate the security situation in the Polisario-controlled refugee camps in Tindouf and probe possible corruption in the distribution of international aid there.

“We have asked the United Nations to send a mission to Algeria to assess the security situation in the camps of Tindouf,” Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez told reporter after talks in Rabat with her Moroccan counterpart Taieb Fassi Fihri, Al Arabiya reported.

The statement by Jimenez came two days after two Spanish aid workers and one Italian were kidnapped by suspected al-Qaeda members in Tindouf, which is under the control of Polisario Front, which seeks the independence of Western Sahara from Morocco. Polisario has been largely supported by Algeria, Spain and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya.

Algeria has reportedly deployed both ground and air forces in an “urgent” operation along its borders with Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Libya to prevent the escape of the kidnappers.

Morocco annexed Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, in 1975 and it has since become the subject of a dispute with the Polisario Front backed by Algeria, where many Sahrawis live in refugee camps.

Morocco has warned several times of suspected cooperation in arms and drug smuggling between al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Polisario Front. Both Algeria and the Polisario have dismissed the Moroccan claims as sheer propaganda. Spain supports the secessionist movement, but often in a way that does not outrage its southern neighbor, Morocco, with which it enjoys strong economic and security ties.

Possible corruption in the distribution of international aid or ties with terror groups or drugs or weapons smuggling networks operating in the Sahara within the refugees camps controlled by the Polisario will likely deal a major blow to the movement’s quest for independence from Morocco.

(Published on English.alarabiya.net on Oct. 25, 2011)

Mustapha Ajbaili: Libyan NTC chief’s ‘liberation’ speech raises eyebrows

By Mustapha Ajbaili

During his speech at Libya’s ‘liberation’ ceremony held in the city of Benghazi on Sunday, the head of the interim National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdul Jalil made a few announcements that must have raised eyebrows among people with hopes for a moderate system that respects basic human rights and democratic governance of the country.

Abdul Jalil began his speech with a religious edict, telling the crowd that firing guns in the air as a way of thanking Allah for victory is Haram, meaning prohibited. He then went on to announce that Libya’s future legal system would be based on Islamic Shariah law, and that banks will be required to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest. But the most seemingly surprising part of the speech is the NTC chief’s announcement of reinstating polygamy. The statement highlighted the importance of polygamy in the new Libya, and Abdul Jalil, an inexperienced politician, evidently did not forget to “liberate” men in Libya’s day of “liberation.”

If Libyan women, who make up more than half of the country’s population, were asked to vote on a polygamy law, most of them would likely oppose it. Polygamy is a practice most Muslim women detest, but remain silent about it for fear they would be accused of going against Shariah.

When Libyans rose up against Muammar Qaddafi and fought eight months of war, with tremendous sacrifices, they did so for the sake of dignity and self-rule. If they want a legal system based on the Islamic Shariah law, they have the right to have it through a democratic process; it should not be imposed on them.

The NTC chairman enjoys wide support in Libya. He was one of the first to desert Qaddafi’s regime when he gave up his post as justice minister and joined revolutionaries in Benghazi. Since then, Abdul Jalil has had “revolutionary legitimacy” to represent Libyans and make urgent decisions on their behalf. In order for him to be able to make decisions on how Libyans should be governed for years to come, he now needs “electoral legitimacy.”

Abdul Jalil’s “liberation” speech should have been a historic one. Instead of reminding Libyans of the lofty principles of democracy, freedom, dignity, and nation-building, he addressed details that should be left for elected lawmakers to discuss.

But it should be noted that Abdul Jalil is an inexperienced politician; and both Libyan and international observers should cut him some slack. He has made some blunders before. 

(Published on English.alarabiya.net on Oct. 24, 2011)

What’s behind division in U.N. Security Council on Syria?

By Mustapha Ajbaili

The often muted rivalry between Russia and China, on one side, and Western powers, on the other, honed into a clash in the United Nations Security Council this week when the eastern powers vetoed what would have been the first legally-binding resolution against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad since the start of the uprising in Syria.

American ambassador to the U.N. Susan E. Rice delivered a combative response to the Russian and Chinese decisions, accusing the two countries of wanting to continue arms sales to Syria at the expense of civilians demanding freedom. “During this season of change, the people of the Middle East can now see clearly which nations have chosen to ignore their calls for democracy and instead prop up desperate, cruel dictators,” Rice said.

The last time Russia and China together vetoed a U.N. council resolution was in 2008 when they opposed proposed sanctions against Zimbabwe. Their latest move reflects serious fears of increased Western influence and domination in the Middle East and highlights Syria's strategic importance between rival world powers.

“Both countries are known for brutal crackdowns on dissent. Both will lose out if the Assad regime goes. Both have military trade and other economic interest with Syria. Both have close relations with Syria's big brother, Iran. Both are hedging their bets that Assad will survive this. Both countries will be shut out of Syria for some time after Assad is ousted,” said Paul Sullivan, professor of economics at National Defense University and an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

Asked why Syria, unlike Libya, turned out to be so divisive in the Security Council, veteran journalist and Professor Emeritus at the American University in Cairo, Abdallah Schleifer, said both countries were concerned “that a U.N. Resolution might provide the justification for a subsequent American or Anglo-American-French intervention in Syria, since the intervention in Libya has turned out to be successful at minimal cost and now America has a positive relationship with the new leaders of Libya.

“Even commanders of the revolutionary Libyan forces with Islamist backgrounds have good words for America, and both Russia and China are rivals for world influence with the Americans-though at present Syria does not resemble Libya,” Schleifer added.

He said that what made U.S. intervention a success story in Libya was that a rebel political authority existed in Benghazi, and not in Istanbul as is the case of the Syrian opposition leadership; this was made possible because there was enough of a cohesive armed rebel force to have liberated Benghazi and that too doesn't exist in Syria.

“A more likely reason is that both Russia and China are nervous about any U.N. interventions, be they peace protests or sanctions since both countries have their own local uprisings in outlying districts to contend with,” Schleifer said.

Russia and China have expressed concern that a more aggressive approach towards Syria will only throw the region into unpredictable turmoil, especially since Syria shares borders with Israel and has strong allies in the region, mainly Hezbollah and Iran. By saying they are afraid of more people being killed if tough measures are taken against Assad, Russia and China sought to coat their stances in a humanitarian perspective, which is essentially what the West has been doing for a long time.

On the surface the difference between the two camps appears to be clear. The West says Assad must be punished because he kills; Russia and China say if he is punished there will be more killings. However, differences on humanitarian issues, as the Syrian one is proclaimed to be, often rarely develop into bitter disputes in the United Nations. Often times, only deeply strategic issues involving major geopolitical and economic interests provoke such bitter rebukes in the United Nations.

(Published on http://english.alarabiya.net/ Oct. 08, 2011)