Dr. Denise Youngblood-Coleman

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

August 2010 Intelligence Briefing:

The "Featured Country" is Israel with special reference to Iran's nuclear program. The section titled, "Foreign Policy In Focus," looks at United States and Iraq.  The section titled, "International Hot Stories," includes coverage of: Iraq, Israel, West Bank,  Gaza,  Pakistan,  Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, France, Mexico and United States.  The "Elections Update" features: Australia, Nepal, Bahrain, Sweden, Brazil, Haiti, Venezuela, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Solomon Islands.  See "Election Central" for more extensive election coverage around the world.

***

Featured Country

Middle East: Israel
See also Middle East: Iran

Special Report: Israel considers its options in response to Iran's nuclear program

Summary --

With  Iran's military and nuclear moves dominating the geopolitical landscape in 2010, there has been increasing analysis about Israel's possible responses.  Indeed, the one country in the Middle East most likely to feel threatened by a nuclearized Iran is Israel, given the clear antipathy expressed by the Iranian regime against the Jewish state of Israel.  Speculation has abounded regarding  the likelihood of Israel carrying out military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, not unlike the 1981 air strike Israel reportedly carried out against Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in Osiraq. That scenario has frequently been touted as a model of preventative military strikes to be used against looming nuclear threats.  See below for the latest developments regarding Iran's provocative moves and analysis about Israel's options to be considered.

Iran's provocative moves --

On August 22, 2010, Iran unveiled its newest addition to its military -- an unmanned bomber jet.  While the Karrar drone was not expected to have a significant impact on the strategic balance of the Middle East, Iran's decision to procure the craft appeared to signify that country's desire to expand its conventional weapons capabilities.  Not one to miss an opportunity to threaten geopolitical antagonists, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was addressing the country's annual Defense Industry Day ceremonies, described the Karrar drone as a "messenger of death for the enemies of humanity."

Only days later, Iran remained in the international spotlight when it announced that it  had successfully test-fired an upgraded version of a short-range surface-to-surface missile.  The new version of the Fateh-110 missile, which translates into "conqueror" in Farsi, has been equipped with a guidance control system known for its accuracy.  As well, its range has been increased as compared with earlier versions.  According to Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, the solid-fuel Fateh-110 missile was developed domestically by Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization and held the potential of striking targets up to 120 miles away.  On Iranian state television, Vahidi said, "Employing a highly accurate guidance and control system has enabled the missile to hit its targets with great precision." The upgraded missile was to transferred to the possession of the Iranian military by September 2010.

While a short-range surface-to-surface missile is not evidence of a nuclear threat, it nonetheless recalls a report issued a year earlier by experts at the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which indicated their belief that Iran could have the ability to manufacture a nuclear bomb.  In that report titled, "Possible Military Dimension of Iran's Nuclear Program," experts intimated that Iran could well be trying to develop a  missile system capable of carrying an atomic warhead.  The document was based on intelligence provided by internal IAEA investigations, external nuclear arms experts, as well as IAEA member states.  Of particular concern in that document were the following three findings by the IAEA:

- Iran worked on the development of an internal chamber of a ballistic missile, which would have the capacity to house a warhead payload described as "quite likely to be nuclear"

- Iran may have engaged in "probable testing" of explosives used to detonate a nuclear warhead; this method is referred to as "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system"

- Iran may have enough technical knowledge to enable the design and production of  an implosion nuclear device (i.e. an atomic bomb) "using highly enriched uranium as the fission fuel"

Moreover, the document concluded that while Iran was not yet capable of attaching nuclear warheads to its Shahab-3 medium-range missile, further research and development could lead to the production of a prototype system.  To that end, the Shahab-3 missile -- with a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) -- would place Israel within striking distance. Clearly, the upgraded Fateh-110 would not have comparable range, however, it was clear that Iran was intent on publicizing its growing military weapons capacity to the outside world.  As was the case in September 2009 when Iran test-fired two short-range missiles -- the Tondar-69 and the earlier incarnation of the Fateh-110 -- followed by the long-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile and the surface-to-surface Sajjil, these unambiguous acts of defiance by Iran in 2010 were sure to raise the ire of the West.

Meanwhile, around the same period (August 2010), Iran announced it would commence building a new uranium enrichment plant in early 2011. The new facility would be only one of 10 new uranium enrichment facilities planned for construction in Iran. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's nuclear program, said in an interview with Iranian state television that "studies on finding locations for the construction of 10 new sites are going through their final stages." He also confirmed that construction would commence on one of these sites "by the end of the current Iranian year (in March 2011), or shortly afterwards."

These moves  have been part of Iran's insistence on pursuing a nuclear program in defiance of Western powers, who have accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons proliferation agenda. While Iran has denied these ambitions and insisted on a program for peaceful purposes, it has nonetheless violated international regulations by constructing a clandestine enrichment plant at Qom.  The construction of the secret enrichment plan in Qom -- revealed in 2009 -- was in violation of the safeguard provisions set forth in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and effectively fueled global anxieties about Iran's true intent. In response, the United Nations, as well as the United States and European Union, have imposed sanctions against Iran in an effort to suppress that country's nuclear ambitions.

On Aug. 20, 2010, Iran launched its first nuclear reactor at the Bushehr nuclear power station in the southern part of the country. The plant, which took 35 years to construct due to a series of delays, was to be operated by Russia. Indeed, Russia was to be responsible for supplying nuclear fuel and removing the nuclear waste. Due to Russian involvement in the project, the opening ceremony of the Bushehr nuclear power station was witnessed by Iranian and Russian officials.

The Iranian government hailed the development as a victory over its enemies. However, because the power plan has taken more than three decades to construct, it was an older model with limited contribution to the national grid. As a result, despite the celebration surrounding the opening of the plant, which would begin producing electricity in four weeks from the launch date, the significance of the Bushehr power station was regarded as more symbolic than substantive. Moreover, the real issue within the international community has not been a matter of nuclear energy production, but fears that Iran seeks to build a nuclear weapon. Accordingly, Iran has been the target of four rounds of United Nations sanctions due to its uranium enrichment program, which was quite separate from this nuclear reactor project. That is to say, whereas the Bushehr nuclear power plant used uranium enriched by 3.5 percent, weapons-grade uranium must be enriched by more than 90 percent.  Throughout, it has been Iran's uranium enrichment activities at levels higher than three percent that have sparked alarm bells across the West.

Nevertheless, as before, Iran appeared intent on defying the international community with the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, saying that his country would continue uranium enrichment. To that end, a serious concern for the international community has been a pilot program to enrich uranium to 20 percent, which Iran contends is necessary for a medical research reactor. Clearly, this higher level of uranium enrichment has been a concern for Western powers more than Bushehr nuclear power station, sparking fears in Israel, which has a particularly hostile relationship with Iran and has suggested the notion of targeted military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israel's options in dealing with Iran's nuclear program --

With  Iran's nuclear moves dominating the geopolitical landscape in 2010, there was increasing speculation about Israel's own alternative options.  Indeed, the one country in the Middle East most likely to feel threatened by a nuclearized Iran was Israel, given the clear antipathy expressed by the Iranian regime against the Jewish state of Israel.  Speculation has abounded that Israel has been considering military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, not unlike the 1981 air strike Israel reportedly carried out against Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in Osiraq. That scenario has frequently been touted as a model of preventative military strikes to be used against looming nuclear threats.

But the landscape in 2010 was quite different from the situation almost three decades ago.  Notably, in 1981, even though Iraq and Iran were embroiled in a war, Israeli F-16 jet fighters encountered little resistance as they carried out their mission. While there was limited anti-aircraft fire, there were no air patrols of surface-to-air missiles to contend with.  Clearly, three decades later, Israel was not likely to have such an easy field of action in Iran.

Then there has been the matter of whether Israel can achieve the same objective in 2010 as it did in 1981.  Almost three decades ago, Israel was able to land such a blow on Iraq's nuclear facility that Saddam Hussein's regime was never able to build nuclear weapons.  As of 2010, there was no such confidence that Iran's nuclear breakout capabilities would be curtailed in similar strikes.  Of significant consideration has been the fact that Iran's multiple nuclear sites are dispersed with some in remote areas and others underground.  The revelation about the clandestine Qom facility only bolsters the belief that there may be other such nuclear facilities across Iran. Indeed, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak acknowledged during a parliamentary meeting that facilities such as the Qom site "cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack."  Accordingly, there is no guarantee that air strikes could do more than setback Iran's nuclear ambitions a year or two.

Nevertheless, there were clear signs that the military option remained on the table, given the Netanyahu government's decisions to increase the defense budget, distribute gas masks to all citizens, and simulate a biological attack.  But there were also signals of Israel's awareness that the military options may not yield optimal results.  Accordingly, Israel has shown support for the notion of sanctions against Iran, although its call for crippling sanctions may not coincide with the new impetus by the international community for targeting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in its sanctions.  The international community, including the Obama administration in the United States, has not been keen to punish the Iranian people for the regime's ills, and has had to balance reticent powers, such as Russia and China, to even entertain the notion of sanctions. Thusly, targeted sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard and clerical elite have gained support. But Israel believes that only crippling, broad-based sanctions will have a sufficiently strong effect to stoke internal fissures, and possibly spur the collapse of the clerical regime.

By August 2010,  around the same period that  Iran   launched a nuclear reactor at Bushehr and announced its plans to start building new uranium enrichment plant in  2011, the government of the United States reportedly tried to assuage Israel on the nuclear threat posed by Iran. According to a report by the New York Times, the Obama administration conveyed evidence to  Israeli counterparts showing that problems within Iran's nuclear program meant that it would take at least a year for that country to actually build a nuclear weapon. That timeline, it was believed, would decrease the possibility that Israel would soon carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Soon," though, has been a relative consideration. According to Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic Monthly, Israel was biding its time to see if the non-military options could yield positive results; however, it was nevertheless prepared to carry out unilateral strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. To that end, Goldberg contended that, at this time,  it was Israel's  belief that strikes against Iran's nuclear sites could halt progress on that country's nuclear development program for several years. That is to say, Israel now held the view that it could strike a blow at the nuclear breakout capability of Iran.

It should be noted that several strikes -- in the plural --would be needed to achieve such an end; among the likely targets would be the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly clandestine enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and the Bushehr reactor.   Undoubtedly, flying multiple jet fighters through foreign air space would present Israel with a constituently complicated proposition.

The logistics of such a military operation by Israel notwithstanding, the cost of such an offensive endeavor might be determined to be too high. Certainly, the likely effects were forecast to be manifold ranging as they do from geopolitical chaos to economic turbulence due to a potentially drastic spike in the price of oil.   Iran and its allies could well retaliate by firing rockets at Israeli cities, which could effectively ignite a regional war.   As well, extremist terrorist enclaves in the region, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, would have an accentuated rallying cry.  The result might be an even more imperiled Israel.

Yet the question of peril has been at the top of Israel's agenda, given the belief that Iran may gain the technological knowledge to construct nuclear bombs within a relatively short period of time.  It may be Israel's calculation that potentially deleterious consequences are worth the effort, given the existential stakes for the Jewish nation state.   Those existential stakes were brought into high relief as a result of the vituperative threats uttered by Iran's leaders that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Worth noting is the fact that a nuclearized Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but to other countries in the Middle East. Indeed, a nuclear-armed Iran would, itself,  have a destabilizing effect across the Middle East, most obviously by potentially triggering a nuclear arms race in the region among other countries not willing to cede power to nuclearized Iran.  But quite in contrast to the arms race of the Cold War, which actually functioned as a deterrent and managed to stabilize the international scene in some "realpolitik" sense, a modern arms race in a region known for suicide bombings could trigger catastrophic results.

For this reason, Israel may find some unlikely allies in its neighborhood in the form of certain powerful Arab countries, such as Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia, which is not keen on the notion  of a nuclearized Shi'a-dominated  Iran in their backyard.  Israel may also find there is a geopolitical benefit to resolving the Palestinian issue, thereby minimizing its field of enemies.   But the very complexity of the Arab backyard may present yet  another reason why Israel may decide that targeted strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities -- regardless of the risk -- are worth the effort.  The smaller Arab states may be compelled to move from moderation and tacit pro-Western inclinations toward more hardline and pro-Iranian stances by virtue of the influence of a nuclearized Iran. That is to say, small Arab states may believe they have no choice but to throw their lot in with a nuclear Iran despite their past cooperation with the West.  It was implausible that Israel -- and, indeed,  the West -- would look positively on the prospect of a politically-strengthened  and nuclearized Iran standing strong in the heart of the Middle East.

***

In Focus

Middle East: Iraq
See also Americas: United States

U.S. ends combat operations in Iraq after seven and a half years

In the early hours of Aug. 19, 2010 (Iraq time) the last major combat brigade of United States forces left Iraq and crossed the border into Kuwait. They were protected from above by Apache helicopters and F-16 fighters, and on the ground by both American military and the very Iraqi armed forces that they helped to train. The exit of the United States forces ensued in a phased basis over the course of several days. The final convoy of the United States Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, was carrying 14,000 United States combat forces in Iraq, according to Richard Engel of NBC/MSNBC News, who was embedded with the brigade. A small number of United States combat troops were yet to depart Iraq, and approximately 50,000 troops would remain in Iraq until the end of 2011 in a support role to train Iraqi forces.  Indeed, by Aug. 24, 2010, less than 50,000 United States troops were reported to be "in country" -- the very lowest level since the start of the war in 2003.

While violence continued in Iraq -- even in the days after the last American combat brigade left Iraq -- it was apparent that the Obama administration in the United States would not be deterred from the schedule for withdrawal,  these fragile and chaotic conditions on the ground in Iraq notwithstanding.  This decision has been a source of consternation among some quarters.  In fact, a top military official in Iraq has questioned the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq, warning that local security forces were not able to handle the security challenges on their own for at least a decade. Echoing a similar tone, military officials from the United States said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that it was highly unlikely that Iraqi security forces were capable of maintaining Iraq's fragile stability after the exit of United States troops from Iraq in 2010. Nevertheless, the citizenry in the United States was war-weary and concerned over the costs of war at a time of economic hardship, while President Barack Obama was intent on making good on his promises made while as a candidate and later, as president, to end the war.

The invasion of Iraq -- the defining policy decision of former President W. Bush in 2003 -- resulted in the ousting of former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, from office. The invasion of Iraq was criticized as a violation of international law by many, and condemned as ill-conceived foreign policy by others who argued that Iraq had nothing to do with the terror attacks of 2001, and that Iraq was not home to weapons of mass destruction -- the two expressed reasons for going to war in Iraq, according to the Bush administration. Analysts further warned that the unintended deleterious consequence of the war and the ousting of Saddam Hussein would be ethno-sectarian strife and a strengthened Iran. Of course, on the other side of the equation, the Bush administration insisted on the necessity of the war in the interests of national security. These competing viewpoints notwithstanding, the war in Iraq ultimately left more than 4,400 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.

The withdrawal of the last major combat brigade was regarded with great symbolism as an end to the combat mission of the war in Iraq that has gone on for seven and a half years. It also made clear that President Obama was fulfilling his central campaign promise to end the war in Iraq -- a vow that was reiterated in 2009 when President Obama set the deadline for the end of the combat mission in Iraq as Aug. 31, 2010.  To this end, President Obama was fulfilling this promise even though Iraq was yet to form a new government several months after its parliamentary elections. It should be noted that the withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq was set forth in the Status of Forces agreement signed two years ago. It should also be noted that the Obama administration has emphasized the fact that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq -- even after the withdrawal of all remaining troops from Iraq in 2011. As well, as stated in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Oct. 28, 2009: "No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended ... to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq." That being said, Iraq is home to one of the United States' most significant embassies.

Note that President Obama was scheduled to address the nation on August 31, 2010 regarding the official withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq.  That was the official deadline set by United States President Barack Obama for the exit of combat forces from Iraq and the end to the war, as promised by the president.

***

International Hot Stories

Middle East: Iraq

Dozens of attacks across Iraq kills more than 60

On August 25, 2010, a spate of more than two dozen attacks by bombers and gunmen across Iraq left at least 60 people dead.  The attacks appeared to target security forces -- police officers and soldiers -- sparking suspicions that militant extremist insurgents wanted to intimidate Iraqi forces tasked with keeping the country stable after the exit of United States forces.  An added rationale for the attacks on security forces might reside in the desire to destabilize the country as the political factions struggled to form a government in the aftermath of close parliamentary elections earlier in the year.  Other analysts have suggested a desire by insurgents to translate political chaos into political influence.   As noted by  Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: "Here you have a government paralysis, you have a political vacuum ... you have the U.S. troop withdrawal. "And, in such environment, these terrorist networks flourish."  It should be noted that in recent times, attacks on security forces have increased with August 2010 holding the dubious distinction of being  the deadliest month for police and military in Iraq in two years.   According to a calculation by the Associated Press, approximately 265 security personnel — Iraqi military, police and police recruits, and bodyguards — died  from June through August in 2010; this was a marked increase from  the180 killed in the previous five months.

 
Middle East: Israel; West Bank and Gaza
See also Americas: United States

Israeli and Palestinian officials to resume direct talks

In the third week of August 2010, Israeli and Palestinian officials were set to resume direct negotiations for the first time in 20 months and a decade after the last serious final status talks. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had been invited to Washington on Sept. 2, 2010, for the commencement of the talks.  Both parties agreed to a one-year timeline on the direct negotiations. Speaking from the State Department, Secretary of State Clinton said that the two leaders had been invited by President Barack Obama to come to the United States to "re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year."

Certain core issues -- known as "final status issues -- have continuously caused consternation by both sides, but would be taken up during the forthcoming meetings. These core issues included the status of Jerusalem, the construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories, the borders of a future Palestinian state, as well as the right of return. Analysts have warned that the prospects of an actual deal arising from the talks were unlikely, given the intensity of these contentious differences. Nonetheless, the movement back to the negotiating table was being viewed as productive.

With an eye on keeping the process moving in a productive direction, Secretary of State Clinton said, "It is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it." She continued, "There have been difficulties in the past, there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region."

Also invited to join the talks were the leaders Egypt and Jordan --  two Arab countries with relatively positive ties to Israel. To this end, Secretary of State Clinton said, "President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend, in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success." Also invited to join the meetings was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the special representative of the Middle East Peace Quartet, composed of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations." Excluded from the talks was the Islamic extremist group, Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, the United States envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, noted that if the two sides were unable to make progress, then the United States would be prepared to submit bridging proposals. Before such an end could transpire, there was a sense of cautious hope tinged with reality. Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu acknowledged, "reaching an agreement is a difficult challenge but is possible." Netanyahu's office issued a statement that read: "We are coming to the talks with a genuine desire to reach a peace agreement between the two peoples that will protect Israel's national security interests." Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in an interview with the BBC: "I hope that Mr Netanyahu will be our partner in peace... and we can do it."

Asia: Pakistan

United Nations aid workers at risk of attack by Pakistani Taliban

In late August 2010, the United Nations was reviewing security measures for its aid and humanitarian workers in Pakistan, given the threat of attacks on them from the Pakistani Taliban.  A United States official, who spoke  on condition of anonymity to BBC News, warned that militants from the group, Tehrik-e Taliban, intended to attacks foreign aid workers attempting to deliver supplies to the more than 17 million victims of the catastrophic floods that recently  plagued the country.  The official warned that government officials were also at risk of attack.  It should be noted that Tehrik-e Taliban has been no stranger to attacks on humanitarian workers; in October 2009, the terror group  carried out a suicide attack on the office of the World Food Program in Islamabad, leaving five staffers dead.  According to the Taliban, the presence of  foreign aid workers in Pakistan was deemed "unacceptable"  and Pakistan should not be accepting international aid; these influences were to be viewed as interference by Western powers into the affairs of Pakistan.

Africa: Sudan

Sudanese President Al-Bashir says 2011 independence vote for Southern Sudan will take place on schedule

On Aug. 20, 2010, Sudanese President Omer Al-Bashir asserted that his government would ensure that the independence referendum for Southern Sudan would take place, as scheduled, on Jan. 9, 2011. Following a meeting with the president, the representatives of the United Nations envoy to Sudan, Haile Menkerios, announced that members of the commission established to administer the independence vote were set to travel to Juba, the capital of Southern Sudan, in preparation for the independence referendum.  At issue was the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), which aimed to restore peace and political stability to Sudan.

Africa: Somalia

Somalian members of parliament killed in hotel suicide attack

On August 23, 2010, extremist Islamic militants from the al-Qaida allied group, al-Shabab, carried out an offensive at a hotel located close to the presidential palace in Mogadishu.   The gunmen, who were disguised as soldiers, stormed the Muna hotel, opened fire, and at least one detonated the explosives attached to his body.  More than 30 people died as a result of the brutal attack, including six members of parliament.  The Muna hotel was popular with government officials due to its location in a government-controlled area; a successful attack on this target would therefore be regarded as a success for the extremist Islamic terrorists trying to take control over Somalia, which is already regarded as one of the world's failed states. But al-Shabab's ambitions are not limited only to Somalia, given its successful execution of two deadly bombings in Uganda in July 2010. In the cases of those twin bombings, al-Shabab claimed that it was seeking revenge for Uganda's participation in African Union peacekeeping operations in chaos-ridden Somalia.  Clearly, these recent attacks indicate an increasingly jihadist orientation of the terror enclave, in which attacks do not stop at the national borders.  For its part,  al-Shabab claimed responsibility, noting  that its "special forces" unit had carried out the massacre, which came a day after heavy fighting broke out on Somalia between al-Shabab and government troops.  

Africa: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
 
Mass rapes in DRC; United Nations calls on Congolese government to investigate

On August 25, 2010, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon demanded that the government of the  Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to investigate the gang-raping of more than 150 women and young boys by rebels. According to reports, which were confirmed by a join United Nations human rights  team, rebels from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (the remnant rebel Hutu enclave) and Congolese Mai-Mai occupied the town of Luvungi and its surrounding villages; the rebels then gang-raped between 150 and 200 women as well as some young boys over a period of four days. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed vociferous outrage and called for an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to discuss a response to the horrific violence. For its part, the United Nations said that its peacekeeping forces were unable to prevent the brutal sexual violence because they were unaware of the heinous events taking place.  A spokesperson for the United Nations said that although peacekeepers twice traveled through the area of Luvingi  where the sexual violence ensued, they were only informed that  the rebels were setting up roadblocks. 

Editor's Note

Since the start of 2009, the DRC has been carrying out a military operation against a Hutu militia, known as Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (known in French as Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda and therefore via the acronym FDLR).  The FDLR has been linked with the Hutu extremists who orchestrated the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.  While this operation to repel the Hutu rebels has been regarded as  a success, the rebels targeted by the Congolese army and United Nations forces have killed hundreds of civilians in reprisal attacks.  Women and children have been particularly targeted for murder and systematic rape.  Indeed, the DRC holds the dubious distinction of being the rape capital of the world.

Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) has accused the Hutu rebels of using rape as a weapon  of war in North Kivu of DRC.  As reported by The Nation, the DRC is a country where rape has been clearly cheaper than bullets.  Accordingly, this violent act has become a systematic weapon of war in this conflict-ridden country.  In 2007, United Nations humanitarian head, John Holmes, had said that rape in the DRC had become "almost a cultural phenomenon." By 2009, United States Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at least 200,000 cases of sexual violence were reported in eastern DRC since 1996. Even more disturbing was the Human Rights Watch estimate that more than a quarter of rape victims in DRC are sexually tortured and mutilated during assaults, usually with weapons such as spears, machetes, and guns.  Human rights groups have additionally noted that approximately 40 percent of rape victims in DRC, predominantly aged 8 to 19, are abducted and forced to become sex slaves. This is the pervasive climate of violence and brutality of which United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke during a 2009 trip to DRC.  During that visit, Secretary of State Clinton  characterized those responsible for such violence and brutality as being guilty of crimes against humanity.

Africa: Burundi

Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza inaugurated for another term in office

On August 26, 2010,  Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza was inaugurated for another five-year term in office  in Bujumbura, the country's capital.  During his oath, President Nkurunziza swore to abide by the Unity Charter, the National Constitution and national solidarity. The president promised to work towards peace, human rights and social cohesion, and to guard against genocide and exclusion, which characterized a dark and disturbing chapter of Burundi's modern history. In a speech offered after the swearing-in ceremony,  Pierre Nkurunziza said that his "victory in the election is a victory of every Burundian citizen."  He also reiterated campaign promises to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) to address the ills of the past, while building the infrastructure of the future via  the construction  roads, railways and schools.  Poverty alleviation, decreasing corruption, environmental protection and promotion of tourism were also among his policy agenda items.

Editor's Note:

From the time of independence, the political control of the country has been held by the minority Tutsi elite. In 1993, conflict erupted between the Tutsi-led army and rebel groups from the majority Hutu population. That war was sparked in 1993 when Burundi's first Hutu president and democratically-elected leader, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated. The bloody war left around 300,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands more displaced. A peace process has been underway for several years, culminating in elections intended to usher in a power-sharing government. In 2000, a peace agreement brought an interim government to power. A ceasefire agreement, ratification of a constitution, and elections followed in 2005. Continuing peace talks have led to some positive developments in the process of national reconciliation, however, instability and violence have prevailed to date, making clear the precarious position of the government.  This latest election (as of 2010) was regarded as a stabilizing measure on Burundi's political landscape.

Europe: France

President Sarkozy hardline stance against Roma (Gypsies) and immigrants earns rebuke instead of boost

In late July 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered the expulsion of Roma -- a group of illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe known more colloquially as Gypsies -- and the dismantling of about 300 of their camps. He said that illegal Roma camps illegal Gypsy camps "will be systematically evacuated." The action appeared to have been spurred by a spate of violence between Roma and police earlier in the month, which was rooted in the shooting death of a youth running from police in the Loire Valley. President Sarkozy warned that those responsible for the violent clashes would be "severely punished."

The order from the French president came amidst critics' accusing his government of racism. That criticism was only heightened soon thereafter when President Sarkozy said that French immigration law should be changed to make such expulsions easier, justifying the measure on the basis of "public order." Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux insisted that the moves were not intended "to stigmatize any community, regardless of who they are, but to punish illegal behavior."

Critics noted that the language of "evacuation" and "expulsion" evoked memories of World War II when Roma were rounded up and placed in concentration camps during the Nazi occupation of France. Indeed, across Europe, between 250,000 and 1.5 million Roma were killed; the wide variance in estimates of Roma deaths has been attributed to the clandestine executions and disposal of bodies in mass graves. Fast forward to the present and critics excoriated Sarkozy and the French government for targeting a single ethnic group, while Roma community leaders pointed out that they were never invited for talks with the government to discuss the situation.

By July 30, 2010, tensions increased when President Nicolas Sarkozy said that as part of the "national war on delinquency," he wanted to revoke the French citizenship of immigrants who endanger the lives of police officers. He said, "French nationality should be earned. One must know how to be worthy of it." President Sarkozy also warned that the "rights and benefits" of illegal immigrants would be re-examined. The French president delivered his remarks from Grenoble - the site of recent urban unrest -- suggesting that they were in response to the chaos that erupted there.

However, in the eyes of the French people, President Sarkozy's speech was likely to be juxtaposed with images shown on the Internet of African immigrant squatters, including a pregnant woman and several other women with babies on their backs, being dragged from a housing encampment in a suburb of Paris. While no one was injured in the evacuation operation, Sarkozy's threats set against images described by an international women's group, Family Planning, as "scandalizing," evoked shock across France. That shock only increased when a human rights group noted that the people shown in the Internet video had been evicted from a previous housing project and provided with no viable alternative. French authorities explained their eviction techniques by saying that their actions were "according to legal procedures and rules in such circumstances."

Together, these recent actions by President Sarkozy appeared to evoke his earlier image as the protector of law and order when he served as interior minister, and suggested a desire to shore up his reputation in this regard. Suffering from low approval ratings, some observers surmised that Sarkozy may have been playing to his conservative base in an effort to boost his standing. The political implications were yet to be seen in a country with a complicated socio-cultural landscape. While some were sure to applaud his "national war on delinquency," others would likely accuse him of being a xenophobe. To this end, the League of Human Rights said, "The xenophobia of Nicolas Sarkozy threatens democracy." Nevertheless, an August 2010 poll showed that the majority of French voters approved of Sarkozy's tough stances on these matters of law and order.

On Aug. 6, 2010, France began the process of dismantling the illegal Roma camps following the presidential order for such camps to be removed. Police sealed off an area housing an encampment and evicted the occupants. As well, the government explained the need for the resolute action, saying that the camps were "sources of illegal trafficking, of profoundly shocking living standards, of exploitation of children for begging, of prostitution and crime."\\

By the last week of August 2010, President Sarkozy's hardline stance against Roma (Gypsies) and immigrants was earning rebuke from all quarters of society -- the political left, the political right, as well as the Catholic Church and the United Nations.

In the French publication, le Monde, a former justice minister who was once a close ally of President Sarkozy, Rachida Dati, called on France to respect immigrants. In an editorial published in the very same edition of Le Monde, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin -- hardly a left-wing politician given his tenure as part of the center-right government -- characterized the president's stance as "a stain on shame on our flag."  Notably, De Villepin was expected to challenge Sarkozy in presidential elections two years down the road. Former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, a Socialist, excoriated the president for using harsh law and order rhetoric while at the same time reducing the number of police patrolling the streets. Criticism also came from the Vatican, with Pope Benedict XVI calling on French pilgrims to educate their children about "universal fraternity." As well, Agostino Marchetto, the secretary of a Vatican body known as the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, noted: "One cannot generalize and take an entire group of people and kick them out."

Meanwhile, despite an early nod of approval by a majority of French voters expressing support for the crackdown, there was no actual benefit to the president's low approval ratings, which remain south of 35 percent. Indeed, a poll by Viavoice for the publication, Liberation, showed that as many as 55 percent of the electorate would prefer to see one of President Sarkozy's left wing rival secure the presidency in elections to come in 2012.

Americas: Mexico

Migrant killings, bombs and disappearances plague Mexico

In the third week of August 2010, 72 migrants were found dead on a ranch in Tamaulipas state in the northern part of Mexico.  President Calderon condemned these killings during an anti-crime round-table "Dialogue for Security" in Mexico City, accusing the  notorious Zetas drug cartel of kidnapping the victims, who had been trying to reach the United States.  President Calderon  warned that narcotics trafficking gangs were using  migrants from South America and Central America for financing and recruitment. One victim survived the ordeal with only bullet wounds; a native of Ecuador, the man was placed under federal protection but not before he was able to explain that he and the other 72 peope had been kidnapped by an armed gang and the shot when they refused to work for the gang members.  In this way, kidnapping, extortion and murder has become regularized fare for the narcotics gangs across the country.  Amnesty International has warned that the situation of  migrants from Central and South America crossing through Mexico constitutes a major human rights crisis. But the situation took on the air of terrorism only days later on August 27, 2010 when two cars exploded in the very area where  officials were investigating the killing of the 72 Central and South American migrants.  Making matters even worse was the disappearance of Roberto Jaime Suarez -- the prosecutor investigating the massacre.  These events indicated a disturbing turn of tactics in a country plagued by the escalating narcotics war. 

Americas: Cuba

In surprise move, Cuba passes two new free-market decrees

In late August 2010, Cuba issued two free-market decrees,  paving the way for foreign investors to lease government land for up to 99 years, and also for Cuban citizens to grow and sell their own produce.  The first decree -- modification of property laws -- could spark a golf-course construction trend on an island with a limited tourism industry.  Indeed, it would facilitate foreign investment, potentially increase the flow of foreign currency, and generate new revenue for the government, which has been weakened by the global financial crisis, the ongoing weakness of the international economies, and lowered prices of its commodities.  The second decree  would allow Cubans at home to sell their own fruit and vegetables. Both moves signified some degree of economic reform on the part of President Raul Castro, effectively downgrading state control of the communist country's economy.

***

Elections Update

Pacific: Australia

Australian election results in hung parliament; PM Gillard looks to independents to form government

Summary --

Parliamentary elections were held in Australia on Aug. 21, 2010. While Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Labor Party lost its majority in the lower house, Tony Abbott's conservatives were not handed a victory either. The inconclusive election result, which took the shape of a "hung parliament," meant that coalition negotiations were in the offing, with the Greens and independents positioned to play political kingmakers.

Background --

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

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

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

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

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

The pre-election landscape --

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

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

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

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

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

Note that by the start of August 2010, a Newspoll survey showed the conservative coalition drawing even with Labor ahead of the elections. While, Gillard remained the preferred choice as prime minister, at the party level, the conservatives were gaining steam and momentum was not on the side of Labor. Indeed, in the weeks just prior to the election, polling data forecast a remarkably close election with Abbott's conservatives putting up a heated fight to the finish.

Profiles of the two main rivals --

Prime Minister Gillard, as noted above, defeated Kevin Rudd in an internal Labor Party coup. Born in the United Kingdom, her family relocated to Australia when she was a child. She is a trained as an industrial lawyer and has the distinction of being Australia's first head of government. Viewed as a pragmatist with a keen intellect, she has faced criticism from social conservatives because she cohabitates with her partner and does not have children.

Liberal leader, Tony Abbott, once trained as a Catholic priest; this background was thought to have contributed to his conservative social views on issues including abortion and same-sex marriage. Known for his rhetorical gaffes and penchant for swearing, he earned the nickname, "the mad monk." On policy, he has been established as being a climate change skeptic.

The election --

By mid-August 2010, Prime Minister Gillard had launched her election campaign in Brisbane by borrowing the rhetoric of United States President Barack Obama. Gillard offered a "yes we will" promise to assist the Australian workforce and transform health care in Australia.  Gillard also argued that under the stewardship of the Labor government, Australia was the only advanced economy to avoid recession in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Whether or not the rhetoric and the economic message would find resonance on election day was yet to be seen.

Liberal leader Tony Abbott sought to exploit the internal divisions within the Labor Party following the ousting of Rudd in favor of Gillard. Abbott presented his conservative coalition as a stable alternative to an incumbent party mired by power struggles. On policy, Abbott promised stricter reins on immigration, a reduction of government spending, and silence on climate change. It was yet to be seen if these tactic would yield political dividends for the conservatives.

Election day – Aug. 21, 2010 -- finally arrived and the Australian citizenry went to the polls. At stake were all 150 seats of the lower house of parliament and half of the Senate's 76 seats. Despite widespread apathy about elections, voting is compulsory in Australian, so the result would nonetheless result the will of the people. With the ballots counted, the picture of an inconclusive election outcome began to take shape. Indeed, neither of the two main parties won the 76 seats needed for outright victory in the lower house that determines the formation of government. Labor had essentially lost a number of marginal seats in Queensland and New South Wales and had approximately 72 seats; the conservatives had at least 70 seats.  (It should be noted that as the counting continnued, the tally moved to both Labor and the conservatives relatively deadlocked with 71-72 seats seats with a handful of seats undecided. As well, the Greens won a seat while three independents candidates gained representation in the lower house. In this way, Australia was faced with its first hung parliament since World War II, with neither party positioned with a majority of seats to form a government.

For her part, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the election result was "too close to call." She conjured up the words of former United States President Bill Clinton in noting, "The people have spoken but it's going to take some time to determine exactly what they have said." Prime Minister Gillard acknowledged that neither party won the election, stating, "It is clear that neither party has earned the right to government in its own right." In a bid to maximize the political benefits to her party, Gillard observed that Labor had won the most votes overall nationally, if the minor parties were taken out of the equation.

But her rival for the job of head of government, Tony Abbott, said that his conservative coalition was "back of business," declaring that Gillard's Labor Party had lost its legitimacy along with its majority. Abbott had a celebratory tone as he asserted, "This is a night for pride in our achievements, satisfaction at the good results that have been achieved, but also a measure of reflection on the magnitude of the task ahead." He also warned against "premature triumphalism."

Post-election landscape --

While it was clear that Gillard and Labor had lost its governing majority, it was also apparent that voters had stopped short of handing victory to Abbott and the conservatives. Given this inconclusive election result and the need for control over at least 76 seats in the 150-seat lower house of parliament, a process of crafty negotiations was in the offing, with the Greens and independents positioned to play political kingmakers.

In a bid to hold onto power, Prime Minister Gillard looked to independents and the lone Green to join with her in forming a government. To that end, she said: "What we know is there will be a number of independents in the House of Representatives playing a role as the next government of Australia is formed." She also acknowledged a period of uncertainty in the immediate future, but pledged to hold on to power saying, "There are anxious days ahead, but I will keep fighting."

Prime Minister Gillard reportedly held initial talks with the independent candidates. Describing this consultative process in an interview with the media, she said, "Negotiations will be conducted with propriety, integrity and diligence." She also said, "It's my intention to negotiate in good faith an effective agreement to form government." The prime minister also promised that in the interim period, she and her outgoing cabinet would "continue to provide stable and effective government in accordance with our democratic process while the final votes are counted in this election."

On the other side of the equation, Abbott made known that he was also contacting the independent candidates who were former members of conservative parties. Perhaps in an effort to make his case for forming a conservative government, Abbott again emphasized that the election outcome showed movement away from Labor. He said, "There was a savage swing against this government." Musing about the possibility that he could become the new prime minister, he said, "I feel humbled as I think of the responsibilities that could lie ahead." He also emphasized the need for "competent and stable government for the next three years" in Australia, arguing as he had during the election period that Labor was too bedeviled by infighting to provide governing stability.

Two of the independent candidates -- Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor -- said they would be willing to join with the party capable of forming the most stable government.  Bob Katter, the third independent, made clear that he was interested in negotiating a deal that would best benefit his constituents.

By August 26, 2010, the favor of the independents appeared to tilt slightly in Prime Minister Gillard's favor after Tony Abbott expressed unwillingness to disclose its plan for the Treasury.  That demand for more information about Treasury costs and expenditures came after a document was leaked to the media indicating  a shortfall.  Abbott said that he would only submit Treasury policy details when an investigation into the leak was completed.  Two independents in particular -- Windsor and Katter -- appeared outraged by Abbott's stance, saying it suggested that the opposition had something to hide.  By contrast, the federal treasurer, Wayne Swan of Labor Party, said that the Gillard government would willingly provide any information needed to help the independents in making a decision on whom to  support at the helm of a minority government.  Meanwhile, the lone Green -- Alan Brandt -- indicated that he was interested in backing a Labor-led minority government. 

Editor's Note:

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

Forthcoming elections --

Asia: Nepal

Nepalese parliament delays latest vote to elect new prime minister

Nepalese Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who became prime minister in May 2009, announced during a televised speech that he was resigning from his post in mid-2010. He said that the move was oriented toward ending the political deadlock plaguing the country, and toward the advancement of the peace process. Prime Minister Nepal was appointed to stand at the helm of a 22-party coalition that succeeded the Maoist government said: "I have decided to resign from the post of prime minister so that the peace process can be completed, a new constitution drafted and the current political deadlock resolved." He continued, "I had frequently urged the political parties including the Maoists to find an appropriate way out of the present deadlock and forge a consensus. But no agreement has reached so far." He concluded that it "would be inappropriate to further prolong the situation of confusion and indecision."

On the other side of the equation, the Maoists, who control the most seats in parliament but decided to step back from the reins of power more than a year earlier, have been urging Prime Minister Nepal to resign. They have argued that, as the largest political force, their party should determine who should hold the position of prime minister. Attention was on who might be Prime Minister Nepal's successor with the two main blocs -- the governing coalition and the Maoists -- at odds on the matter. That being said, both sides found concurrence on the need for an extension on the schedule to draft a new democratic constitution.

By the start of August 2010, there had been three failed attempts to elect a new prime minister of Nepal. Both candidates -- Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) Chairman Prachanda and Nepali Congress Vice-Chairman Ramchandra Paudel failed to acquire a majority of the votes necessary to win the position in the previous rounds. According to Interim Constitution of Nepal, which has been in place since 2007, a candidate must garner a majority of the votes in parliament -- 300 votes out of 599 -- to win the internal election for the position of prime minister. A fourth round intended to elect the head of government was scheduled on Aug. 6, 2010. On that day, once again Nepal failed to elect a new prime minister. While Maoist leader Prachanda secured the most votes, he fell short of an outright majority in the parliamentary vote. A fifth round of voting was set for Aug. 18, 2010. However, ahead of that date, Nepal's parliament delayed the vote in order to give some time to honor the death of a Maoist parliamentarian.  By Aug. 23, 2010, it was announced that the new date set for voting on the position of prime minister would be Sept. 5, 2010.  In this way, the leadership chasm on Nepal would be prolonged further.

Middle East: Bahrain

Ahead of elections, Bahrain moving toward heightened sectarian tensions and state of emergency

Ahead of elections scheduled for Oct. 23, 2010, the Middle Eastern country of Bahrain was moving  toward heightened sectarian tensions and a state of emergency.  On Aug. 17, 2010,  four Shi'ite activists were arrested, including Abduljalil al-Singace, the spokesman for the Shiite organization Haq Movement for Liberty and Democracy.  He was charged with inciting threats to national security.  Three other members of the group were also arrested for similar charges, including "forming an organized network aiming to shake the security and stability of the country," according to news media in Bahrain.  All four individuals denied the charges against them as riots broke out across Bahrain in protests of their treatment.  Shi'ites have long complained that Sunnis have an electoral advantage due to the manner in which voting districts have been organized.  At issue has been the fact that while Bahrain is home to a Shi'ite majority, the government has been dominated by Sunnis.  This disconnection has increasingly become a source of political friction in Bahrain and could be the source of heightened ethnic tensions between the Sunni-led government and Bahrain's Shi'ite majority ahead of the elections.

Europe: Sweden

Election campaign commences in Sweden

In mid-August 2010, Sweden was preparing for general elections to be held on Sept. 19, 2010.  With an eye on the impending vote, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt -- the  ruling alliance leader -- said that the top priority of his bloc was to continue to decrease taxes, with particular emphasis on retirees.  To this end, he said:   "Swedish people are already benefitted from the lower tax policy. The nurses have 1,500 kronor (about 219 U.S. dollars) extra per month in their wallet."  With Sweden having the highest income tax in the world, Prime Minister Reinfeldt said that decreasing taxes would ensure more take home funds for the Swedish citizenry, as well as a boost to employers hoping to hire workers.  As well, given Sweden's ability to weather the global financial  crisis, the prime minister was emphasizing the economy in his election campaign platform. The opposition party, the Social Democratic Party led by Mona Sahlin, emphasized the economy as well in its own election platform, but in its case, the priority was job creation for young people.  Sahlin also made a point of criticizing the priorities of Reinfeldt's Moderates.  She said,  "The Moderates think that lowering taxes is the priority. They don't see any others. Not youth unemployment, not exclusion of the sick ... not growing inequality between people."  A month ahead of the election, the race was shown to be very close with the ruling alliance, composed of Moderate Party, Center Party, Christian Democratic Party and People's Party, vying to hold onto power against the "red-green" coalition of the Social Democratic Party, Left Party and Green Party.
 

Americas: Brazil

Debates precede Brazilian election

The presidential election in Brazil was scheduled for Oct. 3, 2010. At issue was the successor to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva who had served two consecutive four-year terms, the maximum allowed under Brazil's constitution. The main presidential contenders to succeed President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were Dilma Rousseff of the Workers' Party and Jose Serra of the Social Democracy Party. Other notable contenders were the Green Party's candidate, Marina Silva, and Plinio Soares de Arruda Sampaio of the Socialism and Freedom Party. Ahead of that election in early August 2010, the presidential contenders participated in the first televised debate. Analysts said that there was no clear winner following the debate that addressed economics, health care, public transport, and infrastructure. Polling data showed Rousseff and Serra to be the two top contenders. Rousseff -- a former chief of staff of the president -- was trailing behind Serra -- Sao Paulo's former governor -- by about 10 percentage points. However, if no candidate garners more than 50 percent of the vote share, a second round would be held a month later. It polling trends hold steady, Serra would win the first round and face Rousseff in the runoff four weeks later; in that second round, Serra could not count on a guaranteed victory since Rousseff could benefit from a consolidated left-wing vote.  By August 26, 2010,  polling data showed a shift in the dynamics of the election race with Rousseff pulling ahead. According to a Datafolha poll,  Rousseff was now commanding  49 percent of support -- a seismic shift in modern political terms against  Serra who had 29 percent support and Green Party candidate Marina Silva with nine percent.  The shift in fortune for Rousseff seemed at least partially attributable to a well-managed public relations and advertising campaign.

Americas: Haiti

Haitian-born singer Wyclef Jean deemed ineligible to contest presidential election; says he will appeal

In August 2010, Haitian-born singer Wyclef Jean indicated that he would announce his candidacy for president of earthquake-ravaged Haiti. A presidential election in that country was set to take place on Nov. 28, 2010. Wyclef Jean was expected to run on behalf of the political coalition called Ansanm Nou Fo, which translates as "together we are strong" in Haitian Creole.

 Wyclef Jean's qualifications for the office of president were expected to evoke questions since he would have to prove five consecutive years of residency in Haiti, ownership of property, and possess no other citizenship but Haitian. Having said that, adherence to such regulations has not always been strictly respected in past elections. While Wyclef Jean would command high recognition and popularity, analysts have expressed doubts about his lack of policy experience. Whoever wins the election would be faced with the monumental task of rebuilding the earthquake-ravaged and impoverished country with a history of political upheaval.

By Aug. 20, 2010, Haiti's electoral commission had ruled against Wyclef Jean, deeming him to be ineligible to stand for election on the basis that he has not lived in the country for five years prior to the election. For his part, Wyclef Jean said he would appeal the ruling, arguing that in his capacity as a roving ambassador for Haiti since 2007, he should not be held to strict residency requirements. On Aug. 22, 2010, the Haitian hip hop singer said during an interview with the Associated Press that he possessed documentation regarding his candidacy, "which shows everything is correct." He subsequently made the following announcement via Twitter: "Tomorrow our lawyers are appealing the decision of the CEP. We have met all the requirements set by the laws. And the law must be respected."

 
Americas: Venezuela

Venezuela gears up for legislative elections

On August  26, 2010, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and the opposition Democratic Unity Table (MUD) began  their respective campaigns ahead of  the country's legislative elections to be held on Sept. 26, 2010. President Hugo Chavez' PSUV was hoping for victory while the opposition NUD admitted that it faced an uphill battle against the president's party at the polls.  At stake were the 165 seats in the Venezuelan National Assembly. 
 

Africa: Guinea

Moratorium followed by new date for second round of presidential election in Guinea

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Aug. 6, 2010, the country's Supreme Court empowered the electoral commission to issue a moratorium on the second round of the presidential election. The decision was intended to ensure that all the necessary preparations could be made to ensure the run-off would occur smoothly. In its decision, the Supreme Court said that polling stations had to be made more accessible, ballots had to be printed, and other voting materials had to be made available to voters at home and abroad. Then on Aug. 9, 2010, it was announced that the new date for the run-off election would be Sept. 19, 2010.

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

Africa: Cote d'Ivoire

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

On July 14, 2010, Prime Minister Guillaume Soro of Cote d'Ivoire announced that the country's much-anticipated presidential election could be held in October 2010. In an interview with the publication Notre Afrik, Prime Minister Guillaume Soro said, "This election should be held latest by October." Only days before, the country's Independent Electoral Commission (CEI) was handed a new provisional electoral list, setting the stage for voters to go to the polls. On the matter of the electoral commission, the prime minister said, "If we take into account the time it will take to verify and sort out all electoral disputes, say 21 days, we can confidently expect that the final list will be published within two months." He also added, "If everything goes according to plan, then we can say that organization of presidential elections will just be a matter of weeks." By August 2010, it was announced that the long overdue presidential election would be held on Oct. 31, 2010. The presidential election in Cote d'Ivoire has long been regarded as an integral part of the 2007 peace accord in a country wracked by political chaos and instability since 2002.

Editor's Note:

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

Africa: Tanzania

Tanzania gears up for general elections

On Aug. 20, 2010, Tanzania's rival political parties commenced a two-month election campaign ahead of that country's general elections, scheduled for Oct. 31, 2010. While there were 12 presidential contenders, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) announced that only seven of them had met the necessary requirements ahead of the August 19, 2010 deadline. The main presidential contender was to be incumbent President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete who was seeking re-election for a second five-year term. It should be noted that according to the Tanzanian constitution, a person can hold the presidency for only two terms. While President Kikwete's Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party has long dominated Tanzania's political scene, he was nonetheless expected to face tough competition from the opposition parties, many of which were fielding strong competitors for the country's top political office. Among the strongest presidential contenders was Willibrod Slaa of the Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo ( CHADEMA) party, and Ibrahim Lipumba, the chairmain of the Civic United Front (CUF). Other candidates included Hashim Rungwe of NCCR-Mageuzi, Peter Mziray of the African Progressive Party of Tanzania (APPT), Mutamwega Mugahywa of the Tanzania Labour Party (TLP), and Fahma Dovutwa of the United People's Democratic Party (UPDP). Ahead of election day, most of the candidates were emphasizing politics free of corruption.

Also at stake on election day would be the presidency of Zanzibar Islands, which is part of the United Republic of Tanzania. The main candidates were Tanzanian Vice President Ali Mohamed Shein, of the ruling CCM party, and his main rival, Seif Shariff Hamad of the CUF. The election would come a month after a referendum decided that a government of national unity should be formed, in a bid to avert the kind of political violence that has plagued the islands in the past.

Past elections --

Africa: Rwanda

Violence marks pre-election period in Rwanda; Kagame re-elected

A presidential election was scheduled to take place on Aug. 9, 2010, in Rwanda. It would be the second presidential poll in Rwanda since the 1994 genocide that left close to one million Batutsis and moderate Bahutus dead. In recent times, President Kagame has been criticized for a slide into autocracy, marked by intimidation of the opposition ahead of the 2010 election.

At issue, according to Human Rights Watch, have been allegations of threats and intimidation against members of new opposition parties including the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda. Human Rights Watch accused "individuals and institutions close to the government and the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front" of being behind the threats and intimidation. Georgette Gagnon, the Africa director of Human Rights Watch, issued the following warning: "The Rwandan government already tightly controls political space. These incidents will further undermine democracy by discouraging any meaningful opposition in the elections."

Ahead of the election, the political landscape in Rwanda was also characterized by violence. On June 19, 2010, Lieutenant General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa -- the ex-army chief of Rwanda -- was shot while living in exile in South Africa. His wife, Rosette Nyamwasa, accused President Kagame of orchestrating the attempted assassination of her husband. For its part, the government of Rwanda denied being behind the shooting, saying instead that it would never countenance acts of violence.

Days later, Jean Leonard Rugambage, the acting editor of the Umuvugizi newspaper, was shot to death outside his house in the Rwandan capital city of Kigali. While authorities said they did not know who was responsible for the fatal attack, media reports indicated that two men shot at the journalist and then escaped in a car. The government had suspended the publication of the newspaper for six months, forcing it online dissemination via the Internet instead. The government defended the move saying that the newspaper was inciting opposition to the government. Perhaps not surprisingly, the chief editor of Umuvugizi, Jean Bosco Gasasira, who was living in exile in Uganda, blamed Rugambage's murder on the government.

Coming so soon after the attack on Nyamwasa (discussed above), the death of Rugambage was illustrative of the growing chorus of criticism from opponents of the government, who have accused President Kagame of increasingly autocratic rule. They have also accused him of limiting the expression of independent media in Rwanda ahead of the presidential election scheduled to take place in August 2010. But President Kagame argued that a stronger hand by the government was needed to prevent another genocide in the country.

The situation took a dire turn a month later on July 14, 2010, when Andre Kagwa Rwisereka, the vice president of the opposition Democratic Green Party, was found dead in Butare, southern Rwanda. A machete was found close to his partially-decapitated body. Rwisereka had been unable to register for the presidential election.

The spate of violence led to a media watchdog group, Reporters Without Borders, calling on the European Union and other donors to suspend financial support for the election posing the question, "How much longer will the international community continue to endorse this repressive regime?"

Meanwhile,  polling results showed that President Paul Kagame was re-elected by a wide margin.  Via his website, Kagame issued a statement saying that the election result was an "indication that Rwanda has respectable citizens."  However, not all Rwandans were as sanguine as the president; instead, they complained that they had been forced to vote for Kagame since the leading opposition politicians were prevented from contesting the election.

Pacific: Solomon Islands

Surprise results in Solomon Islands' election

On Aug. 9, 2010, voters in the Solomon Islands went to the polls to vote in elections. International election observers reported that voting was orderly and peaceful; however, they expressed concerns about the electoral roll, the lack of training of polling station officials, poor flow at polling stations of voters in queues, and recommended improved options for absentee voters.

In terms of the outcome of the elections, there were unexpected results including the ousting of former deputy prime minister Fred Fono and former foreign affairs minister William Haomae, while two former prime ministers -- Allan Kemakeza and Billy Hilly -- failed to hold onto their seats. The fate of Derek Sikua, the country's prime minister since 2007, was not clear at the time of writing.  Meanwhile, two toher former prime ministers -- Manasseh Sogavare and Snyder Rini -- managed to retain their seats, while a former top rebel leader of the Malaita Eagle Force, Jimmy Lusibaea, won with a convincing victory in Malaita. There was no definitive indication of who would become the new prime minister since intense negotiations were still afoot for the formation of a coalition government.

Full list of current and forthcoming elections include --

Dec. 13, 2009: Chile's presidential and parliamentary elections
Dec. 18, 2009: Elections in Dominica
Dec. 27, 2009: Uzbekistan general elections
Dec. 27, 2009: Croatian presidential election (first round)
Jan. 10, 2010: Croatian presidential election (second round)
Jan. 9, 2010: Parliamentary election in Taiwan
Jan. 17, 2010; Ukraine's presidential election (first round)
Jan.17, 2010: Chile's presidential election (second round)
Jan. 25, 2010: General elections in St. Kitts and Nevis
Jan.26, 2010: Sri Lanka's presidential election
Feb. 3, 2010: Greece's presidential election
Feb. 7, 2010: Costa Rica's parliamentary and presidential elections
Feb. 7, 2010: Ukraine's presidential election (second round)
Feb. 28, 2010: Tajikistan's parliamentary elections
March 4, 2010: Togo's new date for presidential election
March 7, 2010: Iraq's parliamentary elections
March 14, 2010: Colombia's parliamentary elections
April 8, 2010: Snap parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka
April 11-13, 2010: Sudan's presidential elections (also listed as possible date for parliamentary polls)
April 11, 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections (first round)
April 18, 2010: Northern Cyprus' presidential election
April 24, 2010: Nauru's parliamentary elections
April 25, 2010: Austria's presidential election
April 25, 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections (second round)
May 5, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Mauritius
May 6, 2010: Parliamentary elections in United Kingdom
May 10, 2010: Philippines' parliamentary and presidential elections
May 16, 2010: Dominican Republic's parliamentary elections
May 23, 2010: Ethiopia's parliamentary elections
May 24, 2010: Snap parliamentary elections in Trinidad and Tobago
May 25, 2010: Suriname's parliamentary elections
May 28, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Czech Republic (first round)
May 30, 2010: Colombia's presidential election
June 1, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Egypt (competing date; see Oct-Nov 2010)
June 9, 2010: Parliamentary elections in the Netherlands
June 12, 2010: Slovak Republic's parliamentary elections
June 13, 2010: Belgium's parliamentary elections
June 19, 2010: Nauru's elections
June 20, 2010: Poland's presidential election (first round)
June 20, 2010: Colombia's second round presidential election
June 27, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (tentative; first round)
June 28, 2010: Burundi's presidential election (first round)
June 29, 2010: Hungary's presidential election
June 2010: Czech Republic's parliamentary elections (second round)
June 2010: Qatar's parliamentary elections (tentative)
July 4, 2010: Poland's presidential election (second round)
July 9, 2010: By-elections in Dominica
July 18, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (second round; delayed)
July 23-28, 2010: Burundi's parliamentary elections
July 26, 2010: Burundi's presidential election (second round)
July 2010: Japan's parliamentary elections
July 2010: Suriname's presidential election
July-Aug. 2010: Elections in Solomon Islands
Mid- 2010: Tentative timeframe for general elections in Myanmar/Burma
Mid-2010: Expected timeframe for elections in Moldova
Aug. 1, 2010: Sao Tome and Principe's parliamentary elections
Aug. 9, 2010: Rwanda's presidential election
Aug. 21, 2010: Australia's parliamentary  elections (moved from Oct. 2010)
August 2010: Solomon Islands' parliamentary elections
Sept. 5, 2010: Internal vote on prime minister in Nepal
Sept. 18, 2010: Afghanistan's parliamentary elections (postponed from May)
Sept. 19, 2010: Sweden's parliamentary elections
Sept. 19, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (second round; new date)
Sept.26, 2010: Venezuela's parliamentary elections
Sept. 30, 2010: Madagascar's parliamentary elections
September/October  2010: Parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan
September 2010: Elections in Tuvalu
Oct. 2, 2010: Latvia's parliamentary elections
Oct. 3, 2010: Brazil's parliamentary elections and presidential election (first round)
Oct. 3, 2010: Bosnia-Herzegovina's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct.10, 2010: Kyrgyzstan's parliamentary elections
Oct. 31, 2010: Tanzania's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct. 31, 2010: Brazil's presidential election (second round)
Oct. 31, 2010: Possible date for Cote d'Ivoire's elections
October 2010: Madagascar's presidential election
October 2010: Elections in Bahrain
Nov. 2, 2010: United States' parliamentary elections
Nov. 7, 2010: Myanmar's/Burma's elections
Nov. 7, 2010: Azerbaijan's parliamentary elections
Nov. 9, 2010: Jordan's parliamentary elections
Nov. 16, 2010: Possible date for Thailand's elections
Nov. 21, 2010: Burkina Faso's presidential election
Nov. 25, 2010: Tonga's parliamentary elections
Nov. 26, 2010: Madagascar's presidential election (postponed from May)
Nov. 28, 2010: Chad's presidential election (first round)
Nov. 28, 2010: Haiti's presidential election
November 2010: Bahrain's parliamentary elections
November 2010: Egypt's parliamentary elections (competing date; see June 1, 2010)
December 2010: St. Vincent and the Grenadines' parliamentary elections
December 2010: Nauru's presidential election
December 2010: Jordan's parliamentary elections
December 2010: Equatorial Guinea's presidential election
December 2010: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Niger
2010: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Cote d'Ivoire (highly tentative)
Jan. 9, 2011: Independence vote in South Sudan
Jan. 23, 2011: Central African Republic's elections
Nov. 27, 2011: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Democratic Rep. of Congo
2011: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Nigeria

Note also -

- Second round of Afghan presidential election set for Nov. 7, 2009, was cancelled
- Presidential election in Niger set for Nov. 14 and Dec. 6, 2009, has been cancelled; highly tentative possibility of elections in Dec. 2010
- Presidential election originally set for September 2009 in Angola was postponed
- Haiti's Feb. 28. 2010, parliamentary elections did not go forward due to devastation of earthquake
- 2010 elections expected in Jordan
- No date available for elections in Yemen
- Despite international pressure, no date available for anticipated elections in Fiji
- Minority government in Canada means parliamentary elections are possible
- Unstable majority in Italy due to defection of faction making snap elections possible

***

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