COMMENT: On the Scottish referendum

Last May, in the regional elections, Alex Salmond's SNP achieved an outstanding victory, retaining 69 seats in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP's best achievement ever, surpassing their important victory in 2007.

A few days after the elections, Salmond stated that since the final objective of the SNP is the independence of Scotland, the new Scottish Government –which will see a majority of SNP's MSPs, therefore being able to pass any law or bill they want without external support from other parties– would hold a referendum on the Scottish independence in the next few years.

The immediate reaction of conservative politicians was to back the celebration of the referendum as soon as possible, therefore trusting that the majority of Scots do not back the break-up of Britain. But the SNP wants to have a few years to prepare the population for a referendum of this kind, hence it will not take place immediately.

But, first of all, would people in Scotland back a referendum on Scottish independence? And second, what does it really imply?

The first movement of the UK Government was admitting and backing the celebration of the referendum, not opposing it. This does not mean that Cons and LibDems are suddenly on Salmond's side, but it may mean that they really know that a majority of Scots would not back Scottish independence, hence they don't see the referendum as a threat. Indeed past surveys have shown that support for independence among Scots is still too small –around 23%, according to the last Scottish Social Attitudes Survey–.

The SNP has to understand that not all of those who have voted them in the regional elections will back a referendum on Scottish independence.

On the other hand, the representation of those who want Scottish independence may be exaggerated at the polls. Most of the people do not care about Scottish independence, and therefore do not take part in surveys. However, a referendum with certain kind of legal validity would drive them to vote and show their opinion, therefore lowering the percentage of those who support Scottish independence. The turnout at the last elections only reached 49%, but a referendum on Scottish independence would see a much higher turnout.

Finally, Salmond has always campaigned for an independent Scotland where North Sea oilfields would finance the cost of independence. But in the current financial and economical landscape it is unlikely that the UK Government would cede the complete exploitation of the North Sea oilfields to Scotland, losing billions of yearly revenues.

Those who back independence have to sit down and stop thinking if Scotland could achieve independence, and start thinking whether it could afford it.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: A paradise lost

Between 1968 and 1973 the inhabitants of a British Overseas Territory known as Chagos Archipelago were forcibly removed from their homeland. In a very controversial decision, the Government of the UK decided to allow the installation of a US military base in the biggest of the islands of the Archipelago, Diego García.

The removal of the islanders was slow but carefully planned. Months before the complete removal of the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago, their pets were poisoned and their families were threatened .

Then the evicted Chagossians were confined in small communities in the neighbouring Mauritius and in London. They were also stripped of their British nationality, as the government retired their UK passports. In a matter of weeks the Chagossians were forcibly removed from their land and lost their British nationality, becoming a nation with no land and an invisible community spread all over the world.


The roots of the conflict go back to 1965, when the UK dettached the territory from the colony of Mauritius and Diego García was ceded to the US for, at least, the next 50 years. The island would be used for military purposes only, and the inhabitants had to be removed from Chagos. In exchange, the UK received $14 million and closed an important deal to purchase American nuclear submarines .

Given the insistence of the Chagossians, the UK approved an Immigration Ordinance in 1971, whereby any person wasn't allowed to even enter the whole territory. The situation of the islanders was therefore made unlawful. Secret conversations in the British administration lead to the resolution that the UK had to find the way to remove the islanders at any cost, "providing legal power to deport people who will not leave voluntarily, preventing people from entering, and maintaining the fiction that the inhabitants of Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population" .

During the 80s the UK Government tried to settle down the dispute by giving economic compensations which reached £4m to the surviving islanders, and the case was closed and forgotten.

However, in 1998 some of the chagossians who lived in Mauritius took the case to the British High Court, claiming that their removal was made by illegal means. In November 2000, a historical resolution gave the illois their right to return home, as the Court found that their removal was unlawful. It was then seen as the end of the conflict, but the UK Government was not going to give up the islands so easily.

An article on the Chicago Tribune in October 2001 showed the ongoing conflict and the importance of preserving the US military base in Chagos at any cost. As an expert quoted at the article put it, "the US would be seriously affected if we had to leave the island. It is extraordinarily important to us; it allows us to keep a lot of ammunition and ground equipment near the Persian Gulf".

The decision of the High Court evidenced that the UK administration back in the 70s had acted in an illegal way. But, what is the current situation of the conflict? Are the Chagossians in a better situation than ten years ago?


The situation of the Chagossians hasn't improved much in the last decade, and the conflict has reached a stalemate difficult to break. After the Court ruled in favour of the Chagossians, allowing them to return home after more than 30 years, the UK government decided to act quickly in order to prevent the islanders to go back to Diego García, something that could threaten the military base and would put at risk the good relationship between the UK and the US administrations.

In 2004 the UK Government enacted the so-called Constitution and Immigration Orders, whereby the islanders were again refused their resettlement because it would be too expensive and environmentally unsustainable. But again, the High Court ruled in favour of the illois, stating that the 2004 Orders were unlawful. However, the UK Government appealed in 2007 before the Court of Appeal. As John Howell, QC for the Foreign Secretary stated, "this appeal raises issues of constitutional law of great importance. If the approach of the High Court was correct, it represented a revolutionary change in the constitutional law involved, which will affect all British Overseas Territories".

On May 23rd the High Court ruled in favour of the islanders for the third time, dismissing the UK Government's claims. However, the Court also ruled that the UK Government could appeal to the House of Lords directly. Only one month later, the UK administration appealed to the Law Lords and after one year of deliberation they ruled in Goverment's favour by a margin of only three to two votes.

In a public speech, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary at that time, expressed his satisfaction after knowing the ruling. "Our appeal to the House of Lords was not about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. It was about decisions taken in the international context of 2004. This required us to take into account issues of defence and security of the archipelago and the fact that an independent study had come down heavily against the feasibility of lasting resettlement of the outer islands of BIOT", stated.

The ruling of the Law Lords proved controversial when one of the experts that had been commissioned to carry out an environmental study about the feasibility of the resettlement of the illois was forced to remove his opinion, which was favourable to the return of the Chagossians, from the document .

After the ruling of the Law Lords the Chagossians, throughout the Chagos Refugee Group, took the case to the last instance, the European Court of Human Rights, which is still deliberating.


In April 2010, the UK Government, in a maneouvre apparently not related to the case, decided to set up a marine reserve in the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Government claimed that this decision showed the commitment of the UK with the environment. Several conservation groups backed the decision. "The MPA will cover some quarter of a million square miles and its establishment will double the global coverage of the world's oceans under protection. Its creation is a major step forward for protecting the oceans, not just around BIOT itself, but also throughout the world. This measure is a further demonstration of how the UK takes its international environmental responsibilities seriously", said Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

The decision was criticised by the Chagossians, who argued that the decision of setting up a Marine Protected Area in the Archipelago was taken to avoid the resettlement of the islanders, if the European Court of Human Rights finally ruled in favour of them.

The suspicions of the Chagossians were later confirmed by whistle-blower website Wikileaks, which leaked 500,000 top secret documents from US diplomatic outposts all around the world to four big newspapers in the UK, Spain, Germany and the US. In one of the embassy cables published by Wikileaks, the Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that "establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents" .

"We do not regret the removal of the population, since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose", reads the leaked document .

The decision of setting up a marine reserve also aroused ignited discussions in the neighbouring Mauritius, which has been claiming sovereignty over Chagos Archipelago since 1965, and is currently holding a dispute with the UK administration .

With the creation of the marine reserve, the last hope for the Chagossians is almost gone. The Marine Protected Area forbids any human settlement in the whole Archipelago. Even if the European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of the islanders, it is unlikely that they will be allowed to return to their homeland.

On May 19, 2011, different Chagossians' support groups held a conference in London on the future of the Archipelago. The new situation forced the islanders to change strategy. The support groups presented a new project, based on the settlement of small eco-villages in the outer islands of the Archipelago, where some of the Chagossians who are still willing to return would be allowed to live in short-term periods.

Currently there are only around 4,000 Chagossians still alive. Some of them have given up any hope. Some others don't want to fight anymore. As for the rest, those who want to return, time is running against them. They have been fighting for over 40 years and now, in their eighties, they still hope that one day, before they die, they will be allowed to recover their lost paradise.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: Beyond the Libyan spring

Rebels on top of a captured tank. Source: AP

On March 2004, Tony Blair, then the British Prime Minister, visited Libya and received a warm welcome from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. It was the first British politician to visit the country on a diplomatic trip after UN and US sanctions were lifted in 1999 and 2006 respectively. Blair then praised the booming economy of the country and the government's commitment in the fight against Al-Qaeda. As he put it, "I have been struck by how Colonel Gaddafi wants to make common cause with us against extremists and terrorism. The signs are better than they have been for many years. And the future prize in terms of security not just of this region but the wider world, indeed our own country, is great".

Exactly seven years later, on March 2011, UN's Security Council approved resolution 1973, imposing a no-fly zone over the country and authorising "all necessary measures" to protect the civilians against the Libyan army, boosting the rebels' aspirations. Only a few days before, France had become the first country to recognise the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya. But who are the rebels?

First time the world heard about the Libyan rebels was last February, after demonstrations held in the main cities of the country against Gaddafi's tough regime were firmly repressed by the use of military force. A few weeks later, the demonstrators organised themselves and occupied Benghazi, Libya's second biggest city, making it their stronghold. Further combats drew Gaddafi's forces back, while the rebels advanced towards the capital Tripoli.

According to Imad El-Anis, Libya specialist and lecturer in International Relations at Nottingham Trent University, "the ‘rebels’ are a diverse range of people: some are soldiers who in effect defected, some are people who are still closely linked to one tribe or another, but basically they are a patchwork of ordinary Libyans from all walks of life who have the same cause: reform of their government. The military response that the regime took against the pro-reform movement in its early stage also pushed ordinary civilians into the ‘rebellion’ in order to defend themselves."

On the other hand John Pike, director of defense think tank Globalsecurity.org points out that the conflict between the rebels and the Libyan government is the result of clashes between different tribes in the country. He argues that when Libya was created it forced different existing ethnias and tribes to form part of the same political territory, sharing an artificial governance in an artificial country.

"Libya is a divided country, and one underlying dynamic in play here is the conflict between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. Although both territories had been united into Libya at independence in 1951, for the previous three thousand years these two territories had persisted as separate and distinct entities. Decades of Libya had not overcome the differences of millennia, and a territorially based civil war was the natural product of these distinctions. In Cyrenaica, the tribe was the chief focus of social identification. In Tripolitania, by contrast, loyalty that in a social context was reserved largely to the family and kinship group could be transferred more easily to a political party and its leader. The separateness of the regions is much more than simply geographical and political, for they have evolved largely as different socioeconomic entities, each with a culture, social structure, and values different from the others. Cyrenaica became Arabized at a somewhat earlier date than Tripolitania, and beduin tribes dominated it", explains Pike.

Children play on a tank in Benghazi. Source: EPA

Libya's rebels have become an armed group that fights a guerrilla-like warfare against government forces in the country. The emergence of this insurgent group is linked with the events that took place in Egypt and Tunisia early this year.

Tunisia and Egypt undertook a relatively peaceful revolution, removing the historical leaders of both countries from power, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They had ruled their countries firmly for decades, but massive pacific protests and social pressure made the two leaders step down from power, putting an end to these tough regimes without a shot being fired.

Libya's situation, however, was different. Here Gaddafi reacted with violence to the first protests, ordering the army to open fire to the demonstrators. Whereas in Tunisia and Egypt the army decided not to intervene, in Libya it was tightly controlled by Gaddafi. The violence by which government forces reacted to the protests led to a military uprising in the East of the country, carried out by a force later known simply as "the rebels".

According to Dr. Eugene Rogan, Director of the Middle East Centre at Oxford University, "the uprising has led to civil war in Libya because the army has split, so there were armed elements in Benghazi siding with the opposition, and loyalist military units in Tripoli to support Gaddafi. It could be simply that those furthest from the capital were able to rise up against the regime with less risk than those closest to Tripoli".

Dr. El-Anis, on the other hand, argues that the difference between Libya, on one hand, and Egypt and Tunisia, on the other, underlies in the social and military structure of these countries.

"The military response that we saw in the early stages of the movement in Libya is the key difference. In Tunisia and Egypt the military was not used against the civilian movement. In both cases the military refused and instead basically sided with the masses. The military structure in Libya is quite different and is very closely controlled and connected to the regime and the ruling family in particular. Furthermore, the military response that the Gaddafi regime insisted on in the early stages was quite disproportionate and did not leave room for any kind of negotiated process of reform like we have seen in Morocco, Jordan and Oman", explains El-Anis.

The rebels, an heterogeneous group of armed militia, soldiers and civilians, didn't seek for Western military support from the very first moment. In the first weeks they carried out a blitzkrieg-style offensive that took them almost as far as 20km away from the capital, Tripoli. But a counter-offensive by the government forces, through their 22,000-man strong air force, pushed the rebels back to Benghazi. The rebels' strategy changed then, seeking for support from Western countries.

The Libyan conflict and the pipelines. Source: Stratsis Incite

On March 18, only 24 hours after Resolution 1973 was approved by UN's Security Council, French planes bombed, for the first time, positions held by Gaddafi. It was seen as a victory for the rebels, which conceived the Western intervention and the setting up of a no-fly zone as a definitive boost to their interests. But the Western support proved insufficient as Gaddafi forces resisted the strikes and advanced farther towards the rebels' stronghold of Benghazi.

The Western intervention also aroused ignited discussions among the allied countries. The initial discourse was based on the premises of protecting the civilians through a series of air strikes that would hit Gaddafi's military forces. The irruption of land forces was rejected since the very beginning. Only now, after months of a stalemate in the battle and the continuous claims of the rebels for Western support, UK, France and Italy discuss the possibility of sending "advisors" to the rebels .

"I do not think the Western powers will commit land forces to Libya. They seem to regret getting so deeply involved already, and the recent strike on the Gaddafi family residence suggests they are trying to hasten an end by killing Gaddafi himself. While the Afghan war continues, neither the US nor the UK will be willing to enter any new Afghanistans", says Dr. Rogan.

Dr. El-Anis also points out that the situation has reached a critical point. "We can be sure that on the ground and behind closed doors in decision making circles there is still a lot of activity. I think NATO forces understand that the situation will not be eased for quite a few weeks and months. There is very little chance of NATO or any other soldiers on the ground in Libya any time soon", explains.

The situation has reached a point in which none of the combating forces seems a clear winner. According to a research carried out by IHS Global Insight, an American think tank, "NATO allies will be stuck between a rock and a hard place for the foreseeable future, fearing being dragged into a prolonged conflict for which they might be forced to take responsibility. The more active allies, UK, France and US might therefore seek fresh means of engagement, through non-lethal military aid, such as the package declared by the US on 20 April, and logistical and training support. However, without a strategic military shift that swings the power balance decisively in the hands of the rebels, the stalemate is set to drag on ".

The UN has also warned that more funds would be needed to support "relief operations" in Libya. "Unless funds are swiftly committed by donor countries, this shortfall will likely impact vital humanitarian assistance for tens of thousands of people displaced by the recent fighting", said UNHCR spokesperson Andrej Mahecic .

The shortage of Western military and economic support would be a hard blow to the rebels' aspirations.

A Libyan rebel guards a checkpoint in Brega. Source: Stratsis Incite

The current situation seems far from being resolved. Experts have already warned that the conflict in Libya could evolve into a permanent civil war with the presence of NATO forces, transforming the country into a new Afghanistan. Former Libyan Foreign Ministry, Moussa Koussa, which fled the country in early April, told the BBC that "taking Libya into civil war would lead to so much blood and Libya would be a new Somalia".

A rebel victory in the conflict seems unrealistic right now, and it will certainly never happen without Western support. In that unlikely situation, Libya could end up being ruled by an unknown leader under the close surveillance of the UN and the Western powers. This would appease all the factions involved in the conflict, as happened in Afghanistan with Mohammed Karzai. Western leaders have asked Gaddafi to step down from power and go into exile in several occasions. Still, even if the rebels win with Western support, there is a high risk of confrontation between different factions, given their heterogeneous nature.

"The future in Libya no doubt will involve regime change. The US, UK and France have all pledged not to stop until Gaddafi goes, so they have made that much clear. In the absence of sound state institutions, the scope for collapse and further conflict is a present danger. A UN trusteeship cannot be ruled out to help the Libyans secure their country post-Gaddafi while shaping new institutions of government", says Dr. Rogan.

Middle East experts at Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank, argue that the Western powers should indeed back the creation of a national anti-Gaddafi coalition. "Such a broad national coalition could become the basis for a transitional government that could guide Libya towards achieving a just, representative and democratic government. The creation of a broad-based, respected and widely-accepted transition government with a large military component will be necessary to create a suitable environment in which Libya’s first free and fair post-Gaddafi elections could be organised", explain.

Dr. El-Anis, on the other hand, warns that the conflict will be long, and the possible future scenarios are not very clear. "The rebels don’t have much chance of success if international pressure on Gaddafi eases off. Financially speaking the regime is running out of funds and this is probably going to be the key. Ultimately though I don’t think the rebels are likely to be able to overthrow the regime militarily and likewise Gaddafi’s forces are not likely to be able to militarily re-assert their control over much of Libya as long as NATO is involved. Eventually I think we will see some kind of progressive political process alongside the military one and the removal of the Gaddafi regime is still what I think will happen", argues.

Saif Al-Islam, heir to Gaddafi's regime. Source: AFP

Another situation could see Gaddafi fleeing the country and his second son, Saif Al-Islam, ruling it but undertaking several reforms which will try to appease the Western powers. Mr. Al-Islam, who studied at the London School of Economics and owned a mansion in London, still enjoys a close relation with prominent figures in the UK. He also told in an interview published in The Spectator, back in 2002, that once in power his policy would be focused on transforming Libya into a Western-like democracy .

Whatever happens, the prospects of a rapid and clear victory of the rebels seem highly unlikely.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: Manning's uncertain fate

For the past ten months he has been held in a tiny obstructive jail of only a few feet wide, first in an army prison in Kuwait, and later in the military prison in Quantico, Virginia. He is held in what the US goverment calls 'maximum security conditions'. Bradley Manning, the american private accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of top-secret documents to whistleblower website Wikileaks, languishes in inhuman conditions, waiting for a trial that could end up with the application of the death penalty.

In the last months Manning has spent 23 hours every day closed in a windowness 6,7 square metre cell. His only companions there are a bed, a sink and a toilet. He is allowed to leave the cell only for one hour a day. He is also prevented from practising any type of exercise while being in the cell. Only in the scarce hour that he is allowed to walk outside his solitary prison, he is taken to a slightly bigger cell, where he can walk in figures of eight and is not allowed to run or practise any physical activity.

He is held awake between 5am and 8pm. If he falls asleep, guards awaken him. During the day, he remains under 'Prevention of injury' regime to prevent any temptative of suicide, whereby he has to respond 'yes' every five minutes to the two guards that stand beside his cell. For two months he was held in 'full suicide watch', another perverse euphemism that involved stripping him to his underwear and having his glasses confiscated in order to prevent any self-injury. He is also allowed to have either a book or a magazine at a time. If he has any visitors, he is shackled by hand and foot, and two guards monitor every movement he does and listen to every word he pronounces.

The inhuman conditions of his confinement have been described in an 11-page letter that Manning wrote to his lawyer, David Coombs, and later confirmed by the few friends that were allowed to visit Manning at Quantico. The situation has also been denounced by different lawyers and campaign groups such as Amnesty International. Several protests around the world have pleaded for Manning to be held in better conditions.

Manning, an ex-US private, was born in Oklahoma in 1987, and when his parents divorced he flew with his mother to Wales, where he lived for four years. Since 2000 to 2004 he attended the Tasker Milward school in Harverdfordwest, Pembrokeshire. Now, protesters all over the UK rely on the fact that, according to the 1981 British Nationality Act, any person born after 1983 to a UK citizen, even if not living in the UK, obtains immediately the British nationality. However, according to Amnesty International the UK government has failed to visit Manning and demand better confinement conditions for him.

Protests were also held in front of the US embassy in London, were around 100 people demanded better conditions for Manning’s imprisonement and a fair trial. Welsh campaigners also joined the protests.

Plaid Cymru’s MP Ann Clwyd, who is also member of the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group, raised Manning's case in Parliament and asked for a debate. “Manning's confinement situation serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade him. Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn't even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime. I regard myself as a great friend and admirer of the United States, but this treatment of one of their own soldiers ill-becomes that otherwise great nation. I do not say this lightly, but Bradley Manning's treatment has uncomfortable echos of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay. I implore the US Administration to treat Bradley Manning humanely whilst he is detained. There is increasing concern about Bradley Manning's case in the UK, and in particular in Wales, so I will continue to raise te case of Bradley Manning with the UK Government. I do not think it is acceptable for the UK Government to refuse to engage with the case and I call upon the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to officially raise Bradley Manning's case with his US counterpart", said.

Amnesty International also launched a worldwide campaign to support Bradley Manning in which the organisation asked people to get involved by sending petitions to the US authorities in order to improve Manning’s confinement conditions. Susan Lee, Amnesty International’s Americas Programme Director expressed her concern about the situation of private Manning. “We are concerned that the conditions inflicted on Bradley Manning are unnecesarily severe and amount to inhumane treatment by the US authorities. Such repressive conditions breach the US’s obligations to treat detainees with humanity and dignity. We are also concerned that isolation and prolonged celular confinement may undermine Manning’s ability to defend himself. We urge the US authorities to review Bradley Manning’s situation. Under international standards, prisoners who have not yet stood trial should be treated in accordance with their right to the pressumption of innocence. Our concerns regarding his treatment are further heightened by the fact that military pshychiatrists have repeatedly recommended that Bradley Manning be removed from ‘Prevention of injury’ status”, explained Lee.

The secret files

When in late 2010 Bradley Manning leaked more than 250,000 documents to different international newspapers, nobody had a grasp of the consequences of one of the biggest leaks in the history of the United States. The cables showed dispatches from 250 US embassies and consulates around the world, which pictured an in-depth image of the US diplomacy. The files, which are top-secret documents that could only be accessed by US intelligence officers, included political analysis, detailed accounts and embassy officer’s impressions about the different countries intended to be read by the US authorities in Washington.

Before becoming a US private Manning used to be a high-skilled hacker. When he joined the US army he was assigned to a support battalion at the Forward Operating Base Hammer, Iraq. From his position he could access to a SIPRNet, a digital platform that the US Government used to transmit classified information.

According to the published chatlog of the conversation that Manning had with a friend, Manning came to the base with a CD labelled ‘Lady Gaga’, he erased the music, wrote a compressed file with all the documents. "I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga'. No one suspected a thing. I listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratin possibly the largest data spillage in American history. I have unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day seven days a week for eight months", he said in the conversation.

The chatlog register also shows that Manning knew that the leaking of these documents would have a massive impact in the US international relations. "Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public. Everywhere there is a US post, there is a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed. It's beautiful, and horrifying. Information should be free. It belongs in the public domain", said Manning to his fellow hacker-activist.

After saving all the documents in the CD, he uploaded them to whistleblower website Wikileaks, but Julian Assange, the man in charge of the page, decided not to publish them immediately. The Wikileaks activists went through all the documents and disclosed the most important information. Early in April the website published the footage of an Apache helicopter shooting at the crowds in Iraq. Finally, the disclosed cables were leaked to four main international newspapers. A few days later, Assange was accused with having carried sexual assaults to two women in Sweden, and Manning was arrested and imprisoned. The friend whom he spoke with at the chatlog, Adrian Lamo, was the one who turned him to the FBI.

Manning's situation

The future of Bradley Manning is hard to predict. Last month the US Army added 22 new charges against the ex private, among them 'aiding the enemy'. If found guilty, this charge could carry death penalty. Manning faces, at least, life-long condemns for 34 charges such as high treason, leaking classified documents, theft of public property or records, transmitting defence information and computer fraud. Manning was also recently accused of attacking his stepmother with a knife before joining the army in 2007.

Manning's imprisonement conditions have already caused some reactions among the US politics. Early in March, US department spokesman PJ Crowley quitted, arguing that the treatment of Manning was being counterproductive for the american interests. Crowley said that the prosecution started against Manning is well grounded, but the fact that he is being held in such inhumane conditions has eclipsed the whole case.

In the meantime Bradley Manning still languishes in the same tiny cell where he has been held since June 2010, waiting for a trial that, it seems, never comes.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: Muhammad's unrest

King Muhammad VI

As Saudi Arabia intervenes in Bahrain and Col. Gaddafi fights back the rebels in Libya, the rest of the Arab world tracks expectantly the evolution of the uprisings in the troubled countries, fearing contagion to their own lands.

The first protests in Tunisia and Egypt and, above all, the positive result they achieved, shook the political roots of the rest of the countries in the Arab strip in north Africa and in the Middle East. Within weeks, almost all the Arab countries registered major protests in the main cities, where citizens demanded, at the very least, political reforms.

The unrest spread even to Morocco, one of the most stable countries in the region, and a Westernised nation ruled by king Muhammad VI. The protests have achieved their goals in Egypt and Tunisia, overthrowing the dictators that firmly ruled the countries for decades, and have led to an almost open civil war in Libya. But, will ever Morocco fall into such turmoil?

Contrary to what is commonly thought, currently Morocco is one of the countries with less GDP of the region, with a GDP per capita much lower than Egypt's and roughly half that of Tunisia, for instance. Yet experts say that it is highly unlikely that Moroccans will ever try to remove king Muhammad VI from power.

Source: CIA factbook

Amid the turmoil

The wave of protests which shook all the Arab world arrived to Morocco on February 20th, when over 5,000 demonstrators gathered at Bab al-Had square in Rabat, calling for change. According to Human Rights Watch, hundreds of people demonstrated also in the main cities such as Casablanca, Agadir and Marrakesh.

The protesters set fire to police stations in Marrakesh and Larache, and vandalised a stadium, two political offices and two hotels in Hoceima, according to the Moroccan Association for Human Rights. During the unrest five people died at a bank that was set on fire.

Just one day after the demonstrations took place all over the country, king Muhammad VI announced the creation of the Social and Economic Council, which would have the task of monitorising and carrying out reforms. It was a first movement towards the citizenship. Muhammad also added that the main priority for the executive would be fighting against poverty.

The last Wikileaks cables revealed that the royal Alaouite family was corrupted, and had been wasting thousands of dollars in the last years. On the other hand, the official unemployment rate of the country is only at 10%, but several Moroccans don't have any job, raising the doubt of the actual accuracy of these figures.

Source: BBC

Morocco's future scenarios

The removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak and the clashes registered in Libya and Bahrain lead to a question difficult to answer: will these 'Jasmine revolutions' spread all over the Arab countries, deposing all the long-term monarchs and dictators that have ruled these nations for decades?

Albeit the question remains complicated, experts agree that it is unlikely to see a change in the Moroccan regime. According to Jillian C.York, a freelance journalist based in Morocco, the public opinion is strongly divided between support for the monarchy and a move toward a parliamentary democracy. Yet the king has only been in power for 12 years -unlike in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia-, and hence the Moroccans don't have the same sense of frustration. On the other hand the demands of the protesters were mainly directed to a move to a parliamentary democracy where the king will play a minor role -like the Spanish one-, an end to corruption and more economic balance.

Journalist Matt Schuman explains that the situation in Morocco is very different from that of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Despite having a lower GDP, the poverty is not oppressive, and the Moroccans can live a simple life without being rich but neither without starving.

Another difference, according to Schuman, is that whereas in Egypt and Tunisia the protests were driven by a cultural elite of educated youngsters and intellectuals, Morocco suffers from a lack of literacy. Only around 50% of the population is educated, and therefore "Moroccans' illiteracy hampers the spread of information in general, and would definitely impede the organization of any type of protest movement".

Finally, Moroccans don't want to depose the king. Although there is a Prime Minister, political parties and elections, the lesser political bodies are corrupted. However, the royal family is seen as a 'credible figure'. On the other hand, since he was crowned king of Morocco, 12 years ago, Muhammad VI has carried out some political and social reforms, allowing certain freedom and democracy in the country.

According to Jillian C.York, "Moroccans who support the protests are generally taking advantage of the current political climate on the region, but they are not seeking the same things; they are not hoping to overthrow the king. The king is well-liked and has not been in power for very long. He has made major changes during his 12 years of rule and much of the country is happy with that".




The revolutions' third way?

Last week, and after nearly a month watching in silence the evolution of the uprisings in the neighbouring countries, king Muhammad VI announced in his first national address since the uprisings "comprehensive constitutional reforms", where "individual and collective liberties will be expanded". He also promised that the power to name the Prime Minister will be transferred to the Parliament. Moreover, he added that some powers will be devolved to Morocco's regions and the figure of Prime Minister will have more powers. The proposals for the reforms will be carried out by a special committee created ad-hoc, and will be submitted in June. It might be the beginning of a more democratic Morocco, meeting some of the demands of the protesters and becoming the Jasmine revolution's third way, aside from the overthrowing of the ruling class in Egypt and Tunisia, and the open war in Libya.

By CDR with 1 comment

FEATURE: Strengthening the Welsh dragon

Over 500.000 Welsh voted Yes in the third referendum in the history of Wales, giving the National Assembly further powers in the 20 subject areas in which it can legislate. From now on the Assembly won't need the permission of Westminster to legislate in any of these areas.

The Yes option has been backed by almost a 64% of the voters, in front of a 36% who voted no. The results show an increasing self-confidence in the Welsh citizens: in 1979 a vast majority of the voters said "no", whereas in 1997 the question held in the referendum was approved by a narrow margin. 14 years ago, only 50,3% of those called to the polls voted yes, whereas a 47,7% voted no.

The victory of the Yes campaign in the 2011 referendum shows that Welsh were longing for some changes in the legal and politic governance in the country. However, a major complaint of the citizenship was that there wasn't enough information available about the consequences of the referendum.

The turnout, which was as low as only 35% of those who were called to the polls, show that the questions raised by the referendum were not backed by the majority of the population.

font: BBC

Wales Office to disappear?

But the results of the referendum are already having direct implications. Plaid Cymru leader Ieuan Wyn Jones said this week that after achieving direct law-making powers, the so-called Wales Office's role is difficult to establish.

Jones explained that now it is "difficult to justify" the existence of three different offices for the devolved regions -Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland-, and proposed to create a new UK government department which would merge the three offices.

The Wales Office is a remnant of the past. It was established as a bridge between the British Government and Wales, and it was created by the UK Government to deal with all the Welsh matters.

According to Jones, this office has a diminished role after the last referendum. In the last years it was devoted to handle the National Assembly's requests for more powers, something that has been already granted after the Welsh voted 'yes' in the last referendum, which asked whether the citizenship wanted the National Assembly to be able to have further powers.

The road to devolution

The third referendum in the history of Wales is a milestone for the Devolution, the process whereby Westminster cedes powers to other devolved regions such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Wales has been legally part of the United Kingdom since the Union acts of 1535, whereby every law passed in England would be applied automatically in Wales also. In the late 19th century some acts concerning Wales were passed, such as the Welsh Intemediate Education Act, and a Department of the Board of Education was established in 1907 to deal with education matters in the region. Some years later, in 1919, the Welsh Board of Health was set up in Wales, and in 1949 the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was established. Its main objetive was to oversee the effects of Government policy.

The origins of the referendum underlie on the so-called "Welsh Office", a sort of delegation that the Government of United Kingdom decided to open in 1965 in Wales to deal with Welsh matters. This office was established with the objective of executing the Government policy in Wales.

Although the Welsh Office gained more powers in the next years, it became clear that Wales was still regarded as an appendix of England, rather than a nation within a country of nations.

A few years later, in 1979, the Welsh citizens faced the first referendum in the history of Wales. They would vote if they wanted to create an assembly with the same functions as the Secretary of State for Wales, that is, the application of UK Government's policy on the region.

The majority of the Welsh who decided to participate in the polls decided to vote no. Over 950.000 rejected the plans exposed in the referendum, whereas only 243.000 approved them. At that time, almost all the main political parties in the region saw Devolution as a threat to the United Kingdom and a concession to the Welsh nationalism, hence campaigned for the no-vote.

Exactly twenty years later, in 1997, the Welsh had another opportunity to vote on a referendum about the autonomy of Wales and the Devolution process. In this new referendum, Welsh were asked whether they accepted the creation of a Welsh National Assembly which would have certain devolved powers, and which would not only apply the UK Government´s policy on certain matters, but would have the power of legislating, albeit the Assembly would be forced to ask the permission of Westminster.

The referendum was approved by a slight majority of only 50.3% of the voters, in front of a 49.7% that rejected the creation of an Assembly. After the polls, the UK Government approved the Government of Wales Act of 1998, whereby the National Assembly for Wales was established, with powers in twenty subject areas.

By CDR with No comments

COMMENT: The Libyan jigsaw

As Gaddafi fights to recover the eastern enclaves ruled by the protesters, uprisings have been registered in the western cities, where oil workers are planning to go on a massive strike that will threaten to paralyse the economy of the country.

In the last days the Libyan government has ceded some enclaves in both the eastern and the western regions of the country to the protesters who demand democratic reforms and the end of the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi, in power since 1969. Reports say that the ruling Libyan government has ordered to open fire against the protesters in the capital Tripoli, and organizations such as Human Rights Watch claim that there are more than 300 killed.

Protests in the main cities of the country have been repressed with brutality by the regime. Gaddafi has warned that he won't flee the country, and has threatened to start an open civil war if protests don't end immediately. In the meantime thousands of foreigners have fled the country as the protests increase.

Despite the turbulent situation of the country, Col Gaddafi's son, Said al-islam Gaddafi stated that the everything was "normal" in the main cities, where "ports, schools and airports are all open", he said.

font: CIA factbook

The current unrest in Libya has been a matter of discussion everywhere in the last days. John Griffiths, from the Socialist Worker Party in Wales, said that these uprisings in the Arab World have common features: "All of these countries have repressive regimes, but for decades they could offer bread to the population. Now they can't anymore. There is great luxury and wealth next to poverty, huge numbers of graduates leaving universities and a high unemployment rate. These are increasingly unpopular regimes with high levels of repression", stated.

Libya has many bonds with European countries. Gaddafi has an excellent relation with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, and other European economies maintained a good relation with the Libyan regime until the first clashes took place. United Kingdom also had trade agreements with Gaddafi, according to Griffiths: "Three months ago we were selling weapons to colonel Gaddafi to repress his people", said.

Currently Wales has tight bonds with Libya. There is a Libya-Wales Exchange association, which seeks to tighten collaboration between both countries in different areas such as culture, business and education. On the other hand, Cardiff University hosts a Libyan students society, and Cardiffians find the situation in Libya very worrying.

"The situation there is very bad. The problem is that these countries have been ruled by dictators and now they have to fight to get freedom", said Alen Gordon, from Cardiff.

The arab minorities in Cardiff also have their voice about the matter. Raed Baconi, from Lebanon, argued that "it is time for people to speak. The government has to work for the people, not for them, and now we are seeing that people are fighting to have the chance to speak". Ahmed Boulaz, an Algerian emigré, expressed his hope for a democratic future in the region: "What is happening in the arab countries reminds me of what happened in eastern Europe twenty years ago. The problem is that this dictators might be replaced by other dictators, that's why this is a very delicate moment for these countries. People have to make sure that they get a real democracy now", stated.

The unrest in Libya, one of the main oil exporters in the world, has also had a major impact in the price of crude oil. It has hit the $110 per barrel for the first time in the last three years, and it is likely that the prices will rise even further in the next days.

font: article.wn.com

Oil prices

As the situation worsens in the positions held by the rebels, a fear of an open civil war has hit the whole country. The situation seemed to be controlled by the rebel forces, who were firmly advancing to the capital Tripoli from their main base in Benghazi, in the east of the country. However in the last days a counter-offensive carried out by forces loyal to Col.Gaddafi has undermined the tenacity of the rebels.

An offensive with tanks and air raids have hit the rebels, stopping their march towards the capital. The main fear now is that the conflict will be stuck for months and the situation will worsen.

The latest armed struggles in Libya also have had a direct impact on the price of the oil, rising almost $7 since last Monday and reaching $115 per barrel, the highest price since September 2008, where the price rose triggered by the economic crisis.

The clashes between the rebel forces and the Libyan army have hit the oil terminal at Ras Lanuf, damaging the factory. Experts fear now that the price of the oil will reach another historical maximum, as Col.Gaddafi prepares to bomb oil factories in the rebel territories in order to undermine the economic income they generate and retake the control of the region.

The main consequence is the instability of the stock markets around the world. Investors fear that the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and, above all Libya will spread to other oil-producing Arab countries, stopping the oil exports and therefore hitting the world markets.

Experts warn that an open civil war in Libya would hit very badly the world's economy by stopping the oil exports and therefore rising the crude oil prices.

In order to avoid nervousness among the investors, the US Government has admitted that is considering tapping its oil reserves to give more confidence to the stock markets and to try to stop the rising of the oil crude prices.

On the other hand both Britain and France are pushing to win support at the United Nations with the objective of setting a no-fly zone which won't allow Col.Gaddafi's forces to bomb the oil facilities in the eastern territories held by the rebels.

Libya is currently one of the main oil-producing countries, holding around 2% of the world's oil reserves. The production of crude oil has fallen since the start of the riots. Before the uprisings Libya produced 1.6 million barrels per day, and after almost one month of unrest the output has fallen to 1 million barrels per day.

By CDR with No comments

FEATURE: The red dragon at the crossroads

24 years after the last referendum, the Welsh will go for the third time in history to the polls to decide about the future of Wales. The referendum, which will be held on the next 3rd of March, will seek to cede further law-making powers to the Assembly.

Almost 3 million Welsh are called to the polls in what is meant to be another milestone in the Devolution process in Wales. The population will be asked to decide whether they want the National Assembly to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas where it has attributions.

Currently, the Assembly can only decide on certain matters, but needs the permission of Westminster to be able to make new laws. If the changes are approved by the citizenship, the Assembly will be able to legislate independently from Westminster.

Wales is the region within the United Kingdom with less devolved powers. Currently, the Assembly has powers to make laws in only 20 subject areas, such as agriculture, culture, economic development, health or transport. Still, it needs the UK Parliament’s agreement to legislate in every area, something the main Welsh parties find unfair, compared to other Devolved regions like Scotland and Northern Ireland, which don’t need the Westminster’s permit to legislate.

However, major subjects such as defence, tax or welfare benefits will remain bonded to the UK Parliament’s whatever the result of the referendum.

The issue of a new referendum about the cession of powers to the Assembly has aroused ignited discussions among Welsh citizens. Wales is currently the poorest region of the whole United Kingdom, with an average per capita income of less half of London’s. Indeed, large areas of Wales have a GDP of 67% of the British average. Moreover, the unemployment rate is bigger in Wales (8.4%) than in the rest of the country (average of 7.9%). The whole region was declared Objective 1 by the European Union, which brought in over a billion pounds worth of European aid in the last years. However this funding has failed to achieve the expected economic regeneration.

On the other hand Wales faces a difficult economic situation due to the recent cuts on the public spending. Despite the spending review hasn’t been massive in the devolved regions, it still implies that Welsh will lose a 7.5% of their budget between 2010-2011 and 2024-2015. Indeed the cuts in Wales will be higher than in the other devolved regions. Scotland will lose a 6.8% of its public budget and Northern Ireland a 6.9%. Precisely one of the historic demands of the National Assembly is to have greater tax powers, which will allow Wales to spend a 15% more of what it spends.

Background for Devolution in Wales

The referendum of the 3rd of March will be the next step in the road to self-government in Wales. Previously, the Welsh voted in two referendums linked to the cession of powers, the first time the region had the opportunity of getting some self-government powers since the Union Act was passed by Henry VIII between 1536 and 1542, uniting Wales and England. Until 1967, any law passed by Parliament which referred to England had to be automatically applied also in Wales. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that Wales was given a separate identity with the creation of the Welsh Secretary of Education and the Minister of State.

The Devolution process was opened in Wales in the late 70s, and in 1979 the Welsh had the opportunity to vote on the first referendum ever on the cession of powers. The voters were asked whether they wanted the provisions of the Wales act of 1978 to be put into effect. The results, however, showed that a vast majority of the population (79.7%) rejected this first attempt on the creation of a Welsh Assembly and the cession of certain powers from Westminster to it.

Twenty years later, in 1997, a second referendum on the matter was held both in Scotland and Wales. In this case, Welsh were asked whether they supported the creation of an assembly for Wales with devolved powers that, unlike in Scotland, wouldn’t include any tax-varying powers. This second referendum was approved with only a 50.3%, a difference of barely 7.000 votes. The National Assembly for Wales was finally set up in 1999.

Source: The Economist

Yes and no campaigns

During January two campaigns have been launched to inform the voters about the referendum options. All the four parties in Wales (Plaid Cymru, Welsh Labour, Welsh Conservatives and Welsh Liberal Democrats) back the Yes option. The Yes campaign defends the cession of more powers to the Assembly as an important step for Wales, given that “time and money are being wasted” as the Assembly needs Westminster’s permission to legislate.

Aled Edwards, ex member of the All Wales Convention and speaking on behalf of the “Yes to Wales” campaign said that “it is not healthy for any democracy to have to wait years to legislate. It takes many months to get the permission from Westminster”. Edwards also added that the fear of some people to the Devolution process is unjustified. “There are no good arguments to vote no. This referendum won’t lead to the independence of Wales, those who say that are mistaken”, said.

Edwards also warned about the future scenario if the Welsh decide to vote no. “Devolution has made Wales a more equal place. If we vote no, the current process will be stopped, we will have to wait. It would be disastrous. It is not only a matter of legislation. By voting yes we are telling Westminster that we want to legislate on our own, that we are able to do it”, explained Edwards.

On the other hand, the opposing No campaign, launched by the independent pressure group “True Wales”, argue that the Assembly has failed to achieve what was promised in 1997. Nigel Bull, spokesperson of “True Wales”, stated that “when we voted for an Assembly we were expecting something different. We didn’t vote for this. We want a complete reform of the Assembly and the way it is managed”.

According to Bull, the Assembly has been unable to manage the achieved powers in a proper way. “We wasted hundreds of millions of pounds. Hundreds of companies got £ 1-million grants for nothing”, said.

However, Bull argues that “True Wales” is not against Devolution. “We are strong believers in Devolution, but not like this. We didn’t vote for what we have right now. I voted yes in the referendum in 1997, and I still believe in Devolution, but enough is enough”, stated.

Source: Lonely Planet

The road to independence?

The demands of independence for Wales are currently backed only by a small percentage of the citizenship, and even though the Devolution process has given a new prospect to the Welsh identity, it is unlikely that Wales will become an independent state in the next years.

One of the main reasons why is improbable that Wales achieve independence, traditionally has been said, is the size and state of the economy. Wales has a small economy based mainly in the first sector that won’t be able to compete as an independent state.

However, the referendum of the 3rd of March is seen by some people as a chance to get closer to the idea of a fully self-governed state.

The polls are addressed to British citizens, qualifying Commonwealth citizens, Irish and EU citizens, and the voters will be able to vote by person on the very same day of the referendum, by post or by proxy.

By CDR with 1 comment

Politics

By CDR with No comments

By CDR with No comments