Voortman on Sri Lanka's fiery President Rajapakse

James Voortman, a leading Asian security analyst, outlines the main security threats in the Sri Lankan theatre at present. His most recent analysis appeared in an article published by the Asian Times. To read the article, please click here. For further South Asia analysis visit Voortman's blog by clicking here.

Defining the Qaeda monster

I recently received a mail from a reader concerning definitions and the fight against terrorism. The reader was confused that the US hadn’t been able to destroy al-Qaeda despite having overwhelming technical and military superiority. The question raised issue over the harmony of terrorists and how governments used the tag, terrorist, to identify its modern day enemies.

Terrorism is a phenomenon that is not easily defined or does it fit into any particular framework. When attempts are made to do so, arguments are made against it and counter examples generally prove to be successful in showing that a particular group or incident is not terrorism but another type of attack. So when analysing the effect of terrorism we are in fact analysing the effect of attacks on civilian or military interests by groups with set ideologies and motivations. Looking at the Middle East analysing particular countries we are confronted with numerous groups, which strangely enough are usually associated with al-Qaeda. This group has been blamed for hundreds of attacks, and groups either aligned with it or motivated by it are said to be diffuse. Yet this raises a number of problems. The most obvious being, do all these groups share a common ideology? The answer surely, must be no. With differing nationalities, immediate priorities are largely ignored by analysts and media commentators to the detriment of proper analysis. This has largely been a factor of government's pigeon holing groups into easily identifiable structures so that they can easily present the 'enemy' to their civilian populations. It is a political consequence more than a scientific one and to understand 'terrorist groups' one must understand this function, this flawed function.

The Bakiyev show: Soviet style politicking at its best

Kyrgyzstan president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev called for a referendum for 21 October. The referendum was announced in September and comes at a time of growing criticism of the Bakiyev regime. Bakiyev's presidency has faced rising crime rates, poverty, continued allegations of corruption, battles for control of lucrative businesses , political assassinations and infighting and allegations of a cover up of murders in Aksy in 2002. Popular protests to his rule have occurred frequently most notably in April and November 2006 and the hopes of the Tulip Revolution, which brought Bakiyev to power, have been dashed. Bakiyev has, therefore, chosen to ask the people to decide on constitutional amendments and reforms to the electoral law that will make political parties directly elected to a newly expanded parliament and give him greater power over the legislature. In the past, under Akiyev, snap referendums were held to give the president greater power. It is clear that the current referendum is continuing this tradition and the great hopes and ideals of the Tulip Revolution have been dashed. It is also clear that Bakiyev has not given the people enough time to realise exactly what it is that he is doing.

In October Bakiyev was elected leader of the Ak Jol Eldik Partiyasi. Although he resigned shortly after his election, it is hoped that this party will emerge as the new majority party. Kyrgyzstan has never had a majority party, unlike most if its neighbours and it is Bakiyev's hope to have a party that will legitimise his presidency and rubber stamp his decision. It is a clever political gamble. Most of the protests in the country have focused on the leaders. By moving towards parties blame is not so easily assigned. The government also gains international legitimacy and is seen to be democratic. Inspection of the proposed Kyrgyz constitution also reveals that power will continue to rest with the president and power will continue to be centered in the president's office. Under the new constitution the president elects 50% of the electoral commission, the cabinet and ministers. In fact the president can control everything and does control everything. The referendum it would seem is another smoke screen designed to deflect attention away from Bakiyev's obvious policy failures and to diminsh the power of parliament, which has been severely critical of his rule since 2005. If voters accept the new constitution, snap elections are due to be held before the end of the year for a new parliament. If they do not accept the referendum expect Bakiyev to conjur up another magic show to stay in power. With Bakiyevs manipulations and growing discontent echoes of the 2005 Tulip Revolution are already starting to be heard.

The Pakistan conundrum: Consequences of Musharraffs reelection

On 6 October President Pervez Musharraf was re-elected for a fresh five year term by the Pakistan's national and provincial assemblies. The world will now turn its attention to the Supreme Court, which is due to rule over the legality of the election, when it meets on 17 October. However, Musharraf's hold on power is set to continue, as the courts lack the stomach to stand up to the president. With Musharraf's power seemingly secure, it is appropriate to look at the issue of his re-election and how it will shape the following aspects of Pakistan's future: For more, click here.

Israeli's offer parts of al-Quds

The Israeli political hierarchy has publicly stated its intention to return control of parts of Jerusalem, the central sticking point for so many failed peace agreements, to the Palestinian National Authority in any future peace agreement. Although the positive talk is commendable and a long time coming the truth of the matter is that the offer was made at a time when the Palestinians are bitterly divided and even offers of leaving the Holy Land wouldn’t be able to be finalised. Hamas remains in control of the Gaza Strip and is threatening to carry the fight to the West Bank. Recent evidence suggests that Mahmoud Abbas' security forces are in disarray and if it were not for the presence of Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, Hamas and not Fatah, would not be in control of the Palestinian polity. So does the offer mean anything? Yes and no. In reality the offer is baseless, like the Americans offering Senegal a piece of land on Mars. As a symbolic gesture it's great. It will reinvigorate the Western diplomats and give them something with which to negotiate with. For Olmert's government offering a symbolic olive branch will earn him big points with the international community, but not amongst the ultra-cons. With Jerusalem just one of the primary issues (ther other being refugees, borders, settlements, water and security) we are left to wait in anticipation for the November US sponsored peace talks.