Part 1 of 2 - Understanding the Rwanda Genocide of 1994.

[PointTracker]

In 1994, in the East African country of Rwanda, approximately 800,000 people lost their lives within 100 days.

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, said on the tenth anniversary of the genocide in 2004 - "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret."

What happened in Rwanda in 1994? This article will firstly cover the backdrop to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, followed by a discussion of the genocide itself. Part 2 will discuss the international response to the genocide, and why it is widely held to be a 'failure'.

Backdrop
In the 1800's, before the arrival of the colonial era, Rwanda lived in relative peace. The two largest clans identified themselves as the Hutus and the Tutsis. The Hutus made up a majority of the population (around 80%) while the Tutsis were a minority. The division of Hutus and Tutsis back then was only based on socio-economic status, if anything. The Tutsis held power over Rwanda in a monarchy, but this did not exclude Hutus from having positions of power as well. Hutus and Tutsis often married one another, and it was certainly possible for one to switch from Hutu to Tutsi and vice versa, depending on status and relations. All-in-all, apart from the normal political tensions that any state would have, the Hutu-Tutsi divide never meant anything close to what it would mean in coming years.

Germany took control of Rwanda in the late 1800s as part of its colonial conquest. For reasons still in dispute, German colonialists segregated Hutus and Tutsis according to different factors. The colonizers had an outwards preference towards Tutsis due to their apparent lighter skin, taller body structures and finer facial features compared to Hutus. They also found the Tutsis to be more inclined to convert to Roman Catholicism, and were impressed by their apparently "honorable and eloquent personalities". Tutsis were appointed to positions of power, while Hutus were fixed as a lower class.

Germany was driven out of Rwanda during the first World War, and authority of the country was handed to Belgium. Belgian colonialists maintained Tutsi power in the country but sought to make the racial division between Hutus and Tutsis more distinct than ever. Like their German predecessors, Belgian colonizers believed that Tutsis, by their appearance, were the 'superior' race and claimed they held Caucasian ancestry. The colonialists used questionable techniques such as having scientists measure the size of people's skulls to determine the size of their brains, concluding that Tutsis had larger brains and were therefore more intelligent. The Belgians also introduced identity cards which would indicate the name of an individual, his/her profession, his/her spouse, the names of his/her children and, most notably, whether he/she was a Hutu or a Tutsi according to the Belgians' criteria.

A Tutsi Identity Card | Credit: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

From the time the Belgians arrived in 1916, Tutsis were given preferential treatment in all realms, from jobs to educational opportunities to positions of authority. Over the next few decades, Hutus built great resentment towards Tutsis and sought to take control of the country by the middle of the century. In 1959, a frustrated Hutu population rebelled against its Tutsi superiors killing approximately 20,000 of them and forcing 100,000 more into neighboring countries. Before leaving the country to its independence, the Belgians held a vote and the Tutsi monarchy was abolished - It was 1962, and Rwanda was under Hutu control.

It was Gregoire Kayibanda, a Hutu, who led the Rwandan struggle for independence from Belgium and replaced the former Tutsi monarchy with a Hutu-majority government. However, another Hutu by the name of Juvenal Habyarimana claimed that Kayibanda was favoring southern Hutus over northerners which led to corruption, amidst other claims of ineffectiveness and government-sponsored violence. Kabiyanda's reign lasted just over a decade until 1973 when Habyarimana seized power of the government in a military coup. Compared to Kabiyanda's, Habyarimana's regime saw far less Hutu-Tutsi violence but tension between the two still remained high.

Meanwhile, Tutsi refugees in Uganda (which borders Rwanda to the north-west) banded together to form the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in 1987, founded and led by Paul Kagame and Fred Rwigema, committed to overthrowing the Hutu government and reclaiming their right to live in Rwanda. The RPF invaded Rwanda in 1990 which marked the beginning of the Rwandan Civil War, a three-year long affair that paved way to the horrific events of 1994. Habyarimana's army initially drove the RPF out, having them outnumbered and outpowered, but the RPF regrouped and engaged the Rwandan army to a point where neither side could achieve a clear victory.

The stalemate between the two sides finally led to a cease-fire, which ultimately turned into a peace agreement called the Arusha Accords (signed in Arusha, Tanzania), organized by the governments of the United States and France as well as the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The Accords set out a power-sharing agreement between the RPF and the government of Rwanda, including
* an integrated army (one that would include soldiers from both sides),
* the repatriation (that is, the return to one's country of origin) of Tutsi refugees, and
* provisions for the RPF and Tutsi representation in government which stemmed the absolute power of Habyarimana.

Genocide
Although the civil war ended with the Arusha Accords, Hutu-Tutsi tension remained incredibly high. To make matters worse, Hutus were plunged into internal disagreement amongst themselves, as moderates preferred to power-share with Tutsis via the peace agreements while extremists were furious that Habyarimana would agree to yield power to the Hutus' sworn enemies. Realizing these problems, the United Nations provided assistance to guide the peace process and ensure that both sides met their obligations under the Arusha Accords. UNAMIR, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, was dispatched in 1993 and was comprised of 2,500 personnel at its peak, borrowed from different countries.

The Arusha Accords met a fatal end in April 1994, when Habyarimana's airplane was struck by a missile from source unknown. Accusations were tossed in every direction, but Hutu extremists seized the opportunity to pin the President's murder (along with the murder of several Rwandan politicians and the President of Rwanda's neighbor Burundi who were all on board) on the Tutsis. The genocide was directed by a Hutu extremist group called the Akazu.

Hutu extremists seized the government and turned Rwanda into a slaughterhouse for 100 days. The most notable Hutu extremist group was called the Interahamwe and is estimated to have been 30,000 strong. Using the identity cards (explained above), Tutsis were filtered out from the Hutu population and murdered by the hundreds and thousands. Mass murdering began with bullets and grenades but were substituted with clubs and machetes. Men, women and children were murdered indiscriminately, their bodies tossed onto roadsides and into ditches. Victims were often tortured sexually or otherwise, having limbs cut off and genitalia mutilated, before being killed. In some situations, victims were given the option of paying the murderer for their death by bullet, to make it faster and less painful. In one episode of the genocide now referred to as the Nyarubuye Massacre, 20,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus seeking refuge inside a church in Rwanda's capital, Kigali, were murdered over the course of two days by Hutu extremists. The few that survived only did so by faking their death under the blood and bodies of those around them.

BBC - In Pictures: Remembering The Genocide

The genocide was assisted by a Rwandan radio station called RTLM - Radio Television Libre de Mille Collines. It began as a music station playing contemporary music, but quickly turned into a means for Hutu extremists to voice hate speech against Tutsis, constantly referring to them as "cockroaches". It called on Hutus to exterminate Tutsis and would name locations where it heard Tutsis and moderate Hutus were hiding.

Continue to 'Part 2 of 2 - Did the world fail Rwanda?'

Ponder:
* What do you think was the motive of the colonial powers in separating the two clans the way they did?
* How should the innocent population of a country react when it is being attacked by government forces?
* What do you think a country without properly established law is like to live in?

Works used for this article, and further information:
[Harvard Law Black Students Association Africa Summit; Rwanda Guide]
[Dr. Orville Jenkins - 'Tutsi, Hutu and German']
[British Broadcasting Corporation - Rwanda; How the Genocide Happened]
[About.com - The Rwandan Genocide] 
[About.com - Rwandan Genocide History]
[Britannica.com - Juvenal Habyarimana]
[U.S. Dept. of State - Files on Arusha Accords]
[United Nations - Rwanda, UNAMIR Mandate]
[Transcript - 'Ghosts of Rwanda']

Understanding the Somali Famine of 2011.

[PointTracker]

Taking a look at a picture of Africa, one will likely notice that the easternmost portion of the continent juts out far into the Arabian Sea. This region is known as the "Horn of Africa" (HOA) and is made up of four countries - Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia. The region is collectively home to 100 million people, with about 85 million of them in Ethiopia and about 10 million of them in Somalia.

A quick glimpse of the news should highlight that certain parts of Somalia are currently undergoing a famine. 

What is a famine, and what led to this one? What are the consequences of it, and what is being done to stop it?

Backdrop
The HOA is currently experiencing a severe drought - basically a time period over which a region will suffer from a lack of water, mostly due to decreased rainfall. In the HOA, lack of rainfall has had disastrous consequences; farming crops have failed, and livestock (farming animals, like cows, that are assets for food production or labor performance) has died off substantially. The destruction of crops and death of livestock have resulted in substantial food shortage. The few cereal grains that are available are too expensive because of their rarity; as a result, what a certain amount of money could have purchased before can only purchase a fraction of that now, which means the currency is worth a lot less - this process is known as inflation.

The decreased rainfall this year is irregular in the HOA's recent history. Between April and June, a regular rainy season for the region, the amount of rainfall in 2011 was less than a third of what the region was used to receiving from 1995-2010. The culprit is thought to be La Nina, the Spanish name for the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere that has the ability to change the climate of a region significantly. This year's dry climate is thought to be the result of a particularly strong La Nina, which has interrupted two rainy seasons in Somalia in a row now.

Along with the drought and its subsequent strain on the Somalian economy, a militant group called al-Shabab has contributed to the plight of the famine-struck people of Somalia. Al-Shabab is a group of several thousands of young Somali men, heavily armed and embroiled in a conflict with Somalia's government to take control of the country and implement Shari'a law throughout. It is also known to have links to the militant group al-Qaeda, most famously known for claiming responsibility for the September 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers. Somalia is widely considered to be a failed state; in short, a country that for years has lacked a central government recognized throughout the country. Countless warlords and their clan-based followers fight for as much of the region as possible. Al-Shabab controls much of southern Somalia and from 2009 until July of this year, had blocked any humanitarian organizations from sending aid to Somalian people. The group appears to be concerned that allowing foreign aid will make Somalian people dependent on humanitarian organizations to sustain themselves. Having finally realized how drastic the situation was, the group lifted the ban but still charge humanitarian organizations a steep fee for their work.

What is a famine?
 As a simple definition, 'famine' can be defined as an extreme scarcity or shortage of food, but the international community has long grappled with a more concrete definition. The United Nations declared certain pockets of Somalia as famine situations in July 2011 according to the following criteria:
a) at least 20% of households face extreme food shortages.
b) acute malnutrition in more than 30% of children.
c) two deaths per 10,000 people every day.

The last criterion put into context would mean that at least 2,000 people are dying - out of Somalia's population of 10 million - every day from hunger.

While only certain pockets of Somalia are experiencing a famine, almost half of the country's population (at 3.7 million) are plunged in a food crisis, meaning that famine will arrive if more assistance is not provided. Check out the following map of Somalia's situation, as of September 5th 2011:

Source:BBC

Refugees... without refuge.
The small green squares on the map above mark refugee camps/centres. These are locations outside Somalia that Somali people are meant to flee to in order to receive assistance and food. The one near the bottom, in Dadaab, Kenya, was receiving 1,200 Somali refugees per day as of September 9th 2011. Its maximum capacity is 90,000 refugees, but the total number at the Dadaab site is approximately 500,000, making it the largest refugee camp in the world as of today. The camps' conditions are incredibly worrisome - they are highly overcrowded and lack the resources they need to deal with so many people, such as proper sanitary measures and waste management.

As a result, human waste has come into contact with drinking water, contaminating it with bacteria. When the contaminated water is consumed by people, there is a high risk of an infection called cholera. A disease of the small intestine, it causes vomiting and severe diarrhea and can kill in a matter of hours. Another medical problem is measles. Measles are highly contagious, meaning that a slight cough from an infected person will more than likely infect someone who is not vaccinated from or immune to it. Measles cause itchy rashes all over the body, high fevers and constant coughs. In developed countries, measles generally do not kill - in fact, many children are vaccinated (protected from it by medical procedures) at birth. In refugee camps, place a highly contagious virus in a hugely overcrowded area, and it is not hard to picture how widespread the problem becomes. Without proper care and nutrition in the camps, measles are killing more and more every day.

Somali people have also been subject to attacks, in the form of physical beatings, torture and rape while en route to the refugee camps. Al-Shabab militants, described above, have been beating and murdering Somali refugees, preferring that they starve rather than seek aid from Western countries. Other gangs are tracking down men and women, beating and/or killing them before robbing them of their scant supplies. Women are being raped in order to humiliate them and in some particularly brutal scenarios, a brother will be forced at gunpoint to rape his sister or face certain death. Police are attempting to clamp down on gangmembers and thieves, but the borders between Somalia and countries accepting refugees are long and difficult to patrol entirely. Women have been offered flashlights and whistles in the event they are attacked.

The international response
When it declared the famine in July 2011, the United Nations appealed to the international community to raise $2.4 billion. The greatest single country donor thus far has been the United States, contributing $450 million. The European Union has collectively donated approximately $630 million. The African Union has received contributions from 20 of its 54 members, raising $50 million. Despite the generosity of so many countries, the collective international response has fallen short by $1 billion as of mid-September 2011.

To give an idea of how the contributions are used, the following is taken from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UN High Commissioner for Refugees):

Where to from here?
Somalia is still in dire straits. Four million people are facing crisis, and 750,000 are at risk of imminent death in the next four months from starvation. There are six zones considered famines by UN standards. While the immediate problem lies in handling the famine and returning the refugees safely home, the long-term solution lies in stabilizing Somalia's broken political situation. This is not the first time Somalia has been plunged into famine, and if the real problems are not addressed soon, there is nothing to rule out the arrival of another food crisis in the near future, given this one does subside.

A few items to ponder:
* Do you think there is an obligation on the rest of the world to help out a country suffering from a food crisis?
* What would be your first step in addressing Somalia's plentiful problems?

Some further links, and credit to pieces used to write this article:
[Council on Foreign Relations - Al-Shabaab and Somalia's Spreading Famine]
[Global Post article on conditions at refugee camps - cholera, measles, overcrowdedness]
[Huffington Post article on physical attacks on refugees travelling to camps]
[Voice of America article on psychological trauma at refugee camps]

If you are interested in donating to the cause, donate directly to the United Nations Refugee Agency for Somalia here - [UNHCR Somalia]

Part 1 of 2 - Assange and the Wikileaks.

[PointTracker]

In 2010, a man named Julian Assange headlined news all around the world for his controversial organization, Wikileaks. As of late, the issue no longer dominates the global spotlight to the same degree, but every now and then, the organization releases some type of document that stirs the pot yet again. The organization could be dangerous, but it could be revolutionary, and it may certainly go a long way in making governments far more transparent than they are.

Who is Julian Assange and what is Wikileaks?

Assange - The Messenger
Julian Assange (born 1971) is the 'editor-in-chief' of Wikileaks, and generally know to be the organization's frontman in the media. He is a journalist, computer programmer, former hacker and internet activist. His stepfather, Brett Assange, described him as a "very bright boy" with a "really good sense of equality and equity". His mother described him as "highly intelligent" with a "strong desire to do what he perceived as just".

Justice, even at the expense of the law. Beginning in his teenage years, Assange embarked on a hacking career that caught the attention of the Australian police, leading to a three year long chase and 25 charges against him. But the purpose of it was never to alter or destroy the contents of the hacked program/institution; ultimately, all charges in the case were dropped because the judge could find no evidence of an ill intention on Assange's part, just an "intelligent inquisitiveness". Assange himself maintained amongst his fellow hackers that the purpose of the activity was to share information, leaving everything unharmed. One forum called him "Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker".

A little peak into his blog (formerly at the website 'iq.org' but no longer) would reveal the kind of man Assange is. In one post, he discusses why we strive to 'do the right thing"'. "People are motivated to follow happiness and flee from pain". So, an altruistic act (altruism would be the unselfish concern for, or devotion to, the welfare of others) does not truly exist, because the reason someone would perform an altruistic act is in order to a) feel good about him/herself (achieve happiness), or to b) escape feelings of guilt (the kind of guilt one would feel from doing nothing). He suggest at the end of that post - "Insofar as we can affect the world, let it be to utterly eliminate guilt and fear as a motivator of man and replace it cell for cell with love for one another and the passion of creation."

Fastforward to 2006 - the creation of Wikileaks. In another post from his blog, Assange states: "The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership..." He continues: "Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."

And finally, a nod to Wikileaks: "Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's actually going on." So what's going on?

A government's worst nightmare - Wikileaks
Assange's pursuit for justice, combined with a desire to see more openness in government, manifested as Wikileaks. It is an international non-profit organization that houses over 1 million private, confidential, secret documents and media belonging to governments all over the world. The name 'Wikileaks' is a combination of 'leaks' referring to the documents falling from private (government) to public (society's) hands, thus exposing them, and 'Wiki', in reference to the online database 'Wikipedia' where users can control and edit content as they please (however Wikileaks no longer accepts users editing content anymore).

How did Wikileaks obtain the content?
One of the largest leaks was provided by US Army Soldier Bradley Manning (born 1987) when he was stationed in Iraq. As an Army Intelligence Analyst, Manning had access to hundreds of thousands of classified government documents. He was shocked and dismayed by the contents of the documents, deciding it best for the public to be informed of the "almost criminal political back dealings" he came across. Manning relayed his concerns over a chat program to a former computer hacker, Adrian Lamo, who eventually turned him into the authorities. Before he was arrested, Manning managed to transfer the documents via CD to Wikileaks. He is currently being held in a medium security prison awaiting trial for serious offenses against the United States. That said, Manning was responsible for transmitting some of the most discussed, controversial content to Wikileaks. Wikileaks has also obtained content from a variety of other sources, but rather than verifying the source, Wikileaks prefers to focus on verifying the content itself regardless of where it came from.

What sort of content has been leaked?
* Approximately 250,000 US diplomatic cables; a diplomatic cable is a sort of confidential text message (like e-mail, but more secure) sent between diplomats or military officials. The cables leaked so far have been  embarrassing for many diplomats: Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan, was described by diplomats as "paranoid", and Silvo Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, as "feckless, vain and ineffective as a modern European leader". Certain cables discussed many Middle Eastern countries' concerns for Iran's nuclear program, requesting for the United States to disarm it. Other cables dealt with the Obama administration offering incentives (worth millions) to other nations to accept prisoners of Guantanamo Bay as the American government works to shut down the site entirely. Not only have the cables embarrassed diplomats worldwide, they may also function to jeopardize international relations.
* 'Collateral Murder'; this is the name of a video released in 2010, dating back to 2007, that shows point-of-view footage from an American Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on several Iraqis - civilians, journalists, children - all presumed to be insurgents that allegedly posed a threat to the American soldiers. The video initially sparked a global outrage towards the soldiers due to their harsh, inhumane comments about the Iraqis being targeted and whether the strike was warranted in the first place. However, Wikileaks came under fire soon after for disseminating a modified (much shorter) version of the video that was allegedly taken out of context; the longer version of the video apparently shows men equipped with AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The Wikileaks version can be viewed here, and the response to Wikileaks' video (the longer version of the video), can be seen here. Warning - they may be disturbing to some.
* Afghan War Logs; Approximately 92,000 US military documents chronicling the war in Afghanistan made its way into Wikileaks' hands from source unknown. They cover the period between July 2004 and December 2009, and are considered one of the biggest leaks in American military history. A couple of the more controversial leaks concern the following;
- that Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (commonly abbreviated ISI), is supporting the Taliban; about 180 of the documents allege that the ISI has been arming, training and financing the Taliban since 2004, in the form of assassination plots on Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, attacks on NATO warplanes, American and NATO personnel, and against the embassies of Pakistan's neighbor India. The reports, if true, would seriously undermine the Pakistani government's credibility internationally; indeed the government could be considered a global threat. On the other hand, former officials with a wealth of experience in the region claim that the reports lack truth, and are composed of rumours and second-hand information.
- the injuries and deaths of hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan that have not been reported; the logs recount 144 incidents where foreign forces have wounded or killed civilians in situations that have not been accounted for publicly, including an instance where an American patrol killed 4 and wounded 18 civilians on a public bus after it allegedly did not heed the warning signs it was given. While NATO and eyewitnesses have given different accounts of what exactly happened, the fact remains that many such stories do fail to make it to the public spotlight.
- Iraq War Logs; the number of Afghan war logs leaked pale in comparison to the approximately 391,000 US Army field reports (over four times as many as the Afghan logs) documenting the war in Iraq from 2004 to 2009, published by Wikileaks in late 2010. The 'Collateral Murder' video discussed above was part of these leaks. Other leaks include a failure by the US government to account for (that is, record and make public), 15,000 additional violent Iraqi civilian deaths (as recorded by the Iraqi Body Count Project), and multiple reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder of detainees by Iraqi security and police forces that were ignored by US authorities. These reports state that prisoners were "shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death."

Part 2 of this article will discuss the legal angles of Wikleaks and the parties involved.


A couple of things to think about:
* What's your take on Wikileaks? Do you think there are things the government should keep secret from society, or should everything be put out into the public domain?
* Do you consider Assange a criminal/outlaw for what he has done? Are he, and Wikileaks, serving the greater good?

Works used for this article, and more information:
[Wikileaks, the official website, with a search function]
[Guardian document covering the leaks in the Afghan war logs]
[Guardian document covering the leaks in the Iraq war logs]
[Sunday Times article on Assange]

Uprising in Libya.

[PointTracker]

In late 2010, a wave of revolutions began to spread across the Arab world. They started in Tunisia, a country in Northern Africa, after a young man lit himself on fire (immolation) in protest of the political corruption and ill treatment by a government that was hampering his life as a modest street vendor (Mohammed Bouazizi). Bouazizi's display was symbolic of years of repression by the government, something the people could no longer stand for. They protested far and wide against the government of Tunisia, which became a signal for other countries - Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, and others - to do the same. The "Arab Spring" as it came to be known, resulted in a series of incredible accomplishments for the people of the Arab world, from the release of political prisoners in Syria and Bahrain to the Presidents of Tunisia and Egypt stepping down entirely.

But in a few countries, one being Libya, the people's protests erupted into a massive civil war. The number of dead is unconfirmed but it likely lies in the multiple thousands (Al-Jazeera, a television network based in Qatar, has reported 13,000 dead as of mid-June 2011).

What happened in Libya? 

Uprising
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was the current head of state of Libya, a position he obtained in a military coup in 1969. For 42 years, he ruled Libya with an iron fist. His security personnel is known to have committed acts of torture and abuse on prisoners (chaining prisoners to walls for hours on end, suffocating them with plastic bags, depriving them of sleep, food, and water). Prisoners have been held incommunicado without access to legal representation. Political opposition to Gaddafi's government is banned. The government has heavily restricted academic freedom and freedom of speech; individuals are subject to government 'reprisals' if politically sensitive issues are ever discussed openly. And despite Libya's thriving oil-based economy, much of the country's population is plunged in unemployment (estimated between 20% and 30%), leaving the country's massive youth population frustrated.

February 15, 2011 marked the start of the Libyan protests after a human rights lawyer (representing many the relatives of hundreds of prisoners allegedly killed in one incident in 1996), Fathi Terbil, was arrested. The protests started in Libya's second largest city, Benghazi, but spilled over quickly into neighboring cities including the capital, Tripoli, where government buildings were set alight by protesters. Gaddafi responded by ordering his troops to open fire on the crowd, killing unarmed protesters. The government also restricted access to social media sites in order to prevent communication between activists planning online on Facebook and Twitter. Within five days, the government sent in snipers, helicopter gunships and artillery to crush the protests, even to the point where women and children were jumping off bridges into water - where many died from impact or by drowning - just to escape mercenaries that were heavily equipped with weaponry. Within two weeks, many major landmarks and cities were caught in a tug-'o-war between Gaddafi's forces and the people of Libya. Senior aides and officials of the government began stepping down from their posts including the country's justice minister Mustapha Abdeljalil, who resigned due to the "excessive use of violence" against protesters. Soldiers and armymen defected to the side of the protesters.

International Relations
By late February, countries started pulling relations with Libya and calling for action against Gaddafi's regime. Italy officially suspended its "friendship" treaty with the country, while Canada and France shut down and evacuated their embassies in Tripoli. The United Kingdom froze Gaddafi's assets in London, including a multi-million pound mansion. The United States called for Gaddafi to step down to quell the violence, including an offer by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer whatever assistance possible to Libyan opposition groups to overthrow Gaddafi. The United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on the Libyan state, while the International Criminal Court began an investigation into war crimes committed by Gaddafi's regime.

Meanwhile, Libyan opposition formed the National Transitional Council (NTC), establishing itself as Libya's sole representative over the interim period during which Gaddafi's regime is driven out of power. Many countries, including the United Kingdom, have accepted the NTC as the legitimate representation of the Libyan people.

In March, Gaddafi's regime launched heavy, widespread counteroffensives to reclaim the numerous cities lost to the opposition forces since the protests began. Airstrikes, naval shelling, tanks and other artillery were used by Gaddafi loyalists to grip territory back from the hands of the protesters/rebels. The National Transitional Council was able to launch airstrikes against government posts using aircraft taken from the government by militarymen that had defected from Gaddafi.

No Flying Allowed
The United Nations Security Council acted on March 17, approving a no-fly zone over Libya through Resolution 1973. The purpose of the no-fly zone was to prevent aerial attacks against civilians by Gaddafi's air force, but also to prevent Gaddafi from flying in mercenaries from neighboring countries to support his army/loyalists against the rebels/protesters. The no-fly zone over Libya was enforced initially by separate countries banding together, including France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, collectively called the coalition members or states. Soon thereafter, a dispute arose between France and Turkey; France argued that the coalition should be led by France and the United Kingdom, while Turkey argued that full political control of the mission should rest with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (more commonly referred to as NATO), as Turkey was suspicious of France's ulterior motives concerning Libya's healthy oil supplies. Within a few days, enforcement of the no-fly zone was transferred into the power of NATO; international support for combat on the ground, however, remained with individual coalition member states.

From March to August, NATO (under the mission name 'Operation Unified Protector') and the coalition states surged onwards alongside the rebels to disarm the Libyan army by air, land and sea. While there were indications of a stalemate (a deadlock) in the earlier months, by late July it became clear that Gaddafi's regime was on its way out. On August 23rd, rebels seized Gaddafi's main compound, Bab al-Azizia, located in the southern suburbs of Tripoli, after it was bombarded by NATO jets.


Where to from here?
Gaddafi was killed in his hometown of Sirte, Libya, by rebel forces with the assistance of NATO strikes on October 21, 2011. The NTC remains the legitimate governing body of Libya. Libya faces a daunting task ahead - rebuilding from scratch. An open, democratic government remains the ideal goal, but the first task is to bandage the torn country - collecting the garbage that lines the streets, bringing food back down to normal, affordable prices, and ushering in water and medical supplies to name but a few tasks. Perhaps the most heartbreaking one will be to formally lay to rest the bodies of civilians and fighters that line the streets - those of the many that gave their lives in the fight for Libya.

Some questions to ponder:
* Is it acceptable for the international community (NATO and the coalition states) to intervene in the affairs of a country? When and why?
* What do you think of the arrest warrant for Gaddafi? Is the International Criminal Court a credible arm for justice, even if many states in the world do not recognize it?
* How involved should the international community be in the reconstruction of Libya?

Works used for this article, and more information:
[US Department of State Report on Human Rights Practice in Libya, 2007]
[Mother Jones' live, real-time updates on ground events in Libya, with video]
[BBC News - 'Libya Crisis' bank]
[Guardian - 'Libya - World News' bank]

South Sudan joins the world.

[PointTracker]

As of November 2011, there are 196 countries in the world. A few months back, this number was 195. Welcome to The Republic of South Sudan.

South Sudan is now an independent country of its own, officially separate from the Sudan. A whopping 98.83% of the almost 4 million voters voted 'Yes' for South Sudan to break away from its northern counterpart.

Why?

The Sudan was (before the South's independence) the largest country in the continent of Africa. First, it helps to know that the population of the Sudan was composed of 50% describing themselves as 'black' or 'African' in the south, and 40% as Arabs in the north.

Colonialism - late 1800s
Enter the colonial era. In 1899, Britain and Egypt took joint control of the country. Egypt controlled the North, notably where the capital of the country, Khartoum, was located, and pushed for the spread of Islam and Islamic values throughout the region. In contrast, in the south, the British tried to tame the spread of Islam and instead encouraged Christian missionaries to promote the English language. It even came to the point where the two 'provinces' were so sttrictly separated, that a passport was required for travel between each region; even a permit would be required to conduct business that flowed over the border. Roughly five decades of this created a real separation of boundaries which did not exist before the colonial era. After the second World War (so, after 1945), the British began pulling out of the Sudan as the colonial era came to an end, and glued the two broken pieces of the Sudan back together. However - and this is important - they handed power of the country over to the Northern forces. At this point, the separation of North and South represents more than just a geographical split; the 'Arab North' was trained in Arabic, characterized by an Islamic system, and it identified with the Arab world to its north. The South was trained in English, held Christianity as its official religion, and had ties with Kenya, Uganda and other sub-Saharan countries to its south. From here on out, power was hoarded in the North, specifically in Khartoum, while the rest of the country suffered in all directions (including Darfur to the west, to be written about later).

Independence - 1956
Civil war between North and South did not take long to arrive; in fact, it began in the year before independence was achieved. Weak attempts by mutineers and students to create an insurgency movement finally turned into the Anyanya ("snake venom" in the local Madi language) which was a separatist rebel movement targetting the Northern government. Meanwhile, the Northern government was seized in a coup d'etat by a man named General Ibrahim Abboud. Abboud eliminated political opposition and undertook an effort to "Islamize the south through violent proselytization" ('proselytism' in this context is the act of attempting to convert someone to another religion, by force). The conflict turned into a full blown civil war, and was affected by the spillover of international affairs. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union heavily supported Khartoum and the North in their efforts to suppress the South, while the Anyanya drew aid from neighboring countries such as Israel, Congo, Uganda and Ethiopia to stem the North.

After years of failed attempts to rule the nation by different governments, in 1969, General Jaafar al-Nimeiri finally took control of the nation by force with the assistance of his army. Al-Nimeiri banned political opposition and nationalized many industries, businesses and banks in an effort to push the Sudan towards becoming a socialist state. However, by 1971, Soviet-Sudan relations took a turn for the worse and the country's relationship with the United States and Western Europe improved. Al-Nimeiri's government and the Anyanya ratified the Addis Ababa peace agreement which split power and wealth between the North and the South, for example by granting the South its own regional President, making English the official language of the South, and granting qualified Anyanya veterans an equal presence in the Southern command of the Sudanese army.

While it looked like peace had been achieved between North and South, trouble was brewing on the horizon. An 'Islamist' movement led by a man named Sadiq al-Mahdi (a former Sudanese Prime Minister) created an opposition party to Al-Nimeiri's government, aiming to reinstall an Islamic, conservative Sudan that would not tolerate the agreements made with the non-Arab, English South (listed above). It led a failed coup attempt in 1976, but the momentum of the Islamist movement was still taking its toll on Al-Nimeiri's government. Opposition leaders who were once exiled, like al-Mahdi, were allowed to return to Sudan, along with members of the Muslim Brotherhood who (in this context) were a radical fundamentalist organization. Al-Nimeiri's once tolerant pro-democratic stance was sacrificed for a position that would keep him in power, obviously at the cost of the will of the people of Sudan. 

Back to basics - late 1970's to early 1980's
Al-Nimeiri replaced government posts held by Southerners, who were granted these powers under the Addis Ababa agreement, with Muslim Northerners. When oil was discovered in the South, al-Nimeiri replaced Southern troops guarding significant oil deposits with Northern troops. And in 1983, al-Nimeiri instituted what became known as the September Laws; these proclaimed Shari'ah as the basis of the Sudanese legal system and were hugely resented by the South (and even conservative Muslims) for how dictatorial and irrational they were. While the South became frustrated with their loss of power, the North became weary of the South's presence in the Sudanese army. Al-Nimeiri ordered the Southern troops to abandon their weapons and head North; their refusal was considered insubordination (basically, the act of defying authority), and Al-Nimeiri ordered an attack on them. The Addis Ababa agreement was formally declared invalid (annulled) . Civil war was back. 

Hell on Earth - 1980's to 2005
The betrayed Southerners fled to Sudan's neighbor, Ethiopia, where they formed the Sudan People's Liberation Army, and were led by the charismatic John Garang, a man who envisioned not an independent south, but a democratic, respectful Sudan. Garang and the SPLA took control of most of southern Sudan while fending off the North, which was by 1986 in control of Al-Nimeiri's successor, Al-Mahdi. Al-Mahdi, back in the game, attempted to form a coalition government, but disagreement between the parties plunged the political situation of the Sudan back into dire straits. One of the parties of the coalition, the National Islamic Front (NIF), would not accept anything less than a fully Islamic state governed by Shari'ah. Sure enough, the NIF, led by Brigadier General Omar Hassan al-Bashir took the government in a military coup. The Bashir government was particularly violent - anyone deemed to be against the government in any capacity was subject to being imprisoned in 'ghost houses'; empty cells, blindfolded, where one is cuffed to the door, beaten constantly, and forced to stand.The government was as strategic was it was brutal, however. Cheadle and Prendergast put it best: "rebels are less effective in fighting a civil war with Khartoum if they are fighting among themselves". Al-Bashir trained, equipped and gave total impunity to the Nuer tribe. The Nuer are the historical rivals of the Dinka tribe, and the Dinka comprised the main arm of Garang's SPLA. This created a "war within a war", seriously damaging the SPLA socially and economically. The Al-Bashir regime also armed and sheltered the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group based in northern Uganda (which borders southern Sudan). The LRA is known for its particularly gruesome tactics, including cutting victims' faces and raping young children. The government also engaged a neo-slave trade, where government-backed militias would raid villages in the south, abducting people after killing and raping others, then selling them at camps to Northerners and foreigners. An estimed 12,000 people are the victims of this 'business'. The destruction of villages also led to massive famine situations, which killed 300,000 people between 1992 and 1993 in only one region alone in southern Sudan. Further, Khartoum's claim to oil discovered in the South had kept the al-Bashir regime laughing its way to the bank.

The civil war between 1983 and 2005 killed 1.5 million people and displaced 4 million Southerners. 2005 finally marked a peace agreement that was pushed for and supported by a once-spectating, now heavily involved international community. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement called "for a six year interim period with democratic elections by 2009, and an autonomous southern government, followed by a self-determination referendum for the South." The rest, quite literally, is history.

Today
So the tale of two Sudans is marked by a history of greed and violence, typical to many of the histories of countries in Africa. Though the birth of South Sudan is both a necessary compromise and a victory for its people, it should not indicate that there is peace and prosperity in the region. To the contrary, tribal tensions between the Dinka and Nuer are still high and have resulted in massive human rights abuses, many committed by the SPLA which now forms the core of the South Sudan army. The new country has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Infrastructure outside South Sudan's capital, Juba, remains inadequate. Abyei is one of the regions between the two countries that remains "up for grabs" - both countries have laid violent claim to it for its oil deposits - reminding us of other conflict points such as the Kashmir region between India and Pakistan, and the West Bank caught between Israel and Palestine.

Ponder:
* What's your take on South Sudan? Do you think secession was necessary to stop the violence that claimed so many lives?
* Where do you think the country will be in, say, 50 years time?

Works used for this article, and more information:
[Full Text - Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2005]
[UN Protection of Civilians - Sudan's CPA: The Long Road Ahead]
[UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - The Nimeiri Era]
[Al-Jazeera - Sudan split was 'over-simplified' by media]
[TIME- Can Sudan split without falling apart?]
[Southern Sudan: Abuses on Both Sides in Upper Nile Clashes]
[Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond. Don Cheadle and John Prendergast. 2007. Hyperion Books.]