(BIRN) -- The candidate who came third place in Romania’s presidential elections has thrown his support behind the runner-up in Sunday’s ballot Mircea Geoana, leader of the Social Democrats.
Crin Antonescu finished third with 20.25 per cent of the vote, according to preliminary data with 86 per cent of the ballots counted.
Incumbent Traian Basescu, standing for a second five-year term, received 33 per cent of the vote, giving him a slim margin over speaker of the upper house of parliament and former Romanian ambassador to the US, Geoana, with 30 per cent.
Geoana is now widely seen as the candidate who is best able to unify the fractious splits which precipitated the collapse of former Prime Minister Emil Boc’s cabinet last month and has since prevented the formation of a new government.
A new government is key to the continuation of a International Monetary Fund-led rescue package the country needs to restore economic stability.
Though Antonescu’s National Liberals’ are closer ideologically to Basescu’s Democrat-Liberal base, Besescu has antagonized the party by refusing to endorse the mayor of Sibiu Klaus Johannis for prime minister.
In a statement to media on November 23, Antonescu said: "I want it to be clear. Any co-operation between myself and Traian Basescu is excluded, as is any support for Basescu from my voters." he said.
"I did not and will not negotiate with Traian Basescu,’’ he added.
He called the incumbent president a "demagogue and a populist" and vowed to support Geoana, whom he called "the lesser of two evils’’, as reported by the Associated Press.
Antonescu’s support came on condition that Geoana nominates Johannis for prime minister if he wins the presidency in the 6 December run-off.
Geoana agreed to Antonescu’s request and said he favours turning the current ad hoc alliance between the two parties into a coalition that would back Johannis's cabinet in parliament.
So far there are half a dozen separate investigations into the shooting rampage by a Muslim soldier at the Fort Hood base - all but one of them aiming to find out whether the military, the FBI or intelligence missed warning signs.
By Shaun Waterman
In the aftermath of 9/11, it soon became clear that two of the hijackers had been on the radar of US intelligence agencies as possible terrorists before they entered the US. The CIA, it was said - in a phrase which soon became synonymous with the most significant US intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor - had not managed to “connect the dots.”
The result was a succession of increasingly wide-ranging and damning inquiries into what was known by US agencies before the attack about the hijackers, their organization and its intentions and capabilities. It culminated in a series of overhauls of US law enforcement, intelligence and executive agencies, all designed to ensure that next time, they would not fail to “connect the dots.”
But now, as more information leaks out about alleged Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan - especially his contacts with radical cleric Anwar Aulaqi in Yemen - it’s beginning to look as if that phrase might come to sum up a new failure.
The exact configuration of Hasan’s motives is likely to be a central issue at his trial - especially if, as his lawyer has hinted, he pleads insanity. It has already become a central issue in the broader discussion about the shootings, and whether or not they were an act of terrorism.
Brian Jenkins, a consultant to for the RAND Corp think tank, said “At a glance, Maj Hasan's rampage at Fort Hood looks a lot like what used to be called ‘going postal.’” It was "a deepening sense of personal grievance culminating in a homicidal rampage directed against co-workers - in this case, fellow soldiers.
"For Hasan, 'going jihad' reflects the channeling of obvious personality problems into a deadly fanaticism," he told a Senate committee hearing.
But he added that "These are not mutually exclusive categories […]. Terrorism doesn't attract the well-adjusted."
Whatever complex of personal and ideological or religious motives turns out to have driven Hasan, President Barack Obama’s administration is already facing accusations of trying to cover up a failure based on political correctness.
The president’s decision to order “an immediate inventory […] of all intelligence in US Government files that existed prior to” the shooting was widely reported. And he tasked his most senior counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, with “an immediate review […] to determine how any such intelligence was handled, shared, and acted upon within individual departments and agencies and what intelligence was shared with others.”
'Connecting the dots'
What was not widely commented on was the fact that the order, though published a few days later, was actually issued on 6 November, the day after the shooting. The White House, in other words, was almost immediately aware that something might have gone badly wrong somewhere.
There are at least two congressional investigations already underway - Armed Service Committee Chairman Senator Carl Levin said Sunday his panel would wait for closed-door briefings from military and other agencies before it embarked on public hearings, but would hold them.
And the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held an initial hearing last week. Committee chairman, Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman - who received a classified briefing last week with other lawmakers - told reporters afterward that there was enough information available to different agencies to raise alarm bells. "Had it been gathered on one desk, someone might have said 'Nidal Malik Hasan is dangerous,'" he said.
Indeed. ABC News reported that Hasan’s e-mail exchanges with Aulaqi included the hope that he would be able to continue their conversation in the afterlife. And the Dallas Morning News uncovered a probe of alleged wire transfers to Pakistan.
But most explosively of all, the Washington Post reported a second batch of e-mails to Aulaqi intercepted by the FBI’s San Diego task force.
Hasan “clearly became more radicalized toward the end,” an anonymous source told the paper. “He was interested in taking action."
The Post said that second batch of intercepts had never been shared with another task force in Washington, where the determination had been made that the first batch were benign.
No wonder FBI Director Robert Mueller has ordered an internal review “to determine all of the facts and circumstances […] and whether, with the benefit of hindsight, any policies or practices should change based on what we learn.”
That makes five investigations, if you’re counting. The sixth is the Department of Defense’s own review, ordered just last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The Defense Department appears off the hook as far as the e-mails are concerned - but it has problems of its own. Hasan was giving off warning signs at work, as well.
“There are questions that need to be answered” about the way the issue was handled by the military, Levin said Sunday.
And all that is in addition to the continuing criminal investigation being carried out in Texas by the FBI and the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. Hasan, who was paralyzed by one of the shots that ended his alleged rampage, remains in hospital, where he has been charged with 13 murders. He will be tried by a military court and could face the death penalty.
The Republican narrative
The debate over the Fort Hood shooting and any failures that might have stopped authorities from preventing it raises the specter that - even after all the reforms that followed 9/11 - US law enforcement and intelligence agencies are still unable to “connect the dots.”
Should information about Hasan’s e-mails have been more widely shared and should his conduct at work have been more closely questioned?
Unfortunately for the administration, these two key issues fit very well into Republican attack narratives: that the president is a prisoner of the civil rights lobby on issues of surveillance and privacy; and that the US military, in common with so many national institutions, is paralyzed by political correctness when it comes to detecting extremists in its ranks.
Shaun Waterman is a senior writer and analyst for ISN Security Watch. He is a UK journalist based in Washington, DC, covering homeland and national security. This article was published by International Relations and Security Network (ISN)
Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported"
The US and China will have to put their cards on the table before the EU can increase its CO2 reduction target to 30%, Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said yesterday (23 November), after EU environment ministers had met to clarify tactics for the UN climate conference in Copenhagen.
The EU is "coming closer" to raising its offer to 30%, Carlgren said. But he stressed that the agreement would cover only half of global emissions without similar commitments from the United States and China.
"An ambitious bid by the United States and also by China is absolutely crucial for an agreement in Copenhagen," the minister stated.
Carlgren emphasised that the EU's strategy of using the 30% carrot to leverage more ambitious commitments from other parties had proven successful so far. He cited higher emission reduction targets from Russia, Japan and Norway, and greater efforts by South Korea, Indonesia and Brazil.
Speaking to EurActiv, Mark Kenber, policy director at the Climate Group, stressed that securing a deal in Copenhagen is now beyond EU diplomacy. "It is important to keep the pressure up, but I don't think the EU can do much at this point," he said, insisting that the ball is in the US camp.
The United States will propose emission reduction targets before Copenhagen, according to a White House official, the BBC reported yesterday (23 November). The target is expected to be in line with figures contained in legislation before the Senate.
Last June, the House of Representatives passed a bill setting the goal of reducing overall US greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% by mid-century. This amounts to roughly 3-4% below the 1990 level used by the EU.
A Senate version is aiming for a 20% cut by 2020.
Finalising EU's negotiating mandate
The extraordinary meeting of environment ministers was called to put the finishing touches to the EU's negotiating position for Copenhagen (EurActiv 20/11/09). The ministers confirmed the EU's expectations for the Copenhagen conference, and decided that the mandate agreed by EU leaders last month is sufficient.
Although a fully-fledged and legally binding new climate treaty is not expected to be concluded until next year, the ministers agreed that Copenhagen would still need to provide a binding agreement. This should include economy-wide carbon reduction targets for industrialised countries and commitments to reduce emissions below business-as-usual scenarios from developing countries.
"We have also concluded that an agreement needs to contain a review mechanism so that it can be upgraded in line with new knowledge presented by science in order to manage the challenge of climate change," Carlgren said.
EU to push for immediate funding
Environment ministers stressed that developed countries must agree on a financing package in support of poor countries.
They agreed that an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen would have to include fast-track financing, delivered between 2010 and 2012, before a new legally binding treaty enters into force. This would pay for immediate action on adaptation and capacity-building in least-developed countries and fund immediate action on deforestation, Carlgren said.
"The EU will in any case deliver ambitious financial support in Copenhagen [...], but we also urge other countries to do that as well," he stressed.
The environment ministers said that the EU would keep the door open to talk about putting a specific figure on the table at the EU summit on 10 December, in the midst of the Copenhagen negotiations.
"But whether it will happen or not will depend also on where other parties are," Carlgren said. He added that the EU was still looking to pressure other countries into an ambitious global level of short-term financing in the range of €5 to €7 billion annually.
Immediate action will be necessary in crucial areas like deforestation and setting up levies for bunker fuels to provide funding for adaptation, the environment ministers said.
UN urges EU to put figures on the table
Speaking to EU environmental ministers, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer stressed that the remaining sticking points can be overcome, but there needs to be more clarity on both emission reduction targets from developed countries and measures planned by developing nations to "significantly limit their emissions from a business as usual path".
"We need clear targets in Copenhagen, and not just a range of commitments," he noted, hinting at the fact that the EU has promised to boost its commitment from a 20 to 30% reduction if other industrialised countries, namely the US, follow suit.
"To restate the goal of minus 30% would be to show true leadership," De Boer underlined, saying that the EU needs to be clearer on the role played by the carbon market, but also on the role of land-use and forestry in calculating the European target.
The EU must also be clearer on the level of financing it is willing to provide both for helping developing countries to adapt to global warming and mitigate the effect of climate change.
"A Copenhagen deal will be stillborn if it does not include new additional and predictable finance," he said. Auctioning of emission rights is an effective way of mobilising finance, he said, but "significant public money is needed and the world is waiting for the EU to commit to concrete numbers".
(RSD) -- Russian police claim they have solved the mystery revolving around the brututal murder of a homeless man. According to Russian press, the man was murdered by his own friends, who ate part of his corpse and then sold the rest to a kebab kiosk.
Forensic experts have taken samples of the suspicious meat to find out if the kiosk was selling kebabs made of human meat, reports Pravda. The homeless men were living in dug-outs in the woods near the city of Perm. Three men attacked and brutally beat their 25-year-old friend, hit him with a hammer several times and stabbed him. The man died of injuries on the spot, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper wrote.
According to the reports, the murderers dismembered the body and then buried the upper part of the corpse near their dugouts. They saved the lower part of the corpse and made a dinner from it for the whole “family.” When the cannibals were stuffed, they sold the rest of the meat to the nearest kebab kiosk.
The detained men said that they had killed the man out of jealousy. One of the detainees said that the victim was trying to steal his girlfriend from him.
(RSD) -- Gambia's President Yahya Jammeh called for "an expansion of all-out ties with Iran," according to the Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA.
IRNA reports that while talking to reporters after a meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Jammeh said Tehran-Banjul relations have been growing since 1995, while at the same time stressing the need for joint investment in various areas.
Gambia is seeking to boost agricultural, scientific, trade and industrial cooperation with the Iran, Jammeh was quoted as saying by IRNA, adding that the Gambian President said there is no restriction for expansion of ties with Iran, saying his country supports all kinds of cooperation with Tehran that would benefit the Gambian nation.
Additionally, IRNA said a joint communiqué has been issued in which thetwo presidents voiced their support for the Palestinian nation and underlined the need for establishment of durable peace in the Mideast region.
(RSD) -- A majority of likely voters agree the U.S. has a greater obligation to reduce carbon emissions because we consume more energy than others, and 48% say the U.S. should do so even if other large nations to not take similar action.
However, less than half are willing to pay any additional costs for their own energy consumption under legislation that might reduce emissions, a new Zogby poll finds.
The Zogby Interactive poll of 2,293 likely voters was conducted from Nov. 4-6, 2009. The margin of error is +/-2.1%, and higher for subgroups.
Pollster John Zogby said, "Democrats and moderates very much favor having
the U.S. take the lead in reducing the world's carbon emissions, and
Republicans and conservatives do not. Given the need to have 60 votes
to pass most anything in the Senate, especially the controversial cap
and trade bill, environmentalists face a big challenge to pass a bill
similar to that agreed to in the House. Supporters of cap and trade
must convince voters that cutting emissions is worth some financial
cost, but nearly half of voters are unwilling to pay anything more, and
only a fourth would pay an extra $10 per month. Reported estimates of
the bill's cost to households appear to be more than voters are willing
to pay."
There are large differences based on political ideology: 85% of Democrats agree and 75% of Republicans disagree that because the U.S. consumes more energy than other nations, it has a greater obligation to reduce carbon emissions than other nations. Among self-identified moderates, 64% agree, and African-Americans are much more likely to agree than Whites, 80% to 48%. Other demographic differences were not as great, with women and First GlobalsTM (under age 30) most likely to agree. Frequency of religious service attendance was another variable of note, as 42% of those who worship more than once per week agreed, compared to 65% of those who never attend.
The question on whether U.S. action to reduce emissions depended on what others did offered three statements to choose for agreement. It listed "other large nations such as China, Russia, India and European nations," and asked if the U.S. should act on carbon emissions regardless of whether or not those nations also acted, only if those nations took similar action or that the U.S. should not act to reduce carbon emissions at all. Here are the results:
Sub-group differences on this question are very similar to those of the previous question. Notably, 49% of Republicans and 57% of self-identified conservatives said the U.S. should take no action to reduce emissions, and 80% of Democrats and 57% of moderates say the U.S. should cut emissions even if other nations did not.
Again, there were large ideological differences. Among Republicans, 76% were unwilling to pay any more in energy costs, compared to 15% of Democrats and 50% of independents. Nineteen percent of Democrats would pay at least $26 more. Other differences among demographic groups followed those of the other questions. Interestingly, household income made very little difference.
(KUNA) -- Baghdad's operation command released on Sunday video confessions of three men from Saddam Hussein's former Baath party who admitted to have targeted Iraq's ministry of Justice in what's been known as "bloody Sunday," on October 25, killing and wounding around 1,000 people.
Brigadier Qassim Atta, the spokesman of Baghdad Operation Command, told a press conference that the three confessed their role in carrying out the deadly bombings.
Former police officer, Lieutenant Colonel Mohammed Hassan Aiyed admitted to plotting the attacks at the Justice Ministry and Baghdad Provincial Council.
"I received a call on Oct. 12 from Abdul Sattar Mahdi Najem (a senior Baath party member in Iraq) telling me that we have orders from the party leadership to prepare for a major bombing in Baghdad near the provincial council and the Justice ministry," he said.
The video also showed two other Baath party members named Abdul Sattar Mahdi Najem and Ammar Abdul Aziz Mahdi who were also telling details about their role in the attacks and how they passed checkpoints until they reached their targets in central the capital.
During the broadcasted video Ammar Abdul Aziz Mahdi admitted of taking pictures of the targeted building two days prior to the attacks.
For his part, Mahdi Najem, a retired military officer, said that he is in operations and was told about the attack from other Baath's members, he also admitted of driving several of attack vehicles from Taji to the targeted areas.
Last October 25th, two suicide truck bombings rocked Baghdad's ministries area, targeting the Justice Ministry and the Baghdad Provincial Council, the result was devastating and resulted in the killings of 155 people, among them 30 children, and the wounding of around 950 others.
(RSD) - Iran will start a five-day aerial defense drill on Sunday in western parts of the country. According to RIAN, Iran will launch the large-scale air-defense exercise to protect its nuclear plants against any attack, quoting a senior military official.
Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said the five-day exercise, dubbed Asemane Velayat 2, would begin on Sunday. He said the drills, to be carried out in three stages, would cover a vast area in the northwest, west, south and southwest of the country.
The semi-official Iranian Students News Agengy reports that the drill will be held in an area of 600,000 square kilometers and in addition to Iran’s army and Revolutionary Guard Corps, Basij and the Police take part in it, quoting Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani.
Additionally, Mighani is quoted by ISNA as saying that the armed forces function against the cyber war of enemy will also be evaluated in this drill whose main purpose is integrity of defense forces of the county.
He also said Iran is closely monitoring all movements of the enemy and it has made it impossible for the enemy’s air forces to enter its territory.
ISNA also quoted Mighani as saying that he hoped Russia would evade being influenced by negative propaganda of Zionism, while at the same time deliver S300 anti-missile systems to Iran soon considering the two countries mutual interests.
(RSD) -- Iran's UN ambassador Mohammad Khazaei called ratification of the Canadian-proposed human rights resolution against Iran a "dark point" in the UN human rights activities, reports the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency.
ISNA noted that while speaking at the third UN General Assembly's human rights committee, Khazaei said, "the sponsors of the resolution claim they seek democracy, whereas they did not pass Israel's war crimes resolution last two weeks and opposed to the international community's demand to bring Zionist regime into trial."
Iran's UN ambassador also claimed that Canada had a history of savage treatment with migrants and Canadian natives and said, "genocide of Canadian natives over last few decades is not hidden to anyone and Canada has presented a resolution based on biased and false news of western media."
The resolution which focuses on Iran's post-election events was adopted by a vote of 74-48 with 59 abstentions.
A decades-old conflict in Yemen between the government and northern rebels from the country's Shi'ite minority is heating up. As it does, Yemeni officials are charging Iran with supporting the rebels in a conflict that is also drawing in Saudi Arabia. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel speaks with RFE/RL's Radio Farda correspondent Hossein Aryan about the fighting in Yemen and whether it risks sparking a larger regional crisis.
RFE/RL: The Yemeni government has been battling an on-again, off-again rebellion since 2004 in its mountainous north along the border with Saudi Arabia. The insurgents, known as Al-Shabab Al-Muminin (the Young Believers), or simply the Houthis -- after their leader's tribe -- are members of Yemen's Zaidi Shi'ite minority, which makes up more than a quarter of Yemen's population and constitutes a majority in the north. What do the rebels want?
Hossein Aryan: The insurgents are Zaidis, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam, whose Imam ruled northern Yemen until the 1962 military coup that created the Yemen Arab Republic. President Ali Abdullah Saleh, himself a Zaidi Shi'ite, claims the insurgents seek to overthrow the Sunni-dominated government and reestablish the Zaidi imamate (rule by religious leader) which, in fact, existed for almost a millennium before the 1962 coup....
The insurgents deny this and depict the president as a pro-United States "tyrant" who has not paid any attention to their long-held grievances emanating from lack of resources and development. They demand an end to social, economic, and political "discrimination" against the Houthis. They accuse the government of trying to dilute their religion by installing Sunni fundamentalists in mosques and official positions in some Zaidi areas. And they also accuse Saudi Arabia of backing the government of Saleh.
RFE/RL: The fighting has displaced about 175,000 people in Yemen's northwest Saada Province, according to the United Nations. Is the insurgency gaining strength over time?
Aryan: Since the first armed clashes between the Houthis and the Yemeni Army in June 2004, there have been a total of six rounds of fighting with increasing intensity and scope. The war began with just a few hundred rebel fighters and it has grown into a full-fledged insurgency that Yemen's military is struggling to contain.
The mountainous area in which the insurgents are operating makes it difficult for the army to take control. Last year, the fighting reached the outskirts of Sanaa, the capital. Now, the insurgency has become the highest-profile security challenge in Yemen, partly because of Iran's alleged role in aiding the insurgents.
Aid From Iran?
RFE/RL: As you mention, the Yemeni government has accused Iran of funneling arms and providing financial backing to the rebels, but the Yemeni government has not provided evidence to support the assertions. What do we know about the level of the alleged aid from Tehran?
According to the Yemeni navy, the ship was intercepted in the Red Sea, west of Midi, a port in the northwestern province of Hajjah that adjoins the territory controlled by the insurgents. Confirming that five Iranians on board the ship were arrested by Yemeni security forces, Minister of Information Hassan al-Louzi said that they were being questioned and the results would be made public.
RFE/RL: What has been Iran's response?
Aryan: In response, Iranian state broadcaster Al-Alam television, which regularly reports on statements made by the insurgents, called the news about the ship's seizure "a fabrication of the media."
Iranian Minister of Defense Brigadier-General Ahmad Vahidi said reports about the seizure of a ship carrying Iranian arms were "suspicious and incorrect," and they were meant to create division among the countries in the region. He added that Iran could present Yemen with "proposals" for a solution to the conflict and that "military actions" are not the way forward....
At the same time, Iran's foreign minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, has declared that no nation should "interfere" in Yemen's internal affairs, a veiled snipe at Saudi Arabia. And similarly, Major General Hasan Firouzabadi, Iranian chief of Staff of Armed Forces, has said that the actions Saudi Arabia is taking against Houthis "signal the start of state terrorism" and that such actions endanger the entire region.
Complex Relations
RFE/RL: The official statements from both sides are focusing on recent alleged events. But is there, in fact, any long-standing relationship between Iran and the Houthis? For example: financial aid to build mosques in their villages or other help?
Aryan: Shi'a Islam practiced by Houthis is far removed from Iran's 'Twlever' version of Shi'a Islam. However, some religious scholars allege that Iran's fingerprints can be seen in the Houthi religious doctrine and political ideology. They add that the current Houthi leader, like the two before him, has deviated from the moderate Zaidi thought to the Twelver thought and that he finds the doctrine of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (known as velayat-e faqih), as practiced in Iran, a suitable means to assume political power.
Nevertheless, the tendency to make a link between the Houthi insurgency and Iran, and see all regional Shi'a movements acting in unison under Iran's leadership, does not reflect the historical, ethnic, social, and religious differences between Shi'a sects.
RFE/RL: A large number of media reports, as well as statements made by Yemeni and other Arab officials, portray the Houthi insurgency as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, claiming that a "Shi'a axis" made up of Iran, Lebanese Hizballah, and the Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are providing moral support and arms to the insurgents. Is it a proxy ideological war on Yemeni soil?
Aryan: Currently it is not, though Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni government portray it like a proxy war. True, some Iranian officials as well as state-run media defend the insurgents' cause, but Houthis are not allied or affiliated to Iran in the same way as are Hizballah or Hamas.
Official relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are good and Tehran is not likely to favor any wider conflict in the region that would risk drawing it in....
That still leaves open the possibility that some hard-line elements inside the Iranian establishment are actively aiding the Houthis. And, in fact, Yemen's President Saleh, who has avoided blaming the Iranian government directly, has accused what he calls "a number of personalities" of backing the rebels.
But in spite of its intensity, the insurgency is not yet critical to warrant a change in the balance of power in the region. Still, its continuation could lead Yemen in to a period of renewed civil conflict that may easily spill into the Middle East.
Dangerous Spillover?
RFE/RL: We have not yet talked directly about Saudi Arabia's role in the conflict. Saudi planes have bombed the rebels in the border area and Riyadh has imposed a naval blockade on northern Yemen's Red Sea coast to prevent weapons from reaching them. Saudi Arabia also has reported the deaths of two of its border guards in cross-border raids by insurgents this month alone. Of course, Saudi Arabia has a sizeable Shi'ite minority of its own in the east of the kingdom, where it strategically important oil fields also are located. Is Riyadh reacting so forcefully because it is afraid the insurgency in Yemen could somehow spark unrest in Saudi Arabia itself?
Aryan: Saudi Arabia is deeply concerned about the spillover of the Houthi insurgency into its backyard. Saudi Arabia considers Iran as the main backer of the Houthis and Riyadh, as the Sunni hegemon of the region, has an agenda to eradicate Iran's foothold in Yemen and in other countries in the region with Shi'ite minorities.
With the Houthi insurgency in the north and the secessionist movement in the south, Saudi Arabia does not want Yemen to turn into a new powder keg in the region. Saudi Arabia wants a stable Yemen and for this very reason has been providing economic, intelligence and military aid to Sanaa.
RFE/RL: There has been a spate of articles in the Western press in recent months warning that Yemen could slide into increasing chaos due to the insurgency in the north and the unrelated unrest in the south. The fear is that Yemen could become a new haven for Al-Qaeda, which finds failed states a perfect base for its global network.
Aryan: The Yemeni government is concerned about the threat of a reconstituted Al-Qaeda whose members are coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq or fleeing from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt to take refuge in Yemen and plan new terrorist attacks at home or abroad. Al-Qaeda has carried out a string of attacks in Yemen in the past year, including a September 2008 assault on the U.S. Embassy....
The prospect of any stronger Al-Qaeda presence in Yemen is something that worries not only Washington but Riyadh, too. The kingdom already says its main threat from Al-Qaeda comes from militants who fled its harsh crackdown to Yemen and now seek to operate across the border. On Aug. 27, a Yemen-based Saudi Al-Qaeda suicide bomber tried to assassinate the kingdom's assistant interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, in Riyadh, but only wounded him. So, it is a growing concern.
Copyright (c) 2009. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington
DC 20036.
