The first official encounter between the American President George Bush and the Mexican President Felipe Calderón ended without having produced any significant agreements or steps forward. Notwithstanding the high level of optimism, the two day visit, which ended on March 14, resulted exclusively in a series of promises and declarations of intent. The encounters were focused on three principal themes: migration, the fight against the traffic in narcotics, and economic cooperation. As regards the first issue, Bush promised his personal support for the introduction of a new law that would improve “the conditions of immigrants and combat illegal immigration”. The President asked the Mexican Government patience in the mean time. According to the White House the new law, which is being discussed in Congress and whose approval is required, will be ready by August. The law will permit the legalisation of numerous clandestine immigrants while at the same time making it more difficult for the ‘sin papeles’ to enter the country. The two Presidents discussed the issue of drug trafficking - the primary theme of the encounters – which, despite the strong attempts made by the Mexican Government – including the involvement of the military, is in constant growth. As regards economic issues, President Calderón, in repeating the will to intensify commercial relations, accused the United States of having abandoned Mexico. The President declared that a new form of cooperation was necessary to ensure “the path towards mutual prosperity”.

The Mexican President defined commercial relations and cooperation as instruments much more effective than the construction of a wall in the fight against illegal immigration. The problem of migration represents a key theme of Mexico’s new government. At slightly over 100 days from its official investiture, Calderón has assured its intention of creating the “necessary economic conditions whereby immigrants can return to their places of origin”; without making specific reference to the wall the President invited his American counterpart to consider the border as “a vehicle of communications and not of separation”. In the immediate new border points, aimed at making transit from both sides of the border easier, are being evaluated. Next week a number of American Congressmen will visit Mexico to discuss the issue of migration before the reforms are introduced: the visit could assume particular importance.

Andrea Donofrio

There has been a distinct intensification of the acts of repression perpetrated by the authoritarian regime of Robert Mugabe in regards to the opposition parties. Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was arrested on Sunday March 11, during a protest organised in the capital, Harare. An activist was killed by government forces while another 49 supporters of the Save Zimbabwe coalition were arrested. The Save Zimbabwe coalition was formed through the union of the opposition parties and civil society, its objective is to find a political solution to the serious economic and social crisis – inflation has reached 1.700%, unemployment 80%.
Tsvangirai’s conditions have improved, he was dismissed from the intensive care ward of the capital’s hospital where he had been recovered with a fractured skull. Before being taken to hospital he appeared in court, with visible head wounds, to respond to accusations of anti-government activities. Concern has grown amongst the international community, from the USA to the EU, from the UN to nearby South Africa which, along with the Southern African Development Community (SADC), has to date avoided openly criticising Mugabe’s regime, considered by many Africans to represent a symbol in the fight for freedom against the European colonial powers. The day following Tsvangirai’s arrest the American Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, demanded his “immediate and unconditional release“. The UN High Commission for Human Rights condemned the latest act of repression of freedom of speech and “the extreme use of violence on the part of the police”. The Bush Administration is examining, in collaboration with the African Union (UA), the possibility of ulterior economical and political sanctions. The UE condemned “the continued and violent repression of freedom of opinion and other fundamental human rights”. The danger is that the crisis may distance international assistance thereby destabilising the entire region.
Faced by the economic crisis and the authoritarian rule, the ZANU-PF (the political formation that supports Mugabe) results as being ever more divided, with some moderate fringes in contact with Tsvangirai’s MDC. Mugabe recently admitted to the growing tensions inside his party, arriving at the point of explicitly accusing some factions of plotting to seize power. The possibility of Mugabe’s being forced to resign by a transitional government - created following the organisation of free and democratic elections based upon a new constitution - is far from remote.

Massimo Corsini

The declarations of the Nepalese Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, to the press on March 12 regarding the future of the monarchy contribute to the opening of a new phase in Nepal’s political life. In the premiers opinion King Gyanendra’s policies and authoritarian temptations have “paved the road that will take the country to becoming a republic”. Koirala was until now the principal, if not the only, political leader to defend the necessity of maintaining the monarchy as an integral part of the country’s institutional system. A large part of national public opinion, and with it the majority of the political classes, seems oriented towards a republican system. In the frontline in asking for an end to the monarchy’s power are the Maoist guerrillas. The election of the Constitutional Assembly, which should decide Nepal’s future set-up, is scheduled for June. Naturally the question of the country’s monarchy will be the first theme to be debated. Through his declarations Koirala has in substance contributed to worsening the situation definitively. The king appears to have lost his most influential supporter. A supporter who has been astute in attributing the responsibility of the current situation to the monarch, presenting himself as a victim of the circumstances. In reality the head of government has chosen a very precise stance.

Gyanendra, if he wishes to assure a future for the monarchy, as a preventative measure has to adopt a series of radical measures; an extreme option would be to abdicate in favour of a family member uncompromised in the public eye. Another course towards a dictatorship on his part would constitute political suicide. However, if the current rulers are considering the sacrifice of the king as a means to placate the population and negotiate with the Maoists then they are underestimating the Maoists dedication to their objectives. In fact the monarchy, and the army which remains tied to it for ideological reasons, remain the only solid defence against the institution of a Maoist Popular Republic.

Andrea Carbonari

The director of the US Missile Defence Agency recently met members of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, the Security Council, and the Presidential Office to discuss the project to install an antimissile system in eastern Europe. No installations are planned for Ukrainian territory; however, the consensus of the Ukrainian Government would be an important success for the US Administration.

The visit of the Pentagon official was aimed at reassuring the Ukrainian Government of the projects objectives which point exclusively at guaranteeing Europe’s defence against missile threats from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. The project does not represent a new form of Russian containment. The space shield could intercept 100 missiles at the most, an irrelevant number if compared to Moscow’s capacity. In addition the eventuality of installing radar positions in any of the Caucasian countries was excluded.

The reaction of President Yushchenko to the visit was distinguished by caution. The question could inflame the protests of the pro-Russians who are contrary to the country’s becoming close to NATO. Last year, due to strong internal opposition, plans for joint military operations with the British Army had to be abandoned. The importance that the issue could assume in Ukrainian politics can be deduced from the Prime Minister’s declarations; Yanukovich raised the problem of the risk of contrasting Moscow’s politics. The Prime Minister also invited the Ukrainian military industry to seek greater ties to the Russian counterpart as, in his view, this was the only way to guarantee the country’s security. Open support for the American project could risk further exasperating internal contrasts in a moment in which the position of Yushchenko seems particularly weak. The President defined, during a visit to Brussels, the contest wit the pro-Russian forces a test upon which the country’s future will depend. The support of the EU and NATO for his political strategy could result fundamental in this, and American support would facilitate the country’s entrance in to a European-Atlantic security system.

Felice di Leo

During the first week of March the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, announced a government reshuffle: a form of political renewal through the introduction of new protagonists to the country’s political scene. Two weeks later the reshuffle (promised by al-Maliki for several months) has as yet to happen, but the Iraqi political scene appears to have the process towards change.In this sense Adnan al Dulaimi, the leader of the Iraqi Accord Front (IAF), the principal Sunni coalition represented in Parliament, has inaugurated the formation of a new political front along with the Iraqi National List (INL),the coalition led by the ex premier Iyad Allawi. The new political formation, named the Iraqi National Front, is characterised by a consistent representation in Parliament due to the fact that group the 44 seats of the IAF with the 25 of the INL; a total of 69 seats out of 275. Most probably the coalition will be strengthened through being joined by the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, led by Salah al Mutlak (a coalition of nationalist forces of neo-Baathist inspiration), the Liberation and Reconciliation Block of Misha'an al Jiburi (a minor Sunni formation that counts only 3 legislators), and Fadhila, a Shiite party of Sadr inspiration that until now was part of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the Shiite coalition that, with 15 seats, has the majority in Parliament.
As Iyad Allawi stated, there is a political and not religious crisis taking place. One in which the political forces that distanced themselves from the UIA asking for a political system based not on religion – the consequence being the ulterior division of Iraqi’s – but one based on the formation of parliamentary blocks; one whose objectives are the national interests. The political crisis is part of the announced government reshuffle, and given that the situation is not yet mature enough for the formation of an alternative party coalition, the actions could be interpreted as gests aimed at obtaining greater power in what will become the new government formation.

Donatella Scatamacchia