The refusal of Senator Jean-Pierre Bemba - leader of the opposition to President Joseph Kabila’s political front - to disband his armed guard has been the cause of recent violence on the streets of the capital, Kinshasa. Two days of fighting in which Bemba’s militia clashed with government troops caused a number of victims, especially amongst civilians.

The clashes ended on Friday with the militia surrendering and Bemba fleeing to the South African embassy – it is believed that Bemba has not requested asylum. Through their actions the authorities have successfully ended the regime of tolerance to personal guards. The international community, although having suggested that the protagonists of the recent fighting return to the negotiating table, has welcomed the government’s stance. The international communities support for President Kabila represents a contribution to the consolidation of a sole, legitimate security force. The President also seems to have taken advantage of the situation to go even further than having removed an uncomfortable legacy from the civil war. The Congolese Authorities have released an arrest warrant for the opposition’s strongman, accusing him of grave crimes such as high treason. The authorities have also begun the procedure of requesting the removal of Bemba’s parliamentary immunity. The result is that the President’s principal adversary will see his role and position greatly changed. If the juridical procedure is carried out to its conclusion Bemba will be arrested and condemned. In alternative the procedure could be ‘frozen’, a situation that would in any case leave a Damocles’ sword hanging over Bemba’s freedom of political action. This solution would offer Kabila the possibility to neutralise his adversary without risking accusations of political persecution, something to avoid given the ex Vice-President and Mouvement de Libération du Congo (MLC) leader’s popularity in Kinshasa and western Congo.

Given the governing coalition’s strong majority in parliament should Jean-Pierre Bemba be incriminated the motion to strip his parliamentary immunity would be supported. The United Nations and the international donors already back the central government, albeit with reserves in regards to the political management of the recent crisis. South Africa’s decisions in regards to Bemba, currently sought by the security forces, could be determining. It would not be a surprise if the South African Government - given its interests and the resources invested in stabilising the huge central African country – adopted the position of negotiator once again, seeking assurances for its ‘unexpected guest’.

Massimiliano Zanghì

Following a 9 hour meeting, during which over 30 members spoke, the UCR (Union Civica Radical – the second political force in the country) formalised its position in regards to October’s Presidential elections. The party will support the former Minister of the Economy, Roberto Lavagna, insisting, however, upon the right to propose the vice-President.

The summit has evidenced a greatening of existing internal fractures rather than progress towards political unity. Opposing the official line were not only the sustainers of an independent candidate (in primis Margarita Stolbizer) but also a group of ‘radicali K’, who confirmed that they will not follow the leadership’s decisions but will vote for the current Head of State, Nestor Kirchner. Both the dissident wings - who left the Teatro Colonial where the conference took place - have asked for the directive to be cancelled in that at the moment of the vote there was not the necessary quorum.

The UCR will thus enter consultations without the level of compactness that distinguished them in the 80’s. According to particularly insistent unofficial sources the highest echelons of the party would like to use a nucleus of the most ‘faithful’ to reconstruct the organisation, without, however, placing any great hope for the time being on the result of the Presidential elections. The long-term plan is to create, by 2012, a party capable of contrasting Peronism - or Kirchnerism - as the country’s second political force.

Lucia Conti

The recent declarations of the US State Department’s spokesman, Sean McCormack, appear to open a new chapter in Washington’s support for Pervez Musharraf’s regime. The US have asked their ally to resign as Head of the Army, thus to all effects becoming a civilian politician.

The protests following accusations made against the Head of the Supreme Court - who has been strongly criticised by the security forces, have been amplified by the Pakistani media. Without doubt the public demonstrations have been qualitatively diverse from those inspired and led by the Islamic parties. This has caused a number of analysts to forecast the imminent demise of the General’s regime - it would seem, however, that any such forecasts are premature.

The Presidents future will depend above all on Washington’s decision to support him or otherwise. McCormack, albeit using diplomatic tones, has informed Musharraf that Washington wants him to resign as Head of the Army. This represents a dramatic change of course to the substantially unconditional support that the General has so far received from the US. In any case it would be somewhat arbitrary to assume, as some have, that Musharraf’s era has come to an end.

The ‘establishment’ in Washington seems currently to be comprised of two opposing positions. One train of thought considers the Pakistani leader’s time as having come to an end and forecasts his substitution by General Hayat. The other prefers Musharraf’s survival and, for example, is asking opposition leaders such as Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif not to take advantage of the protests in order to assure the fall of Musharraf. It is still too early to say which of the two positions will prevail.

The public demonstrations have as yet to assume the character of a revolt capable of bringing the current regime to an end; however, should they be strengthened by factors such as a lack of political support from Washington and the Army then Musharraf may well be deposed. In the past the General has demonstrated a capacity to assure his survival and is still in the condition to face the current challenges. The present Asian geopolitical context, the worsening of the situation in Afghanistan and the Iranian crisis, make Washington abandoning an ally very unlikely (although not impossible) in the short-term.

Andrea Carbonari

On 25 March Europe celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. The EU’s German Presidency, under the guide of Chancellor Angela Merkel, hosted the 27 Heads of State and Governments celebrating the anniversary in Berlin. Chancellor Merkel took advantage of the occasion to promote the European Union’s rebirth and of the process of political integration. The stall over the last three years - since the 2004 signing of the Treaty regarding the European Constitution – has become a sore point for Germany. Berlin has invested resources and considerable energy in seeking to address the wounds and launch the process of European integration.

The text of the 2004 treaty has remained blocked. Following the referendums in France and Holland enthusiasm for the constitution has waned. The challenges posed to the EU by community and international politics impose the necessity to reflect upon the current situation. International tensions with Iran; the wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq; and the dependency on Russian gas have all evidenced the urgency for the EU to consolidate and define common policies. To this end Angela Merkel is promoting Germany’s role as leader, almost as if wanting to propose once again the historical concept of France and Germany as being Europe’s motor and driving force. It is in this sense that the decision of the member states to approve the Berlin Declaration, signed during the celebrations, needs to be read. The Declaration is an occasion to impose a deadline for the launch of the EU, that of the 2009 European elections. Massive change is expected by that date. The sense of urgency and the importance of “an understanding of the historical role” were the concepts that guided the meeting in Berlin.

What is in part a surprise is that notwithstanding the unanimous decision that Europe has to go forward and that the Treaty has to be completed, the Berlin Declaration does little to hasten a solution to the problem. All of the Heads of State and Government identified in the ratification of the Treaty the key to the process of integration; however, not a single official word was included in the Declaration. Most probably this is due to the contradictions of some member states, who to date appear unsatisfied by the Treaty, and which have doubts in regards to the document’s ratification (Holland for example) until it is revised by the EU with the removal of a series of articles. Thus the question of the Constitution remains. A series of modifications to the signed Treaty would appear to be the preferred route, if for no other reason in order not to undo the efforts of the European Convention that produced it and the Intergovernmental Conference that signed it. The eventual modifications will have to be approved by another Intergovernmental Conference; time is short as 2009 has been set as the deadline. The immediate future is in the hands of the German Presidency and that which will follow it: diplomatic capacity and multilateral efforts are necessary to reinforcing the bases of the EU’s common policies.

Eleonora Faina

Notwithstanding the fact that the Palestinian Coalition Government was well received in Europe and in the United States the recent declarations by of the Israeli President, Ehud Olmert, in regards to Corporal Gilad Shalit continuing to be held, have confirmed not only Israel’s hostility to the new leadership but also the continuation of the economic blockade.

The Mecca agreements between Fatah and Hamas, the basis of the Government of National Unity, have as yet to reach the expected results. From a financial point of view only the European Union has demonstrated a will, if only theoretical, to suspend sanctions and resume the flow of international financial aid. This emerged from the meetings during the last week between the EU’s special envoy to the Middle East, Marc Otte, and the Palestinian Minister of Finance, Salam Fayyad. The position of the United States remains one of ‘cautious openness’, albeit tied to regional geopolitical developments. For its part the Israeli Government, weakened both internationally and domestically, refuses any dialogue with the Palestinian Authority and is pressing the international community to maintain the economic blockade in an attempt to postpone the peace process. The Israeli obstructionism is principally due to a new, and dangerous, presence of Hamas in the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). It is also directly related to a change in US strategy; a new stance partly derived from pressure exerted by middle eastern governments aimed at reducing Washington’s hostility towards the Arab world.

An Arab summit is programmed in Riyadh on the 28 and 29 March. The ‘Arab Quartet’ (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Arab Emirates – partners of the United States’ realignment policy) could present a peace plan for the ‘two state solution’. The plan would be based on the 2002 text and may well be supported by the White House. This eventuality would presumably lead to - assuming that there is no diplomatic rethinking, something never guaranteed in the Middle East – an increase in Israel’s attempts to stall progress, and to more incisive actions from the European Union, through the release of funds, in order to favour the peace process.

Giovanni Faleg