Policing the Desert: The IOM in Libya Beyond War and Peace

The war that took place in Libya in 2011 forced 1.5 million people to leave the country. Many of them, from sub‐Saharan Africa, were helped to return to their countries of origin by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). This paper questions the purely humanitarian nature of the IOM intervention with references to its activities before and after the conflict. It shows that this organization has long participated in the implementation of European migration policies in Libya, and more widely in the Sahara, without being accountable to any people. Through the replacement of local politics by international crisis management, the Sahara is gradually integrated into a zone of international bureaucratic expedience. War and humanitarian intervention appear as contingencies in the progressive implementation of a global system of surveillance, spatial control and management of mobility in Africa.     

Desert Victory: The War for Kuwait: Norman Friedman

Book reviewed in this article: The Scourging of Iraq: Sanctions, Law and Natural Justice, 2nd ed: Geoff Simons     

American Ascendance and British Retreat in the Persian Gulf Region

On 18 February 1946 a mutiny broke out in HMIS Talwar, a Royal Indian Navy signals school in Bombay. Over the following days the disturbance spread to over 10,000 men, 66 ships and shore establishments, while there was civilian rioting in several major cities. The causes of the mutiny have traditionally been attributed to discontent over service conditions, racial abuse and the influence of Indian nationalism, firmly framing the ‘strike’ as part of India's anti-colonial struggle. Such explanations have been applied uniformly across the force, regardless of the wide-scale nature of the disturbances, and with little focus on those who remained loyal. By examining the experiences of units other than Talwar, this article challenges the predominant nationalist narrative of the mutiny, questioning the notion that overarching causes existed across the navy, and demonstrating how motives and reactions were more fractured and complex. It will also reconsider the connection between the mutiny and civilian rioting in Bombay, introducing organised crime as a notable influence, and examine the role of the preceding RAF ‘strikes’ and political discourses in framing the actions of the naval ratings.     

Nuclear energy and proliferation risks: myths and realities in the Persian Gulf

The use of civil nuclear power is set for major expansion among the world's developing economies. The pursuit of nuclear energy technology offers energy-hungry developing nations access to reliable large-scale electricity supplies with very low carbon emissions. But this climate-friendly energy solution comes at a security price. Historically, one third of the 30 countries that possess civil nuclear energy programmes have weaponized them. Security threats from the proliferation of nuclear weapons might become an important barrier to the further expansion of the global nuclear energy market. Nowhere is this tension more acute than in the Persian Gulf. Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) illustrate how the establishment of civil nuclear energy programmes can pose different levels of security risk depending on a country's foreign policy. While the UAE has embraced international transparent nuclear safeguards, Iran has rejected the concerns of the international community and continues to develop uranium enrichment technology that may soon lead towards a viable nuclear weapon. However, the use of proliferation-resistant thorium rather than uranium as a nuclear fuel technology might significantly reduce the threat of plutonium weaponization in Arab states. The UAE nuclear energy model deserves the political support of western nations as the best compromise between nuclear energy expansion and nuclear security threats. This article discusses the myths and realities surrounding the diversion of civil nuclear energy programmes for military use in the Persian Gulf region, and argues that proliferation of atomic weapons is a political choice, not a certain technical inevitability.