Author Archives: News Sources

Mohammad Nabbous, face of citizen journalism in Libya, is killed in Benghazi

NPR’s Andy Carvin described Mohammad Nabbous as “Libya’s Cronkite” and “the face of Libyan citizen journalism.”

CNN’s Ben Wedeman: “Mohammed Nabbous was one of the courageous voices from Benghazi broadcasting to the world from the beginning. Smart, selfless, brave.”

Andy Carvin: “One thing to take away from Mo’s death this morning. His final reporting made it clear to the world that Gaddafi’s ceasefire was bullshit.”

Iveta Cherneva reports:

Mohammed Nabbous, founder of Libya AlHurra TV, killed this morning in Benghazi while reporting on Gaddafi forces attacks. Leaves behind wife and unborn baby.

Video reporter Mohammed Nabbous, the founder of Libya AlHurra TV, was killed in the morning of 19 March 2011 in Benghazi, while reporting on the civilian attacks by the pro-Gaddafi forces, announced Libya AlHurra TV.

“He touched the hearts of many with his bravery and indomnitable spirit. He will be dearly missed and leaves behind his young wife and unborn child”, said Sharon Lynch, TV station representative.

Mohammed Nabbous, better known as Mo, reflected the situation in Libya over the past weeks, providing exclusive video coverage of dangerous developments and situations. Mo was among the very few independent sources, which were able to provide alternative information on the ground.

“Mo’s objective in founding Libya AlHurra was to help his countrymen by getting the word out about what is happening in Libya”, said the AlHurra TV representative. Mo supplied on-the-ground videos and analysis of the situation in Libya over the past weeks and continued doing as so as Benghazi bombing and tank invasions began on 18 and 19 March.

Mo was shot by Gaddafi forces and for awhile was in a critical condition. At 3pm CET Mohamed reportedly passed away. His wife announced his tragic death in a video on Libya Al-Hurra TV.

Watch live streaming video from libya17feb at livestream.com

This is one of Mohammed’s last reports where he went to a residential area in Benghazi which came under missile attack from Gaddafi’s forces last night.

Watch live streaming video from libya17feb at livestream.com

This is Mohammed’s first broadcast:

This is his last report during a heavy gunfight in which he was fatally wounded:

Facebooktwittermail

Libya, the US, and the moral imperative to intervene

Shadi Hamid writes:

Finally, after much “dithering” – which seems to be the consensus word choice for Obama’s sputtering Mideast policy – the US has finally suggested that it can, sometimes, do the right thing, even if it does it three weeks later (I looked back to see when I had written my Slate article calling for international intervention – February 23).

The arguments against military intervention struck me as surprisingly weak and almost entirely dependent on raising the spectre of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was somewhat unclear how and why Iraq 2003 should be compared to Libya 2011. Michael Cohen, whose preference for foreign policy restraint is admirable, worried recently that John McCain and Joe Lieberman’s support for a no-fly zone portended bad things to come. Just because McCain and Lieberman support something doesn’t automatically mean it’s bad.

Cohen writes that Iraq and Afghanistan “are daily reminders that the use of U.S. military force can have unforeseen and often unpredictable consequences.” Yes, but that’s sort of the point with bold action. It’s supposed to be risky (in fact, if it’s not, you may not be going far enough). Success isn’t guaranteed. And no one is pretending that a positive outcome in Libya is a foregone conclusion now that the UN Security Council has adopted a resolution authorizing military force. But it does make a successful outcome more likely. Leon Wieseltier, in a moving must-read, writes:

It may be, as Clinton said, that the consequences of a no-fly zone would be unforeseeable, but the consequences of the absence of a no-fly zone are entirely foreseeable. They are even seeable.

For realists, I would love to hear how doing nothing in Libya was going to help U.S. security interests. Having an oil-rich pariah state that could very well return to supporting terrorism and wreaking havoc in the region would be disastrous, creating Iraq part 3 and making it more likely we’d have to intervene sometime further into the future, at much greater cost and consequence. Did we not learn from the quelched Shia uprisings of 1991? Or from standing by idly (or supporting) the military coup that ended Algerian democracy in 1991? The Arab world suffered for the international community’s failure to do the right thing. Literally, hundreds of thousands died as a result. Having Libyans and Arabs feel that we betrayed them yet again would do wonders for our already plummeting credibility, particularly after the Obama administration has moved to back autocratic regimes in Bahrain and Yemen, rather than the peaceful protesters struggling for their freedom and getting shot in the process.

Facebooktwittermail

How Obama turned on a dime toward war

Foreign Policy reports:

At the start of this week, the consensus around Washington was that military action against Libya was not in the cards. However, in the last several days, the White House completely altered its stance and successfully pushed for the authorization for military intervention against Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. What changed?

The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as “extremely contentious.” Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.

“This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values,” a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.

But Obama’s stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention – instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.

“In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook,” said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. “The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one.”

Facebooktwittermail

Libya – rough guide to the new UN Security Council resolution (1973)

Carne Ross writes:

Here’s a quick and provisional analysis of the main provisions of last night’s SCR 1973. I am not a lawyer, so my reading may not be wholly accurate, though I have negotiated a lot of these kind of resolutions, including on Libya and Iraq. This analysis should serve as a rough and ready guide.

Overall: the thrust of the resolution is to demand a ceasefire and to impose various military and non-military measures to seek to force the Libyan regime to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians. The resolution authorizes military force in certain clear circumstances (eg to impose a No Fly Zone) but also in more general terms to protect civilians. The non-military measures amount to a significant tightening of sanctions on the Libyan regime, including an assets freeze on all Libyan government organisation and those indirectly controlled by the government (which would also presumably include Libyan oil companies – highly significant if so: effectively an oil embargo). Also, the resolution lays particular emphasis on regional calls for protection of civilians and No Fly Zones, eg by the Arab League and OIC.

Facebooktwittermail

The fight for Libya

Simon Tisdall writes:

Muammar Gaddafi’s ceasefire offer will not satisfy western leaders queuing up to take a shot at him – but it’s unclear what will. When the US and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003 the aim was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When Nato entered Kosovo in 1999 its purpose was to stop ethnic cleansing by Slobodan Milosevic’s army. The precise objectives of the Libyan war 2011, and how they will be achieved, are less well-defined – and therefore, potentially problematic.

The ceasefire hastily announced by Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa in the wake of UN resolution 1973 authorising foreign military intervention will be seen as a welcome first step. Except that regime forces bombarding Misrata and other cities appeared not to hear the news. Given Tripoli’s talent for lies, the enforcement, verification, and permanence of a ceasefire could be a vexed and lengthy matter. It will not happen overnight.

Downing Street has tried to clarify what its eclectic alliance – including France, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Italy and Denmark (and maybe Malta) – thinks it is doing in Libya. David Cameron and Barack Obama agreed that “the violence against the Libyan people needed to cease, that Gaddafi should depart from power now, and that the Libyan regime should comply with the [UN] resolution immediately”, it said.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, added root and branch regime change to this wish list. “The Libyan people must be able to have a more representative government and determine their own future,” he said.

On this basis, the expanding aim of the intervention is not only to stop the violence and remove Gaddafi (and his sons) from power. Its more ambitious purpose is to oversee a democratic system on western lines in a largely undeveloped country that has never known representative governance and has no tradition of civil rights and individual freedoms. This sounds more like Afghanistan-style nation-building every minute.

A Reuters analysis says:

Finally confronted by a far stronger adversary, Muammar Gaddafi’s pragmatic instincts will be to stall, secure a truce and negotiate continued control of a rump regime based in Libya’s west.

His life as well as his rule at stake, the veteran autocrat will also tighten security control over his entourage to avert any repetition of the numerous coup attempts that have marked his 41 years in power, analysts say.

But his options have shrunk dramatically since the U.N. Security Council on Thursday evening endorsed a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” to shield civilians from his forces.

Analysts who know Gaddafi, an old hand at surviving prolonged international isolation, say the goal of U.N.-backed action must be regime change.

Any endgame short of that will offer openings he can exploit. For example, some expect Gaddafi, adept at brinkmanship, to call for talks mediated by African statesmen to gain time and carve rifts in the coalition ranged against him.

“He’s a manipulator and a survivor,” said Saad Djebbar, a UK-based Libya expert.

“He shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate to stay on in Tripoli. He wants to engineer the division of Libya, like Korea was split into a North and a South in the 1950s.”

Reuters reports:

Muammar Gaddafi’s government said it was declaring a unilateral ceasefire in its offensive to crush Libya’s revolt, as Western warplanes prepared to attack his forces.

But government troops pounded the rebel-held western city of Misrata on Friday, killing at least 25 people including children, a doctor there told Reuters. Residents said there was no sign of a ceasefire.

And in the rebel-controlled east, the government declaration was dismissed as a ruse or a sign Gaddafi was desperate.

“We have to be very cautious. He is now starting to be afraid, but on the ground the threat has not changed,” a French spokesman said. Britain, like France a strong advocate of armed action, said it would judge Gaddafi by “actions, not his words”.

CNN reports:

Even as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the ultimate goal for the U.S. was to see Libya’s president cede power, a senior administration official says the U.N.-mandated no-fly zone and military action to support it would not necessarily last until Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi steps down.
This official, who spoke on background because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue, said that “right now, we’re focused on stopping the violence.”

Clinton said Friday, “The first and overwhelming urgent action is to end the violence. And we have to see a clear set of decisions that are operationalized on the ground by Gadhafi’s forces to move physically a significant distance away from the east, where they have been pursuing their campaign against the opposition.”

The purpose of the no-fly zone, the administration official said, is to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people.

“It’s not designed to have him go. That’s not the purpose,” the official said. “The purpose of the military action is to prevent massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the violence stops, then you shouldn’t leap to say then the military action will continue until he leaves.”

The Guardian reports:

How soon before the no-fly, no-drive zone in Libya is enforced by US forces? According to US Air Force chief of staff Norton Schwartz, speaking to senators in Washington yesterday and reported by Foreign Policy – plans to impose a no-fly zone in a few days were “overly optimistic” and said: “It would take upwards of a week.”

The Washington Post reports:

In the streets and alleyways of this cowed and fearful city, the lingering traces of a crushed revolution are fading fast.

At one junction, the charred remains of incinerated tires burned by demonstrators are being flattened by traffic as Tripoli gradually returns to a semblance of normality. A scorched police station is operating again, with police in black uniforms and green bandanas sitting on stools outside. The bloodstains in a sandy side street where residents say soldiers opened fire with live ammunition have been washed away by spring rains.

And in Green Square, the symbolic heart of the city, government supporters gather on a daily basis, not anti-regime protesters, to chant slogans and brandish portraits in a triumphal assertion of Moammar Gaddafi’s continuing grip on power.

While the United Nations has now authorized military action to protect rebels in the far east of the country, it may now be too late to revive the failed uprising in the capital. Libya’s foreign minister may have declared a cease-fire on Friday, but in Tripoli, Gaddafi’s stronghold, the real battle for Libya appears already to have been fought and won by a regime that was willing to use live ammunition against its opponents.

Reuters reports:

Four New York Times journalists who were captured by Libyan forces while covering the conflict there will be released on Friday, the Times reported.

The son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Seif al-Islam, told ABC News they would be released, and the Times reported that Libyan officials told the U.S. State Department on Thursday evening that all four would be released.

Facebooktwittermail

Intifada update

The revolution reaches Damascus
Until this week, it appeared that Syria might be immune from the turmoil that has gripped the Middle East. But trouble may now be starting to brew.

On March 18, popular demonstrations escalated into the most serious anti-government action during Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s decade-long rule. Security forces opened fire on a demonstration in the southern city of Deraa, killing at least two protesters. The unrest also does not appear to be contained to any one geographical region: Protests were also reported in the northwestern city of Banias, the western city of Homs, the eastern city of Deir al-Zur, and the capital of Damascus.

The demonstrations began on March 15, when a small group of people gathered in Souq al-Hamidiyeh, Damascus’s historic covered market, to turn the ruling Baath Party’s slogans against it. “God, Syria, freedom — that’s enough,” they chanted. The phrase is a play on words on the Baathist mantra: “God, Syria, Bashar — that’s enough.” The next day, around 100 activists and relatives of political prisoners gathered in front of the Interior Ministry in Damascus’s Marjeh Square to demand the release of Syria’s jailed dissidents.

The protests may be small fry by regional standards, but in Syria — repressively ruled under a state of emergency since the Baath Party came to power in 1963 — they are unprecedented. An atmosphere of fear and secrecy makes the extent of discontent hard to ascertain. Sources outside the country said demonstrations took place in six of Syria’s 14 provinces on Tuesday. Those claims were hard to verify, but the government is clearly rattled: It has beefed up the presence of its security forces, a ragtag-looking bunch in leather jackets, across the country and especially in the northeast, home to a large and often restless Kurdish population, and Aleppo. (Foreign Policy)

Demography and Bahrain’s unrest
The introduction of GCC troops into Bahrain has been labeled a foreign “occupation” by the opposition, while the government has hailed it as brotherly support from its neighbors. In fact, this “native-foreigner” issue has a long history in the country and serious political implications not only in Bahrain but also throughout the Gulf.

The Bahraini monarchy has long relied on foreigners not only as military and police forces, but also to shift the political balance in the island kingdom. The opposition in Bahrain, drawing primarily but not exclusively on support from the country’s majority of Shi’i Muslims, has accused the government of fast-tracking the citizenship of carefully selected foreigners in order to change the demographic makeup of the country. The “politically naturalized,” as they are called, are Sunni Muslims mainly from Bedouin tribes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Jordan, and Baluchistan. They are seen as having close ethnic and cultural links to the local rulers. Estimates of their numbers range from 50,000 to 200,000, constituting between one-tenth and one-third of the total number of citizens.

The politically naturalized are mainly employed in the security and defense forces, increasing the perception that they have been brought in to contain the local population. The graphic videos surfacing of the recent attacks by security forces against protestors show actions that involved some foreign or politically naturalized individuals.

This systematic use of foreign forces is a tradition that goes back decades. It was first used in the region by the British in the nineteenth century, when divisions composed of individuals from Baluchistan and the Indian sub-continent were brought in to help establish control over the Trucial coast. It limits the risk of identification with locals and of defection. Fears about loyalty are less of an issue, as long as the right material incentives are provided. (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

Bahrain clashes: ‘Riot police showed no mercy
CBS Radio News reporter Toula Vlahou was covering clashes between protesters and riot police outside Manama, Bahrain.

Riot police were firing tear gas and advancing toward the protesters. Vlahou and her BBC driver, a local Bahraini who was taking pictures – decided to leave the area. The riot police confronted them while they were in the car. The driver backed up and the riot police opened fire on the car.

“We were attacked by a wall of riot police,” Vlahou said. “We thought they were going to fire tear gas at us. But they fired pellets at us.”

“I had to fall to the ground in the driver’s seat as the driver was driving to get out of there,” Vlahou added.

The riot police began chasing them and continued shooting at the car. A helicopter was hovering above them for the entire time.

Vlahou said her driver believes that a helicopter above saw him filming, and “chased us and actually pursued us because they say him filming the scene.” The neighborhood people were watching from their houses as Vlahou and the driver were being fired upon. One neighbor waved at them to come into the house. The local family ushered them into a prayer room in the back of the house where they remained there an hour. (CBS News)

Yemen unrest: ‘Dozens killed’ as gunmen target rally
Unidentified gunmen firing on an anti-government rally in the Yemeni capital Sanaa have killed at least 39 people and injured 200, doctors told the BBC.

The gunmen fired from rooftops overlooking the central square in what the opposition called a massacre.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh later declared a national state of emergency.

He said he regretted Friday’s casualties but denied security forces had been behind the shooting, as the opposition demanded his resignation.

“There is no longer any possibility of mutual understanding with this regime and he has no choice but to surrender authority to the people,” Yassin Noman, rotating president of Yemen’s umbrella opposition group, was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying. (BBC)

A terrible day for Yemen
The situation in Yemen is looking increasingly insoluble. The problem is not merely how to get rid of Salih but what will happen after he goes. The longer he clings on, the more difficult it will be to achieve a peaceful transition – and it may even be too late for that already. (Brian Whitaker)

Facebooktwittermail

Toward a strategy for the new Middle East

Paul R. Pillar writes:

The wave of popular unrest in the Middle East has stimulated armchair strategists to offer over-arching advice on how the United States should deal with what may be a substantially changed region. As with any other fast-moving foreign policy challenges (or opportunities), policymakers will necessarily be focused more on what is here and now than on what is over-arching. They are properly concentrating on not making damaging mistakes this week or this month rather than sitting back and thinking deep thoughts about their rendezvous with history. Nonetheless, something of historical significance has indeed been playing out in the Middle East for these last three months and shows little sign of dying out any time soon. So some deep thinking may be useful in providing a context for dealing with the here-and-now problems that turbulence in the region has been putting on the policymakers’ agenda.

Grand strategizing on this subject needs to proceed with several cautions. One is that there is an awful lot about where the Middle East is headed in the months and years ahead that we do not and cannot know. A second caution is that although the United States can influence some of that history in the making, it cannot mold it or determine the main lines of the story. It would be hubristic to believe the United States can shape what happens in the Middle East more than it has to adapt to what happens there. A third caution is to resist the tendency to overgeneralize and oversimplify. That tendency is an almost unavoidable side-effect of the over-arching stuff. But we need to remember that despite the region-wide sweep of much of what we are witnessing (and despite the contagion effect that I admit I underestimated when unrest first broke out in Tunisia), country-to-country differences may be as significant as what characterizes the Middle East as a whole.

Amid all that can be said about what is new in the Middle East, we need to think first about what has not changed, which in many respects is as important as what has. The economic and social structures in the region are not being transformed overnight, however rapid are some of the political changes at the top and on the surface. Political culture also is not changing overnight, although it can slowly evolve in response to new distributions of power and the creation of new institutions. These aspects of the political, economic, and social fabric of the Middle East—including political habits developed in an authoritarian environment, economic structures that discourage entrepreneurship and dynamic growth, and social structures in which religious identity in particular plays a significant role—limit the possibilities or at least the pace of fundamental change, however exuberant may be the demands voiced in the street.

Facebooktwittermail

A marriage made in hell

Hossein Askari writes:

While there may be truth to the adage that “opposites attract,” a happy and long lasting relationship must be based on common values, respect and shared interests. Do America and the absolute rulers of Saudi Arabia share such a basis for a long-lasting relationship? How will Muslims judge our marriage to the Al-Sauds in the current climate of protests against autocratic rule in the Middle East and North Africa?

There is certainly little to be put in the win column when it comes to shared values.

Political Freedom: Saudi Arabia has no constitution, no representative government, no freedom of the press and no freedom of assembly. The Saudi foreign minister recently said that Saudi Arabia will “cut off any finger” raised in protest. Who are the rulers of Saudi Arabia? In 1932, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud used his sword, deception and treachery to unite a number of warring tribes. So the Al-Saud family sees Saudi Arabia as their ranch; as one Saudi prince said, “my grandfather took it with the sword. Others could have done it. But they didn’t. It is ours.”

Religious Freedom: Churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia, only mosques are allowed; in fact, foreigners have gone to jail for holding Christmas services in their home. With about 85 percent of Saudis professing the Sunni sect, Shia Muslims are subjugated, economically deprived and treated as apostates. It is Saudi fundamentalists who have financed madrassasto spread radical Islam with a hatred for all things American. None of this bothers the Al-Sauds because the U.S. and the Vatican don’t publicize this religious discrimination for fear of ruffling Al-Saud feathers. In the face of such discrimination, it is ironic that Al-Saud kings, beginning with Fahd and now Abdullah, refer to themselves as “The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” while the Koran says, “Let there be no compunction in religion.” They claim legitimacy from Islam, while the unity of humankind and social and economic justice, the core of Islamic teachings, has been supplanted by its antithesis.

Economic Equality and Freedom: Contrary to everything in the Koran and from the example of the Prophet Mohammad, the Al-Sauds are the masters and have no equals. While the oil under the ground belongs to all Saudis of this and future generations, the Al-Sauds behave as if it was theirs and theirs alone. The king and senior princes take what they want from the treasury. All major government contracts have a Saudi prince as an agent, taking commissions that are at times obscene. In the case of at least one military contract that ran into the billions, the “add-ons” over a short span of time exceeded the original contract, something that dismayed the U.S. government military attaché in Saudi Arabia. As usual when senior Al-Sauds are involved, it was hushed up by the U.S. embassy. Are the Al-Sauds the best businessmen in the world or are they simply corrupt? While the Al-Sauds wallow in unbelievable opulence, some Shia don’t have running water and around 25 percent of the youth cannot find jobs. The Al-Sauds are wasting the heritage of all Saudis. What happened to the Islamic precept that rulers should live in the same manner as the poorest in their realm?

Facebooktwittermail

Obama weighs talking to the Taliban, Hezbollah

David Ignatius writes:

In a rapidly changing Islamic world, the Obama administration is weighing how best to talk with adversaries such as the Taliban and, perhaps, Hezbollah.

One model for the administration, as it thinks about engagement of enemies, is the British process of dialogue during the 1990s with Sinn Fein, the legal political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army. That outreach led to breakthrough peace talks and settlement of a conflict that had been raging for more than a century.

In the case of the Taliban, the administration has repeatedly stated that it is seeking a political settlement of the war in Afghanistan rather than a military one. That formula sometimes seems hollow when more than 100,000 U.S. troops are in combat. But it got more definition last month from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who opened the doors wider for dialogue.

Clinton, in a Feb. 18 speech to the Asia Society, subtly altered the terms for Taliban participation in peace talks. She repeated the administration’s “red lines for reconciliation” — that Taliban representatives must renounce violence, reject al-Qaeda and abide by the Afghan constitution. But rather than making these preconditions for talks, as before, she said they were “necessary outcomes of any negotiation.”

Facebooktwittermail

The fight for Libya

Hana El-Gallal, a law professor from Benghazi, writes:

The global community must act to stop Gaddafi and his forces reaching Benghazi. If he gets here, he will kill everyone. We in Benghazi, in what is left of Free Libya, have a very simple message for the Security Council. Please, do something. We are desperate for your help and you must do it now. It is the time to act and if you don’t there will be genocide. We are called rebels, but we are not rebels. We are a people that simply wants the same freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the people in the West. For 42 years, one man and his family have denied the people of Libya their dignity.

Whenever he gets to Benghazi, he will deny us our lives too.

Days ago, a no-fly zone could have been imposed and that would have helped. It would still help, but now it may be too late. Even so, it is not too late to help to stop him reaching us.

There are soldiers here, willing to fight for us, but we have no weapons. We are walking around gathering up what we can use to defend ourselves. I am a mother, not a member of al-Qa’ida; not a mujahideen. But when Gaddafi gets to Benghazi, I will have to be a fighter, not only to defend myself and my family, but also to defend the dignity of a people who have told the tyrant that has raped our country to go.

The world needs to know this will not happen unless we get help. We are a brave people and we will fight. But we will also lose without the help of the rest of the world. And if the international community does not act, it will remain of the conscience of the people that did nothing. China, with your riches; America, with your power; Europe, with your history – you will all be guilty of standing aside and letting Gaddafi massacre his innocent people. We did not want to fight, but we were forced to, and now, in our moment of need, we are calling for the world to come together and defend us from this evil man. It has been said the Libyan people do not want foreign troops on our soil, but which country does? Now it is too late for these arguments. Libya is not Iraq: it is full of desperate people and if the international community decides to send its armies, they will be greeted with joy; a joy that will replace what is now a growing sense of hopelessness.

We pray that our brothers and sisters can hold Ajdabiya. Gaddafi says that he has taken the town, but we know that our friends are still fighting for their lives, even if we know in our hearts that they won’t be able to hold on forever without assistance. And when Ajdabiya falls, there is then nothing to stop Gaddafi and his thugs reaching us here in Benghazi. We are all so frightened of what he will do when he gets here. We are all going to die.

We are all desperately waiting for the UN, or Nato, or the EU or anyone to act. Even the Arab League has called for action – what more of an invitation do people want? It the first time that the Arab League has called for action against one of its members: we have heard the call, but God knows that we have to see the action. We all know intervening in the affairs of another state is a controversial act. The world was sick when it released that inaction led to the deaths of thousands in Rwanda; the world said “never again”. That was only 15 years ago and, without urgent action, what happened in Rwanda will be repeated on the streets of Benghazi, maybe as soon as tomorrow.

We have all heard the speeches of Gaddafi and his sons: does the international community really believe that we are al-Qa’ida and on drugs? It will know that answer soon enough when, after Gaddafi reaches Benghazi, the pictures of our murdered children are shown around the world.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington’s knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.

The shipments—mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition—appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states’ unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.

The Independent reports:

Even as the votes to take on the Libyan regime were cast last night, the battle for Benghazi had begun. Col Gaddafi’s warplanes carried out several strikes on the city as artillery volleys started to come in from units approaching from several directions.

The skies above were lit up by constant streams of anti-aircraft fire. Rebel fighters, buoyed by reports that the vote in New York had gone for military action, began to stream towards the western gates of the city.

Even as the violence flared they believed that, at last – a month to the day after Libya’s revolution began – their only realistic hope of avoiding defeat at the hands of the regime had finally come true. But there is a fierce battle ahead. The firefights took place with the constant background sound of mosques in the city playing chants of “Allah hu Akhbar” at high decibel through loudspeakers. The chant was taken up by the rebel fighters, the Shabbab, as they traded fire. Many of the exchanges were chaotic with heavy calibre guns used at random. Flames appeared in parts of the city with black smoke blending into the night sky.

Down below, however, Benghazi was a bright target for the warplanes. No attempt had been made to dim the lights in any of the public buildings in the centre and residential areas also lit up as people came out to windows and balconies to watch the action with some women ululating. The mood of the rebel fighters, who had suffered repeated defeats in recent weeks and had been forced to withdraw from town after town was buoyant. As he manned his anti-aircraft gun, Selim Astersi shouted: “The devil Gaddafi wants to come into Benghazi, we shall throw him back. Tonight we shall prove ourselves. We shall avenge all those he killed.”

Khalid Ibrahimi stopped his truck, carrying five fighters in the back, to ask: “Is it true that they have voted [at the UN] yes ? That is what we needed my brothers, we have got help at last.” At just after 1am local time, two explosions echoed through the waterfront followed by machine-gun fire. Shabaab fighters claimed infiltrators had come into the city but it seemed more likely that some ammunition had detonated.

Facebooktwittermail

Intifada update

Opposition leaders arrested in Bahrain as crackdown grows
Bahrain arrested six opposition leaders on Thursday, kept the main hospital surrounded by troops and tanks and imposed a nighttime curfew on the center of its capital as it moved to the next stage of its crackdown on reform-seeking protesters, sending the political opposition into crisis.

A day after troops drove demonstrators from the main square and destroyed a month-old tent city there, popular unrest had been reduced to a few minor skirmishes in villages known as opposition strongholds.

There was much defiant talk of keeping the struggle going, but also deep distress.

“We feel cornered and are trying to find our way out,” said Jalal Fairooz, a leader of the Wefaq opposition party in an interview at party headquarters.

A group of Bahraini human rights groups appealed to the United Nations for help. (New York Times)

Bahrain pulls a Qaddafi
It is heartbreaking to see a renegade country like Libya shoot pro-democracy protesters. But it’s even more wrenching to watch America’s ally, Bahrain, pull a Qaddafi and use American tanks, guns and tear gas as well as foreign mercenaries to crush a pro-democracy movement — as we stay mostly silent.

In Bahrain in recent weeks, I’ve seen corpses of protesters who were shot at close range, seen a teenage girl writhing in pain after being clubbed, seen ambulance workers beaten for trying to rescue protesters — and in the last few days it has gotten much worse. Saudi Arabia, in a slap at American efforts to defuse the crisis, dispatched troops to Bahrain to help crush the protesters. The result is five more deaths, by the count of The Associated Press.

One video from Bahrain appears to show security forces shooting an unarmed middle-aged man in the chest with a tear gas canister at a range of a few feet. The man collapses and struggles to get up. And then they shoot him with a canister in the head. Amazingly, he survived.

Today the United States is in a vise — caught between our allies and our values. And the problem with our pal Bahrain is not just that it is shooting protesters but also that it is something like an apartheid state. Sunni Muslims rule the country, and now they are systematically trying to crush an overwhelmingly Shiite protest movement. (Nicholas Kristof)

Brotherhood sticks to ban on Christians and women for presidency
A leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Egypt’s largest opposition group, said on Monday that the MB’s new “Freedom and Justice Party” would continue to stick by its view that Christians and women are unsuitable for the presidency.

Saad al-Husseini, a member of MB’s Guidance Bureau, the highest executive authority within the group, said the new party program will be announced late March after it is approved by the MB’s Guidance Office and Shura Council. Al-Husseini said that although they stick by this view, they “respect all opinions”.

“Our adherence to the jurisprudential opinion refusing the appointment of women or Christians as president does not mean we impose this opinion on the people, who have inherent jurisdiction in this regard,” he said.

“I personally accept for Copts to be appointed in hundreds of positions, including sensitive leadership positions in the country in accordance with the criterion of efficiency and competence, regardless of their proportion in society.”

Meanwhile, MB spokesman Mohamed Morsi said the group is pushing for a civil state, without the tutelage of the clergy. Morsi said the group does not call for a religious state. (almasryalyoum)

Facebooktwittermail

US spy operation that manipulates social media

The Guardian reports:

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China’s attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as “sock puppets” – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.

The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations “without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries”.

Facebooktwittermail

Bradley Manning’s military doctors accused over treatment

The Guardian reports:

A leading group of doctors in the US concerned with the ethical treatment of patients has questioned the role of military psychiatrists in Quantico, Virginia, where the suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning is being subjected to harsh treatment that some call torture.

The advocacy body Physicians for Human Rights has sounded the alarm over the role of psychiatrists at the brig in the marine base where Manning has been in custody since last July.

The group sees the psychiatrists as trapped in a situation of “dual loyalty”, where their obligations to the military chain of command may conflict with their medical duty to protect their patient.

Christy Fujio, author of a forthcoming report on the issue, said the main concern was that psychiatrists were allowing Manning’s continuing solitary confinement.

“Even if they do not officially approve it, by continuing to examine him and report back to the government on his condition, they are effectively taking part in security operations. Their failure to call it what it is, cruel and inhumane treatment, constitutes a violation of their ethical duties as doctors.”

Facebooktwittermail

UN Resolution 1973/2011 adopted

UN Security Council Resolution 1973/2011 on Libya – full text

10 in favour, zero against, five abstentions.

Voting for the resolution:
Permanent members: United States, Britain, France
Non-permanent members:: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa

Abstentions:
Permanent members: Russia, China
Non-permanent members: Germany, Brazil, India

The Resolution authorizes member states “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.”

Simon Tisdall writes:

With a boldness that the world had begun to believe he lacked, Barack Obama has gone for broke. The US wants Muammar Gaddafi’s head. It will not rest until he is deposed and there is regime change in Libya. And it will fight to get it.

Obama spent weeks pondering, prevaricating and posturing, infuriating Britain and France, arch advocates of military intervention. He used public appearances to prate professorially about plans, contingencies and downsides. He allowed senior administration officials such as Pentagon chief Robert Gates to give full vent to their doubts and misgivings about a possible Libyan quagmire.

Obama is already fighting two wars in Muslim countries he did not start – in Iraq, now all but finished, and Afghanistan. He did not want to author another. He did not want another foreign distraction ahead of his presidential re-election bid next year. He did not want the cost, the corpses or the inevitable collateral damage – political and human.

But gradually the pressure from hawkish Democrats such as John Kerry and Republicans such as John McCain began to tell. The escalating rhetoric from Downing Street and the Elysee Palace will have had an impact, too.

Obama finally made his mind up. The US would intervene to stop him. And there would be no half measures. All steps short of boots on the ground, as the US under-secretary of state William Burns put it are now urgently contemplated, with a view to immediate implementation.

That means possible, imminent air strikes as well as an air exclusion zone. It means direct head-on combat with Libya’s air force, if it chooses to fight. It means, potentially, western casualties, if pilots are shot down or bail out or are taken hostage. It could mean innocent civilian deaths as the EU’s foreign policy chief Lady Ashton warned last week. And if things do not go well, it may mean escalation beyond all that is envisaged now. Who knows when it will stop.

The immediate impact may be to stop Gaddafi’s advance on Benghazi in its tracks. If that happens, the revolution will have been salvaged, albeit at the very last moment. Whether it can endure is another matter entirely.

The US and its European and Arab allies will hope that Gaddafi, facing the prospect of overwhelming, punitive force, will quickly back down, observe the UN demand for a ceasefire, even agree to negotiations. But to be sure of saving Benghazi, a no-fly zone will not be enough. To drive home the point the game is up, it is likely allied air strikes on Gaddafi’s heavy armour and artillery will be required, and possibly also attacks directed at him personally, as Ronald Reagan tried in 1986.

Gaddafi acts like a bully and a coward. But he is full of bluster. Only a sudden, bloody nose will convince him to desist. This is he is probably about to receive. And the betting must be that, once the revised odds become clear, those remnants of the Libyan army and security forces that have so far remained loyal will desert him, too.

The longer term impact of the intervention is immeasurable – but disaster is certainly one possible outcome. Like the first Gulf war, the involvement and support of Arab countries means the Libyan war will not be defined, except by hardline jihadis and al-Qaida, as another western assault on Muslim lands. But if the fighting is prolonged, if Gaddafi does not quit and run, if his more able sons take up his cause, if the intervention makes things worse not better for ordinary people (as in Iraq), if there is no clear-cut win but ongoing low level conflict and resistance (as in Afghanistan), then Arab opinion will turn against the westerners once more. The post-9/11 nightmare of the Pentagon’s long war without end will reproduce on the shores of the Mediterranean.

But there is a reasonable prospect of success, too. If the rebels, rescued from annihilation, prove capable of creating a government able to take over the running of all of Libya, and not just the rebellious east, then Obama’s gamble could pay off.

If Gaddafi, no longer able to deploy superior firepower and mercenaries, is overthrown by his own people, it will be hailed as an improbable triumph for, among others, David Cameron, who took a harder line than most, earlier than most. Britain (and not Germany, which opposed intervention) may profit from the gratitude of a grateful people. If Libya falls to democracy, then like-minded reformers in Bahrain and elsewhere will be greatly heartened.

Obama and Cameron are looking for another Kosovo or Kuwait, not another Iraq. It’s a story, as they would prefer to write it, with a happy ending, producing a newly independent country, and another friend for the west. But they cannot control the outcome. Now they can only wait and hope they were right.

The New York Times reports:

In the most strident verbal attack on Colonel Qaddafi to date by an American official, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that the Western powers had little choice but to provide critical military backing for the rebels. “We want to support the opposition who are standing against the dictator,” she told an applauding audience in Tunisia on Thursday. “This is a man who has no conscience and will threaten anyone in his way.”

She added that Colonel Qaddafi would do “terrible things” to Libya and its neighbors. “It’s just in his nature. There are some creatures that are like that.”

The Qaddafi government responded to the potential United Nations action with threats.

“Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea to danger and civilian and military facilities will become targets of Libya’s counter-attack,” it said in a statement carried on Libyan television and the official news agency, JANA, Reuters reported. “The Mediterranean basin will face danger not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term.”

There were reports on Thursday that warplanes were already bombarding the outskirts of Benghazi for a second day, opening shots, perhaps, in the battle. And after days of batterings at the hands of Qaddafi loyalists, the opposition forces welcomed the promise of Western assistance.

Rebel leaders doubted that the loyalist forces could mount an assault on Benghazi tonight, in that they were still contesting Ajdabiya, 100 miles to the south, on Thursday morning. But witnesses said there were skirmishes on the road to Benghazi in the afternoon, about 30 miles from Ajdabiya.

Mohamed, a rebel spokesman in the embattled, rebel held city of Misurata — the last major rebel foothold in the west — welcomed the new American tone. “We are very heartened yesterday by the moves in the United Nations Security Council and the urgency of the American stand,” he said, speaking over a satellite phone.

Facebooktwittermail

Obama’s indecision on Libya has pushed Clinton over the edge

The Daily reports:

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretaries of State — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Facebooktwittermail

International alliance forming to stop Gaddafi

Libya’s Deputy Permanent UN Representative warns that a convoy of 400 military vehicles are headed to destroy Ajdabiya and that the UN must intervene in the coming hours.

The New York Times reports:

The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.

Administration officials — who have been debating a no-flight zone for weeks — concluded that such a step now would be “too little, too late” for rebels who have been pushed back to Benghazi. That suggests more aggressive measures, which some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi.

The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors.

The rapid advance of forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi, combined with rising calls from the Arab world to prevent a rout of the opposition, has changed the calculations of the administration, which had clung to a belief that interfering in a Middle East uprising could provoke an anti-American backlash.

“The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday to reporters traveling with her in Cairo. “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was hopeful that the Security Council would vote no later than Thursday. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, is in intensive negotiations over the language of a resolution, sponsored by Lebanon, another Arab state, and backed by France and Britain.

This about-turn in the Obama administration’s position is being viewed with a measure of skepticism in some quarters. “Privately, some European officials expressed frustration with the Obama administration, with one saying he believed it was supporting strong measures in an attempt to draw a veto.”

What is particularly noteworthy is that the resolution is sponsored by Lebanon. Even while the country is still in the process of forming a new government, this UN initiative can most likely be attributed to Hezbollah, now the dominant political force in Lebanon.

Soon after the Feb 17 Revolution began, Hezbollah issued a strong condemnation of Gaddafi. On Feb 22, the Ahlul Bayt News Agency reported:

Hezbollah lashed out Monday at the “crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime” in Libya:
“Anyone with honor and consciousness in this world cannot, and should not, keep silent on the massacres that the Gaddafi regime is committing across the country on a daily basis, namely in Benghazi.

Terror and violence do not protect a regime that was founded on corruption and crime, from the will and determination of a people that has taken its decisive decision,” a Hezbollah statement read.

“Hezbollah firmly condemns crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime against the oppressed Libyan people. We also offer our sincere condolences to the families of those who were unjustly killed, just for demanding their rights. Hezbollah expresses support to the revolutionists in Libya and we pray that they will triumph over this arrogant tyrant,” the statement added.

“The criminality of this tyrant had first struck us deeply as Lebanese, when he kidnapped the Imam of the resistance Sayyed Moussa Sadr with his two dear companions. We ask Almighty Allah that the honorable revolutionists in Libya would be able to liberate Imam Sadr and his companions, just as they would be able to free Libya from all of its chains,” the statement concluded.

Facebooktwittermail

We in the Middle East have replaced humiliation with dignity

Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, writes:

The wave of revolutions in the Arab world was spontaneous. But it also had to happen. They were necessary in order to restore the natural flow of history. In our region – west Asia and the south Mediterranean – there were two abnormalities in the last century: first, colonialism in the 1930s, 40s and 50s that divided the region into colonial entities, and severed the natural links between peoples and communities. For example, Syria was a French colony and Iraq a British one, so the historical and economic links between Damascus and Baghdad were cut.

The second abnormality was the cold war, which added a further division: countries that had lived together for centuries became enemies, like Turkey and Syria. We were in Nato; Syria was pro-Soviet. Our border became not a border between two nation states, but the border between two blocs. Yemen was likewise divided.

Now it is time to naturalise the flow of history. I see all these revolutions as a delayed process that should have happened in the late 80s and 90s as in eastern Europe. It did not because some argued that Arab societies didn’t deserve democracy, and needed authoritarian regimes to preserve the status quo and prevent Islamist radicalism. Some countries and leaders who were proud of their own democracy, insisted that democracy in the Middle East would threaten security in our region.

Now we are saying all together: no. An ordinary Turk, an ordinary Arab, an ordinary Tunisian can change history. We believe that democracy is good, and that our people deserve it. This is a natural flow of history. Everybody must respect this will of the people.

If we fail to understand that there is a need to reconnect societies, communities, tribes and ethnicities in our region, we will lose the momentum of history. Our future is our sense of common destiny. All of us in the region have a common destiny. [Continue reading…]

Facebooktwittermail