Tag Archives: Arab and Middle East unrest

Libya: the morality of intervention | Bernard Kouchner

Posted by Bernard Kouchner

The Libyan crisis has shown how a united Europe can be used as a force for common good

Could we leave Colonel Gaddafi’s victims to die in full view of our TV cameras? I think not. It is quite understandable that the UN‘s courageous decision to resort to force in Libya should upset our pacifist conscience. Instigated by the UK and France, and backed by the US and other countries, this decision, though necessary, raises major moral and political questions about European integration.

The moral issues relate to the use of violence by states. The question of a just war, which has bothered us since antiquity, may well be addressed with theoretical discourse and historical references, but it remains a source of hesitation and uncertainty that we cannot simply dismiss. These moral uncertainties obviously have a political impact. This is perhaps because European integration is far from complete. The Libyan crisis highlights the need for the EU to grow stronger and gain greater coherence, in keeping with the promise of the Lisbon treaty.

Cultural and economic co-operation between European countries has become commonplace. Indeed much has been achieved in these fields, as the people of Europe can judge for themselves. Though such co-operation clearly needs to go further, we may easily grasp its meaning and its method. But in matters of defence, our understanding of the European project is confused, even contradictory. This is, of course, due to the difficulty of convincing states with divergent traditions, historic wounds and ambitions to move forward together. But above all, I think, it is due to the European project itself.

Initiated in response to two world wars, this project derives its legitimacy from its guarantee of peace. How then can it be allowed to lend itself to an outbreak of violence? I see these theoretical difficulties as a good sign, provided they can be overcome and do not lead to deadlock: we all know there could be nothing worse than a warmongering Europe … except perhaps a powerless Europe. So our difficult but necessary task is to steer a middle course.

French doctors found a solution to this conflict. They started venturing across forbidden borders to treat the injured and sick of all communities, and from this eventually sprang Médecins Sans Frontières. It was a major political gesture which gave rise first to the duty and then to the right of interference, in order to avoid – or better still prevent – mass slaughter.

But how can we reconcile this duty with European integration? We must confront the need for debate and develop more efficient and responsive tools. Above all, Europe must define a doctrine to guide us through the contrary currents of European diplomacy, which are torn between universalism and isolation.

After several UN resolutions authorising the use of force to protect civilian populations – which at the time I defined as the international community’s right of interference in the domestic affairs of a state – the UN approved, with a unanimous vote by all its members in 2005, the responsibility to protect civilians, over and above borders and sovereignty. After Sarajevo, Kosovo and the conflicts in the Balkans, after Sierra Leone and Guinea, this framework allowed us to intervene over Libya. We should see the Franco-British initiative, subsequently backed by the US, and leading to resolution 1973, as part of this framework.

Fortunately, the UN, the African Union and the Arab League are here to provide us with a legal framework so that this momentary violence – under resolution 1973 – may serve to achieve real peace, surely preferable to a pacifism that would allow civilians to be slaughtered.

Working on this basis in international law, Europe must now engage in a thorough debate on its future and what it wants to achieve. In these times of doubt and adversity this may seem superfluous or misplaced, but I am sure it is more necessary than ever. Europe needs this to find a way out of the uncertainty that plagues its organisation. Is it a regional power with a corresponding reach, as is the case for the Arab League or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or on the contrary? Does it seek to offer the world a multilateral model in the service of the common good?

I am pleased to see that France and the UK have together mapped out a preliminary response to this essential question.

• Translated by Harry Forster

Bernard Kouchner


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Libya: Military coalition continues attacks on Gaddafi – in pictures

Posted by World news: Libya | guardian.co.uk

Latest scenes from Benghazi and Tripoli as rebels take advantage of the continued bombing campaign



Germans voice disquiet over absence from Libya military action

Posted by Helen Pidd

Commentators warn Germany ‘lost credibility’ by abstaining from UN security council resolution but opinion poll backs decision

Germany’s decision to join Russia and China in abstaining from the UN security council resolution authorising military action against Libya has led to widespread soul searching from commentators and journalists.

Earlier this week, a veteran war reporter for the German state broadcaster ZDF said he was ashamed to be congratulated by Gaddafi’s henchmen for Germany’s stance. “It’s embarrassing to get a pat on the back from Gaddafi’s supporters saying ‘Germany good’”, said Dietmar Ossenberg, according to the tabloid Bild.

Another reporter from the state-owned ARD said the Egyptians had been reluctant to let him across the border from Libya when they realised he was German, saying: “We’re disappointed in you” and “We don’t need you”. Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer dismissed his country’s foreign policy as “a farce”.

“Germany has lost its credibility in the United Nations and in the Middle East,” wrote Fischer in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. “German hopes for a permanent seat on the security council have been permanently dashed and one is now fearful of Europe’s future.”

Germany’s abstention was a “scandalous mistake” he said, adding that Germany’s politics were becoming ever more “provincial” – a reference to the widely held view that the coalition government’s current decisions are coloured by two key regional elections to be held on Sunday in Baden-Württemberg and Rheinland Pfalz. The former in particular is seen as a referendum on the chancellor Angela Merkel, as it has been governed by her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party for almost 58 years.

On Thursday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Germany’s conservative broadsheet, said the consequences of Germany’s abstention were: “estrangement from its allies, who ultimately came to different conclusions and decisions; [de facto] praise for Gaddafi; friction in Nato; and conflict at home among the coalition.”

The FAZ claimed Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, had wanted to vote against the UN resolution rather than merely abstain, but was persuaded against doing so by Merkel.

But it would seem the German abstention is in step with the wishes of German people. Results of a poll by Emnid showed 66% of Germans were against German participation in international military action in Libya.

Helen Pidd


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Turkey and France clash over Libya air campaign

Posted by Ian Traynor

Tension mounts over military action as Ankara accuses Sarkozy of pursuing French interests over liberation of Libyan people

Turkey has launched a bitter attack on French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s and France’s leadership of the military campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct in the Libyan operations.

The vitriolic criticism, from both the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy’s plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi.

With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations.

The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara’s EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa.

The confrontation is shaping up to be decisive in determining the outcome of the bitter infighting over who should inherit command of the Libyan air campaign from the Americans and could come to a head at a major conference in London next week of the parties involved.

Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.”

President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. “The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people,” he said. “There are hidden agendas and different interests.”

Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy’s chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was “leading a crusade” to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans.

Erdogan denounced the use of the word crusade yesterday, blaming those, France chief among them, who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU.

Senior Nato officials are meeting in Brussels for the fourth day in a row to try to hammer out an agreement on who should assume command of the no-fly zone over Libya from the Americans who are determined to relinquish command within days.

Sarkozy has agreed to give Nato military planners operational command of the campaign, but refused to grant the alliance political and strategic control, insisting this should be vested in the broader “coalition of the willing” taking part.

Turkey has responded by blocking Nato planning operations for Libya while stressing that Nato should be given “sole command”, senior Nato diplomats said.

Turkey, Nato’s second biggest army after the US and its only Muslim member, appears bent on winning the argument. It is already taking part in Nato patrols in the Mediterranean to police an arms embargo on Libya. It wants to limit and shorten the air campaign and proscribe ground attacks on Libya by Nato aircraft. If Nato is given political command of the air effort, Turkey would be able to exercise a veto in a system run on consensus.

The US’s top military officer in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, Nato’s supreme commander Europe, has gone to Ankara to try to mediate a deal.

The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday’s summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign.

While the dispute over Libya is substantive and political, it also appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister.

Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours.

“Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this,” complained Erdogan. “I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France.”

While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately. Sarkozy has declared loudly that culturally Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East.

France has blocked tranches of Ankara’s EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as ever-fit for membership.

Ian Traynor


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Libyan plane shot down after Hague tells MPs no-fly zone established

Posted by Nicholas Watt

Statement to MPs comes shortly before ABC News report that French fighter jet had shot down Libyan aircraft

William Hague faced mild embarrassment when he told MPs Libyan military aircraft were unable to take to the air as news emerged that French fighter jets had shot down an aircraft.

In a statement to MPs on the military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, the foreign secretary said coalition forces had successfully established a no-fly zone after “comprehensively” degrading Libya’s air defence system.

Hague added: “There are no Libyan military aircraft flying.”

But shortly after he spoke to MPs, ABC News reported that a French fighter jet had shot down a single-engine Libyan Galeb plane.

The Associated Press later quoted a US official as confirming that a French jet had attacked and destroyed a Libyan plane.

The news emerged after Hague had updated MPs on the progress of the military campaign against Gaddafi’s regime. The foreign secretary said the allied action was saving lives and protecting hundreds of thousands of civilians in Benghazi and Mistrata.

Hague told the Commons: “UK forces have undertaken a total of 59 aerial missions over Libya in addition to air and missile strikes.

“Last night, our forces again participated in a co-ordinated strike against Libyan air defence systems. A no-fly zone has now been established and the regime’s integrated air defence system has been comprehensively degraded. There are no Libyan military aircraft flying.

“Over 150 coalition planes have been involved in military operations, including Typhoon and Tornado aircraft from the Royal Air Force.

“Thirteen nations have currently deployed aircraft to the region. A number of additional nations have made offers of aircraft and other military support, which are in the process of being agreed. Royal Navy vessels are in the region supporting the arms embargo.”

The foreign secretary expressed confidence that agreement would be met on running the military campaign after the US gives up its command.

Nato ambassadors are meeting in Brussels to reach agreement after Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy agreed on Tuesday night the campaign should be run by a two-tier structure. This would see Nato running the military command with a separate political structure – including members of the coalition outside Nato – to provide political oversight.

Hague said: “On the question of command and control, we are still working some of that out. The simplest and most effective solution is for all of these operations to come under the North Atlantic Council [Nato's main political decision-making body] and for other countries to plug into that, to work with that.

“We have made a great deal of progress. We should understand this is a new coalition, put together very quickly for obvious reasons last week, and so there are bound to be issues to sort out in its management.

“But we are getting through those pretty well. I will be discussing the remaining issues with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts later this afternoon to try to iron out the remaining difficulties on future Nato command and control.

“The nations involved in this operation – their representatives are able to meet in Brussels on a regular basis.”

Nicholas Watt


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Sub-Saharan Africa is not Egypt, Hague | Blessing-Miles Tendi

Posted by Blessing-Miles Tendi

In suggesting Zimbabwe and others are ripe for an Egypt-style revolution, William Hague overlooks realities unpalatable to him

William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, declared this week that “we are only in the early stages of what is happening in north Africa and the Middle East”. Addressing a London conference of African politicians and businessmen, Hague said that the political tumult “will not stop at the borders of the Arab world”, suggesting that sub-Saharan countries ruled by undemocratic leaders are also ripe for popular uprisings. Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe and Ivory Coast strongman Laurent Gbagbo, currently in a stalemate with Alassane Ouattara over who is the country’s rightful president, were singled out as at risk of being consumed by popular uprisings if they do not “heed” the democratic will. The west’s response must be “generous, bold and ambitious”, Hague concluded.

But western boldness and ambition has already resulted in a number of African countries condemning air strikes on Libya, arguing that America, the UK and France are using UN resolution 1973, which authorised the enforcement of a no-fly zone, to effect regime change.

“Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. Therefore, if the Libyan opposition groups are patriots, they should fight their war by themselves and conduct their affairs by themselves. After all, they easily captured so much equipment from the Libyan army, why do they need foreign military support?” Were these the words of Mugabe? No, they came from Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, widely respected as part of a new generation of modernising African leaders, and one of a number who believe the boldness and ambition that Hague extols have undermined the Libyan democratic cause.

Many concerned Zimbabweans, myself included, are of the opinion that Britain cannot play a positive role in our own nation’s domestic political affairs because of its colonial record and racially biased application of human rights principles since our independence in 1980. Our message is simple and consistent: lift targeted sanctions on Mugabe and members of his Zanu-PF party because they are undermining our progress to democracy, and stay out of Zimbabwean politics. The message has fallen on deaf ears, as Hague’s comments show.

UK immigration minister Damian Green announced this month that Britain will resume deporting failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers because there is significantly less politically motivated violence and conditions have improved in the country. But if Mugabe’s security forces are acting “with impunity, ramping up intimidation in order to instil fear in its opponents and to prevent the people of Zimbabwe from expressing their democratic voice”, as Hague claimed in his speech, what makes Zimbabwe safe enough to return failed asylum seekers? If, as Green maintains, violence is diminished in Zimbabwe and conditions are much better, why then is Mugabe ripe for toppling? The policy inconsistencies on Zimbabwe cannot be starker.

Mugabe may be unfavourable to Britain but his party retains significant support in Zimbabwe – three years ago his party defeated the opposition MDC in a parliamentary poll widely recognised as the most free and fair since 2000. Similarly Gbagbo has considerable support in Ivory Coast, as seen in the country’s north-south split in the ongoing political crisis. These realities may be unpalatable for the UK Foreign Office but they warrant close consideration.

In celebrating the recent popular uprisings, Hague does not stop to ask if the governments that arise are inevitably democratic. Uprisings may scupper democracy by sparking full-scale civil conflict in deeply divided countries. Moreover the instability may give militaries – historically the nemesis of democracy in sub-Saharan Africa – an excuse to resurrect armed rule.

And some undemocratic leaders in sub-Saharan Africa are far too entrenched to be overthrown despite their unpopularity – Angola president José Eduardo dos Santos and Equatorial Guinea leader Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo are only a couple of examples. Hague forgot that the respective contexts of sub-Saharan countries matter. Freedom is universal but Libya, Tunisia and Egypt have more in common with the politics of the Arab League countries than the political dynamics of nations south of the Sahara.

Blessing-Miles Tendi


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Libya, the UN and the R2P debate | Ian Williams

Posted by Ian Williams

Yes, the US should step aside soon from a leading military role, but the UN is justly discharging its ‘responsibility to protect’

It is doubtless of some comfort to the citizenry of Benghazi or Misurata that if Gaddafi “exterminated” them without hindrance, it would advance the cause of national sovereignty and that their sacrifice would somehow constitute a blow against western imperialism. But generally, they wisely seem to prefer to stay alive, despite the Manichean principles of some protesters.

The American left and right are united in isolation. On the right, there is un-Samaritan disdain for the fate of a crowd of Arabs in a faraway country. On the left, some have espoused a concern for national sovereignty that owes more to the Treaty of Westphalia than the slogan “Workers of the World Unite”, which motivated the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish civil war.

It is true that the UN security council could and should be involved in Bahrain, Yemen and, indeed, Palestine. But that is no excuse for inaction when there is an actual opportunity to save lives in Libya. Those who, with some justice, accused Blair and Bush of war crimes for attacking Iraq without a UN mandate, disregard as a mere technicality the security council resolution 1973 (SCR 1973) that authorised – in fact, called for – this operation.

While Moscow and Beijing might now be trying to cover their tracks, just in case Gaddafi survives, they could have vetoed or amended SCR 1973; but they did not. The other abstainers had a more principled position – although one could think for some time about India’s entirely justifiable intervention in Pakistan, which gave birth to Bangladesh, and wonder how it squares with such rigid principles.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov still smarts from his time at the UN during the first Iraq war when the US and UK stretched the resolutions far beyond the intent or tolerance of the other members of the council. Moscow could have, and should have, put a time limit on the operation, and insisted on a share in command and control – maybe even reviving the UN’s long-moribund military staff joint committee. They accepted the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) in principle, but have consistently fought it in practice.

David Hillstrom points out the flaws in the procedures for R2P, but the international commission that framed the proposal for the “responsibility to protect” was well aware of the dangers that surrounded it. Indeed, the very title was intended to avoid the use of “humanitarian intervention”, which had been so blighted by Tony Blair’s abuse of it in Iraq. When the French reinvented humanitarian intervention in response to Saddam’s massacres of the Kurds, the UN legal department confessed with some embarrassment that the only precedent they could find was Hitler’s invocation of it to “protect” the Sudeten Germans by annexing Czechoslovakia.

Aware of the pitfalls, the commission very firmly stated: “Military intervention for human protection purposes must be regarded as an exceptional and extraordinary measure,” only justified to halt or avert “large-scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act.”

It established precautionary principles: “The primary purpose of the intervention must be to halt or avert human suffering,” preferably with “collective or multilateral operations”, “clearly supported by regional opinion and the victims concerned”. It added: “Every non-military option for the prevention or peaceful resolution of the crisis [must be] explored; and further: “The scale, duration and intensity of the planned military intervention should be the minimum necessary to secure the humanitarian objective,” and “There must be a reasonable chance of success in halting or averting the suffering which has justified the intervention.” It concluded: “There is no better or more appropriate body than the United Nations security council to authorise military intervention for human protection purposes.”

Under those principles, as Brian Whitaker demonstrates, the Libyan operation emerges with great credibility. Gaddafi had been repeatedly warned to stop killing his own people, but carried on using heavier and heavier weapons to cover his lack of committed forces. Regional opinion, in the form of the Arab League, supported intervention (as did the Tunisian trade unions!) and so did the population in the cities most directly threatened, not to mention the numerous defectors from the Libyan government itself.

The immediate effect of the French interdiction of Libyan military columns was, indeed, to save Benghazi from the dire fate that Gaddafi had threatened. The other operations should now be making such forces as have remained loyal to Gaddafi pause to think whether they might not want to reconsider their commitment.

One can understand caution about the Pentagon’s involvement. There is, of course, a history. It is always worrying when the US is involved in any operation. Equally, US force protection doctrine probably mandated far more bombs and bangs than necessary to disarm Libya’s rudimentary defences. But surely one can be circumspect about reports of civilian casualties from a regime that has punctuated successive ceasefire declarations with artillery assaults on rebel-held cities.

With justifiable worries about Washington’s methods and motivations, it is in everybody’s interest to get the US out of involvement as soon as possible. But that would be better served if others with less of a history stepped up to the plate for what is necessary.

Ian Williams


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Arabic, phlegm and the battle of Tarf al-Ghar | David Shariatmadari

Posted by David Shariatmadari

Western commentators struggling with Arabic pronunciation might find a solution in their own language

Az Zawiyah. Sana’a. Benghazi. Over the last few months, western commentators have had to get to grips with an array of confusing new words. We can assume that pronunciation units have been working through the night to help nervous anchors avoid sounding like they’re recovering from dental anaesthetic. Their efforts have met with varying levels of success.

Why all the trouble? Well, Arabic presents unique difficulties for the Indo-European tongue. How to get your mouth around Sfax? Do you say Manama like “Banana” or “Panama”? Does the rain in Bahrain fall mainly on the last syllable? There are consonants, vowels and patterns of stress we just don’t have north of the Mediterranean, and the difficulty in mastering them is understandable. The combination “hr”, without a helpful vowel in the middle, doesn’t exist in English. So a dividing line has emerged between those who carry on with plain old Baa-rain, and the ones who’ve learnt that Arabs slide effortlessly from h to r with no gap.

But now the crucial question. Is it pretentious to attempt an authentic-sounding Arabic place name? An element of competitiveness has seeped into discussions of events in the Middle East. Every day we read and hear more about historic developments in places that were unfamiliar to most of us until recently. Those who are really in the know wouldn’t trip over Tahrir, would they? And a lot of people want to sound like they’re in the know. So “correct” pronunciation becomes a totem, a way of proving your expertise. The greater the level of phlegm, so the thinking goes, the more you sound like you have some idea of what you’re talking about.

I suppose it’s marginally better than having people say “Eye-raq” or “A-rab”, a lack of concern for native speakers’ pronunciation that seems to go hand in hand with lack of concern for their welfare. But we should maintain a healthy scepticism: just because someone sounds like they know Arabic, it doesn’t mean they know what’s right for the Arabs. Don’t let’s be blinded by phonemes, or the strategic use of “Inshallah”.

In any case, it’s perfectly natural to adapt the sounds of a foreign language to fit those of our own. That’s how al-Qahirah becomes Cairo, or Libnan, Lebanon. No one would expect an English speaker to attempt the “Ain” in Sana’a, a sound that is the bane of Arabic learners’ lives and that even our alphabet quails at (it’s represented by an apostrophe most of the time, a typographical afterthought that doesn’t do it justice). What’s more irritating is when the spelling of a word rather than the sound becomes the basis for a mistaken pronunciation – that’s where “Eye-raq” and “Eye-ran” come from, “Ab-dool-ah” and other enormities.

But rather than worrying about our lack of ability to say Arabic words properly, we’d do well to remember the Arabic we already all know and use fluently. In the middle ages, mainly because they were world leaders in science and technology, Arabs donated hundreds of words to European languages: alchemy, alkali, alcove, admiral, alcohol, and so on. Spain is sprinkled with Arabic place names. And one of these has given us our very own Tahrir, right here in London. Trafalgar, named after Cabo Trafalgar near Cadiz, derives from an Arabic name: either Tarf al-Gharb (Cape of the West) or Tarf al-Ghar (Cape of the Cave). The etymologists, as in most of these cases, aren’t quite sure.

So the anti-cuts protests in London on Saturday will be linked to the Arab spring, linguistically, at least. Just make sure you get the pronunciation right. “Anti-government protests climaxed this weekend in Tarf al-Ghar Square”. I can already hear CNN mangling the pronunciation.

David Shariatmadari


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Tripoli ‘military base hit’ as allied air strikes pound Libya – video

Posted by World news: Libya | guardian.co.uk

Libyan television footage shows a serious fire after allied air attacks on what the TV report said was a military base in the capital, Tripoli, badly damaging military vehicles



Libya crisis: live updates

Posted by Adam Gabbatt

• Fifth night of air strikes on Libya as Gaddafi clings on
• Air strikes break siege of Misrata but battle continues
• Stalemate continues in Ajdabiya despite attacks
Follow live updates

Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of the continuing crisis in Libya.

• Western air strikes hit targets in Libya again on Wednesday night, after the commander of British aircraft operating over the country said that Muammar Gaddafi’s air force “no longer exists as a fighting force”.
However attempts at a Nato show of unity in policing a UN arms embargo was undermined by a third day of squabbling over who should be in charge of the air campaign. Amid arguments over the scope and command of the air campaaign against Tripoli, Turkey both blocked Nato planning on the no-fly zone and insisted that Nato be put in control of it, in order to be granted a veto over its operations, senior Nato officials said.

• Nearly 12 hours of allied air strikes yesterday finally broke the Libyan regime’s five-day bloody assault on the key rebel-held town of Misrata. Residents said the aerial bombardment destroyed tanks and artillery and sent many of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces fleeing from Misrata, ending a siege and attack by the regime that cost nearly 100 lives from random shelling, snipers and bitter street fighting.

• Despite the strikes, stalemate is reportedly continuing outside Ajdabiya, while fears are growing that more of Gaddafi’s forces are heading for Zintan, south west of Tripoli. The Libyan government denies its army is conducting any offensive operations and says troops are only defending themselves when they come under attack, but a resident in Zintan said Gaddafi forces were bringing up more troops and tanks to bombard the rebel-held town. Rebels forces in the east meanwhile are still pinned down outside Ajdabiya after more than three days of trying to recapture it.

• The US chief of staff for the mission in Libya has said there have been no reports of civilian casualties as a result of the coalition’s action, the BBC reported. Gaddafi’s government has repeatedly claimed civilians have been killed by what it calls “crusader, colonial” attacks.

Adam Gabbatt


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


There’s nothing moral about Nato’s intervention in Libya | Seumas Milne

Posted by Seumas Milne

The attacks on Libya risk a bloody stalemate and are a threat to the region. The alternative has to be a negotiated settlement

It’s as if it’s a habit they can’t kick. Once again US, British and other Nato forces are bombarding an Arab country with cruise missiles and bunker-busting bombs. Both David Cameron and Barack Obama insist this is nothing like Iraq. There will be no occupation. The attack is solely to protect civilians.

But eight years after they launched their shock-and-awe devastation of Baghdad and less than a decade since they invaded Afghanistan, the same western forces are in action against yet another Muslim state, incinerating soldiers and tanks on the ground and killing civilians in the process.

Supported by a string of other Nato states, almost all of which have taken part in the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, the US, Britain and France are clinging to an Arab fig leaf, in the shape of a Qatari airforce that has yet to arrive, to give some regional credibility to their intervention in Libya.

As in Iraq and Afghanistan, they insist humanitarian motives are crucial. And as in both previous interventions, the media are baying for the blood of a pantomime villain leader, while regime change is quickly starting to displace the stated mission. Only a western solipsism that regards it as normal to be routinely invading other people’s countries in the name of human rights protects Nato governments from serious challenge.

But the campaign is already coming apart. At home, public opinion is turning against the onslaught: in the US, it’s opposed by a margin of two-to-one; in Britain, 43% say they are against the action, compared with 35% in support – an unprecedented level of discontent for the first days of a British military campaign, including Iraq.

On the ground, the western attacks have failed to halt the fighting and killing, or force Colonel Gaddafi’s forces into submission; Nato governments have been squabbling about who’s in charge; and British ministers and generals have fallen out about whether the Libyan leader is a legitimate target.

Last week, Nato governments claimed the support of “the international community” on the back of the UN resolution and an appeal from the dictator-dominated Arab League. In fact, India, Russia, China, Brazil and Germany all refused to support the UN vote and have now criticised or denounced the bombing – as has the African Union and the Arab League itself.

As its secretary general, Amr Moussa, argued, the bombardment clearly went well beyond a no-fly zone from the outset. By attacking regime troops fighting rebel forces on the ground, the Nato governments are unequivocally intervening in a civil war, tilting the balance of forces in favour of the Benghazi-based insurrection.

Cameron insisted on Monday in the Commons that the air and sea attacks on Libya had prevented a “bloody massacre in Benghazi”. The main evidence was Gaddafi’s threat to show “no mercy” to rebel fighters who refused to lay down their arms and to hunt them down “house to house”. In reality, for all the Libyan leader’s brutality and Saddam Hussein-style rhetoric, he was scarcely in any position to carry out his threat.

Given that his ramshackle forces were unable to fully retake towns like Misurata or even Ajdabiya when the rebels were on the back foot, the idea that they would have been able to overrun an armed and hostile city of 700,000 people any time soon seems far-fetched.

But on the other side of the Arab world, in western-armed Bahrain, security forces are right now staging night raids on opposition activists, house by house, and scores have gone missing as the dynastic despots carry out a bloody crackdown on the democratic movement. And last Friday more than 50 peaceful demonstrators were shot dead on the streets of Sana’a by government forces in western-backed Yemen.

Far from imposing a no-fly zone to bring the embattled Yemeni regime to heel, US special forces are operating across the country in support of the government. But then US, British and other Nato forces are themselves responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last week more than 40 civilians were killed by a US drone attack in Pakistan, while over 60 died last month in one US air attack in Afghanistan.

The point isn’t just that western intervention in Libya is grossly hypocritical. It’s that such double standards are an integral part of a mechanism of global power and domination that stifles hopes of any credible international system of human rights protection.

A la carte humanitarian intervention, such as in Libya, is certainly not based on feasibility or the degree of suffering or repression, but on whether the regime carrying it out is a reliable ally or not. That’s why the claim that Arab despots will be less keen to follow Gaddafi’s repressive example as a result of the Nato intervention is entirely unfounded. States such as Saudi Arabia know very well they’re not at the slightest risk of being targeted unless they’re in danger of collapse.

There’s also every chance that, as in Kosovo in 1999, the attack on Libya could actually increase repression and killing, while failing to resolve the underlying conflict. It’s scarcely surprising that, outgunned by Gaddafi’s forces, the Libyan rebel leadership should be grateful for foreign military support. But any Arab opposition movement that comes to power courtesy of Tornadoes and Tomahawks will be fatally compromised, as would the independence of the country itself.

For the western powers, knocked off balance by the revolutionary Arab tide, intervention in the Libyan conflict offers both the chance to put themselves on the “right side of history” and to secure their oil interests in a deeply uncertain environment.

Unless the Libyan autocrat is assassinated or his regime implodes, the prospect must now be of a bloody stalemate and a Kurdistan-style Nato protectorate in the east. There’s little sympathy for Gaddafi in the Arab world, but already influential figures such as the Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah have denounced the intervention as a return to the “days of occupation, colonisation and partition”.

The urgent alternative is now for countries such as Egypt and Turkey, with a far more legitimate interest in what goes on in Libya and links to all sides, to take the lead in seeking a genuine ceasefire, an end to outside interference and a negotiated political settlement. There is nothing moral about the Nato intervention in Libya – it is a threat to the entire region and its people.

Seumas Milne


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


The Right Word: Fox New declares war on dithering | Sadhbh Walshe

Posted by Sadhbh Walshe

The pundits can’t make up their mind which they dislike more – Obama’s inaction or his action? But they’re not dithering, oh no!

The much anticipated military intervention in Libya was met with scepticism by Fox News hosts because America is not leading the charge and because the president continues to insist that protecting civilians is the mission’s priority.

Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity is dissatisfied on many levels with America’s role in the military intervention in Libya, because he believes the president has wasted time by engaging with the United Nations rather than going it alone, because the purpose of the mission has not been defined to his satisfaction and because he doesn’t know “how long we have to be in it to win it” (view clip).

He discusses his frustrations with Colonel Oliver North, who gained notoriety for his involvement in the Iran-Contra arms scandal. North is also disappointed with President Obama’s handling of the situation and believes that he (Obama) only got the US involved because the French embarrassed him into it. Hannity finds this penchant for thinking before acting typical of “the gang that can’t shoot straight” (aka the Obama administration). Although he (Hannity) doesn’t appear to be entirely sure himself that intervening in Libya is the right thing, he seems to wish the president would get on with it already.

I am frightened by this president’s inability, Colonel, to make a decision. Now, it took six months to give the troops that were requested by our leaders in Afghanistan. He was dithering – that was the phrase we used – and then he still didn’t give them the troops they wanted. He didn’t support the freedom fighters in Iran in 2009. He vacillated and took varying positions in Egypt and seems to be doing the same here today, more concerned about brackets, trips to Rio and games of golf!

North agrees and further asserts that President Obama’s problem is that he tries too hard to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. The kinder view would be that the president has tried very hard to do the right thing by the civilians in Libya at risk of slaughter while, at the same time, trying to avoid dragging America into what could turn into another intractable war in the Middle East. But to Hannity, pondering these dilemmas are of less concern than America losing its standing as the world’s policeman.

This is a problem if the centre of gravity, in other words, in terms of terms of world leadership, is now – because of America’s failure or America gives it up … is now shifted to Europe, if they now make these decisions. If the president doesn’t go to Congress, for example, there are a lot of angry liberal congressman about this, but he goes to the United Nations and he basically uses them as his justification and doesn’t seem to have real commitment, it seems like he doesn’t really believe that America’s place in the world ought to be one of moral leadership – fundamentally, what message does that send the world?!

It doesn’t seem to occur to Hannity that the world might be very open to a less imposing America that does not feel obliged to provide leadership, moral or otherwise.

Bill O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly welcomes the “better late than never” military intervention in Libya, but is dismayed by the mixed reaction to the air strikes and invokes Britain’s wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill, to articulate his desire for clarity of vision (view clip).

“Talking Points [that is, O'Reilly's show] is almost numb, numb from the foolish analysis of the Libyan action. Never have so many said so much useless stuff for stuff.”

O’Reilly’s biggest problem with the intervention is that neither the United Nations nor the American president will say outright that the goal of their mission is to take out Gaddafi (rather than to protect civilians). And while he claims to understand that such a statement might anger our allies or would-be allies in the Arab world, O’Reilly still has no time for all this beating about the Bush.

Even a five year old knows you don’t bomb a country unless you want the country to change. And Libya is not going to change unless Gaddafi is out of there. We all understand that. I don’t know about you but I am tired, tired of the obnoxious verbal game being played.

O’Reilly discusses this with Karl Rove who claims that because the president “dithered” for so long and allowed the UN to take the lead, he is now bound by the language of the UN resolution, which does not state “regime change” as its goal. Rove also contends that Obama’s choice of words is a face-saving measure because if he says he is out to get Gaddafi and then fails to get Gaddafi, it will make him (Obama) and the United States look weaker than Rove believes they already appear. O’Reilly agrees with this assessment but does his bit on behalf of his network’s “fair and balanced” theme, and tries to explain the president’s point of view.

But wasn’t it smart for President Obama to do that, though? To take the international approach, to take all the animus away from the United States because people would use that to say, “here they go again!” It has the Arab League signature on it and all of that.

Rove counters that the time wasted (seeking an international solution) just empowered Gaddafi. And with his quest for fairness and balance thus satisfied, O’Reilly goes back to calling for some straight talking and an end to the “BS”, which he claims is “his job to cut through”.

Glenn Beck

World events are moving a bit too fast at the moment for Glenn Beck’s liking, and although he had the whole weekend to get a handle on the Libya situation, by the time his first show of the week aired, he had not yet managed to come up with a satisfactory theory as to who is behind it all, who stands to gain from it and what we should all be thinking and doing about it. Until he can finalise his storyline, Beck consoled himself with making sure his audience understood that everything Gaddafi has done and continues to do to his people is very, very bad, and everything that President Obama and the United Nations have attempted to do to protect Libyan civilians from the brutal Gaddafi is very, very bad also (view clips; read transcript).

To counteract all this mayhem, Beck urges his viewers to turn their back on all that is evil (communists, socialists, and TV personalities like Bill Maher and the ladies on ABC’s The View who reject the bible’s teachings) and embrace all that is good (God and the Founders).

America understand one thing – this is good versus evil and your name will be put on a chart or a book someplace. Evil is alive and well on this planet and it is growing. It needs to be put on notice that good is growing as well.

Beck draws two columns on his blackboard, one for good and one for evil and quickly fills up the evil column with some of the afore-mentioned offenders. The good column sadly remains empty, largely because Beck believes that far too many of us today are choosing to “rely on man’s intelligence and are openly hostile to God”. But if only we remind ourselves that Jesus is coming back and prepare for that event, everything will be OK.

No one knows the hour that Jesus is going to return. Nobody does. That’s what you believe if you’re a Christian. That he is coming back. I don’t know when he’s coming back. Everybody has been thinking that it could be five minutes from now, it could be five thousand years from now. We don’t know. But does it hurt to be prepared, to have order in your life? Does it hurt to have, to check yourself spiritually, to check your pantry, to have an emergency plan together?

I’m not quite sure why stocking one’s pantry or whatever is necessary preparation for the second coming but it’s probably not a bad thing that, for the time being at least, Beck is more focused on God than on Gaddafi.

Sadhbh Walshe


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Libya no-fly zone leadership squabbles continue within Nato

Posted by Ian Traynor, Nicholas Watt

Turkey calls for an alliance-led campaign to limit operations while France seeks a broader ‘coalition of the willing’

A flotilla of warships has begun patrolling the Mediterranean under Nato command to block attempts by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to replenish his combat forces with arms and mercenaries.

But the attempt at a Nato show of unity in policing a UN arms embargo was undermined by a third day of squabbling at alliance headquarters in Brussels over who should be in charge of the air campaign.

Amid arguments over the scope and command of the air campaign against Tripoli, Turkey both blocked Nato planning on the no-fly zone and insisted that Nato be put in control of it, in order to be granted a veto over its operations, senior Nato officials said.

“Turkey blocked further planning while the coalition [of the willing] continues,” said a senior official. Ankara wants the broad coalition involved in the air campaign to cede control to Nato in order to limit its operations, the official added.

The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks on ground targets in Libya and signalled that agreement on this would be the price of their assent.

Germany, meanwhile, Europe’s biggest opponent of the Libya campaign, promptly pulled its Mediterranean naval forces out of Nato’s command.

The Turkish position put Ankara at odds with France, which has successfully thwarted strong US and British pressure to put Nato at the political helm of the air campaign overseeing the UN-decreed no-fly zone over Libya. Paris insisted that the governments of the “coalition of the willing” taking part in the strikes against Gaddafi’s military infrastructure would lead and make the decisions.

“It is important to make clear that the leadership is not Nato,” said Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister. “We see this as a UN operation under a UN mandate. It is implemented by a coalition of European, North American and Arab countries.”

Nato’s policy-making North Atlantic Council, grouping ambassadors of the 28 member states, met in Brussels for a third day to try to hammer out a facesaving deal amid frantic transatlantic diplomacy.

“We’ve not yet decided to go for a no-fly zone,” said a Nato official. “We’ve moved on from planning. That’s complete. But now the allies have to decide what decisions to take in terms of next steps.”

“Nato is ready to act if and when required,” said Oana Lungescu, the alliance spokeswoman. “These are difficult discussions on very difficult issues.”

Diplomats were optimistic that a deal would eventually be struck giving Nato military planners power to mastermind the operational side of the air campaign, while the strategic and political decision-taking on the aims and direction of the military effort would rest with what Paris called a “contact group” of participating governments. Officials from the countries involved are to meet in London next week.

“A wide and inclusive range of countries will be invited, particularly from the region. It is critical that the international community continues to take united and co-ordinated action in response to the unfolding crisis. The meeting will form a contact group of nations to take forward this work,” William Hague, the foreign secretary, said.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, repeatedly accused of seeking to hijack the Libya operations for personal political reasons, maintains that handing political leadership of the campaign to the Nato alliance would alienate the Arab world.

Despite a green light from the Arab League for the UN decision on the no-fly zone, David Cameron admitted to MPs that Arab engagement in the anti-Gaddafi effort had been less than had been hoped.

“I can confirm that yesterday the Qataris deployed the first of their contribution – Mirage aircraft and other support aircraft – and we will get logistic contributions from countries such as Kuwait and Jordan,” he said. “I hope that further support will be forthcoming but I would like to be clear that because we had to act so quickly on Saturday it was not possible to bring forward as much Arab support as might have been welcomed.”

Since France carried out the first air strikes against Libya at the weekend, the US has been commanding the operations, in consultation mainly with the French and the British. President Barack Obama has made it repeatedly clear, however, that his interest in taking the lead is very short-term and that the best option would be for Nato to take over – a position strongly supported by Cameron but opposed by Sarkozy and also, for different reasons, by Germany and Turkey.

The US and British governments, following telephone diplomacy between Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy late on Tuesday, are stressing that Nato is to be given “a key role” in the air campaign, signalling a partial climbdown away from granting the alliance the lead role.

Senior European diplomats argue that there is “no crisis of leadership” yet over the prosecution of the Libyan war effort. But the US impatience to surrender its lead role is exposing big divisions among the Europeans.

While Cameron and Sarkozy are the west’s leading hawks in the war effort against Gaddafi, they are seriously split over who should run things.

A European summit dinner on Thursday tonight in Brussels is to focus on Libya, with the British and French leaders expected to face a grilling from European sceptics, led by Germany, over the strategy, aims, and future course of the military effort.

Ian Traynor
Nicholas Watt


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Libya’s biggest tribe joins march of reconciliation to Benghazi

Posted by Ian Black

Members of Warfalla deny plan to join civilians in carrying olive branches through war zone is a propaganda stunt

Bani Walid looks like any Libyan town with its breezeblock houses, unpaved streets and giant posters of Muammar Gaddafi. But it is famous for resisting Italian colonialism and as the centre of the country’s biggest tribe, which is now anxious to be seen as a loyal pillar of the regime.

With more than a million members, Warfalla live all over Libya, including in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. The tribe’s geographical distribution means it is well-placed to help heal bitter divisions by joining a peaceful “green march” to the eastern city to promote reconciliation and avoid the Korea-style partition of the country many fear.

It is also highly likely that this innocent-sounding mass movement – involving large numbers of civilians carrying olive branches through a war zone – is a government-inspired propaganda stunt intended to complicate military operations by the coalition and the rebels.

But Salman al-Dagil insists it is not. “We will talk to them, not use guns, to discuss their demands,” said the Bani Walid doctor.

“Some are youths who want things but have been exploited. Do they want to divide the country? No, we will not agree to that. Do they want a constitution? The majority must agree. No one wants to replace Muammar Gaddafi. But the problem is a conspiracy against Libya.”

Locals insist that no significant Warfalla figure is involved in the opposition despite early claims that the entire tribe had defected. There has been talk of large cash payments to ensure they did not – or changed sides again.

According to rumours in Tripoli, key tribes have been offered large sums of money to ensure that they toe the line at this time of unprecedented danger to the regime. Tribal leaders can be seen in their finery in the capital’s best hotel and being driven around in the sleek government vehicles reserved for VIPs.

In Bani Walid allegiances are certainly fiercely displayed, with pro-regime slogans and much waving – and noisy firing – of the machine guns that have been distributed to the people in recent days.

Tribal elders in traditional black felt caps, white robes and gold-brocaded waistcoats are mourning a Bani Walid soldier, Fathi Issa Boubakr, killed in Benghazi by a rocket fired by a French jet four days ago.

The sign above a mourning tent set up on a patch of withered grass in the centre of town records that Fathi, 29, was “martyred fighting the crusader aggression and defending the Arab nation and Islam”. He left a wife and two children, their picture displayed by relatives. Tribes are a key element of the country’s social fabric.

“All Libyans are related, especially the Warfalla,” said Mbrak Ibrahim, a British-educated telecoms engineer. “It means that we have family everywhere. We will be happy if we can open our hearts and stop this bloodshed.”

The tribes are also politically important. Gaddafi’s tribe, the Gadadfa, is allied with the far larger Megarha, whose stronghold is in Sebha on the edge of the Sahara. Its members dominate the air force and other security branches. The Tarhuna, another large western tribe, has reaffirmed its support for the regime after an apparent wobble last month.

It is ironic that a revolution that began in 1969 under the banner of progressive Arab nationalism that would eradicate reactionary social divisions has become so dependent on using them to maintain control. Gaddafi tried at first to suppress the tribes but later co-opted them and established a tribal-based “People’s Social Leadership Committee”.

Not everyone approves of the official emphasis on tribal origins and allegiances. “My wife is from the Warfalla,” said Hussein, a journalist from Sirte, Gaddafi’s home town. “But I don’t like these tribal labels at all. I am a Libyan, and a Muslim. If you ask me what tribe I am from it’s as if I ask you how much you earn.”

It seems unlikely the Warfallla and other tribes can simply head east and end this war, whether or not it is merely a diversionary tactic. “If the west leaves us alone we can solve Libya’s problems,” said Dagil. “I will march peacefully. My own sister is in Benghazi. She has four children. I am not going to kill her.”

Ian Black


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Libya crisis – live updates

Posted by Ben Quinn

• Air strikes force government tanks to retreat from Misrata
• Nato to assume day-to-day military command in Libya
• Obama says Gaddafi may wait out military assault
• Gaddafi tells supporters: ‘We will not surrender’
• Read a summary of events so far
• Read out latest Libya news story

Good evening and welcome to our continuing coverage of the Libya crisis. Our earlier live coverage can be found here. Let’s start with a summary.

• Allied air strikes have virtually wiped out Muammar Gaddafi’s forces that were attacking the rebel-held town of Misrata. The aerial attacks have ended five days of bloody assault that cost nearly 100 lives.

• The rebel council in Benghazi has created a governing body. Mahmoud Jibril, a US-educated planning expert who defected from the Gaddafi regime, has been named as its head.

• Gaddafi promised victory to an enthusiastic crowd in his first public appearance in a week late on Tuesday. He said there would be “no surrender” to powers who belonged “on the dust heap of history”.

Ben Quinn


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds