More 'defections from Gaddafi's inner circle' - Africa - Al Jazeera English

(Al Jazeera) - Gaddafi's choice as ambassador to UN says he will not serve, amid reports of more defections from Libya leader's regime.

"There are unconfirmed reports that more people have left the inner circle of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, following the high level desertion of Moussa Koussa, Libya's foreign minister, who arrived in the UK on Wednesday.

It is understood a group of top officials who had headed to Tunisia for talks have decided to stay there.

Some Arabic newspapers said Mohammad Abu Al Qassiim Al Zawi, the head of Libya's Popular Committee, the country’s equivalent of a parliament, is among the defectors.

Nazanine Moshiri, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tunis, said that Abu Zayed Dordah, Libya's prime minister from 1990 to 1994, has also been mentioned.

On Thursday, a second top official confirmed that he would not serve in Gaddfai's regime.

Ali Abdessalam Treki, a former foreign minister and UN general assembly president, had been named to represent Libya at the UN after a wave of defections early in the uprising.

Treki, who is currently in Cairo, said in a statement posted on several opposition websites that he was
not going to accept that job or any other.

'We should not let our country fall into an unknown fate,' he said. 'It is our nation's right to live in freedom, democracy and a good life.'"

READ THE COMPLETE STORY

Ivory Coast: Ouattara forces surround Gbagbo in Abidjan

Forces loyal to the UN-backed president of Ivory Coat, Alassane Ouattara, are pressing on the main city of Abidjan from several directions.

Their offensive threatens to make a battleground of the city, the last stronghold of presidential rival Laurent Gbagbo.

Some police units and the head of the army have defected from Mr Gbagbo.

The UN says Mr Gbagbo lost last year's election to Mr Ouattara, but he has so far refused to cede power.

Armed supporters of Mr Gbagbo have been patrolling districts of the city, setting up roadblocks.

The BBC's Valerie Bony in Abidjan says there have been fierce clashes around the national television centre in a residential part of the city, and heavy weapons fire in northern suburbs.'Game over'

She says an informed source had told her that Edouard Kassarate, the head of the gendarmerie or military police, had defected to the Ouattara side and had gone to the Hotel de Golf, Mr Ouattara's headquarters in Abidjan, which had been besieged by Mr Gbagbo's forces.

READ THE COMPLETE STORY

Senior Libyan official resigns, new blow to regime

AJDABIYA, Libya (AP) -- Opponents of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi were knocked back by government troops for a third straight day Thursday but took heart in a sign that the embattled regime is cracking at the highest levels: the defection of the second top official in roughly 48 hours.

Ali Abdessalam Treki, a former foreign minister and U.N. General Assembly president, had been named to represent Libya at the United Nations after a wave of defections early in the uprising. But Treki, who is currently in Cairo, said in a statement posted on several opposition websites that he was not going to accept that job or any other.

"We should not let our country fall into an unknown fate," he said. "It is our nation's right to live in freedom, democracy and a good life."

Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa flew to England from Tunisia on Wednesday and the British government said he had resigned. He is privy to all the inner workings of the regime, so his departure could open the door for some hard intelligence, though Britain refused to offer him immunity from prosecution.

"We believe that the regime is crumbling from within," opposition spokesman Mustafa Gheriani said in Benghazi, the rebels' de facto capital.

READ THE COMPLETE STORY

Bahraini Opposition: More than 300 Detained in Crackdown

(Voice of America) - Bahrain's largest Shi'ite opposition party says the Gulf state's minority Sunni rulers are intensifying arrests of opposition activists, with more than 300 detained as part of a crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations. 

The party, Wefaq, said Thursday Bahraini authorities have detained 304 people, including 11 women, since the crackdown began on March 16, when security forces evicted the protesters from Manama's Pearl Square. The party says 24 activists remain missing. 

One of the most prominent activists to be arrested is blogger Mahmoud al-Youssef, a vocal critic of the Bahraini government's limits on freedom of expression. Family members and human rights experts say Bahraini authorities took him into custody Wednesday. 

Wefaq also accused a police patrol of opening fire on a group of teenagers and killing a 15-year-old boy in the Shi'ite village of Sar on Wednesday. 

There was no independent confirmation of the circumstances of the shooting. 

Earlier, Bahrain's interior ministry reported that 24 people have been killed in more than a month of anti-government protests in the majority Shi'ite state. 

Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khaled bin Ahmad Al-Khalifa has accused Lebanese the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah of training Bahraini opposition activists to engage in violent protests against the ruling al-Khalifa family. He made the allegation in an interview published this week in the Al-Hayatnewspaper. 

Hezbollah issued a statement Thursday denying that any of its members are present in Bahrain. 

The Iran-backed group says it has been providing only moral support to the opposition, which has been demanding the Sunni-led government's resignation and its replacement with a new system that gives a greater voice to Shi'ites. 

Libyan opposition set to launch TV channel from Qatar

• 
  guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 18.26 BST
• Article history

Libyan rebels are preparing to launch a television channel, broadcasting from Qatar.

The channel, named simply Libya and calling itself "the new channel for all Free Libyans" had been scheduled to start transmissions this evening, according to local media reports, though it is unclear whether that deadline will be met.

There was frenzied activity this evening at the Doha compound here the channel is based. Qatari police prevented journalists approaching the offices where technical staff appeared to be working.

A spokesman for Libya's Interim National Council, the hastily formed western-backed rebel leadership body, said that the timing was ideal.

"This is the first time in recent history that the Arab world is willing to listen to the west," Mahmoud Shammam, a Washington-based exile, told the Guardian. "This is a good opportunity for the west to reconnect with the East. Up to now, the west has supported every Arab dictator."

Shammam said the channel would focus on the humanitarian issues across Libya and would aim to "have a correspondent in every ... city."

Staff were apparently recruited via Facebook over recent weeks. Hundreds of applications for fewer than 20 posts were received. One new recruit arrived without even a change of clothes, direct from the war-torn Libyan city of Ajdabiya.

Mohamed al-Akari, the channel's manager, told Foreign Policy magazine that Libya TV was setting up studios in Benghazi and London, in addition to its headquarters in Doha.

Qatar, as well as agreeing to host the channel, has turned over the facilities and technical staff of a local network previously focused on cultural programming, the magazine said. The wealthy Gulf state, which has a population of 1.4 million, has strongly supported the coalition's military action in Libya, even sending its own warplanes to take part in operations.

Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based news channel, has played a leading role in the protests of recent months, while local analysts said the stance taken by the country's hereditary ruler, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, reflected the views of the Qatari public.

"Qataris were so happy to see our participation in removing the Libyan dictator Gaddafi who doesn't think twice before killing his own people," said Abdullah bin Hamad al-Athbah, a respected newspaper columnist in Doha. "Libya isn't similar to Iraq. We support the [UN security council] resolution all the way. We wish Arab states could handle the issue themselves but when it comes to reality this can't be done without UN intervention."

To start with, Libya TV aims to broadcast around four hours of original programming a day, including a 20-minute news bulletin and a half-hour talkshow. Foreign Policy reported that the channel was being funded primarily by donations from the Libyan disapora, including a single contribution of nearly £200,000 by a businessman living in the UK
.

Syrian president blames protests on 'conspirators'

(Associated Press) - DAMASCUS, Syria – Syrian President Bashar Assad blamed "conspirators" Wednesday for an extraordinary wave of dissent against his authoritarian rule, but he failed to lift the country's despised emergency law or offer any concessions in his first speech since the protests began nearly two weeks ago.

Within hours of Assad's speech, residents of the port city of Latakia said troops opened fire during a protest by about 100 people — although it was not immediately clear whether they were firing in the air or at the protesters. The residents asked that their names not be published for fear of reprisals.

Assad said Wednesday that Syria is facing "a major conspiracy" that aims to weaken this country of 23 million. The Assad family has ruled Syria for nearly 40 years, using the feared security services to monitor and control even the smallest rumblings of opposition. Draconian laws have all but eradicated civil liberties and political freedoms.

"We don't seek battles," Assad, 45, said in an unusually short, televised speech before legislators who cheered for him and shouted support from their seats. "But if a battle is imposed on us today, we welcome it."

He made only a passing reference to the protesters' calls for change, saying "we are for reform" and promising that certain measures were being studied.

Social networking sites immediately exploded with activists calling on Syrians to take to the streets.

Assad's speech was surprising not so much for what he said but for what he left out. His adviser, Bouthaina Shaaban, said last week that Syria had formed a committee to study a series of reforms, including lifting the state of emergency laws, which have been in place since 1963 and give the regime a free hand to arrest people without charge.

Assad had been widely expected to formally announce the changes. But the fact that he failed to mention any of them was a major disappointment for thousands of protesters who have taken to the streets since March 18. Human rights groups say more than 60 people have been killed as security forces cracked down on the demonstrations.

Assad, who inherited power 11 years ago from his father, appears to be following the playbook of other autocratic leaders in the region who scrambled to put down popular uprisings by offering minor concessions coupled with brutal crackdowns.

The formula failed in Tunisia and Egypt, where popular demands increased almost daily — until people accepted nothing less than the ouster of the regime.

Click image to see photos of unrest in Syria

Reuters/Syrian state TV via Reuters TV

Assad fired his 32-member Cabinet on Tuesday in a move designed to pacify the anti-government protesters, but the overture was largely symbolic. Assad holds the lion's share of power in the authoritarian regime, and there are no real opposition figures or alternatives to the current leadership.

After waiting for days for the president's address, many Syrians said it would be better if he had not spoken.

"The fact that he is blaming everything on conspirators means that he does not even acknowledge the root of the problem," said Razan Zaitouneh, a Syrian lawyer and pro-reform activist. "I don't have an explanation for this speech, I am in a state of shock ... There are already calls for a day of anger on Friday. This cannot sit well with the Syrian people."

A Syrian dissident who lives in Lebanon said Assad's speech was disrespectful to the protest movement.

"It was a speech of defiance," said Khalil Hassan of the Beirut-based Committee of Torture Victims in the Prisons of the Syrian Regime. "He showed no respect to opposition figures or the martyrs who have fallen in Syria in the past years."

"Such a speech would have worked in the 1970s but now things are different," Hassan said.

Syria, a predominantly Sunni country ruled by minority Alawites, has a history of brutally crushing dissent — including a notorious massacre in which Assad's late father, President Hafez Assad, crushed a Muslim fundamentalist uprising in the city of Hama in 1982, killing thousands.

The unrest in Syria, a strategically important country, could have implications well beyond its borders given its role as Iran's top Arab ally and as a front line state against Israel.

When the unrest roiling the Middle East hit Syria, it was a dramatic turn for Assad, a British-trained eye doctor who said in January that his country was immune to such unrest because he is in tune with his people's needs.

Assad does maintain a level of popular support, in no small part because of his anti-Israel policies, which resonate with his countrymen. And unlike leaders in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Jordan, Assad is not allied with the United States, so he has been spared the accusation that he caters to American demands.

So far, few in Syria have publicly called on Assad to step down. Most are calling for reforms, annulling emergency laws and other stringent security measures and an end to corruption.

___

AP writer Bassem Mroue contributed to this report from Beirut, Lebanon.

Rebels retreat from Libya oil port under attack

(AP) - AJDABIYA, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces recaptured a strategic oil town Wednesday as they made new inroads in beating back a rebel advance toward the capital Tripoli. Western powers kept up the pressure to force Gadhafi out with new airstrikes to weaken his military, hints that they may arm the opposition and intense negotiations behind the scenes to persuade Libya's leader of nearly 42 years to step down.

Airstrikes have neutralized Gadhafi's air force and pounded his army, but those ground forces remain far better armed, trained and organized than the opposition. Rebels have few weapons more powerful than rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, and are no match for Gadhafi's tanks and longer-range heavy weapons.

That disparity was obvious as government forces pushed back rebels who had been closing in on the strategic city of Sirte, Gadhafi's hometown and a bastion of support for the longtime leader. Under heavy shelling, rebels retreated from Bin Jawwad on Tuesday and from the oil port of Ras Lanouf on Wednesday. Gadhafi's forces were shelling another oil port to the east, Brega, and some rebels were retreating farther still.

It looked like a mad scramble: Pickup trucks, with mattresses and boxes tied on, driving east at 100 mph (160 kilometers per hour).

Many regrouped east of Brega at the green, arching western gate of Ajdabiya, sharing water, dates and tuna sandwiches on a sandy, windswept plain next to two burned-out tanks and two burned-out cars from the airstrikes last week that drove Gadhafi's forces back.

"There's something strange about the way he attacked us today," said Abdullah Abdel-Jalil, a 31-year-old ambulance driver. "The Grad rockets, the tanks, the quantity of it all, he's stronger than we thought. It's way too intense."

NATO planes flew over the zone where the heaviest fighting was under way and an Associated Press reporter at the scene heard explosions, in contrast with Tuesday, when rebel fighters' pleas for airstrikes went unheeded. U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Clint Gebke, a spokesman for the NATO operation aboard the USS Mount Whitney, said he could not confirm any specific strikes but Western aircraft were engaging pro-Gadhafi forces.

Whatever air support NATO provided, however, did not appear to turn the situation at all to the rebels' advantage.

"We don't know why they're not here," said Moftah Mohammed, a 36-year-old rebel soldier. "Our forces are mainly on the side of the main road. We've heard Gadhafi's forces are pushing deep into the desert" in an attempt to head off rebel forces. "We don't want to be stuck in the middle of that."

Mohammed, however, thought loyalist forces would stop pursuing the rebels. "Gadhafi aims to take back Ras Lanouf and Brega because he's running out of oil. I think he'll stop there," he said.

As Gadhafi's forces push rebels toward their de-facto capital Benghazi, some 140 miles (220 kilometers) northeast of Brega, pressure is growing for NATO members and other supporters of the air campaign to do more.

Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain believes a legal loophole could allow nations to supply weapons to Libya's rebels — but stressed the U.K. has not decided whether it will offer assistance to the rebels.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that Washington also believes it would be legal to give the rebels weapons. As to whether the country would do so, President Barack Obama told NBC, "I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in."

France, one of the strongest backers of international intervention in Libya, believes arming rebels would require a new U.N. resolution; the existing one includes an arms embargo. But Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said, "We are ready to discuss it with our partners."

Under the U.N. resolution authorizing necessary measures to protect civilians, nations supplying weapons would need to be satisfied they would be used only to defend civilians — not to take the offensive to Gadhafi's forces.

Cameron's spokesman Steve Field said British and other diplomats were involved in negotiations with the rebel leadership in Benghazi partly to gauge if the opposition would be trustworthy allies.

"We are in the process of talking to those people and learning more about their intentions," Field told reporters.

Another possibility is to ramp up airstrikes, which so far have been conducted with the stated goal of helping civilians, rather than with helping the rebels advance. But even the airstrikes conducted so far have been criticized by world powers such as Germany and Russia.

There are also hopes for a diplomatic solution.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said negotiations on securing Gadhafi's exit were being conducted with "absolute discretion" and that there were options on the table that hadn't yet been formalized.

"What is indispensable is that there be countries that are willing to welcome Gadhafi and his family, obviously to end this situation which otherwise could go on for some time," he said.

But the Italian diplomat insisted immunity for Gadhafi was not an option. "We cannot promise him a 'safe-conduct' pass," he stressed.

Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa visited Tunisia briefly, but there was no word if this was linked to the secret talks.

Uganda appeared to be the first country to publicly offer Gadhafi refuge. The spokesman for Uganda's president, Tamale Mirundi, told the AP on Wednesday that he would be welcome there.

France — which was the first nation to formally recognize the Libyan rebels — confirmed that a diplomatic presence was established in Benghazi on Tuesday. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe stressed that Antoine Sivan will not be a formal ambassador but rather a diplomat there to establish relations with the Council in Benghazi.

Mahmoud Shammam, a spokesman for the Libyan opposition, told reporters in London that, properly equipped, rebels "would finish Gadhafi in a few days."

"We do not have arms. We ask for the political support more than we are asking for the arms, but if we get both that would be great," Shammam said.

Britain, meanwhile, said it expelled five Libyan diplomats loyal to Gadhafi, including the country's military attache, because of their intimidation of opposition supporters and their potential threat to the U.K.'s national security.

___

Associated Press writers David Stringer in London and Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this report.

Commentary on the State of the U.S. Political Stage

(NVT) - These are some personal thoughts on the current state of U.S. politics...or infighting depending on your point of view.

I can't think of a time in my lifetime that our country was so divided.  When attempting to choose a news media outlet for information, we are forced to either pick a liberal interpretation of the news or a conservative one.  There does not seem to be any unbiased news available to the general public.  It used to be that news outlets were required to give equal time to both sides of a story, but now since this is not required we tend to get only one side of the story which results in the rise of an uninformed public.

This same one-sidedness can be seen in our political factions.  On one side we have the Tea Party for example, a conservative, "Republican" group,  formed prior to the election of President Obama, that stands for low taxes, elimination of social programs, small government, unfettered capitalism, and hating anything that the democratic party and its associates have to say.  This organization is considered a fringe group which doesn't seem to be at all flexible when it comes to its conservative views.  On the other side we have a somewhat less organized, generically named group of individuals that go by names such as progressives, liberals, or left wingers.  This group believes in taxing to fund social programs, increasing personal liberties even if they are to the detriment of our moral fabric, increasing the size of the federal government, and hating anything that the republican party and its associates have to say.

This is not to say that either of the groups is completely wrong in all cases as the items I list for each group is only a small, off the cuff list.

What I have a problem with is that there no longer seems to be any centrist tendencies in government.  The democrats refuse to agree with any proposal offered by the republicans, and vice versa.  There was a time where differences were brought up on the floors of the house and senate and debated rigorously until some agreement could be reached before the issue was put up for a vote.  Today you find one party, especially the one with majority rule waiting for the other party to go on recess and forcing a vote through.  Not only is this a disgrace, but is highly undemocratic.  It is neither in the best interest of the senators constituents, nor in the best interest of the country.

I'm afraid that we are heading down a road which our founding fathers would be ashamed to travel.  It is getting very hard to find a politician who you can respect and trust.  We seem to be in a mode where we elect the lesser of two evils when it comes to our political choices and I'm certain that this is not what Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, or John Hancock envisioned when they helped found this great nation of ours.

It is my hope that we fix what is wrong with this country before it is too late, for ourselves, our children, and our children's children.

Obama signals willingness to arm Libyan rebels

(CNN) - On a day when opposition forces in Libya suffered battlefield losses, President Barack Obama made clear in interviews Tuesday with the three major U.S. television networks that he was open to arming the rebel fighters.

"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.

"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."

The president also signaled a willingness to negotiate a settlement to the conflict with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but only based on the condition that Gadhafi would relinquish power as called for by the United States and its allies.

Asked about the chances of Gadhafi fleeing or losing vital support from his family and top aides, Obama said that he believes those close to the Libyan leader likely feel what he called a tightening noose.

"I think that Gadhafi's camp, people around him, are starting to recognize that their options are limited and their days are numbered, and so they are probably reaching out to a range of different people," Obama told CBS. "But that information may not have filtered to Gadhafi yet and I think it's too early for us to start having formal negotiations."

Gadhafi "knows exactly what he needs to do to stop the constant bombardment that he's under, and it may at some point shift to him to figuring out how to negotiate an exit, but I don't think we're at that point yet," Obama continued on CBS.

On ABC, the president said that "the first step is for Gadhafi to send a signal that he understands the Libyan people don't want him ruling anymore, that 40 years of tyranny is enough."

"Once he makes that decision, I think the international community will come together and make a determination as to what the most appropriate way of facilitating him stepping down will be," Obama said.

The interviews continued the determined tone of Obama's Monday night speech, which detailed the strategic and moral reasons for committing U.S. troops to the Libyan mission while also promising the U.S. role would be limited in time and scope.

Initially led by U.S. forces due to their "unique capabilities" for taking out Libya's anti-aircraft and communications stations to establish a no-fly zone, the mission shifts to NATO control this week so allied nations share the responsibility and costs, Obama said.

He pointed out to CBS that coalition airstrikes on Gadhafi forces threatening civilian populations "will continue for some time" despite the transfer in mission leadership.

"One of the questions that we want to answer is, do we start getting to a stage where Gadhafi's forces are sufficiently degraded, where it may not be necessary to arm opposition groups?" Obama said on CBS.

Libyan opposition includes a small number of al-Qaeda fighters, U.S. officials say

(Washington Post) - Rebel forces in Libya that have sought to take advantage of U.S.-backed airstrikes appear to include a small number of fighters with ties to al-Qaeda, American officials said Tuesday.

The disclosure raises a potential complication for the Obama administration and other Western governments that are weighing whether to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups, whose composition in some cases remains unclear.

U.S. officials played down their concern about al-Qaeda’s presence, saying that its numbers appear negligible and that the terrorist network has had no dis­cern­ible influence on the groups seeking to oust Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi.

“We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaeda” and Hezbollah fighters among opposition forces, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, said in congressional testimony.

But Stavridis stressed that emerging intelligence on the Libyan opposition “makes me feel that the leadership that I’m seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gaddafi.”

READ THE COMPLETE STORY

Iraqi Security Forces Storm Building Held by Gunmen

(Voice of America) - Iraqi security forces wrestled control of a provincial council headquarters from gunmen who stormed the building on Tuesday and took hostages. 

Police say at least 53 people were killed and nearly 100 injured during the hours-long siege in Tikrit. 

Witnesses say the gunmen were wearing military uniforms and suicide vests as they stormed into the building.  Investigators say at least one gunman detonated explosives to clear the way for the others to enter. 

Officials say a short while later, a car exploded outside of the building, killing a journalist and several law enforcement officers.  The gunmen also hurled grenades at law enforcement officials to keep them away. 

Local officials say the attackers killed three councilmen inside the building and set their bodies on fire. At least six assailants died during the siege, which some officials have blamed on al-Qaida. 

Tikrit, located about 140 kilometers north of Baghdad, is the hometown of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Libya Live Blog - March 29

As the uprising in Libya continues, we update you with the latest developments from our correspondents, news agencies and citizens across the globe. Al Jazeera is not responsible for content derived from external sites.

Blog: Feb17 - Feb18 - Feb19 - Feb20 - Feb21 - Feb22 - Feb23 - Feb24 - Feb25 - Feb26 - Feb27 - Feb28 - Mar1 - Mar2 - Mar3 - Mar4 - Mar5 - Mar6 - Mar7 - Mar8 - Mar9 - Mar10 - Mar 11 - Mar12 - Mar13 - Mar14 - Mar15 - Mar16 - Mar 17 - Mar 18 - Mar 19 - Mar 20 - Mar 21 - Mar 22 - Mar 23 - Mar 24 - Mar 25 - Mar 26 - Mar 27 - Mar 28

AJE Live Stream - Special Coverage: Libya Uprising - Operation Odyssey Dawn - Twitter Audio - Tweeting revolutions


(All times are local in Libya GMT+2)


11:50pm That's it for tonight. Our rolling coverage of events in Libya continues with a brand new live blog for March 30. And you can stay up to date with it by clicking here.

11:11pm Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, says human rights abuses in Libya must be "judged", adding that he does "not support repression in the face of criticism". He maintains his condemnation of the international military intervention.

11:10pm Al-Arabiya television reports that two explosions have shaken the Aziziyah gate area of Tripoli.

11:05pm Anita McNaught in Tripoli reports that the airstrikes in the Tajoura district of Tripoli targetted bases used by the Khamis brigade, one of the "better armed brigades" that is loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. She says these bases have been repeatedly targetted, and that this could be because they are said to have "underground facilities".

She also says that very few people have been comfortable speaking to the press expressing opposition to Gaddafi, as doing so in February resulted in "unpleasant consequences" for many people. She reports that people who do speak, do so quietly, and say they are waiting for things to change.

10:55pm The images below were taken at a hospital in the town of Mizdah, about 180km south of Tripoli. They show the damage caused by an explosion at a nearby army ammunition depot. Libyan officials say the depot was hit by a coalition airstrike, and that the ensuing explosion damaged buildings up to 15km away.

10:30pm Nick Clegg, the UK's deputy prime minister, says that the military intervention in Libya is fundamentally different from the war in Iraq. He has called for a new era of "multilateralism" during comments made in Mexico City.

The lesson of Iraq is not that intervention in support of liberal aims is always wrong. The lesson of Iraq is that any such action must only and must always be multilateral sanctioned and driven by humanitarian concerns ... The action in Libya doesn't signal a return to the trigger-happy policies of the past. It represents a responsible collective decision to intervene on clear and moral grounds.

"A new 'axis of openness' is forming."

10:27pm Carl Levin, a US Senator, says he may approach the US Congress seeking full congressional approval for US military action in Libya.

Levin, a Democrat, says he will speak to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, about the prospects for a vote on the military action, which so far, while hotly debated, has not faced any test of approval amongst US lawmakers.

Levin says Barack Obama, the US president, has said that he would "welcome" a vote.

10:05pm Members of the Dutch parliament have blasted the cabinet over a botched rescue mission by three Dutch marines, who were easily captured by Libyan forces soon after their helicopter touched down near the town of Sirte on February 27.

Harry van Bommel, an opposition lawmaker, called the operation "inexplicable and irresponsible", and Uri Rosenthal, the foreign minister, has admitted that a miscalculation may have been made.

9:12pm Reuters names the French envoy to Benghazi as Antoine Sivan, who will act as the diplomat "in charge of relations with the Libyan National Council". Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, has confirmed that an envoy has been appointed, but did not name him.

9:06pm Anita McNaught, our correspondent in Tripoli, reports that the explosions reported in the capital earlier today were missile strikes on a military base in the Tajoura district.

READ COMPLETE BLOG

Brief Commentary on President Obama's Speech on Libya

(NVT) - I was rather puzzled by one of President Obama's comments in tonights speech on Libya. The following is the one of his comments:

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and more profoundly our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Unfortunately, it seems that the atrocities in places such as Darfur and the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), don't seem to count.  How long has the genocide in Darfur been going on 1, 5, 10 years or more and yet you don't find the United States of America going to the aid of these innocent people with its military might.  This begs the simple question...why?

It appears from the outside that we only invoke the use of the military when it directly affects our national interest.  It appears that only certain people need to be saved from slaughter while others in less strategically important countries are expendable.

Libya has a leader who we do not like and his country borders countries that are of national interest to the us, namely Egypt and Tunisia.  This makes Libya a viable target for U.S. intervention.

I think President Obama should reevaluate his priorities or his choice of words when it comes to the use of military force throughout the world. 

If he wants to make the United States the worlds policeman, which is something that we are not capable of doing alone, then he needs to look long and hard at nations where atrocities are essentially being ignored.

What do you think?

Obama: No Action In Libya 'Betrayal Of Who We Are'

(Associated Press) - Defending the first war launched on his watch, President Barack Obama declared Monday night that the United States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world's conscience and "been a betrayal of who we are." Yet he ruled out targeting Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust him militarily would be a costly mistake.

Obama announced that NATO would take command over the entire Libya operation on Wednesday, keeping his pledge to get the U.S. out of the lead but offering no estimate on when the conflict might end.

He never described the U.S.-led military campaign as a "war" and gave no details on its costs, but he offered an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and allies to act.

In blunt terms, Obama said the U.S.-led response had stopped Gadhafi's advances and halted a slaughter he warned could have shaken the stability of an entire region.

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and more profoundly our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Obama spoke to a respectful military audience at the National Defense University after, in Libya, rebel forces bore down Monday on Gadhafi with the help of airstrikes by the U.S.-led forces. The address to the nation was the president's most aggressive attempt to answer the questions mounting from Republican critics, his own party and war-weary Americans chiefly, why the U.S. was immersed in war in another Muslim nation.

Amid protests and crackdowns across the Middle East and North Africa, Obama stated his case that Libya stands alone. "In this particular country, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," he said.

He also warned of the broader implications for the region, without naming the other countries undergoing violent upheaval.

Citing a failure to act in Libya, he said: "The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security."

Obama took pains to say why he chose to intervene in Libya even while acknowledging that America's military cannot be used to stamp out every instance of repression.

"There will be times when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are," the president said.

"Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security. ... These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving," Obama said. "And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help."

The president also sought to address critics who have said the U.S. mission remains muddled. Indeed, he reiterated the White House position that Gadhafi should not remain in power but the U.N. resolution that authorized power does not go that far.

That gap in directives has left the White House to deal with the prospect that Gadhafi will remain indefinitely. Obama said the U.S. would try to isolate him other ways.

"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said. "If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next."

And then he raised the issue of Iraq, a war that deeply divided the nation and defined the presidency of George W. Bush. "Regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars," Obama said. "That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

"We must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right," the president said. "In this particular country Libya at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale."

Obama: No Action In Libya 'Betrayal Of Who We Are'

(Associated

Egypt: Ensure Women Equal Role in Elections, Reform

(Human Rights Watch, Cairo) - Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces should ensure that women are equal participants in reshaping the country, Human Rights Watch said today. As Egypt heads into parliamentary and presidential elections after the constitutional referendum, the transitional government needs to ensure women's security and participation on an equal basis as both candidates and voters.

Women were excluded from the official body that formulated the amendments to the constitution that were approved on March 19, 2011, with 77.2 percent of the vote. The amendments establish a term limit for future presidents, provide for the appointment of a deputy president, and call for judicial oversight of elections. Women had protested a provision implying that only men would be eligible for the presidency.

"It is unacceptable for a constitution that is supposed to allow for a transition toward democracy and a new Egypt to even give the possibility of excluding women from public office," said Nadya Khalife, Middle East and North Africa women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. "After women fully participated in the movement to oust President Hosni Mubarak, it is offensive to suggest that a woman cannot be president."

As amended, Article 75 of the constitution requires that the president "shall not be married to a non-Egyptian." The ambiguity over the language in this provision suggests to some constitutional judges that women may be excluded from running for the presidency.  Previously, this article read that the president should be an Egyptian born to Egyptian parents with no mention of the spouse's nationality.

Tahani el Gebaly, vice president of the constitutional committee "attested to the danger in article 75 of the constitution [...] and requested that the constitutional committee issue a written statement to confirm whether [the president] is an Egyptian male or female."

The amendments  contained no reference to equality for women, a basic right also not mentioned in the current constitution.

"The constitutional committee has an obligation to make its intentions clear on article 75," Khalife said.

Egyptian women's status under the law and in practice has improved somewhat in recent decades, for example through improved - although still unequal - access to divorce and the appointment of a few women judges. But equality for Egyptian women is still far from reality.

Egyptian women's political representation remains low. Only 18 women serve on the 264-member Consultative Council, Parliament's upper chamber. Women lead only three of the 31 government ministries - trade, family and population, and immigration. Women's membership and representation in political parties is weak, and representation on municipal councils remains lower than three percent.

Under Egyptian law, 64 seats out of 444 in the People's Assembly, Parliament's lower chamber, are reserved for women. The constitutional amendments did not alter this quota. The constitutional committee is reviewing a number of laws related to the parliamentary elections, including the quota.

Women who participate in public life risk harassment in the streets. For example, on International Women's Day, March 8, a group of men beat, verbally abused, and sexually harassed women marching in Tahrir square for women's equality.

One of the women marchers told Human Rights Watch, "The attackers, around 50, started hitting us with their hands on our shoulders and heads. I got hit badly on my shoulder." Another told Human Rights Watch, "The men shouted at us, ‘You are not Egyptians [...] Better for you to go home and feed your babies.'"

Some men accused the women marchers of advocating "Western" principles, and criticized their dress or behavior. Another woman told Human Rights Watch, "They formed a circle around us and I fell to the ground. Someone cut my leggings and reached their hands up to my private parts and my breasts. Someone slapped me on the face and another hit me with a metal instrument. I was hospitalized for seven days."

Soldiers who observed the incident intervened to break up the mob. One woman told Human Rights Watch, "[The army] asked us why we are demonstrating now, that this is not the right time. They told us that we were wrong for coming out to demonstrate."

"If the International Women's Day attacks are any sign of what is to come, women's ability to participate in political life may be at risk," Khalife said. "As Egypt moves toward elections, officials need to provide protection for women who wish to demonstrate publicly, and ensure that anyone attacking peaceful protesters is held to account."

Pravda: Open letter to Mssrs. Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy

Dear President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron,

Thank you for caring about the welfare of human beings. Thank you for your concern about the safety of innocent civilians.

As you will be aware, the United Nations Organization had planned, this month, to pay homage to Muammar Al-Qathafi for his human rights record, after a carefully researched report was drawn up, praising him for his tremendous humanitarian work not only in his own country but across the African continent, where he is much respected.

Now a question. If a group of carefully trained heavily armed citizens seized power, burnt buildings, massacred civilians and destroyed government property in, say, Texas, Northern Ireland or Corsica, what would the authorities of your countries do? Stand back with their hands over their hearts or meet the challenge with armed security forces? You do know who started the massacres in Benghazi?

Another question. Where did all those former Libyan flags come from? Were they lying around somewhere in Libya for the last half-century or were they manufactured overseas, as was the Libyan "Revolution"?

Actually, a series of questions. Did you know that Muammar Al-Qathafi inherited the poorest country on Earth and turned it into the best in Africa in human development indices? Are you aware of the tremendous amount of good Muammar Al-Qathafi has done and continues to do across the African continent?

Were you aware that Libyans enjoy free housing? Have any of you implemented nationwide free housing policies in your countries?

UN Resolution 1970 (2011) forbids the supply of weaponry to the "poor unarmed civilians" (aka armed terrorists) running amuck in Libya. Why are the "rebels" then sporting sophisticated and heavy weaponry? Why are weapons being smuggled to them through the Egyptian frontier, so conveniently secured and from the west across the Tunisian frontier, the first stage of Operation Grab Libya's oil?

Who is supplying this weaponry and why is there not an independent investigation, now? UN Resolution 1973 (2011) forbids the deployment of troops in Libya. This includes special forces. What are they doing there, then? Why are they training the terrorists?

As you know, a similar uprising in Iraq was put down by your friend, the Prime Minister's troops, who opened fire killing 29 in Baghdad. Why haven't your free and independent media said a word about this? What is your policy on Yemen where the military forces of your friend the President are killing poor unarmed innocent civilians? Where is the No Fly Zone over Yemen, or Bahrain?

Why do you keep insisting you are not taking sides, when your air forces are bombing military columns from one side but facilitating the advance of the other? If that is not taking sides, I don't know what is. Why are you lying to your people?

What justifies the strafing of civilian facilities, which goes totally against the remit under Resolution 1973? Why are you attempting to murder Muammar Al-Qathafi and his children? How would you feel if someone murdered a member of your family?

You do know the origin of these wonderful unarmed civilians running around with heavy weaponry chanting Allahu Akhbar, do you not? You do also know that Muammar Al-Qathafi was one of the first figures to outlaw Al Qaeda? And you will be aware, of course, that Al Qaeda is indeed operational in Libya and has seized some sophisticated weapons systems which no doubt will be used tomorrow in a terrorist attack?

And you will be aware of the role played by AQIM in the Libyan uprising of course? Nicolas can ask Chad's President Idris Deby - he speaks French. Do you speak French President Obama? Prime Minister Cameron? You do know that AQIM has links to Al Qaeda and you also realise that in helping the "innocent civilians" you are also helping AQIM and therefore recognise that you are in fact aiding and abetting Al Qaeda?

The Americans will need no reminding what happens when you start arming Islamist fanatics, as per Afghanistan - the payback and thank you note was 9/11.

You do know that Islamist fundamentalism has been brewing in Benghazi for decades, that many members of the "Revolution" have been trained in Afghanistan, and that Al-Qathafi had caused fury there in Benghazi by daring to declare himself against stoning of women for "adultery" and the death penalty for homosexuals? Of course you also know that he stirred up rage in Benghazi by calling the Islamic veil a "rag" and a "tent"? You will be aware that the sentiment against him in Eastern Libya is because he has been throwing Islamist fundamentalists into jail, and for daring to say Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca?

Why have the Libyan information websites been taken down? Why are your governments practising cyber terrorism alongside the terrorist attacks with military equipment?

How comfortable do you feel, and I address myself to Mr. Cameron here in particular, about closing down hospitals in your country while the cost of the operation is, just in flying costs, somewhere like 50.000 pounds per aircraft per hour? To help Al Qaeda set up a base at the gates of Europe?

Do any of you know what in fact you are doing? Or are you driven by the desire for a war to bolster flagging support at home? You did realise that Colonel Muammar Al-Qathafi has a higher popularity rating inside Tripoli than you have in your capital cities?

Once again, you have jumped the gun inventing some Quixotic cause to justify your own ineptitude and to satisfy the energy and weapons lobbies which in fact run your policies. You three are the most disgusting examples of useless, spineless incompetent wannabe protagonists who have, in Libya, shown an extremely high degree of irresponsibility.

That having been said, if you want an exit strategy, here it is (because I have no doubt you are collectively unable to formulate one for yourselves). Accept the Libyan government's ceasefire, stop the campaign NOW and allow the African Union to step in and broker a deal. Stop arming terrorists, stop wasting your taxpayers' money (the bill for the Americans is already in the hundreds of millions; for the British and French many tens of millions already. How many maternity wings, how much school accommodation or medication against cancer would that fund? "Sorry Mr. Jones. We cannot continue with your treatment because the NHS does not have that type of funding. In the six hours you have been waiting to be seen, your Government has spent 300.000 on a single aircraft's sortie over Libya"). Helping Al Qaeda.

Sterling job, chaps! Tell you what...you are unfit to be in your positions. If anyone "has to go" it is you three. And this time, if I receive one single death threat in my mails (which usually follow this sort of article) I shall be investigating the source. This time I shall be implacable and shall not simply delete them.

Photos: "Unarmed civilians"

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru