This article titled “Gaddafi takes key towns as Nato squabbles over Libya action” was written by Peter Beaumont in Tripoli, Ian Traynor in Brussels and Nicholas Watt, for The Guardian on Thursday 10th March 2011 20.44 UTC

The Gaddafi regime has issued a defiant warning that the “time for action” had arrived as a sustained military assault forced the defeat of Libyan rebels in the strategically important town of Zawiya and their retreat from Ras Lanuf.

Amid squabbling among EU and Nato leaders on the eve of an emergency European summit on Libya in Brussels, Muammar Gaddafi’s son said that a new offensive would be launched within days.

“It’s time for liberation. It’s time for action,” Saif al-Islam told Reuters after the defeat of opposition forces in the town of Zawiya, 30 miles from Tripoli, and the rout of rebels in the town of Ras Lanuf. He added: “We are moving now.”

The tough rhetoric from the Gaddafi regime – and its apparent success on the ground against the rebels – set the scene for a difficult emergency EU summit where leaders are expected to clash on the military and diplomatic response to the gravest crisis on their doorstep since the collapse of Yugoslavia. Fears among Libyan opposition groups that they will be defeated by the time Europe and the US agree on a course of action were heightened when:

• Nato was left paralysed as the US joined Germany in blocking the imposition of a no-fly zone supported by Britain and France. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels that contingency planning for a no-fly zone would continue, before adding “that’s the extent of it”.

Adding to the sense of diplomatic and political disarray, the AFP news agency reported that French president Nicolas Sarkozy will propose air strikes on Gaddafi’s command headquarters to EU leaders. There was no confirmation by Sarkozy’s office.

• Britain and France, which led the calls for today’s emergency summit in the face of scepticism from Germany, differed on how to deal with the rebels. William Hague shared the irritation of some of his counterparts at a foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels when it was announced in Paris that France was recognising the Transitional National Council as the “only legitimate representative of the Libyan people”. Hague spoke by phone with Mahmoud Jabril, the council’s special envoy, who is expected to attend tomorrow’s EU summit. But Hague pointedly said: “That leadership are legitimate people to talk to, of course, but we recognise states rather than groups within states.”

• David Cameron and Sarkozy are also expected to clash today over the future of EU funding for north Africa and the Middle East. Britain wants to withhold £1bn in annual EU support for the region unless greater democracy is introduced. France is strongly opposed to the proposal which it regards as an assault on funding which benefits Francophone countries.

• The Royal Navy is preparing a series of detailed contingency plans that could see more British ships being sent to the Libyan coast if ministers require them, the Commander of the Fleet has told the Guardian. In an exclusive interview, Admiral Sir Trevor Soar said that one option available to the government would be to deploy the Response Force Task Group – a new type of flexible unit that comprises up to six different support and warships.

Cameron and Sarkozy tried to give the EU summit a sense of direction by submitting a series of proposals in a joint letter to Herman Van Rompuy, the council president. Their demands included the immediate departure of Gaddafi “and his clique”, sending a “clear political signal” that the transitional council is seen by the EU as “valid political interlocutors” and for Gaddafi to call an immediate halt to the use of force against civilians.

The leaders of Britain and France wrote: “This deliberate use of military force against civilians is utterly unacceptable. As warned by the security council, these acts may amount to crimes against humanity. All those involved in deciding, planning or executing such actions must know that they will be held accountable.”

The differences within the EU came as the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told Congress the rebels may face defeat because Gaddafi’s forces are considerably better equipped. Clapper told the Senate’s armed services committee the insurgents were in for a “tough roll” and in the longer term “the regime will prevail”. He said: “We believe Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.”

Washington tried to reach out to the rebel groups when Hillary Clinton announced she would meet opposition leaders in the US and during an overseas tour next week to France, Tunisia and Egypt. “We are standing with the Libyan people as they brave bombs and bullets to demand that Gaddafi must go – now,” Clinton told a House panel in Washington.

But her belated intervention came as the momentum in the conflict seemed to be shifting from the rebels, who only a week ago were advancing on Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte, to pro-regime forces who have used aircraft, artillery and rockets to halt the rebels. In the last two weeks pro-Gaddafi forces have crushed dissent in the capital, Tripoli, and used tanks to stamp out opposition in Zawiya.

With the capital and surrounding towns in western Libya increasingly secure, it had been expected that Gaddafi would turn his attention next to halting and then turning back the rebel advance from the east.

Although the pro-Gaddafi forces struggled to defeat a numerically far smaller number of defenders in Zawiya, the regime has a huge military advantage in terms of tanks and rocket launchers and, crucially, modern attack aircraft which the opposition lacks. Its elite units – particularly the Khamis Brigades led by one of Gaddafi’s sons, are far better trained and equipped than the often disorganised rebel forces.

Gaddafi’s son said the renewed offensive, which has been building for several weeks, would be launched following the refusal of rebels to negotiate or lay down arms. “Time is out now. It’s time for action … we gave them two weeks [for negotiations],” Saif al-Islam said in a speech to supporters.

The Libyan leader’s son was referring to offers of a “national dialogue”, approaches to tribal leaders and an offer of an amnesty made by his father last week. Rebel leaders in the east said they would accept nothing but Gaddafi’s overthrow.

Vowing that the rebels would be defeated, Saif said: “We will never ever give up. We will never ever surrender. This is our country. We fight here in Libya.”

Saif also warned against western military intervention. “The Libyan people, we will never ever welcome Nato, we will never ever welcome Americans here. Libya is not a piece of cake.”

Saif al-Islam described rebels determined to end Gaddafi’s 41-year rule as terrorists and armed gangsters and said thousands of Libyans had volunteered to fight them.

Additional reporting by Chris McGreal, Ewen MacAskill and Nick Hopkins

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Libya: Nato defence ministers agree on minimal intervention” was written by Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Ian Traynor in Brussels, for The Guardian on Thursday 10th March 2011 20.33 UTC

Nato has agreed at a meeting of defence ministers in Brussels to move warships in the Mediterranean closer to Libya to increase surveillance and monitor the arms embargo against the country.

There will be no extra ships but only a repositioning of those already there, falling far short of the military intervention called for by Britain and France.

The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the organisation would also look at plans to re-enforce the arms embargo on Libya.

Both moves are minimal and represent a victory for the US and Germany, which are opposed to military intervention, in particular the no-fly zone backed by Britain and France. Unless there is an atrocity in Libya, the chances of military intervention are increasingly slim.

Rasmussen set out three conditions for Nato intervention. “Firstly, there has to be demonstrable need for Nato action. Secondly, there has to be a clear legal basis. And thirdly, there has to be firm regional support,” he said.

The first is feasible but the other two might prove harder. China and, to a lesser extent, Russia have threatened to veto any United Nations resolution that would provide a legal basis for military intervention. Regional support might be tough too, with many Arabs wary of a Nato involvement in Libya.

The ships to be deployed are a German frigate, an Italian cruiser and minesweepers, joining US and other ships already positioned off Libya.

Rasmussen said the ships would “improve Nato’s situational awareness … and contribute to our surveillance and monitoring capability, including with regard to the [UN] arms embargo”.

Defence ministers also agreed to “more active measures to enforce the arms embargo” but stopped short of pledging to enforce the arms embargo militarily, unless the UN provided a legal basis for it.

Britain and France have argued in private that a UN resolution is not necessary for military intervention, citing the example of Kosovo more than a decade ago. The US insists that a UN mandate is essential.

At a press conference after the meeting, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said ministers had agreed to continue planning for all military options. Gates is opposed to the US, already involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, engaging in another war. The White House has shown some interest in a no-fly zone but this is not shared by Gates. He also stressed that monitoring the arms embargo did not extend to enforcing it militarily, which might risk Nato being drawn into conflict.

Asked if Nato looked powerless, Gates said: “I think the key factor here is… the limitations of the UN security council resolution 1970, which, even when it comes to the embargo, does not provide the authority for enforcement. So if there were to be a need for enforcement, there would need to be a new United Nations security council resolution even for that purpose.”

Reflecting fears that Nato military action in Libya might alienate Arab opinion, he said Nato was “very mindful of opinion in the region”.

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, said: “One thing for the German government is absolutely clear: we do not want to get sucked into a war in north Africa. So we have to decide wisely and carefully that we do not get the opposite of what we want – peace and freedom.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Nearly all southern Sudanese voted for secession” was written by Xan Rice in Nairobi, for The Guardian on Sunday 30th January 2011 16.46 UTC

Nearly 99% of southern Sudanese voters chose secession in this month’s independence referendum, clearing the way for Sudan to split in two.

The official preliminary results were announced at a ceremony attended by a crowd of several thousand people in the southern capital Juba today. The figures showed that voter turnout was 98% – far above the 60% threshold required for the result to be valid.

Subject to confirmation of the final result next month, and pending legal challenges, southern Sudan will be free to declare independence on 9 July.

“This is what we voted for, so that people can be free in their own country … I say congratulations a million times,” southern Sudan’s president Salva Kiir told the crowd, who had assembled at the grave of the liberation leader John Garang, who died in a helicopter crash in 2005.

The ceremony ended with the people singing of “the promised land”, something southerners have dreamed of since colonial rule ended in the 1950s and the Arab-led government in Khartoum took power. Decades of marginalisation and conflict followed, with the most recent north-south war from 1983 to 2005 causing about 2 million deaths.

The peace agreement that ended the war gave southerners the option to secede through a referendum after a six-year interim period. Such was the anticipation before the vote that hundreds of thousands of people queued before dawn across the vast, undeveloped south to cast their ballots on 9 January even though the voting booths were open for a week.

The ballot has been commended by observer groups, though some problems with tallying have been reported. Many feared President Omar al-Bashir’s regime in the north – which opposes secession – would use violence or other means to disrupt the vote, but it did not happen. This, added to Bashir’s comments that he wanted to enjoy “brotherly” relations with the south should it secede, led to rare praise for the often-maligned leader, both internationally, and in southern Sudan. “Omar al-Bashir took the bold decision to bring peace. Bashir is a champion and we must stand with him,” said Kiir today. He urged his people to remain patient over the next few months as his government was “not going to put down the flag of Sudan until July 9. The project has not finished … We cannot declare independence today. Let us respect the agreement. We must go slowly so we can reach safely to where we are going,” he added.

Voting was open to southerners living anywhere in Sudan, while those abroad could vote in eight countries, including Britain. The results showed that in southern Sudan itself 99.57% of voters chose secession, with only 16,129 out of 3.7 million people choosing unity. The result in favour of a split was overwhelming in all 10 southern states, ranging from 95.5% in Western Bahr el Gahzal to 99.98% in the oil-rich Unity state.

Many of the estimated 2 million southerners who still live in the northern half of Sudan did not register for the referendum, fearing their choice would be manipulated, or registered in the south instead. Still, 58% of the nearly 70,000 people who voted in the north chose secession over unity. The only region in the whole country where unity won out was in south Darfur, where 63% of the 9,253 voters wanted Africa’s largest country to stay intact.

Mohamed Khalil Ibrahim, chairman of the referendum commission, described the result as “decisive”, but said that the country’s people would remain close even after the split. “”North and south are drawn together in indissoluble geographic and historic bonds,” he said.

The southern government’s attention will now focus on several pressingissues that need to be resolved with Bashir’s regime before July. They include demarcation of the common border and a decision of what to do about Abyei, a coveted region whose own referendum on whether to join the north or south was postponed after Khartoum insisted that northern nomads be allowed to vote.

There also needs to be a deal on oil. More than three quarters of Sudan’s oil reserves lie in the south, but the only pipeline runs through the north.

The south also requires a name; options being considered include Nile Republic and Cush.

But if today’s results announcement was anything to go by, it will stick with what it’s got. “Bless the name of this land, Southern Sudan,” said Episcopalian Archbishop Daniel Deng as he opened the ceremony.

Protests in the north

If the loss of the south – and most of the Sudan’s oil reserves – were not bad enough, Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir is under increasing pressure in the north.

Many there blame Bashir for the country’s economic woes and, while his vast security apparatus means his grip on power remains strong, there are increasing signs of dissent.

Inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, groups of young Sudanese men and women took to the streets today in rare protests, demanding that Bashir and his government should resign. However, the demonstrators announced their intentions in advance through social networking sites, so police detained numerous people on Saturday night and riot police were deployed in central Khartoum this morning.

They beat and arrested people chanting slogans such as “revolution until victory” and “we are ready to die for Sudan” and officers blocked the entrances to four universities in the capital. News agency reports suggested that more than 2,000 people, many of them students, joined the protests.

Analysts say poor policies and government overspending have caused Sudan’s economy to falter, with prices of basic goods rising fast and the Sudanese pound being devalued as a result.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Egypt protests: Hosni Mubarak in frantic bid to cling on to power” was written by Peter Beaumont and Jack Shenker in Cairo and Paul Harris in New York, for The Observer on Sunday 30th January 2011 00.00 UTC

Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak was desperately trying to cling to power last night as troops opened fire in an attempt to keep tens of thousands of protesters from storming the interior ministry and state-run television and radio stations.

The president’s attempt to mollify the demonstrators by sacking his government 24 hours earlier had failed and the leader of the largest Arab nation was facing an ignoble and violent end to his 30 years in power. The streets rang out with anti-government slogans and the cry “Mubarak, your plane is ready”.

The president, 82, who has not picked a vice-president since he took office in 1981, appointed his intelligence chief and confidant, Omar Suleiman, to the post. The step indicates for the first time a possible succession plan and also suggests that Mubarak’s son, Gamal, long seen as the leader-in-waiting, has been pushed out of the picture.

Suleiman, 74, has taken a close role in key policy areas, including the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, an issue seen as vital to Egypt’s relationship with the US, its key ally and aid donor.

Last night, even as the death toll from confrontations between the security forces and the protesters reached 100 and hospitals were overwhelmed with casualties, there were even more people on the streets of the country’s major cities after dark, defying an army-backed curfew. Small-arms fire was heard throughout the night.

The chief of staff of Egypt’s armed forces, Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Enan, cut short a visit to meet the American joint chiefs of staffs as news spread that some troops were refusing to open fire on unarmed protesters.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty about where the army stands right now,” said Karim Ennarah, who was taking part in protests in Cairo. “They are telling people that the tanks have moved in to protect them, and people are showing great warmth in return, dancing on tanks and hugging and kissing soldiers. It looks as if the soldiers are unwilling to launch attacks on the crowds, although senior officers are pleading with protesters to respect the curfew and go home.”

There was speculation that the generals would persuade Mubarak to step down to avoid a total breakdown. Looters have broken into the Egyptian Museum, which hold the treasures of Tutankhamun, destroying a number of mummies. Attempts were also made to break into the national bank. Reports emerged of gunfire in the affluent Cairo neighbourhood of Mahdi. Local men were in the street with clubs and chains to prevent any looting.

Mubarak was rocked by the resignation of a senior member of his ruling party, Ahmed Ezz, a close friend of his son. Further pressure was heaped on him by the Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, who said Mubarak should step down and set a framework for transition of power as the only way to end unrest. The former head of the UN nuclear watchdog told al-Jazeera that Mubarak’s speech, in which he said he would form a new government, was “disappointing” for Egyptians.

David Cameron spoke to Mubarak last night to express his “grave concern” about violence against anti-government protesters in Egypt. The prime minister urged the embattled leader to “take bold steps to accelerate political reform and build democratic legitimacy” rather than attempt to repress dissent, according to Downing Street.

In a joint statement with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Cameron added: “The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances and a longing for a just and better future. We urge President Mubarak to embark on a process of transformation which should be reflected in a broad-based government and in free and fair elections.”

ElBaradei, a possible candidate in Egypt’s presidential election this year, flew back to Cairo from Vienna on Thursday. He said: “The system of Hosni Mubarak has failed to achieve the political, economic and social demands of the Egyptian people and we want to build a new Egypt founded on freedom, democracy and social justice. The main demand is that President Mubarak announces clearly that he will resign, or that he will not run again.”

Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to Egypt, said of the demonstrations: “I’m struck by the variety of age, of class, of gender. It’s across the board, you can see it – you can see the variety of people there. It’s not, from my perception, religiously driven. This is not the Muslim Brotherhood. The important thing that we have to focus on is to try to maintain a state of order where what President Mubarak talks of, a national dialogue, can take place.”

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said: “The kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and government declares it stands with all its resources with the government of Egypt and its people.” The Saudi stock market, the Arab world’s largest, dropped 6.43% amid the rising tensions. Traders fear that other Gulf markets could experience similar falls.

President Obama spoke to Mubarak on the phone, issuing a stern warning that promises of reform had to be followed by meaningful action. It was still a far way from abandoning a man who has been a trusted and loyal ally of successive US administrations. But it was a rapid shift of gears from just 24 hours previously and it was essentially driven entirely by the protesters on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria.

The situation is even more complex for Washington’s other allies in the region, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In all those countries ordinary people have watched agog at the protests and then taken to the streets in varying degrees to try to kickstart their own protests. Leaders may have to walk the same tightrope Mubarak is trying to walk: balancing promises of reform with keeping control.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Russian investigators uncover identity of Moscow bomber” was written by Gavriel Hollander, for The Observer on Sunday 30th January 2011 00.08 UTC

Russian investigators have said they now know the identity of the suicide bomber who claimed the lives of 35 people in an attack on Moscow’s busiest airport last Monday.

The attacker is a 20-year-old man from the unsettled Caucasus region in the south of the country. Islamist rebels have been battling to form an independent state in the region for several years.

Federal investigators have yet to name the man amid fears that it would damage efforts to arrest the masterminds behind the attack on Domodedovo airport. “It was no accident that the terrorist attack was carried out in the international arrivals hall,” the investigators said. “The terrorist attack was aimed first and foremost at foreign citizens.”

One Briton was killed in the blast, along with nationals from Germany, Austria, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. A further 180 people were wounded. The British man was named earlier in the week as father Gordon Cousland. The 39-year-old businessman was to marry his fiancee, with whom he has a six-month-old daughter, in April.

President Dmitry Medvedev has criticised transport and police officials and promised tighter security checks. He said security had been in a “state of anarchy” prior to the attack.

Medvedev has sacked Andrei Alexeyev, the head of the transport police for Russia’s central region, as well as the police chief at the airport and two of his deputies. He has also ordered a criminal investigation into the security lapses that led to the attack.

The blast has cast doubts on Russia’s ability to attract foreign tourism and investment. It comes as the country is gearing up to host the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2018 World Cup.

Caucasus insurgents have claimed responsibility for a number of deadly attacks in Russia in recent years. In March 2010, rebels bombed the Moscow underground system, killing 40 people. One of two suicide bombers blew up a metro station directly underneath the headquarters of the Federal Security Service (known in Russia as the FSB) – the successor to the Soviet-era KGB.

“There is always a message,” said independent security analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. “If the message with the metro bombings was to show the FSB that they are not out of reach, then the message here is that foreigners should keep away from Russia, it’s a dangerous place. The point was to scare off foreigners, not to maybe kill them, but to hit Russia’s image [and] its economy.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.