British aid worker Helen Johnston was rescued along with a Kenyan aid worker and two Afghan aid workers, who were abducted in May, British Foreign Office confirmed on Saturday.
The life sentence for Egypt's former President Hosni Mubarak, which was issued by the New Cairo criminal court Saturday, left Egyptian expatriates in Dubai divided over the degree of punishment and their country's future, Xinhua learnt in a quick survey.
Panelists talk about how to protect children without censoring the Internet in Qatar
I’m in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar for a two-day conference where representatives of government, non-profits and businesses from throughout the Middle East will join their counterparts from other regions to discuss “Promoting Online Safety and Cyber Ethics in the Middle East.” The conference is run by the Washington-based Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) along with ICTQatar. Sponsors include Google, Microsoft and Vodaone.
Social media and Arab Spring
I came to moderate a panel on the impact of social networking where speakers from Facebook, Yahoo, Aljazeera and OfokSystem talked about the role social networks like Facebook and Twitter played in Arab spring. Although conditions on the ground in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries were responsible for the unrest, social networking provided a vehicle for protestors to spread the word and organize protests. There was a general consensus among the speakers that the best path for governments going forward is to encourage openness and a free flow of information lest other leaders risk following in the footsteps of ousted Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
David Gross
The conference’s opening sessions featured a discussion between FOSI CEO Stephen Balkam and former U.S. ambassador David A. Gross, who took delegates on a walk down memory lane about the history of Internet regulation in the U.S. and Europe.
Balkam asked Gross to comment on the tension between the tendencies to want to protect children via Internet regulation and government imposed filtering vs. wanting to promote free speech.
“Every parent naturally as a matter of biology as well as intellect wants to protect children,” said Gross. “A lot of these issues are variations of an old theme with each country wanting to make its decisions in their own way based on their own culture.”
But what’s different is that kids are often more tech savvy than adults. “The extraordinary and maybe unprecedented twist is that technology and Internet related technology seems to be more intuitive for young people than the adults who are making the rules.”
Gross said that the Internet does not lend itself to being heavily regulated by government but instead “a more organic multi-stakeholder approach that includes government but also schools, parents, non-governmental organizations and corporations “coming together to field their way through it.”
Changes over time
Gross pointed out that the difference between the nineties and now “is that the issues are more complex,” thanks in part to cloud computing and the rise of international companies like Google and Microsoft. Also, the discussion, which used to be between Europe and the U.S. is now “a conversation that is truly global which means that the complexities have gone up enormously. Instead of two players you now have 100+ players,” he said.
Recognizing cultural differences among countries, Gross does not advocate a one-size-fits all policy. “Ultimately there are going to have to be accommodations and how these things get resolved will fundamentally determine the economic well being of many countries.” While this may seem daunting, he’s optimistic that it can be worked out. “With technology and clever policy making everyone will be able to live within their own set of rules.”
In the past, said Gross, “what your future would turn out to be depended mostly on who your parents were and where you were born but, because of the Internet, that is no longer the case.” Access is truly global and truly open, but the danger, he added,”is from those who will shut that down.”
The conference is being held in conjunction Qitcom 2012, a technology exhibition and conference that features technology companies from around the world seeking business opportunities in Qatar and neighboring states. Forbes lists Qatar as the world’s richest country while the CIA World Fact book estimates Qatar’s per capita GDP at $102,700.
While Internet safety advocates and tech professionals were meeting at the FOSI and Qitcom events in one part of the city, eight heads of state from the Arab region, government ministers and Arab tech industry leaders were participating in the Connect Arab Summit to talk about expanding technology opportunities in the region.
The new year is witnessing an escalation of a Western economic blockade against Iran while it has been claimed that Israel is preparing for a military strike. Can a war against Iran be avoided?
THE risk of the world being engulfed in a new and dangerous war is increasing. In recent weeks, Iran has come under greater pressure over its nuclear programme, and the chances of this leading to military conflict have escalated.
A recent article in New York Times magazine revealed that senior Israeli leaders were preparing for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012.
The United States has intensified its initiative on trade and financial sanctions on Iran.
Republican candidates for the Presidency have been using high anti-Iran rhetoric.
And there is the possibility in a Presidential election year that the incumbent President may start a war to gain popularity.
In his State of the Union speech last week, President Barack Obama said he would take no option off the table to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Europe recently announced an embargo on Iranian oil. The European Union foreign ministers decided there would be no further oil contracts between its member states and Iran, and that existing oil delivery deals would be allowed to run only until July.
These actions are purportedly aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But Iran has insisted its research programme is for developing nuclear power, not weapons.
And there is no evidence that it is in fact developing, or intending to develop, weapons.
There is a danger of dramatic escalation of the present conflict through one of various scenarios, such as an Israeli attack on Iran (with or without United States assistance or approval) or an incident in the Persian Gulf involving Western and Iranian ships.
The US has doubled the number of aircraft carriers near the Persian Gulf, while French and British warships recently accompanied the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln into the Gulf.
These developments are creating the conditions for a slide into a catastrophic war.
On Jan 25, the New York Times carried an article – “Will Israel attack Iran?”– by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, an analyst who interviewed Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak, vice-premier Moshe Ya’alon and others.
“After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012,” wrote Bergman.
This determination to strike comes despite many difficulties, listed by Bergman.
Iran has dispersed its nuclear installations throughout its vast territory, and Israel has limited air power and no aircraft carrier.
Even if an attack were successful, Iran would be able to rebuild the damaged or wrecked sites. And Iran had declared that it would strike back if attacked.
There is of course irony and double standards in this situation.
While Israel and the West decry the consequences if Iran obtains nuclear weapons capability, it is well known that Israel itself owns many nuclear weapons.
And while Iran is often accused by the same countries of sponsoring terrorism, Iran itself has been the victim of terrorist attacks and economic and technological sabotage.
Bergman’s article provides many details of many of the covert actions taken by Israel against Iran.
The Israeli secret service Mossad was given “virtually unlimited funds and powers” to stop the Iranian bomb through a five-front strategy that involved “political pressure, covert measures, counter-proliferation, sanctions and regime change”.
The moves against Iran include boycotting of financial institutions, the use of computer viruses to disrupt the operations of the nuclear project, tampering with components and the supply of faulty parts and raw materials, explosions at various facilities, and the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists.
The article implies that Israel has been involved in, or approves of, these actions, although it does not explicitly admit to them.
Meanwhile, Iran insists it is not intending to develop nuclear weapons, and there has been no evidence that it is doing so.
Iran’s enemies are fearful it will develop a technical capability for developing weapons as it pursues its nuclear energy programme.
Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt, a former Fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the US National Academy of Sciences, and scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, has said Iran was not doing anything that violated its legal right to develop nuclear technology.
Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability or option.
If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector, it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability, and several countries that do not have weapons, do have this capability.
Meanwhile, Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service reported that several influential foreign policy figures in the US (who used to be Iraq war hawks) were speaking up against military action on Iran.
“We’re doing this terrible thing all over again,” wrote Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and previously a Iraq-war hawk.
Kenneth Pollack, whose 2002 book on Iraq was cited frequently by hawks before the Iraq invasion, argued not only against any further escalation, but also suggested that the US-EU sanctions were proving counterproductive.
Princeton University professor Anne-Marie Slaughter argued that the West and Iran were playing a “dangerous game of chicken” and that the West’s current course “leaves Iran’s government no alternative between publicly backing down, which it will not do, and escalating its provocations”.
“The more publicly the West threatens Iran, the more easily Iranian leaders can portray America as the Great Satan,” wrote Slaughter, formerly director of policy planning under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
It remains to be seen if cooler heads will indeed prevail so that a new war against Iran is avoided.
Even in the West there is little chance of stable jobs or affordable education. A secure and dignified life seems even more remote for most. Across the world, the rage will grow.
Image Credit: AP
Supporters of Anna Hazare wave Indian flags and shout slogans during 12th day of Hazare’s fast against corruption in New Delhi on Saturday.
In India, tens of thousands of middle-class people respond to a quasi-Gandhian activist’s call for a second freedom struggle — this time, against the country’s venal “brown masters”, as one protester told the Wall Street Journal. Middle-class Israelis demanding “social justice” turn out for their country’s first major demonstrations in years. In China, the state broadcaster CCTV unprecedentedly joins millions of cyber-critics in blaming a government that placed wealth creation above social welfare for the fatal high-speed train crash last month.
Add to this the uprisings against kleptocracies in Egypt and Tunisia, the street protests in Greece and Spain, and you are looking at a fresh political awakening. The grievances may be diversely phrased, but public anger derives from the same source: extreme and seemingly insurmountable inequality.
As Forbes magazine, that well-known socialist tool, describes it, protesters everywhere are driven by “the conviction that the power structure, corporate and government, work together to screw the broad middle class” (and the working class too, whose distress is not usually examined in Forbes).
For years now, the mantra of ‘econ-omic growth’ justified government interventions on behalf of big business and investors with generous tax breaks (and, in the West, the rescue of criminally reckless speculators with massive bailouts). The fact that a few people get very rich while the majority remains poor seemed of little importance as long as the GDP figures looked impressive.
In heavily populated countries like India, even a small number of people moving into the middle class made for an awe-inspiring spectacle.
Helped by a ‘patriotic’ corporate media, you could easily ignore the bad news — the suicides, for instance, of hundreds of thousands of farmers. However, the illusions of globalisation shattered when even its putative beneficiaries — the educated and aspiring classes — began to hurt from high inflation, decreasing access to education and other opportunities for upward mobility.
False promises
Economic growth is no defence against the frustration of the semi-empowered. The economies of both India and Israel have recorded dramatic growth in recent years. But inequality has also grown spectacularly. The Financial Times, which recently compared India’s oligarchic business families to Russia’s mafia-capitalists, pointed out two weeks ago that “the 10 largest business families in Israel own about 30 per cent of the stock market value” while one quarter of Israeli families live below the poverty line.
Last month the Indian supreme court blamed increasing social violence in the country on the “false promises of ever-increasing spirals of consumption leading to economic growth that will lift everyone”.
Obviously it is not the supreme court’s remit to define India’s economic policies. Nor should Anna Hazare be entrusted with establishing the office of an anti-corruption ombudsman, a mission that amounts to nothing in a country littered with compromised and impotent institutions.
Still, they respond, however incoherently, to a crisis of legitimacy afflicting their country’s highest institutions, and their supposed watchdog, the media.
In the last decade, billionaires, ‘billionaire-friendly’ legislators and CEO-worshipping journalists have together constituted what the political economist Ha Joon Chang calls a “powerful propaganda machine, a financial-intellectual complex backed by money and power”.
Nevertheless, the real facts about ‘economic growth’ are getting through to those most vulnerable to it in both the east and the west: the young.
Denouncing “the corruption among politicians, businessmen and bankers” that leaves “us helpless, without a voice”, the manifesto of the Spanish indignados could have been authored by the Indian supporters of Hazare.
Even as they export jobs and capital to Asia, economic globalisers in the West continue to preach the importance of upgrading skills at home. Yet the dead-end of globalisation looms clearly before Europe and America’s youth: little chance of stable employment, or even affordable education.
The violence in European cities this year comes at the end of a long cycle of steady socio-economic growth. In postcolonial India and China this cycle had barely begun before it began to splutter. A secure and dignified life seems even more remote for most.
Worried by the prospect of social unrest, China’s leaders frankly describe their nation’s apparently booming economy as “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and ultimately unsustainable”.
The Chinese philosopher Zhang Junmai once wrote that an agrarian country has few ‘material demands’ and can exist over a long period of time with ‘poverty but equality, scarcity but peace’. Returning to an austere age of wisely managed expectations is no longer possible — even if it was desirable. It remains to be seen what political forms this summer’s unrest will take. But there is no doubt that many more people across a wide swathe of the world will awaken with rage to what Zhang warned against: “A condition of prosperity without equality, wealth without peace.”
Pankaj Mishra’s new book The Revenge of the East will be published next year
The US wants to turn the Arab revolutions into eastern Europe part 2. It is destined to fail
The US wants to turn the Arab revolutions into eastern Europe part 2. It is destined to fail
The first wave of Arab revolutions is entering its second phase: dismantling the structures of political despotism, and embarking on the arduous journey towards genuine change and democratisation. The US, at first confused by the loss of key allies, is now determined to dictate the course and outcome of this ongoing revolution.
What had been a challenge to US power is now a “historic opportunity”, as Barack Obama put it in his Middle East speech last week. But he does not mean an opportunity for the people who have risen up; it is a chance for Washington to fashion the region’s present and future, just as it did its past. When Obama talks of his desire “to pursue the world as it should be” he does not mean according to the yearnings of its people, but according to US interests.
And how is this new world to be built? The model is that of eastern Europe and the colour revolutions; American soft power and public diplomacy is to be used to reshape the socio-political scene in the region. The aim is to transform the people’s revolutions into America’s revolutions by engineering a new set of docile, domesticated and US-friendly elites. This involves not only co-opting old friends from the pre-revolutionary era, but also seeking to contain the new forces produced by the revolution, long marginalised by the US.
As Obama put it last week: “We must … reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people … [and] provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned.” To this end he has doubled the budget for “protecting civil society groups” from $1.5m to $3.4m.
The recipients are not only the usual neoliberal elements, but also activists who spearheaded the protest movements, and mainstream Islamists. Programmes aimed at youth leaders include the Leaders for Democracy Arabic project, sponsored by the US state department’s Middle East partnership initiative. A number of Arab activists, including the Egyptian democracy and human rights activist Esraa Abdel Fattah, were invited to an event hosted by the Project on Middle East Democracy in Washington last month – one of many recent conferences and seminars. Meetings between high-ranking US officials – such as the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer – and the Muslim Brotherhood took place in Cairo last month, while the deputy chairman of Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda party has recently returned from a visit to Washington to “discuss democratic transition”.
Washington hopes that these rising forces can be stripped of their ideological opposition to US hegemony and turned into pragmatists, fully integrated into the existing US-led international order. Dogma is not a problem, as long as the players agree to operate within parameters delineated for them, and play the power game without questioning its rules. It remains to be seen, however, if they risk losing their popular base in return for US favours.
Containment and integration are not only political, but economic, to be pursued through free markets and trade partnerships in the name of economic reform. Plans “to stabilise and modernise” the Tunisian and Egyptian economies – already being drafted by the World Bank, IMF and European Development Bank at Washington’s behest – are due to be presented at this week’s G8 summit. A $2bn facility to support private investment has been announced, one of many initiatives “modelled on funds that supported the transitions in eastern Europe”.
As usual, investment and aid are conditional on adoption of the US model in the name of liberalisation and reform, and on binding the region’s economies further to US and European markets under the banner of “trade integration”. One wonders what would be left of the Arab revolutions in such infiltrated civil societies, domesticated political parties, and dependent economies.
However, although the Obama administration may succeed with some Arab organisations, its bid to reproduce the eastern European scenario may be destined to fail. Prague and Warsaw looked to the US for inspiration, but for the people of Cairo, Tunis and Sana’a the US is the equivalent of the Soviet Union in eastern Europe: it is the problem, not the solution. To Arabs, the US is a force of occupation draped in a thin cloak of democracy and human rights.
No one could have offered stronger evidence of such a view than Obama himself, who began his Middle East speech with eulogies to freedom and the equality of all men, and ended it with talk of the “Jewishness of Israel”, in effect denying the citizenship rights of 20% of its Arab inhabitants and the right of return of 6 million Palestinian refugees. In vain does the US try to reconcile the irreconcilable – to preach democracy, while occupying and aiding occupation.
Gaddafi’s ‘command and control capability’ destroyed says official
An air strike against an administrative building in a compound including Muammar Gaddafi’s residence in Tripoli has destroyed the Libyan leader’s “command and control capability”, a coalition official says.
“The coalition is actively enforcing UNSCR [UN Security Council Resolution] 1973, and that in keeping with that mission, we continue to strike those targets which pose a direct threat to the Libyan people and to our ability to implement the no-fly zone,” the official added.
Seen through night-vision lenses, guided missile destroyer USS Barry fires Tomahawk cruise missiles in the Mediterranean Sea. Photo: US Navy
The building, which was about 50 metres from the tent where Colonel Gaddafi generally meets guests, was flattened.
An AFP journalist on Sunday saw smoke billowing from the residence and barracks at Bab el-Aziziya in the south of the Libyan capital as anti-aircraft guns fired shots.
But the US denied targeting the residence or Gaddafi himself.
I can guarantee he’s not on the targeting list. We’re not targeting his residence,’’ vice admiral Bill Gortney told reporters at a Pentagon press conference.
Civilian casualities a risk: Rudd
Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd said people should be very sceptical of Colonel Gaddafi’s claims that allied actions had already resulted in civilian casualties.
American, British and French forces would use the “absolute best” targeting strategies to avoid killing civilians, Mr Rudd said.
“I think it’s realistic to assume, however, that that ongoing risk exists,” Mr Rudd told the Seven Network.
Mr Rudd said it was important to see this week’s initial bombardment as “phase one” in a multi-phase operation.
“This will be a long process,” he told ABC television today.
Asked just how long he envisioned the intervention would last, Mr Rudd said: “I’m not prepared to speculate on timelines here. The truth is, these operations are invariably very difficult, very complex, very time-consuming, very resource-intensive.’’
Defence Minister Stephen Smith said reports so far indicated there had been no civilian casualties from the allied air attacks.
“But of course in the fog of war we need to wait a bit of time to satisfy ourselves that that is absolutely the case,” he told Sky News.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Colonel Gaddafi had been given the opportunity to stop the violence.
“He chose not to do that,” she told reporters.
“He chose to continue the violence, to continue the bloodshed.”
End Gaddafi’s rule?
Ms Gillard dodged a question on whether the intervention should seek to end Colonel Gaddafi’s rule.
“The motivator here is our responsibility to protect as human beings the people of Libya,” she said.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said it would be “unwise” to have coalition forces go after Colonel Gaddafi.
Mr Gates said the intervention was backed by a diverse coalition but expanding its goals would complicate the consensus.
There are indications that the consensus is already on shaky ground.
Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa has reportedly criticised Western military strikes on Libya even though he pushed for a no-fly zone.
“What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians,” Mr Mussa has been quoted as saying.
But Mr Rudd said Mr Mussa may have been misquoted or mistranslated.
“There is now genuine uncertainty about what he has said,” Mr Rudd said.
“Knowing how strongly Amr Moussa felt about this when I’ve been in contact with him, I’d be surprised if his views have been represented completely accurately.”
But strategic specialist Hugh White warned the politics surrounding the intervention were going to get more complicated.
“The Arabs have woken up and discovered they have supported not just something which is meant to stop Gaddafi flying his jets but something which is going to involve air attacks on land targets,” Professor White said.
UK fires cruise missile from sub
British forces fired Tomahawk missiles at air defence targets on Sunday night from a Trafalgar-class submarine stationed in the Mediterranean off the Libyan coast, the Ministry of Defence said.
The operation came as a Libyan military spokesman announced a new ceasefire in the campaign against a military uprising.
But US President Barack Obama’s national security aide Tom Donilon said the ceasefire “isn’t true” or has been “immediately violated”.
UK officials said Britain would consider the promise of a ceasefire on “actions not words”, as more war planes left for the theatre from eastern England.
Libyan spokesman Milad Fokehi said the ceasefire, effective from 9pm local time on Sunday (0600 AEDT Monday), had been decided following an African Union call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
“In line with the statement published by the African Union panel at Nouakchott on Saturday and UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, the high command of the armed forces ordered a ceasefire from Sunday at 9pm,” he said.
Colonel Gaddafi’s regime had declared a ceasefire on Friday after UN Security Council resolution 1973 authorised any necessary measures, including a no-fly zone, to stop his forces harming civilians in the fight against the rebels.
But his troops continued an assault on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, prompting US, British and French forces to intervene with air strikes in line with the resolution.
Western coalition strikes stem from a “big misunderstanding” about the nature of Libya’s rebellion, Colonel Gaddafi’s son said, claiming the rebels were “gangsters” and “terrorists”.
‘Big misunderstanding’
Saif al-Islam, a key figure in the Gaddafi regime who had been tipped as a future Libyan leader, has defiantly denied there’s any reason for his father to step aside.
“There is a big misunderstanding,” he told ABC’s This Week program on Sunday. “The whole country is united against the armed militia and the terrorists.
“Our people went to Benghazi to liberate Benghazi from the gangsters and the armed militia,” he said, referring to the rebel bastion in eastern Libya.
“So if you, if the Americans want to help the Libyan people in Benghazi … go to Benghazi and liberate Benghazi from the militia and the terrorists.”
US, British and French forces have launched the West’s biggest intervention in the Arab world since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, firing more than 120 Tomahawk Cruise missiles and conducting bombing raids on key Libyan targets.
US military officials say the strikes have stopped Colonel Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks.
Asked if the Gaddafi regime would retaliate by launching strikes on Western commercial aircraft, Saif al-Islam responded: “No, this is not our target.
“Our target is how to help our people in Libya, especially in Benghazi. Believe me, they are living a nightmare. A nightmare, really.”
Gillard backs Libyan action, as strikes continue
Prime Minister Julia Gillard backs the US, British and French military action in Libya, while Gaddafi tells state television his forces will fight back.
Over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired
French carry out four air strikes
US warships, British submarine involved
Claims of 48 dead, 150 injured
Gaddafi vows to retaliate in Mediterranean
Update: The US, Britain and France have pounded Libya with Tomahawk missiles and air strikes, sparking fury from Muammar Gaddafi who declared the Mediterranean to be a “battlefield”.
In a dramatic show of force, US warships and a British submarine fired at least 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya on Saturday against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s anti-aircraft missiles and radar, the US military said.
Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn on Saturday. Photo: US Navy Visual News Service/AFP
Admiral William Gortley told reporters at the Pentagon that the cruise missiles “struck more than 20 integrated air defence systems and other air defence facilities ashore”.
An AFP correspondent said bombs were dropped early on Sunday near Bab al-Aziziyah, Gaddafi’s Tripoli headquarters, prompting barrages of anti-aircraft fire from Libyan forces.
There were earlier reports that hundreds of people had gathered to serve as human shields at Bab al-Aziziyah and at the capital’s international airport.
Smoke billows over the outskirts of Benghazi, eastern Libya, after a warplane was shot down Saturday. Photo: AP
Libyan state television said 48 people were killed and 150 injured in the assaults, which began with a strike at dawn on Saturday by a French warplane on a vehicle the French military said belonged to pro-Gaddafi forces.
Libyan state media said Western warplanes bombed civilian targets in Tripoli, causing casualties while an army spokesman said strikes also hit fuel tanks feeding the rebel-held city of Misrata, east of Tripoli.
Gaddafi, in a brief audio message broadcast on state television, fiercely denounced the attacks as a “barbaric, unjustified Crusaders’ aggression”.
A Libyan fighter plane takes a hit and crashes in Benghazi. Photo: AFP; AP
He vowed retaliatory strikes on military and civilian targets in the Mediterranean, which he said had been turned into a “real battlefield”.
“Now the arms depots have been opened and all the Libyan people are being armed,” to fight against Western forces, the veteran leader warned.
Libya’s foreign ministry said that in the wake of the attacks, it regarded as invalid a United Nations resolution ordering a ceasefire by its forces and demanded an urgent meeting of the Security Council.
How Gaddafi’s forces stack up
The attacks on Libya “threatens international peace and security”, the foreign ministry said in a statement.
“Libya demands an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council after the French-American-British aggression against Libya, an independent state member of the United Nations,” the statement said.
On Thursday, the Security Council passed Resolution 1973, which authorised the use of “all necessary means” to protect civilians and enforce a ceasefire and no-fly zone against Gaddafi’s forces.
Thousands of Libyans, including children, formed a human shield against possible air strikes by allied forces at Gaddafi’s compound. Photo: Reuters
The following day, Libya declared a ceasefire in its battle to crush an armed revolt against Gaddafi’s regime which began on February 15 and said it had grounded its warplanes.
As a result of the Western attacks, however, “the effect of resolution 1973 imposing a no-fly zone are over”, the ministry statement said.
State television, quoting a security official, said Libya had also decided to suspend cooperation with Europe in the fight against illegal immigration due to the attacks.
Boats carrying thousands of undocumented migrants, mainly Tunisians, have landed on the Italian island of Lampedusa in recent weeks putting a heavy strain on Italy’s immigration infrastructure.
US President Barack Obama, on a visit to Brazil, said he had given the green light for the operation.
“Today, I authorised the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya,” Obama said in Brasilia, but stressed that operation “Odyssey Dawn” would not send US troops to Libya.
The first Tomahawk missile struck on Saturday evening following air strikes carried out earlier by French warplanes, Admiral Gortney, director of the US joint staff, said in Washington.
“It’s a first phase of a multi-phase operation” to enforce the UN resolution and prevent the Libyan regime from using force “against its own people”, he said.
One British submarine joined with other US ships and submarines in the missile attacks, he said.
The first strikes took place near Libya’s coast, notably around Tripoli and Misrata, “because that’s where the integrated missile defence systems are”.
Russia’s foreign ministry expressed regret over the attacks and said Security Council Resolution 1973 was “adopted in haste”, while the African Union, which opposed military action, on Sunday called for an “immediate stop” to all attacks.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said he held Gaddafi responsible for the situation in his country.
“Tonight, British forces are in action over Libya. They are part of an international coalition that has come together to enforce the will of the United Nations and to protect the Libyan people,” Cameron said in London late on Saturday.
“We have all seen the appalling brutality that Colonel Gaddafi has meted out against his own people and far from introducing the ceasefire he spoke about he has actually stepped up the attacks and the brutality.”
In the rebel camp, celebratory gunfire and honking of car horns broke out in Al-Marj, 100 kilometres from Benghazi, to welcome the start of military operations against Gaddafi, correspondents said.
Earlier on Saturday thousands fled Benghazi as Gaddafi loyalists pounded the eastern city, the rebels’ stronghold, with shells and tank fire after two early-morning air strikes.
Since Friday, the Libyan government has insisted it was observing a self-declared ceasefire. It said its armed forces had come under attack on Saturday west of Benghazi, including by rebel aircraft, and had responded in self-defence.
But the rebels, who have been trying to overthrow the Libyan leader for more than a month, said government troops had continued to bombard cities, violating the ceasefire continuously.
In another Middle East hotspot, medics in Yemen on Saturday raised to 52 the death toll from a sniper attack on protesters in Sanaa the previous day, as thousands rallied despite a state of emergency.
And security forces in Syria fired tear gas on Saturday at mourners burying two men killed in a protest in the southern city of Daraa the previous day, wounding several, rights activists said.
Despite calls on the Internet to emulate the political unrest in Middle-Eastern and African nations, most Chinese prefer to stay away from even peaceful strolls – they are happy with the direction China has taken thus far.
CHINA has every reason to believe that a Middle East or North African-style uprising would not occur in the country.
Time is still on the Communist Party-led government’s side to set everything right and show its people that it will be able to address inflation, their grievances on social injustice, corruption and lack of democracy.
In general, the Chinese are quite happy with the way the government has propelled the nation to economic and social successes.
Nevertheless, the minority pre-democracy activists circulated messages on the Internet, encouraging the public to take to the streets in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and other cities for a peaceful stroll every Sunday.
However, in the past four weeks, few actually turned up.
The preventive measures taken by China, like blackouts of postings calling for revolts on the Net and reminders to university students against gatherings were effective, not to mention the large police presence at the suggested places of protests.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry, pressed by the foreign media on the issue, described the issue as something “created out of thin air”.
Last week, its minister Yang Jiechi said that he had not seen any sign of tension in China. Rather, its people had a joyful Lunar New Year and are focussed on pursuing development.
After the Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC) session in Beijing on Monday, premier Wen Jiabao told reporters it was not right to draw parallels between China and the troubled countries.
“After 30 years of reforms and opening up, China has achieved rapid economic and social development,” he said.
“I believe the Chinese people have seen that the government is taking serious steps to address the challenges and problems brought about by development.”
He said although China had become the world’s second largest economy, its people were aware that China remained a developing country with a huge population, weak economic foundation and uneven development.
He dismissed suggestions that China had developed its very own model that could be emulated by other countries.
“We simply embarked on a path that fits China’s conditions.”
Wen hinted that China would continue to push for political reforms that the Communist Party deemed necessary to vitalise both the party and country.
He cited elections for NPC deputies at county and cities without districts, full administrative power in villages, indirect elections at and above city levels, and multi-candidates elections for members of the party’s central committees, as some examples of China’s efforts to promote democracy.
“Nothing in this world stays immutable and it is only through reform that we ensure continuous existence and growth,” he added.
However, Wu Bangguo, chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, China’s top legislative body, told about 3,000 deputies that China would not adopt a multi-party rotation system or other Western political systems.
“Following our own path and promoting socialism with Chinese characteristics is the only correct road to development for China. If we waver, it is possible the country will suffer internal disorder,” he said.
Two weeks after comprehensive foreign media coverage on the protests, several state-owned newspapers finally voiced out their views.
Thegovernment’s mouthpiece People’s Daily said that while the world was reeling from the loss of lives in the Middle Eastern nations, crippled by political turmoil, some quarters with ulterior motives were hoping that the Chinese would embark on similar street protests.
“China is not the Middle East. The Chinese are taking small steps to become prosperous. They deeply understand that if they want to lead a better life the precondition is a stable society,” the daily said.
Chen Jingqiu, a member of the China Association for Promoting Democracy and Chinese Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), said the government was trying its best to address the people’s grievances on government transparency and social injustice.
“The government will have to meet some benchmark in running the country, and the CPPCC members and NPC deputies will gauge their performance,” he said.
“More importantly, we must sort out our domestic relations. I believe revolutionary protests like those in the Middle East and North Africa will not happen in China.”
BEIJING — China’s Premier Wen Jiabao rejected any comparison Monday between his country and the unrest-hit Middle East, but said Beijing faced a tough test dealing with inflation and other hot-button issues.
“We face extremely daunting tasks and complex domestic and international situations,” Wen told reporters in an annual press briefing after the close of the nation’s parliament session.
China’s ruling Communist Party is grappling with a range of problems such as inflation, official corruption, huge environmental degradation, and land grabs by property developers who kick off existing residents.
The leadership has thus watched with concern the unrest that has hit several nations in the Middle East and North Africa, but Wen rejected any comparison between China and those countries.
“We have followed closely the turbulence in some North African and Middle Eastern countries. We believe it is not right to draw an analogy between China and those countries,” Wen told reporters.
Beijing has targeted more balanced and sustainable development and fairer distribution of wealth under a new growth plan for the next five years that calls for a more moderate seven percent annual economic expansion.
The plan was approved by the congress on Monday.
Wen said balanced development will remain the government’s priority but admitted it will be a challenge keeping growth in the world’s second-largest economy fast enough to create jobs, but moderate enough to prevent inflation worsening.
“It will not be easy to achieve the seven percent target while also ensuring a good quality of economic development,” he said.
Decades of blistering export-dependent growth have made China’s economy a force in the world, but Beijing has struggled to spread the wealth evenly among its 1.3 billion population.
“Over the next five years and for a long period of time to come in the course of China’s development, we will make the transformation of China’s economic development pattern our priority.”
Inflation tops the government’s agenda and while pledging further efforts to contain rising prices of food, housing and other essentials, Wen likened that battle to the challenge of corralling a tiger.
“Inflation is having a big impact on China, this is a factor that is not easy to control,” he said.
“Inflation is like a tiger; once it gets free, it is difficult to put back in the cage.”
Inflation has remained stubbornly high — 4.9 percent in both January and February — despite a series of policy steps including three recent interest rate hikes.
The consumer price index rose by a more than two-year high of 5.1 percent in November. Inflation has a history of sparking unrest in China, with its hundreds of millions of poor farmers and low-paid workers scraping to get by.
Wen took a swipe at monetary steps taken by the United States, which in November undertook massive stimulus spending known as “quantitative easing” in a bid to jump-start the weak American economy.
“Some countries have pursued a quantitative easing that has caused fluctuations in exchange rates of some currencies and affected global commodity prices,” he said.
China has annually set an eight percent economic growth target — considered the minimum required to keep the economy growing fast enough to stave off social unrest.
That goal is routinely surpassed each year. In 2010, the economy grew 10.3 percent.
Wen called corruption – another key factor inn the Middle East unrest – the “bigger danger” faced by China and said political reform was necessary to help combat it.
“Without political reform, economic reform cannot succeed and the achievements we have made may be lost” Wen said.
WHAT has the problems in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt in common with the Oscars? The answer is Facebook and the Social Network. The latter is the name of the film about the founders of Facebook that won three Oscars. The Egyptian protestors learnt how to socially connect through Facebook, having learnt the techniques of social organisation and use of mobile communication technology from a bunch of Serbs who succeeded in overturning Milosevic in the late-1990s. Foreign Policy magazine calls this Revolution U.
What the problems in the Middle East show is really the breakdown of social capital, as against economic capital and cultural capital. In his 1995 book, Bowling Alone, Harvard Professor Robert Putnam first identified the decline of social capital in the United States which he defined as “connections among individuals social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trust-worthiness that arise from them.”
Modern urban living, when many of us spend time watching TV and doing things alone, reduce the time for social connectivity. Throughout Asia, rural folk lament the loneliness of cities, where there is little friendship and all human transactions are commercial.
An anti-government demonstration in Benghazi, Libya. The problems in the Middle East show a breakdown in social capital. — Reuters
The mobile phone, Facebook, Twitter and the like have transformed the mode of communication between friends, family and even business acquaintances, especially among the young. The Web, as marketing and media people discovered quickly, is the new wonder of social communication, but as people in Egypt and the Middle East also discovered, a power for social mobilisation.
What Putnam lamented was the breakdown of local neighbourhood clubs and societies, where people met to share common hobbies and interests and learn to generate trust and reciprocity with other people. These would include religious societies, bridge clubs or even weekend BBQs. These social capital were mostly voluntary organisations for mutual welfare and support.
As modern life made demands for higher consumption, families had to have dual-incomes in order to afford a higher standard of living, there was less and less time for voluntary social work and more and more time devoted to full-time employment.
Similarly, as government got bigger, the state took care of the functions that civil society used to do, like supervision of hospitals, schools and even cultural affairs. The result was alienation and distance between the individual and others, eroding social capital and trust within society and between individuals and government. This void is not filled by political activity alone.
In Hong Kong, there is emerging a growing sense of resentment against the rich that was not obvious before. Hong Kong has always been a city of contrasting incomes and wealth, but until recently, few envied the rich, because there was a sense that everyone had the same opportunities to become rich. The Hong Kong government has always provided for the basic needs of the poor, with large doses of public housing and one of the finest public health systems in the world.
But as the population ages, even as modern life speeds up, many urban poor feel increasingly alienated and a sense of loss of control over their own lives. This explains the willingness to express their protests either through marches or through anger in the blogs.
In the Middle East, the breakdown of social capital exploded as the connectivity between the masses and the ruling elite has been broken. The three most basic issues are rising population, youth unemployment and corruption of the ruling elite.
In 1990, the population of Egypt was only 58 million and by 2009, the population had risen to 83 million, more than a million a year. Not surprising that youth unemployment was quoted as high as 40%. In Tunisia, the unemployment rate is 14%, but youth unemployment probably double that. With the elites concentrated on building their own nests, it was not surprising that the masses rose up in protest when food prices rose. All these add to social frustration.
There are important lessons for Asia as we embark on faster and faster urbanisation. In the next 30 years, the proportion of Asians in cities will rise from the current 40% to an estimated 53% by 2030 and 65% by 2050.
The urban drift will stress social capital even more, as large populations are moving into cities with infrastructure already creaking at the seams.
But what consolidates social trust and stability is less physical capital (hardware) and more social capital (the software) of how to make cities more liveable and where jobs and job satisfaction are attainable and sustainable. It has become urgent for Asian planners to look into not just hard infrastructure, but also social engineering on a scale never attempted in history.
So far, the faster growth through in East Asia has meant that unemployment levels have been kept at reasonable levels. Most business people see the rising urbanisation as opportunities from investments in real estate and infrastructure, higher middle-class spending and more growing sophisticated cities.
But in reality, the harder stuff is all in creating what Putnam calls bonding social capital and bridging social capital that mutually reinforce each other. Bonding social capital is uniting people who are alike, either on a religious, ethnic or cultural basis.
Bridging social capital is about linking people who are not alike, such as rural-urban differences, religious and ethnic differences. In this global, multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural environment, it is vital that bridging social capital is constantly fostered, nurtured and strengthened.
It is not surprising that Indonesia has been offered as example to North Africa and Egypt as a model of how to deal with such complex social capital. Although Indonesia has had its share of problems in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis and the fall of the Suharto regime, the vigour of social narrative between the different ethnic races and different religions, in a country where 88% are Muslims, is very impressive indeed.
Time for civil society to wake up and for greater efforts to rebuild social capital.
Andrew Sheng is author of the book “From Asian to Global Financial Crisis” and adjunct professor at the Tsinghua University and University of Malaya.
THE situation in Libya is fast deteriorating, but not as much as the diplomatic environment abroad concerning Libya.
Over the weekend the UN Security Council (UNSC) slapped an arms embargo on the country. The US itself imposed sanctions on Libya as soon as the last American nationals left last Friday.
US officials have since pressured its allies to act similarly. Germany has suspended oil payments for 60 days to stem the funding of Tripoli’s anti-revolt actions.
The US also blocked the international flow of US$30bil (RM91.3bil) in assets belonging to oil-rich Libya. It is the largest amount ever blocked by the US, and among the swiftest actions of its kind.
The US and British governments have also prepared their military forces for action. This week warships and fighter aircraft from the US Sixth Fleet began moving closer to Libya, supported by Australia.
However, Canada, France, Germany and Russia are less keen on another invasion of yet another oil-rich Third World nation. If this looks familiar, it is something of a replay of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in early 2003.
All vested interests aside, there are some facts and realities that are irrefutable and certain issues that cannot be ignored.
Among the facts is that Libya has seen the worst violence out of all the troubled states in North Africa and West Asia. This has involved virtually every political sector: government, military, opposition groups and the general public.
A fact that follows is that Libya is now embroiled in civil war, despite the denials of Col. Muammar Gaddafi and his aides. After defections in the military, civil service and government departments, elements of a civil war were confirmed with the attacks by Gaddafi forces on rebel troop outposts.
However, the fighting consists largely of sporadic exchanges of gunfire apart from a few aerial attacks on munitions dumps by government forces. Fighter jets for example have hit military stores in Ajdabiya in the east and Rajma to the south.
Gaddafi has denied such reports, while Western sources tend to overplay them. Undeclared interests on each side are in evidence yet again.
Another fact is that Libya’s oil production has been cut by half, which amounts to just 1% of world output. A feared oil crisis resulting from Libya’s troubles has not happened and may never occur.
Pressure on Gaddaffi to expedite his own exit is being applied mostly by the US and Britain. The US-UK axis has much to gain from a Western-friendly post-Gaddafi Libya, along with their ally Israel.
Among the realities is that neither Gaddafi nor his Western opponents possess the moral high ground. The Libyan people opposing Gaddafi know too well what happened in Iraq, and hope Libya will avoid a similar fate.
Add to this the reality that the spiralling violence cannot possibly end in the favour of “M. Gaddafi and Sons,” militarily, politically or diplomatically. There can no longer be “business as usual” whatever happens in the following days and weeks.
The situation continues to worsen in heading for the inevitable showdown. Yet however serious the consequences, they are an internal matter for the country requiring domestic political solutions.
Another reality is that parts of the country continue to ebb and flow between the government and its opponents. There is no clear distinction in territorial control, adding to an already murky situation.
A basic reality that the government needs to accept is that the official institutions of state are broken. They can no longer sustain, much less protect, Gaddafi’s hold on power.
Among the issues is that there is still no basis for anyone to claim global oil shortages or to act accordingly by raising prices. With countries like Saudi Arabia pledging to raise production to offset any shortfalls, self-seeking claims of a global crisis are premature if not spurious.
Politically, there is no clear successor to Gaddafi once he quits the scene. The situation is not unlike Egypt’s, where a shapeless revolution is aimed primarily at removing an incumbent rather than installing a successor.
In the interim confusion, Gaddafi has played the al-Qaeda card and indicated that allowing his government to fall could permit the influx of Islamist extremists. His authoritarian regime brooked little opposition, but his formula of an “Islamic socialism” also kept out militants.
As Western intervention looms, the question is whether a new Libya will be like Iraq, busy with mayhem and militants, or like Afghanistan, where an ineffectual government oversees little other than the prospect of more mayhem and militants.
Gaddafi has to go very soon so Libya and the world can move on. But he must not have the last laugh in this high stakes’ fight.
THE world can always count on Col Muammar al-Gaddafi to provide political comic relief even before his people finally gathered enough courage to decide they want him kicked out of Libya.
Despite having ruled Libya with an iron fist for over 40 years, he is still telling the world that the country needs him.
Like many politicians who aspire to die with their boots on, Gaddafi has repeatedly told his people – from a balcony and, more recently and bizarrely, over a telephone press conference – that the country would be destroyed if he has to go.
It is the tired mantra of most politicians: He can’t go because he still can’t find a successor; the possible successors are not ready; if he names them, they will end up killing themselves; and, of course, he will call it a day one day. That day, of course, will not be tomorrow or the day after. You do not have to be in Libya, or other parts of the Middle East and North Africa, to hear such empty political gibberish. Even at home, we are quite familiar with such ludicrous lines from our own ageing politicians.
Usually, the search for a successor will end at their home. The chosen one is often the eldest son. But if the eldest one has an incurable obsession with visits to Disneyland, Macau casinos or Eric Clapton concerts, then Plan B would be to choose the other sons or even a nephew.
Hosni Mubarak, the recently deposed president of Egypt, was trying to hatch dynastic ambitions by grooming his son Gamal to succeed him. Gaddafi shares the same ambition, as does Kim Jong-II, who certainly still thinks his family owns North Korea.
But even the North Korean generals must be shaking their heads in disbelief at the exploits of Gaddafi, or for that matter Osama bin Laden. We won’t be surprised if Osama is now making another poor quality, inaudible tape for the CIA to decipher.
Osama has always taken the trouble to call Al-Jazeera to claim responsibility for his exploits against the West. But we are certain he won’t claim credit for the anarchy in Libya.
He has been blamed for every terrorist act committed in the world but to accuse al-Qaeda of lacing the coffee and alcohol of Libyans with drugs, which Gaddafi has done, is certainly icing on the cake. The best part is that Gaddafi expects his people and the world to believe him. He has either been high on drugs himself or he wants the world to love him for his morbid sense of humour.
After failing to convince the world, particularly the United States, that the rebellion is the evil work of Osama, Gaddafi then blamed the Islamists, accusing them of wanting to turn Libya into a satellite state of Iran.
But the Americans are still not impressed.
Obviously, the 68-year-old loony leader will need to rewrite his script. For example, he could blame his team of four voluptuous blonde Ukrainian nurses or female bodyguards for the civil unrest. They were probably jealous and were fighting over him!
There’s a sub-plot, however. He plans to blow up the oil plants. Now, that’s a terrifying prospect because Libya has the largest reserves of oil in Africa. The chaos in North Africa and the Middle East is already causing mayhem around the world with prices of crude oil skyrocketing. It means we will have to pay more for our petrol and travelling would for sure be more expensive.
The cost of production will shoot up with food items, now already expensive, becoming more pricey and the economy of countries will be adversely affected.
The message from Gaddafi seems to be: “If I go, I am dragging everyone with me.”
That includes hurting us where it hurts most – our pockets. Soon, our electricity bills will shoot up. And before you know it, most of us might have to learn to live in tents. Well, it could be a case of “You can take Gaddafi out of Libya but you can’t take out what Gaddafi will do to our lives.”
The game is just beginning in Libya but let’s hope it will end speedily. He has to go very soon so Libya and the world can move on.
One thing is for sure, Gaddafi must not have the last laugh in this high stakes’ fight.
A Chinese manned submersible sets sail Sunday for the Mariana Trench in the western pacific. In a few days, it will dive 7,000 meters, hopefully setting a new record for deep-sea dives.
Image Credit: AP
Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn on Saturday. Photo: US Navy Visual News Service/AFP
Smoke billows over the outskirts of Benghazi, eastern Libya, after a warplane was shot down Saturday. Photo: AP
A Libyan fighter plane takes a hit and crashes in Benghazi. Photo: AFP; AP
How Gaddafi’s forces stack up
Click for more photos 
