Morocco moves for dignity
Moroccan youth organised protests through YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, just like activists across the Arab world. But are their aims the same? Jillian C York reports
(more…)
Global media watches Libya despite access restrictions
Gaddafi’s tight rein on journalists means that protests in Libya are particularly difficult to monitor, as violence escalates. Libya is placed 160th out of 178 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index 2010.
Sarah Leah Whitson from Human Rights Watch explained the difficulties of counting the number of demonstrators on America’s NPR:
“[It’s] extremely hard to say because we are only relying on eyewitnesses in the ground and estimating numbers of crowds is the most inaccurate information that people ever give. But we have reports of thousands and tens of thousands people demonstrating in various cities.”
CNN is claiming that the channel’s correspondent Ben Wedeman, who entered eastern Libya from Egypt, is the “first Western television correspondent to enter and report from Libya during the current crisis”.
Meanwhile, Nazanine Moshiri has filed Al Jazeera’s first report from the border with Libya. Details are scant, however. On Tuesday morning eyewitness in Tripoli reported extreme violence, with “fighter jets bombarding and heavily armed mercenaries using high-caliber, perhaps even anti-aircraft guns on protesters”. But, as Al Jazeera reports: “So far, though, almost no images or videos have emerged of the attacks.”
Libyans are unlikely to be able to access Al Jazeera’s coverage: its website is blocked in Libya, and the country’s intelligence agency is behind a “powerful jamming” that has disrupted its television signal in the Middle East and North Africa, according to a report on Reuters Africa.
“The source of (the) signal blockage has been pinpointed to a Libyan intelligence agency building… south of the capital Tripoli,” said Al Jazeera, whose coverage of a regional political unrest has been watched across the Arab world.”
At the time of writing, death count estimates vary. The International Federation for Human Rights says that protests have resulted in 300 to 400 deaths, with thousands injured. On 20 February, Human Rights Watch reported the death toll was up to 233 over four days.
John Kampfner: When tyrants want tear gas, the UK has always been happy to oblige
The revoking of arms licences to Libya and Bahrain won’t last. British firms will be back, argues John Kampfner
This piece first appeared on Comment is Free, Guardian.co.uk.
When Robin Cook tried to tighten rules on British arms sales to dodgy regimes in 1997 he was told by Tony Blair’s team to grow up. Planned changes to criteria for weapons exports were so watered down that they made no inroads into the trade. Cook’s professed “ethical dimension” to foreign policy was stillborn.
Downing Street had been heavily lobbied, but it needed no convincing. This is one area where the boardroom and the unions are in harmony, and one that does not change whatever the government. Britain is a market leader in fighter jets, electric batons, sub-machine guns and teargas. Why add to the jobless total for the sake of morals? If we don’t sell the kit someone else will.
The announcement, therefore, of a revoking of licences to Bahrain and Libya should be taken with a pinch of salt; I predict that British firms will be back at it as soon as the coast is clear.
The coalition government’s commendable, but limited improvements in civil liberties at home have not been replicated in foreign policy, which is brazenly mercantilist. Go forth and flog Britain’s wares is the message. The notorious Export Credits Guarantee Department, responsible for some of the most economically foolhardy and unethical business deals of the past 20 years, has been boosted. From arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, to oil and gas pipelines in central Asia, to mega-dams in sub-Saharan Africa, the ECGD has backed projects that have been implicated in corruption, environmental destruction and human rights abuses.
At the weekend, the UK arms industry descended on Abu Dhabi for Idex, the region’s most important weapons fare. A tenth of all the global exhibitors are from Britain. Gerald Howarth, the minister leading the delegation, declared that “we have ambitious plans”.
The most unequivocal message since the election was made by Peter Luff, the defence equipment minister, who told a defence show in June: “There will be a very, very, very heavy ministerial commitment to arms sales. There is a sense that in the past we were rather embarrassed about exporting defence products. There is no such embarrassment in this government.”
Indeed there is not. The regimes currently using brute force to put down pro-democracy protests are all longstanding partners of the UK. As the Campaign Against the Arms Trade notes on Bahrain: in 2010, equipment approved for export included teargas and crowd control ammunition, equipment for the use of aircraft cannons, assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles and submachine guns. No requests for licences were refused.
Algeria, Egypt and Saudia Arabia have provided rich pickings for UK arms exporters. Of all the bilateral arrangements of recent years, perhaps the most despicable is the one with Libya. Colonel Gaddafi morphed from terrorist sympathiser to friend of the west, which then turned a blind eye to his internal repression. Libya is regarded as a priority partner, with the UK boasting the largest pavilion at the Libya’s arms fair.
CAAT figures show that in the third quarter of 2010, equipment approved for export to Libya included wall-and-door breaching projectile launchers, crowd control ammunition, small arms ammunition and teargas/irritant ammunition. No requests for licences were refused.
Earlier this month, the trade minister, Lord Green, announced that ministers will be “held accountable” if companies fail to secure deals and foreign investors favour Britain’s economic rivals. Beside him was business secretary, Vince Cable.
In opposition the Lib Dems were vocal about arms sales. In government they have grown silent. In January 2009, Nick Clegg wrote on these pages that Britain should stop supplying Israel following its bombardment of Gaza. He made a broader point: the UK should not supply weapons to countries involved in external aggression or internal repression. I have heard nothing significant from Clegg on the issue since he became deputy prime minister.
He may believe that if he spoke out, he might suffer a similar fate to Cook. There is too much riding on an industry that abets authoritarian regimes, while providing rich profits for UK firms and jobs. In the current economic climate, who would stand in their way?
Journalist censured over response to Lara Logan’s assault
by Emily Badger
When CBS News announced earlier this week that chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan had been hospitalised for a brutal sexual assault in Egypt’s Tahrir Square last Friday, journalists across the nightly news and blogosphere were appalled. Some also expressed the faint hope the news might help remove the stigma female journalists face in acknowledging such encounters. An even bigger shock, though, came the next day, as left-leaning journalist Nir Rosen tweeted the reaction that he quickly came to regret.
“lara logan had to outdo anderson. where was her buddy mccrystal?” Rosen tweeted, referring to CNN broadcaster Anderson Cooper’s report that he’d been punched in the face in Cairo two weeks ago. Logan had earlier criticised a controversial Rolling Stone profile of General Stanley McChrystal, who was later relieved by President Obama for his own intemperate remarks.
Then, Rosen added:
“jesus christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger.”
He later took down the tweets – but not before some conservative news sites snapped screen shots of them for posterity. “I thought, it’s just silly social media,” a chastened Rosen told media blog FishbowlDC, by which time it already was too late. New York University announced that Rosen would resign as a fellow with the Center on Law and Security.
“Nir Rosen is always provocative, but he crossed the line yesterday with his comments about Lara Logan,” the programme’s executive director, Karen J. Greenberg, said in a statement. “I am deeply distressed by what he wrote about Ms. Logan and strongly denounce his comments. They were cruel and insensitive and completely unacceptable. Mr Rosen tells me that he misunderstood the severity of the attack on her in Cairo. He has apologised, withdrawn his remarks, and submitted his resignation as a fellow, which I have accepted. However, this in no way compensates for the harm his comments have inflicted. We are all horrified by what happened to Ms Logan, and our thoughts are with her during this difficult time.”
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg called Rosen’s history of incendiary comments “deeply pathetic.” Salon scolded: “Apparently he still hasn’t remembered that sexual assault isn’t great joking around material.” Mother Jones, to which Rosen has contributed, said he “completely lost his mind today and forgot that “joking” about rape falls into the category of NOT EVER FUNNY.” Cooper, for his part, confronted Rosen personally on his show on Wednesday night.
Rosen has now attempted to explain his position in an article for Salon. He described what he wrote as “a disgusting comment born from dark humour…developed working in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Lebanon—and a need to provoke people.” He also pointed out the apparent double standards which allow “racist right-wing pundits (to) say whatever they want on serious platforms.”